House of Commons shooting?

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

p1stonhead

25,576 posts

168 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
No you said lock anyone up who hasnt been charged with anything but could be a potential one.

Which is anyone on the planet.
Did I say that?
Yes you did.

bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
So you think lock anyone up who is being investigated? What if that was you even if you hadn't done anything?

I assume if he was investigated and wasn't charged, that again, until yesterday he hadn't done anything terrorism wise?
Yes. Anyone investigated for terrorism should be detained until it is determined they are not a threat - only my opinion. Not that of my employer etc rolleyes

Andy 308GTB

2,926 posts

222 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Digga said:
Andy 308GTB said:
Tiggsy said:
Burwood said:
rscott said:
Andy 308GTB said:
andy-xr said:
Tiggsy said:
These sort of extreme donations seem a little strange to me, it's lovely that they happen....but I wonder - This was a family man in his 40's - fair to assume he had life cover and his family may be (financial) in a fine place (I know my family would be fine if I were dead and need nothing else). His wife may even be loaded already...or broke...we have no idea. Now she will get an extra half mil - people are asking about the other victims, but then there are other cops, killed at work, who get nothing because they are killed by the wrong person to generate any interest. Just seems a weird mix of peoples group morning desire (up there with turning your facebook pic into a flag - just so people get you don't like terrorists) and a grim lottery based on who kills you. I appreciate this would infringe the family's privacy...but I'd almost feel better if someone said "his family are now struggling with X?Y?Z" and I could dig deep.......as opposed to the current situation where people see £500k and think, I'll give £10 more. Perhaps the police federation should make it clear what their plans are after a certain point. Or if it gets up to £1m is that just that???? Once his family have cleared the mortgage and debts are they really going to want to buy stuff with that money to that level and not see it as a material reminder to their loved one that always falls short of replacing them?
It seems like a pretty straightforward objective to me. If people want to give money to the family of the police officer, that's the page to do it.

There may be other pages for other people who have laid down their life for others. But this one's for that police officer. It doesnt need reading into any more than that. It doesnt need questioning what they're going to do with the money, or whether they already have a life insurance policy or whether the family should do something with the money. That's for them to decide.
I wholly agree with the sentiment behind the fund but I don't think it's been particularly well thought out.
I'd have thought a more general fund for the families of all those killed & injured might be more appropriate.
agreed with that. The thing i'm really uncomfortable with is it could very easily run into 7 figures.
Indeed - I have no personal issue with it any more than I do when people moan about footballers wages! No of my money gets to them so I can only look on with interest - as I do here. I just find it fascinating that peoples desire to group grieve leads to someone ending up very wealthy through the terrible luck of loosing their loved one in a particular way. It was more a reflection on modern society than anything. I'm sure a fund for all police hurt in the line of duty would not attract such a response. Which is not right or wrong, simply interesting how modern times lend themselves to such a situation.
I'm all for helping the family of this Police Officer & agree with what you say.
I do fear the size of this fund could become a problem for the family in many ways.

The Metropolitan Police Federation created the Just Giving page:
"I am the Deputy General Secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation, and a serving Police Officer. This page has been created by myself for the MPF in order to raise money for Keith's family. All contributions will be given to Keith's family."

I suspect that they didn't anticipate the reaction & as a result have painted themselves (and the family) into a corner.
TBF, if/when the family deem funds to be surplus, they are surely at liberty to pledge the excess to similar worthy causes supporting other officers and their families?
Of course. But then they risk being judged by what they consider to be surplus.
Or am I being overly cynical?

Tiggsy

10,261 posts

253 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Digga said:
TBF, if/when the family deem funds to be surplus, they are surely at liberty to pledge the excess to similar worthy causes supporting other officers and their families?
Of course, but what a tough call for them to make. You can always "use" more cash so where do you draw that line? When do you think "we no longer need to work, kids uni bills are sorted...lets set up funds for the grandkids education.....no, hang on - lets give it away" Very hard choices for a "regular" family.

Andy 308GTB

2,926 posts

222 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
Andy 308GTB said:
I suspect that they didn't anticipate the reaction & as a result have painted themselves (and the family) into a corner.
I'd agree - talking to my other half she was very uncomfy with the idea that if I was involved in a high profile death that she gets handed think end of a million pound! "so I get your life assurance and pay off all the debts.....then what is the £1m for?" The gut reaction is to give it to charity but human nature would make that very hard. I can imagine there are all sorts of emotional issues that come from having a life turn around for the better, financially, as the result of something so bad. Be interesting to see how it develops.
100%
It raises questions and doubts when you least need them.

anonymous-user

55 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
No you said lock anyone up who hasnt been charged with anything but could be a potential one.

Which is anyone on the planet.
Did I say that?
Yes you did.

bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
So you think lock anyone up who is being investigated? What if that was you even if you hadn't done anything?

I assume if he was investigated and wasn't charged, that again, until yesterday he hadn't done anything terrorism wise?
Yes. Anyone investigated for terrorism should be detained until it is determined they are not a threat - only my opinion. Not that of my employer etc rolleyes
Not just anyone. Anyone investigated for terrorism - you can misquote or misrepresent my words if you want - Vaud did warn about this to be fair.

p1stonhead

25,576 posts

168 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
No you said lock anyone up who hasnt been charged with anything but could be a potential one.

Which is anyone on the planet.
Did I say that?
Yes you did.

bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
So you think lock anyone up who is being investigated? What if that was you even if you hadn't done anything?

I assume if he was investigated and wasn't charged, that again, until yesterday he hadn't done anything terrorism wise?
Yes. Anyone investigated for terrorism should be detained until it is determined they are not a threat - only my opinion. Not that of my employer etc rolleyes
Not just anyone. Anyone investigated for terrorism - you can misquote or misrepresent my words if you want - Vaud did warn about this to be fair.
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.

mcdjl

5,451 posts

196 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
mcdjl said:
So you don't have a car? You don't have any knives? You're don't dislike the police? You don't have a better than average threat awareness? You can't prove that you're not a threat?
So you could be a terrorist then? Well until we can be sure you're not, heres your orange jumpsuit.
I've not been involved with or investigated for terrorism. I'm not sure why you're trying to make me say I have or could be.
I'm not trying to make you say you are. I'm telling the police man you are. The police man now has to investigate you. you're now locked up until you can prove you're not a threat. He'll try to make you prove you're not. In case you hadn't worked it out you (and he) won't be able to prove you're not/couldn't be a threat. Still think you have nothing to fear?

anonymous-user

55 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
p1stonhead said:
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.
Yes they can if they're involved in it. I don't think the security services just suddenly investigate anyone on a whim.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

245 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
How many of those that have committed atrocities were previously innocent, but driven to their actions by being locked up whilst wearing an orange suit?
I don't know. Do you?
If you are advocating internment, don't you think you should know this?


Disastrous

10,088 posts

218 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Disastrous said:
I guess we had. I admit I still struggle to see your view though.

Do you honestly think that the attack on Wednesday was the absolute worst possible thing that could have happened thus avoiding it at all costs is warranted?

I mean, if we locked up absolutely everybody in the entire country there would be no crime, accidents or anything. There would also be no joy, fun etc. Would you consider that a worthwhile trade?
1. I think it was a pretty bad thing to happen yes.

2. I don't recall advocating locking everybody up - just those involved in terrorism.
Yes, but the point that everyone is making is that all I need to say is "You are involved in terrorism" and you'll be locked up and investigated. Is that not bad??

LocoCoco

1,428 posts

177 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
No you said lock anyone up who hasnt been charged with anything but could be a potential one.

Which is anyone on the planet.
Did I say that?
Yes you did.

bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
So you think lock anyone up who is being investigated? What if that was you even if you hadn't done anything?

I assume if he was investigated and wasn't charged, that again, until yesterday he hadn't done anything terrorism wise?
Yes. Anyone investigated for terrorism should be detained until it is determined they are not a threat - only my opinion. Not that of my employer etc rolleyes
Not just anyone. Anyone investigated for terrorism - you can misquote or misrepresent my words if you want - Vaud did warn about this to be fair.
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.
Yeah, if I tell MI5 that X person is a terrorist, they will need to investigate X person to determine if my information is accurate or not.

anonymous-user

55 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
mcdjl said:
I'm not trying to make you say you are. I'm telling the police man you are. The police man now has to investigate you. you're now locked up until you can prove you're not a threat. He'll try to make you prove you're not. In case you hadn't worked it out you (and he) won't be able to prove you're not/couldn't be a threat. Still think you have nothing to fear?
What are you reporting me for? I haven't been involved or associated with an terrorists so I won't be reported or investigated.


Alpinestars

13,954 posts

245 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
1. I think it was a pretty bad thing to happen yes.

2. I don't recall advocating locking everybody up - just those involved in terrorism.
You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?

p1stonhead

25,576 posts

168 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.
Yes they can if they're involved in it. I don't think the security services just suddenly investigate anyone on a whim.
What about the guy whom this thread is about?
He was investigated but hadnt done anything so was released.


anonymous-user

55 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?
Those involved in terrorism.

rscott

14,771 posts

192 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.
Yes they can if they're involved in it. I don't think the security services just suddenly investigate anyone on a whim.
No, they quite often investigate based on information supplied by members of the community.

So a little bit of photoshop could create images of posts by you supporting terrorism which we claim you posted here then deleted.
Submit those images to the police and boom - you're locked up, 'just in case'

p1stonhead

25,576 posts

168 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?
Those involved in terrorism.
No those INVESTIGATED for terrorism even if they are innocent.

anonymous-user

55 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
p1stonhead said:
What about the guy whom this thread is about?
He was investigated but hadnt done anything so was released.
Yes, he went on to commit mass murder.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

245 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
p1stonhead said:
Anyone can be investigated for terrorism that is the point everyone has been trying to make to you.
Yes they can if they're involved in it. I don't think the security services just suddenly investigate anyone on a whim.
You don't have to be involved in something to be investigated.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

245 months

Friday 24th March 2017
quotequote all
bmw535i said:
Alpinestars said:
You mean locking up someone who is guilty? I thought you were advocating internment or "potential" terrorists, or have I got that wrong?
Those involved in terrorism.
That's not what you said earlier.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED