News story: Home Secretary statement following Paris attacks

[guestm]

I still maintain that there was enough intelligence to give a good indication that something was about to go down in a location that had a large military presence &the security services ignored it to avoid upsetting the local immigrant population. Political posturing at its best.

You don't know that there was enough intelligence for that to happen in that exact place at that exact time. Unless you've spent considerable time in Thames House and have da scoopz...

 

[Dirty Civvy]

If they were quietly 'slotted', how would anyone know and how would it be a warning? Should we then 'slot' (Seriously, that word. Stop reading Mcnabb books) NF / BNP / EDL members for preaching their racial hatred too? No. You could have 3 million personnel working for MI5 and 3 million soldiers on the streets. You won't stop every attack.

Executions and guns roaming the streets. I'm glad your idea of a solution is so far removed from the ideology of those you seek to destroy. It's telling that irony is lost on you.

With that train of thought, you're closer to them than you realise. The only difference is your agenda.

Having armed personnel on the streets not only increase tensions, raises fear and is unsustainable, but it also dramatically changes our way of life.

That would mean they're winning. They're not.



Armed personnel roaming the streets would not have stopped Lee Rigby's murder.

That's a sillly response, it most definitely would have stopped an attack so close. The attack may have still happened but unless Lee was extremely unfortunate then I imagine it would have been someone else further afield.

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

Not so long ago there were severe reservations voiced when the British Police were armed with anything more than a truncheon.

Some members of society threw hissy fits when tazers were introduced.

I tend to think an increased visible armed prescence on the streets increases hysteria but accept it can also help increase vigilance and awareness. The French Police have been visibly armed for many, many years. It made no actual difference but I do think we need to put things in perspective - a single armed lunatic achieved a comparable amount of carnage in Hungerford in 1986 because he had acess to firearms. He didn't go to a training camp, wasn't radicalised and acted without accomplices.

In the US, there are sadly lone wolf shooting rampages every year that are not conducted by religious fanatics acting in co-ordinated unison. The growing gruesome death toll investigations in the aftermath consistently side-step the elephant in the room - access to arms.

 

[Ballistic]

They should have been quietly "slotted" as a warning to the other fanatics who still roam the area & still preach racial hatred.

Using airports, ferries & being in London on a regular basis I'm more then happy to see/support armed police/military on the streets.

STRIKE FIRST & REPENT AT LEISURE.

Just of course a personal view.

Seriously?
That's the sort of country you want to live in?

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

Just listened to Banjo West on Andrew Marr on this topic. I'm pleased to announce we seemingly concur.

 

[guestm]

That's a sillly response, it most definitely would have stopped an attack so close. The attack may have still happened but unless Lee was extremely unfortunate then I imagine it would have been someone else further afield.

You categorically cannot say it definitely wouldn't have happened. Would someone have javelined the car before it hit him? Do you stop and search every single car in a radius 24 hours a day 7 days a week? Do you tail every off duty serviceman or policeman just in case? Just how many police officers, security and service personnel do you think it would take to patrol every street and have an instant response?

Besides, you also state 'unless he was unfortunate it would have happened somewhere else further afield' so what does that solve? Same result, different name, different location. You dismantled your own point there.

 

[guestm]

Seriously?
That's the sort of country you want to live in?

Syria would suit.

 

[Seadog]

In the US, there are sadly lone wolf shooting rampages every month....

Fixed. And I'm not making light of such rampages.

I still maintain that there was enough intelligence to give a good indication that something was about to go down in a location that had a large military presence & the security services ignored it to avoid upsetting the local immigrant population.

Political posturing at its best.

Monty has already said it but... really? If you have the DGs of MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the Met Commissioner on speeed dial then you probably shouldn't be posting on RR. Your uninformed perception ( or that of anyone else for that matter) does not equal reality.

 

[wave_dodger]

I still maintain that there was enough intelligence to give a good indication that something was about to go down in a location that had a large military presence & the security services ignored it to avoid upsetting the local immigrant population.

Political posturing at its best.

Utter fanciful rubbish - far from ignoring it warnings (relatively specific) were made. As I've already pointed out London has a huge number of potential targets for these lunatics like it or otherwise but the security services can't be everywhere all the time.

 

[FAAFLYNAVY]

Utter fanciful rubbish - far from ignoring it warnings (relatively specific) were made. As I've already pointed out London has a huge number of potential targets for these lunatics like it or otherwise but the security services can't be everywhere all the time.

We will have to disagree, if France can mobilize 10,000 armed uniformed troops to stand guard why can't the UK?

Incidentally I traveled into the Ebbsfleet Eurostar terminal today & there was one solitary unarmed BTP officer looking bored stiff, so much for "Dave's" heightened security measures.

 

[guestm]

We will have to disagree, if France can mobilize 10,000 armed uniformed troops to stand guard why can't the UK?

Incidentally I traveled into the Ebbsfleet Eurostar terminal today & there was one solitary unarmed BTP officer looking bored stiff, so much for "Dave's" heightened security measures.

Because the UK hasn't just had a terrorist shooting and a man hunt ending in two deadly sieges. Where would you place these troops then? And why?

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

There's room for a little more hysteria, I feel.

I bet 52P FAANAVY subscribes to the Daily Mail.

If I was an armed terrorist intending to run amok, I'd kick-off by shooting anyone with a gun, then slaughter the innocents, safe in the knowledge an armed response unit would take several minutes to arrive and return fire.

At this juncture I'd "do-one" if not feeling particularly in the mood for martyrdom. An armed person would merely present a starting point, it would not be a deterrent.

 

[wave_dodger]

We will have to disagree, if France can mobilize 10,000 armed uniformed troops to stand guard why can't the UK?

Or you could take a step back and look at it like most other people. You also understand the French military system and how they are regionally based, which makes a move such as this a little easier for logistics and life support etc.

Plus there is the small matter of a number of terror related incidents that have risen from late Sep until the recent events so they have a clear need to reassure their public and deter further acts of aggression.

So, I think they've taken a pragmatic step. I wouldn't expect the UK to leap to the same conclusion just because of proximity or simple threats.

 

[MG Maniac]

But haven't we had a few shootings over the years? Cumbria in 2010, Hungerford in 1987. The only difference is I suppose that they weren't orchestrated by some fanatic terrorist organisation. If memory serves they were "contained" by the Police armed response teams. I suppose the problem is that if/ when the incident become too large by the perceived ongoing threat or is too big for the Police "SWAT" team (for want of a better word) to contain that military assistance is requested. Even when Yvonne Fletcher was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in '84 it was the Police that contained the incident.

Whether there was advance intelligence regarding the recent French incident or not ... the end result is they shot two French police officers and it was immaterial that it was a terrorist ... the Gendarmes were not going to let them walk out of that - end of the day it was reported that the Supermarket gunman came out firing an automatic weapon and fire was returned and he was hit with 40 rounds!

My belief is that yes it will happen over here again and it will be a soft target because that's what terrorist do. Its been reported that "Call me Dave" has put SF on standby but I presume they will just bolster the Police Armed Response Teams and I don't think we'll have a re-run of the Iranian Embassy siege ... although I do seem to remember tanks guarding Heathrow .... but I could be wrong!

 

[wave_dodger]

Its been reported that "Call me Dave" has put SF on standby but I presume they will just bolster the Police Armed Response Teams and I don't think we'll have a re-run of the Iranian Embassy siege ... although I do seem to remember tanks guarding Heathrow .... but I could be wrong!

SF are always on standby in the UK whether its the MCT teams at Poole or the CRW squadron from Hereford. Not quite sure what the PM thinks is different but they may have committed additional resources.

As for CVRT at Heathrow that was in response to a very specific threat, with potentially a specific capability.

 

[MG Maniac]

As for CVRT at Heathrow that was in response to a very specific threat, with potentially a specific capability.

WD I bow to your superior knowledge - to be honest I can't remember why troops were used at Heathrow ... only that it happened.

As for SF being on standby ... difficult to ascertain if they have committed extra resources or if it is just the "normal" stand by squadron - but to be honest I would imagine that they would be used to counter any threat before it became a issue or to provide specialist support to the Police AT teams.

The problem I feel is that we are talking about fanatics who don't seem to be fazed by the thought that sooner or later they are going to be in the sights of a Barratt and then likely to find out in fairly short order if the afterlife actually exists so go about causing as much mayhem in the misguided belief that they are actually going to make a difference - and once they are dispatched nobody will actually care!

 

[wave_dodger]

WD I bow to your superior knowledge - to be honest I can't remember why troops were used at Heathrow ... only that it happened.

There was a threat to down an airliner IIRC there was concern they had a MANPAD.

but to be honest I would imagine that they would be used to counter any threat before it became a issue or to provide specialist support to the Police AT teams.

Always in support of Police until requested to intervene or authority passed across.

The problem I feel is that we are talking about fanatics who don't seem to be fazed by the thought that sooner or later they are going to be in the sights of a Barratt and then likely to find out in fairly short order !

Broadly I agree but the two brothers in Paris seemed content enough to go on the run maybe that was live to spread havoc another day or weren't that convinced about paradise?

 

[wave_dodger]

Good news that the Belgian authorities have acted proactively. A potential terror cell broken before a further atrocity committed.

I do wonder though, free speech is great, but by reposting cartoons are we not just poking the hornets nest again? We tell our children to ignore taunts and turn the other cheek, hear the West has just given huge provocation to an enormous amount of people out in the Middle East who will miss the context - fuel to the fire?

 

[Ninja_Stoker]

One thing that does appear to have happened in the wake of the muderous attocities in Paris is the growing sense that even the media, for the most part, have grown tired of pussy-footing around religious zealots in case they are offended by a picture of their respective prophet.

If memory serves, the second commandment in the Old Testament makes reference to this but the qur'an doesn't explicitly prohibit it, so far as I can tell.

Besides, there have been images depicting various prophets and deities from all religions since at least medeival history according to he BBC (who still grovel about it, judging by their editorial comment): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30814555

 

[wave_dodger]

One thing that does appear to have happened in the wake of the muderous attocities in Paris is the growing sense that even the media, for the most part, have grown tired of pussy-footing around religious zealots in case they are offended by a picture of their respective prophet.

Generally I wouldn't have an issue with it - freedom of speech should be preserved. But I think there is something to be said for poking the wasps nest with sticks after you've been stung.

After all it's not Islam itself we have an issue with it's the fundamentalists/extremists but by condoning these actions, which whilst understandable, we will just alienate a large cross section of moderate muslims and play further to the extremists who will just point out we're clearly anti-Islam.

It's not an easy problem to resolve like most sectarian issues.

This is a good synopsis. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30813742 In essence there is no explicit prohibition on drawing the prophet (or Allah, or Jesus!) but like most of the Koran it's a matter of how it is interpreted. You have to understand the Koran is a book that is how Muhammed describes what Allah told him, so it's not literal, and hence very open to interpretation and that is how the fundamentalists and extremists are able to read into what they choose/perceive/wish...