Attack on parliment

mr_goo

Imposter wrote:

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.

There is that. However out in Afghanistan the army medics still provided care for Taliban/Al-Qaeda terrorists who had been injured by our soldiers or by an own goal.

Lookyhere

Pross wrote:

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.

So, having 2 police officers on the gates of westminster unarmed, in todays world is a sensible and justified position to take?
this wasnt a passing beat PC, his sole job role was to guard the Palace of Westminster, he greeted MPs and they greeted him, he was member of the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command.

BUT you can bet your last dollar that in future these officers will be armed.

briantrumpet

Imposter wrote:

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.

There might also be the naïve assumption that people who are trained to save lives will try to stop people dying before assessing their politics and making judgements on whether they should live or die.

Jez mon

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.

A slow long drawn out live wasted away, forgotten about in prison or instant martyrdom?

Plus as others have alluded to it's difficult to question the dead.

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

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.

It can be safely assumed the car and the driver had more of a role.

rick_chasey

Does amuse me - plenty of far right guys on twitter, who in their bios have things like 'despise liberal snowflakes', and who live up in the north getting so terribly upset and scared.

Think they need to man up a bit and just get on with life. Next they'll be shouting at some brown person for being someone they're not because they're more scared than they should be.

dinyull

thecycleclinic wrote:

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

That sticks in my craw too.

People lay injured/dying/dead in the middle of a road and instead of stopping the taxi to offer help you whip out a phone to video it and no doubt sell it to every news outlet available.

Almost as shocking is the news outlets using it. But then then need to beat the other channels with their breaking news scoops.

Whilst I'm on: I've never seen so many MP's wanting to talk to the press before, all wanting to spread their accounts and some ever looking pleased they're on the telly.

rick_chasey

Dinyull wrote:

Whilst I'm on: I've never seen so many MP's wanting to talk to the press before, all wanting to spread their accounts and some ever looking pleased they're on the telly.

Well that's kinda fair enough. I mean, it was their office that was specifically attacked, and if that was my office being attacked, I'd want to be on as much TV as possible, showing the terrorists that i'll still be going to the same office the next day and that I wasn't scared.

dinyull

But they were all petrified, fearing for their lives etc...

I get your point, but I don't think that was what they were trying to portray. It's like they were trying to out do each other in the "I was most at danger" stakes.

rick_chasey

Well we all do that a bit.

The provincial far right getting upset when I can see Westminster from my desk and cycle past parliament every day annoys me because I feel I have more of a right to be scared but am not, but that's no different really.

We all like to feel we're part of these things when we're not. It's human nature.

narbs

Well, cycled from St Pancras to the office off Whitehall this morning and you genuinely wouldn't know anything had happened yesterday. We do seem to just get on with stuff.

rick_chasey

Yup yup.

slowbike

Just looking at your second random thought

briantrumpet wrote:

A couple of random thoughts:
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.

Couldn't agree more ...

Look at the BBC news website yesterday and today and it's covered with "stories" on this - every angle they could think of plus a few.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't report the news but perhaps they (along with the rest of the news outlets) should limit themselves to a single news story during/immeadiately after the incident and perhaps a follow up one later on. Attacks on our freedom/way of life shouldn't dominate life as (I agree) this is exactly what terrorists want (whether this was such an attack or not is irrelevant) - to make us more frightened.

dinyull

Rick Chasey wrote:

The provincial far right getting upset when I can see Westminster from my desk and cycle past parliament every day annoys me because I feel I have more of a right to be scared but am not, but that's no different really.

Yeah, I saw something on twatter from some f*cknut saying that most Londoners were quiet, subdued and looking at their phones on the tube this morning - trying to point out how scared everyone was. Someone replied with the perfect response of - first time on the tube mate?

seanoconn

Slowbike wrote:

Just looking at your second random thought

briantrumpet wrote:

A couple of random thoughts:
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.

Couldn't agree more ...

Look at the BBC news website yesterday and today and it's covered with "stories" on this - every angle they could think of plus a few.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't report the news but perhaps they (along with the rest of the news outlets) should limit themselves to a single news story during/immeadiately after the incident and perhaps a follow up one later on. Attacks on our freedom/way of life shouldn't dominate life as (I agree) this is exactly what terrorists want (whether this was such an attack or not is irrelevant) - to make us more frightened.

The media sensationalising a news story!? :shock: Never. Granted this is quite a big story but the media love a bit of terrorism.

dinyull

Slowbike wrote:

Just looking at your second random thought

briantrumpet wrote:

A couple of random thoughts:
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.

Couldn't agree more ...

Look at the BBC news website yesterday and today and it's covered with "stories" on this - every angle they could think of plus a few.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't report the news but perhaps they (along with the rest of the news outlets) should limit themselves to a single news story during/immeadiately after the incident and perhaps a follow up one later on. Attacks on our freedom/way of life shouldn't dominate life as (I agree) this is exactly what terrorists want (whether this was such an attack or not is irrelevant) - to make us more frightened.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence

Tough to get the right balance though as if it's "under reported" the far-right will claim it as being covered up and use it to their advantage.

slowbike

Dinyull wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence

Tough to get the right balance though as if it's "under reported" the far-right will claim it as being covered up and use it to their advantage.

Reporting the facts isn't covering it up - we shouldn't not report an incident like this.

However, clamouring for every little bit of information and opinion in order to get an angle just sensationalises it.

Do we need video footage of the aftermath? Granted - the security services will want as much video evidence surrounding it as possible in order to catch anyone else involved - but do I need to see a video of the car driving on the pavement? do I need to see images of the paramedics performing CPR? Do I need to see an image of the dead? Nope - I don't.
What I want is to know the names of those who lost their lives. May be those who helped beyond the call of duty and the facts of what happened (but not the nitty gritty).

rick_chasey

Curious reporting - keep saying the terrorist is British born, as opposed to British, which presumably, he was too.

bianchimoon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does amuse me - plenty of far right guys on twitter, who in their bios have things like 'despise liberal snowflakes', and who live up in the north getting so terribly upset and scared.

Think they need to man up a bit and just get on with life. Next they'll be shouting at some brown person for being someone they're not because they're more scared than they should be.

What's living up north got to do with anything?

rick_chasey

bianchimoon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Does amuse me - plenty of far right guys on twitter, who in their bios have things like 'despise liberal snowflakes', and who live up in the north getting so terribly upset and scared.

Think they need to man up a bit and just get on with life. Next they'll be shouting at some brown person for being someone they're not because they're more scared than they should be.

What's living up north got to do with anything?

Long way from London innit.

dinyull

Sorry, my point was:

Right leaning media will get a hold of cctv footage as you list and show it. BBC, Channel 4 etc not showing it will be portrayed by the right as a cover-up. See Trump, Donald J.


I'm with you. I was appalled when watching an update last night to see the cctv footage of the woman being thrown from the bridge followed by the mobile recording from the bloke in a taxi. Just no need.

The media - BBC, ITV, Channel 4 etc. ALL need to stop competing with each other about un-earthing new BREAKING NEWS to get more viewers. It's sickening that they can use an event like yesterday to try and improve their ratings. For eg, the Police made a big point to ask all media not name the attacker as it could tip off possible associates, and then Channel 4 name the (incorrect) attacker.

meanredspider

I'm conflicted on the use of the video footage. I know it seems voyeuristic but I also think it's important for us to understand what happens in these incidents. I, for one, hadn't appreciated just how fast the car was going. We will need to make decisions about what is done to make these events less likely and, in order to come to the right conclusions, we need to understand what happens.

We are definitely more squeamish than we used to be about this stuff: footage from the Falklands of a British soldier with his leg missing below the knee wouldn't be tolerated today. And I certainly seen some shocking footage of the aftermath of IRA bombings. I'm not advocating that we return to this level but I also think we should also understand.

rick_chasey

So May references what turns out to be a fake meme on tube board which 'encapsulate the nation's mood'.

Fake meme's capturing the nation's mood? Who'd have thought.

Tashman

Not the point I appreciate, but parliment!

Matthewfalle

meanredspider wrote:

I'm conflicted on the use of the video footage. I know it seems voyeuristic but I also think it's important for us to understand what happens in these incidents. I, for one, hadn't appreciated just how fast the car was going. We will need to make decisions about what is done to make these events less likely and, in order to come to the right conclusions, we need to understand what happens.

We are definitely more squeamish than we used to be about this stuff: footage from the Falklands of a British soldier with his leg missing below the knee wouldn't be tolerated today. And I certainly seen some shocking footage of the aftermath of IRA bombings. I'm not advocating that we return to this level but I also think we should also understand.

We tend to use a lot of the civ div footage in training sessions, generally on how not to do stuff.

Helmet cams from people who know what they are doing is used for how to do stuff sessions.

From a professional viewpoint, every tool is a learning tool, however it can turn a bit voyeuristic as people hoover it all.

Overall, I'd prefer not to have to see too much of it.

Pross

Lookyhere wrote:

Pross wrote:

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.

So, having 2 police officers on the gates of westminster unarmed, in todays world is a sensible and justified position to take?
this wasnt a passing beat PC, his sole job role was to guard the Palace of Westminster, he greeted MPs and they greeted him, he was member of the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command.

BUT you can bet your last dollar that in future these officers will be armed.

Yes, having unarmed officers there IN ADDITION to the armed officers who were also there is perfectly reasonable.

dinyull

meanredspider wrote:

I'm conflicted on the use of the video footage. I know it seems voyeuristic but I also think it's important for us to understand what happens in these incidents. I, for one, hadn't appreciated just how fast the car was going. We will need to make decisions about what is done to make these events less likely and, in order to come to the right conclusions, we need to understand what happens.

We are definitely more squeamish than we used to be about this stuff: footage from the Falklands of a British soldier with his leg missing below the knee wouldn't be tolerated today. And I certainly seen some shocking footage of the aftermath of IRA bombings. I'm not advocating that we return to this level but I also think we should also understand.

We, the people, don't make the decisions though. I would fully expect the police, security services etc to have access and pour over it. There will be much more clearer footage I'm sure. We don't need to see it though.

dabber

BBC now saying the policeman who shot the scumbag was not part of the regular police guarding that entrance but a plainclothes personal security guard of Michael Fallon. So just good luck that he was there at the time.

Lookyhere

Pross wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Pross wrote:

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.

So, having 2 police officers on the gates of westminster unarmed, in todays world is a sensible and justified position to take?
this wasnt a passing beat PC, his sole job role was to guard the Palace of Westminster, he greeted MPs and they greeted him, he was member of the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command.

BUT you can bet your last dollar that in future these officers will be armed.

Yes, having unarmed officers there IN ADDITION to the armed officers who were also there is perfectly reasonable.

No its not at all, if Micheal Fallons personal body guards had nt been there, this guy would have gone onto kill someone else, it appears to be co incidence someone was there to shoot him.
we cannot help stop all killings, Lee Rigby for example but it beggars belief that unarmed police are used in Westminster.

there is no place for unarmed officers in personal protection of our leaders what-so-ever, this is not the 1950s!
the killing of a minster or another MP would be a propaganda coup for IS (if they are indeed behind this) not too mention the safety of unarmed Policemen, it seems to me that we are not learning from the European experience at all.

We are supposed to be on a severe alert for a terrorist attack, yet unarmed guards are used, if this guy had a gun instead of a kitchen knife..... ?

pblakeney

Unarmed protection does seem more than a little useless.