Re: Major Incident: Finsbury Park, London - Van Ploughs into Pedestrians
 

Man held after car crashes into barriers outside Houses of Parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ment?CMP=fb_gu

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Now being treated as a Terrorist incident.

Two people injured but not seriously as per London Ambulance Services.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Thank god they have those security barriers there as it could have been so much worse.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Seriously, what imbecile of a terrorist crashes a car into parliament when Parliament is on recess? (What did he possible hope to achieve??)

Moron.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

The main news should have been about the bridge in Italy collapsing... not some A-hole trying to make a name for himself... best wishes go to injured people. Terrorist my foot... strike them from history with no name nor a mention.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

The man being held on suspicion of terrorism after the Westminster car crash has been named as Salih Khater by government sources.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45193781

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

They did swap them round later.

This is 100% a terrorist attack.

We need to change our laws so that terrorist get a mandatory whole life tariff.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

So that is what...the 6th terrorist attack on May's watch?

These were credentials she ran on when she was Home Secretary ; ever since leaving she has seen the nation's national security hammered.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

You can't stop some idiot with a car from attempting something.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Yes, you are right. You don't have to be a two bit hypocrite and keep saying that you ran a ship shape home office that kept Britons safe all the time, when as PM that becomes your number 1 job. Which she is not able to do. One guy with one car is just an anomaly / one that got through. How many has she now had on her watch? Not just with cars though btw. (Let's not even get started on acid / knife attacks etc). In principle I am totally with you - I think weapons bans never achieve anything. I am not even talking about banning idiotic PMs. Just wish that being home sec had taught her a single thing in life.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

It's the nature of terrorism that the public might always be subject to an attack. That is the whole point of such acts. If confidence in the protective services can be damaged then the terrorists win.

The options the state has to protect from terror attacks is also limited by the public tolerance for invasion of privacy. Some of these acts can be staved off by weapon bans, scouring of personal information, police inquiry, etc. At some point, however, the attempts to protect the population begin to become cumbersome or intolerably invasive for the public.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Perhaps but then again when May was Home sec she did all the parts that involved limiting the freedom(s) of law abiding citizens. Parts of the UK are a police state (everything from Ripa laws (PA variations) used to look through folks garbage to Prism being even more intrusive than the NSA + doing their bidding / to the unfettered powers that social services have or speed cameras everywhere + CCTV all round the capital) yet at the same time she somehow has done zilch on the security aspect.

David Davis is the one civil libertarian left in the realms of Tory party (mainstream) politics and he resigned over some of this - his more traditional view of civil liberties falls into a BF style of security vs liberty.

May though on the other hand, is the only woman on the planet to take away everybody's civil liberties and offer them zero reciprocal security benefits - she forgot the part about keeping people safe.

Also, a lot of folks had said that the nation was safe when she was HS but that was mainly due to the fact that other wings of the government (and parts above her, like PM / MoD etc) were all run by people who were competent enough to keep the security apparatus in check. (Hammond / Fox etc). When she took over there was no check on her (like a check and balance) because she was the one who was in charge and when the net is loose at the top, it is not like a sieve where everything can get through the bottom, it is like an open invitation for anything to get in, and stay in. (Like terrorists / sleeper cells etc). The woman has no clue what she is doing. Thankfully it is not too bad for us. Because it is so confusing, neither does the enemy.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I am not against a weapon ban. I am glad these nutcases don't have easy access to guns. It's just there is only so many preventative measures you can take. Someone in a car decides to change direction there isn't much you can do.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

The UK, unfortunately, has had too much experience with terror incidents. From 40 years ago until the Good Friday Agreement the incidents were counted by the bushel rather than by the peck. It would be easy to imagine that with all that experience in tracking and stopping incidents someone would have come up with a good solution to the problem. There isn't one.

Security services, as always, need to keep their ears to the walls and their eyes open. That's good advice for the public at large as well. Personally, I have a hard time blaming the state for failure to prevent attacks like what happened Monday. They can protect assets to come extent but it's nearly impossible to protect all people at all times.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Driverless cars should take care of that much at least - then the terrorists will just think of something else to use as a weapon.

Just to be clear, under no circumstances do I favor any kind of weapon ban, of any sort. I am of the opinion that guns would clear out a lot of this mess.

I also agree that loads of preventative measures can be taken - I just don't think that May has taken a single one.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I know it might be because no one died but the way this incident didn't dominate the news for days is a healthy sign. The more we have a proportionate response to these incidents the less dramatic they seem as a propaganda tool for the terrorists and the less effective they are in actually causing terror.

What these people need to know is they're just murders, or attempted murders. Just low-life criminals.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Oh I dunno - a basic "all officers should be armed" policy would do some good ; I dunno say if she was...Home sec?

Instead she focused all her energy on her pet projects, like immigration...forgot that in restricting immigration entry, the ones that were left all had access to attack unarmed civilians etc.

Forgetting that though - just having basic stuff like armed officers protecting parliament and it's surroundings would be something but that woman decides to never advocate for it, even once in 7 years...

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I always approach this sort of suggestion with ‘what difference would it have made in the incident under discussion’? On the video, it was 8 seconds between the car crossing the central reservation until it hit the barrier, and it was only visible to the police at the barrier for 4 seconds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45193781

In this case, I can’t see how armed officers would have made a difference?

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

We really don't want to arm our police. Too many armed police around now anyway.

Very sad :(

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

News today that it might not be terrorism as police can’t find any political or religious motive. Something to do with his ‘personal situation,

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

He should be deported. He received British citizenship, just weeks earlier I believe and he does a crazy nut job attack like this.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Oh Mick, the luvvie left will never allow that to happen!

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

He would have been a lot easier to deport if he did this before becoming a British Citizen.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

It is not difficult to strip someone of another country of citizenship.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Argh, this is the kind of post that sickens me. Mick...just recently I was saying that Brits are the most passive people on the planet...this is an example. I don't think that it is necessarily indicative of what kind of person she is altogether but this kind of view irritates me. This is part of the reason that I can't see an armed insurrection anytime soon - our populace is too cowardly to even arm the police, let alone anything else.

It kind of reminds me of when John Boehner was talking about why Republicans wouldn't get immigration reform through the house anytime soon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSWe81f3yw

He knew that there was a camera and that his comments make get noticed but he didn't care - to that extent I know that mine may offend some but ultimately this is preposterous.

I dunno why but this country has a knack of having very feeble attitudes to things that they think are "scary" or "bad" or "mean"...not people, but objects. (Inanimate or otherwise).

Not just over objects though or items, like guns. Everything from privatized healthcare to certain types of food (containing certain ingredients) to certain ownership of animals to everything.

Every nation on the planet has it to some extent but nothing that I have ever seen like this - it is just part of the household furniture in the UK. (Though honestly, they're probably worried about that, too). We are pretty much, a nation of hypochondriacs / unnecessarily passively paranoid people.

The logic behind it all is preposterous, too.

"we really don't want to arm our police"?? No kidding, the things most Brits are most vocal about is banning shit. (For no good reason).

Of course you don't. I do...you don't speak for me. I am not afraid of a gun, nor the idea of a police officer who is otherwise trusted in every other way (cleared / vetted etc), to use a weapon.

It is not too hard, not too difficult - it is a very simple application of weapon that will serve as a huge deterrent.

If you don't think that Parliament houses themselves should be protected with armed officers I don't really think that there is much point in continuing this conversation.


That is not even remotely accurate! As a percentage, the number of British officers armed (as a proportionate amount of all police officers) is very minute. I think that it is just counter terrorism / flying and burglary squad plus special forces and ops that use guns routinely in the UK police services. It could be slightly different but just about every other country in the world arms it's officers...the UK is apparently different for some reason. (Along with like New Zealand / Iceland and a couple others). It is absurd.

The philosophy is just skewed, something that I would pillory all day. The facts are just outright wrong.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Not a member of the NRA are you Chloe?

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I'm not so sure that armed police are a significant deterrent to crime or, at least not much more of a deterrent than unarmed police are. The only thing arming police accomplishes is that it gives them the capability of responding to an armed engagement on like terms with the armed assailant. In that regard it's no different than any other armed individual in nations where guns are prevalent in the civilian population.

The idea that government can, without becoming an overbearing force, prevent violent crime (including terrorism) is unrealistic. Government can generally promote good behavior and standards for education (thus improving concepts such as inclusiveness and empathy) which should serve to develop a cultural preference against violent crime but that's about as far as government can go without taking undue control.

The problem with bans on guns is that it soothes some of the populous into an unrealistic sense of security. Much of the population begins to think that they really have little need to be as vigilant in public and little need to consider how they would defend themselves (or escape) if they encountered a violent situation. Essentially, it makes them easier targets for those with violent intentions.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

No but I am not sure why that would be pertinent.

Given that umm the NRA is America's longest-standing civil rights organization, defending one of the Bill of rights, the second amendment.

I was advocating for police officers to be armed - not for the civil liberties of civilians to be protected...you seem to be ever so slightly confused here.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Just because they say so, doesn't mean it's true... ;)

The NRA was founded in 1871 to “‘promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.’”

It did not begin lobbying for gun rights until 1934, when its Legislative Affairs Division was formed - the NAACP was founded in 1909, which makes it older.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Well, 1934 was a significant year when it came to 2nd Amendment issues. That was the year the National Firearms Act went into effect. The prospect of serious infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms had become a reality and opposition to that intrusion on a key fundamental right became an imperative.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Sorry for the late reply, the double post feature means that I always wait between replies ; never like doubling up as my posts may not render well, when it comes to formatting purposes.

In this instance I truly think that the possibility of armed officers would have been enough of a deterrent ; not sure that the guy would have necessarily been hit by an officer's bullet when in a car but I think the likely tendency that he wouldn't have gone ahead and driven a car into pedestrians in the area (given that he clearly didn't want to die) would have been far higher.

So, for example (as Luther says) you can't protect everyone all the time, so the likely chance of pushing him elsewhere would have been higher but in a high target area (like the HoP for example) surely that security is warranted even if it does just squeeze terror / whatever this was into more civilian areas...no?

Unless we put armed guards everywhere but that won't work so driverless cars may indeed fix some of this. (At least for vehicular based crimes).

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

On the contrary hacked driverless cars may be an even more sinister menace as the malefactors don't even have to commit suicide to perpetrate their atrocities.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

See, this is why I need you here, to make these kinds of points!!! I can argue from heart / ideologically as to why we need guns etc but I don't have the history of armed insurrections / the founding of the NRA etc - you do that part.

I am the gun nut who is crazy, you are the balanced one who doesn't opine on the prevalence of the issue. ;)

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

You are going way over the top here: "Sickens", "Irritates", "Cowardly"? There is a compromise and that is where we are now. This can and will be adjusted in light of the moving threat: one such accomodation is the rolling out of Tasers as a option. More armed police may follow if appropriate but it would be a measured response and not a knee jerk one.

I think, ironically, the main reason the UK does not want armed police everywhere is the US. They see what happens there and politely decline.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I thought that I was going easy / kind. The comments do anger me some, but I try keep it civil. I thought that I was being polite to her!!

I totally agree on that last line, I would have wanted this years ago. Long before the attacks of the last year or two....before 7/7. Before 9/11, too. I always thought that it was absurd that growing up in a household with guns (pre ban), that we were more armed than the average police officer on the street.

Kind if messed up, no?

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

That may be so, but the original premise was that the NRA was the oldest "civil rights" organisation in the USA, which was not the case.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

It is. It is the same organization is it not?

Founded before the NAACP and didn't go through an Acorn style "rebranding" so it is still the same organization, IMO.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

But until 1934, it wasn’t in the "civil rights" arena - it’s like me saying I have been in the RAF all my life, even though I didn’t join until I was 17 and a half - one can’t pre-date activities from when before one started them..

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45236971

Charged with attempted murder and it is being treated as terrorism

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Sorry, that was on me.

Hugh I see what you mean and yes you are correct, it is an issue that probably doesn't fit into the category that I was trying to mold it into. (Round hole / square peg etc).

My larger point that this event could have been stopped if there were armed policemen / women present and that seems to be of some dispute. (As most things should be if just an opinion, not a fact).

I will leave it be, though.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

From the original link in the original post.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/45180945

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-451...ter-crash-site

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

After...

There were no armed guards protecting the building in front or behind the gates at the time of the incident...

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:56 ----------

So much for this by the way:

http://observer.com/2017/04/armed-gu...rorist-attack/

(Though as I understand it they are not there when parliament is not in session).

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I'll take a wild guess that your white and middle class.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/18/u...ses/index.html

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

. Forget about this guy as he isn't even a terrorist. But if you think armed police will deter fanatics you're an idiot.

How many armed police would have stopped the Manchester bomber?...........Zero that's how many.

Stop snorting Harpic.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

You make a good point.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

*Sigh*

https://news.sky.com/story/transport...ttack-11473182

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

I think it should be pedestrianised. It was a bad decision of BoJo's to cancel the scheme.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

How about employing MORE police as well.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

A lot more of central London should be pedestrianised anyway. It would help with the absurd levels of pollution the city gets as well. The streets weren't designed for that level of traffic. You could just put up bollards which can be put down for deliveries, official vehicles and the emergency services.

Oxford Street is the first that needs to be pedestrianised.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Sadly those plans were ditched for good.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

It's mad IMO. Traffic moves at a snails pace and this iconic London street has it's pavements packed with people having to share it with cars. It would be so much nicer if it were more like European cities with this large pedistrained street which lots of room for people to walk around, sit, watch the buskers and maybe have some more plants e.t.c.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

As many of us know the iconic streets of London were built when cars were not around and to me that is the clear hub of the chronic problems we have now in parts of London as the great thing in our city centre down here is the vast majority of it is Pedestrianised as the only vehicles that can come in certain parts of it are the delivery lorries and vans and that makes it so much better then it was compared to 30 years ago down here.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

See, I agree on all those points.

Totally - 100%.

You know why? Because they are totally valid and good reasons to avoid certain parts of the town having commercial vehicles used in them. (I can't attest to your final point Den as I was only just born 30 years ago but I will take your word as accurate on it. :))

Notice in how all of those posts above not one of you mentioned what a great idea it was to ban cars, for security reasons?

That's because it is not. It is rather "British" in its ways (ban the instrument / weapon / object etc), but with all things British, somewhat quaintly idiotic in principle, fostered on with a whole load of passive cringe and vomit for merit.

I mean seriously...who here thinks that pedestrianizing the area for the purpose of security is a good idea? After 9/11 every civil liberty lost was like "letting the terrorists win" in the mind of opponents to things like the patriot act etc. This time what will people say - this is like letting bad drivers win? I mean seriously.

You know who else would be offended by this? All the environmentalists / friends of the earth crowd etc who genuinely do care for the planet and want to do all the things that reduce pollution / congestion etc? Why? Because instead of considering their proposals on the merits, you are using their cause (and them) to justify an idiotic police chief's plans, for yet another pointless ban.

US conservatives usually say stuff like "better ban all those knives" every time that there is a mass knife attack in London or Paris. "Better ban those cars" came up after Nice (and the lorry attack) yet this really is a serious proposal by the met in how to combat behavior that masquerades as terrorism.

Heero_yuy's point about hacking is a serious concern but at least there is an element of seriousness to his point ; the commissioner has just gone off the deep end with her level of crazy though.

If I was interested in just playing politics with this I would have just said "better ban all cars" at the start of the thread...little did I know my flippant / sarcastic jibe would end up being the policy consideration of the met. Dear oh dear.

The idea of less congestion and bringing down pollution rates is admirable. The idea of the population being less densely centered around big towns can also be great (so long as you don't have the philosophy of the Sierra club) but for the appropriate geological and environmental reasons. Not for the purpose of national security.


Oh and one addition: If some of you really do think that banning cars is the way to go (for security purposes), then please say so. I think that it is a ridiculous idea but if you support it please don't hide behind the skirt or dress hems of "environmentalism" or "better mobility access etc". I have already been told by a moderator to keep this on topic so assuming that we're not going to turn this thread into a thread on "green peace utopias VS the daggers of urbanization / gentrification" then perhaps a little clarity on how the comments from the met have some (even minuscule) pertinence in preventing terror attacks would be nice to hear. (Assuming that there are any?)

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Would still be helpful if we had MORE police however.

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Indeed it would but cutting the Police numbers rather then adding to the numbers seems to be the fashion currently..

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Pedestrianising an area very rarely means it is not possible to drive vehicle down it and I doubt there are many, if any, such schemes been done in the UK for security reasons.

You can get automatic bollards and other devices but these are not the norm, and in many cases where these are employed a vehicle can round by driving on the pavement, again highlighting that they are not there for “security”

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Oh I agree on this point but again that comes back to May's tenure as Home Sec and I criticize her way too much ; it would just com off as me taking another swipe at her so it is much easier with you making some of these points - at least people see that everyone criticizes her, not just me. :)

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Nope, it is just you. We all like her :)

Re: Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament
 

Ha, that was hilarious. :D

Okay, to try be more objective it was also Cameron and Osbourne's austerity measures that led to the forced cuts.

Of course if May wasn't such a weak leader of her own department then she could have put a stop to it.

Shit, I went back to bashing her.

Well at least it shows that a PM and CotE get the final say, like now when she says so, other colleagues in cabinet liste...shit, wrong again!

Well at least she gets to determine who serves where in what office etc and...oh, no that's crap, too.

Well, I tried.