[romille]

As Nallen says, Flare path's idea is already extant.

Cockney Steve, how do you, in drawing up a law, determine who should have to forfeit their citizenship ? At an airport? Even if you could, where would you repatriate them, as they no longer would possess citizenship of any country? No country would accept them. What about the person that goes over there, under duress from their husband/parents and wants to return? Etc?

The idea is frankly bonkers.

Surely with today's technology a list could be drawn up and issued to airlines, ferry ports and whoever with instructions not to let the individuals board.

[Rob P]

So a shoot to kill policy....no

I really don't understand what you are saying here. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.

Armed police are only deployed where needed (or thought to be needed) if they are there, they will shoot if they judge it the right thing to do. If they shoot they will shoot to kill, there is no other option that is safe for them.

Rob P

[johnm]

So a shoot to kill policy....no

I really don't understand what you are saying here. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.

Armed police are only deployed where needed (or thought to be needed) if they are there, they will shoot if they judge it the right thing to do. If they shoot they will shoot to kill, there is no other option that is safe for them.

Rob P

The shoot to kill policy idea quoted was about deliberately hunting people down and killing them as opposed to seeking to hunt them down and arrest them.

[romille]

So a shoot to kill policy....no

I really don't understand what you are saying here. If you shoot, you shoot to kill.

Armed police are only deployed where needed (or thought to be needed) if they are there, they will shoot if they judge it the right thing to do. If they shoot they will shoot to kill, there is no other option that is safe for them.

Rob P

I agree that police normally shoot to kill, but in the case of the killers of Lee Rigby they only wounded them, I wonder why as they charged at armed officers with cleavers.

[NickA]

Surely with today's technology a list could be drawn up and issued to airlines, ferry ports and whoever with instructions not to let the individuals board.

I do believe this already happens. But this is not the same as taking away citizenship from British nationals. This happens already but only in the case of dual nationality. You can't make someone stateless or it is just exporting the problem to the rest of the world.

[romille]

Surely with today's technology a list could be drawn up and issued to airlines, ferry ports and whoever with instructions not to let the individuals board.

I do believe this already happens. But this is not the same as taking away citizenship from British nationals. This happens already but only in the case of dual nationality. You can't make someone stateless or it is just exporting the problem to the rest of the world.

My view they have lost the privilege of holding a British passport and the benefits and protections that come with it when they join IS. Frankly I don't care what happens to them as long as they don't get back into the UK.

[Miscellaneous]

What change in the law would you suggest?

Whatever change is necessary to alleviate the concerns of those worried about our laws being broken.

[romille]

I think as a country we need to do whatever it takes to protect our law abiding citizens from these thugs.

[johnm]

I think as a country we need to do whatever it takes to protect our law abiding citizens from these thugs.

We do. However as an IRA member once famously said "You have be successful every time, we only have to be successful once"

The key thing with this stuff is to understand how these people become radicalised and to seek to minimise the risk. Education and engagement is key and very difficult to achieve when dealing with impressionable and vulnerable people who feel marginalised in society and can easily be rabble roused and given a purpose in life, albeit a grotesque caricature of life.

[morticiaskeeper]

I agree that police normally shoot to kill, but in the case of the killers of Lee Rigby they only wounded them, I wonder why as they charged at armed officers with cleavers.

They didn't exactly have time, he was running at them, so they stopped the threat.

This "shoot to kill", "shoot to wound" is rubbish. The shot is taken to stop the threat, therefore aiming for the body mass is normally the best option, as it's an easier target because it is bigger, and it limits the collateral damage of a round hitting a kid half a mile away if you miss.

A police force posted a video a couple of weeks ago, taken from the firearm officers' chest mounted GoPro. They arrived on scene, taser officer a couple of feet in front of firearms officer. The suspect came towards them with a knife, ignoring warnings. The taser was fired and the threat was removed. A couple of years ago, that option wasn't there and he would have been shot at about 10ft range. It was an excellent response by the officers in the line of fire.

[Jim Jones]

What change in the law would you suggest?

Whatever change is necessary to alleviate the concerns of those worried about our laws being broken.

We could make it illegal to worry....it never does any good, just trust the government to sort it.

[JoeC]

Who would make this decision?

Ideally those with greater common sense, decency and intelligence than those who propose such a process.

[NickA]

People always have concerns about crime. E.g. most people think it has gone up in the last 25 years when it has actually declined hugely. You can't make laws based entirely on public concerns; you have to balance all sorts of things. And there will always be a variety of views - as we see in this thread.

[Genghis the Engineer]

This "shoot to kill", "shoot to wound" is rubbish. The shot is taken to stop the threat, therefore aiming for the body mass is normally the best option, as it's an easier target because it is bigger, and it limits the collateral damage of a round hitting a kid half a mile away if you miss.

As I understand it, the difference now would be about weapons selection, not action.

Some police now carry lethal weapons - all of them carry non-lethal weapons (phasers, stun guns, batons, etc. etc.).

But clearly if you charge a policeman with a cleaver, you are going to be hit with whatever was in the policeman's hand, or closest to hand. If that is lethal, the consequences are entirely obvious and reasonable.

Police going into a developing situation, rather than reacting to sudden events, will inevitably have much more choice about how they respond.

G

[Rob P]

I agree that police normally shoot to kill, but in the case of the killers of Lee Rigby they only wounded them.

I have no current inside information, it's over twenty years since I was involved with Police Firearms Units

Back then we knew the ammunition purchased for the police was not really up to the task. Hollow points are the most effective man stopper, but the police then were restricted to jacketed soft points. I thought this had changed but don't know for certain.

That the Rigby murderers survived I would put down to bad luck, not deliberate intention.

Rob P