House of Commons shooting?

[jjlynn27]

davepoth said:

It's an analogy that makes it seem reasonable to the general population. If you take a single encrypted message, the analogy holds. The problem is of course that mass surveillance is very easy with electronic communications, and by opening one message you are effectively opening all of them.

The analogy holds for a single message? This is going to be interesting. Please explain.

[BlackLabel]

craigjm said:

If you were a terrorist you would never stand there and say you were hiring it to mow people down and use it to try and get into the HoP though would you

It's like those questions on American immigration forms.

Department of Homeland Security said:

*are you seeking entry to engage in criminal or immoral activities?

*Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved, in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?

[Pompeymedic]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Recording of the shooting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4350402/Te...


I'm surprised at the three police officers running away from the attacker though.

Clearing sight lines for the armed officers? Controlling the crowd to prevent any further assailants rushing the armed officers? Following prepared SOPs for roles in case of armed attack?

I can think of numerous reasons why the unarmed coppers would have moved away from the assailant

[Rogue86]

Pompeymedic said:

Clearing sight lines for the armed officers? Controlling the crowd to prevent any further assailants rushing the armed officers? Following prepared SOPs for roles in case of armed attack?

I can think of numerous reasons why the unarmed coppers would have moved away from the assailant

I genuinely imagine it is to get away from the rampaging bloke who has just stabbed their colleague to death. Seems much more likely in a split moment than calculating the armed officers arcs of fire. They are human afterall.

[anonymous-user]

Quite possibly. They don't have the right equipment to deal with knife attacks and you can't help anyone if you become a casualty as well. They are likely to be well aware armed officers are very close by, too.

[bitchstewie]

Not sure the video shows anything useful but even if they were I wouldn't judge them for it. If you're unarmed and a lunatic with 2 knives is 20m away I think it's reasonable to regroup.

We don't pay Police Officers enough to be expected to mindlessly sacrifice themselves.

[just me]

techguyone said:

just me said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I want to watch so that:
1. I can bear witness and keep my resolve strong to fight this ideology in every way I can
2. I don't want to be told what I can and cannot watch by someone whose ideals and standards I don't feel like subscribing to
3. I don't need others to restrict my freedoms any more than necessary
4. If the people in security services/government say this is why they are doing something like bombing somewhere, on my behalf, I can confirm it for myself that they are being truthful about the video at least.

There are a host of other reasons, too. If things bother you, don't watch it. I am all for a warning being pasted beforehand. Comparing it to kiddy porn is beyond stupid.

Yes, that video bothers me to this day, but I am not proposing that anyone be prevented from watching it. Transparency and freedom, that's what I respect and want. For myself and for everyone else.

It is banned. I forget what law, but 'extreme' something or other videos are banned and are as illegal as illegal potrn ones are now.

It is not. You must be misconstruing some other law. The videos of beheadings, etc., are readily available and are not banned. Nor is discussion about them. It all part and parcel of freedom of speech. Extolling their virtues or promoting that mindset is, however, banned. That is as it should be.

[Stickyfinger]

just me said:

It is not. You must be misconstruing some other law. The videos of beheadings, etc., are readily available and are not banned. Nor is discussion about them. It all part and parcel of freedom of speech. Extolling their virtues or promoting that mindset is, however, banned. That is as it should be.

\It would be illegal to sell them as a product however......"Snuff-movies" are illegal so what is the difference. How is the removal of them from general view preventing you from discussing the rights and wrongs of them or the branch of Islam that thinks they are the will of Allah ?

[just me]

Stickyfinger said:

It would be illegal to sell them as a product however......"Snuff-movies" are illegal so what is the difference. How is the removal of them from general view preventing you from discussing the rights and wrongs of them or the branch of Islam that thinks they are the will of Allah ?

Seeing it for yourself is far different from reading/talking/gesticulating about it. Did you seriously ask this?

And we are not debating whether we should be allowed to sell it or associated products and be allowed to profit from it...though you could argue that is exactly what news organizations do, and it is something that we should think about.

[Stickyfinger]

just me said:

Stickyfinger said:

It would be illegal to sell them as a product however......"Snuff-movies" are illegal so what is the difference. How is the removal of them from general view preventing you from discussing the rights and wrongs of them or the branch of Islam that thinks they are the will of Allah ?

Seeing it for yourself is far different from reading/talking/gesticulating about it. Did you seriously ask this?

And we are not debating whether we should be allowed to sell it or associated products and be allowed to profit from it...though you could argue that is exactly what news organizations do, and it is something that we should think about.

Do you really need to see the cut and the blood to establish the event has happened, why is seeing the flesh melt off a prisoner set on fire so important to your need to believe the act was perpetrated ?. Do you need to see the death throws of a Jewish gas victim to believe it happened ?

The providers/distributors of this material ARE selling everything they provide.

[jakesmith]

Stickyfinger said:

Do you really need to see the cut and the blood to establish the event has happened, why is seeing the flesh melt off a prisoner set on fire so important to your need to believe the act was perpetrated ?. Do you need to see the death throws of a Jewish gas victim to believe it happened ?

The providers/distributors of this material ARE selling everything they provide.

This. I don't need to see it to know it revulses me and as for watching it to confirm that future actions from my government are justified, well sorry but if you're so paranoid that you believe you need to review footage yourself prior to the government acting, why would you believe the material is authentic anyway.

The child porn analogy fits well, I don't need to see it to know it exists and I despise it. I don't need to see it to be happy for the government to act to stop it.

Edited by jakesmith on Sunday 26th March 22:21

[Zod]

boxxob said:

have we exhausted all the diversions, victim switch strategies and /other/ things to blame yet?

Could you repeat the question in the vernacular, please?

[Zod]

jakesmith said:

This. I don't need to see it to know it revulses me and as for watching it to confirm that future actions from my government are justified, well sorry but if you're so paranoid that you believe you need to review footage yourself prior to the government acting, why would you believe the material is authentic anyway.

The child porn analogy fits well, I don't need to see it to know it exists and I despise it. I don't need to see it to be happy for the government to act to stop it.

Edited by jakesmith on Sunday 26th March 22:21

I quite agree. To know it exists is enough.

[just me]

Zod said:

quite agree. To know it exists is enough.

It's enough for some people some of the time. It is not enough all the time, nor is it enough for everyone. We can agree to disagre.

My solution addresses your corners and mine. You can choose to not see it, and I can choose to see it. If we implement your solution (banning it), then it does not address both of our concerns. It fits in with what you want, of course, but prevents me from being able to see it.

This has nothing to do with paranoia. I am not even going to bother going down that route.

[amusingduck]

mcdjl said:

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

Why not? If we're not investigating you, then we're not investigating anyone on that basis. So now we're not investigating anyone reported by other citizens. Or the friends and family of terrorists. So what we're going to do is jail everyone we investigate for terrorism. But this will be ok because, wait for it, we won't investigate anyone . Genius.

Underrated post.

[just me]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can choose to frame the issue that way, but that does not mean you are right. I see them all the time, for the reasons I cited before. I want to be able to refer to them knowledgeably in debates like these. My viewing of the videos, or the viewing by millions of others, is not a win for ISIS. Only morons think it is, and ISIS is in that group of morons. It is a huge loss for them because the world gets to see exactly how demented they are. It is bad publicity, and makes ISIS more abhorrent to the millions who do see the videos. You can insist it's a win, and for a demented few it might be. But the losses are far greater, and far more helpful to us.

It's kind of pointless to argue censorship. If you must insist on it, go campaign for a government position where you can make this happen. You won't get the votes, in my opinion. And that's because most of the people don't agree with you.

Edited by just me on Monday 27th March 19:02

[anonymous-user]

amusingduck said:

mcdjl said:

bmw535i said:

mcdjl said:

I want you to be investigated for potential involvement with terrorism because: you have a car (means) dislike of police (motive) better than average awareness of the threat (done research). You're now on the same level as Masood/Elms or higher on the threat list was on Tuesday. Lets jail you while we investigate you.

I doubt your complaint would be investigated

p1stonhead said:

You dont think you would be investigated if coincidentially you often frequented the same shop, lived next door to, exchanged pleasentries with an actual terrorist?

No

Why not? If we're not investigating you, then we're not investigating anyone on that basis. So now we're not investigating anyone reported by other citizens. Or the friends and family of terrorists. So what we're going to do is jail everyone we investigate for terrorism. But this will be ok because, wait for it, we won't investigate anyone . Genius.

Underrated post.

I don't think the police would investigate someone for having a car and saying hello to a terrorist. It would be unusual for someone in the forces to be investigated for terrorism - particularly when they have security clearance to a fairly high level.

[Murph7355]

bmw535i said:

... It would be unusual for someone in the forces to be investigated for terrorism - particularly when they have security clearance to a fairly high level.

I can't be arsed reading much of the tit for tat...but maybe your sentence above won't be the case in future

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/24/me...

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

bmw535i said:

... It would be unusual for someone in the forces to be investigated for terrorism - particularly when they have security clearance to a fairly high level.

I can't be arsed reading much of the tit for tat...but maybe your sentence above won't be the case in future

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/24/me...

Indeed, but unusual. I don't think this RM would have the security clearance I refer to.

[SKP555]

Sad that we even need to make the case for free speech and against censorship in 2017 in Britain.