Il leader del consiglio di riforma del Regno Unito afferma che la polizia dovrebbe essere in grado di “sparare alle persone se necessario”

The can, im glad they don’t do it more…. What will be the next rubbish soundbite aimed at idiots.

The police, armed police, can shoot people when necessary. What does she think the armed police do?

I think it’s good that we treat the act of the state taking someone’s life as seriously as we do and investigate it thoroughly.

If only someone had already thought of that….

Honestly, everything the Reform Party say is like something from a drunk conversation with your dumbest relative.

Reason #453 as to why these morons should not be near power.

Devil’s advocate here – she *kind of* has a point. But as ever with Reform, it’s just soundbites and no real actual plans.

As others are saying – yes, the police can and do shoot people, but it is rare.

But no one is mentioning the Chris Kaba case, which she mentioned in the interview. The officer was dragged through the courts and a misconduct hearing, and it was only *after* he was cleared we found out Kaba’s full criminal history, which was very violent and involved a shooting almost certainly committed by him just the day before. At the time he was killed, he wasn’t complying with orders from armed police, had tried to ram their cars, then was reaching into the glovebox before the fatal shot was fired.

Whether you like Reform or not, and I certainly do not, you have to admit that isn’t really acceptable. There’s a LONG way between resolving issues like that and going full American where police shoot first and ask questions later.

JFC. Reform councillors absolutely thick as fuck. They do no possess the brains they were born with.

Literally an Americanised soundbite… Ya know the Reform UK lot sure does like foreign influence if it comes from the USA.

They love to shit on Turkish Barbers but what about all the tax dodging McDonald’s and Burger King and Starbucks? American shite!

I was an AFO for 27 years and I wouldn’t want Reform backing me.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act allows ANY person to use reasonable force.

The irony of her saying “necessary” is that is the word enshrined in the Human Rights Act. Something she wants to get rid of.

Authorised Firearms Officers don’t wany jingoistic flag wavers who are ignorant. They want politicians who know their sfuff.

This means, full anonymity unless found guilty by a court of law, but more importantly a statutory requirement to complete investigations expiditiously.

AFO’s who are all volunteers expect to be held to account.

The backing they need is for this to be done in 5% of the time it takes currently. That would show real backing.

I wonder whether, under Reform, the police would be allowed to shoot someone who is repeatedly kicking a woman or not.

Americanization of our right-wing politics continues…

Drama graduate tells you under what circumstances the state should execute people more at 11

I’d like a detailed definition for “if necessary” please.

This doesn’t go far enough, they should also be able to break the speed limit when necessary to catch fleeing criminals.

Anyone can shoot someone when necessary so wtf does she mean ? Does she want immunity for the police when they shoot someone if so that should be no. Everyone’s actions when a life is take. Should be subject UK review to determine if the action, given the circumstances, was necessary.

Everyday Reform shows its just MAGA in a union jack.

Well, who was that dangerous criminal in the car that people were angry that the police shot after he tried to run them over? I think his name was something like Cabba?

It was necessary to drop him, but people still got angry about it for the usual reasons.