Forum menu
and all right wingers like cosying up to/arming right wing dictators, eg Saudi, Bahrain, pinochet, trump, Hopkins 🙄
May as Home Sec hadn't sacked 20,000 police officers, they wouldn't need 5,000 soldiers on the streets now.
Are you advicating a fully armed police?
Because otherwise those 20k coppers are as much use as a chocolate fireguard, because they weren't armed
Now, I'm all for that - in fact, we know now that one of those killed was an off duty policewoman, had she been permitted to carry off duty (as, for example PSNI officers are) then this attack may have been prevented. Add to that the previous attack in London, another unarmed copper killed.
So, let's go for it, a fully armed police, both on and off duty like in Northern Ireland. I'm happy with that.
Its not just the frontline officers (armed or not) that were cut so heavily under maybot & the tories
whilst we are doing hypotheticals
THe police had been notified of Abedis radiclaisation previously, had the police been better resourced maybe they could have acted on that information better
They already knew about him. All the tell tale signs were there, including the going abroad to fight in the jihad. He was a known wolf, not a lone wolf. What they couldnt do was lock him up based just on suspicion.
Personally, once again, I'm all for that, we did it in WW2.
Fully armed police and internment of known jihadiist fighters - seems like a good start, glad we have made progress here. It seems we've managed to come up with a far more concrete proposal than Jezza has so far.
@zokes in my view they are current views not previous
If only you had some evidence to support your view = hatred is not evidence btw
What they couldnt do was lock him up based just on suspicion.Personally, once again, I'm all for that, we did it in WW2.
Fully armed police and internment of known jihadiist fighters - seems like a good start
Or a sign that we had truly lost. Do you really want to live in a country where people are looked up without trial? Or where it's got so bad that people are routinely armed? Sounds more and more like a failed state.
more guns is definitely the answer! 🙄
besides how much would that cost? Rudd was cornered at the police fed this year for refusing to deny there would be more cuts to the police on the way
indefinite (you do mean indefinite or just until the war on terror is over?) internment of ex-fighters, whilst tempting is only going to create more resentment
Do you really want to live in a country where people are looked up without trial?
Do you want to like in a country where kids at a pop concert get blown up by people that the security services already knew about but couldn't lock up?
indefinite (you do mean indefinite or just until the war on terror is over?) internment of ex-fighters
I believe the Saudis have an excellent de-radicalisation programme: http://www.mei.edu/content/deradicalization-programs-saudi-arabia-case-study
Stuck bitterly in the past.
To be fair, Rone - I still find it easy to blame Maggie effing Thatcher for a lot of the problems the UK currently faces. You can trace [i]many[/i] things back to her with a bit of imagination..!
😉
Cosying up with terrorists and calling them friends is a typical lefty anti-establishment / anti-elite / anti-US stance. Ditto anti police / security services.
[i]Any[/i] political persuasion has it in it do to this - it's utterly idiotic to argue the this is the sole preserve of the left: it depends purely on which side is in charge, and which side is doing the pushing, [i]doesn't it[/i]?
🙄
(I'm new here - but is this one of them there "Jambafacts"?)
I want to live in a country where moneycentric greedy pricks parasiting off the backs of the rest of us are consigned to the bin of history...
Do you want to like in a country where kids at a pop concert get blown up by people that the security services already knew about but couldn't lock up?
Ah, hindsight - what a wonderful thing...
(You're not seriously suggesting that you think that's what's being said, are you?
[i]Seriously[/i]?)
What they couldnt do was lock him up based just on suspicion.Personally, once again, I'm all for that, we did it in WW2.
And indeed in NI. Internment worked like a charm.
Do you want to like in a country where kids at a pop concert gel blown up by people that the security services already knew about but couldn't lock up?
How about the one in the middle where neither happens. There were obviously some failings but Ince you start locking people up on suspicions do you think k attacks will increase or decrease?
And as for this mad idea
in fact, we know now that one of those killed was an off duty policewoman, had she been permitted to carry off duty (as, for example PSNI officers are) then this attack may have been prevented.
Perhaps if they also equip people with xray vision and mind readers you could have a chance.
If 20000 police hadn't been got rid of perhaps there would have been the resources to mount surveillance , probes deployments and intercept against known suspects rather than them slip off the list of priorities and therefore remove the need for troops on the streets later. Internment worked well last time it was tried. You know nothing about policing or investigations so why don't you stop making yourself look stupid?
Times reporting that police missed multiple opportunities to stop him
@zokes in my view they are current views not previous, leopards and spots. Cosying up with terrorists and calling them friends is a typical lefty anti-establishment / anti-elite / anti-US stance. Ditto anti police / security services.
Cool. So you're equally aghast at May flogging weapons to the Saudis, and Thatcher/Major negotiating with the IRA?
Or are you just doing your usual thing of failing completely to be rational?
in fact, we know now that one of those killed was an off duty policewoman, had she been permitted to carry off duty (as, for example PSNI officers are) then this attack may have been prevented.
Not much "thinking it through" there: if she'd had time to draw a gun and to actually do what it would take to prevent the bomber detonating the bomb, she'd also have had time - without a gun - to take cover.
Clearly she was denied that chance, so she'd presumably have had no time to effect an armed arrest either.
Not much evidence in history that "more guns!" is ever the answer.
How about the one in the middle where neither happens
Oh, let's all wave a magic wand and everyone will live peacefully happily ever after.
It has been happening, it is happening, and it will continue to happen if we don't do something about it.
You are doing the classic Corbyn 'well, I wouldn't start from here' trick - heavy on the criticism, light on the solutions.
I've just given you two practical and achievable steps we can take to fight this - increased resilience through a fully armed police along with a programme of deradicalisation of identified high-threat individuals. So come on, pony up with your solutions, because you've not come forward with any yet.
Not much evidence in history that "more guns!" is ever the answer.
Seemed to be pretty effective at stopping this bloke:
[img] 
[/img]
Are you advicating a fully armed police?Because otherwise those 20k coppers are as much use as a chocolate fireguard, because they weren't armed
Tell me: how would a fully armed police officer or even an elite SAS operative have stopped this bomber?
And as for this mad idea...in fact, we know now that one of those killed was an off duty policewoman, had she been permitted to carry off duty (as, for example PSNI officers are) then this attack may have been prevented.
Quite, not a chance that would have been prevented by an armed but off duty officer. Some incidents, yes, quite possibly. This one, no chance.
I've just given you two practical and achievable steps we can take to fight this - increased resilience through a fully armed police along with a programme of deradicalisation of identified high-threat individuals.
And no real idea what the impact of those would be. France has armed police and seem to struggle recently. How would armed police have helped? As above most people have pointed out the massive flaws. From other threads you do seem to be a bit gun obsessed - happy for the thought police to pick you up?
First get to the bottom of the causes.
Second fund the police and security services better rather than massive cuts.
I've just given you two practical and achievable steps we can take to fight thi
yeah armed police were able to prevent the bataclan attacks after all 🙄
Assuming that even the frothing Right accepts that we can't intern 23,000 alleged/suspected Jihadists (which in any event would instantly have the effect of turning many of their friends and family into Jihadists too - when do we stop interring?), what options are left?
PM MacMillan (misquoting Churchill) said that "[b]Jaw Jaw is better than War War...[/b]" - and frankly it's hard to dispute.
Besides - I quite like the idea that I live in a civilised country with due legal process and certain universal rights...
And in the latest news...
Ninfan gets outed as Walter Mittyesque gun fantasist shocker
Seemed to be pretty effective at stopping this bloke:
The image link is broken - but is that the extent of your argument? Someone gets shot (which I assume from context is what the image would show) and that proves your entire case?
OK - what about this guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Eh? Suggesting that the British police follow the example of the... British police... is a gun fantasy?
How old are you Nin?
I ask, as most of us seem to grow out of that running around shouting bang bang "playing army" thing, once puberty kicks in.
I'm wondering if there's any hope
So, again, saying that the police should be armed, at a time when we have armed police patrolling the streets is a fantasy?
Are you John McDonnell's press secretary?
And as for examples of abuses of power within an armed Police, go and subscribe to any US Copblocker newfeeds.
There's no way I want any of that on our streets, to massage your needs, Nin
Seemed to be pretty effective at stopping this bloke:
Ah - I can see the image now, Ninfan.
You do realise he only went down [i]after he'd committed his attack[/i], you muppet?
😥
Shot for the crime of being black. Shot for the crime of being slightly brown skinned. Shot for the crime of being deaf. Shot for the crime of being mentally ill. Shot for the crime of being a playful dog, shot for the crime of being homeless
keithr - Member
Seemed to be pretty effective at stopping this bloke:
Ah - I can see the image now, Ninfan.
You do realise he only went down after he'd committed his attack, you muppet?
But he won't do it again, Keith, that'll teach 'um
So now you are relying on "yeah, but, America"?
British police officers, in Northern Ireland, are routinely armed, both on and off duty, and have been for many years, due to the terrorist threat to both the public and themselves
And you are saying that to do on the mainland that would result in American style policing?
Yet we have done it for years in NI, and it hasn't...
So how did the armed us police stop the Boston marathon bombers? Or the armed French or German police stop those attacks? Or how armed police within a music gig could have stopped this attack?
And no I'm not expecting a serious or even rational answer other than guns man guns I love guns.
The armed police on the streets now are there to reassure people who feel that they magically could do something. It's to keep the simpletons calm.
Did you forget that we're only allowed to discuss previous views of the labour party, but never those of certain high-profile tories, e.g. brexit
Brexit has been a Corbyn policy since 1983, he's campaigned on that policy throughout.
It has happened here, unarmed drug dealers executed (who I knew personally) , unarmed black men, executed, unarmed Brazilian man, executed.
Can someone explain to me who Ninfan us replying to, because it doesn't appear to be anyone on this thread.
NI is a very different situation to the rest of the UK, where we don't check under our cars each morning and that sort of thing. They don't carry their guns off duty so they can intervene in incidents, they carry them because the risks to their safety merit it.
due to the terrorist threat to both the public and themselves
In the mainland UK the bigger threat will be suicide, being mistakenly shot by a police officer, domestic violence or road accidents. The threat level from terrorism is still very very low. It's statistically off the bottom of the charts of the risks you face on a day to day basis. The response should be proportional to that and the impact on civil liberties that make the UK such a good place to live should also respect that.
Some people are using terrorism to push through measures that the UK does not want such as mass surveillance and rendition style arrangements with some torture probably thrown into the mix.
It's to keep the simpletons calm
Self propelled guns and ground to air missile systems at Heathrow, anyone?
What the hell did they hope to achieve?
Oh.
unarmed drug dealers executed
Right.... I think you've shown your true colours there Ulysse (you really are John McDonnell's press secretary)
measures that the UK does not want such as mass surveillance and rendition style arrangements with some torture probably thrown into the mix.
Ah, lefties telling us what 'the UK' does and does not want - quelle surprise...
I sense another referendum on the cards 😀
People are mostly immune to some of the stuff and it's almost easier to not bother looking at the times/telegraph/daily nazi as you know it's going to be the same crap over again.
Just seen some random muttering son Facebook about Diane Abbot so went off for a Google. It's worth seeing just to appreciate how much effort the Daily Express is putting into "articles" on her.
Pretty much the whole screen on Safari.
You do realise he only went down after he'd committed his attack, you muppet?
Nothing to do with the officers with guns not being present when the attack started?
Anyway, I'm not up for a fully armed police, there isn't the need and the benefits of the current policy outweigh the impact of universally arming officers
Self propelled guns and ground to air missile systems at Heathrow, anyone?
Self propelled guns? Load of rubbish, never deployed at Heathrow
Ground to air missiles, why do you think there is no threat from someone flying something into Heathrow airspace?
Nothing to do with the officers with guns not being present when the attack started?
Is that the point he was making, though? I doubt it.
Besides, there were armed police all over that part of London, including where he got into Westminster Palace. Yes, the officer he killed was unarmed, but there were armed officers there too - this part of the episode (including him being shot) went down in a few seconds: the officer who shot him was right there and actually saw his colleague's stabbing.
[i]Point is, the terrorist got through anyway[/i].
And armed police wouldn't have been able to stop him from driving his car through the crowds on Westminster Bridge anyway.
Arming the police is not a panacea.
Besides, there were armed police all over that part of London, including where he got into Westminster Palace. Yes, the officer he killed was unarmed, but there were armed officers there too. He got through.
During the incident how many armed officers did he pass? Zero is my guess
Therefore he didn't get through armed officers, the point about not having all armed police is that our society doesn't need it or want it.
No, no, ninfan is right - we obvioulsy have a lot to learn from the Saudis in terms of crime and rehabilitation
[img] http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/c88cc55e44b5ccd8020a43564b6d5825 [/img]
Arming the police is not a panacea.
Who said it was?
It's one facet in making the bastards job harder.
Roll back here, the criticism was that the police/government have had to call in the army because there aren't enough armed police
There's a simple solution to that isn't there? Particularly given that the NI police is already fully armed.
During the incident how many armed officers did he pass? Zero is my guess
And how much mileage is there in this kind of speculation? You don't know the answer, I don't know, the answer.
But the [i]fact[/i] of armed police - which is common knowledge - was no deterrent whatsoever.
What, these ones were never deployed. God damn photoshop and fake news.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2749659.stm
Who said it was [a panacea]?
That's [i]exactly[/i] what you think it is.
It clearly won't - [i]doesn't[/i] - have any deterrent effect in cases like those we're discussing, so additional armed police would literally be nothing more than a sop to the ranty "more guns!" crowd.
the criticism was that the police/government have had to call in the army because there aren't enough armed police
Was it?
"Army on the streets" in these cases is just another political play - "we're doing something".
And it's always a temporary show of strength. It means nothing, does nothing.
Specifically, it - like more armed police officers - doesn't actually [i]fix[/i] anything, does it?
The armed police on the streets now are there to reassure people who feel that they magically could do something. It's to keep the simpletons calm.
It doesn't seem to have even achieved that where ninfan is concerned
...and stepping out of the bun fight for a second; what can the soldiers on the streets actually do? Do they have stop and search powers? Would they actually be authorised to use force (deadly if necessary) to stop someone they suspected was about to commit a crime?
ninfan - Member
Ah, lefties telling us what 'the UK' does and does not want - quelle surprise...
At the risk of engaging...
But it's OK for a 'rightie' to do exactly that?
zokes - Still not a customer
...and stepping out of the bun fight for a second; what can the soldiers on the streets actually do? Do they have stop and search powers? Would they actually be authorised to use force (deadly if necessary) to stop someone they suspected was about to commit a crime?
My understanding is that they are under direct command of the police they are supporting.
I see Dennis Skinner posted this. Seems Jeremy is only saying what Dave had previously agreed with
[img] 
[/img]
and stepping out of the bun fight for a second; what can the soldiers on the streets actually do?
Wondered that myself, Zokes.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/armed-troops-patrol-streets-security-10493625
Theresa May stressed they would be under the command of the police, who would decide where and how they are used.
But there's this, too:
But the decision to use the military alongside armed police under Operation Temperer was greeted with concern by many in policing.Retired Met detective Peter Kirkham said: “Police officers are trained to shoot to stop but the military have their own rules of engagement. Usually a soldier will be shooting to kill.
“Training to become a police firearms officer is rigorous and involves conflict resolution tactics and learning when to fire and when not to.
“The military have not had this and are not going to have batons and Tasers. It will be all or nothing with them.”
“Training to become a police firearms officer is rigorous and involves conflict resolution tactics and learning when to fire and when not to.
Aye, 'cause that's never gone tits up, has it?
The less armed police on the streets, the less potential for fowl ups or summary executions of unsavoury characters. Or innocents.
Aye, 'cause that's never gone tits up, has it?
To be fair, given that guns on the streets is a fact, I'd rather have those carrying them trained in that kind of discipline, than not.
less potential for fowl ups
Terrorist chickens - the stuff of my worst nightmares..!
😉
My understanding is that they are under direct command of the police they are supporting.
The police telling them where to stand is one thing, but I'm still unsure that a soldier on British streets has the legal power to stop anyone for questioning, never mind use lethal force.
Unless they're striking workers?Scousers, South Wales miners, Glaswegians or from Belfast were all fair game for live rounds before now
never mind use lethal force.
The retired police officer I quoted in my earlier post certainly seems to think that lethal force from the Army is a possibility.
I'd imagine lethal force from the Army is a given..
What, these ones were never deployed. God damn photoshop and fake news.
They aren't self propelled guns, they are armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the article even states that. there is a big difference self propelled guns are a artillery piece
#fakenews
ulysse - Member
I'd imagine lethal force from the Army is a given..
Yeah, I get that's sort of their purpose, but I'm very unsure about the legality of it in this context. I suspect that if they did shoot someone who was just about the commit a terrorist act then it would all be brushed under the carpet, but if it was a case of mistaken identity then presumably it would be an even bigger mess than de Menezes in 2007.
Essentially, what legal powers do the army have in peacetime on UK civilian soil?
The police telling them where to stand is one thing, but I'm still unsure that a soldier on British streets has the legal power to stop anyone for questioning, never mind use lethal force.
The army won't be questioning anyone, it's a police operation, PACE will apply etc
The army can shoot people and always have, the soldiers guarding barracks etc used to have a card system that set out the rules, they will have something similar now approved by the AG
The army can shoot people and always have, the soldiers guarding barracks etc used to have a card system that set out the rules, they will have something similar now approved by the AG
But barracks are army land. If there are provisions for the AG to give approval then fair enough, I just knew they could really act as extra cops.
Yeah, I get that's sort of their purpose, but I'm very unsure about the legality of it in this context. I suspect that if they did shoot someone who was just about the commit a terrorist act then it would all be brushed under the carpet,
How are you going to brush it under the carpet? There are rules, it has to be done within the law, the AG approves these
but if it was a case of mistaken identity then presumably it would be an even bigger mess than de Menezes in 2007.
The army gets less protection than the police, no comparing notes, full police investigation rather than a IPCC one. Number of soldiers did time for mistakes in NI
To be fair, given that guns on the streets is a fact, I'd rather have those carrying them trained in that kind of discipline, than not.
Agreed.
But let's keep it as is, a trained specialist unit used for extreme situations, and not every single plod, some with questionable attitudes, carrying guns.
We get cock ups now, let's not increase the potential for those cock ups
To be fair, Rone - I still find it easy to blame Maggie effing Thatcher for a lot of the problems the UK currently faces. You can trace many things back to her with a bit of imagination..!
Absolutely and unequivocally. As someone who lived smack bang in a pit village I couldn't agree more.
But it's done now and we've got to figure stuff out for the better.
To me it's more about action than words too. The media are obsessed with what someone said. Hence all the Diane Abbott noise.
But barracks are army land.
They can shoot people who are shooting at them but not on MoD estate
If there are provisions for the AG to give approval then fair enough, I just knew they could really act as extra cops.
They are not cops, they don't have police powers, a Special Constable has more police powers than the soldiers
But let's keep it as is, a trained specialist unit used for extreme situations, and not every single plod, some with questionable attitudes, carrying guns.
Our police force is a representation of our society with the rough edges knocked off
If you want it to look a particular way you need to join it and change the people with the warrant cards to look like the part of society you feel you represent
They aren't self propelled guns, they are armoured reconnaissance vehicles, the article even states that. there is a big difference self propelled guns are a artillery piece
Nitpicking - this isn't arrse.co.uk.
To most people, whether it's a self-propelled gun or an ARV/ATC, all tracked armoured vehicles with turret-mounted ordnance are much the same thing.
Nitpicking - this isn't arrse.co.uk.To most people, whether it's a self-propelled gun or an ARV/ATC, all tracked armoured vehicles with turret-mounted ordnance are much the same thing.
Which of course explains why the OP picked the most inflammatory phrase rather than for example toy tanks etc
They are not cops, they don't have police powers, a Special Constable has more police powers than the soldiers
I think we're in furious agreement. I know they're not cops, hence the initial question. I just wondered, beyond looking tough, what they could actually do.
Armed police being helped out by the army? A daily reminder that Corbyn is right about the roots of the problem and Theresa May's war on terrorism during her time in office has failed.
The media are obsessed with what someone said. Hence all the Diane Abbott noise.
You don't think that what she has said in the past might be revealing of what they really think, and would do if they were put in a position of power?