House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
markcoznottz said:
Evan Davis actually said on news night last night,'it might be more useful to regard the events of the day not in terms of culture or religion, but in terms of mental health'. Make of that what you will.
That's rather a mischaracterisation on your behalf. He posed a question in those terms and gave his guest the opportunity to shoot the notion down in flames.La Liga said:
People get a little hung-up on 'known to the authorities' and I expect I'll repeat this if he is (I expect he will be).
'Known' is very broad brush. Most criminals are known to the authorities in terms of some data existing about them within the context of crime and disorder.
For example, there are plenty of people who are at risk of radicalisation whose name will be known to the authorities. It could be simple intelligence like 'X has attended a radical Islamic sermon by Y at Z location' for someone to be 'known'.
'Known', in most cases, doesn't mean the person will be anywhere near the level of surveillance / arrest / prosecution / using terrorism powers etc.
People can go from a 1 to 10 without the authorities knowing about all the numbers in-between. This is a heightened risk with 'lone wolf' type attacks.
Internment or deportation 'Known' is very broad brush. Most criminals are known to the authorities in terms of some data existing about them within the context of crime and disorder.
For example, there are plenty of people who are at risk of radicalisation whose name will be known to the authorities. It could be simple intelligence like 'X has attended a radical Islamic sermon by Y at Z location' for someone to be 'known'.
'Known', in most cases, doesn't mean the person will be anywhere near the level of surveillance / arrest / prosecution / using terrorism powers etc.
People can go from a 1 to 10 without the authorities knowing about all the numbers in-between. This is a heightened risk with 'lone wolf' type attacks.
Lucas Ayde said:
counterofbeans said:
Terrorist runs down pedestrians in car, stabs policeman, gets shot.
Pretty much sums it up. Though the amount of preachy, self-important twaddle being spouted by the likes of BBC commentators would have you think that democracy in Britain was almost overturned by a savage attack on it's very heart.What happened to concise, objective reporting? The news channels (esp BBC) seemed to want to turn this into some sort of soap opera/drama.
Cobnapint said:
Can't watch anymore of this, it's depressing. The BBC are gorging themselves with the BBC Breakfast duo presenting from the street just down from Westminster.
Quite why they couldn't have stayed in Manchester and switched to one of London's many presenters for an update is beyond me.
Exactly my thoughts too. BBC News and Sky News are as bad as each other, Kay Burley visibility excited at the fact people have died. Quite why they couldn't have stayed in Manchester and switched to one of London's many presenters for an update is beyond me.
MarshPhantom said:
You could argue not giving them coverage might inspire them to carry out evermore horrific attacks.
The argument isn't to avoid coverage, it's to give coverage that informs the pubic yet not fall into the hysteria that inevitably follows.The purpose of the terrorism here is to eradicate our values and way of life and replace it with oppression and ignorance. The more we react with oppression the closer we take ourselves towards the aims. The pressure from a hysterical press compels politicians to "be seen to be doing something", which inevitably means some form of restriction (laptops on planes?) or empowerment of the state to intervene in our everyday lives (snooping on internet use?).
A counter argument is that politicians are responsible for our safety and security, and not doing something they could or should have to protect us makes them liable. To that I'd say have a sense of proportion. The number of people killed or injured by terrorism in this country is minuscule. We should accept that rare events causing death and injury will happen at the hands of criminals, under a variety of banners. When this happens we ought to blame the criminals responsible and praise our way of life, rather than blame the government and restrict it.
loughran said:
Lucas Ayde said:
counterofbeans said:
Terrorist runs down pedestrians in car, stabs policeman, gets shot.
Pretty much sums it up. Though the amount of preachy, self-important twaddle being spouted by the likes of BBC commentators would have you think that democracy in Britain was almost overturned by a savage attack on it's very heart.What happened to concise, objective reporting? The news channels (esp BBC) seemed to want to turn this into some sort of soap opera/drama.
It wasnt so much an objective reporting on what had happened but what an exciting story this is and arent we pleased to be covering it
Pretty much all that was known had already been spouted multiple times by a number of commentators that the off button came into useful service
counterofbeans said:
Terrorist runs down pedestrians in car, stabs policeman, gets shot.
quiteharsh as it sounds, and while it's absolutely terrible for those involved and the Police Officer who died, this is a minor thing, if this is the greatest threat to society then we've not got a lot to worry about, and if that's worst these so-called terrorists can do, then they're pretty poor baddies
thousands die on the roads every year, but we build this up as a terrifying earth-changing event?
janesmith1950 said:
MarshPhantom said:
You could argue not giving them coverage might inspire them to carry out evermore horrific attacks.
The argument isn't to avoid coverage, it's to give coverage that informs the pubic yet not fall into the hysteria that inevitably follows.The purpose of the terrorism here is to eradicate our values and way of life and replace it with oppression and ignorance. The more we react with oppression the closer we take ourselves towards the aims. The pressure from a hysterical press compels politicians to "be seen to be doing something", which inevitably means some form of restriction (laptops on planes?) or empowerment of the state to intervene in our everyday lives (snooping on internet use?).
A counter argument is that politicians are responsible for our safety and security, and not doing something they could or should have to protect us makes them liable. To that I'd say have a sense of proportion. The number of people killed or injured by terrorism in this country is minuscule. We should accept that rare events causing death and injury will happen at the hands of criminals, under a variety of banners. When this happens we ought to blame the criminals responsible and praise our way of life, rather than blame the government and restrict it.
I don't think anyone is actually scared.
Just the press endlessly babbling on try to push it upon viewers that people are scared and terrified.
Average man on the street just wants to get on with his day, and in the scope of all the s
t going on in his life at any given moment... this really doesn't matter to him.
Just the press endlessly babbling on try to push it upon viewers that people are scared and terrified.
Average man on the street just wants to get on with his day, and in the scope of all the s
t going on in his life at any given moment... this really doesn't matter to him.janesmith1950 said:
MarshPhantom said:
You could argue not giving them coverage might inspire them to carry out evermore horrific attacks.
The argument isn't to avoid coverage, it's to give coverage that informs the pubic yet not fall into the hysteria that inevitably follows.The purpose of the terrorism here is to eradicate our values and way of life and replace it with oppression and ignorance. The more we react with oppression the closer we take ourselves towards the aims. The pressure from a hysterical press compels politicians to "be seen to be doing something", which inevitably means some form of restriction (laptops on planes?) or empowerment of the state to intervene in our everyday lives (snooping on internet use?).
A counter argument is that politicians are responsible for our safety and security, and not doing something they could or should have to protect us makes them liable. To that I'd say have a sense of proportion. The number of people killed or injured by terrorism in this country is minuscule. We should accept that rare events causing death and injury will happen at the hands of criminals, under a variety of banners. When this happens we ought to blame the criminals responsible and praise our way of life, rather than blame the government and restrict it.
Quality decisions about legislation / policy aren't made in the heat of of the moment. Something doesn't always have to be done. Sometimes it's simply a horrific act that a person has a the scope to carry out in a free society.
The reality is the risk of physical harm to an individual from terrorism is extremely low. Anyone who has commuted today has been at much greater risk of physical harm, for example. The difference is we don't fear commuting as if we get hurt whilst doing so, it's probably going to be an accident. No one is intending to cause us harm.
The other reality is we're hardly built to take comfort from such facts. Terrorism has the advantage of being grossly disproportionate in its psychological / mental impact. The perception our 'way of life' us under threat helps drive this fear.
If we're being honest it's also really interesting so we want to hear about it. I wouldn't be that interested in investigating a fatal road collision involving 4 dead people, but I'd love to be involved in this incident. Especially at a level that's piecing things together.
DanielSan said:
rohrl said:
Kay Burley is the worst thing about British television.
I'm not having that, she's third place to Jeremy Kyle and Jeremy 'soft pedantic voice and all round of a man' Vine.king way. I'd happily be locked in a lift with both Jeremys for a week rather than spend one second within a nautical mile of Burley. The Jeremys are tts but Burley is a .SystemParanoia said:
I don't think anyone is actually scared.
Just the press endlessly babbling on try to push it upon viewers that people are scared and terrified.
Average man on the street just wants to get on with his day, and in the scope of all the st going on in his life at any given moment... this really doesn't matter to him.
MashJust the press endlessly babbling on try to push it upon viewers that people are scared and terrified.
Average man on the street just wants to get on with his day, and in the scope of all the s
t going on in his life at any given moment... this really doesn't matter to him.markcoznottz said:
Evan Davis actually said on news night last night,'it might be more useful to regard the events of the day not in terms of culture or religion, but in terms of mental health'. Make of that what you will.
It means don't focus on the fact that the two thousand odd on a terror watch are near exclusively British Muslims SystemParanoia said:
Munter said:
SystemParanoia said:
But the anti stab vest is still standard PPE uniform isnt it ?
Concentrate on the word Vest. Now consider what parts of a person that might leave exposed, where a knife could cut a major blood vessel. If you've planned your attack you're not going to stab a policeman in the stab vest are you.Worth noting that new IPCC procedures will be to immediately separate firearms Officers after a shooting, isolate them and require an immediate statement. Even when they've gone through the trauma of seeing their friend killed and tried to keep them alive. There was a feeding frenzy on PH from the usual suspects about 'collusion' and 'corruption'. These event shows the difference between reality and their ignorance.
rohrl said:
No fking way. I'd happily be locked in a lift with both Jeremys for a week rather than spend one second within a nautical mile of Burley. The Jeremys are tts but Burley is a .
Just imagine Vine dining out on this story for the next month getting random idiots to ring in with a sorry how they're in some way connected to or affected by yesterday, and usually it turns out they were just near Westminster a week last Tuesday and they feel it could've happened to them instead. God the self importance winds me up now and I haven't even had to listen to it. king way. I'd happily be locked in a lift with both Jeremys for a week rather than spend one second within a nautical mile of Burley. The Jeremys are tts but Burley is a .I'll meet you in the middle, Kyle can stay in the lift, Vine and Burley can fall down the lift shaft?
Elroy Blue said:
Worth noting that new IPCC procedures will be to immediately separate firearms Officers after a shooting, isolate them and require an immediate statement. Even when they've gone through the trauma of seeing their friend killed and tried to keep them alive. There was a feeding frenzy on PH from the usual suspects about 'collusion' and 'corruption'. These event shows the difference between reality and their ignorance.
Is it too much to hope that, for this incident, the IPCC will very quickly conclude that the shooting was justified rather than dragging things on for months?Elroy Blue said:
SystemParanoia said:
Munter said:
SystemParanoia said:
But the anti stab vest is still standard PPE uniform isnt it ?
Concentrate on the word Vest. Now consider what parts of a person that might leave exposed, where a knife could cut a major blood vessel. If you've planned your attack you're not going to stab a policeman in the stab vest are you.Worth noting that new IPCC procedures will be to immediately separate firearms Officers after a shooting, isolate them and require an immediate statement. Even when they've gone through the trauma of seeing their friend killed and tried to keep them alive. There was a feeding frenzy on PH from the usual suspects about 'collusion' and 'corruption'. These event shows the difference between reality and their ignorance.
FiF said:
tescorank said:
This has taken so long, last night at the end of Newsnight it was mentioned the vehicle used was hired on the 21st in Birmingham, needless to say there must be an instant paper trail.
It's not Hollywood fantasyland either - a lot of rental vehicles have trackers, and for any self-drive insurance policies operating in high risk areas (Birmingham, East London, North West England, West Yorkshire etc) a tracker is mandatory before anyone will underwrite the risk. All it takes is to log on and enter the registration to see where it has been, what speed it travelled at and most will also alert to any sudden impacts encountered by the vehicle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff