The astute opinion expressed yesterday by France’s ex-Justice minister Rachida Dati in a UK television interview was that ‘without security you can’t have liberty’, which might strike a chord with many people in France as well as in Britain, and focus the minds of UK MPs who are struggling to realise that very fact.

To achieve the necessary level of security we certainly need competence (which seems to have been lacking in France), commitment, and without doubt a shed load of money (which applies these days just as much as it did in many-many years gone by). The Government has now announced further funding of billions for our Security Services to fight-off the increasing threat of ISIS though computerised cyber attacks – so not actually prompted by the massacre on Friday in France.

The Labour party are going to have to face-up to the stark fact that they are now led by an undeclared pacifist (someone they elected as Leader by a landslide majority vote), a man whose principles won’t allow him to agree to defend even the very inhabitants of great Britain against the evil forces like ISIS determined to destroy both all others who don’t hold their warped extremist religious views, and our indulgent integrated society.

His latest outlandish, if not own personally extreme opinion, is that armed police or security forces should not ‘shoot to kill’ those extremists performing a terror attack and murder on our city streets, whatever – he thinks that it is quite dangerous and can be counterproductive. Does he expect an officer facing such a situation and very possibly their own death, should not use reasonable force to protect themselves and others? All our forces are subject to the law in this Country and they have to fully account for their actions afterwards, don’t they? Oh yes, Corbyn has had to backtrack following mayhem and some aggressive heckling at last night’s parliamentary party MPs meeting, so has said he supports ‘strictly necessary force’ – which could mean anything he wants, couldn’t it? Whatever, nothing can disguise the fact that Corbyn’s appeaser way of thinking is rapidly destroying the credibility of his party, isn’t it? One has to recognise that the older British population haven’t yet forgotten the last appeaser leader, Conservative PM Neville Chamberlain, who was also conflict-adverse (no doubt influenced as others by the horrors of WW1), so allowed this Country to progress into the bloody WW2 totally unprepared, because he mistakenly believed he could get away with appeasement with Hitler.

Corbyn arrived on the national political scene here a couple of months ago, as a seemingly breath of fresh air and a new force in the UK, that those who didn’t know of him hoped for progressive modern policies to revive socialism – only to find out that he is dragging along with him in his baggage, the head-in-the-sand old discredited-platitudes of the 1930s pacifists (many more then than just Chamberlain who gets all the blame of course) designed to avoid conflicts at any price, but instead created a climate where aggressors knew they could get away with it. Perhaps the problem is that Corbyn never study History at Oxbridge, eh?

Will this County’s security really be protected by extending our bombing of ISIS in Iraq to Syria, which the Tories want to do? Well, we have derisory few jet planes available and out there doing that task so it won’t really matter or have impact, apart from politically or showing solidarity with our coalition allies, will it? Surely there is however no logic in undertaking such aircraft strikes operations in Iraq against ISIS and not doing the same across the imaginary border line with Syria, where the same enemy are even more established and powerful (so it is the focus of all their extremist recruitment)?

Despite the example of last January’s Paris murderous attacks by jihadi extremists, and the pre-election commitment of the UK Prime Minister to push through comprehensive legislation to enact new powers for our intelligence guys to be given broader surveillance powers, six months later after the Election, nothing is on the statute book, is it?

Oh yes, a draft bill has just been published, but there has in fact been precious little actual so called ‘heated debate’ so far, so there is no certainty that the Government will get a result this time, is there? As the French found out to their cost last week, time is of the essence when it comes to dealing with security – their abject failure to put in place adequate security protection, when they knew they were vulnerable, has resulted in an even greater ISIS terrorist atrocity and massacre in Paris again on Friday, and at the price of 129 deaths and over 330 injured (many critical). The broken hearts in Paris again, only follow-on from those of January. Meanwhile the killing tentacles of ISIS are spreading around the World and invading other societies with a large Muslim presence that can then be radicalised.

We in Britain cannot continue to refuse to grasp the nettle firmly, can we? No, to improve our own protection, we must give the security organisations the powers they have asked for immediately, and our MPs need to abandon the freedom apologists arguments and accept that security has to be balanced against so called privacy – which is demanded by both the criminal classes and international terrorists.

[The Paris terrorists didn’t do it to kill people but to commit as big an atrocity as possible to get the maximum worldwide publicity for ISIS, didn’t they? So, knowing that, did the media give it to them, then? You bet your life they did – wall to wall 24/7 attention on radio, television, internet, social networks, et al, and at sport venues (including an international football matched cancelled at the last minute tonight) – already now for 4 days and still ongoing. Think they will be satisfied, eh?].