Corbyns Shoot to Wound Folly

The absolute pacifist is a bad citizen; times come when force must be used to uphold right, justice and ideals – Alfred North Whitehead

In a recent post I detailed how, despite my disagreements with some of Corbyns policies, the bloke was one of the only politicians to have the right idea on Syria in terms of bombing not achieving anything productive, and that we should stay out.

I didn’t touch on the fact that I think the, for the most part, the media campaign against him is hyperbole, overstated and a clear transparent attempt to undermine him in the minds of the electorate. Nor that he doesn’t deserve all the over-exaggerated negative press, most of the time.

However, his recent statements in lieu of the terrorist atrocities in France have gained him a whirlwind of negative press, and a backlash from his front bench and other Labour MPs.

And quite right too.

For those unaware, Corbyn has gone on record as refusing to back”shoot-to-kill” policy for the police when faced with terrorists like those that rampaged through France last week.

His exact statement was:

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.” – Jeremy Corbyn

Well Jeremy my old mate, what do you propose the police do when militant terrorists are shooting and beheading people, firing upon police officers and then detonating suicide belts?

What’s your plan? Invite them to cross the police cordon for tea and biscuits? Start a particularly angry leaflet campaign? Offer them a one on one boxing match with queensberry rules?

His supporters are quick to point out that Jeremy is a principled man, and that attacks by the Tories that Labour are now a threat to national security is “Scaremongering”.

Well I’m sorry to say that comments such as this actually add a serious amount of weight to the argument that we would be a lot less safe with Corbyn at the helm. You just cant have a politician that refuses point blank to allow the police to neutralise a clear a present threat, its absolute madness.

You cant just sit on the fence for everything. Some things that need to be done are not very nice, but these are not very nice people! I would imagine that once in the terrible situation where police need to shoot-to-kill, rather than it making the situation “quite dangerous” it was already bloody dangerous to begin with.

And if the toss up is between more innocent people being killed by complete mentalists, or said mentalists being killed by the police, I’m backing the police to kill them all day long. So would most normal people.

And that is Labours current problem. The electorate sent a clear message at the GE that a party wont get elected if they are not trusted on the economy. If you add to that particular fear, the threat that any future PM would endanger the civilian population via such wanton pacifism in the face of an immediate threat, then Labour are not just going to lose the next GE, they will lose even more seats. It would be a rout.

 

 

2 thoughts on “Corbyns Shoot to Wound Folly

  1. I’m pretty sure you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here. The problem’s more that Corbyn isn’t great at communicating and the media wilfully distort his statements.

    Remember when the police shot dead a Brazlian tourist because he looked a bit terroristy? That’s the kind of thing he’s obviously concerned about. Pretty sure that if there were gunfights happening on the streets the cops would be allowed to defend themselves and protect the public.

    Don’t fall for the media hysteria – the Jez-man is actually trying to show that he’s cool under pressure and wouldn’t allow anyone who looked a bit dodgy to be shot down in a fusillade of bullets.

    Like

    1. Hi Andy,

      Honestly, I fully understand the media is somewhat hyping up what he is saying. That said the quote is there in black and white.

      If Corbyn actually meant that “due care and diligence needs to be applied to avoid another Menezes, then he should now say that’s what he meant.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s