E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
So when they reduced the presence it worked because people remembered the presence?
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
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.
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.
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.
So you think it is a consequence of the UK fighting in Iraq?
Evidence?
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.
which wasn’t what was said. We didn't have this extra number and the 'attacks' were stopped.
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 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.
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.
