Troops on the Streets

Author
Discussion

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
How exactly would having lots of guys with guns roaming the streets have prevented the Manchester bomb?

Shutting the wrong stable door after the horse has bolted.

Sheets Tabuer

18,956 posts

215 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
As previously stated, they are to stand around looking pretty which frees up 5000 police officers to go look for Mohammeds.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
If they'd done this last week, how would their presence had prevented the bomb?

Stable doors.

Psycho Warren

3,087 posts

113 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Its not really bombs they can help with. Only some of the terror attacks in europe lately have been bombs. Nutters running around with guns have featured a lot and thats the kind of threat having armed units in likely target areas can help with, either as deterrence for high value targets or rapid reaction to minimise casualties.

768

13,668 posts

96 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
How exactly would having lots of guys with guns roaming the streets have prevented the Manchester bomb?

Shutting the wrong stable door after the horse has bolted.
It wouldn't have.

I'm not sure what the point of the critical threat level is either other than as a flag to say an event has happened that wasn't foreseen.

Sheets Tabuer

18,956 posts

215 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
No idea, it's not them watching the suspects, what the police need is 5000 officers adding to the teams tracking the suspects not putting people in doorways to fool the stupid that they are doing something.

Greendubber

13,191 posts

203 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Its really not difficult.

The risk of an attack is imminent based on the current threat level, that does not specifically mean a bomb.

An attack could be active shooters, terrorists using vehicles or physical attacks. Thats why we have armed officers guarding busy areas.

The threat level was upped post Manchester, I presume due to some intel that came to light following the event.

The armed bobbies may have stopped the bomb, any bobby might have had he been standing out from the crowd, member of the public may have been able to, who knows.

Edited by Greendubber on Thursday 25th May 14:50

768

13,668 posts

96 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
No one. Because they were deployed after it.

Greendubber

13,191 posts

203 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
768 said:
No one. Because they were deployed after it.
Exactly.

creampuff

6,511 posts

143 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
768 said:
I'm not sure what the point of the critical threat level is either other than as a flag to say an event has happened that wasn't foreseen.
I'm sure the upcoming election has something to do with it. Corbyn is perceived as being soft on defence, even by Labour voters. The government putting soldiers on streets looks like the opposite.

FredericRobinson

3,694 posts

232 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Theresa May should be getting hammered for having reduced police numbers by 20,000 when Home Sec and now there being insufficient police available to deal with the current situation and troops having to be deployed, trouble is the only alternative has been matey with terrorists for decades.
What an utter shower we're being asked to choose between in 2 weeks.

Greendubber

13,191 posts

203 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
FredericRobinson said:
Theresa May should be getting hammered for having reduced police numbers by 20,000 when Home Sec and now there being insufficient police available to deal with the current situation and troops having to be deployed, trouble is the only alternative has been matey with terrorists for decades.
What an utter shower we're being asked to choose between in 2 weeks.
And in 2015 she accused rank and file officers of crying wolf regarding the cuts, well its come home to roost now (which we all knew it would, sadly)

768

13,668 posts

96 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
FredericRobinson said:
Theresa May should be getting hammered for having reduced police numbers by 20,000 when Home Sec and now there being insufficient police available to deal with the current situation and troops having to be deployed, trouble is the only alternative has been matey with terrorists for decades.
What an utter shower we're being asked to choose between in 2 weeks.
I suspect she's not getting hammered because most would rather use the army than have 1000 extra police for one week in a decade.

FredericRobinson

3,694 posts

232 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
I'd imagine they could be doing something useful the rest of the time

768

13,668 posts

96 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
So give her hassle for whatever those useful things are then, not this.

FredericRobinson

3,694 posts

232 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Ok, I'll blame her for more officers not being available for intelligence gathering and watching those who've been reported as a possible threat then.

Mojooo

12,718 posts

180 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
creampuff said:
I'm sure the upcoming election has something to do with it. Corbyn is perceived as being soft on defence, even by Labour voters. The government putting soldiers on streets looks like the opposite.
If Labour have any sense they will play this video all day long tomorrow

https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154332198536...


4x4Tyke

6,506 posts

132 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all

Not fine about it at all, it sets a dangerous precedent and is entirely because she gutted Police numbers.

It is however Security Theatre not some black flag conspiracy st.