[Closed] Shots fired outside Westminster

I hope with never change gun laws / provisions based on one individuals actions.

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

I think they do. But the front of house people chatting to tourists are unarmed.

This scum didn't get in. He was still outside. We should stop describing this as a bloke getting past security, he didn't. He went on foot past a gate intended to stop cars. As luck would have it he was shot before he even got to an entrance, no doubt he was about to reach a guarded closed door.

It is taught to us that if a person wielding a knife is under 20 feet from you you will not be able to un-holster a weapon be that gun, taser, asp,or gas before you have been stabbed. So most weapons bar maybe a long firearm which is not holstered would probably not have helped in this case

"Maybe, but would that be considered a dinghyfied response?"

Lightening response, OK by me, you are certainly a Contender. But then I always was an Optimist.

g5604 - Member
I hope with never change gun laws / provisions based on one individuals actions.

We did. Google Dunblane.

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

i have to agree there.
Tom is a prat...that much is clear from my experience of him on other threads.

however..i think on this occasion i find myself being inclined to agree with him on a number of things.
i think he is right to question the security policy around Westminster and the Houses of Parliament...and TBF he did admit to his ignorance and lack of knowledge on this right from the outset.

with regards to his recent comments on the cause of Wednesday's tragedy...i think he has a valid point

I think I would be inclined to leave the decision to arm/not arm to the police.

Judging by one of the photos on the BBC website showing armed guys in jeans and trainers rushing to the scene, there wasn't a shortage of weapons around, just not with poor PC Palmer. If he had been armed however, the murderer would have chosen a different target.

If he had been armed however, the murderer would have chosen a different target.

What the dead pc needed was a stab vest, surely - even bullet"proof"
(apologies if allbindun, I haven't read back through the whole of this)

What the dead pc needed was a stab vest, surely - even bullet"proof"

Doesn't stop someone from trying to chop your head off.

"Or would still have surprised him and then had a gun."

I genuinely think this is most likely in this case.

You can't shoot people until they are identified as a threat. In this case I suspect the first time the blade + intent became clear were when he attacked an officer. So if the first victim is armed or not any attacker is going to be able to harm at least 1 victim unless he waves his blade around and states clearly his intent to kill in advance which I suspect they never do.

I've yet to see any evidence there weren't enough guns around. The fact it was Fallon's Bodyguards who killed him doesn't mean that if they hadn't been there the murderer would have had free reign to wander about hacking MPs to death.

Doesn't stop someone from trying to chop your head off.

French soldier (?copper?) even had his gun snatched the other day - If you're arming them, I suspect you have to isolate them too (turrets, anyone ?)

What the dead pc needed was a stab vest, surely - even bullet"proof"

i would have thought he would have had one on as a matter of police uniform regulations...what that does not prevent is an attack on other parts of the body which can lead to death such as the neck or the side of the rib cage. we dont know how he was killed yet.

You can't shoot people until they are identified as a threat. In this case I suspect the first time the blade + intent became clear were when he attacked an officer. So if the first victim is armed or not any attacker is going to be able to harm at least 1 victim unless he waves his blade around and states clearly his intent to kill in advance which I suspect they never do.

i agree...this seem the most likely scenario where the attacker probably ran up to the officer with the knife hidden until the last minute or it was a surprise/sneak attack

scotroutes

If he had been armed however, the murderer would have chosen a different target.

Or would still have surprised him and then had a gun.

Details of Wednesday's attack still seem sketchy but if another attacker was fast/aggressive/strong/stealthy enough to overpower an officer and take his gun there's no guarantee he'll be skilled or proficient enough to use it effectively.

99% of the populace are equally defenseless against someone with a machete as a gun. The only difference is distance, and it's bloody hard to hit anything with a semi automatic handgun without practice and training. I tried and I was rubbish.

If Wednesday's attacker had targeted a supermarket or a church congregation what might the body toll have been with no armed police or body guards to shoot him.

99% of the populace are equally defenseless against someone with a machete as a gun. The only difference is distance, and it's bloody hard to hit anything with a semi automatic handgun without practice and training. I tried and I was rubbish.

I tried and was scarily accurate. 😕

Drac

I tried and was scarily accurate.

I'm guessing a totally controlled environment though with static targets.

Well yes, what do you take me for?

There's a good photo of the immediate aftermath just after the perp had gone down on the front page of the Times today, currently here:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/terror-detectives-make-two-more-westminster-arrests-53rmq0frb

I don't get the sense this **** was going anywhere, he's surrounded, and the story of the Policemen 'running for help' seems very implausible given the fact there are 5 rozzers on the spot.

Wouldnt a largish shield strapped to the forearm and some training in how to use it - potentially give an an officer on sentry duty a few seconds for his or her mates to intervene.

Surely we had techniques several hundred years ago for countering random attacks on the aristocracy by pissed off peasants - that perhaps we have forgotten?

I caveat this with the follwoing - I am talking shit about a subject I know nothing about - but would be interested to understand more.

The plain clothes guys were Michael Fallon's protection officers. who were there by chance as he was voting, not entirely clear where HoP armed police were.

several hundred years ago we did not have a police force and they had knights in armour on horseback to repel them
The tourists would ****ing love those outside the palace but i am thinking it may be a slightly ineffective method of policing in terms of terrorism reduction/reducing knife crime.

" not entirely clear where HoP armed police were."

Probably not defending the carpark!

This guy was stopped before he got anywhere.

We really have no idea how good the HoP security is against a lone knifeman because he didn't get anywhere near the door.

We certainly can't conclude it's crap.

Again, old techniques to counter old weapons. How heeavy, hot and visible would titanium shark mail be - to cover the neck and limbs?

jimjam

If Wednesday's attacker had targeted a supermarket or a church congregation what might the body toll have been with no armed police or body guards to shoot him.

Thing is, i could drive my car through a busy supermarket car park and kill tens of people. No knife, no gun, no nothing needed. I think trying to defend against that sort of threat is in reality, not just impossible, but pointless. You can never stop every single nutter, and it only takes one.

It sounds harsh, but at some point you have to file things under "s**t happens" and hope it never happens to you..... 😥

I'm sure will be, in fact, probably already has been a "what if" scenario played out by the security services for resources like this where you need to give the impression of free, democratic access for all, but maintain a sensible level of protection.

Incidentally, we simply don't know what the system of defense was like, as quite sensibly, it's not published. In this case, the lone attacked breached the first soft line, and was then intercepted by the, lucky, location of a clearly highly trained covert firearms officer. But had that person not been there, what could have happened, is going to be the focus of some people with more experience of these things that you or i!

It also crosses my mind that the game has changed since the 1970's. Back then, the terrorist, generally, planned to not die themselves in any attack, whereas today the situation is very different. If i knew that certain officers would be armed, and given the relative difficulty of acquiring firearms in this country, those officers could become the focus of any primary attack. Simply overwhelm them with attacked who are themselves expendable, grab there weapons and move the attack onwards, now with much greater potential.......

maxtorque

Thing is, i could drive my car through a busy supermarket car park and kill tens of people. No knife, no gun, no nothing needed. I think trying to defend against that sort of threat is in reality, not just impossible, but pointless. You can never stop every single nutter, and it only takes one.

And if the police show up all they can use against you is harsh language.

maxtorque

If i knew that certain officers would be armed, and given the relative difficulty of acquiring firearms in this country, those officers could become the focus of any primary attack. Simply overwhelm them with attacked who are themselves expendable, grab there weapons and move the attack onwards, now with much greater potential.......

Overwhelming them would be anything but simple. But if we assume you are correct and then imagine the attacker was targeting an MP and his security staff, then you've just made an arguement for removing weapons from MP's security detail.

And if the police show up all they can use against you is harsh language.

Or a taser, or pepper spray.

jimdubleyou

Or a taser, or pepper spray.

What part of a car do you taser?

Scratch my earlier cooment - mail would cause shrapnel damage in the case of a bullet wound and rip arteries to shreds.

Perhaps it could be used to cover the armpits though - which are perhaps less likely to recieve an entry wound.

Again - Im talking massive bollocks. The medical scientist part of me thinks that there must be something you could do to afford certain policemen a little more protection or time to react without looking like riot police.

http://metro.co.uk/video/andrew-neil-calls-london-attacker-poundland-terrorist-1435371/

Every colour, every faith.....

Spot on.

what could have happened, is going to be the focus of some people with more experience of these things that you or i!

Yes, except I think even you or I can deduce that the next line of defence was going to be at the very, very least a sturdy closed door, and even if that wasn't well guarded (I bet it is) the time spent getting through that would allow plenty of time for armed officers to turn up from elsewhere on the site.

The idea that the security people at the HoC haven't got anything in place to prevent intruders is laughable.

Again, old techniques to counter old weapons. How heeavy, hot and visible would titanium shark mail be - to cover the neck and limbs?

As someone who has spent a fair bit of time wearing a lot of medieval armour, I can tell you this:-
It's VERY heavy, VERY hot & restricts your movements even when its made to measure. It's ok to say "but we'll make out of Ti" but you forget the heavy padding that goes with maille. Without that padding its pretty useless, with it it's horribly warm & heavy.

then you've just made an arguement for removing weapons from MP's security detail.

If MPs security guards spent all day having their photographs taken with tourists on a carpark gate then yes, it would be a very strong argument for removing weapons from MP's security detail.

As it is you can bet they are very protective of their weapons and very alert during the shortish periods of time they are in public.

What part of a car do you taser?

The driver.

Again - Im talking massive bollocks. The medical scientist part of me thinks that there must be something you could do to afford certain policemen a little more protection or time to react without looking like riot police.

Some kind of D30 on acid?

"The medical scientist part of me thinks that there must be something you could do to afford certain policemen a little more protection or time to react without looking like riot police."

...and yet none of the world's Police forces have ever been approached with such an idea, but you might think of one during your lunch break... Maybe you'll be submitting a patent today, I doubt it.

Surely the padding on medieval armour is for blunt force trauma though? Or does the deformation of the padding help to resist penetration?

How do shark suits manage to resist penetration by sharks teeth with the huge amount of crushing force behind them?

Tom_W1987
Surely the padding on medieval armour is for blunt force trauma though? Or does the deformation of the padding help to resist penetration?

How do shark suits manage to resist penetration by sharks teeth with the huge amount of crushing force behind them?

Hardly comparable, is it.

I reckon I could swim about quite happily for quite a while in a deep sea diving suit. Don't know as I'd fancy running a marathon in one though.

How do shark suits manage to resist penetration by sharks teeth with the huge amount of crushing force behind them?

Tom, read Muddydwarf's answer about chainmail. While the mail itself is the most obvious part there's a lot going on behind it. All this kind of body armour from chainmail to kevlar vests is heavier and bulkier than you first realise. It's fine for a while but it's warm stuff to wear and by the end of a shift very tiring. If you are wearing a shark suit then you'll also have a buoyancy vest to assist you and you'll be kept cool by the sea water around you.

Not been to the HofC but I'd imagine that in principle it's little different to the defences of a medieval castle, basically concentric rings of defence so while you might only see unarmed policemen, behind them are armed units, (possibly interlocked) secure doors, etc.

Cheers guys.

I think it would be a bit crap if nothing can be learnt from the incident - in that the men and women we ask to do our dirty work will carry on facing the same level of risk of which nothing can be done... but as max pointed out I guess we'll have to wait for the official answers.

Interesting post about sharks - eg probing bites - learn something new each day - but I'm sure that is for another thread.

Always amused me that the cops in Sicily swan around in short sleeve shirts and sunglasses while a surrey pcso is dressed up for ww3.

Loving the response from this officer...

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/845192640295419909

I suspect they are running low on sleep in what is a complex investigation!

Not confirmed yet but it seems that they removed the armed cover from most of the external entry points in favour of roving patrols as it was seen as more cost effective.
They also don't have the gates shut due to the volume of traffic using the entrance, which reads as the MPs don't want to be inconvenienced by having to wait for the gates to open .

.....

Is the gate thing related to the swearing incident and scandal a while back?

"They also don't have the gates shut due to the volume of traffic using the entrance,"

I'm not sure this is quite true. You can't just drive a lorry load of semtex in because there are dual 'airlock' gates. However a pedestrian can get in, which is tolerable because it's not an especially secure area, it's a carpark.

If you could just drive a car bomb in that *would* be a security issue IMHO.

Can someone edit the thread title and remove the word 'Breaking' now please

outofbreath - Member
"They also don't have the gates shut due to the volume of traffic using the entrance,"

I'm not sure this is quite true. You can't just drive a lorry load of semtex in because there are dual 'airlock' gates. However a pedestrian can get in, which is tolerable because it's not an especially secure area, it's a carpark.

If you could just drive a car bomb in that *would* be a security issue IMHO.

One thing people don't often realise is that there a lot of lessons learnt between the IRA and the 90's "ram-raiding", it is actually very difficult to drive a vehicle towards any large building or public place, if you look carefully the entrances to a lot of these places still have concrete bollards and many other measures to stop you doing so. There is also a reason why most train stations only reintroduced bins in the last 8-9 years and even then they are now clear bags so you can see what has been placed in them.

Tom_W1987 - Member

I think it would be a bit crap if nothing can be learnt from the incident

I think it'd be great if everything that can be done is already being done, personally.

Can someone edit the thread title and remove the word 'Breaking' now please

Good point.

I heard earlier that the reason why most policemen/women don't want to carry pistols, is all the stuff they have to go through after any use of the weapon.

Inquiries and the like which they feel the burden of proof is on them to avoid prosecution for doing what they perceive to be their duty in situations where instant decisions have to be made which could so easily be incorrect. They feel they would not get the benefit of the doubt which they feel they deserve.

Charles Menezes, for example...

Not for any distaste about using armament.

It sounds harsh, but at some point you have to file things under "s**t happens" and hope it never happens to you.....

Exactly my thoughts. You could put walls along a pavements, you could spend billions monitoring anyone who had a remote chance of doing anything bad (remember many people are murdered in the UK each week so would need to be monitoring for those too) or you could just accept that there is not much you can realistically do.

Also, don't give it 3 days of constant news coverage.

Cougar - Moderator
Can someone edit the thread title and remove the word 'Breaking' now please
Good point.

Has there been a bomb in Regent Street? 😉

They feel they would not get the benefit of the doubt which they feel they deserve.
Charles Menezes, for example...

Hmmm. Not perhaps the perfect example of when benefit of doubt should be applied.

Or a taser, or pepper spray.

Or a **** off big shouty dog armed with a laser!

A LASER!!

This is possibly a stupid question, but it just occurred to me, so excuse me if it's stupid. What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government? I know he was a Muslim, but I'm not aware of any note and I haven't heard anything about him shouting anything that would mark this out as terrorist attack. Sure, IS have claimed responsibility, but they would.

This was sparked by just hearing on the news that although he had converted to Islam, there was no awareness he had been radicalised.

Not trolling or trying to be smart, genuinely wondering if I have missed something in the reporting that is indicative of a specific terrorist claim on his part

Charles Menezes, for example...

that was a combination of piss poor intelligence and surveillance and over-zealous policing in the heat of action

the police have said that the attacker was known to them so it strikes me as odd that it took so long to formally identify him.
but again they initially got that wrong so that explains the delay...was this guy a lone wolf operating under the inspired influence or was he part of something bigger?
we dont even know what his motives for the attacks were...for that reason it might have been better if he could have been taken alive.

This is possibly a stupid question, but it just occurred to me, so excuse me if it's stupid. What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government?

He was a scrote, a petty criminal and had a history of violence.

Even if this does turn out to be a 'legitimate' terrorist attack (however you want to define that) I take the view that dying in an orgy of violence because he got a kick out of violence is the real motivation. Perhaps he didn't admit that to himself. Probably steroid abuse contributed as well. ...and yeah having little to lose and a grudge against society will be there in the mix too.

If he'd been a decent person he'd have done something decent in the name of Islam. Because he was a scrote he did something scrote-like for the sake of Islam. I'm not sure Islam gets the credit in the first case, or the blame in the second case.

He's probably mentally ill.

What is the evidence that this is a terrorist attack as opposed to a nutter with a grudge against society/government?

He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.

He's probably mentally ill.

No shit Sherlock.

I take the view that dying in an orgy of violence because he got a kick out of violence is the real motivation.

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

No shit Sherlock.

Well if that was an initial thought to people, this thread would barely exist.

"He's probably mentally ill."

Or at least mildly eccentric. 🙂

[quote=gobuchul ]He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.
The BBC (at least) isn't going quite as far as that

However, Mrs May added that "some years ago" he was "once investigated in relation to concerns about violent extremism".

scotroutes

gobuchul » He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.

The BBC (at least) isn't going quite as far as that

Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.

gobuchul » He was known to the security forces as had been involved with a number of radicals.

Had he?

Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.

Or.

Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses.

"You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better."

What's the alternative? God didn't make him violent, he was violent long before he found God.

"Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses."

This.

What's the alternative? God didn't make him violent, he was violent long before he found God.

He had a violent past but nothing like this. He hadn't been arrested for any violence for a number of years.

There is a big difference between slashing someone with a Stanley knife and chopping their head off with a machete.

not trying to avoid a probable elephant in the room but playing devil's advocate.

In a seven degrees of Kevin Bacon style way, i played cricket with a lot of British asians a few years back. They would have had a circle of friends, who had a circle of friends, we'd have had our numbers on people's phone lists...... I bet a number of us have possibly shown up on 'investigation' lists even if just for a junior spy at MI5 to immediately discard us again as not of interest.

We tread a fine line between trust nobody and civil liberty above all. Just because he was once looked at means nothing without knowing why and how hard.

**

Devil's advocate off - the police and sec services will be looking at it. Guessing at motive despite an obvious apparent elephant is of no great use. If they have info that operationally they don't want to reveal just yet then I'm fine with that. I'd also note that the police thanked the media for not revealing the attackers name(s) despite having them quite quickly to allow the police time to act upon the info first.

Well said.

"There is a big difference between slashing someone with a Stanley knife and chopping their head off with a machete."

Well that's where we disagree. I think someone who carried a knife in a pub and used it on someone's face is *exactly* the kind of person who could end up killing people.

Drac

Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at him being connected to other malcontents though.

Or.

Multiple raids in different cities by armed police kind of hints at living at multiple addresses.

Silly me jumping to conclusions. I forgot to consider EVERY possible reason other than "Islamist group" when someone runs over tourists then hacks a police officer to death.

The eight arrests at six addresses are probably just a happy accident because he has a considerable property portfolio.

The right wing press were pretty quick to use a picture of a woman of Muslim appearance walking past a body looking completely indifferent though, and when more pictures were released it was apparent that it was a 'lucky snap' and that she was quite clearly upset.

Anyone who's ever used a camera knows if you take a rapid fire shot at a moving scene, you'll only get one or two good pictures, and one or two really bad looking ones as well.

The press chose to publish one that suited an agenda.

"Silly me jumping to conclusions. I forgot to consider EVERY possible reason other than "Islamist group" when someone runs over tourists then hacks a police officer to death."

I think there's no doubt this * was an Islamist.

I just think 'Islamist' is never the whole story. Unless you can offer am example of a totally peaceful person who hates violence and then feels forced to kill by God. Because IME these *s always have a history of crime/violence/drugs and I don't think that's coincidence.

"when more pictures were released it was apparent that it was a 'lucky snap' and that she was quite clearly upset."

Yup. Camera never lies. Bollocks, it always lies, it's a split second and the way the press use that is obscene.

He's probably mentally ill.

Some might be but most jihadist/terrorist's won't be ill in the medical sense. In all probability he'd have know exactly what he was doing, and had an absolute certainty that what he was doing was right.

 

"Some might be but most jihadist/terrorist's won't be ill in the medical sense. In all probability he'd have know exactly what he was doing, and had an absolute certainty that what he was doing was right."

I assume you're guessing, rather than referencing some study?

If so my guess is that every single suicidal terrorist in a Liberal Democracy has a personality disorder of some kind.

Obviously not Psychosis, but something most of us would regard as 'being a nutter'.

I think crazy people are susceptible to religion rather than the other way around, religion is a symptom of mental illness.

Of course most religious people don't go that far, but they are all wrong in the head in varying degrees.

Then then thier religious beliefs are used as an excuse.

........religion is a symptom of mental illness.

Of course most religious people don't go that far, but they are all wrong in the head in varying degrees.

The overwhelming majority of people in the world have religious beliefs. I would question the sanity of someone who thinks most people are mentally ill.