When interviewed by SKY News on whether the issue of Saudi funding was going to be addressed, May gave the usual bland and evasive non-answer.
Tough conversations are required over this whole issue of financing of the terrorists and the financing of extremism ... We need to have tough conversations with whoever we need to have those conversations with.May could start by mentioning Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as it's a fact they backed Al Qaeda affiliated militias in Syria. Then she can publish the report, one specifically on Saudi funding for jihadi Islamist terrorist abroad and the ideology within Britain. To have 'tough conversations with Saudi Arabia, it's necessary to name Saudi Arabia.
For example, having tough conversations with 'whoever we need to have conversations with' could mean any Great Power other than the one that is specifically mentioned in the report May is said to be refusing to publish. It could mean having tough conversations with God alone or with one's conscience in private-then doing nothing.
The pliant British media simply has not focused on the Saudi connection with supporting global Salafi Islamic jihad enough. The government would appear to be covering up what they know about the scale of Saudi financing of terrorism because of a supposed 'national security' pretext being invoked to justify censorship.
This cover up is far more important than the one of police cuts. Both the Manchester and London Bridge were more to do with security state failures. Corbyn should have switched to pressing the government on this and the cover up on Saudi funding as it signals commercial interests are trumping domestic security.
SKY News is a pliant propaganda organ amplifying the government's side with only the pretence of impartiality. It asked the question as part of a choreographed set that allowed May not to be held to account on specific facts. If it had, it's likely May would not have appeared. Even so, there is no excuse for the rest of the media.
The issue of police cuts is secondary. No amount of police numbers could prevent a suicide bombing once he's on the way. The failure is one of the national security state and in non jihadists and known Islamists being sent to Libya in order to fight Gaddafi in 2011 and it having free passage between there and Manchester.
Enemies of the State and 'The People'.
Later Boris Johnson accused Corbyn of 'siding with Britain's enemies' as a distraction card from having to deal with the central and most disturbing fact that has come out of the campaign-that Theresa May is trying to suppress a report into Saudi funding of intolerant Wahhabi and Salafi Islamism in Britain's mosques.
Rudd is lying when she claims it is an internal report. It was one agreed to as a concession from Cameron for the Liberal Democrats agreeing to voting for the use of air power against ISIS. Rudd is a repellent functionary who is ruthless in trying to conceal the scale of Saudi backing for jihadi terrorist groups and ideology.
Corbyn was right to raise the report on the Saudi and to demand it is published. If the supposed all of Britain is complicit in funding the very threat Britain claims it is fighting at home and abroad, this would call into question the validity of May's claim before Easter in Riyadh that the alliance helps 'keep us safe'.
It's known that Saudi Arabia supported Sunni militias and jihadist organisations in Syria, including Al Qaeda affiliated ones. Many of these which were armed and trained to fight Assad then broke off to go and form IS which carved out the Caliphate and spread later into Libya after Gaddafi's state was destroyed.
Qatar was also instrumental in bankrolling jihadists in Syria but also in Libya, including the rebel militias that the Manchester suicide bomber's father belonged to. So not only is there a need to publish the Saudi funding report. There is also the need to have, as Patrick Cockburn has well argued, a public enquiry into the Libya War.
Whatever faults Corbyn has demonstrated in the past are more than offset by the Conservative Party's appeasement of violent radical Islamism. It's a pity Corbyn repeats the mealy mouthed word 'extremism' in line with the Tories instead of calling it Wahhabism or jihadi Salafism as this is the proper term for it.
The national security state and its cynical and lethal power games needs to be held to account. It would appear political agendas and risky geopolitical strategies, supported by Britain on behalf of the Gulf States, have taken priority over the domestic security of the British public. Oil wealth has bought Tory complicity.
As sinister is the way Corbyn, for raising the Saudi report, has been demonised all the more by a doublethink strategy of shifting the national security threat on to him and away from the Saudis. Corbyn may well have been against all of Britain's wars since the 1980s on 'pacifist' grounds but that hardly means he is an 'enemy within'.
While Corbyn may well have been on the 'hard left' once, it is against the stated principles of Britain's liberal democracy to regard political opponents as enemies of state. If this charge could be levelled at an opposition leader, it could be used to smear those pointing to Saudi terror financing and shift Britain towards authoritarianism.
Sir Richard Dearlove, ex-MI6 head, has openly called Corbyn a national security threat. True, certain statements from Corbyn on terrorism in the past were of questionable wisdom but if this is any indication of the attitude of the security services, it's possible that if Corbyn won, they would connive to undermine his government.
Dearlove wrote in The Telegraph 'the leader of the Labour Party is an old-fashioned international socialist who has forged links with those quite ready to use terror when they haven’t got their way: the IRA, Hizbollah, Hamas. As a result he is completely unfit to govern and Britain would be less safe with him in No 10.'
One military figure in 2015 even admitted Corbyn's position on foreign policy would make him a threat that would require him to be possibly removed in a coup d'etat. While he was slapped down and Labour, if not Corbyn, remains for NATO and renewing Trident, these disturbing announcements don't portend well for Britain's democracy.