Hypocrisy of Corbyn on police and terror

AT a Stop the War Coalition conference six years ago, Jeremy Corbyn made this proud boast to his adoring audience: ‘ I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983.’

In that time he voted against banning Al Qaeda, against restricting the movements of suspected terrorists with so- called T-Pim orders, against allowing the police and security services emergency access to email and telephone records and against detaining foreign terror suspects thought to pose a threat to the UK.

He opposed the police shoot-to-kill policy and drone strikes against jihadists abroad – not to mention describing Hamas and Hezbollah militants as ‘friends’ and taking tea with the IRA.

So the Mail has this question. How does a man who throughout his political career has tried to hamper police attempts to tackle terrorism now have the gall to pose as a great champion of law and order?

With shameless hypocrisy, Mr Corbyn called yesterday for Theresa May to resign over cuts to police numbers, which he insinuated may have contributed to the recent terror attacks.

There is of course no evidence for this smear. While it’s true that overall police numbers have fallen since 2010, the resources devoted to terrorism have been significantly boosted.

The security service is recruiting an extra 2,000 officers, more specialist police firearms officers are being trained and Lord Carlile QC, independent reviewer of terror legislation, said: ‘The assertion that cuts to beat police officers have diminished the ability to fight terrorism is untrue.’

Crime has fallen by a spectacular 33 per cent since 2010 and the fact that police shot dead all three of the London Bridge terrorists within eight minutes of receiving the first emergency call is eloquent testimony to their professionalism.

Yes, we can always do better and it’s troubling that at least one of Saturday’s killers was well known as an IS sympathiser, yet appears not to have been thought a serious enough risk to be placed under close surveillance.

This apparent lapse demonstrates that our law enforcement agencies must always look to raise their game and should be given whatever resources they need to do so.

As she showed yesterday, Theresa May has a coherent and uncompromising plan to enhance Britain’s security against this terror threat. The alternative is not just Mr Corbyn as prime minister but also Diane (‘every defeat of the British state is a victory for us all’) Abbott as Home Secretary.

In the words of Lord Carlile: ‘The notion that she could lead the Home Office should leave us all in frozen apprehension.’