Paris attacks news coverage (MERGED)

[Kid in the Riot]

9 hours ago, JM91 said:

Oh my word you're stupid.

 

3 minutes ago, JM91 said:

you're endless use of platitutes has been put in bold for your attention.

You're one of those people who thinks Corbyn can do no wrong, thankfully the majority see him as the petty, small minded bigot that he is.

One could argue that your failure to put across any kind of coherent, reasoned arguement is the very definition of 'stupid'.

[JM91]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

One could argue that your failure to put across any kind of coherent, reasoned arguement is the very definition of 'stupid'.

Ironically, using the same logic, that would also be true of yourself now.

[JM91]

5 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Shut the door on the way out yeah? 

give it 9.5 more years of glorious conservative majorities and then we'll see

[Kid in the Riot]

1 minute ago, JM91 said:

Ironically, using the same logic, that would also be true of yourself now.

I don't think it would, as I was not responding to any kind of reasoned arguement as you didn't advance one.

Which University did you go to again?

[JM91]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

I don't think it would, as I was not responding to any kind of reasoned arguement as you didn't advance one.

Which University did you go to again?

Again that draws parellels with all of my comments, as i hadn't responded to any kind of reasoned argument either.

[BCFC Jimmer]

2 minutes ago, JM91 said:

Again that draws parellels with all of my comments, as i hadn't responded to any kind of reasoned argument either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

 

[Kid in the Riot]

3 minutes ago, JM91 said:

Again that draws parellels with all of my comments, as i hadn't responded to any kind of reasoned argument either.

Collis actually posed several questions and made several points regarding Corbyn being a threat to national security and you responded with 'Oh my god you're stupid'.

Guessing you never made the debating society?

[JM91]

1 minute ago, Collis1 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

 

glad you finally understand.

[JM91]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Collis actually posed several questions and made several points regarding Corbyn being a threat to national security and you responded with 'Oh my god you're stupid'.

Guessing you never made the debating society?

underdeveloped theories of a socialist, not points.

they do not merit a real response just a reminder every five years that they are the minority.  oh wait blame the big bad media, then repeat in an endless circle.

[BCFC Jimmer]

9 minutes ago, JM91 said:

glad you finally understand.

Jog on pal.  You have just chatted a load of guff and then when you couldn't defend your argument you bottled it and came out with crap and simplistic comments.

As IAmNick said, at least Big Brother and EMB put a strong argument together rather then cheap nonsense.

 

[JM91]

1 minute ago, Collis1 said:

Jog on pal.  You have just chatted a load of guff and then when you couldn't defend your argument you bottled it and came out with crap and simplistic comments.

As IAmNick said, at least Big Brother and EMB put a strong argument together rather then cheap shots.

 

It's true, let us all hug terrorists until they are nice!

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 minute ago, JM91 said:

It's true, let us all hug terrorists until they are nice!

Platitude anyone?

[JM91]

1 minute ago, Collis1 said:

Platitude anyone?

Good spot.  now that you know what one is I invite you to re-read your posts.

EMB clearly has more patience than I do, years of listening to socialist nonsense has left me not caring.  most of them don't even know what bigoted actually means or how blatently it applies to them.

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 minute ago, JM91 said:

Good spot.  now that you know what one is I invite you to re-read your posts.

EMB clearly has more patience than I do, years of listening to socialist nonsense has left me not caring.  most of them don't even know what bigoted actually means or how blatently it applies to them.

Exactly the kind of platitude that has been banded around by people against Corbyn, yet you picked me up on it? Well done.... 

I'd say go back and address my arguments in previous posts or don't bother.

 

 

 

[AshtonGreat]

12 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

You can despair all you want flower, as screech said several months ago some people would vote for a dog turd if had a red rosette on it, I really don't give a flying ****.

A stuttering embarrassing interview, a statement contradicting that embarrassing interview purely designed to extricate Corbyn from the brown stuff and a new appointment of another tired/failed labour politician who immediately hurls an unbelievable tirade belittling mental health issues against of his new colleagues he refuses to apologise, saying he was rude to me and I was rude to him i'm from South London it's what we do, he initially ignores Corbyn about offering an apology childishly saying he should apologise to me first and eventually issues an apology but the undertone is 'I don't think I did anything wrong'. 24 hours in the life of the labour party.

The highlighted portion is strange, who are you talking about when you say 'the current establishment'?, because last time I looked Tony Blair was no longer part of the current establishment, you again throw out your usual offerings of insults to people who have a different view to you (obviously trained by Livingstone), but I will make my view clearer Corbyn is a potential threat to national security in the unlikely event that he is elected.

 

I'm not taking sides here, but the wording of this made me chuckle

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Collis actually posed several questions and made several points regarding Corbyn being a threat to national security and you responded with 'Oh my god you're stupid'.

Guessing you never made the debating society?

Collis also sometime ago called a poster a closet racist, a poster he is now attempting to attach himself to, he attacked another poster for a very innocent remark that was obviously a joke, anybody who disagrees with him is invariably insulted, he labels people with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and obviously never reads peoples posts thoroughly.

Judging by his insulting words he certainly has made the left wing debating societies and fits in well with the last 24 hours in the life of labour under Corbyn.

[...]

2 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Exactly the kind of platitude that has been banded around by people against Corbyn, yet you picked me up on it? Well done.... 

I'd say go back and address my arguments in previous posts or don't bother.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Collis also sometime ago called a poster a closet racist, a poster he is now attempting to attach himself to, he attacked another poster for a very innocent remark that was obviously a joke, anybody who disagrees with him is invariably insulted, he labels people with absolutely no evidence whatsoever and obviously never reads peoples posts thoroughly.

Judging by his insulting words he certainly has made the left wing debating societies and fits in well with the last 24 hours in the life of labour under Corbyn.

"Get a room".

 

Uncle TFR

[Portland Bill]

Edit

 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

31 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Crikey E's, all Corbyn said was that " he wasn't happy" with a shoot to kill policy.

He then went on to explain why, he 'never' said he wouldn't implement one.

Can you or anyone please tell me when "I'm not happy" means no?

He gave an honest answer to a question. Which he always does. What a refreshing change to have an honest politician.....

 

 

Crikey Bill, the question was about an 'ongoing atrocity', it wasn't a general question.

He is the leader of the opposition and after a devastating attack on our nearest foreign neighbour, he should have researched or had researched for him the rules of engagement that have been in place in the UK for the police and armed forces for as long as I can remember, Moloch has already pointed that out, myself and Moloch knew about that and dare say millions of other people know that but the man who wants to become a world leader didn't and made himself and his party look stupid, he is attempting to wing it as leader at the moment, defend him all you want Bill I really don't care, but that is something that as the leader of the opposition he should have known and if he didn't common sense should have told him, you cannot shoot to wound in these situations.

if you need me to explain once more here goes, if the person is shooting or is such a danger that the officer/soldier believes he is going to shoot, you shoot at least 2 rapid rounds it used to be at the main organs, I suspect now head shots are more likely, you shoot to kill END OF, wounded men can still kill innocent people and with a kalashnikov 10 rounds per seconds a wounded man can still kill an awful lot more innocent people, this is not just the rules for engagement for terrorists it's the rules of engagement for all armed incidents.

The fact is Cameron need not have said what he did about neutralising terrorists, because there is no change to a policy that probably existed as long as the police have ever carried blunderbusses and Corbyn should be acutely aware of that. 

Anyway if the story about his shadow chancellor proves to be true perhaps just perhaps it was going to become policy.

PS:- An honest politician would if he never knew what the rules of engagement were would have said "I don't know, I will have to look at the rules of engagement, so as I can make a judgement".

[Red-Robbo]

21 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Crikey Bill, the question was about an 'ongoing atrocity', it wasn't a general question.

He is the leader of the opposition and after a devastating attack on our nearest foreign neighbour, he should have researched or had researched for him the rules of engagement that have been in place in the UK for the police and armed forces for as long as I can remember, Moloch has already pointed that out, myself and Moloch knew about that and dare say millions of other people know that but the man who wants to become a world leader didn't and made himself and his party look stupid, he is attempting to wing it as leader at the moment, defend him all you want Bill I really don't care, but that is something that as the leader of the opposition he should have known and if he didn't common sense should have told him, you cannot shoot to wound in these situations.

if you need me to explain once more here goes, if the person is shooting or is such a danger that the officer/soldier believes he is going to shoot, you shoot at least 2 rapid rounds it used to be at the main organs, I suspect now head shots are more likely, you shoot to kill END OF, wounded men can still kill innocent people and with a kalashnikov 10 rounds per seconds a wounded man can still kill an awful lot more innocent people, this is not just the rules for engagement for terrorists it's the rules of engagement for all armed incidents.

The fact is Cameron need not have said what he did about neutralising terrorists, because there is no change to a policy that probably existed as long as the police have ever carried blunderbusses and Corbyn should be acutely aware of that. 

Anyway if the story about his shadow chancellor proves to be true perhaps just perhaps it was going to become policy.

PS:- An honest politician would if he never knew what the rules of engagement were would have said "I don't know, I will have to look at the rules of engagement, so as I can make a judgement".

These are the rules of engagement that were in place when a policeman pinioned a slim Caucasian Brazilian's arms on the tube while his colleague pumped 11 rounds into him from a few inches away because another colleague had confused said South American with an obese black Somalian they were seeking, were they Es?

Sometimes it makes sense to query how the rules will be applied, practically.  

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

13 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

These are the rules of engagement that were in place when a policeman pinioned a slim Caucasian Brazilian's arms on the tube while his colleague pumped 11 rounds into him from a few inches away because another colleague had confused said South American with an obese black Somalian they were seeking, were they Es?

Sometimes it makes sense to query how the rules will beapplied, practically.  

 

oh come Robbo these things happen sadly, it's the human element and the people who make the most noise are the people who not only know sweet FA about it, would never have the guts to put themselves into those dangerous positions and are the front of the queue when the police didn't act fast enough.

Anyway the question was 'ongoing atrocity'. The 2 incidents are poles apart.

and he didn't query anything, perhaps he should have, he wouldn't have looked so silly.

Please remember these people volunteer.

As said on an earlier post it smacks of 'set phasers to stun, beam me up Scotty'.

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

oh come Robbo these things happen sadly, it's the human element and the people who make the most noise are the people who not only know sweet FA about it, would never have the guts to put themselves into those dangerous positions and are the front of the queue when the police didn't act fast enough.

Anyway the question was 'ongoing atrocity'. The 2 incidents are poles apart.

and he didn't query anything, perhaps he should have, he wouldn't have looked so silly.

Please remember these people volunteer.

As said on an earlier post it smacks of 'set phasers to stun, beam me up Scotty'.

 

 

The phrase 'shoot to kill" policy is associated with a series of police and Army cock-ups and, no, the two incidents aren't dissimilar. The de Menezes shooting happened in a period of extreme twitchiness following a major terrorist incident,  just like now.

No one doesn't want armed police encountering a Bataclan scenario from taking the terrorists out with lethal force - including Jeremy Corbyn and he has said so.

What we do want is to stop nervous and  gung-ho police and military shooting people carrying table legs, walking sticks or sitting on the Tube reading Metro,  because they've been misidentified as threats.

[...]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

The phrase 'shoot to kill" policy is associated with a series of police and Army cock-ups and, no, the two incidents aren't dissimilar. The de Menezes shooting happened in a period of extreme twitchiness following a major terrorist incident,  just like now.

No one doesn't want armed police encountering a Bataclan scenario from taking the terrorists out with lethal force - including Jeremy Corbyn and he has said so.

What we do want is to stop nervous and  gung-ho police and military shooting people carrying table legs, walking sticks or sitting on the Tube reading Metro,  because they've been misidentified as threats.

I'll remind you about this when some demented loon is emptying a clip into the Dolman.

"EMB for mayor"

 

Uncle TFR

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Taxi for Rennie said:

I'll remind you about this when some demented loon is emptying a clip into the Dolman.

"EMB for mayor"

 

Uncle TFR

The demented loons are already in the Dolman you fool,  not outside trying to get in.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

23 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

The phrase 'shoot to kill" policy is associated with a series of police and Army cock-ups and, no, the two incidents aren't dissimilar. The de Menezes shooting happened in a period of extreme twitchiness following a major terrorist incident,  just like now.

No one doesn't want armed police encountering a Bataclan scenario from taking the terrorists out with lethal force - including Jeremy Corbyn and he has said so.

What we do want is to stop nervous and  gung-ho police and military shooting people carrying table legs, walking sticks or sitting on the Tube reading Metro,  because they've been misidentified as threats.

i'm sorry Robbo but you talking nonsense and believe me I know what i'm talking about, one is an 'ongoing atrocity' where the bullets are flying, the other was a surveillance operation you correctly identify as being on the flimsiest of intelligence, those incidents are full of unknowns.

As for the last sentence try putting yourself into those situations where a split a second decision needs to be made, one that if you get wrong could cost hundreds of lives, before pouring your next glass of port, "oh shit I thought it was a table leg".

To be honest it's talk like that made me question why the **** did I volunteer to put my self into positions that I found myself in and I question why anybody in this day and age would volunteer when there are always those who know better and seek to criticise at every opportunity.

I could go further Robbo and tell you the full story about overpaid over educated morons, who made decisions and came to conclusions in their haste to make sure the blame for an incident wasn't going to land at their door, nobody had died but reputations were on the line and luckily the belief in procedures carried out and the wonderful work by a home office professor came to a conclusion that proved that the plebs were right all along and that morons didn't know shit from pudding, but that took 5 months and it took it's toll on one of those plebs.

[The Gasbuster]

53 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

These are the rules of engagement that were in place when a policeman pinioned a slim Caucasian Brazilian's arms on the tube while his colleague pumped 11 rounds into him from a few inches away because another colleague had confused said South American with an obese black Somalian they were seeking, were they Es?

Sometimes it makes sense to query how the rules will be applied, practically.  

 

This ONE case is often referred to when the "shoot to kill" question comes out.

IIRC verbal warnings were given, but the Brazilian continued to run. Yes, a mistake on this occasion.

However, how many innocent lives would have been lost over the years (including the troubles in Ulster), if our forces hesitated, or were told they had to aim to wound only ?

As E.M.B. suggested, a wounded terrorist is still dangerous. Any terrorist wearing an explosive vest (which isn't always clear, as the woman in Paris demonstrated *) remains a threat until neutralised. 

 

*Incidentally, the French police didn't shoot the woman when she appeared, they gave her the chance to surrender. Had they shot and killed her, she wouldn't have been able to blow herself up. Five subsequently hospitalised policeman would now have been back on duty, instead of being laid up with serious injuries. 

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, The Gasbuster said:

This ONE case is often referred to when the "shoot to kill" question comes out.

IIRC verbal warnings were given, but the Brazilian continued to run. Yes, a mistake on this occasion.

However, how many innocent lives would have been lost over the years (including the troubles in Ulster), if our forces hesitated, or were told they had to aim to wound only ?

As E.M.B. suggested, a wounded terrorist is still dangerous. Any terrorist wearing an explosive vest (which isn't always clear, as the woman in Paris demonstrated) remains a threat until neutralised.  

Actually the idea that he was running and had vaulted the barrier were lies told by the police which were subsequently exposed at the inquest.

De Menezes  walked into the station,  purchased a ticket, picked up a free paper and was sitting reading it when he was shot repeatedly.

The officers burst into the carriage shouted "armed police!" and then the shooter immediately commenced firing. Some witnesses are still having counselling as a result of what they saw.

It is to avoid situations like that, that we should be slightly pause a bit before we imagine everything is likely to be black and white in a terrorist incident. 

It is fine lines, as Es says, but tbh the Met has a fairly rubbish record with firearms. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

24 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Actually the idea that he was running and had vaulted the barrier were lies told by the police which were subsequently exposed at the inquest.

De Menezes  walked into the station,  purchased a ticket, picked up a free paper and was sitting reading it when he was shot repeatedly.

The officers burst into the carriage shouted "armed police!" and then the shooter immediately commenced firing. Some witnesses are still having counselling as a result of what they saw.

It is to avoid situations like that, that we should be slightly pause a bit before we imagine everything is likely to be black and white in a terrorist incident. 

It is fine lines, as Es says, but tbh the Met has a fairly rubbish record with firearms. 

As I said put yourself in their shoes before criticising Robbo, i've been there and it's confusing at best, communications are strained and on the underground don't work well if at all and you literally have a split second to react, the met shooters on the day did not have X-ray vision of course not nobody does, if he had been the real deal and was wearing a vest or his bag contained a device?, some people would say WTF didn't they well ******* shoot?.

Your posts come across as if they somehow got off on it, they live with their decision that every day of their lives as well and it could well have had the effect of hundreds of volunteers saying **** it why should I and the fact that he was South American does not make him immune from being a terrorist.

of course if you think you or Corbyn can improve the record at the met feel free, i'm sure that they will welcome your knowledge and input.

 

[Portland Bill]

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-ahead-of-david-cameron-in-latest-net-satisfaction-ratings-a6740611.html

[Portland Bill]

36 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

As I said put yourself in their shoes before criticising Robbo, i've been there and it's confusing at best, communications are strained and on the underground don't work well if at all and you literally have a split second to react, the met shooters on the day did not have X-ray vision of course not nobody does, if he had been the real deal and was wearing a vest or his bag contained a device?, some people would say WTF didn't they well ******* shoot?.

Your posts come across as if they somehow got off on it, they live with their decision that every day of their lives as well and it could well have had the effect of hundreds of volunteers saying **** it why should I and the fact that he was South American does not make him immune from being a terrorist.

of course if you think you or Corbyn can improve the record at the met feel free, i'm sure that they will welcome your knowledge and input.

 

E's, the point is, he wasn't a terrorist, it could have been you or me sitting reading a paper.

I said it earlier, all Corbyn said was that he wasn't happy about shoot to kill.

You ( and the right wing press)  obviously have your own thoughts on those three little words, but that's all it is, thoughts.

Most people don't have a problem with it.