Incident at London Bridge

cambsno said:
We could have double the police out there e and I doubt things like this would be prevented.

Was the Manchester guy not "known to police"? So maybe we should just lock up anyone we suspect may be dodgy with no proof, but I don't think anyone would want that.
Click to expand...
Odd that all the experts disagree with you.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion :p
 
cambsno said:
So it's Mays fault? Tell me what we can do to prevent this? Aside from locking up everyone who is non white (tongue in cheek comment and not a suggestion before anyone thinks it is) there is no way these sort of attacks could be prevented. Any one of us could do similar tonight.
Click to expand...
That's a bit extreme. Although that didn't stop either Hopkins or Nuttall suggesting it.

But how about starting by investigating/watching the ones the FBI give you advance warning about? - in case you missed it, the US leaked that the FBI had given warning to the UK security services in January of a specific threat involving Salman Abedi and that he was planning an attack in the UK. That would be the same Salman Abedi that after the Manchester bomb last week "was known" to UK police and security services but wasn't the subject of an active investigation or a subject of surveillance. All the furore over leaking names and scene photos was a neat distraction from letting slip that the UK authorities knew he was a specific and credible risk.

It's May's fault that there are fewer police resources available to prevent, respond to, and investigate crime.
 
cambsno said:
We could have double the police out there e and I doubt things like this would be prevented.
Click to expand...
Prevented maybe not. But the first police to try and tackle these criminals was British Transport Officer who only had a button and got stabbed for their trouble. More police on the street perhaps with tazer hypothetically could have reduced the casualties.

Don't get me wrong 8 minutes from the 999 calls to 3 dead criminals is nothing short of brilliant but police numbers in this country are a complete joke.
 
With friends like these, who needs enemies?

"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade​

Dates back to 2008 and the Blair era, but May was pressing the flesh and accepting medals from the Kingdom of Saud only last month..
 
Alastair said:
That's a bit extreme. Although that didn't stop either Hopkins or Nuttall suggesting it.

But how about starting by investigating/watching the ones the FBI give you advance warning about? - in case you missed it, the US leaked that the FBI had given warning to the UK security services in January of a specific threat involving Salman Abedi and that he was planning an attack in the UK. That would be the same Salman Abedi that after the Manchester bomb last week "was known" to UK police and security services but wasn't the subject of an active investigation or a subject of surveillance. All the furore over leaking names and scene photos was a neat distraction from letting slip that the UK authorities knew he was a specific and credible risk.

It's May's fault that there are fewer police resources available to prevent, respond to, and investigate crime.
Click to expand...

In that case the people who were responsible for not acting should be looked at - conversely I guess how many people have been leaked to us who have not actually done anything, easy to be wise after the event. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess.

Off course the more police we have the better but that alone does not prevent all crime and in acts like London, very hard to stop.
 
neil_g said:
Prevented maybe not. But the first police to try and tackle these criminals was British Transport Officer who only had a button and got stabbed for their trouble. More police on the street perhaps with tazer hypothetically could have reduced the casualties.

Don't get me wrong 8 minutes from the 999 calls to 3 dead criminals is nothing short of brilliant but police numbers in this country are a complete joke.
Click to expand...

I don't know if his stance has changed, but didnt Corbyn recently say that he did not support a shoot to kill policy? So we would have more police under his watch but not taking decisive action?
 
cambsno said:
I don't know if his stance has changed, but didnt Corbyn recently say that he did not support a shoot to kill policy? So we would have more police under his watch but not taking decisive action?
Click to expand...
No he was missrepusented which the BBC later admitted. Like always with these things it's out there now and people still think it.
 
cambsno said:
I don't know if his stance has changed, but didnt Corbyn recently say that he did not support a shoot to kill policy? So we would have more police under his watch but not taking decisive action?
Click to expand...

He originally said he was not happy with a shoot to kill policy, then subsequently changed his comments on the subject to supporting the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life. That's not necessarily lethal force.
 
I wonder if it's anyway back once you've started down that road to radicalism? If looking at such material online was criminalised then at least we could catch them early and have them on some sort of de-radicalise community service. Such law would be open to interpretation on what's considered radical though which comes down to civil liberty issue again.
 
Phil V said:
Odd that all the experts disagree with you.

Still, you're entitled to your opinion :p
Click to expand...
Current police force numbers are very similar to the number we had in 2000. That's still over 20,000 more than we had during the IRA terrorist attacks, plus we have PCSO's to take up some of the slack of being just a "presence" on the street when a Police Officer "isn't actually doing anything".
 
nilagin said:
Current police force numbers are very similar to the number we had in 2000. That's still over 20,000 more than we had during the IRA terrorist attacks, plus we have PCSO's to take up some of the slack of being just a "presence" on the street when a Police Officer "isn't actually doing anything".
Click to expand...
And the population has risen by?
 
nilagin said:
Which should still take less people than physically doing it manually in the first place.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think so.

But I'm not an expert, and as I've done on other occasions, I'll go with the opinions of those who are. ;)

(Again I'll remind you that's included your expert opinion - on something you genuinely know about).
 
Phil V said:
I wouldn't think so.

But I'm not an expert, and as I've done on other occasions, I'll go with the opinions of those who are. ;)

(Again I'll remind you that's included your expert opinion - on something you genuinely know about).
Click to expand...
No idea of how the figures were derived, but although there was a reduction in police numbers and budget from 2015 to 2016, there was also a 6% fall in crime figures over the same period. I wonder how they managed that?

You just can't help yourself can you?
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
I don't know if his stance has changed, but didnt Corbyn recently say that he did not support a shoot to kill policy? So we would have more police under his watch but not taking decisive action?
Click to expand...
That was taken from an interview in the days after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, an incident that lead to a complete review of Operation Kratos. The summary of the interview is misleading in many way, not least of which because the call to take a Critical Shot is not one for the Prime Minister to make.

nilagin said:
And the level of technology making surveillance etc. easier has increased by?
Click to expand...
Surveillance technology requires monitoring. The proliferation of city centre CCTV requires 24/7 manned centres and generates more incidents to be investigated. And technology has benefited both sides of crime - mobile phones, secure encrypted messenger apps, faster/bigger internet, anonymous currencies. The role of policing is more complex in a more complex world.


See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/586508/police-workforce-sep16-hosb0217.pdf and https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RP01-28.pdf#page=10

Numbers relate to England and Wales only
2016 - 122,859 police officers
1979 - 110,000 police officers

(what I also find as worrying is that the average age of police officers is increasing - this is a problem for any sufficiently large workforce)

We're not just heading back towards pre-9/11 policing levels, the next round of cuts is taking us back to the days of John Thaw in The Sweeney. And since the '70s the population has grown, the road network has grown, and the threat level from terrorism is dramatically different.

You compare the IRA threat to the Wahhabist terrorist threat, but when the PIRA bombed Manchester in 1996 they gave a 90 minute phone warning and there were no fatalities.
 
Alastair said:
That was taken from an interview in the days after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting, an incident that lead to a complete review of Operation Kratos. The summary of the interview is misleading in many way, not least of which because the call to take a Critical Shot is not one for the Prime Minister to make.


Surveillance technology requires monitoring. The proliferation of city centre CCTV requires 24/7 manned centres and generates more incidents to be investigated. And technology has benefited both sides of crime - mobile phones, secure encrypted messenger apps, faster/bigger internet, anonymous currencies. The role of policing is more complex in a more complex world.


See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/586508/police-workforce-sep16-hosb0217.pdf and https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RP01-28.pdf#page=10

Numbers relate to England and Wales only
2016 - 122,859 police officers
1979 - 110,000 police officers

(what I also find as worrying is that the average age of police officers is increasing - this is a problem for any sufficiently large workforce)

We're not just heading back towards pre-9/11 policing levels, the next round of cuts is taking us back to the days of John Thaw in The Sweeney. And since the '70s the population has grown, the road network has grown, and the threat level from terrorism is dramatically different.

You compare the IRA threat to the Wahhabist terrorist threat, but when the PIRA bombed Manchester in 1996 they gave a 90 minute phone warning and there were no fatalities.
Click to expand...


And yet crime figures still fell by 6% over the 2015/6 period.
 
rjbell said:
I wonder if it's anyway back once you've started down that road to radicalism? If looking at such material online was criminalised then at least we could catch them early and have them on some sort of de-radicalise community service. Such law would be open to interpretation on what's considered radical though which comes down to civil liberty issue again.
Click to expand...

It being criminal to look at it, and catching someone looking at it, are two very different things.
 
nilagin said:
And yet crime figures still fell by 6% over the 2015/6 period.
Click to expand...
But as you think a 1% real terms wage decrease is an increase, you probably also think that crime prevention is free.

I'm trying to give up playing pigeon chess.
 
i wodered when this thread would derail.
i am not sure about more police and for that matter more cctv and surveilance.
i imagine most of what goes on it talked about face to face or over systems and tech that is very difficult to monitor.
i remember years ago police and security services saying people like these were using in game chat systems and chat rooms with private messaging.
but the bottome line is while all the awful stuff is going on in places like the middle east we in the western world will get some of the fallout.
 
cambsno said:
I don't know if his stance has changed, but didnt Corbyn recently say that he did not support a shoot to kill policy? So we would have more police under his watch but not taking decisive action?
Click to expand...

Basically, he was asked two questions. One about there being a shoot to kill policy in general, on the streets of London.

And another about what he thought about a shoot to kill policy in response to a specific incident.

The report made out that his answer to the first question was the answer to the second. What he actually said was that, in general, he was against a shoot to kill policy because it can put more people in danger (which it obviously can, a civilian got shot by the police in London on this occasion didn't they?) and that we should focus on measures that prevent getting to the point of a shoot out.

And his answer to another question, was that in response to a specific, on-going incident, obviously whatever is necessary to save lives is acceptable. The report was back in 2015 and it's being dragged up now to make it look like he's against the police using lethal force in these situations.
 
KitsuneAndy said:
The report was back in 2015 and it's being dragged up now to make it look like he's against the police using lethal force in these situations.
Click to expand...
It's part of a deliberate political tactic, there's very little positive to say coming from Tory campaign headquarters which is starving the right-wing media of nice things to say about their own side so their having to fill the vacuum with nasty things about the other side. There's an analysis of Daily Mail headlines and front page stories that concludes that Corbyn gets more mentions by an order of magnitude than May does. The right-wing Tory broadsheets have started to put some of their frustrations with the party into print, and May's refusal to engage with the media and the debate could cause her problems even if she obtained a landslide victory. It's unclear whether May is more scared of the public, of the media, or of Corbyn. When even Laura Kuenssberg is starting to get visibly irritated with May you know the Tory media strategy isn't going well.
 
These attacks will keep happening as long as the government pussyfoots around the issues the people on the watch list, hate preachers, Saudi funding and accepting the most extreme cultural practices as the norm like the burka. The usual response of lighting up a monument, a candlelight vigil, a facebook profile picture and singing a song isn't going to do anything.
 
nilagin said:
You just can't help yourself can you?
Click to expand...
What?
Bowing to the opinion of 'experts', I'm old fashioned, I genuinely believe that people who don't appreciate the value of study and knowledge are idiots.

The fact that politicians have managed to convince some people of the opposite is deeply troubling IMHO.
 
Alastair said:
But as you think a 1% real terms wage decrease is an increase, you probably also think that crime prevention is free.

I'm trying to give up playing pigeon chess.
Click to expand...
A 1% wage increase is a 1% increase. You just readjust your spending if necessary if the cost of living has gone up 2% and you don't have enough spare cash to swallow it up.
Crime figures fell by 6% whilst police numbers and budgets have been cut.
Let's assume you have 10 people per shift in a control room each monitoring multiple cctvs. That erradicates the need for two police officers for an area covered by several screens. That's less police needed on the ground with response police able to go to a scene when required. With the 6% reduction in crime it obviously works.
 
Phil V said:
What?
Bowing to the opinion of 'experts', I'm old fashioned, I genuinely believe that people who don't appreciate the value of study and knowledge are idiots.

The fact that politicians have managed to convince some people of the opposite is deeply troubling IMHO.
Click to expand...
Some of us are obviously intelligent enough to work stuff out for ourselves without the need for experts. Completely off topic to the terrorists attacks, go back to the recent furore over diesel emissions. An "expert" from some university conducted a study into car emissions and compared it to the results from the government enforced emissions tests that manufacturers have to perform. The circumstances and conditions under which he performed the tests were so wildly different they weren't even worth considering. So forgive me if I am not foolhardy enough to consider too much of what "experts" reckon when there is evidence that proves otherwise.
 
nilagin said:
A 1% wage increase is a 1% increase. You just readjust your spending if necessary if the cost of living has gone up 2% and you don't have enough spare cash to swallow it up.
Click to expand...

S that would be what they call cuts then.
 
wibbly said:
He originally said he was not happy with a shoot to kill policy, then subsequently changed his comments on the subject to supporting the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life. That's not necessarily lethal force.
Click to expand...

And that is the official policy of the Metropolitan Police, and indeed it is the law.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/17/shoot-to-kill-what-is-the-uks-policy

Guardian said:
Is there a shoot-to-kill policy for terrorists?

The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, insisted on Tuesday that there was no shoot-to-kill policy.

He told LBC radio: “I can make it clear that we do not have a shoot-to-kill policy. The law says that the police can use reasonable force, firstly to stop a crime, and secondly, to arrest someone who is putting someone else in danger. If someone’s life is at risk, a police officer can intervene. If they are armed or otherwise so dangerous, we can stop them.” He added that officers “work within the law”.

An armed police officer faced with a terrorist on a shooting spree has no special legal status. They are subject to the criminal law and the law of self defence.

The decision to shoot is the officer’s alone. They are legally responsible for each and every shot they decide to fire. For the shots to be legal, they must show they were acting in the defence of themselves or others and that their actions were proportionate. Section three of the 1967 Criminal Law Act reads: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime.”

If an officer honestly believes someone poses a threat to their life, or to the life of others, reasonable force may be used.
Click to expand...

The term 'shoot-to-kill' has an particular meaning rooted in the Northern Ireland Troubles, meaning summary execution of suspects by the Army and RUC, which is why politicians (of any colour) and police are keen to avoid using it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland
 
fabs said:
S that would be what they call cuts then.
Click to expand...
Not really. You're talking about two different figures. A 1% increase in a wage can still be greater than a 2% increase in the cost of living.
 
nilagin said:
Some of us are obviously intelligent enough to work stuff out for ourselves without the need for experts. Completely off topic to the terrorists attacks, go back to the recent furore over diesel emissions. An "expert" from some university conducted a study into car emissions and compared it to the results from the government enforced emissions tests that manufacturers have to perform. The circumstances and conditions under which he performed the tests were so wildly different they weren't even worth considering. So forgive me if I am not foolhardy enough to consider too much of what "experts" reckon when there is evidence that proves otherwise.
Click to expand...
Re emissions, were they measuring the same thing?
 
Phil V said:
Re emissions, were they measuring the same thing?
Click to expand...

If it's the one I'm thinking of, they were measuring the same thing, but he modelled the acceleration patterns based on real world driving in London.
 
All your condolences and all the sound bite from politicians won't change a thing!

Benefit concerts, won't bring back the innocent victims!

It is time to change! not us! The Muslim world needs to change.
Every Muslim country now needs to make a forceful stand against these warmongers. If they don't make a stand then they should be prepared for political action against their states!
No Muslim I know condones these acts so why do the Muslim counties seem so useless at rounding these people up and dealing with them.
 
nilagin said:
Not really. You're talking about two different figures. A 1% increase in a wage can still be greater than a 2% increase in the cost of living.
Click to expand...

But you said

nilagin said:
You just readjust your spending if necessary if the cost of living has gone up 2% and you don't have enough spare cash to swallow it up.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have to readjust your spending if the 1% increase in wage was greater than the 2% increase in the cost of living therefore what you describe above are cuts.
 
Laudrup said:
These attacks will keep happening as long as the government pussyfoots around the issues the people on the watch list, hate preachers, Saudi funding and accepting the most extreme cultural practices as the norm like the burka. The usual response of lighting up a monument, a candlelight vigil, a facebook profile picture and singing a song isn't going to do anything.
Click to expand...
But all your political heroes love sucking up to the regimes supporting these terrorists.
Is this a change of heart?
 
J40ADF said:
Every Muslim country now needs to make a forceful stand against these warmongers. If they don't make a stand then they should be prepared for political action against their states!
No Muslim I know condones these acts so why do the Muslim counties seem so useless at rounding these people up and dealing with them.
Click to expand...
At the moment our "friends" in Saudi are pointing the finger at Qatar and hoping they can slide responsibility for terrorist support off their own shoulders, then we can all carry on buying their oil and selling them billions in arms as if nothing had happened..

.. then we can ignore this type of thing..

"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade​


(I would try and quote more sources than the Guardian from time to time, but the Times, etc. are behind paywalls and the Guardian website is easier to navigate than some others)
 
Phil V said:
But all your political heroes love sucking up to the regimes supporting these terrorists.
Is this a change of heart?
Click to expand...

States funding terrorist groups that want their own destruction? You might want to look into ISIS attacks in Saudi Arabia a bit more. As for sucking up, will we only do business with nice countries? Do you not like using oil, or have you your own personal supply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top