Manchester Arena

FocusZing

Matthewfalle wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

It's been a tough couple of days at work but the level of support offered by the public has been humbling and emotionally overwhelming.
Also, the it's really hit home how the media appears to thrive on half truths, supposition, rumour and the occasional facts.

Hope all is going as good as it can Nap - take it easy out there.

+1, Keep up the good work.

pblakeney

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Amber Rudd's request for the US to stop leaking things seems to have fallen on deaf ears - the New York Times has released close up images of the bomb components.

It's not like the UK press don't leak US stuff regularly.

Annoyance level has now been upped to "furious" according to the BBC.

ugo.santalucia

meanredspider wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Harsh given the history. :evil:

mine is a generic comment about diabetes, heart disease and to an extent even cancer. There is no legislation tp prevent the sale of cheap sugar, processed crap food, alcohol... only tobacco seems to be on the radar... not to speak about legislation regulating food outlets serving crap

That you see some sort of moral equivalence between murdering people as a political gesture, road accidents and partly self-induced health problems is just breathtaking in its wrong-headedness, not to mention crass in the extreme given who posted the comment to which you are replying.

Thanks - I have an incredibly tough hide so I let these things wash over me - especially as it's pretty misinformed. I'm sure most type 1 diabetics (a few who frequent this forum) would find the comments pretty crass too. And many cancers (especially childhood cancers) are simply genetic errors related to growth. But, hey, let's just train the unemployed to watch possible terrorists instead whilst 7 teenagers a day in this country are diagnosed with cancer and god knows how many more kids.

As usual on this forum, comments are manipulated for the sole purpose of making look someone thick, or worse, now even evil.

The alleged cost of diabetes on the NHS is not down to the small minority of type 1. The real cost is down to the consequences of poor lifestyle. There is absolutely no point in spending more, if at the same time we don't do much to prevent. I often wonder ho some foods can even be allowed to be sold, let alone be sold cheap.

I was not suggesting hiring 50K idiots to look after the nation, but stepping up policing... it is no mystery that the Tories have starved the public sector and cut resources, maybe it is time to reverse the trend.

Anyway, as per above, no point in having a discussion to be crucified for having a view... I don't understand why people feel the urge to get personal on absolutely everything... bein that politics, hydraulic brakes or engine lubricants

I guess this thread is pretty pointless anyway, so I'll take my coat

pblakeney

A slight side step away from cancer there...

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Amber Rudd's request for the US to stop leaking things seems to have fallen on deaf ears - the New York Times has released close up images of the bomb components.

It's not like the UK press don't leak US stuff regularly.

Annoyance level has now been upped to "furious" according to the BBC.

I wonder what will end first. The "special relationship" or Donald Trump?
Coincidence that there were no issues until a few months ago?

shortfall

mamba80 wrote:

I
these people are not crazy either, they are motivated and clever and we should acknowledge that.
!

Well maybe some of them are crazy from years of habitual cannabis abuse. I cite the following examples.

The Manchester bomber
Richard Reid the shoe bomber
Jihadi John
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale the killers of Lee Rigby
Muhadyn More the Leytonstone Tube knifeman
Said Kouachi Charlie Hebdo killer
Tunis beach killer Seifeddine Rezgui
Belgian train terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani
Khalid Masood, who carried out the Westminster attack in March
ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, Mohammad Sidique Khan

All reportedly heavy cannabis users. There are many other examples. Peter Hitchens discusses this at length on his blog. This doesn't mean that every pot smoker is a terrorist, and nor does it exclude other motives such as radical Islam. But it does beg the question, how many of these mass murderers and suicide bombers have addled their brains with a supposedly soft drug?

TheBigBean

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Amber Rudd's request for the US to stop leaking things seems to have fallen on deaf ears - the New York Times has released close up images of the bomb components.

It's not like the UK press don't leak US stuff regularly.

Annoyance level has now been upped to "furious" according to the BBC.

I wonder what will end first. The "special relationship" or Donald Trump?
Coincidence that there were no issues until a few months ago?

A lot of people are making that connection. If it is true then they have got their wish as the Manchester police have just announced an end to the sharing of data.

Very sad though that someone within the intelligence community would feel that undermining a terrorist investigation is an appropriate way of undermining a democratically elected leader.

mamba80

It ll soon be forgotten, why would these leaks necessarily impede the investigation... anyone involved would know full well the security forces are coming after them, these people, in away, want to be caught/known about, eg the bombers and drivers of these terrible attacks carry ID with them.

Making out its a big deal (even if it is) only highlights the information leaked and stresses and strains caused but a good smoke screen non the less.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

It ll soon be forgotten, why would these leaks necessarily impede the investigation... anyone involved would know full well the security forces are coming after them, these people, in away, want to be caught/known about, eg the bombers and drivers of these terrible attacks carry ID with them.

Making out its a big deal (even if it is) only highlights the information leaked and stresses and strains caused but a good smoke screen non the less.

I they keep info secret so that further down the line they know which suspects are genuine or not by their knowledge of the battery etc. Now everybody knows they lose that edge. The bad guys also know what we have on them so presumably easier to cover their tracks.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

Jez mon

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I
these people are not crazy either, they are motivated and clever and we should acknowledge that.
!

Well maybe some of them are crazy from years of habitual cannabis abuse. I cite the following examples.

The Manchester bomber
Richard Reid the shoe bomber
Jihadi John
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale the killers of Lee Rigby
Muhadyn More the Leytonstone Tube knifeman
Said Kouachi Charlie Hebdo killer
Tunis beach killer Seifeddine Rezgui
Belgian train terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani
Khalid Masood, who carried out the Westminster attack in March
ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, Mohammad Sidique Khan

All reportedly heavy cannabis users. There are many other examples. Peter Hitchens discusses this at length on his blog. This doesn't mean that every pot smoker is a terrorist, and nor does it exclude other motives such as radical Islam. But it does beg the question, how many of these mass murderers and suicide bombers have addled their brains with a supposedly soft drug?

Many other examples... Of people who smoked cannabis and didn't go and kill a load of people.

Fundamentally I bet there's a load of supposedly negative behaviors you could link to their upbringings. I bet the majority watched internet porn, played violent video games and drunk to excess

If anything the argument that people are going mad through cannabis is an argument for a legal regulated market.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

My point was more that if you are in favour of internment and/or state executions then you are probably appalled that we know who these people are and do nothing. If you are not an advocate of these things then you are probably less bothered as you would not act on the information.

iirc the Gibraltar shooting were of an active service unit and I can not remember the IRA having a problem with it being "against the rules", from memory it was the woolly liberals who had a problem.

shortfall

Jez mon wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

I
these people are not crazy either, they are motivated and clever and we should acknowledge that.
!

Well maybe some of them are crazy from years of habitual cannabis abuse. I cite the following examples.

The Manchester bomber
Richard Reid the shoe bomber
Jihadi John
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale the killers of Lee Rigby
Muhadyn More the Leytonstone Tube knifeman
Said Kouachi Charlie Hebdo killer
Tunis beach killer Seifeddine Rezgui
Belgian train terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani
Khalid Masood, who carried out the Westminster attack in March
ringleader of the 7/7 London bombings, Mohammad Sidique Khan

All reportedly heavy cannabis users. There are many other examples. Peter Hitchens discusses this at length on his blog. This doesn't mean that every pot smoker is a terrorist, and nor does it exclude other motives such as radical Islam. But it does beg the question, how many of these mass murderers and suicide bombers have addled their brains with a supposedly soft drug?

Many other examples... Of people who smoked cannabis and didn't go and kill a load of people.

Fundamentally I bet there's a load of supposedly negative behaviors you could link to their upbringings. I bet the majority watched internet porn, played violent video games and drunk to excess

If anything the argument that people are going mad through cannabis is an argument for a legal regulated market.

I don't disagree that there may be other factors at play including some of the things you mention, in which case we should be carefully examining them and what if any role they play in damaging some people's minds and power of reason. Cannabis use appears to be an extremely common theme in this type of attacker however and we know it is strongly correlated with mental illness. We also know that laws on cannabis use and possession in our country are lax and barely enforced and we are at a point where powerful lobbies are urging governments towards legalisation. Perhaps we should more closely examine the link between cannabis use a and mass murder and random horrific attacks before we embark on legalisation?

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

My point was more that if you are in favour of internment and/or state executions then you are probably appalled that we know who these people are and do nothing. If you are not an advocate of these things then you are probably less bothered as you would not act on the information.

iirc the Gibraltar shooting were of an active service unit and I can not remember the IRA having a problem with it being "against the rules", from memory it was the woolly liberals who had a problem.

My point was that for all the controversy created I don't think it significantly reduced the overall threat or hastened a cessation in activity. Internment was tried in NI as well and is generally agreed to have been a good recruitment tool for the very thing it was trying to stop.
Not sure if that makes me woolly or not, but if it makes you feel comfortable to use that label, go ahead.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

My point was more that if you are in favour of internment and/or state executions then you are probably appalled that we know who these people are and do nothing. If you are not an advocate of these things then you are probably less bothered as you would not act on the information.

iirc the Gibraltar shooting were of an active service unit and I can not remember the IRA having a problem with it being "against the rules", from memory it was the woolly liberals who had a problem.

My point was that for all the controversy created I don't think it significantly reduced the overall threat or hastened a cessation in activity. Internment was tried in NI as well and is generally agreed to have been a good recruitment tool for the very thing it was trying to stop.
Not sure if that makes me woolly or not, but if it makes you feel comfortable to use that label, go ahead.

Nowhere have I advocated internment and or killings. My point is that the "something should have been done" brigade need to get into specifics as following 3,000 people 24/7 is not feasible.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

so like rick are you saying we shouldnt Q the authorities and let them get on with it? they are infallible and make no mistakes and can do no wrong....... we would get to hear about it as these people would either be deported or put on trial for planning terrorism.

Executing terrorists (or freedom fighters) rarely works, the Germans had terrible retribution against the french, Czechs etc etc and it did nothing to stop further attacks by resistance fighters.
the Colombians have spent billions fighting the FARC, inc executions and internment, same in SA, look at the retribution rained down on the Taliban, it has just made them stronger still, we are finding that out, just as the soviets did....talking is normally the way these things end.

SC.... as for the something should be done brigade etc etc following people who travel to Libya and Syria is perhaps where we should start using valuable resources?

rick_chasey

By all means question the authorities mamba.

But, the difference between, say, politicians, and career counter-terrorists, is fairly obvious.

In the context of counter-terrorism, the public knows very little - they do not know the broader terrorist context in which these attacks occur. The rozzers & MI5 have that information available.

Unless you have some genuine insight beyond 'an attack happened, MI5 & the rozzers are clearly sh!t", it's not very constructive.

Given the reputation UK counter terrorists have around the world (something that is actually world class, believe it or not), my inclination is to give them the benefit of the doubt.

rolf_f

Dinyull wrote:

Because a crazed lunatic going out of his way to maim and kill innocent people at one of the most famous landmarks in the world is comparable to a road traffic accident how exactly?

In the number of people dead because of it. I'm fairly sure I want to be alive and if I'm dead sooner than I should be I won't be able to mind what the cause was because I won't be there anymore.

Ultimately, the ideal outcome is that money is spent to minimise the number of people who die prematurely from any cause. The next priority is that measures to minimise those deaths don't spoil the life experience of those that are still alive. So it is worth spending a disproportionate amount on minimising terrorist attacks despite them being, in purely statistical terms, relatively insignificant because a terrorist attack is significantly more distressing to those not directly involved than a car crash is. But there is a balance and armed guards everywhere and endless security checks is a price not worth paying for me. You'd save far more lives by reducing the speed limit everywhere (inc motorways) to 30mph but I doubt many would be keen on that.

pblakeney

So, apparently the bomber met with known key main ISIS recruiter. WTF? I hope that he has been turned or all connections are followed. At least.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

By all means question the authorities mamba.

But, the difference between, say, politicians, and career counter-terrorists, is fairly obvious.

In the context of counter-terrorism, the public knows very little - they do not know the broader terrorist context in which these attacks occur. The rozzers & MI5 have that information available.

Unless you have some genuine insight beyond 'an attack happened, MI5 & the rozzers are clearly sh!t", it's not very constructive.

Given the reputation UK counter terrorists have around the world (something that is actually world class, believe it or not), my inclination is to give them the benefit of the doubt.

i have nt said they are sh!t at all and by your logic you also know nothing about what goes on, i dont think continually saying we ve the best xy or z is helpful either, we just dont know that do we?

however its extremely difficult to thwart attacks, as nations around the world have shown but i would suggest the number of people who travel to and from Libya/Syria with no good reason, is quite small, i would hope we would be watching these people, it would appear in this case, he was allowed to move freely, perhaps a little more honesty from people like Amber Rudd would help....

this attack unlike 7/7 hasnt come out of the blue, we ve seen what has happened in europe, we ve a large muslim community and have provided 100s of fighters (allowed back into the UK) to IS.

the Police are asking for more resources and have warned that cuts threaten intel gathering, despite these May has cut numbers, this should be questioned, the tories should explain why they ve done this, if it doesnt affect crime/nat sec, fine, if it has then they should be held to account.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I wonder what the public would find the most frightening.
That the authorities know who is who but do nothing, or are hiding that they don't have a clue?

that is a very good question. The answer to which probably depends upon what you would do with the info.

We knew who the top boys in the IRA were and never popped over the border to finish them off so we have history.

We tried that in Gibraltar. If you recall it didn't really move things forward.

I find it bewildering the number of armchair experts asking why "something wasn't done" when in all probability a great deal is and was done, we just don't get to hear about all the times it worked.

My point was more that if you are in favour of internment and/or state executions then you are probably appalled that we know who these people are and do nothing. If you are not an advocate of these things then you are probably less bothered as you would not act on the information.

iirc the Gibraltar shooting were of an active service unit and I can not remember the IRA having a problem with it being "against the rules", from memory it was the woolly liberals who had a problem.

My point was that for all the controversy created I don't think it significantly reduced the overall threat or hastened a cessation in activity. Internment was tried in NI as well and is generally agreed to have been a good recruitment tool for the very thing it was trying to stop.
Not sure if that makes me woolly or not, but if it makes you feel comfortable to use that label, go ahead.

Nowhere have I advocated internment and or killings. My point is that the "something should have been done" brigade need to get into specifics as following 3,000 people 24/7 is not feasible.

Sorry, clearly misunderstood your point, and entirely agree.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

By all means question the authorities mamba.

But, the difference between, say, politicians, and career counter-terrorists, is fairly obvious.

In the context of counter-terrorism, the public knows very little - they do not know the broader terrorist context in which these attacks occur. The rozzers & MI5 have that information available.

Unless you have some genuine insight beyond 'an attack happened, MI5 & the rozzers are clearly sh!t", it's not very constructive.

Given the reputation UK counter terrorists have around the world (something that is actually world class, believe it or not), my inclination is to give them the benefit of the doubt.

i have nt said they are sh!t at all and by your logic you also know nothing about what goes on, i dont think continually saying we ve the best xy or z is helpful either, we just dont know that do we?

however its extremely difficult to thwart attacks, as nations around the world have shown but i would suggest the number of people who travel to and from Libya/Syria with no good reason, is quite small, i would hope we would be watching these people, it would appear in this case, he was allowed to move freely, perhaps a little more honesty from people like Amber Rudd would help....

this attack unlike 7/7 hasnt come out of the blue, we ve seen what has happened in europe, we ve a large muslim community and have provided 100s of fighters (allowed back into the UK) to IS.

the Police are asking for more resources and have warned that cuts threaten intel gathering, despite these May has cut numbers, this should be questioned, the tories should explain why they ve done this, if it doesnt affect crime/nat sec, fine, if it has then they should be held to account.

So, a) you don't know what the numbers are about people travelling to Libya, Syria etc – and inevitably, that’s less straightforward to figure out. It’s not like there’s a bunch of direct flights from heathrow to check out.

b) of those people, you don’t actually know how often they become likely terrorists. For all we know, it’s 5,000 people who go and come back per year, and only 5 become dangerous. You’re just assuming here.

c) a state department using a public emergency as a clamour for more funds? Well blow me down with a feather. My understanding from commentators who are close to the matter is that, for anti-terrorism, the rozzers & MI5 have plenty of resources.

There’s a lot of assumptions going on here.

For all we know, there could be 5,000 attacks tried every year – in which case, the success rate is bloody good. You just don’t know.

fenix

mamba80 wrote:

however its extremely difficult to thwart attacks, as nations around the world have shown but i would suggest the number of people who travel to and from Libya/Syria with no good reason, is quite small, i would hope we would be watching these people,

So in this case the bomber has relatives in Libya. His Dad lives there. So he had a supposedly good reason to go there - so he'd not be on your watch list ?

pblakeney

Fenix wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

however its extremely difficult to thwart attacks, as nations around the world have shown but i would suggest the number of people who travel to and from Libya/Syria with no good reason, is quite small, i would hope we would be watching these people,

So in this case the bomber has relatives in Libya. His Dad lives there. So he had a supposedly good reason to go there - so he'd not be on your watch list ?

His Dad has history. So probably, yes. FWIW, I think the security forces are between a rock and a hard place. Best to keep everything hidden but then look as if they are doing nothing.

Pross

TheBigBean wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Amber Rudd's request for the US to stop leaking things seems to have fallen on deaf ears - the New York Times has released close up images of the bomb components.

It's not like the UK press don't leak US stuff regularly.

Annoyance level has now been upped to "furious" according to the BBC.

I wonder what will end first. The "special relationship" or Donald Trump?
Coincidence that there were no issues until a few months ago?

A lot of people are making that connection. If it is true then they have got their wish as the Manchester police have just announced an end to the sharing of data.

Very sad though that someone within the intelligence community would feel that undermining a terrorist investigation is an appropriate way of undermining a democratically elected leader.

Isn't the point more that Trump, as Commander-in-Chief, is setting a precedent in his lax treatment of confidential information and therefore why should those who answer to him behave differently?

That said you would expect that, despite the dim view most have of print media, the NYT would not normally publish leaked information on such a sensitive subject and given their ongoing battle with Trump maybe the theory that it is an attempt to cause him problems is valid.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, a) you don't know what the numbers are about people travelling to Libya, Syria etc – and inevitably, that’s less straightforward to figure out. It’s not like there’s a bunch of direct flights from heathrow to check out.

b) of those people, you don’t actually know how often they become likely terrorists. For all we know, it’s 5,000 people who go and come back per year, and only 5 become dangerous. You’re just assuming here.

c) a state department using a public emergency as a clamour for more funds? Well blow me down with a feather. My understanding from commentators who are close to the matter is that, for anti-terrorism, the rozzers & MI5 have plenty of resources.

There’s a lot of assumptions going on here.

For all we know, there could be 5,000 attacks tried every year – in which case, the success rate is bloody good. You just don’t know.

all of the points you ve raised, i can counter with "you dont know either, you are assuming too"

as for pt C you implied earlier you want to leave it to the security services/police as they are the experts yet when the Police say they ve not enough resources ie cuts in community policing and AR officers, they are crying wolf !!!

given your normal stance on gov matters, i m surprised you are taking such a conservative approach, you sound like my dear old Gran "the pepole in pwr know what they doing, leave all to them" :roll:

rick_chasey

So what am I assuming?

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what am I assuming?

all of it obv! the numbers involved or not, their intent and that our security services are doing the best job possible, without questioning anything they do.