Attack on parliment

briantrumpet

A couple of random thoughts:

1) Coming to conclusions before we've had confirmation of any real facts isn't really very helpful - it'll only lead to the sorts of disagreements above, and we can do that very nicely in the Brexit thread.

2) Getting in a massive hoo-ha in reaction to the four (tragic) deaths is exactly the reaction the terrorists want - minimum 'expenditure' for the maximum change in our attitudes. Any curtailing of general freedoms is a win for terror.

That said, we can still extend our sympathies to anyone affected, and give our thanks to those who have lost their lives in trying to protect us.

Stevo_666

Some more information on the attacker:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-attack-suspect-photo-picture-man-westminster-terror-incident-ambulance-a7644291.html

From the article linked above:-
"The man behind the attack has been named in reports as Abu Izzadeen. Here's who that is

Abu Izzadeen, who was born Trevor Brooks, has been named as the man who drove a car into the Houses of Parliament and attempted to attack police officers. His views were far from secret: videos of him can be seen across YouTube, in which he rants about how important it is to kill the police and how everyone in Parliament are kufar, or infidels."

bendertherobot

Save that his lawyer says he's still in prison.

So the inevitable outrage that people will feel when he's awarded defamation damages in due course is going to be a given.

Pross

So much for the eyewitnesses claiming he looked Asian or do Asian and Caribbean people 'all look the same' to some people?

I'd agree with those saying it's a surprise we don't get more of this type of attack. It's simple for any terrorist wannabe acting completely alone to do this anywhere in the country. That said, from what I've been told by someone I know who was in South Wales special branch the idea that attacks being rare suggests there aren't that many people wanting to do us harm could be far from the case. I think it's a sign of how good the intelligence community is at uncovering the plots (which is probably the reason most recent attacks have gone down the vehicle as a weapon route). His words were 'if the public knew everything we were looking at they wouldn't go out' and that's in a provincial force.

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

Save that his lawyer says he's still in prison.

So the inevitable outrage that people will feel when he's awarded defamation damages in due course is going to be a given.

Could be. Jailed for 2 years on 8th Jan 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35262460

Or he has been released following serving half his sentence?

I'm sure we'll find out either way by the morning

bendertherobot

He could be out. But the fact his lawyer says he's not and that C4 are back pedalling more than a 70's Raleigh Strika is an indication.

On the basis of his detention it's possible he IS out but he'd be tagged in all likelihood.

EDIT: even his brother has phoned C4 now and said he's still in prison. C4 better get the cheque book out.

surrey_commuter

bendertherobot wrote:

He could be out. But the fact his lawyer says he's not and that C4 are back pedalling more than a 70's Raleigh Strika is an indication.

On the basis of his detention it's possible he IS out but he'd be tagged in all likelihood.

EDIT: even his brother has phoned C4 now and said he's still in prison. C4 better get the cheque book out.

One of Steve's pictures is not pixelated and it certainly looks like him. Would explain why he was misidentified. Or of course it might be him.

imposter2.0

Surrey Commuter wrote:

One of Steve's pictures is not pixelated and it certainly looks like him.

He may not be the only bald, black guy in London with a beard though, that's what I'm thinking....

mamba80

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

I really thought the UK would be immune to these heinous terror attacks

Like others, I'm interested to understand why you think the UK might have been 'immune'..??

I thought the UK would not experience this kind of attack because of the amazing work the security services do in preventing terrorist activities.

Why not? i worked in London whilst the IRA bombed the place, they didnt seem to have too much trouble.
Do you think our security services are in some way superior to the French/German/Auss/Russian/Israeli et el?

i can t believe the 2 poor Police originally attacked and one killed appear not to be not armed, it seems his colleague had to run to get help, this is Westminster not Plymouth's Barbican.

the FO guy did an amazing job trying keep him alive too.

I just hope the injured can make a full recovery.

crispybug2

crispybug2 wrote:

My children's sister (ex wife's child by a another man) is in London at the moment with her French classmates, and I understand that the Houses of Parliament were on the itinerary.
I've tried contacting her on Facebook but no reply, hopefully she and her classmates are safe.

Just heard from my daughter that her sister is safe and well. They were heading away from Westminster and managed to be outside the lockdown area, they're all shaken up by the event and might be heading home tomorrow, a few days early.
But she is safe and that's the main thing!

rick_chasey

crispybug2 wrote:

My children's sister (ex wife's child by a another man) is in London at the moment with her French classmates, and I understand that the Houses of Parliament were on the itinerary.
I've tried contacting her on Facebook but no reply, hopefully she and her classmates are safe.

I passed the convoy of all the kids who were put on london buses and escorted out by the police on my way home.

They all looked very cheery (the adults on board less so!) so we all gave them a big wave.

Lookyhere

Police guarding Parliament weren't armed? and one died.

i trust in the fullness of time, the Met can justify this.

Matthewfalle

Lookyhere wrote:

Police guarding Parliament weren't armed? and one died.

i trust in the fullness of time, the Met can justify this.

So you want all police armed?

Pross

Lookyhere wrote:

Police guarding Parliament weren't armed? and one died.

i trust in the fullness of time, the Met can justify this.

One officer wasn't armed, that's slightly different to 'police guarding Parliament'. From what the Met have said he was close to the armed colleagues who shot the attacker.

Armed police shoot someone they think is a terrorist = criticism and outrage, police not armed and get shot by terrorist = criticism and outrage. You really can't win with some people. I reckon we've got the balance about right.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

[

Why so angry/uptight that I didn't think this would happen.
It's tragic and very very upsetting.

more importantly how did you discern his religion from the extent of his skin tone.
?[/quote]

Quite a coincidence then.

Would people be equally upset if a bomb going off outside an army barracks in Northern Ireland in the 80s was assumed to be the work of Irish Republicans? There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

imposter2.0

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's fine to jump to conclusions before being in possession of the facts. Earlier this afternoon, everyone was pinning the blame on Abu Izzadeen - that went well......until it was pointed out that he was otherwise engaged. Not unreasonably, I think the lesson from that (if it isn't already understood), is react to the facts, not the assumptions.

DeVlaeminck

Imposter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's fine to jump to conclusions before being in possession of the facts. Earlier this afternoon, everyone was pinning the blame on Abu Izzadeen - that went well......until it was pointed out that he was otherwise engaged. Not unreasonably, I think the lesson from that (if it isn't already understood), is react to the facts, not the assumptions.

Of course it's fine to draw reasonable conclusions based on past experience - that's what we do all the time in everyday life.

Should people not have believed the news reports about Abu Izzadeen either then - what level of certainty is required before you can actually discuss something ?

Look - nobody was saying that this was absolutely proven to be linked to Islamist terrorism but it was a reasonable assumption to make when discussing it on a forum like this - to imply Goo is somehow racist in doing so is ridiculous - we can't discuss what everyone is thinking ?

cougie

Why do we need to assume anything until we have the facts ? Lets wait and see or else we run the risk of setting off on a wild goose chase.

Wherever you are in the world. Whatever your religion is. Whatever your colour is. There will always be murderous lunatics but thankfully they are such a small minority.

pblakeney

cougie wrote:

Why do we need to assume anything until we have the facts ? Lets wait and see or else we run the risk of setting off on a wild goose chase.

When faced with a threat some try to assess that risk to mitigate it ASAP.
Waiting can be dangerous, or sensible. Just to answer your question.

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Imposter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's fine to jump to conclusions before being in possession of the facts. Earlier this afternoon, everyone was pinning the blame on Abu Izzadeen - that went well......until it was pointed out that he was otherwise engaged. Not unreasonably, I think the lesson from that (if it isn't already understood), is react to the facts, not the assumptions.

Of course it's fine to draw reasonable conclusions based on past experience - that's what we do all the time in everyday life.

Should people not have believed the news reports about Abu Izzadeen either then - what level of certainty is required before you can actually discuss something ?

Look - nobody was saying that this was absolutely proven to be linked to Islamist terrorism but it was a reasonable assumption to make when discussing it on a forum like this - to imply Goo is somehow racist in doing so is ridiculous - we can't discuss what everyone is thinking ?

Bang on, well said.

seanoconn

PBlakeney wrote:

cougie wrote:

Why do we need to assume anything until we have the facts ? Lets wait and see or else we run the risk of setting off on a wild goose chase.

When faced with a threat some try to assess that risk to mitigate it ASAP.
Waiting can be dangerous, or sensible. Just to answer your question.

Absolutely. Maybe the Police shouldn't have put the city on high alert in case of another terror attack until they had all the facts!

rick_chasey

Well me, my wife, and all my colleagues will be going to work as per usual.

Only real difference is I normally go passed Westminster so I'll detour a little because it's still shut.

Had a, err, interesting view yday from my office window, from which you can see Westminster etc...

Rest assured, I'll be cycling passed it again as soon as.

Pross

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Would people be equally upset if a bomb going off outside an army barracks in Northern Ireland in the 80s was assumed to be the work of Irish Republicans? There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

Your comparison isn't quite the same though is it? For a start such attacks in NI were commonplace at the time. Also, the methodology made it unlikely to be anything but a terrorist attack. The last time someone launched a knife attack in the vicinity of a British MP that I can think of was the Jo Cox murder which was a white person with right wing sympathies (which didn't generally get referred to us terrorism for some reason) whilst using a car as a weapon could be pretty much anyone. Yes, an assumption of Islamist terrorism is reasonable but I don't believe stating it as being the case without any knowledge of facts is.

cycleclinic

Why is it some people faced with tradigy film ot on there phones.

Also i dont think these kind of acts shoild be viewed as terrorism. They are criminal. People have been murdered, people have been injured. That is criminal. We have laws to deals deal with those who commit such acts. The political motives the perpetrator may claim are not that relevant. This may have been a hate crime. He hated british society enough to kill and injury people he did not know.

The ira waged a campaign of terrorism to terrify the british public to demand change in northern ireland. The ira viewed it as an armed struggle. It could be viewed as a civil war which thankfully is over. I dont think any clmparision to the IRA is relavant.

I am uncomfortable with the label terrorism. It gets used to justify all sorts of laws which simply dont work very well.

mr_goo

Just had a look at the front pages of today's nationals. Quite a few showing paramedics attending to the terrorist/murderer.
I think this speaks volumes of the UKs right mindedness in that we even provide care for the sick f***s that are hell bent on destroying our open and free societies.

rolf_f

PBlakeney wrote:

cougie wrote:

Why do we need to assume anything until we have the facts ? Lets wait and see or else we run the risk of setting off on a wild goose chase.

When faced with a threat some try to assess that risk to mitigate it ASAP.
Waiting can be dangerous, or sensible. Just to answer your question.

Good to know that the members of BR who are jumping to conclusions are mitigating the risks of further atrocities.
Some people have to make assumptions. The rest of us have the luxury of not needing to.

I caught on R4 one MP commenting on the role of the bike lane in enabling this to happen. I hope that doesn't cause over-reaction on here. Or in Parliament.

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

cougie wrote:

Why do we need to assume anything until we have the facts ? Lets wait and see or else we run the risk of setting off on a wild goose chase.

When faced with a threat some try to assess that risk to mitigate it ASAP.
Waiting can be dangerous, or sensible. Just to answer your question.

Good to know that the members of BR who are jumping to conclusions are mitigating the risks of further atrocities.

I caught on R4 one MP commenting on the role of the bike lane in enabling this to happen. I hope that doesn't cause over-reaction on here. Or in Parliament.

Yeah but like, one, maybe two terrorists use it every so often.

Us cyclists use it every day!!

:P

imposter2.0

Mr Goo wrote:

Just had a look at the front pages of today's nationals. Quite a few showing paramedics attending to the terrorist/murderer.
I think this speaks volumes of the UKs right mindedness in that we even provide care for the sick f***s that are hell bent on destroying our open and free societies.

I suspect the reasons for trying to save him were purely practical. The dead don't respond particularly well to questioning.

nickice

Matthewfalle wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

At least one innocent victim has lost their life. Some others have catastrophic injuries.
Unbelievable. I really thought the UK would be immune to these heinous terror attacks where the Islamists use vehicles as a weapon.

Out of interest, where did you read it was an islamist?

Since I haven't heard anything on the origin of the attacker.

I've been listening to witness reports on the radio and it appears that at least one assailant was of Asian origin. Also the modus operandi of the attack which bears similarities to attacks across mainland Europe. Therefore I draw the rather obvious conclusion that it was Islamic inspired and not the PIRA or Bader Meinhoff reborn.

Why? Because there are no Asians in N. Ireland or Germany?

I doubt there are many Asians in the IRA given that they don't share the historical grievances that the nationalists do. There isn't anything wrong with making a basic assumption that this is likely Islamic terror given the recent history in Europe.

nickice

seanoconn wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Imposter wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing the obvious conclusion everyone has come to. One can think most terrorist attacks of this sort are the work of Muslims without believing most muslims are involved in or sympathise with terrorist attacks.

In other words, it's fine to jump to conclusions before being in possession of the facts. Earlier this afternoon, everyone was pinning the blame on Abu Izzadeen - that went well......until it was pointed out that he was otherwise engaged. Not unreasonably, I think the lesson from that (if it isn't already understood), is react to the facts, not the assumptions.

Of course it's fine to draw reasonable conclusions based on past experience - that's what we do all the time in everyday life.

Should people not have believed the news reports about Abu Izzadeen either then - what level of certainty is required before you can actually discuss something ?

Look - nobody was saying that this was absolutely proven to be linked to Islamist terrorism but it was a reasonable assumption to make when discussing it on a forum like this - to imply Goo is somehow racist in doing so is ridiculous - we can't discuss what everyone is thinking ?

Bang on, well said.

People seem to be more offended with the very reasonable assumption this was Islamic extremism, than they are by the actual attack.