House of Commons shooting?

[anonymous-user]

limpsfield said:

There's a second paragraph there that you might have missed.

"The risk is a lot higher"
"The risk has surely gone up"


I am with pistonhead. There is a risk. It is still small. It can't be eliminated. The security services would appear to have stopped other in incidents over the years.

You don't seem to have answered the many questions raised about your internement idea.

You appear to be very, very scared of terrorism. They have terrorised you. In which case they are winning. But the risk is tiny.

I think I've answered every question put to me - even the silly ones about codes etc.

I'm not scared of it at all, I perhaps understand the risk more than others.

[JagLover]

limpsfield said:

There's a second paragraph there that you might have missed.

"The risk is a lot higher"
"The risk has surely gone up"


I am with pistonhead. There is a risk. It is still small. It can't be eliminated. The security services would appear to have stopped other in incidents over the years.

You don't seem to have answered the many questions raised about your internement idea.

You appear to be very, very scared of terrorism. They have terrorised you. In which case they are winning. But the risk is tiny.

There is a difference between "terrorised" and taking sensible precautions to reduce future attacks. To follow the argument of many posters to its logical conclusion we should do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of future terrorist incidents as otherwise the terrorists "win".

If we keep following the deluded policies of the Metropolitan elite what do you think Britain will look like a generation from now?

[Edwin Strohacker]

You don't have to look very far back in time to see the consequences of people who seek simple solutions to complex problems or moreover the nature of those who offer them. In fact, you don't have to look back at all, there's one in the White House now, the point being those solutions are Chimera (motoring website after all...)

If you want to create a generation of resentful people, hating the state & willing to rise against it with violence, lock them up without trial. You'll do it every time.

[anonymous-user]

Edwin Strohacker said:

You don't have to look very far back in time to see the consequences of people who seek simple solutions to complex problems or moreover the nature of those who offer them. In fact, you don't have to look back at all, there's one in the White House now, the point being those solutions are Chimera (motoring website after all...)

If you want to create a generation of resentful people, hating the state & willing to rise against it with violence, lock them up without trial. You'll do it every time.

There is already a generation of people as you describe.

[anonymous-user]

JagLover said:

There is a difference between "terrorised" and taking sensible precautions to reduce future attacks. To follow the argument of many posters to its logical conclusion we should do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of future terrorist incidents as otherwise the terrorists "win".

If we keep following the deluded policies of the Metropolitan elite what do you think Britain will look like a generation from now?

This is quite an interesting bit of research

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/04/terrorist-att...

[PurpleAki]

These threads always start ok. Then a few idiots rock the boat normally resulting in a ban, then it ends up with a handful of posters arguing the same point monotonously until it gets locked.

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

JagLover said:

There is a difference between "terrorised" and taking sensible precautions to reduce future attacks. To follow the argument of many posters to its logical conclusion we should do absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of future terrorist incidents as otherwise the terrorists "win".

If we keep following the deluded policies of the Metropolitan elite what do you think Britain will look like a generation from now?

This is quite an interesting bit of research

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/04/terrorist-att...

Are you surprised at that percentage? I'm surprised it isn't 100%. It was absolutely a matter of 'when' and not 'if'.

Still not scared in the slightest.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Are you surprised at that percentage? I'm surprised it isn't 100%. It was absolutely a matter of 'when' and not 'if'.

Still not scared in the slightest.

I'm surprised that so many people think an attack is likely, but so few think it will affect them.

I guess you are in the 15% who don't know what to do about ISIS? Or the 1% who want to compromise with them?

[p1stonhead]

bmw535i said:

p1stonhead said:

Are you surprised at that percentage? I'm surprised it isn't 100%. It was absolutely a matter of 'when' and not 'if'.

Still not scared in the slightest.

I'm surprised that so many people think an attack is likely, but so few think it will affect them.

I guess you are in the 15% who don't know what to do about ISIS? Or the 1% who want to compromise with them?

No one knows what to do about ISIS as far as I know other than try to destroy them in Iraq and Syria. Are you one of the 85% with all the knowledge? Pray tell. But from this thread alone, it's fairly clear most people think you are deluded and scared and most certainly mental for having some of the ideas you have so I won't hold my breath.

And no, I don't think it will affect me just like I don't think I'll be in a plane crash or get hit by lightning. Both are equally unlikely as being killed in a terrorist attack and I don't live my life thinking they are going to happen to me.

[limpsfield]

bmw535i said:

I'm surprised that so many people think an attack is likely, but so few think it will affect them.

I guess you are in the 15% who don't know what to do about ISIS? Or the 1% who want to compromise with them?

I think it suggests a far greater grasp of statistics and probability than first thought in the general public.

I am expecting someone to be killed in a car crash this weekend. But I don't think it will be me.

This article is a good read, it might allay some of your fears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-kill...


"Terror is killing far fewer people in the UK now than it was in the 1980s

Between 2000 and 2015, 90 people have been killed in the UK in terrorist attacks, according to figures from the Global Terrorism Database. Although not on British soil, a further 30 British people were killed in Tunisia when a gunman attacked a hotel popular among Western tourists.

This compares to 1,094 deaths in the 15-year period before that, between 1985 and 1999, and a further 2,211 between 1970 and 1984."

[Biker 1]

Not sure if anybody else noticed this one:
I saw the itv London News yesterday at 6pm - much hand-wringing & non-stop coverage of the attack as expected, including a Brendan Cox plug etc etc.
What stood out, however, was a vigil/protest(???) by a group called MEND http://mend.org.uk/
Presumably they were trying to avert a backlash. Anyway, there was group in the middle holding up a large banner from this lot: http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/press-release-im... All well & good, but then there were various captions at the bottom of said banner, including 'dump Trump' or similar. Unfortunately, I can't find a photo of it.
I guess my point is why should this event become so political? & what on earth has this scum's actions got to do with Trump?

[p1stonhead]

limpsfield said:

bmw535i said:

I'm surprised that so many people think an attack is likely, but so few think it will affect them.

I guess you are in the 15% who don't know what to do about ISIS? Or the 1% who want to compromise with them?

I think it suggests a far greater grasp of statistics and probability than first thought in the general public.

I am expecting someone to be killed in a car crash this weekend. But I don't think it will be me.

This article is a good read, it might allay some of your fears.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-kill...


"Terror is killing far fewer people in the UK now than it was in the 1980s

Between 2000 and 2015, 90 people have been killed in the UK in terrorist attacks, according to figures from the Global Terrorism Database. Although not on British soil, a further 30 British people were killed in Tunisia when a gunman attacked a hotel popular among Western tourists.

This compares to 1,094 deaths in the 15-year period before that, between 1985 and 1999, and a further 2,211 between 1970 and 1984."

That sounds like exactly what the terrorists want you to believe . I think you could be one!

Of to the tower with you!

[p1stonhead]

Biker 1 said:

Not sure if anybody else noticed this one:
I saw the itv London News yesterday at 6pm - much hand-wringing & non-stop coverage of the attack as expected, including a Brendan Cox plug etc etc.
What stood out, however, was a vigil/protest(???) by a group called MEND http://mend.org.uk/
Presumably they were trying to avert a backlash. Anyway, there was group in the middle holding up a large banner from this lot: http://www.standuptoracism.org.uk/press-release-im... All well & good, but then there were various captions at the bottom of said banner, including 'dump Trump' or similar. Unfortunately, I can't find a photo of it.
I guess my point is why should this event become so political? & what on earth has this scum's actions got to do with Trump?

Because he's a racist scumbag playing right into the terrorists hands?

[limpsfield]

Biker 1 said:

I guess my point is why should this event become so political? & what on earth has this scum's actions got to do with Trump?

The world is full of nutters. Just filter them out.

[Biker 1]

limpsfield said:

"Terror is killing far fewer people in the UK now than it was in the 1980s

Between 2000 and 2015, 90 people have been killed in the UK in terrorist attacks, according to figures from the Global Terrorism Database. Although not on British soil, a further 30 British people were killed in Tunisia when a gunman attacked a hotel popular among Western tourists.

This compares to 1,094 deaths in the 15-year period before that, between 1985 and 1999, and a further 2,211 between 1970 and 1984."

Perhaps the statistics reflect the 'Troubles' in NI, with most of the deaths happening on the island of Ireland rather than in our capital city????

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

No one knows what to do about ISIS as far as I know other than try to destroy them in Iraq and Syria. Are you one of the 85% with all the knowledge? Pray tell. But from this thread alone, it's fairly clear most people think you are deluded and scared and most certainly mental for having some of the ideas you have so I won't hold my breath.

And no, I don't think it will affect me just like I don't think I'll be in a plane crash or get hit by lightning. Both are equally unlikely as being killed in a terrorist attack and I don't live my life thinking they are going to happen to me.

Trying to destroy them in Iraq and Syria doesn't seem to have worked. Similarly, trying to destroy the taliban in Afghanistan didn't work either. (I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan).

I don't think it shows fear by discussing alternative strategies. As I've said, I am probably more aware of the threat than you are. This is why we have security forces - to give security to British people. It is the top priority of government.

I'm not sure why people have to resort to insults because someone has a different viewpoint to them.

[limpsfield]

Biker 1 said:

Perhaps the statistics reflect the 'Troubles' in NI, with most of the deaths happening on the island of Ireland rather than in our capital city????

Someone will be along shortly to castigate you for claiming that London deaths are more important.

I am not sure of the point though. Terrorism is terrorism in my book.

[Biker 1]

p1stonhead said:

Because he's a racist scumbag playing right into the terrorists hands?

Possibly.
But is that sort of vigil the right time & place for that sort of thing? I can understand candle lighting, laying of flowers, & even some 'interfaith' nonsense at this event, but then things become distasteful.

[anonymous-user]

Biker 1 said:

Perhaps the statistics reflect the 'Troubles' in NI, with most of the deaths happening on the island of Ireland rather than in our capital city????

I agree. I also think we'll see an increase in attacks here when those currently fighting in Syria return.

[Biker 1]

limpsfield said:

Someone will be along shortly to castigate you for claiming that London deaths are more important.

I am not sure of the point though. Terrorism is terrorism in my book.

True, but as some 85% of the population live in SE England, the risks of Irish terrorism were far more real in NI than anywhere else. It seems the pendulum has now swung the other way. However, on balance, I am far more likely to have a nasty accident on my motorcycle which will be either fatal or turn me into a dribbling cabbage, than I am of being a victim of terrorism. Not sure of the odds, but I think I'm more liekly to be hit by lightning....