Car crashes in to Pedestrians outside Houses of Parliament

[denphone]

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

A man has been arrested after a car crashed into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament, Scotland Yard has said.

It was unclear if the incident was terror related.

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

Now being treated as a Terrorist incident.

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

[denphone]

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

[Chloé Palmas]

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

Moron.

[richard s]

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.

[denphone]

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

Police have been searching three addresses in Birmingham and Nottingham as part of their investigation.

[Hom3r]

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.

[Chloé Palmas]

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.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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

[Chloé Palmas]

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.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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.

[Chloé Palmas]

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.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.