"Countries such as Libya"?

Can we have a list of all the countries to which you'd ban any travel, then?

What if the sneaky blighters go to somewhere you don't dislike as much first, and make their way to Libya (or any other country on your list) from there without telling anybody?

Not sure you've thought this through, even ignoring the impossibility of refusing re-admission to a British citizen - can you explain exactly how that could actually work?

well thats it, you change the legal system to do just that....

the government has to protect its citizens

but the 'human rights' of these people tend to always win so we will seeing another attack somewhere

not if they are on a watch list and under suspicion.

whats more important ?

didnt vote for them

but they do seem to strike a cord with alot of people on somethings, not all, like every party

people will go on a march against trump entering the uk but cant be organise to go on a march to get out government to act ... just carry on and have a stiff upper lip they say...till next time

iran, sudan, syria, iraq... it would be a start.

said elsewhere we have thousands on a watch list

wont totally stop an attack but the government needs to start somewhere

They need to stop bombing and selling weapons to these places for a start. Then start looking at other options. I'd be quite keen to know how much evidence these on the "Watch List" require before we act. Surely a known, reported extremist travelling to Libya and back is alarm bells?

You really don't have a clue, do you?

People are rightly angry and searching for reasons and solutions, but what you're suggesting is not possible within International Law. We can make laws for what to do when they get back to the UK, but you can't deny a UK National entry back into the UK, nor can a person be rendered stateless.

One of the main factors is the huge cuts the police have faced over the past few years, despite the Home Secretary at the time (Theresa May) being warned a number of times by experts in the field that it'd leave us less safe. That's something the Government can and could have changed, but didn't.

We're also, as a couple of posters have pointed out to you, we're openly selling weapons to regimes that are exporting and backing jihadists. Then there are the historical issues around us meddling, bombing and fighting in the region for the past 100 years.

I think the notion that cutting back on policing has directly resulted in this is flawed. France has had far more attacks than the UK and far worse they haven't cut their police numbers.

"Directly resulted" aren't the words I used.

Many experts called out the Home Secretary over the cuts to the police at the time and said we'd be a lot less safer as a result.

It's not too difficult to imagine that if you devote less resource into preventing terrorism and catching the perpetrators, then there's more chance of something like this happening.

If we had the 20k coppers that we have cut would Monday not have happened?? It didn't appear to stop 7/7

Can't stop them all. It's logical though that the more counter terrorist officers and community engagment you have, the lower your risk of being successfully attacked. Otherwise, why not cut numbers back further and test out your theory?

Labour manifesto.
Keep winter fuel allowance, free student education . More money for nhs. Keep triple lock
Tory manifesto
Take away winter fuel allowance, scrap triple lock , oh and if you fall ill in old age we will take your house.
Corbyn has copied the trump style of agenda, promise everything, then in power find lots of reasons not to implement election promises. Example, build a wall across Mexico, can't do. Reopen coal mines can't do. Pull out of NATO can't do.
Don't know who is running mays election campaign , at the moment it's a total disaster.
In a nutshell labour are promising lots of free stuff, conservatives are taking money away from people. It's no wonder the polls are narrowing.

The UKIP policy you were creaming yourself over was stopping [ueveryone[/u travelling to Libya. My question was in repsonse to that. The idea is as dumb as their supporters.

Maybe they made a risk assessment of the numbers of coppers needed to meet the needs of the country and to fit within a set budget and ended up with what we have. I didn't say remove more or all coppers, im working on the assumption that the copper numbers are decided through some form of analysis. Policing like the military isn't just a numbers game it has many factors including improved technology which could result in reduced numbers

I will ask you again would Monday have happened if we had 20 k more coppers like we did when 7/7 happened.

You can't say with certainty that it would or wouldn't but by having extra police, it narrows the risk of it happening. With regards to 7/7, our security services were still catching up with the lack of intelligence gathered about potential targets/perpetrators. That is why, apart from Monday, there hasn't been anything come close in this country on the same scale as 7/7.

Why not have huge numbers of counter intelligence say another 50k - would it have prevented 2 attacks in the last 5 years - its a question of balance - given the numbers of attacks we have had I would say the balance is not far off. The US had huge intelligence resources it didn't stop 9/11.

Vote Tory and the theory will be tested - they've already committed to further cuts to the police.

My understanding from watching the coverage is that community policing is a big factor in getting early indicators that people are worthy of attention; if a regular, consistent police presence exists in Muslim communities, the people who live, work and study alongside these people feel more able to alert the police of early warning signs. We've got rid of swathes of community police officers under the Tory austerity measures - so it seems a reasonable conclusion that their ability to form relationships and pick up information has diminished.

When the Police Federation warned Mrs May of this when she was Home Secretary, she accused them of scaremongering...

Tories simply say that NHS funding wiill be paid for by growth in the economy. Yet growth is negligible and falling, living standards are falling. So under their 'plan' (as they like to call their chaos) funding for all services will actually be cut.

Thats like saying would my house have been burgled if I'd had increased security. Impossible to say but 20'000 is a lot of resources.

Approx 1300 trained firearms officers cut by Tories & 1000 soldiers deployed to our streets this week. Almost man for man.

Like Corbyn said the other day, austerity should stop at the door of the police station and the hospital gates.

Around 1000 armed police have been cut since 2010. Apparently, we've got around 950 soldiers policing our streets. Of course cutting the amount of police will decrease safety.

Oh, and Michael Fallon

That was a brilliant piece of TV journalism - the look on his face was priceless.

It's interesting to look at the various media outlets, in particular the right leaning ones reporting on May getting stuck into Corbyn for saying Britain is partly to blame. There are quite a few comments stating no love for Corbyn but basically saying he's right. May might have scored an own goal by politicising the Manchester attack as a points scoring exercise.

Here lies my problem with this - Corbyn is just about throwing money at an issue - there is no discussion around working smarter and more efficiently. Are we honestly saying policing methods of 10 years ago haven't evolved to a point where less man power is needed?

When every government department has suffered such deep cuts, there is bound to be a cost in the opposite direction and whilst these departments will have been working their socks off to negate any detrimental effects, this doesn't mean that there wont be difficulties.
Personally, I dont think that having the increased numbers would have prevented Manchester, just as increasing them wont prevent the next one but, we will never actually know.