I find the people who love getting outraged at

[redgunamo]

Well I am from there and was naturally in the town that day to the attack is the bomb, the atomic bomb is the atomic bomb.

Anyhow, it was two detonated about half an hour later when the initial panic had calmed down somewhat and the army had began to organise themselves. It was the secondary event that killed the majority.

Yes, a classic double-tap.

[Burney]

So (and I am only throwing this out there.. this isn't my view) you would be happy to lock up people indefinately .. obviously your 1000 people is a number you plucked from thin air... as is the 95%, and amongst those 1000 there must be a strong possibilty that you would get entirely innocent members of the public who just happen to be muslim being locked away for years.... I think i can see problems ahead.

you do seem to have a radical reasoning for terrorism, I seem to remember you and Rich (not the best side to be on) thought that the French shouldjust go and shoot the lights out at a hostage situation a few yeasrs ago as all hostages were likely to be dead..... they weren't and i do believe they nearly all gto out unharmed.

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

[Rich]

Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.

The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

[Norn Iron]

The event needs to be given a snappy name before it can really become an event.

Think 9/11 or 7/7 as the incident in your own city became.

We always went down the route of simply naming them by the location - the Omagh bomb, the Enniskillen bomb, the Warrenpoint bomb which in my case is simply the bomb.

Speaking to a girl from Rostrevor on tinder.... I must ask her how often she washes her jeans.

[SWv2]

Speaking to a girl from Rostrevor on tinder.... I must ask her how often she washes her jeans.

You dirtbag.

[Pokster]

I also have no memory of that & chose to take the same action. Perhaps P would like to link us to the thread where that was mentioned?

If I knew how to find it i would gladly do it.. it is when you claimed Andy Hayman knew bugger all about terrorism and was a sympathiser... he just happened to be in charge of anti terrorism and my wife worked for him.

[Yesterday Once More]

Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.

Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.

[Monty92]

Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.

Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.

The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.

I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.

[Burney]

The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.

I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.

It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.

[Monty92]

It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.

I sincerely hope you're right.

But I do think there has been a significant shift in recent weeks and it's more than a dead cat bounce. Quite simply people are no longer too embarrassed or ambivalent enough about him based on his media image to vote for him. If an unprecedented mobilisation of the youth vote also materialised, I don't think it's utterly improbable that he at least enters polling day with a potential path to victory.