Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bubbles on August 03, 2016, 09:22:59 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36961338
Sad, IMO Britain was different in that respect from many countries.
I wonder how long it will be before someone gets trigger happy?
:o
Egypt has lots of armed Police.
One helped me cross from one boat to another on the Nile, once.
His gun was more of a hindrance and I found it alarming in some ways.
Especially as he was so aware of it, you can't just put it down somewhere while you help someone or give it to someone else for a while.
It doesn't encourage Policemen to offer a helping hand, when needed.
:o
-
The BBC link is about specialist firearms officers which we already have. Their numbers will increase. The turn up in particular situations like potential terrorist attacks, hostage taking, taking over a building threatening to kill everyone, riots etc. I've never seen an armed police officer and I doubt many have in this country.
I take on board everything you said Rose and agree, I'd hate to see a Bobby on the beat carrying a gun, but we won't notice the armed police unless something very serious happens wherever we are, in which case we'd probably be glad of them.
-
The BBC link is about specialist firearms officers which we already have. Their numbers will increase. The turn up in particular situations like potential terrorist attacks, hostage taking, taking over a building threatening to kill everyone, riots etc. I've never seen an armed police officer and I doubt many have in this country.
I take on board everything you said Rose and agree, I'd hate to see a Bobby on the beat carrying a gun, but we won't notice the armed police unless something very serious happens wherever we are, in which case we'd probably be glad of them.
Yes, I think you are right.
-
Yes, I think you are right.
I cycle along the canal most evenings for pleasure, and cam across two armed officers, which was quite alarming.
They asked if I had seen a man dressed in a long coat, which I hadn't, but continued my ride making sure I avoided any such character!
-
I fear it is the slippery slope to arming all police!
-
I am not that concerned about arming the police.
-
I am not that concerned about arming the police.
Well I am.
-
I'd be concerned about arming all police and admit I have never seen an armed police officer, except on TV. However we've always had them, a highly skilled specialist force. I believe CID occasionally use firearms, they are trained to use them, in fact all police are trained but not to the degree of the specialist officers.
-
Well I am.
What worries you?
-
What worries you?
That we will get like the US where the police appear to have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later!
-
I'd be concerned about arming all police and admit I have never seen an armed police officer, except on TV.
Have you never travelled from a major airport?
I have seen them at Gatwick and Birmingham.
-
Not recently HH, last few times I went abroad was on Eurostar. Long time since I've flown. No, never seen them (knowing me, just as likely I didn't notice them).
I understand what floo is saying, I like the fact that coppers generally don't walk around with guns but that isn't being proposed.
-
Have you never travelled from a major airport?
I have seen them at Gatwick and Birmingham.
I assumed they are at every airport.
I recently came back from Cyprus and there they had what looked like soldiers as well
-
That we will get like the US where the police appear to have a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later!
Do they do that?
I have been in the US and had no fear of the police.
-
The more guns on the street, the more accidental shootings or incorrectly identified targets or other mistaken use. Including friendly fire incidents where innocent passers by and police themselves have been shot.
-
The more guns on the street, the more accidental shootings or incorrectly identified targets or other mistaken use. Including friendly fire incidents where innocent passers by and police themselves have been shot.
The more armed police, the more effective they can be against armed offenders.
Unarmed against armed is not going to work.
-
I think what floo is worried about is that the increase in armed police is the thin end of the wedge, ie that it will lead to police carrying guns into situations where there are no weapons which in turn could lead to police firing when there is no threat to life.
That would worry me too but I can't see it happening. It's a possibility of course but that is not what is being proposed at the moment. Everything will remain as it is except the firearms squad will increase, in keeping with terrorist threats etc.
-
I don't think Floo needs to worry - the Spanish police for example, regularly carry firearms and there is no significant increase in gun deaths as a result.
The USA situation is, I would argue, atypical as far as police being armed - in that there are other societal factors at work there that make the use of firearms more likely - either because of what they are faced with or because of an over eagerness to respond with guns when other lesser means of restraint are ignored.
-
Plus the fact that it is legal for civilians to possess firearms in many states.
-
I think what floo is worried about is that the increase in armed police is the thin end of the wedge, ie that it will lead to police carrying guns into situations where there are no weapons which in turn could lead to police firing when there is no threat to life.
That would worry me too but I can't see it happening. It's a possibility of course but that is not what is being proposed at the moment. Everything will remain as it is except the firearms squad will increase, in keeping with terrorist threats etc.
It's already happened
There was that Brazilian chap they shot a few years ago, who was innocent.
I think Floo might foresee more of those.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/06/jean-charles-de-menezes-death-anniversary_n_7714488.html
Having easier access to guns by the police might make that sort of thing more likely.
-
I remember that! In Brixton or Stockwell iirc. I've no idea why a whole bunch of coppers with guns were sent to find him in the first place when his only crime was that his visa had expired. A pair of PCs knocking at his door would have sufficed. No wonder he ran!
Did the cops think he was someone else? I can't remember the details.
At the time lots of people on forums were saying it was his fault for running and that they wouldn't run away from the police if they were innocent. D'oh! I would if I was young and fit enough - leap over fences and scale walls, swing from tree to tree, dive into the Thames and swim......getting carried away now (don't say I need to be).
-
There are frequently cases in America of the police shooting dead someone who turned out to be unarmed, especially if they are black!
The gun culture in that country has caused so many atrocities, especially on college campuses. Now Texas is allowing students to have guns in their possession when attending classes, that is only going to make matters far worse, imo.
-
Can't argue with that.
-
I remember that! In Brixton or Stockwell iirc. I've no idea why a whole bunch of coppers with guns were sent to find him in the first place when his only crime was that his visa had expired. A pair of PCs knocking at his door would have sufficed. No wonder he ran!
. . .
As far as I recall the case, the police weren't initially after him for the visa irregularity. It was as a case of mistaken identity, but when he fled and headed into the underground, they believed that he was a suicide bomber about to cause a massacre.
Remember that it was only a few days after the 7/7 bombings.
-
The more armed police, the more effective they can be against armed offenders.
Unarmed against armed is not going to work.
here in the UK that is a situation that rarely arises.
-
As far as I recall the case, the police weren't initially after him for the visa irregularity. It was as a case of mistaken identity, but when he fled and headed into the underground, they believed that he was a suicide bomber about to cause a massacre.
Remember that it was only a few days after the 7/7 bombings.
You could just look up Roses's link. He did not flee and was unaware that he was being followed. We can be pretty sure that police will try and cover up these kinds of erroneous actions and deaths, preferably erasing them from memory and recorded history. There have been many examples over the years.
I read the other day how the first Nazi bombing of London was due to a military bombing raid that had mistakenly gone off course. Churchill responded by ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Berlin - to which Hitler responded by declaring "total war" - with all civilian targets seen as valid, and starting the Blitz.
-
Well I never. There was something very fishy about that shooting though.
-
It wasn't "fishy" though, it was a series of mistakes by the police who shot dead an ordinary person on his way to work by train with no warning when they could have stopped and searched or arrested him earlier without any danger.
-
I take on board everything you said Rose and agree, I'd hate to see a Bobby on the beat carrying a gun, but we won't notice the armed police unless something very serious happens wherever we are, in which case we'd probably be glad of them.
Whilst I agree with both Rose and brownie, it's worth remembering that London especially can have specialist armed police highly visible quite often - and here I disagree with Brownie. We WILL see them simply because that is what the powers that be feel is one of several ways to dissuade possible terrorists. In fact, earlier this year I travelled from Cardiff to Ipswich and both Paddington and Liverpool Street stations had highly visible armed police patrolling the concourses. Never did work quite why - perhaps it was one of the many occasions when intelligence indicates a possible threat to London.
-
We WILL see them simply because that is what the powers that be feel is one of several ways to dissuade possible terrorists. In fact, earlier this year I travelled from Cardiff to Ipswich and both Paddington and Liverpool Street stations had highly visible armed police patrolling the concourses. Never did work quite why - perhaps it was one of the many occasions when intelligence indicates a possible threat to London.
It's just a show of force. Terrorist attacks really aren't common enough to justify flooding the streets with armed police, but the politicians have to be seen to be doing something.
-
I fear it is the slippery slope to arming all police!
I very much doubt it; otherwise, we would already have reached that point as we have had specialist armed police for several decades now - the Metropolitan unit having been formed in 1966 - but divisional police stations wwere first issued with firearms as long ago as the late 19th century.
-
It's just a show of force. Terrorist attacks really aren't common enough to justify flooding the streets with armed police, but the politicians have to be seen to be doing something.
One police chief has suggested that some 50 potential terrorist attacks have been prevented since 7/7, whilst the Telegraph (16th Nov 2015) suggested that 7 such attacks had been foiled in the preceeding 12 months. They may not be common - but to what extent is that the result of intelligence-led raids and proactive action?
-
It wasn't "fishy" though, it was a series of mistakes by the police who shot dead an ordinary person on his way to work by train with no warning when they could have stopped and searched or arrested him earlier without any danger.
What was 'fishy' about it was the damage limitation afterwards.
Hope, I haven't been to big mainline stations in central London - when I did it was nearly always Charing X, sometimes Waterloo East or London Bridge or, very occasionally, Victoria - for years so haven't have seen the armed police presence. I daresay they would be at Victoria which is a big station.
-
One police chief has suggested that some 50 potential terrorist attacks have been prevented since 7/7
And I bet not one of those 50 was prevented by armed police patrolling the streets.
whilst the Telegraph (16th Nov 2015) suggested that 7 such attacks had been foiled in the preceeding 12 months. They may not be common - but to what extent is that the result of intelligence-led raids and proactive action?
I'd guess it's all the result of intelligence led raids and proactive action.
All these terrorist attacks have been stopped in spite of not having the increased armed police being proposed.
-
The real point here is that we are less safe on the streets because of that full blown wanker Blair. Because of his insane hubris the person on the street is now under threat from terrorists and is having his life style and liberties curtailed. And who do our Western leaders blame...?
-
I'd be concerned about arming all police and admit I have never seen an armed police officer, except on TV. However we've always had them, a highly skilled specialist force. I believe CID occasionally use firearms, they are trained to use them, in fact all police are trained but not to the degree of the specialist officers.
See them fairly regular travelling through London, the other week I saw two of them carrying what looked like SA80s assault rifles.
-
You could just look up Roses's link. He did not flee and was unaware that he was being followed. We can be pretty sure that police will try and cover up these kinds of erroneous actions and deaths, preferably erasing them from memory and recorded history. There have been many examples over the years.
Quite a lot of the facts are still disputed, but the police believed that he was about to commit mass murder. They were mistaken and one man died, had they failed to identify and neutralise and actual terrorist a great many people would have died. I'm sure we all hope the police and other security services learn from their mistakes, but there are no totally safe options - in today's climate of terror it can be more dangerous not to kill a suspect than kill them.
I read the other day how the first Nazi bombing of London was due to a military bombing raid that had mistakenly gone off course. Churchill responded by ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Berlin - to which Hitler responded by declaring "total war" - with all civilian targets seen as valid, and starting the Blitz.
I believe that is true, and many believe that that 'mistake' allowed Britain to win the war. This was the Battle of Britain and the Nazis were on the verge of destroying our air defences but the shift to bombing cities took the pressure off the RAF and allow them to gain the upper hand.
-
Quite a lot of the facts are still disputed, but the police believed that he was about to commit mass murder. They were mistaken and one man died, had they failed to identify and neutralise and actual terrorist a great many people would have died. I'm sure we all hope the police and other security services learn from their mistakes, but there are no totally safe options - in today's climate of terror it can be more dangerous not to kill a suspect than kill them.
One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can.
-
One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can.
It's a fast moving situation Jack, no one has all the answers and mistakes will be made, but you can't vilify the people who are trying to protect us because they have made a mistake - there are a hell of a lot of mistakes that they haven't been made and people are alive today because of that.
-
The real point here is that we are less safe on the streets because of that full blown wanker Blair. Because of his insane hubris the person on the street is now under threat from terrorists and is having his life style and liberties curtailed. And who do our Western leaders blame...?
So you think it is a consequence of the UK fighting in Iraq?
-
One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can.
Evidence?
-
Evidence?
Hi NS,
it seems obvious to me that with hindsight, you can always make these criticisms - but if you could accurately make those kind of judgements at the time, you would be winning the lottery every week.
-
And I bet not one of those 50 was prevented by armed police patrolling the streets. ...
All these terrorist attacks have been stopped in spite of not having the increased armed police being proposed.
Evidence?
-
Hi NS,
it seems obvious to me that with hindsight, you can always make these criticisms - but if you could accurately make those kind of judgements at the time, you would be winning the lottery every week.
Don't see the relevance to me asking a poster for evidence that there is unique about human judgement non replicable by computers
-
Evidence?
We didn't have these police and they were stopped.
-
The real point here is that we are less safe on the streets because of that full blown wanker Blair. Because of his insane hubris the person on the street is now under threat from terrorists and is having his life style and liberties curtailed. And who do our Western leaders blame...?
Sorry to disappoint you, JK, but there had been terrorist plots against London and other places, both inside and outside of the UK, long before Blair came on the scene. Yes, his taking us into the 2nd Gulf War gave terrorists more of a reason to attack us, but he wasn't the cause.
-
We didn't have these police and they were stopped.
We've had armed units for decades, NS, and I can remember seeing them on the streets of London before I went to Nepal in 1992.
-
We've had armed units for decades, NS, and I can remember seeing them on the streets of London before I went to Nepal in 1992.
which wasn’t what was said. We didn't have this extra number and the 'attacks' were stopped.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, JK, but there had been terrorist plots against London and other places, both inside and outside of the UK, long before Blair came on the scene. Yes, his taking us into the 2nd Gulf War gave terrorists more of a reason to attack us, but he wasn't the cause.
So there are a group of people called terrorists looking for reasons? They all live in a terrorist submarine?
-
which wasn’t what was said. We didn't have this extra number and the 'attacks' were stopped.
I think you will find that the numbers of such folk have been being cut over the last 5 to 10 years. Remember that specialist armed police are ordinary police who have had the additional training that allows them to carry arms. When they're not carrying arms, they are carrying out other police roles. Whether ths latest 'mobilisation' will return us to the numbers we used to have, or - perhaps - more than we used to have, I'm not sure.
-
So there are a group of people called terrorists looking for reasons? They all live in a terrorist submarine?
What have you been imbibing, NS?
-
What have you been imbibing, NS?
something that makes it clear that thinking there a group of people called terrorists who are entirely consistent as your post implied is not true.
-
I think you will find that the numbers of such folk have been being cut over the last 5 to 10 years. Remember that specialist armed police are ordinary police who have had the additional training that allows them to carry arms. When they're not carrying arms, they are carrying out other police roles. Whether ths latest 'mobilisation' will return us to the numbers we used to have, or - perhaps - more than we used to have, I'm not sure.
So now you are saying that there had been a reduction in armed police and the stopped attacks argue that we need to increase their numbers. So not only no evidence for the point but you are actively arguing against it.
-
Don't see the relevance to me asking a poster for evidence that there is unique about human judgement non replicable by computers
You were asking for evidence that a strategy of deploying human resources v computer screening was right or wrong - i.e.
"One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can."
I'm saying that there can be no evidence - at the time it's just down to fallible human judgement - but obviously if you view the situation" Vaticinium ex eventu" you are able make that judgement - but that isn't really fair on the poor buggers who had to actually do it!
-
You were asking for evidence that a strategy of deploying human resources v computer screening was right or wrong - i.e.
"One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can."
I'm saying that there can be no evidence - at the time it's just down to fallible human judgement - but obviously if you view the situation" Vaticinium ex eventu" you are able make that judgement - but that isn't really fair on the poor buggers who had to actually do it!
eh? I asked a specific question of a specific poster about a generalised statement which has no reference to any decisions by particular poor buggers making particular decisions.
-
So now you are saying that there had been a reduction in armed police and the stopped attacks argue that we need to increase their numbers. So not only no evidence for the point but you are actively arguing against it.
No, I'm pointing out that previous high profile presences of armed police may have dissuaded terrorists from attaking London for some time, hus meaning that they were able to get on with other police activities, which may well have included intervening to stop threats that intelligence had uncovered; but that with the heightened threat level following the events of the last 6 to 8 weeks, the arms are being re-introduced.
-
No, I'm pointing out that previous high profile presences of armed police may have dissuaded terrorists from attaking London for some time, hus meaning that they were able to get on with other police activities, which may well have included intervening to stop threats that intelligence had uncovered; but that with the heightened threat level following the events of the last 6 to 8 weeks, the arms are being re-introduced.
So when they reduced the presence it worked because people remembered the presence?
-
something that makes it clear that thinking there a group of people called terrorists who are entirely consistent as your post implied is not true.
Never suggested that there was/is a homogeneous group - 'terrorists'. He that is one man's 'terrorist' may be another man's 'freedom fighter', perhaps even a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
-
Never suggested that there was/is a homogeneous group - 'terrorists'. He that is one man's 'terrorist' may be another man's 'freedom fighter', perhaps even a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I would accept I wasn't your intention to do so but your post suggesting that terrorists were looking for a reason implies it. My point was you might want to revisit that
-
So when they reduced the presence it worked because people remembered the presence?
Quite possibly; even terrorists would seem to take various factors into account whilst planning attacks. It could be that, with the number of armed police visible on the streets of London dissauded them from attacking London for a while, and concentrating on other places/ntions for a period of time. The fact that specialist armed police cropped up at various stages over the last few years - Olympics, Queen's Birthday and Ascencion celebrations, etc. may have served to reinforce the idea that Britain was alert to threats - an understanding that those plannng terrorists attacks might have also been seeing in the ways and places raids took place.
-
I would accept I wasn't your intention to do so but your post suggesting that terrorists were looking for a reason implies it. My point was you might want to revisit that
Terrorists, of whatever form they might take, pretty well always have a reason for their actions. It might be dissatisfaction with their own government (think of some of the attacks that White Supremists in the US have carried out in the last 20 or 30 years). It might have to do with a belief that an infidel has sullied holy soil - some Islamic attacks - be that Al Queda/Taliban/Daesh/... seem to based on that idea. It might be in an attempt to protect what someone regards as their own - and, of course, attack is often the best form of defence.
-
Quite possibly; even terrorists would seem to take various factors into account whilst planning attacks. It could be that, with the number of armed police visible on the streets of London dissauded them from attacking London for a while, and concentrating on other places/ntions for a period of time. The fact that specialist armed police cropped up at various stages over the last few years - Olympics, Queen's Birthday and Ascencion celebrations, etc. may have served to reinforce the idea that Britain was alert to threats - an understanding that those plannng terrorists attacks might have also been seeing in the ways and places raids took place.
If it dissuaded them then there wouldn't be the plots to be discovered. There would be less plots not plots found.
-
Terrorists, of whatever form they might take, pretty well always have a reason for their actions. It might be dissatisfaction with their own government (think of some of the attacks that White Supremists in the US have carried out in the last 20 or 30 years). It might have to do with a belief that an infidel has sullied holy soil - some Islamic attacks - be that Al Queda/Taliban/Daesh/... seem to based on that idea. It might be in an attempt to protect what someone regards as their own - and, of course, attack is often the best form of defence.
This is back at implying there are people called terrorists who look for reasons. It implies that there is no cause just a number of terrorists waiting to blow up things. So it makes no difference how anyone acts.
-
I didn't read it like that, Hope said there are several reasons for terrorism, each terrorist or terrorist group will be focused on one particular reason. But there always is a reason.
No-one is a terrorist without a cause. we're not born that way.
-
Not a good thing IMPO there is enough armed police for such a small area but I think it has more to do with the safety of the Royal family and other high profile people.
I think what has happened in France is expected here. Our armed police able to shoot dead anyone bombing, firing guns or trying to mow people down with lorrys.
Pity they made it possible in the first instance. :(
-
It's a fast moving situation Jack, no one has all the answers and mistakes will be made, but you can't vilify the people who are trying to protect us because they have made a mistake - there are a hell of a lot of mistakes that they haven't been made and people are alive today because of that.
They lost track of where the real target was due to a lack of man power on the ground and the police followed the wrong guy when they panicked because they thought the real guy had slipped past them. They couldn't join the dots because they had a blind spot in their surveillance when they weren't observing him due to the lack of man power.
-
So you think it is a consequence of the UK fighting in Iraq?
A major part of it is from the second Iraq war that Bush and Blair started. But the US and the West have been interfering in the ME and else where for decades. Western policy is to blame.
-
Evidence?
It is mentioned all the time by those who know like David Davis. Metadata just clogs the system up because in the end you need people to check it out. To follow up on suspects needs a team of trained people on the ground and our security service just doesn't have enough of these people. It is politicians and the like who like to look trendy and waffle on about IT stuff.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, JK, but there had been terrorist plots against London and other places, both inside and outside of the UK, long before Blair came on the scene. Yes, his taking us into the 2nd Gulf War gave terrorists more of a reason to attack us, but he wasn't the cause.
What terrorist plots?.....or what a naïve comment. ::)
-
which wasn’t what was said. We didn't have this extra number and the 'attacks' were stopped.
We did have the extra numbers but when NI was dealt with the personnel were reduced, as all things have been, to save money. Plus, as I have said before they (the dumbass politicians) thought IT could take many of the jobs or tasks.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, JK, but there had been terrorist plots against London and other places, both inside and outside of the UK, long before Blair came on the scene. Yes, his taking us into the 2nd Gulf War gave terrorists more of a reason to attack us, but he wasn't the cause.
So what do you say is the cause?
-
You were asking for evidence that a strategy of deploying human resources v computer screening was right or wrong - i.e.
"One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can."
I'm saying that there can be no evidence - at the time it's just down to fallible human judgement - but obviously if you view the situation" Vaticinium ex eventu" you are able make that judgement - but that isn't really fair on the poor buggers who had to actually do it!
But the people involved in all this know what they need to run a reliable team and when the cuts have gone too far. They were saying at the time that they had insufficient man power; that they were over stretched.
-
One of the main issues in that and much of our security services is the lack of man power. Too much reliance is being made on hi-tech methods that just can't replace the human judgement and 'feel' on long term surveillance projects - computers don't join the dots the way a human team can.
There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on British soil since 2007 excepting the possibility of defining Lee Rigby's attackers as terrorists. Either our security forces are doing something right or the terrorists aren't interested in the UK.
Compare the UK to France. I think our security services probably deserve some praise.
-
It could be that, with the number of armed police visible on the streets of London dissauded them from attacking London for a while, and concentrating on other places/ntions for a period of time.
Do you understand that, in virtually all other places/nations, all the police are armed all the time?
-
There hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on British soil since 2007 excepting the possibility of defining Lee Rigby's attackers as terrorists. Either our security forces are doing something right or the terrorists aren't interested in the UK.
Compare the UK to France. I think our security services probably deserve some praise.
Perhaps, but what about the guy/terrorist who was tagged and escaped by dressing up in a burka? That was just farcical - and due to the lack of man power.