Author Topic: National politics  (Read 319712 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13959
Re: National politics
« Reply #795 on: May 27, 2017, 10:20:32 am »

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: National politics
« Reply #796 on: May 27, 2017, 10:48:10 am »
I've managed to find out what she said. She gave an interview to the Irish Times in 1984 in which she stated "that Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.” She said she did not regard herself as British.

She endorsed violence, saying: “I am not saying that women are innately peaceful and non-violent and that we don’t fight back. Of course we do and should.”

She criticised Northern Ireland as an “enclave of white supremacist ideologies.”"

Now, that was some 31 years ago and some might argue that what she said then is no longer relevant. But that's for the voters to decide.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.


Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13959
Re: National politics
« Reply #797 on: May 27, 2017, 11:04:54 am »
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, the fact is that she actually said it.      It certainly does not give her the credibility to be a Shadow Home Secretary.
Now here's another article to think about concerning Corbyn.      It's in another unsavoury rag and the comments are from a terrorist but do we want Politicians like this in government?


 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2laeL3I_UAhVpCMAKHSt1AnEQFghoMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukpolitics%2Fcomments%2F6d5cne%2Fdiane_abbott_backed_victory_for_the_ira_see_the%2F&usg=AFQjCNH6xQnhOaQ1X0ZgsRnbMj8MBYB0jQ

Offline BMD

  • Member
  • Posts: 286
Re: Re: Terrorism and the response
« Reply #798 on: May 27, 2017, 11:09:28 am »
"Opinion divided" across the country in response to the policy of having heavily-armed police on the streets of areas not considered to be high risk.

Many are unhappy with the heavy-handed measure, arguing that it's "counterproductive" and "shown to be ineffective" given the nature of suicide-bomb attacks. Some police forces have taken a more considered approach. Derbyshire police, for example, say their armed response unit would be patrolling more in cars than on foot. A spokeswoman said this was because the force did not want to "cause alarm".

Read more at http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/armed-police-on-the-streets-of-the-uk-but-why-you-won-t-see-them-here/story-30354599-detail/story.html

Opinion is split in otherwise "peaceful" areas with heavy armed-police presence on the streets. Some people are happy with the policy, saying that it makes them feel "safe". Others say it's an "overreaction", "just not right", and "will do nothing but scare people". Some even argue that there's a political agenda in play, which will influence the general election results (past research has indicated that people tend to vote in a more conservative direction when they are constantly reminded of threats from "dangerous outsiders").

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/how-you-feel-having-armed-78664

Even those who are critical of the armed police presence tend to be sympathetic to the difficult job faced by the police, who are under constant pressure by both politicians and tabloid media. But the issue is whether the policy is actually effective, rather than just a display for the public. Some experts, and even senior police, have argued that this type of policing is unlikely to deter or prevent suicide bombings, given the ideology that motivates them and the type of device typically used. Resources should instead be put into more intelligence, with armed units kept in readiness but out of public view. Evidence shows that this kind of lower-profile "stealth" policing may actually be more effective in reducing the threat.

Armed police have taken to the streets of North Staffordshire. But, asks John Woodhouse, does their presence spark reassurance or panic?

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/big-issue-do-we-need-armed-police-on-the-streets-of-staffordshire/story-30354200-detail/story.html

"I just wanted to run away." Jane Moore was shopping in Leek on Wednesday when she spotted two armed police officers in Sheep Market.

"I stopped in my tracks," she says. "For an instant I thought I was seeing things. It's just not something you expect to see in Leek. I know they're there to make people feel safe, but the first thing I thought was that something must be happening. Why else would they be there? I have never seen armed police in Leek, ever.

"The way I saw it," adds the 42-year-old mum-of-two, who lives in the town, "they must have been sent there because of an incident. When they started smiling at people, it made me feel a bit better, but I'll admit I was very scared.

"I'm not sure if it's a good idea in a place like Leek. It looks so out of place. All it's going to do is make people nervous."

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: National politics
« Reply #799 on: May 27, 2017, 11:12:24 am »
I suspect there's little doubt that the refugee crisis is what helped swing the Brexit referendum. I also suspect there's little doubt (if any) that some of those posing as refugees were anything but. However, I do know for sure that we need to understand what is powerful enough to make a youngish person strap themselves with high explosives and detonate in the middle of a crowd of young girls. And we need to understand what makes individuals become obsessed with weapons and shoot people at random before turning the gun on themselves.

Terrorism isn't a new phenomenon: it's been around since time began in one form or another, and it's simply that now the would-be suicider can take a lot of people with them. We need to know why, and we need to know what to look for.

Suicide is an aberration. It's not part of a normal biological imperative and would seem to be the province of those who feel disenfranchised, powerless and ignored. We know that the growth in movements like the National Front was quite a poisonous process, and it seems clear that UKIP (formed from the remains of the NF) and their press conferences seem eerily reminiscent of the early Nazi party meetings.

The UK has always prided itself on being a tolerant society but those who move here must be encouraged to integrate fully with our society. Worryingly, however, there are those with agendas who would rather that didn't happen and it would be a great shame if they were to win the day.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline SteveH

  • Management Board Member & Newsgroup Editor
  • *
  • Posts: 13131
Re: National politics
« Reply #800 on: May 27, 2017, 11:13:42 am »
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, the fact is that she actually said it.      It certainly does not give her the credibility to be a Shadow Home Secretary.
Now here's another article to think about concerning Corbyn.      It's in another unsavoury rag and the comments are from a terrorist but do we want Politicians like this in government?
 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2laeL3I_UAhVpCMAKHSt1AnEQFghoMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fukpolitics%2Fcomments%2F6d5cne%2Fdiane_abbott_backed_victory_for_the_ira_see_the%2F&usg=AFQjCNH6xQnhOaQ1X0ZgsRnbMj8MBYB0jQ
H,I think this is the same link as before ?

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: National politics
« Reply #801 on: May 27, 2017, 11:14:23 am »
It doesn't matter how long ago it was, the fact is that she actually said it.   

Okay, but have you never said things or done things 31 years ago that you wish you hadn't? Don't get me wrong; there's no way she should ever be in government, but I'm only suggesting that none of us is perfect.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13959
Re: National politics
« Reply #802 on: May 27, 2017, 12:27:32 pm »
We've all done and said things years ago that we regret but hopefully not as stupid and insensitive as Diane Abbott has done.    To make matters worse there are now three of them of the same ilk leading the Labour Party, where to I don't know,  but we'll soon find out.

Offline BMD

  • Member
  • Posts: 286
Re: Re: Terrorism and the response
« Reply #803 on: May 27, 2017, 01:49:50 pm »
I was surprised by some replies to my post on armed police in Chester, in the 'Stop Press' section. (Those replies, including a few of mine, have been moved to this section).

To restore some continuity:- my last post (now in this section, above) was responding to Hugo's assertion that "no one was complaining" about armed police patrolling a beach in Skegness. And to previous posts suggesting an almost universal appreciation of this armed police presence throughout the country, at least among all *right-thinking* people (with the added implication that I was "out of my mind" to dissent, and that people such as my mum were out of touch with how the threat had changed, and out of touch with the supposed general feeling of "reassurance" instilled by having police walking around with assault rifles).

All complete nonsense, of course - as my previous post shows (by giving examples of how opinion is very much divided on this issue, often among political lines, even among police forces, and with good reason). Btw: any assertion of what "no one" thinks should probably be backed up by a poll or something. I really don't believe that "no one" in Skegness (for example) has any objections or concerns about armed police patrolling their beach.

As to the earlier point (also from Hugo, responding to my mum's distress on seeing armed police) that "times have changed since her youth" -

Yes, times have changed. The IRA terrorists who once targeted Manchester and Warrington (my mum's home town) didn't believe they'd earn extra brownie points in the afterlife by being shot by police of the "Western Imperialist Satan". I hope you understand why that isn't really much of a deterrent, and that you thus see the unintended irony of your rather patronising comment. Thanks.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13959
Re: National politics
« Reply #804 on: May 27, 2017, 03:24:13 pm »
I'm sorry about your mother's reaction to seeing armed Police on the streets and that you think that my comments were patronising as they were never meant to be taken in such a way.       It's awful to see anyone upset by the actions these terrorists have caused either directly or indirectly.
Let's not take this out of context though and think about those at the Manchester Arena on that fatal night.  I read about Cllr Ronnie Hughes' daughter and her very lucky escape.
Hindsight is great, but if only there was an armed Police presence about then it might have been a different story as these terrorists only seem to attack soft targets as I experienced in London in 2005

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlo6q4o5DUAhWEJcAKHUjPA8UQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rhyljournal.co.uk%2Fnews%2F176330%2Fconwy-councillor-speaks-of-family-s-traumatic-experience-of-the-manchester-terror-attack.aspx&usg=AFQjCNGfiT4qGPEr-HtvXiD3QHj-fWO_ow

 

Offline BMD

  • Member
  • Posts: 286
Re: National politics
« Reply #805 on: May 27, 2017, 03:49:57 pm »
Thanks Hugo. I'm not bothered about the slightly patronising remark - but it illustrates a logical point that you seem to be missing (namely that armed police are no deterrent to suicide bombers). Nobody is taking anything "out of context". We all know why this policy is in place. Incidentally, I think your notion that "terrorists only seem to attack soft targets" is one of those oft-repeated clichés that isn't actually supported by empirical evidence (in the case of suicide bombers). Probably we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13959
Re: National politics
« Reply #806 on: May 27, 2017, 05:00:27 pm »
BMD, yes we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it like that.

Offline Fester

  • Ad Free Member.
  • *
  • Posts: 6660
  • El Baldito
Re: National politics
« Reply #807 on: May 27, 2017, 09:20:12 pm »
I'm getting increasingly irritated by the mealy mouthed responses to our government being FORCED to deploy armed police and soldiers more visibly.

I'm not going to mince my words, because the seriousness of what we face demands it.
You see, BMD your Mum has indeed lost touch with the differing threats of today versus her youth. So had mine!!
But unlike yours, my Mum lived through the Bradford riots, in her own neighbourhood just a few short years ago.  Coincidentally these were also Muslim (predominantly Pakistani) youths hell bent on causing destruction and injury.
I watched helplessly from 120 miles away as Sky News reporters and police were retreating from petrol bombs, arcing through the air outside the very housing complex my Mum lives in.
I phoned her, panic stricken.
She was watching it out of her upstairs window..... whilst getting her coat on, so she could go out and remonstrate with them!

I said mum, if you do that, one way or another you're going to be famous tonight.
Luckily I talked her out of it.  Luckily armed (and unarmed) officers from many forces collaborated to subdue the rioters over the next 2 nights.

My brother in law was one of those officers, he had his collar bone broken from a concrete slab dropped on him from a bridge.... and police horse was famously retired due to having taken too many stab wounds.

These days, if my Mum sees or hears about armed officers I would think she might be less inclined to do the job for them. 
But on a serious note, BMD, if your Mum is alarmed by armed officers, just whisper in her lug 'ole... 'they're here for us Mum, they on our side'

She might find herself slightly more alarmed by the sight of an armed terrorist in her proximity, as were the people slaughtered in the Charlie Ebdo attack or in the Bataclan theatre, or the Tunisian hotel, ..... the list could go on....






Fester...
- Semper in Excretum, Sole Profundum Variat -

Offline BMD

  • Member
  • Posts: 286
Re: National politics
« Reply #808 on: May 28, 2017, 02:18:42 am »
Thanks. The only reason I mentioned my mum was to illustrate that not everyone who reacted badly to the armed police fits a stereotype such as "whiny police-hating leftie". That's all. It's not a competition between our relatives.

You haven't addressed - let alone refuted - a single point that I've made. For example, you talk of "our government being FORCED to deploy armed police and soldiers more visibly". How does that address the points I actually made, namely:

Many (including some senior police) say that lower-profile, less-visible use of armed police is more effective in relatively low-risk areas. I gave the example of Derbyshire police force, which has chosen to confine armed units mostly to vehicles, in order to minimise alarm to the public. It's not an either/or choice between "do nothing" and "deploy highly-visible armed police everywhere, even in low-risk areas". Nobody (not government, not police) is being "forced" by terrible circumstances into choosing the latter option in that false dichotomy.

You say that my mum "might find herself slightly more alarmed by the sight of an armed terrorist in her proximity".

No sh*t. But how is that remotely relevant to the points I was making - unless you think I'm arguing that it'd be preferable to have terrorists running around than armed police? Do you misunderstand my point that much?

This is one of the reasons why I normally avoid debates like this. And why I won't be responding further. But thanks for taking the time to reply.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: National politics
« Reply #809 on: May 28, 2017, 08:49:14 am »
From the first time we took our two on holiday through Manchester Airport to the other week in London at St Pancras Station we've always seen heavily armed police and they've always made me (and my other half) feel wary. There are quite a few reasons behind that and, like F's mum, I once found myself in the middle of a riot.

Riots are the most unpleasant and worrying places to find yourself. When the normal rules of law and order break down for that brief time you're at the mercy of anyone. So understanding what causes them is essential. The 2001 Bradford riots to which F refers are a good example.

Riots normally occur during warm to hot weather. But looking at the 2001 riots, far from them being
Quote
Muslim (predominantly Pakistani) youths hell bent on causing destruction and injury.
all the facts point to the riot being initiated "on the nights of 8 and 9 July 2001 when groups of between thirty and a hundred white youths attacked police and Asian-owned businesses, in the Ravenscliffe and Holmewood areas" (Bagguley, P. and Hussain, Y. (2008) Riotous Citizens: ethnic conflict in multicultural Britain, Aldershot, Ashgate, page 58.)

What's also worth remembering is that in the months preceding the riot the National Front had been attempting to organise marches through the city and, at that time, the National Front was attracting a lot of working-class supporters from those who saw their areas changing significantly.

It's hard to know for certain what the flashpoint was, but it is known that a rumour spread that the NF were gathering at a pub which itself led to a confrontation outside the pub in which an Asian man was stabbed. Interestingly, the most severe sentence handed down was to an Asian - a 48 year-old businessman.

The 1981 Toxteth riots centred on the Black community and appeared to be at least partly a response to the heavy-handed policing tactics of the time. And, once again, it was hot weather.

It's very easy to come up with quick fixes for rioters and severe penalties but there's a very important truism regarding society: society is policed by consent. If those in a society choose to ignore the rules then action will be taken against them to protect the majority of that society. But if the majority of society decides they won't obey the rules the no amount of policing will make a difference and thus Somalia is born.

That's why we need to understand the root causes of riots. Hot weather is certainly one, a sense of grievance is another, powerlessness is a third. There are bound to be more and, in a complex society such as the UK's, there will always be those with grievances - justified or not. Sadly, there are also those with racist agendas, such as the National Front, who will seek to exploit perceived issues or drive wedges between groups based on their skin colour or their religion. And that shows no signs of abating.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.