London Bridge

[Van wink 2,994]

Sorry It shouldn''t be used as an opertunity for cheap shots.

[Indy 3,283]

Especially not by an IRA sympathiser, who voted against anti terrorist legislation.

That aside it''s not a party issue it''s a UK issue and should be addressed as such by a coalition of all parties. IMO

[Herman 9,716]

Highlighting police cuts, the links to the Saudis and our connection with Libyan fighters are extrememly important and if they aren''t mentioned then the same things will happen over and over again.

[kick it off 1,948]

[quote user="Herman"]I wouldn''t say they were cheap points. They were highly important points raised. You don''t like them because they highlight the failings of some of the governments decisions.[/quote]

Spot on Herman. VW and co are taking the point scoring issue because they don''t like the truth that Theresa May has blood on her hands on this one. 20% of police force cut on her watch, and against explicit advice from the police telling her it would leave the country vulnerable. The first person to try and score cheap points was May with the "enough is enough" speech. 

Pointing out that the Prime Minister directly enhanced the ability of terrorists to attack us, and licks the Ar5e of Saudi Arabia who fund and provide material support to ISIS, the very people who attacked us, is not scoring cheap points. It''s pointing out that after months of smears about Corbyn being dangerous from the right wing press, the only person who is on the ballot paper who helped terrorists attack us, is Theresa, which is a fundamental point that should be made in the strongest possible terms. 

It may be unpalatable for the right, and they can try and shout it down as distasteful, but what is distasteful to me is May censoring the report into terrorism funding because it incriminates her by highlighting her ties with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia. What is distasteful is May refusing to apologise for cutting 20% of the police force and allowing these attacks to happen. What is distasteful is the sour taste left in the collective mouth of the right because they know this is her fault, and they will say anything to deflect from the fact they are voting for someone who has strengthened ISIS'' hand.

[Indy 3,283]

Not at all I don''t think either party are right to score anything from this tragedy. I''ve said from the start there should be no blame but a think tank assembled for the best way forward.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

[quote user="Indy"]Especially not by an IRA sympathiser, who voted against anti terrorist legislation.

That aside it''s not a party issue it''s a UK issue and should be addressed as such by a coalition of all parties. IMO[/quote]

Of course Theresa May also voted against, or abstained from voting, in a lot of the same votes as Corbyn.

The Sun/Mail wouldn''t want you to know that though, as it ruins their smear campaign...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40111329

[Guest]

Nuts in May is the PM and had the moral ground as well as the responsibility to talk about the attacks.

That was not an unfair advantage but an advantage that she took full use of.

How else were any opposition parties expected to point out the present PM''s failings as Home Secretary.

It wasn''t cricket chaps but surely if we are going to take our homeland security seriously then it has to be debated even during this early stage after the murders.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

All main parties have pledged to recruit more police officers except for one - can anybody guess which party hasn''t?

Yep thats right, the Tories - the party who is now led by the person responsible for cutting police numbers in the first place. Its why she cannot debate this point and gets all flustered as soon as anybody mentions it. For the Tories to recruit more police officers, our PM has to admit huge failings from her time as Home Secretary.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Van wink"]Sorry It shouldn''t be used as an opertunity for cheap shots.[/quote]On Sunday, when the parties had agreed not to campaign, May broke the deal with her "Enough is enough" speech which included a list of measures she planned.to implement. This quite rightly enraged  Labour. Not only was it breaking the deal, since May was in effect saying vote for me if you want a solution to terrorism; this was a "pledge" from someone who had been home secretary for six years and whose job it had been to keep the UK safe and find solutions. Instead she had slashed slash police numbers. It was blatant hypocrisy as much as anything. She brought the Labour attacks on herself.

[Van wink 2,994]

You do realise that dispite the cut in police and backroom staff numbers, recorded crime has dropped considerably.

[Herman 9,716]

There''s less police recording crime?!

[Van wink 2,994]

That would be it then, sack them all I say!

[Guest]

Once again crime figures are different from how they used to be.

Prisons have never been so full but there are less murderers in prison.

That isn''t because there have been less attempts. It is because of paramedics instead of ambulance personnel and mobile phones which means emergency services can be contacted straight away without looking for a phone box.