Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Attack on parliment

124678

Posts

  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    Dinyull 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.

    We vote for the people that do and we live with the consequences of the decisions these people make. If, for instance (and I don't for a minute think this will happen) they decide that the extra-wide cycle lane contributed to the incident and take it away, we should understand that and the reasons behind it.

    Ultimately you have a choice of whether to watch the footage or even read the news.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • bendertherobotbendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    Dabber wrote:
    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.

    Armament will be on scrutiny of course, and I'm happy to leave that to the Government.

    That said, it was fairly apparent yesterday, that most of our armed responders were wearing t-shirts. Just struck me as a little odd.
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • meanredspidermeanredspider Posts: 12,550
    Dabber wrote:
    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.

    Armament will be on scrutiny of course, and I'm happy to leave that to the Government.

    That said, it was fairly apparent yesterday, that most of our armed responders were wearing t-shirts. Just struck me as a little odd.

    This is exactly the sorts of questions that seeing more of this stuff raise. Then, when we start to see our police looking more like storm troopers, we understand why. Back in the day, the police used an SLR (the standard British Army rifle of the time) but fitted with wooden stock etc because the public didn't like to see our officers armed with what looked like "offensive" (rather than defensive) weapons. These days we're used to see them armed with military style MP5s etc.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • veronese68veronese68 Posts: 24,322 Lives Here
    Lookyhere wrote:
    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.
    Was he the only one in the area that was armed? I very much doubt it so I won't be jumping to conclusions. It's entirely appropriate to have some armed and some unarmed police around there.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Lookyhere wrote:
    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.
    Was he the only one in the area that was armed? I very much doubt it so I won't be jumping to conclusions. It's entirely appropriate to have some armed and some unarmed police around there.

    In europe recently there has been similar attacks that have resulted in no loss of life, Louvre gallery in Paris for example or at the airport recently, armed police in these areas should be the norm - any secure establishment i go to as part of my job are riddled with armed Police and i ve had to jump through hoops to get clearance.

    Any case for unarmed officers would be in public areas acting at stewards well away from points of entry.

    clearly its not appropriate because he was killed, had both Policemen been armed, the attacker would have been shot either by PC Palmer or his colleague, likely result would have been his family would still have a father and husband.

    i dont support routine arming of the police at all but if your job is guarding Parliament then in this day an age these men and women all need weapons, gross stupidity not to do so.
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,962
    Dinyull 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.

    Ultimately you have a choice of whether to watch the footage or even read the news.

    It was in a "What we know so far" segment, without a word of warning it was about to be screened. Not post watershed either.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Dinyull wrote:
    Dinyull 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.

    Ultimately you have a choice of whether to watch the footage or even read the news.

    It was in a "What we know so far" segment, without a word of warning it was about to be screened. Not post watershed either.

    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity, its great pity the media do their job for them, there is no need for 24/7 coverage or gratuitous films.
  • gweedsgweeds Posts: 2,350
    Curious reporting - keep saying the terrorist is British born, as opposed to British, which presumably, he was too.

    Fits a 'homegrown terrorist' narrative I guess.
    Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    The apprentice candidate turned Daily Mail columnist is doing a great job of trying to rack up fear and over egg how divided the country is too...

    Frankly, there's not really anything we can do against these sort of attacks, if some nutter decides they want to rent a car drive into a load of people and then run around stabbing people, then it's very difficult to stop them. The only real comfort is that these attacks are extremely rare, precisely because the country is not as divided as the fear mongers make out.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • cyclecliniccycleclinic Posts: 6,865
    the problem with this crime and it is a crime not terrorism in m view is anyone with access to a car and a knife can do what this man did yesterday. You cant stop that without mass arrest and detention of everyone who espouses a slightly extreme view. In that world I would be rounded up as would many on here.

    Nothing should change. no new laws (there are enough already) no more guns for police nothing new.

    Who is more approchable a policeman with a big gun or a policeman without a gun. Also give the police guns and we end up like france and police with guns has not stopped people committing mass murder there at all. Or in germany. More guns wont help.

    Terrorism normally defined as the act of trying to effect political change through violent means however I see that as a crime, nothing more, nothing less and I see no reason why this crime deserves a special label. Murder is just that murder regardless of the motive. If the motives have some legitimacy then politics can address that, think IRA even the government realised that the way NI was run did create resentment and that leads to anger, then hate, then suffering. Addressing the way NI is run helped create peace. With this crime the motives are not known as the man is dead but if they where known and if the motives were inspired by IS ideology they have no legitimacy here in the UK so what he has done is a crime and giving it a special label serves little purpose, except to try to terrify us all.
    http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,894 Lives Here
    Honestly, you lot. I'm sure the rozzers are better placed to decide who needs to carry a gun and who doesn't.

    I imagine people much more well informed will be in place to sort it out.

    The cry for how great the emergency services are and the clamour for more guns in the next breath misses the point really doesn't it?
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Dabber wrote:
    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.

    Armament will be on scrutiny of course, and I'm happy to leave that to the Government.

    That said, it was fairly apparent yesterday, that most of our armed responders were wearing t-shirts. Just struck me as a little odd.

    This is exactly the sorts of questions that seeing more of this stuff raise. Then, when we start to see our police looking more like storm troopers, we understand why. Back in the day, the police used an SLR (the standard British Army rifle of the time) but fitted with wooden stock etc because the public didn't like to see our officers armed with what looked like "offensive" (rather than defensive) weapons. These days we're used to see them armed with military style MP5s etc.

    Lots of other reasons for the change - this wasn't particularly high up on the agenda ......
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,962
    The worry is, this kind of attack becoming the chosen method in the future. Mentalists just going out on their own accord to cause misery in an un-extraordinary, every day way*.

    You can track where chemicals that could be used for bombs go, how much of what and where but you can't track a lunatic who's decided to mow people down in a city with thousands of vehicles.

    *driving a car, not the attack itself.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Honestly, you lot. I'm sure the rozzers are better placed to decide who needs to carry a gun and who doesn't.

    I imagine people much more well informed will be in place to sort it out.

    The cry for how great the emergency services are and the clamour for more guns in the next breath misses the point really doesn't it?

    well, that argument could be used for the brexit thread too lol!!!

    as for sorting it out, this attack hasnt come out the blue, if they (the much more informed) now feel that ALL westminster police should be armed, then they ve fcuked up and this poor PC "perhaps" could have lived.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 55,894 Lives Here
    Ja look. In the deadly business of counter terrorism , unfortunately some of the lessons you learn are from successful attacks.

    This all sounds like a clamour for finger pointing for whoever decided on the set up of the rozzers up until yesterday, but again, that misses the point of this all.

    They did the best they could, both on the day and in preparation, so I don't think putting the death of one of their own at their own door solves much.

    And this is from someone who isn't particularly comfortable with how a lot of policing occurs.
  • joenobodyjoenobody Posts: 552
    mamba80 wrote:
    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity
    I suspect IS knew nothing of this attack, and many others perpetrated in their name, before it actually happened. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that they're claiming it as something they've done, have I missed it?
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,934
    JoeNobody wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity
    I suspect IS knew nothing of this attack, and many others perpetrated in their name, before it actually happened. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that they're claiming it as something they've done, have I missed it?

    They have said they were behind it now. You are right though, I doubt they knew anything about it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39363297
  • bendertherobotbendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    They'd claim responsibility for littering if it advanced their cause
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 20,137
    I see Farage, Nuttall et al can't resist trying to leverage some publicity out of this. The usual nonsense about how the Muslim community should do more (of what is unspecified). I wonder which 'community' should do more to prevent the likes of Thomas Mair.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see Farage, Nuttall et al can't resist trying to leverage some publicity out of this. The usual nonsense about how the Muslim community should do more (of what is unspecified). I wonder which 'community' should do more to prevent the likes of Thomas Mair.


    Oh those bell ends haven't come crawling out of the fetid sewer they live in have they? Why can't they just censored off.

    I suspect now twaaaty groups such as Britain First et al to come crawling out with some vile rhetoric.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • dinyulldinyull Posts: 2,962
    Tommy Robinson was out in London last night grasping at the opportunity.
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    JoeNobody wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity
    I suspect IS knew nothing of this attack, and many others perpetrated in their name, before it actually happened. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that they're claiming it as something they've done, have I missed it?

    IS have 'adopted' this attack as one of theirs. Up until midmorning / lunchtime Aamaq were preoccupied with Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. Anything to claim that their cause is global.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • MatthewfalleMatthewfalle Posts: 17,380
    Dinyull wrote:
    Tommy Robinson was out in London last night grasping at the opportunity.


    Now he's an odious bell end. Thought they'd be out and about.
    Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am

    De Sisti wrote:
    This is one of the silliest threads I've come across. :lol:

    Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honour :D
    smithy21 wrote:

    He's right you know.
  • mr_goomr_goo Posts: 3,755
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see Farage, Nuttall et al can't resist trying to leverage some publicity out of this. The usual nonsense about how the Muslim community should do more (of what is unspecified). I wonder which 'community' should do more to prevent the likes of Thomas Mair.

    I guess they've never heard of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community which is the oldest islamic order in the UK. They have been subject to attacks by the Sunni, Shia and IS supporting muslims within the UK.

    I heard one observer on BBC Radio 5 calling for internment of all those that are known to have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for IS and have returned unchallenged and all of thoservice under observation by the security and secret services. Personally I'm not sure this is wise as it would galvanise more characters like yesterday's murderer. Nothing is foolproof but we've done pretty damned well so far.
    Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    How many would have died had it been anywhere else other than there, an armed response unit would have taken a lot longer than 20 seconds to respond.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,277
    the problem with this crime and it is a crime not terrorism in m view..

    Terrorism IS a crime...
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    Mr Goo wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see Farage, Nuttall et al can't resist trying to leverage some publicity out of this. The usual nonsense about how the Muslim community should do more (of what is unspecified). I wonder which 'community' should do more to prevent the likes of Thomas Mair.

    I guess they've never heard of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community which is the oldest islamic order in the UK. They have been subject to attacks by the Sunni, Shia and IS supporting muslims within the UK.


    But they're not even recognised as real Muslims by Sunnis and Shias. In fact one was murdered not so long ago in Glasgow by a Sunni Muslim who drove up from Bradford for that purpose. What was even more scary was his supporters in the public gallery. There is an extremism problem in Islam. It's certainly not all Muslims but when you see polls that say 100% of British Muslims think homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle and, worse still, 51% think it should be illegal, you realise actions can be tied to beliefs. What's even more worrying is that younger Muslims tended to have more extremist views.
  • crispybug2crispybug2 Posts: 2,915
    JoeNobody wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity
    I suspect IS knew nothing of this attack, and many others perpetrated in their name, before it actually happened. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that they're claiming it as something they've done, have I missed it?

    I was listening to 5live at 9 o' clock this morning and the BBC security guy said that he'd just listened to the latest IS broadcast and that no mention was made of London attack at all, so their later claim that the fucknuckle was one of their soldiers was opportunistic to say the least!
  • nickicenickice Posts: 2,439
    crispybug2 wrote:
    JoeNobody wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    IS etc launch these attacks for the publicity
    I suspect IS knew nothing of this attack, and many others perpetrated in their name, before it actually happened. I also haven't seen anything to suggest that they're claiming it as something they've done, have I missed it?

    I was listening to 5live at 9 o' clock this morning and the BBC security guy said that he'd just listened to the latest IS broadcast and that no mention was made of London attack at all, so their later claim that the fucknuckle was one of their soldiers was opportunistic to say the least!


    ISIS have called for these kinds of attacks to be carried out without their orders. There have been several so far. Ultimately, ISIS-planned or ISIS-inspired doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference.
  • Garry HGarry H Posts: 6,639
    nickice wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    rjsterry wrote:
    I see Farage, Nuttall et al can't resist trying to leverage some publicity out of this. The usual nonsense about how the Muslim community should do more (of what is unspecified). I wonder which 'community' should do more to prevent the likes of Thomas Mair.

    I guess they've never heard of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community which is the oldest islamic order in the UK. They have been subject to attacks by the Sunni, Shia and IS supporting muslims within the UK.


    But they're not even recognised as real Muslims by Sunnis and Shias. In fact one was murdered not so long ago in Glasgow by a Sunni Muslim who drove up from Bradford for that purpose. What was even more scary was his supporters in the public gallery. There is an extremism problem in Islam. It's certainly not all Muslims but when you see polls that say 100% of British Muslims think homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle and, worse still, 51% think it should be illegal, you realise actions can be tied to beliefs. What's even more worrying is that younger Muslims tended to have more extremist views.

    What, even gay Muslims think it's unacceptable?
Sign In or Register to comment.