It is a real pity the comments section on Skynews articles is no longer available as I suspect this would make some interesting reading.

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-de...econd-12545044

I agree with here, the authorities in the UK spend to much time fannying around before doing anything and our police and Army are to scared to fire their weapons because they know they will be dragged through the courts for doing their job.

 

Can't stand the women. Moans about hatred politicians face one minute and then calls all Tories scum the next.
I agree with her on this, probably the only thing I will ever agree with her about, she's vile.

 

Don't think many would disagree with shooting terrorists. I would argue shoot to disable would be preferred, so we can then string them up, torture them and get valuable info on their terrorist cells before locking them up and throwing away the key! If you can't shoot to disable, then shoot to kill is the next best option!

General rule - if someone is prepared to kill, then they are prepared to be killed!

 

Depends on who is nominated as a terrorist , could simply be someone whos face doesnt fit caught on camera ,for protesting anything

this is the way we're headed

 

I would suggest it would be anyone with a gun, sword, knife, spear or other weapon in a public place. All of which are banned on British streets.

 

Fully agree! Doesn't have to be a terrorist per say, just someone who is threatening violence to someone else! Terrorists, hooligans, abusers, all the same to me and fair game to receive a bullet!

 

Mentally Ill people ?!

 

Tree huggers ?

 

Always shoot to kill - Cannot guarantee a shot will disable sufficiently to neutralize a terrorist.

 

You're not limited to one shot!
Depends on the situation, if we're talking bomb detonation scenario, then yeah, shoot to kill in the first instance, but machete wielding terrorists, you can have a couple of pops at disabling first!

 

She has got quite big **** :-)