House of Commons shooting?
Discussion
essayer said:
IMO they should at least wait until the victims' families have been informed before trying to be first to the world with photos. A picture of a dead man on the floor with no context is just sensationalism.
A pro photographer should know better. Reuters have acted disgracefully in publishing the photos.
It's his job - the clue is in 'pro'. The only difference now to how it was, say, 20 years ago is that he doesn't have to send his film off to somewhere like Joes Basement via a runner before he can get the pictures out. A pro photographer should know better. Reuters have acted disgracefully in publishing the photos.
yellowjack said:
A friend of mine was killed in Afghanistan. He was wearing enhanced Osprey body armour...
...combat helmet, additional leg and groin protection, basically everything that was available to protect him. As a member of an EOD team, he needed it. Lured to a false alarm/deliberate misinformation 'job' in a compound, he was killed by a sniper as he was exiting the compound. Because of the level of protection he was wearing, the sniper shot him in the face.
No matter what level of protection a police officer is equipped with, there will be weaknesses and limitations imposed by the compromises necessary to allow the officer to conduct their duties. Looking for "someone or something to blame" when this sort of s
t hits the fan is not helpful. Sometimes everything that could in all practicality be done WAS done, and sometimes that isn't enough.
Mention has been made of "soft barriers" at Westminster. "Hard barriers" might work. Searching everyone entering might too. But it'd cause queues back out onto the roads, leaving MPs vulnerable to attack outside the perimeter. Getting people inside quickly, and minimising their exposure to identification and attack while waiting to get in will have been regarded as the least risky option when entry procedures were planned.
As for the chitter-chatter about dragging in concrete barriers to Westminster? To what end? Texas/Alaska barriers along footways? Sure, protection for pedestrians, and something for disaffected youths to tag and graffiti up. It'll look lovely. A bit like the Green Zone in Baghdad. Is that what you really want? Besides which, you can't secure the entire country. Heightened security around Whitehall, Westminster Palace, and Downing Street serve only to make it harder for terrorists to attack the leadership of the country. To make their point they simply attack at the next weakest point. You can't prevent the attacks with barriers, only channel them toward places that are less well prepared, and less effectively guarded than the centres of power that they really want to attack.
Look at the IRA - when attacking barracks and suchlike was made harder, they shot servicemen in petrol stations and on their own driveways. Or tourists, by mistake. Moving the problem around isn't a solution, unless you live and work inside that 'Ring of Steel'. Intelligence led solutions are needed to target specific plots and people behind them. But then think about how many people in the UK have access to both a car and a big kitchen knife. I know you can profile and target your intelligence gathering operations to filter out Granny Jones and the Reverend Dogood, but it's still a large pool of potential suspects.
Best to let the police and the intelligence services investigate this attack, before we jump to conclusions and put in place some crazy knee-jerk measures to "stop it happening again". Already the tone of the news coverage has begun to look for errors and blame. The press would do better to have a long hard look at themselves, and the way in which they conduct themselves in situations like this. And take a step back and stop asking for information that any damned fool can see the police aren't going to be giving out at this early stage, no matter how certain they are of the facts.
All very good points. Particularly the need to avoid kneejerk reactions....combat helmet, additional leg and groin protection, basically everything that was available to protect him. As a member of an EOD team, he needed it. Lured to a false alarm/deliberate misinformation 'job' in a compound, he was killed by a sniper as he was exiting the compound. Because of the level of protection he was wearing, the sniper shot him in the face.
No matter what level of protection a police officer is equipped with, there will be weaknesses and limitations imposed by the compromises necessary to allow the officer to conduct their duties. Looking for "someone or something to blame" when this sort of s
t hits the fan is not helpful. Sometimes everything that could in all practicality be done WAS done, and sometimes that isn't enough.Mention has been made of "soft barriers" at Westminster. "Hard barriers" might work. Searching everyone entering might too. But it'd cause queues back out onto the roads, leaving MPs vulnerable to attack outside the perimeter. Getting people inside quickly, and minimising their exposure to identification and attack while waiting to get in will have been regarded as the least risky option when entry procedures were planned.
As for the chitter-chatter about dragging in concrete barriers to Westminster? To what end? Texas/Alaska barriers along footways? Sure, protection for pedestrians, and something for disaffected youths to tag and graffiti up. It'll look lovely. A bit like the Green Zone in Baghdad. Is that what you really want? Besides which, you can't secure the entire country. Heightened security around Whitehall, Westminster Palace, and Downing Street serve only to make it harder for terrorists to attack the leadership of the country. To make their point they simply attack at the next weakest point. You can't prevent the attacks with barriers, only channel them toward places that are less well prepared, and less effectively guarded than the centres of power that they really want to attack.
Look at the IRA - when attacking barracks and suchlike was made harder, they shot servicemen in petrol stations and on their own driveways. Or tourists, by mistake. Moving the problem around isn't a solution, unless you live and work inside that 'Ring of Steel'. Intelligence led solutions are needed to target specific plots and people behind them. But then think about how many people in the UK have access to both a car and a big kitchen knife. I know you can profile and target your intelligence gathering operations to filter out Granny Jones and the Reverend Dogood, but it's still a large pool of potential suspects.
Best to let the police and the intelligence services investigate this attack, before we jump to conclusions and put in place some crazy knee-jerk measures to "stop it happening again". Already the tone of the news coverage has begun to look for errors and blame. The press would do better to have a long hard look at themselves, and the way in which they conduct themselves in situations like this. And take a step back and stop asking for information that any damned fool can see the police aren't going to be giving out at this early stage, no matter how certain they are of the facts.
Atomic12C said:
TTwiggy said:
All very good points. Particularly the need to avoid kneejerk reactions.
Isn't there also a good argument that because no kneejerk reactions ever seem to take place that it could be seen as an open invite for the next attack?To a significant degree, are we in the west molding ourselves in to easy victims to be walked all over due our insistence on upholding and increasing more human rights?
Are we all too afraid of political correctness to address some questions?
Atomic12C said:
Instead of the current situation whereby they are just simply 'watched' (if that is indeed what only occurs).
My (limited) understanding is that it is better to know who the dangerous people are and watch them than it is to arrest them and have maybe two or three other people, who you don't know, take their place. SKP555 said:
TTwiggy said:
SKP555 said:
Who's talking about outlawing Muslims?
Nobody - yet. But ideas like 'internment', 'deportation' and punitive actions against family and friends have been put forward on this thread.Atomic12C said:
TTwiggy said:
Atomic12C said:
Instead of the current situation whereby they are just simply 'watched' (if that is indeed what only occurs).
My (limited) understanding is that it is better to know who the dangerous people are and watch them than it is to arrest them and have maybe two or three other people, who you don't know, take their place. trickywoo said:
Apart from Jo Cox the far right (or people aligned with that view point) have only killed one MP - Jo Cox. I think since the 1800s only 8 MPs have been murdered and the IRA is responsible for most of them.
What terrorist acts have the far right committed in the UK?
David Copeland, who bombed the Admiral Duncan pub, was a neo-nazi. But this probably isn't the right time for 'whataboutism'.What terrorist acts have the far right committed in the UK?
exitwound said:
Make the situation self policing. If one of the community (..any type of community) is up to no good, then its up to the others, family, friends or whatever to report them and/or reign them in or risk losing their homes and livelihood. They do this in Hong Kong to good effect. That guy who killed Jo Cox must have been obvious to others around him of what he's capable of, so incentivise them to shop these c*nts..
'I'm sorry Mr Khan but you've missed the deadline for reporting your second cousin by 5 hours. Hand over your house keys please'. Yeah, that's going to really help things.Edited by exitwound on Thursday 23 March 12:31
danllama said:
Eric Mc said:
TTwiggy said:
Anything that smacks of unfair, indiscriminate attacks on the Muslim community is likely to create more terrorists.
100% agree. By far the greatest driver of the protagonists of terrorism is their perception that a group or community they identify with is being treated unfairly.k sake. It's not about 'upsetting' people, it's carrying out the precise actions that will lead to more, not less, problems.del mar said:
TTwiggy said:
bmw535i said:
Most people would have nothing to fear from additional surveillance and scrutiny.
As long as they're white/Christian.Murph7355 said:
I agree.
Maybe this would be the "fairest" way to invoke sanction against people - you want to fight in a war, join the UK armed forces and if there is one you'll be deployed, or relinquish your citizenship and fight for whomever you please. No prejudice about side.
Problem with that is that some 'consultants' (ex UK military on a nice earner) might fall fowl of the rules. Then there are those morally just wars that people might feel compelled to get involved in (1930s Spain). Maybe this would be the "fairest" way to invoke sanction against people - you want to fight in a war, join the UK armed forces and if there is one you'll be deployed, or relinquish your citizenship and fight for whomever you please. No prejudice about side.
I think a fairer 'cut off' would be 'have you taken up arms against the UK or her NATO allies?'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff