Corbyn says police should use "whatever force is necessary" to save lives

Corbyn says police should use “whatever force is necessary” to save lives

Monday, June 5th 2017 - 07:53 UTC

Full article 8 comments

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has accused the Conservatives of trying to “protect the public on the cheap” in a speech focusing on the London terror attack. Mr. Corbyn, who has previously questioned the wisdom of a shoot-to-kill policy, also backed the police to use “whatever force is necessary” to save lives. His comments mark the end of a pause in Labor's campaigning after the attack. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules

Capt Rockhopper
He is the only party leader to have tried to score political points as a result of the recent London attack. He had caveated that statement with “in ”exceptional circumstances”. In otherwords the police will have to decide whether or not it is an exceptional circumstance or get permission from someone before opening fire.
Jun 05th, 2017 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1
-+
DemonTree
He's right though. One of my friends is a policeman and he says they are not at all prepared and equipped to deal with terrorism effectively, and the government won't give them any more resources but keep cutting back instead. It's not surprising that crime is rising again after falling for years.

And it's about time someone brought up Saudi Arabia's role in encouraging extremism and funding terrorists. Being allies with them is like making a bargain with the devil.
Jun 05th, 2017 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Think
20,000 more coppers to protect the 65,000,000...
Not a bad idea... Even Mr Lorton couls vote for that...
Jun 05th, 2017 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
-+
Islander1
Corbyn was no doubt told to say what he did. He is on public record for years voting and arguing against more antiterror controls and is on record as saying he would NOT give the authority to services to shoot to kill.
What his manifesto says - and what he and his close associates believe - is different! Don't forget his shadow No2 is on record after the IRA Brighton bombing killed several Conservative MPs for his opinion - his words were- “it.s a start”.
And they actually not that long ago stated they wanted to close MI5 totally.
Jun 05th, 2017 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
-+
DemonTree
@Islander1
Do you really think Corbyn does what he's told?

I'm glad someone was arguing against anti-terror controls, because they usually involve such things as increased surveillance on everyone, reducing freedom of speech and the right not to be detained without charge, and also idiocies like banning encryption on the internet. I'm not so sure I want that person as Prime Minister though.

I'm sure you are right about the manifesto, but that's what he's agreed to stand on and what the voters would expect him and their own MPs to stick to, and he'd need those MPs to vote for anything he plans. We're not electing a dictator or even a President.

Although, one of the few things where that's not the case is Trident, because the PM is in charge of that personally. It's a bit pointless having nukes if everyone knows your PM would never agree to use them. I don't care that he'd refuse to launch them but he doesn't have to tell everyone so!
Jun 05th, 2017 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Hepatia
The question is why is this piece appearing in Mercopenguin, a propaganda organ supposedly devoted to America, South America and the “South Atlantic”?
Jun 06th, 2017 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Clyde15
I don't understand the “do not shoot to kill” policy. If you fire a bullet at a human body, the chances are that it may hit a large blood vessel resulting in death.

Do they produce a body chart showing areas where it is safe to hit ? This also assumes that the person shooting is an accurate shot and the target stays still when being shot.

Also, a high velocity bullet produces a cavitation and shock wave which can destroy nearby tissue and blood vessels.
Jun 06th, 2017 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
DemonTree
I assume a 'no shoot to kill' policy means no shooting, at least not with real bullets. As you say, there is no other way it could work.

As far as I know the police are supposed to encourage criminals to surrender by talking to them, and use tasers or other non-lethal means rather than shooting them straight off the bat. This is one reason so few people are killed by the police in the UK compared to the US.

But that doesn't really work with these terrorists, they intend to die and they are just going to keep trying to kill people until you take them out. So I think a different policy is required.
Jun 06th, 2017 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
-+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!