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.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Lutherf

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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...

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?

[tweetiepooh]

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

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Mick

Now being treated as a Terrorist incident.

Very sad

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,

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

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mick

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

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

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

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

We really don't want to arm our police.

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.

Too many armed police around now anyway.

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.

[pip08456]

Not a member of the NRA are you Chloe?

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Not a member of the NRA are you Chloe?

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.

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

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.

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.