News story: Home Secretary statement following Paris attacks

G

guestm

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
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

MIA
Book Reviewer
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

Lantern Swinger
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.
 
Last edited:
G

guestm

Guest
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ninja_Stoker

War Hero
Moderator
There's room for a little more hysteria, I feel.:eek:

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

MIA
Book Reviewer
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

War Hero
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

MIA
Book Reviewer
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

War Hero
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!
 
Top