Terrorism

Spanish witness who’s friend was killed to the London attack said the police who where at the scene could have ended it in seconds had they been armed.

Bingo!

Mon the fascists! 😕

Right, so believing, in the light of repeated terrorist attacks that have only been ended by armed police, that the UK should arm all police officers like in:

Spain
Italy
France
Germany
Brussels
Sweden
Iceland
And IIRC every other EU country

AND part of the UK

Is now the mark of a fascist?

And all I’ve heard from you so far is that having more police to ‘monitor’ people (as long as you don’t read their emails though) who we already knew were a threat, will magically solve everything

I’m for allowing the security services and police to do what they do, to work at stopping the threats that they do, to maintain a balance between individual freedoms and the good of society.
Banning encryption as well documented by some people who know what they are talking about would provide zero benefit to counter terrorism given how simple it would be to evade any ban.
More police means more leads can be followed in more detail – that sounds like a good thing. The current government is responsible for the cuts that have reduced numbers and threaten to do that again – is that a good idea?
How long after you have arrested and imprisoned somebody without trial do you expect them not to be a threat?
What will it do to their families and those around them in terms of how they view the UK?
Will it reduce the threats or multiply those sympathetic to a cause? – See all the other examples here.
What about the mistakes?
Monitor sounds like a simple word, in reality it can mean a lot of things, it may also mean that people can be worked with to try and help them and to bring people back from the edge.

In this case May is back to engaging in sound bite politics. She is desperately trying to appeal to the people who want “SOMETHING” doing they don’t care how effective it is so long as it is loud and shouty and has a launch.

Monitor sounds like a simple word, in reality it can mean a lot of things

Like reading their emails?

Spanish witness who’s friend was killed to the London attack said the police who where at the scene could have ended it in seconds had they been armed.

We shall carve that one into stone then…

Despite having armed police how have the French authorities fared against the attacks on them? Being armed doesn’t seem to be a magic solution does it.

Like reading their emails?

You know that with a warrant you can already do that don’t you. You also know if you actually read any of the posts that it’s really simple to get an off the shelf encryption service up and running anywhere in the world and make the traffic look ordinary, that is before you start hiding your messages in plain sight. Perhaps it’s time you listened to somebody who knows what they are talking about rather than TM

Ninfan, nope it’s an opinion based on the cumulative consumption of yours and jambas views over a long period. Youse don’t half talk some amount of shite. All based around subservience to authority.

Despite having armed police how have the French authorities fared against the attacks on them?

Well, today’s knife attack was over in seconds with nobody killed, rather than eight minutes with deaths and dozens of injured

Sounds like an improvement to me

Loses argument, resorts to abuse – very much a return to lefty stereotype Joseph

Where’s the abuse in that post?

Well, today’s knife attack was over in seconds with nobody killed, rather than eight minutes with deaths and dozens of injured

Sounds like an improvement to memost likely scenario is that the attackers wouldn’t have turned up with knives. Or did you fail to notice the bataclan maniacs turning up with machine guns…

most likely scenario is that the attackers wouldn’t have turned up with knives.

So, if the police are fully armed the terrorists will just arm themselves with guns?

Like the one today who, despite a fully armed police, didn’t arm himself with a gun

Oh…

You thought that out well, didn’t you? 🙄

ninfan – Member
Loses argument, resorts to abuse – very much a return to lefty stereotype

Snowflake
Leftie (you think it’s an insult)
etc.

You still have no reasoned argument for banning encryption and fail to grasp the concepts.
The UK police are against being routinely armed – so I’d defer to them on that one
You don’t want to address any of the complex issues around detention without trial that will arise or show how it’s worked well elsewhere.

None of these ideas do what is needed which is to address the root causes of the current terrorist threat. One of the bigger issues is also believing that some of these attacks are part of a larger network, ISIS etc like to claim credit for anything they can – it makes them look bigger.
Lone wolf or small cell groups are notoriously harder to track as they leave less traces, communicate less and don’t need to rely on complicated chains of command etc.

Just pointing out that your scanario isn’t the only one, you know like how you presented it. So nah. Not really, I’m aware it can go many different ways.

I’m also confused as to how armed police would have stopped the Manchester bomber?

Lone wolf or small cell groups are notoriously harder to track as they leave less traces, communicate less and don’t need to rely on complicated chains of command etc.

Oh, I thought you were going to monitor them with your magical 20k missing coppers? You now reckon that they are almost impossible to track

They’re not impossible to shoot when they do attack though, are they?

You can whinge as much as you like, all the evidence says that had the initial police on scene been armed (and just to P you off, let’s give them RFID activated smart guns) then the terrorists would have been shot and neutralised in the first moments of the attack, not after a bloody rampage – as successfully happened in France earlier today.

I’m also confused as to how armed police would have stopped the Manchester bomber?

Straw man, nobody claimed it could have – but guns have ended 3/4 of the recent attacks, and there’s no logical reason why the other attackers wouldn’t have used bombs if they had the skill and wherewithall to produce them, so what you successfully do is make it more difficult to carry out a successful terror attack, and limit them to fewer people.

Monitor sounds like a simple word, in reality it can mean a lot of things

Like reading their emails?[/quote]

Y’know, it’s difficult to reply to this without your “typical leftie stereotype insults” so I’d suggest you spin back through the last ten pages or so of discussion and then get back to us, because we’ve covered off a lot of this stuff. With all due respect, it’s like you’ve come in halfway through a film and then started asking whether they’re a goodie or a baddie.

So, essentially you’re still just arguing to only ban stuff you don’t like, and not ban stuff you do like, eh Cougar?

Strange you are whinging that leftie is somehow an ‘insult’ – I thought it was a badge of pride?

Guns could also have made things worse. Youre still going with the one and only scenario that you envisage. That’s not the case. There’s various ways any of them could have played out.

The straw man is that armed police equals a solution. It’s nonsense. Highlighted by the fact that you’re pretty much a lone voice in calling for it. Even the police disagree with you.

Even the police disagree with you.

Politically correct bedwetters in charge of the police may disagree – one of the chief ones being the woman who was responsible for JCDM being shot and then tried to cover it up and lay the blame. I know several coppers who are all for being fully armed, some of whom spent years carrying a gun round the streets without having shot anyone. MOD police and CNC don’t seem to have any major problems with it either.

Ninfan knows a copper that wants a gun, therefore all police should be armed. Classic! 😆

Btw your assertion that 3 out of 4 last attacks would have been stopped only points to one conclusion. In that armed police may have a slight affect on unorganised loonballs(allowing for your perfect world scanario). But as soon at the terrorists get even slightly organised the routinely armed police become essentially useless.

Btw your assertion that 3 out of 4 last attacks would have been stopped …

No, it’s a matter of fact that three out of the last four attacks were stopped by armed police

And still you are concentrating on stopping rather than preventing. Still not getting the bigger problem here. What are the causes, how do we address those? Bombing and shooting doesn’t seem to be working from this side.

So, essentially you’re still just arguing to only ban stuff you don’t like, and not ban stuff you do like, eh Cougar?

Again, I suggest you read back, I’ve already answered this question.

Strange you are whinging that leftie is somehow an ‘insult’ – I thought it was a badge of pride?

I’m not “whinging” at all. you’re the one repeatedly using it as an insult, I merely quoted your phrasing. I don’t see it as either an “insult” or a “badge of pride.” Nor do I identify with it particularly. But you’d know that if you were paying attention rather than point scoring.

ninfan – Member
Btw your assertion that 3 out of 4 last attacks would have been stopped …
No, it’s a matter of fact that three out of the last four attacks were stopped by armed police

nope

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2017

I’ve genuinely lost track of what ninfan wants. Looking at the last couple of pages and who/what he’s throwing around as an insult it seems that he wants:

1, No more police for investigating
2, More police with guns (preferably all of them)

So if this is accurate does he just want to allow more plots to come to fruition and then gun the attackers down in the streets rather than find them and stop them before they crash a van into people out to have a drink and a meal?

I haven’t read the entire thread so apologies if this has been raised. I’m a cop and have worked predominantly in cid or plain clothes for over 20 years, including almost 10 years in our forces major incident team. I know probably 20-30 cops who have applied for armed response unit roles during that time and of those, I think 5 or 6 have passed the course which consists of a lot more than just firing a gun in a shooting range. Of those 5 or 6 I know two people who despite passing, backed out when it came to actually committing to the role as they didn’t feel it was for them. I have no desire to be armed and those who I know who openly express the view that we should be are a tiny minority and they are the ones who I definitely would not want to be given access to a firearm.

Are we to consider lowering the required standards for all of these armed officers?

Are we to consider lowering the required standards for all of these armed officers?

Sounds like we would have to, along with massive assumption that everyone is capable of actually sooting someone. Takes an a certain mindset to be able to actually shoot someone with intention of killing. Many soldiers can’t do it when it comes down to it which I guess is one of the reasons behind those people you know backing out

Politically correct bedwetters in charge of the police may disagree

Says the man with subscription to Stormfront and a box of tissues by his bed

Is that a Walter Mitty way of saying you are a store detective or CCTV operator?

Ah, as usual – right wing delusional gun freaks with control issues and low self esteem see they are losing the argument so resort to personal abuse and character attacks 🙂

There is nothing in the Human Rights Act that gets in the way of effectively tackling terrorism. I can say that with this authority. I was director of public prosecutions for five years. I’ve worked very closely with the security and intelligence services and we’ve prosecuted very, very serious criminals. And the Human Rights Act did not get in the way of what we were doing.

This is a diversion … We’ve had three terrible attacks in three months. The problem is people just coming onto the radar, then the question of how they are risk assessed, and what resource we’re putting in. And the prime minister, because she was facing searing questions about that yesterday, about resources, she has now brought up the Human Rights Act as if that stands in the way of the current problems.

Sir Keir Starmer on R4 this morning

Bregante – my father was a firearms officer for a long time (including being a sniper for a good part of that) and he said never really felt that arming every single officer was a good idea in that it raises the stakes when an incident happens. Like you said when everyone becomes armed, you have to lower the standard to enable everyone to stand a good chance of reaching that standard.

Given we’ve no idea where the people were killed (I think, I’ve not seen it at least), it’s not easy to say whether or not having every officer in the area armed would have saved those lost lives.

And the prime minister, because she was facing searing questions about that yesterday, about resources, she has now brought up the Human Rights Act as if that stands in the way of the current problems.

May trying to bullshit her way out of a problem she had a hand in creating by pointing at some rules that don’t actually prevent anything she wants to do? Never.

It wasn’t human rights laws that allowed one of the London bridge attackers into the UK, despite being on an EU watch list, Theresa Mays £88m cuts to border funding is likely to have been a far larger factor

Sir Keir Starmer on R4 this morning

But he was unconvincing when challenged with the specific cases of (2?) convicted terrorists who were not deported (cant remember the cases exactly it will be on catch up) due to a risk to them in their home country.

Like you said when everyone becomes armed, you have to lower the standard to enable everyone to stand a good chance of reaching that standard

Another thing to bear in mind is that every interaction with the public can become “life or death” once every officer has a firearm. Every “scuffle” takes on more significance!!

nope
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2017

Now find a list of failed / thwarted attempts.

surfer

Another thing to bear in mind is that every interaction with the public can become “life or death” once every officer has a firearm. Every “scuffle” takes on more significance!!

No it doesn’t. That’s exactly the kind of hyperbolic lie that gets trotted out. It might be true in America but it is certainly not true in Northern Ireland. I can assure you the PSNI get in plenty of scuffles and I can’t recall a single instance where the police had to shoot someone in such a scenario.

I’ve genuinely lost track of what ninfan wants.

Attention, and for everyone to bow down and admit he’s right.
In lieu of the latter he’s happy with the former.

I’m not the only one who finds the thought of routinely armed police scary** rather than reassuring. Not only does it introduce a level of power which goes well above policing by consent, it opens up more potential abuses and mistakes, escalates the criminal element and apart from anything else, it means we live in a state that needs routinely armed police, which is pretty much a sign of failure in my eyes, and despite what many might say I don;t think it’s something you can undo once you’ve done it.

*not because I don’t trust individual members of the Police, but because I don’t trust ‘human beings’ as the fallible things they are, and certainly don’t trust most of the ones that get into positions of power.

I can assure you the PSNI get in plenty of scuffles and I can’t recall a single instances where the police had to shoot someone in such a scenario

Where did I infer police “had” to shoot someone? The point being an armed officer by definition has a gun on his belt. If he is wrestling with a couple of drunks he has to be aware that one of them could end up holding that gun.