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.

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 everyone 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.