12gauge82

Ive never been a fan of Trump, I don't like the way he speaks, he appears arrogant, boastful and at times disrespectful and always considered him a bit of a narcissist. All that said, I can't deny my negative opinions of him have shifted, while I still find the language he uses to be at best un-diplomatic, there have been several events that have led me to believe, nobody can question his determination, belief in his own set of principles and ability to lead and get things done. He's just secured a cease fire between Israel and Palestine before even taking office, beaten an obvious attempt at politically motivated lawfair, won a second term in office, despite clear media bias, was the first American leader to visit North Korea, is clearly respected by strong man dictators around the world, and crucially for me, although less of a measureble achievement, showed great courage during a very nearly successful assassination attempt, which stood out for me, as his bravery in the face of near death is not something someone can fain, I felt it was a glimpse at his inner self that couldn't be faked. I believe most world leaders would have understandably cowered behind their security.

I'm sure they'll have a go at some point. Either way the West needs to vastly increase it's defence budget. We seem to very quickly forget the lessons of the past.

No, they need to hold an honest held belief and acted reasonably considering that belief. A jury would decide if their actions were reasonable. That also applies to you and I and is good sense, because without that, you would have to wait to be assaulted or killed before you could take any action to defend yourself or someone else, which would be a bit problematic, because where firearms are involved you likely be to dead to.

I didn't say you had?

So your not going to quote where you claim I said Harry Stanley deserverd to be shot then? You have now quoted the word potentially and hold that up as some sort of revelation, the thing is, in real life dangerous situations where you or someone else can get shot, you know not on a video game or when shooting at targets, there are all sorts of unknowns or potential dangers, the police and military are humans, they don't have crystal balls or superhuman reflexs, knowledge or vision, all they can do is work with the information and intelligence available to them at the time and deal with whatever life threatening situation they're thrown into, acting lawfully and proportionately to any potential (there's that word again) threats they face and their honest held belief they had at the time. I'm glad I haven't got to make those decisions and even more glad that you don't either.

Please quote where I said "he deserved to be shot" Obviously you can't because I didn't say it. In fact quote anything I've said that is factually wrong. You can't because there isn't anything. You seem to struggle to understand the complexity of dealing with a situation like a potentially dangerous and/or armed individual and it's not like the movies where everything is black and white. I guess it's a good job your not an armed police officer, you would clearly lack the mental capacity to do the job.

Your putting words in my mouth. Of course he didn't deserve to be shot. The case was a tragedy. What I said, was the officers actions were justified. They acted reasonably along the lines of their honest held belief at the time of their actions. We can't judge people using hindsight they didn't have at the time.

Absolutely, I haven't put the entire definition and everything to do with it or we'll end up miles of topic and days of discussion on the shortcomings of the law. I've tried to stick to the basics of what and why.

I'm not going off topic and through endless police cases that I know nothing about. If you read my post above (I'm not a lawyer and it's not verbatim) it explains what we're allowed to do to defend ourselves under the law, the police are bound by those same laws. Your assertion that the police should have to make sure a firearm is viable before taking action is utterly impractical and flies in the face of our laws of self defence, including the ability to make a premtive strike. It would lead to further loss of innocent life with police being unable to take action until people including themselves were already harmed. Our self defence laws in the UK already put the defender on the back foot, your suggestions would leave decent people utterly defenseless.

Gun in a plastic bag is just as dangerous as one out of a bag, it takes nothing to pull the trigger. I wouldn't like to go on a days shooting with you either, you obviously think a loaded gun in a bag can't harm anyone.

If someone including a police officer or not believers there is an imminent threat to their life, you are allowed to use reasonable force, based on that belief to defend yourself, even if your belief of imminent threat turns out to be wrong. If that wasn't the case, you would have to wait to be shot to make sure someone is pointing a real firearm at you and not an imitation before you could open fire, which wouldn't be much good as you'd likely be dead. I hope your not in charge of any accountability!

Like many things in life, nothing is straight forwards. Previously convicted of armed robbery and GBH, although this was to the best of my knowledge unknown to the officers at the time, it had been reported to them that he was an Irish man with a gun wrapped in a plastic bag. They challenged him and he spun around pointing what they believed to be a gun in their direction and opened fire in self defence. There was a change in the original belief that they had shot him in the back after further forensic work. After several inquiries and investigations by the IOPC the officers were found to have done nothing wrong.

If your referring to the Harry Stanley case, my view is they were totally justified.

My feeling is there will be more to this story than someone innocently and legally transporting an air rifle from A to B.

This.

I'm not ridiculing, I'm interested in if you have any thoughts for solutions as you are always strongly opinionated on what not to do, but I have yet to see many of your ideas on a way forward? I watch many sources of news, including GB news, I find I hear of stories, some of them quiet big, that most news channels don't cover.

Come on clangerman, you've always got something negative to say, what's your solutions? You often criticise anything anyone posts on the following subjects, so I'd be genuinely interested on your perspectives on the following subjects:- What sources are best for us to get information and news from? How do we tackle the illegal migration issues affecting the UK and the West in general? What political party/party's should we vote for and if non of them, then what should we do to effect change in the UK?

I totally agree with your post but thought I'd highlight this bit. The utter hypocricy of 10months for illegal entry and a bleating from the judge about the heart of immigration controls when we're allowing terrorists and criminals into our country and rather than prosecution, we're paying them to stay all inclusive. 😂

On the rape gangs no. I think anyone ignoring what's been highlighted, regardless of the source will very likely find themselves on the wrong side of history if they do. Frankly the victims of which have been silenced, ignored and without a voice for far too long. The fact that happened in today's age, just like the post office scandal makes you wonder what else is being covered up. I always do 👍

No I haven't. I don't see TR as relevant in the drastic changes that are needed in this country. Whether it's because he is a racist trying to appeal to the masses or an innocent man fitted up by the establishment is irrelevant in the context of getting the UK back on track. Reform and their fresh ideas on how to do things are already radical enough for some without attaching themselves to someone with the baggage TR has surrounding them. Totally agreed, it comes across as someone trying to desperately cover their tracks and I think the public will see straight through it.

And it's tradergys like this that those who shreak "racist" the most like to ignore. Deaths like that are on these peoples hands. By allowing illegal migration to continue and block strategys that would help to prevent it, they are creating a permissive environment for smugglers, criminals, terrorists and human suffering to continue. The only way this stops is by strictly controlling who crosses our borders. And in other news, these shocking figures confirm what most people have known for years and what both the Conservatives and Labour have tried to hide.

Johnphilip/Mungler You have both made some very good points and persuasive arguments that I find hard to disagree with. I still think Reform are already being attacked by MSM desperately trying to tie them to the far right, I believe it would be very self destructive to tie themselves to someone they've already identified as being far right. As for TR, much of what he says comes across as reasonable in the context of the absaloute disgrace thats been uncovered. I do hold suspicions due to his almost obsession with certain subjects that also predated the Rotherham scandal and his previous links with the national front.

The problem for reform is if they endorse TR they will loose huge support from the centre. I'm suspicious of TR myself and put simply, there's no reason for reform to have anything to do with TR. Reform need to be squeaky clean with regards anyone precieved to be connected to the far right. This. Which is put better than I did.

🤣