That Corbyn fella...

^He could have said both, just in one, and made both sides happy and reinsured, giving out an increase of confidence for the listeners about their own deep view on which part they belong.

So I'm a bit confused about the huge outcry over Corbyn stating that he'd prefer 'shoot to kill' not to be used as a policy, given that doing so isn't in any way policy at the moment, and it seems unlikely to become it.

My understanding of current policy is that it is 'shoot to disable' which in some cases may end up as kill, and that the decision is made by the officer on the ground, which is then subject to the courts to ensure that the decision was correct (whether or not you think the courts/police investigate this correctly is a separate matter from the policy intent).

Given that the 'double tap' technique taught to police and special forces is aimed at disabling, not killing, and even Kratos (under which the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was authorised) was/is aimed at disabling the threat, rather than necessecarilly killing.

Could it be that MPs don't actually understand the current set of engagement rules, and are thus encouraging the new media to make a huge fuss out of nothing?

I'm not an expert in the whole police or sas side of things but having been in a position where I was trained to shoot people we were always told to aim for the 'center of mass' i.e. the middle of the body. Obviously this presents the largest area to target but it is also the part of the body that holds the majority of vital organs. There was never a shoot to kill v shoot to disable differentiation... is you presented arms and pulled the trigger the aim was always to kill. I think I am right in saying that the 'shoot to kill' moniker is a Hollywood bastardization of a legal term when someone shoots someone with the aim of killing them but wounds them instead, still attempted murder.

Head shots in a close quarters environment when one suspects a person to be wearing a suicide vest is another consideration all together and something that is up to the interpretation of the firearms handler at a particular scene.

This absolute moron just so happens to be the chief political commentator for the Independent.

Everything I've read from him make me gag. Bell.

So the conservatives want to join in the bombing but they'll need parliament to agree. You can imagine the number of knives out for JC if he keeps his stance of not wanting to escalate things. Yet if he does, I'm certain some toul will say he has no backbone and changes with the wind.

Is there any indication that the Tories have a majority themselves? Or are they relying on hawkish Labour MPs?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/an-apology-from-john-rentoul-a6734441.html

Those comments...
is it really that coke head louise mensh banging on?! Horrible human.

And that is not an apology. The tool is only sorry for the potential trouble he was in.

I haven't heard anything but like all things of this nature, anyone seen to oppose it will be an instant pariah, likened to the second coming of [the daily mail's favourite] Hitler. You'd be politically buried for not going with the current of "bomb fuck out of 'em".

And that is not an apology. The tool is only sorry for the potential trouble he was in.

Er?

I apologise without reservation to Mr Corbyn, to my colleagues and to readers. It was a stupid and offensive thing to say, especially at that time, and I am mortified by it.

That's an apology. Why would it not be? Where does it suggest that he's 'only sorry for the potential trouble he was in'?

i want it in his blood [/rightwingpress]

Am I doin it rite?

Police officers "shoot to stop" which at ten or more metres is single carefully aimed shots at the chest. If the threat remains then headshots will be necessary to stop the threat. At seven metres and less the threat is engaged with two shots using sense of direction ie. both eyes open not using the sights of the gun. If headshots are used where they are not required it is quite literally overkill and unless there was a genuine belief that they were necessary to stop the threat. Sect 3 Criminal Law Act 1967, Common Law, Sect 117 PACE 1984 and Article 2 ECHR Human Rights Act 1998 make for good bedtime reading.

That was my understanding too - so does that mean that 'shoot to kill' is some sort of politician/press buzzword that has no real world effect as to how operations will actually be carried out..?

Absolutely. The officer that pulls the trigger gets very little support once the dust settles. The post incident procedure sounds very supportive when it is explained to you but in reality it isn't. I've not been subjected to it myself but a (now former) colleague did and he felt like he's been hung out to dry.

I wish Alan Johnson had run for leader.

I saw him being interviewed at Port Eliot Festival this summer, and almost the whole crowd in the tent expressed the same view. He just said "I'd hate being leader, it's a job I've never wanted to do."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2015/nov/30/labour-losing-touch-public-opinion-research-suggests

"At the same time, Labour has retained only two-thirds of its own voters..."

lol

I like this brand of maths. I'm only going to eat two-thirds of that box of mince pies. That's barely any, that is.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/support-for-jeremy-corbyn-among-labour-members-has-grown-since-he-was-elected-leader-a6746491.html

Good move allowing the free vote. The resignation of half the shadow cabinet would have been the beginning of the end for him.

From that Independent article

"The result is that the Labour vote is now composed of staunch loyalists and recent converts; a base that holds positions on immigration, defence, welfare and patriotism which render the party unrepresentative and unelectable."

What the fuck do you mean "unrepresentative"?! It is representative of the people you described. It is not the job of a single party, nor is it even possible for a single party, to be representative of the entire population.

This is what pisses me off about the whole Corbyn situation: the approach of many Labour MPs appears to be "What's the point of having these policies/principles/approaches if you're not electable?", which is completely arse-about-face. The real question is "What's the point of being electable if you don't actually espouse Labour values and present a real alternative to (as in being noticeably different from) the Tories?" The only conclusion I can draw that I can draw is that a huge number of Labour MPs are just chancers who want to use the traditionally tribal nature of British politics to get power/stay in power to further their career.

Just how silly is it that journalists now constantly try to loiter in HoP corridors to catch a whiff of what's going on in Labour committee rooms? Is this new or have they always done that?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/30/corbyn-plp-syria-free-vote-mps-a-free-vote-on-syria-would-give-cameron-victory-on-a-plate-politics-live

I haven't heard of them doing this outside Conservative or Lib Dem committee rooms (assuming here that the Green PLP can just have an inaudible conversation to herself :) ).

I think it's because Labour now have a leader whose views don't coincide aren't overtly centrist and so the press are playing the angle that he will be trying to exert some sort of Stalinist control over the party.

I personally don't have the faintest idea how 'electability' is measured (as I can't vote in general elections in this country, I've never yet begun to get well-informed about it). I just keep thinking that while this may well be true now (and is, of course, of relevance to next year's GLA elections and by-elections happening soon, such as the one currently going on for Michael Meacher's former seat)--but who can say where the electorate is in five years' time? Are all the political commentators just assuming that nobody's going to change?

and present a real alternative to (as in being noticeably different from) the Tories

Bear in mind that the world 'alternative', although I agree with your gloss on it, always has a whiff of 'secondary' about it. I personally think that Labour should avoid it and make sure that other positions are no alternative to theirs. :)