The pupil in denial...

Another week, another UK atrocity. Another night of watching the TV in disbelief until 4am.

I'm not sure whether it's the feeling of helplessness or the inability to provide help that's worse. Back in 2011 after working for a few years post-University I applied for and was accepted to study Medicine at the University of Leicester. But when push came to shove I was more interested in earning a wage than going back to Uni for 5 years and doubling my student debt to somewhere near £60k. It's difficult to not feel in times like these that the choice I made then was selfish and wrong, but no matter our life choices we must all find a way to help those in need.

With the events of last night I do start to question my own beliefs regarding the need for, and benefits of, further integration and cooperation, and it pains me to think that way. But then I walk through my neighbourhood and notice who I interact with - the Iraqi greengrocer, the Dutch postman, the Belgian deli worker... all people who live and work in my local area who have decided to create a community together, no matter their respective backgrounds. It's then that I realise that 'pulling up the drawbridge' is not the answer. I'm not saying that integration is not a problem in some areas, but is it the primary issue when it comes to terror attacks?

What is terrorism? Bear with me on this. The Oxford English Dictionary defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims". Can we say that the attacks in London and Manchester are acts of terrorism based on that definition when they are carried out in the name of a bastardised view of a particular religion? I don't believe we can. The origins of the term terrorism come from the French 'terrorisme', with the first use believed to be in the late 18th century to describe the rule of the Jacobin faction during the French revolution. So the word is actually referring to political upheaval or the attempt to cause it, and is perhaps more suited to describe the actions of groups like the IRA.

I don't choose to use the words terrorism or terrorist to describe what has happened in the UK recently. As much as it pains me to say it, I prefer to use the words of President Trump - "they're evil losers". And I further agree that labelling them as terrorists is exactly what they want. They want to hurt people, they want to to drive terror into our communities and they want to be responsible for the downfall of society as we know it. Why do we give them the honour of calling them terrorists? I also think that plastering these terrible acts all over the front pages of newspapers just plays into their hands. Put these stories on page 17 and lets see how great they feel about their actions and plans then. Though of course newspapers need to sell newspapers and there is a need to spread the news of the day - I just cannot help but feel that we play into their hands when we do so.

The same can be said for far right groups such as the EDL and nationalist groups such as UKIP and formerly the BNP. Whether you like their messaging or not, it is my belief that these groups help in part to continue the damage caused by attacks by driving division within our communities. This is exactly what these evil losers want to happen. But what are the two leading parties doing to combat the actions that we all watched last night? Jeremy Corbyn believes that talking to them will help, and Theresa May during her time as Home Secretary and latterly Prime Minister has cut the number of police officers on our streets by over 20,000. I've typically been a Conservative voter in local, national and European elections, though I did vote for the Liberal Democrats before the disastrous CON - LIB coalition. Not feeling comfortable with Brexit and the fact that all I've heard from May during this campaign have been soundbites, I'm resigned to voting labour this election.

Why? Mainly because Corbyn comes across as something different. I don't think he ever thought he would become the Labour leader. Yes, he ran in the leadership race, but with big names of the time such as Harman and Burnham in contention for the title I doubt he thought he would get through to the finish line. But here he is, an individual who isn't afraid to lose some friends along the way and who I think looks like a (very slightly) gentrified version of granddad from Steptoe and Son - I imagine he would be more unhappy with being referred to as gentrified than compared to the TV show's patriarch in this instance. If you go into politics to make everyone happy you will never get anything done. May made a massive mistake by bringing the likes of Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom into her cabinet just to keep them on-message and towing the party line as she has surrounded herself with both people who were in the running for her job and who she had been running against in the referendum campaign.

What does unsettle me about Corbyn is his lack of clarity on the nuclear button question. I kept willing him during the last Question Time debate to say that, instead of using a nuke to respond to a nuclear strike against the UK, he would use a targeted strike with non-nuclear weapons to deal with the problem whilst not leaving lasting devastation, but the words didn't come. I have however, perhaps morbidly, come to the conclusion that as I've spent the last 10 years living in large cities in the UK and Belgium that I would likely already be wiped out if we were hit first by a nuke, so I wouldn't be overly concerned by whatever the response happened to be as I wouldn't be around to see it... though I do hope that the response wouldn't be to wipe out another city abroad and its inhabitants just because their crackpot leader has attacked us first. Of course he cannot and should not say publicly that he would never use nuclear weapons as it would remove the point of having them. Who would want to be Prime Minister with decisions to make like that?

We have all seen the reporting where Corbyn is painted as a friend to terrorists. But during the last Question Time debate he had the chance to explain himself - "sometimes to get the job done you have to speak to people that you don't agree with and even detest". Working in sales, I can see the truth in that statement. The role of Prime Minister and salesman are similar in that it's all about people; listening, negotiating and ultimately acting in a way that delivers a positive outcome, whether that be in the short or long term. You cannot deny that Corbyn is happy to get out and listen to the public - the very fact that May has refused to debate the 7 UK party leaders publicly is my greatest concern. How on Earth can you trust her to negotiate issues such as Brexit with the 27 other EU leaders and the 3 EU institutions when she won't even debate with the UK party leaders for us all to see?

Looking back over the above I can see that it has turned into something of a labour recruiting post. That wasn't my intention, however I write as I think and frankly don't have the patience to go back through and edit it to be more balanced. So I will leave you with a quote from Matilda the Musical - "Just because you find that life's not fair, it doesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it. If you always take it on the chin and wear it, nothing will change...".