Rayvin

Agree with ewerk on this. Arming the police doesn't really feel like an infringement of civil liberties and, with training, may reduce the risks of terrorism. The problem we'll get is that there'll be more shootings by police on a general day to day basis - are our police more responsible and open minded than their US counterparts?

Generally the Tories believe in the free market and cutting back the state, but in a rather cynical bid for power they seem to have sidelined this narrative in their manifesto in favour of demonising immigrants for the failures of a system that they themselves established. Labour weren't much better for an extended period of time (although I freely admit that 'not much better' is still 'better'), so I sympathise to a degree with your tentacle analogy. However, on this occasion I think it might be worth reading what Labour have to offer, as they have a draft of policies that I've never seen make it onto a manifesto, with a promise of real change. Granted, this could end up bankrupting the country (depending on how much you believe the Daily Mail knows what it's talking about) but on the other hand, it might vastly improve the majority of people's lives.

I thought Saudi was behind all this shit, not Qatar...

I don't expect to be better off personally under Labour. I may well be worse off. However, there's a lot they can offer that will, I hope, enable other people to have as good a start in their lives and careers as possible. While also saving the NHS, pulling back from armed conflict the world over, and ensuring that if we have to Brexit, we're not Brexiting for the benefit of rich fuckwits who own newspapers.

I'm voting Labour because I voted Corbyn during the leadership elections based on his policies. Those policies are now in the manifesto and on offer to the public. I feel that there was very little change achievable under previous Labour administrations, amd have been pleased to have an actual choice this election. I wouldn't vote the Tories because I consider them to be cynically holding onto power and wealth while at the same time prepared to trade away everything they don't need/care about in order to maintain control. They are an anachronism.

brilliant.

But what would we do with them? Hold them indefinitely?

And what do we do with them? What do we hold them for, and for how long?

Exactly.

That sounds an awful lot like what I said in my previous post. You would have them arrested before they commit a crime. Minority Report style?

What would you have it do?

Ah you're saying why don't they lock them all up? Probably because they haven't actually committed a crime at the point of being 'on the list'. We can't just bend the rules to get around that point. To do so would compromise our values and way of life.

By the sounds of it, the government hasn't given them the resources they need. At least that was the feedback after Manchester. This is the problem with cutting back the state.

She is the PM like, you'd expect a statement of some form. Did she use the words 'if you vote for us' or anything like that?

I think a lot of that comes from Twitter.

You can't crack down on Islamic extremism in terms of what they are and are not allowed to say without doing the same thing to all 'extreme' discussion. So she'll be going for the far right and left as well. Also, worth pointing out, that if we start cracking down on free speech, our values and way of life have indeed been compromised by terrorism, ergo, they have won. That minor detail aside, May is going to use this in her bid for greater surveillance and the further curtailment of civil liberties. I'm amazed anyone on the right is actually ok with that.

Does that even make sense? What is racial profiling going to offer us that we don't already know? Surely the problem we've got in identifying these people is that the vast majority of brown people arent terrorists, and that therefore they're impossible to pick out based on ethnicity alone.

Yep, agree with you on this. Corbyn's policies like putting more police on the streets and avoiding invading other countries will probably make a difference over the long term but the short term threat is here to stay. And if people like Hopkins and other right wing commentators are anything to go by, the terrorists are winning. Our way of life is definitely going to be changed if these people get their way.

The ultimate goal has to be to force the UK into an extreme response or isolationism. The people behind this probably see things like Brexit as a victory. The problem we have is that each time something like this happens, public support for moderation will diminish.

Momentum versus the right wing media. Ordinary people on the streets versus people paid to write for billionaires. How the fight was always going to be.

Seems as though it's all to do with the youth vote as has been said. We'll have to hope momentum can mobilise them...

WTF??

Ok sure, but given Labour has committed to trident in it's manifesto, so what does any of the above have to do with Corbyn and the present? It's just a distraction. We're under no threat whatsoever of being nuked presently.

Again though, under what circumstances we would be nuked? How do we make someone angry enough to nuke us? Moreover, what difference does it really make if we nuke them back?

Yep, but he believes in his principles so he can't. And anyway, the second he did the Tories would turn around and say you couldn't trust anything he says anymore.