Forum menu
I think this is made worse by the fact that the Parliament building is not really fit for purpose and is being used for tourism and image purposes. Parliament should be located aomewhere rural with security like Porton Down.
That's not really the way an open democracy works though is it.
If you start hiding your parliament buildings away in the countryside then what does that say about the country it sits in?
It says the terrorists are winning and we are changing our way of life because of them.
Probably g5604. But it doesn't spring to mind.
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.
I'm not sure people are criticising the individual police involved and their response. But if it is true that 2 randomly placed plain clothes shot the perp as BBC have reported then it begs the question what would have happened if Michael Fallon had been somewhere else.
It seems pretty clear to me that the security arrangements on that gate were not as good as they could have been and that a slightly more organised attack with perhaps a hand gun or more than one attacker etc would have got through and done some damage in the lobby or perhaps worse. I suspect this will be addressed in the coming days.
To say that this type of attack wasn't expected in exactly this area is ridiculous yet I have heard so many quotes from the media and politicians expressing this and saying 'well we will have to increase security at the gate now'
If I was the PM I would be asking what the hell were they doing before.
The bridge incident on the other hand is much harder to prevent though I guess railings might help.
Fair enough Scud, I just hope they are properly resourced that is all.
Probably not no, but then again nor are many sections of our armed forces, other branches of the emergency services, our Doctors, nurses, the list could go on.
The point was you seemed to insinuating that this would affect the level of professionalism shown yesterday and that the situation would of been different if every building of importance was guarded by armed "special forces" types? Has that situation ever played out differently in the United States where the Policing and Armed forces budgets are much higher per capita than ours? The French Police are armed, did it play out differently there?
Just think what that officers family lost, before you question whether he was up to the task
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 - Memberconcluding 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 - MemberSaid 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