In an interview with the BBC, Corbyn was asked whether as prime minister he would be happy to order police or military to follow such a “shoot to kill” policyHe said: “I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

Read into that what you will.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't say or even imply: 'announces that under his leadership, the police will not be allowed a shoot to kill. No matter what.'

I think it's wonderful when people read something and completely fail to understand what's said.

Well no, don't read into that what you will, read what the man is saying. He's simply saying that exra-judicial state execution is generally a bad thing and I tend to agree with him. He's not ruling it out in extremis, but it shouldn't be the first option - the case of Jean Charles de Menezes is one obvious reason why you should resist shoot-to-kill, but the position is more profound than that because the state shouldn't as a matter of policy be killing anyone, even people you hate. Of course that position is easily distorted by haters and as a society we do rather glory in the execution of people we hate - Thatcher ordered the execution of one of the Iranian Embassy hostage takers and we all thought that was fantastic - point is that yes, sometimes the state must take life to preserve security, but in general killing people only escalates the hatred and a better, more difficult option is to promote peace.

Absolutely. I would also argue that the police will very rarely accept responsibility when things go wrong and that they should always understand that taking a life is an absolute last resort. I believe I am right in saying that the US police have killed more people that Al Qaeda killed on 9/11. We don't want that here.

I didn't know that about the Iranian Embassy hostage siege. I remember the siege, but was a teenager. Thatcher made a habit of deploying violence unnecessarily and for political ends. Unfortunately so have most PMs since.

I believe the police and the scurity services should be allowed to do the job as they see fit under current law and without political interference. This isn't out of sympathy for the perpetrators, but for practical reasons.

A sense of perspective would be useful at this point, seeing as you typed such rubbish.

On a SINGLE DAY Al Queda MURDERED thousands of people.

Over a 'period of time' there have been several thousands killed, in a country the size of Europe where the Right to Bear Arms is written into their law and in some states there is law to permit 'Open carry' (where you can walk down the street and go off shopping with an assault rifle slung over your shoulder). This in a vaste country with a massive population and where their police and Marshalls and state troopers and every form of law enforcer down to our equivalent of PCSOs and Neighbourhood Warden is armed. And where the baddies all carry weapons.

No argument that people are killed by the police but comparing that to 9/11 is crass

(1,000 people have been killed in the US by the police so far in 2015)

For a start, that's from the Guardian, I watched the interview. Myself. I saw and heard what he said. When asked "if you where in power and there was a Paris style incident in London, would you allow the police to implement shoot to kill?" He was asked that question three times and he would not give a direct answer. The best the commie terrorist loving **** would say was broadly what was reported in the Guardian. What you can't see was the expression on his face or hear the weaseling in his voice. Sickening. This man seriously wants people to try to negotiate with terrorists as they are cutting your head of. Mad loon. This pathetic excuse for a leader has exposed himself as a week man, and, should he ever gain power our enemies, who can spot a weak leader from 50 paces will be in the back door before the weasel left can say "Comrade".

No! He didn't say that at all! Wake up! Get your head out from between your legs and smell the compost!

**** right! Otherwise let the politicians stand in the front line, hobbled and powerless, see how they manage.

And if you think that's bad, in 2015 year to date, there have been 325 mass shootings. Where a mass shooting is defined as an incident where four OR MORE people are shot or killed in a single incident. The police are swamped, and in an incident where they know they may come under semi automatic fire at any time its no wonder they use their sidearms. Its what happens when you can walk into a Walmart and buy an AR 15 off the rack. Any this Mr newres is under a leader who pledged to control gun ownership.

Meanwhile, it would appear as if the Labour party does not fully support its leadership over this issue, from today's press,
Divisions at the heart of the shadow cabinet have been highlighted after Hilary Benn said he could not speak for Jeremy Corbyn on whether he supports a shoot-to-kill policy against terrorists.

In the clearest public signal yet that senior Labour figures are at odds over Syria and the response to Islamic State, the shadow foreign secretary also defended the killing last week of Mohammed Emwazi, contradicting Corbyn’s position."

"Shadow foreign secretary backs use of ‘lethal force’ against terrorists during a Paris-style attack in interview that highlights divisions with Labour leader"

"The Labour leader was openly challenged at the PLP over his comments in a BBC interview that he was not happy with a policy of “shoot to kill” against terrorists on UK streets. Corbyn also questioned the legality of the drone strike that killed Emwazi."

It would appear to the casual observer that Mr Corbyn may not be speaking for the party as a whole. I wonder how long he will last as he seems to be a bit of a dinosaur to me.

That might be true, but it seems a hard nose approach hasn't worked either.

He might be a dinosaur and he might be naive, but he could also be a new visionary.

It doesn't matter anyway, Corbyn has no chance of wining an election.

What do you call hard nosed?

Terrorists usually lose when they lose financial support. That's where the battle should be.

Iraq invasion, Afghanistan invasion(s), Russia and France bombing Syria, Russian zero tolerance on terrorists, etc.

Ah yes, bombing Syria. How many missions over Syria in a roughly six week period? About 790. Over the same period over Bosnia (remember that?) 38000! Oh, and just how much tolerance should terrorists get? Is that on a measurable scale? Say, one shooting equals a talking to? One grenade attack equals withdrawal of library ticket?

What are you on about? Russia have a 'zero tolerance' of terrorists, yet still suffer atrocities (remember the school hostage taking).

So, offer them a cuppa tea and a biscuit then! Lots of arguments from you but little in the way of solutions. As usual. Look a smiley!