[Closed] Shots fired outside Westminster

It wasn't meant in an offensive way, so sorry - nor did I refer to him in particular. He clearly wasn't as he stood his ground.

I'm just genuinely ****ed off that he died on the job protecting politicians.

Especially considering the sky high costs of renovating Westminster so it can carry on its function.

Yeah perhaps you could if it weren't for that ****ing great elephant in the room.

I suppose by that you are referring to Islam.

Nonono, Brummies. Hyundai driving Brummies.

To pretend this isn't anything to do with Islam is not going to help solve the problem

Not sure what is going to solve it but this won't stop that. Also not sure what 'branch' of Islam the man was in, can you tell us?

"It seems pretty clear to me that the security arrangements on that gate were not as good as they could have been"

Not really, if he hadn't been shot he'd have found himself at a locked door.

He got himself into a low security car park, not the HoC.

I divven't knaa aboot the religion of the attaka, but ahm pritty shore like, it wasn't the Perp

I don't think i've read as much shite as i've read in this thread. PC Palmer was a highly experienced Police officer of 15 years service and prior to that he served with Royal Artillery (as an ex-artilleryman myself - 7 Para RHA), he wasn't some young lad who didn't know what he was doing, the guys working for Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection are experienced officers, you only have to look at how quickly the situation was quelled, despite the huge number of innocent bystanders they were surrounded by.

+1.
PC Palmer's tragic demise was as a result of a highly trained but lightly armed/unarmed man vs a big/deranged lunatic armed with a big knife.

A stab vest won't do you much good if the assailant is aiming for your head/neck/etc.
It looks to me like the security forces did a pretty good job of shutting the whole thing down pretty quickly.
If there are any 'lessons learned' to come out of this - I think it would probably recommend that the 'front line' guys protecting high-risk targets now need to be armed.

I thought the response of the emergency services was amazing yesterday - paramedics/police literally running into an area which could have still been a live threat takes a lot of bravery.

Gobuchul, you are overstating the case. 2500 is 0.1% of 2,500,000.
0.001 % is 25

When you look at the Tunisian beach terrorist, the police there were more or less hiding and didn't come to the site for ages.
Our force were fantastic yesterday. With limited funds and fewer officers they did a sterling job.

I thought the response of the emergency services was amazing yesterday - paramedics/police literally running into an area which could have still been a live threat takes a lot of bravery.

This.

Also, the MP who gave CPR to the officer.

Not all Muslims believe that this is the correct understanding of the Quran but a very small minority do.

Oddly, when talking about religious fundamentalism, people rarely mention Anders Breivik...

However, to pretend that there no issues with areas of Fundamentalist Islam is completely insane as well.

Careful, you're muddying things up a bit.

Are there problems with *areas* of Islam? Perhaps. But no more so than other religions.

Are there problems with some* people from the Muslim community? It seems that way.

There's a difference between these two questions. If you BLAME Islam itself for these things, then you are implicating (and insulting) all Muslims. And this is a bad thing.

* EDIT forgot the most important word!

"If you BLAME Islam itself for these things, then you are implicating (and insulting) all Muslims. And this is a bad thing."

Unless you're a terrorist trying to start a holy war, in which case it's a good thing.

Which is why we 100pc shouldn't do it.

Indeed, except it's not the only reason not to do it. Humanity being another.

There's a difference between these two questions. If you BLAME Islam itself for these things, then you are implicating (and insulting) all Muslims. And this is a bad thing.

Where did I blame Islam?

The problem is manipulative people targeting vulnerable people to use an evil and twisted version of a religion to satisfy their own insane egos.

"It seems pretty clear to me that the security arrangements on that gate were not as good as they could have been"

Not really, if he hadn't been shot he'd have found himself at a locked door.

He got himself into a low security car park, not the HoC.

This - the pedestrian entrance gate is a lot harder to get into, and IIRC has at least a couple of armed uniforms.

Where did I blame Islam?

That was not aimed at anyone in particular. Generic 'you'.

Indeed, except it's not the only reason not to do it. Humanity being another.

Humanity is important, but refraining from starting a European holy war is importanter.

I do find it odd that there are some unarmed police officer around parliament. I would have expected every police officer to have been armed. To be honest not just there but also at any high risk target be it government or tourist.

[quote=woody74 ]I do find it odd that there are some unarmed police officer around parliament. I would have expected every police officer to have been armed. To be honest not just there but also at any high risk target be it government or tourist.

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that a surprise attack with a knife could have resulted in an injured/dead policeman and an attacker now having his gun. I guess there's also a higher risk of collateral damage if it escalates to a shooting battle.

Given how rare these events actually are, maybe we've currently got it just about right?

It was pointed out earlier in this thread that a surprise attack with a knife could have resulted in an injured/dead policeman and an attacker now having his gun. I guess there's also a higher risk of collateral damage if it escalates to a shooting battle.

That's my view. You don't want obviously armed people on the gates etc, all they need to go is lock a door or gate if it looks dicey. The bouncers at a local nightclub aren't armed, but if someone ricks up with a machette they slam a heavy door - job done.

Given how rare these events actually are, maybe we've currently got it just about right?

That's my view. The fact that this guy only got as far as a carpark (and only got into that carpark on foot) means the actual security wasn't even tested. I suspect walking into the HofC with a machete is not easy at all.

Well police in Northern Ireland have been armed for years and I have never heard of lots of issues such as gun battles and collateral damage. I find it very odd that we are happy for police to be full armed and have water canon in one part of our country but in other parts we are not. The home office refused the met to be allowed to deploy water canon.

Oddly, when talking about religious fundamentalism, people rarely mention Anders Breivik...

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist_n_910379.html ]They do it was in many papers[/url], that and shoot'em up vid games.

I find it very odd that we are happy for police to be full armed and have water canon in one part of our country but in other parts we are not.

Different level of risk innit. I suspect for historical reasons a lot of NI crims had guns. In the UK crims find it so hard to get hold of guns you have the hilarious situation of UK crims reduced to sharing a gun between 6!

Plus if most rozzers don't have guns, most crims don't need guns. It's a virtuous circle AFAIC.

IMHO, anyway.

Given how rare these events actually are, maybe we've currently got it just about right?

Indeed. It's all about mitigating risk isn't it, and I'm sure that defence will have been carefully designed and planned by many people who are a lot more experienced in such things than a gang of alleged mountain bikers. There's little point in rolling out the SAS and a couple of tanks when your primary threat is the occasional psychopath armed with a knife and a reasonably priced vehicle.

gobuchul - Member

concluding that the particular religion has nothing to to with it.

No one sane would blame all of Islams followers for terror attacks.

However, to pretend that there no issues with areas of Fundamentalist Islam is completely insane as well.

This lunatic who carried out this attack would of described himself as Muslim and that he was following the true Islamic path.His branch of Islam glorifies and encourages murdering the Infidel.

Not all Muslims believe that this is the correct understanding of the Quran but a very small minority do.

There are 2,500,000 Muslims in the UK. So if only 0.001% do believe they should kill in God's name that's still 2500 potential martyrs.

To pretend this isn't anything to do with Islam is not going to help solve the problem.

If you've not seen these stats its worth a read. I was personally quite shocked to see the percentages who believe murder to be justified or potentially justified...
I know the polls are a few years old and I'd hope they're a representative sample but Wiki doesn't lie right?

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Polls ]Wiki Article on attitude to terrorism[/url]

colournoise - Member

Said it before, but I wish we (society, the media) would stop legitimising these events by describing them as ideologically-driven/terrorism/lone wolf attacks. They should should just be described as mass murders and those who perpetrate them as just plain old murderers.

I agree with that^. It pisses me off when I see terrorists elevated to some sort of special status. Just because they don't murder people for money doesn't make any worse or any better than any other murderer.

It pisses me off when I see terrorists elevated to some sort of special status. Just because they don't murder people for money doesn't make any worse or any better than any other murderer.

...and the two aren't exclusive, in NI I think money and local status was a big motivator for people getting involved in the killing.

Scotland Yard said Masood had previous convictions for assaults, including GBH, possession of offensive weapons and public order offences.

His first conviction was in November 1983 for criminal damage and his last conviction was in December 2003 for possession of a knife.

Devout?

Just because they don't murder people for money doesn't make any worse or any better than any other murderer.

So murders are only committed for money or by religious psychopaths?

You think all murderers should be treat exactly the same as they no better or worse or than any other murderer?

You really believe that? 🙄

You think that planning to hire a car, drive a few hours and then mow down some completely random strangers on a street, then trying hack someone's head off with a knife, is no worse than a drug dealer targeting another dealer and shooting him?

Both very nasty but I know which one is "worse".

Devout?

Yes he thinks he is.

In his twisted version of Islam violence against the Infidel is perfectly acceptable. In fact it's his duty.

So murders are only committed for money or by religious psychopaths?

You think all murderers should be treat exactly the same as they no better or worse or than any other murderer?

You really believe that?

You think that planning to hire a car, drive a few hours and then mow down some completely random strangers on a street, then trying hack someone's head off with a knife, is no worse than a drug dealer targeting another dealer and shooting him?

He didn't say *any* of these things. (Which is why you had to helpfully write them all out for him!)

So murders are only committed for money or by religious psychopaths?

Oh for ****s sake, I was giving an example, ie, some people murder for money, if they do it's not classed as terrorism. That doesn't make them any better or any worse than terrorists. I didn't mention anything at all about "religious psychopaths".

Some people just can't resist trying to score points or engaging in pointless petty arguments even on a thread concerning a tragic event.

I wonder how the **** they behave at funerals.

Oddly, when talking about religious fundamentalism, people rarely mention Anders Breivik...

They do it was in many papers, that and shoot'em up vid games.

HuffPo published that article precisely because of the way it was being presented in the mainstream media.

I wonder how the **** they behave at funerals.

So you think a thread on a bike forum is comparable to a funeral? 🙄

I wonder how you behave in real life and not behind a keyboard?

He is described as a terrorist because he committed an act of terror. You don't even need to murder someone to be a terrorist.

There are varying definitions of terrorism, however, lets stick with the UN.

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them"

[img] [/img]

Anybody in Traf Sq tonight?

Wife is travelling past. Why?

There's a vigial being held.

freeagent I think it would probably recommend that the 'front line' guys protecting high-risk targets now need to be armed.

I think isn't actually a good idea, but with the massive caveat that it's not me who has to stand up and provide that first line of defense!

You have two options with armed officers, Overt and Covert. If the front men are overt, then they can't interact with the public, because any officer carrying an overt weapon becomes a target, and must at all times maintain security of that weapon. That means no-one within reaching distance of that weapon. That, for the vast majority of the time would relegate those officers to effectively just armed guards, and make our public places feel very oppressive.

There is maybe a sensible option to provide some officers with covert weapons, but these obviously come with a time penalty as to their use. If someone with a visible weapon runs at your shouting, then those covert weapons are of some use, but in a suprise attack, they are much more likely to become a threat in themselves.

Far better, and the system used, is defense in depth, giving time to formulate and action a sensible response to varied threats. The penalty in that case, as shown yesterday is the vulnerability of that first line ;-(

Luckily yesterday, the attacker had no time to either kill more people or take hostages, which is so often the final act of such events, and make nullifying the threat a lot harder.

So though luck, or judgement, or more likely a combination of both, yesterdays situation was ended with relatively low casualties. A better armed group, carrying out the same act would however have been a very different thing indeed.

Tits

Ive had a friendly chat to armed officers before max - but in a 2 meters of space, finger covering the guard "ill put three holes in you if you come any closer kind of way"....in fact he was giving me directions and I didnt even ask for it...just looked lost apparently. Some American friends were bewildered by how friendly our armed police are.

Although what you say makes sense.

If an attacker is in or around 21 feet of you, with a holstered or low slung weapon, you're in for a bad day given the right set of circumstances for the assailant. Even if he had a weapon, the outcome could have been the same.

It's not a hard and fast rule, but having an attacker catch you unawares or up close leaves you extremely vulnerable. Even the best of us would still get sliced in that regard, unless each individual ran an exclusion zone, which I might note, armed offers don't. However next time you chat to one, you may notice their partner stood oblique to you and paying you and the surroundings a little more attention, mutual support.

RIP to PC Palmer. One crisp salute to a man who has served his country in two uniforms.

Gobuchul, you are overstating the case. 2500 is 0.1% of 2,500,000.
0.001 % is 25

And who's to say the true percentage is not 0.0001%, or 0.000000001%?
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that a completely made up statistic tells us nothing about the terrorism risk in the UK...

I see Farage excelled himself blaming it on uncontrolled immigration.

On the plus side (and I appreciate I am looking for the good in a bad situation) the measured response and lack of knee jerk reaction from most politicians, commentators and the public at large gives one hope.

Some awful nonsense being spouted on here, none more so than Tom_W1987 who, I suggest needs to stop watching movies and documentaries and actually commend the emergency response to what was a tragic event. If he thinks the police would be better served using ex special forces types to police the nation then this really does suggest that he thinks the police have failed. Tom clearly has not the slightest idea about modern policing and policing by consent. Please stop posting. Having read through the posts I'm appalled by more than a few. I'm lost for words, apart from these.

RIP all those involved and thank you to all who protect us.

I did that.

And if you notice, I stated that I was totally ignorant of policing work - and REPEATEDLY used capitals <<< notice that - on words used to suggest that I wasn't sure of what I was saying was correct. Maybe I should ****ing bold them as well for you?

If he'd stuck to running over cyclists instead of driving on the pavement and killing pedestrians he'd have just been given 3 points and a ticking off.

5th death confirmed. 75 year old man 🙁

Some awful nonsense being spouted on here, none more so than Tom_W1987 who, I suggest needs to stop watching movies and documentaries and actually commend the emergency response to what was a tragic event. If he thinks the police would be better served using ex special forces types to police the nation then this really does suggest that he thinks the police have failed. Tom clearly has not the slightest idea about modern policing and policing by consent. Please stop posting. Having read through the posts I'm appalled by more than a few. I'm lost for words, apart from these.

+1, he seems to try to put on this carapace of a highly informed libertarian but all he succeeds in doing is coming across as a bit of a prat.

+1, he seems to try to put on this carapace of a highly informed libertarian but all he succeeds in doing is coming across as a bit of a prat.

You mean like most of the daft twits in this thread in either the

1) OMG ****ing Muslamics everywhere camp.
2) It's nothing to do with the religion at all guys camp.

When in reality the answer is somewhere in the middle - I'll explain when I can be bothered to deal with the Deja Vu.

When in reality the answer is somewhere in the middle - I'll explain when I can be bothered.

Please don't.

Actually, I tell you what Drac, I will - just to irritate you.

Edukator and others seem to think that it's about the religion, plain and simple - that it is what it states in the Koran that is the issue. This outright ignores the fact that throughout the Arab world - as I was discussing with an Afghan colleague of mine today actually - even in places like Afghanistan before the Russian invasion, Muslim societies were liberalising. Then Pan-Arab nationalism collapsed, no thanks to the west and the void was filled by Saudi interests and a drive towards increased Theism. At the same time, for various reasons - once liberal parents moved to the west but became more conservative when their children came into contact with western culture. Why this was the case, I'm not sure - other conservative ethnic minorities seem to cope - perhaps their feelings towards western culture were changed by our actions in the east. The children of these people (as I confirmed with a ripped jeans wearing, The Dictator watching, Afghan) get caught between two worlds. Two lads I know had to move to London from Birmingham so they could smoke and party without 20 family members finding out about it and gossiping. These same kids then sometimes go back to places like Afghanistan or ****stan to see family - and end up feeling alienated there - then they come back and remember than they feel alienated by a society that regards them as potential terrorists. So where do they fit in? Nowhere.

That's just ****ing great isn't it? Great psychological building blocks for encouraging someone to go bang.

Here is Hussain Nadim explaining it -

And it's very hard for them to fit in. I mean, look at what the basic problem with the Muslim community over here is. The parents want to teach their children to stay away from certain evils of what they see as the Western society - stay away from alcohol, stay away from dating. That's not what they see as a Muslim culture. So they - in order to attempt to that, the Muslim parents convert - teach these kids very ultra-conservative ideology of Islam. Now, when they grow up and they go to the universities or schools, that's where they see their ideology and their teachings coming head-on with the Australian culture. And then they question their parents, that they were taught about this certain thing, but this is not how it is. And then they look for answers and the way they find their answers is not through parents. They look for the answers on social media and that social media has a monopoly of the religious radicals as well.

HUSSAIN NADIM: I've severely criticised openly and I've gotten a backlash on that as well. I don't think Muslim community leaders represent the Muslims over here, specifically the youth. They don't connect. The youth has changed, the technology has changed and a lot of times these Muslim community leaders, who the Government use to understand radicalisation, they're not subject experts. Now radicalisation itself is a huge subject. You can't understand that just because you represent - you think you represent a few people, you become the voice of those people. They could be the voice, but subject experts and representing them and understanding radicalisation, I don't think Muslim community (inaudible) ...

But then the others, who state that this has nothing to do with Islam or the Muslim community are clearly wrong as well. Ideology and religion fills the void in peoples lives, all mass movements generally arise to fill a sense of loss of power - fascism, communism and religion. It's not religion that is dangerous though, it's mass movements and the psychological underpinnings that drive those movements that are the real dangers. However, dealing with those issues will take the work of community leaders and yes - perhaps clerics. However, we must not forget that if we really care, it is up to us the British public to help the Muslim community feel less alienated as well.

All in all, suck my balls guys and enjoy the circular scapegoating and outright head in the sand denial.

No, I just meant you come across as a bit of a prat.

This thread is full of prats, including me.

Some people just can't resist trying to score points or engaging in pointless petty arguments even on a thread concerning a tragic event.

For once I agree.

woody74

Well police in Northern Ireland have been armed for years and I have never heard of lots of issues such as gun battles and collateral damage. I find it very odd that we are happy for police to be full armed and have water canon in one part of our country but in other parts we are not. The home office refused the met to be allowed to deploy water canon.
Posted 5 hours ago # Report-Post

outofbreath

Different level of risk innit. I suspect for historical reasons a lot of NI crims had guns. In the UK crims find it so hard to get hold of guns you have the hilarious situation of UK crims reduced to sharing a gun between 6!

Just a quick point about that - apart from a few areas in Belfast and Derry most areas of NI are pretty much rural with a few small towns. England and Scotland has far more big cities, far more inner city areas and I would say generally a higher risk day to day for police.

When police here are conducting operations where they are actively looking for terrorists (check points or raids) they deploy with much heavier weaponry, despite every ordinary constable being armed with Glock 17s.

Furthermore, if dissidents attacked a PSNI officer they're more likely to use bombs or assault rifles, ie scenarios where their hand guns will be of little use. Contrast this with the type of attack in London yesterday and similar Islamist attacks where vehicles and knives are being used and you could make an argument for them needing guns more than the PSNI.

I don't really have a dog in this fight but I think it's incorrect to assume that police officers in Northern Ireland are subject to an elevated risk. What's more, they regularly come under attack during the summer but there is rarely ever a fatal shooting here, even in scenarios where officers are attacked by large mobs.

Tom just can't help himself. Good night and god bless. Heaven forbid he should step outside of his keyboard.

RIP all those involved and thank you to all who protect us.

Aye. Tom, you got a little carried away me old fruit. You know SF boys are used to operating on a different playing field to the police. The CTSFO are bloody highly trained, drilled and lethal if needed. This was an unfortunate chain of events that led to an unarmed officer being the target, it may have been different if he was armed, but in my experience, highly likely it may have been the same outcome. Sad, but bloody true.

Khakis Masood originally called Adrian Elms, pits another spin on the police not mentioning race. It's almost like they've been getting facts before commenting.

"Khakis Masood originally called Adrian Elms, pits another spin on the police not mentioning race. It's almost like they've been getting facts before commenting."

+1.

His skin colour looked quite tanned to me and his beard looked jet black.

I wonder if either the press have photoshopped the picture to make sure the body matched the name, or if the murderer dyed his beard to give himself a more exotic look. Or maybe his mum was or somesuch.

Or as Facebook would say "it's complicated".

So Khakis Masood was white British? Well if that's true then it's going to upset a few people, it sounds like a bigot's nightmare. It will probably also mean that he was mentally ill.

I've read reports of him having Kenyan ancestry?
If correct, he may well be of mixed Anglo-African heritage.

Not white British, but not as simple as some people seem to have assumed.

If correct, he may well be of mixed Anglo-African heritage.

Right.

If his surname was original Elms it sounds likely that at least one of his parents was white British.

"it sounds like a bigot's nightmare."

Doesn't it give the bigots a stronger case? As a non-Muslim he wasn't a murderer, then he became a Muslim, and now he's a Murderer.

Personally, I take the view the guy was a petty criminal first and foremost. That's the set I choose to place him in.

The bigot is currently filling his boots with his 70 virgins.

"The bigot is currently filling his boots with his 70 virgins."

Very good point.

I'm glad tomw feels its ok to use a sad thread to show people how incredibly brainy he is,what a massdebater,oh yeah sorry I forgot its ok because its a forum and you're all having a discussion,park your self awareness and respect at the door.

Now the BBC are saying his birth name was "Adrian Russell Ajao".

I just don't know what to base my ill-informed typings on any more. 🙁

Just watched four interviewees on the telly, all with experience in or connections to, the security services being in general agreement that it's time to arm the police.

Hmmm. Buy shares in Glock?

Police generally come out against it. Or at least have done previously.

As do other experts.

Mr Woppit - Member

Just watched four interviewees on the telly, all with experience in or connections to, the security services being in general agreement that it's time to arm the police.

As per my post last night, it's insane that there are armed police in Bushmills or Ballynure but not London.

To arm or not arm the Police that work in positions like his protecting important targets is a very difficult one. I am against arming the Police at large as I genuinely feel, if the Police are armed, then those seek to commit crime will seek to arm themselves and there is an escalation.

We look at those forces round the world that are armed, whether it be in the States, France etc and there is a corresponding increase in gun crime. I remember my first couple of tours in Northern Ireland, it felt really weird patrolling down some of the streets there, as they look like home, as you go past Woolworths and Smiths.

What you have to remember is, even to the highly trained officers doing this day in day out, handguns and the like aren't hugely accurate and the H&K sub-machine guns and the like that they use, only a small percentage of rounds will hit the actual target and they are operating in areas surrounded by innocent bystanders and tourists, where you tend to have heavily armed Police and criminals, you also tend to have a large number of injured bystanders.

No doubt these things will be debated and questioned by the Police themselves, but nothing can take away from the fact that the officer was well trained and dedicated and deserves all the respect and compassion that is due.

Mr Woppit - Member
Just watched four interviewees on the telly, all with experience in or connections to, the security services being in general agreement that it's time to arm the police.

Would a Tasar have helped in this situation?

Each time I've been to London recently, a lot of the police I,ve seen, have been armed 🙁

It does however seem odd that Parliament didn't have armed officers.

outofbreath - Member
Would a Tasar have helped in this situation?

That's a good point, assume he'd have had one or at least pepper spray. Which make you think if he didn't have time to for that, would a gun have helped?

I'm against arming all of the police. I think the balance is probably about right at the moment 99.9% of the time.

I do wonder what those that think all police should be armed after an incident like this would say if the police accidentally shot an innocent person, and what their feelings are on the police having full access to emails and social media profiles of everyone in the country?

I'm not sure how a Russian leader would help.

Would a Tasar have helped in this situation?

Maybe, but would that be considered a dinghyfied response?