Re: With the lad not even buried...
B.LIAR and the gun-grabbers after Dunblane spring to mind... "An armed society is a polite society"
Woolwich beheading sparks call to REVIVE UK Snoopers' Charter
Nick Clegg has been warned that his opposition to the controversial Communications Data Bill could leave Britain "at risk" after a soldier was beheaded in Woolwich, London. The deputy prime minister is coming under increased pressure to rethink his stance on the draft law, dubbed the Snoopers' Charter. The bill, if passed by …
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:18 GMT Ragarath
Exists already?
"They need to look again at the bill, which has a lot of changes to stop it being a snoopers' charter. This ability is something that exists now, and will disappear. I have no doubt that if it goes we will be more at risk, so the deputy prime minister is, I believe, putting the country at risk."
If the ability exists currently, why did Woolwich happen and how will keeping it prevent another? Or am I reading the above wrong?
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:33 GMT Paul Crawford
Re: Exists already?
It happened because in a population of ~60 million there will be some homicidal maniacs no matter what you do.
No, you are not reading it wrong as what is being said is largely bollocks. This, for all its tragedy, is not a terrorist act causing mass panic. It was simply some religious nutters out to make a statement and will do nothing to help whatever twisted "cause" they spout.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:43 GMT Shasta McNasty
Re: Exists already?
Please explain to me how allowing the security services to have unrestricted access the phone/online records of these nutters would prevent the stabbing of the bloke in the street?
The opportunist politicians are only marginally better than the arseholes who murdered that poor guy.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 14:25 GMT John Smith 19
Re: Exists already?
"No, you are not reading it wrong as what is being said is largely bollocks. This, for all its tragedy, is not a terrorist act causing mass panic. It was simply some religious nutters out to make a statement and will do nothing to help whatever twisted "cause" they spout."
Damm right.
-
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:22 GMT Pen-y-gors
Here we go again...
First off, the nutters who carried out the Woolwich attack are just that: barking mad, eye-rolling, loony, nutters - they're not terrorists.
Secondly: when will the anal control freaks who we elect to manage our society realise that total safety is not possible. Would the Snoopers Charter detect nutters who send each other letters in the post? No? Then the mail delivery people must be required to open every letter and record who it was from and who is was delivered to (but not the content, obviously). And what about nutters who actually talk to each other face-to-face? Better require everyone to register everyone they meet during the day then? Too complicated - how about everyone just wears a GPS enabled tracking device 24/7 - that should make everyone totally safe. Won't it?
For the hundreds of millions that would be spent enabling the Snopers Charter on the off-chance it might save a couple of lives now and again, why not spend the same money on the NHS, or improved roads or any of a dozen other things that would save hundreds of lives every year? Or is the life of a poor sick child worth less than that of anyone else?
</rant>
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:07 GMT Pen-y-gors
Re: Here we go again...
"The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"
So a mugger with a knife who relieves someone of their wallet, as a protest against the political system which means he hasn't got the money to buy drugs, is now a terrorist?
I don't think so....'terrorist' as a description has been sadly devalued (mainly by politicians and the security services) - terrorists are people like the IRA bombing town centres in the hope of intimidating governments into making political change. Crazies with a political/religious agenda are not terrorists, and the so-called anti-terrorist legislation isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to them.
And anyway, surely they'd only be 'terrorists' if the public permit themselves to be terrorised by their actions. Tell them to get stuffed and just keep calm and carry on.
The chances of being killed by a terrorist or other nutter is substantially less than that of being killed by a police car * - are we terrified of police cars? Do we call for them all to be locked up?
* 147 civilian fatalities from April 2005 to March 2009. - http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/02/20/road-deaths-resulting-from-police-pursuits-responding-to-emergencies-and-other-causes/)
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:21 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: Here we go again...
@Pen-y-gors Quite agree. The whole aim of a 'terrorist' is to cause widespread panic and, well, terror. I don't think many have been terrified by a small group of nutjobs murdering an innocent man, and I'm not convinced that there was ever much chance that they would be.
It's a tragic mindless act of murder, perpetrated (technically we should still say allegedly, not proven in a court of law yet, but I think we've all seen the video) by what's best described as a tragically deluded group of individuals who set out to cause harm thinking they were going to (what were the words...) "start a war in London tonight".
It doesn't make the loss any less, especially for the victim's friends and family, but calling this a terrorist attack is completely misusing the word.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:02 GMT Tom 38
Re: Here we go again...
Terrorism is violent crimes committed for the purpose of intimidating people to achieve political purposes. These people had political aims, they committed a violent crime for no other purpose than to further promote their purposes, they even hung around to make sure their message was heard.
You can say it is inept terrorism, you can say it is ineffective terrorism, you can say it is lone wolf terrorism - it's still terrorism.
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:23 GMT Dave 15
Re: Here we go again...
I doubt very much that locking all the police and their cars up would make a great deal of difference.... except of course in preventing threats being made by the police to cheese producers who occasionally create a single few minutes of wild entertainment and fitness activity on a Gloucstershire hill
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:56 GMT Dodgy Geezer
Re: Here we go again...
...The chances of being killed by a terrorist or other nutter is substantially less than that of being killed by a police car * - are we terrified of police cars? Do we call for them all to be locked up?...
These are, at least, mostly accidents - though few policeman ever get done for 'due care and attention'..
Of more interest is the total number of police-related deaths: 121 for last year alone. The greatest number of these (62, or about 50%) are deaths in or after police custody - many related to police 'restraint', tasering or incapacitant spray. The next largest number (32, or about 25%) is of 'suicides in custody'. RTAs are about 15% of the total...
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report2011-12.PDF gives more data
-
Friday 24th May 2013 14:36 GMT John Smith 19
Re: Here we go again...
"And anyway, surely they'd only be 'terrorists' if the public permit themselves to be terrorised by their actions. Tell them to get stuffed and just keep calm and carry on."
Excellent point.
In fact it appears only the politicians are being terrorized into talking b**locks about the Snoopers Charter.
Real people recognize you can't stop a couple of random nutters being nutty.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:28 GMT Schultz
Crime prevention unit
So the police wants the tools to become a crime prevention force. I wonder how much information and control they require to predict and prevent all crime.
As a practical approach, they should surely start by confining probable criminals (males aged 16-35) to some kind of supervised camp.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:30 GMT Piro
The guys were already known to the authorities
More snooping wouldn't have done shit. Clearly the attack was not avoidable as such - if you brazenly attack someone in the street like this, it's extremely difficult to prevent that first act. However..
Why did it take 20 minutes for armed police to arrive at a scene where someone had just been hacked to death? I'd say that's more important to look into. But no, let's concentrate on wasting time and money collecting masses of almost entirely useless data. Clearly the way forward.
Cocks.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:04 GMT Maharg
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Taken from Met Police statement.
"We have also addressed the speculation there has been about how long it took the Met to respond yesterday as this incident started to unfold. Police first received a 999 call from the public at 14:20hrs stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun. We had officers at the scene within nine minutes of receiving that first 999 call.
"Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known firearms officers were assigned at 14:24hrs. Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met. We must be mindful that the IPCC are investigating the police response to the incident.
To be honest that doesn't sound all that bad to me, given the amount of cuts the Police, including the armed response teams have had to deal with over the last 2 years, I can just see the MP’s, blaming the Police, just like they do the NHS,
“Why did it take you 14 minutes to get an armed response unit to the scene?”
“Because you made us sell our cars, fire half our officers and the bus was late”
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:12 GMT SteveK
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Surely it would become:
“Why did it take you 14 hours to get an armed response unit to the scene?”
"Because all but one police officer is now tasked with sifting through every single email and website access of 60 million people, and that one officer was off sick"
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 20:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
"We had officers at the scene within nine minutes of receiving that first 999 call."
Given that Woolwich police station is on Market Street, which is just off Wellington Street, about 600yds from where the soldier was attacked, nine mins seems a long time.....they could have had a car there within about 20 seconds.....esp as Woolwich Court (which is pretty high profile in terms of cases seen there) is almost opposite the police station and they are almost certain to have had fire arms (and officers certified to carry them) available at the station....even if the early reports mentioned a gun was seen.
(An ex-Woolwich resident)
PS I too am very sad at the savagery that has been carried out...Woolwich has had it's fair share of issues over the years - the Woolwich pub bombing happened at the other end of the same street where this young soldier was murdered.... :(
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Yes these guys were already known additional monitoring would have done squat.
What is funny is immediately as soon as this happens the focus is again on "we need better monitoring" rather than someone asking the security services "why did you do nothing to stop these men you clearly knew about?".
Wouldn't surprise me if the spooks let a few known terrorists run loose to help them revive the fear and demand more powers. 7/7 did after all happen many years ago, the plebs need to be scared again.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:24 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Wouldn't surprise me if the spooks let a few known terrorists run loose to help them revive the fear and demand more powers. 7/7 did after all happen many years ago, the plebs need to be scared again.
I'm not sure I go in for that conspiracy stuff, but I can quite believe they might have been considered low risk and allowed to run loose (with monitoring) in the hope that they might lead to someone not considered quite as low a risk.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:09 GMT Dodgy Geezer
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
...Wouldn't surprise me if the spooks let a few known terrorists run loose to help them revive the fear and demand more powers. 7/7 did after all happen many years ago, the plebs need to be scared again....
That was near enough what was done with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. They were wars with no specific achievable aim in mind, but they DID stir up a lot of bad feeling in the Middle East. And bad feeling in the Middle East is ALWAYS good for the intelligence and military budgets...
Remember that the Berlin Wall had come down ten years earlier, and the Cold War had finished. That was VERY BAD for said budgets and career paths. They were frantic for a reason to continue to exist, and really needed a 'single really powerful enemy' - as anyone who watches James Bond films knows. That's why all these occasional random attacks by various groups or individuals pissed off by what is happening in the Middle East are 'really coordinated by the shadowy master-minds of Al-Qaeda'...
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 11:29 GMT Magister
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
"Why did it take 20 minutes for armed police to arrive at a scene where someone had just been hacked to death?"
That is a very sensible question; but I bet that you wouldn't like the answer.
With such a low tech incident, I'd bet that there were a lot of people walking / driving by that had not the slightest idea that anything was untoward. It might well have taken at least a minutes (maybe more) before someone actually thought to even contact the emergency services.
It's been identified that the 999 service gets a ton of waste / hoax calls every single hour of every day; they now have to try to work out if the call is genuine or yet another prat playing silly buggers. This will take more time and they might wait for a second call to confirm the first.
Even if they do accept that it is a real call, they might have difficulty in identifying exactly where the incident is taking place. The majority of people are not too good at giving clear locations or directions and the service might require 2 or 3 calls before they can say for certain where the incident is taking place. (This can be made worse if the caller gets through to a control room in a different part of the country and doesn't realise that "the top of the high street" doesn't help place the incident that well)
They then have to alert the police; yes they have a direct line, but it has to go through a specific chain of command, all of which will take a little more time. The emergency services cannot request armed response; that can only be requested by an officer at a certain level (not sure what it is in the Met, probably an inspector).
Assuming that there is an armed unit available and not already dealing with a case elsewhere, they have to get out of the building and into a vehicle. Even if they get kitted up when rolling (which is normal), this also takes several minutes.
They then have to get to the location from where ever they happen to be; anyone that has driven through London traffic will know the issues. Even under blues & twos, if they are more than 4 miles away, it will still take over 10 minutes to drive there.
20 minutes is not a great response time; but I can see why it would take that long.
The boys (and girls) in blue are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination; but they usually do try bloody hard and deserve a bit more support than they generally get.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:52 GMT Piro
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
I understand there would have been problems/limitations, but I'm merely pointing out if there's anything that needed improving, it would be that, not surveillance.
Of course, respect must go to the police officers that put themselves at risk in this and countless other situations around the country.
But it's no secret that the Tories have been slashing their budget. Spending more of it taking people off the street and into an office trawling through data is definitely not the way forward.
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:11 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Also - this happened outside army barracks where there are buildings full of well trained soldiers - some of whom will be armed. WtheF didn't somebody run into the barracks to get help?
I know the army don't have the same *extra* rights as armed police, but if it's happening right there outside the base, to one of their own soldiers... ?!?
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
More importantly if just ONE of the civillians who was near was armed & trained, they could have intervened, taken out the criminals and rendered first aid before the police even turn up...
While I would not say it is the right of everyone to carry a gun, I would even go so far as to say all police should be armed, then the nearest cop can intervene rather than waiting for a special armed force to turn up....
restricting weapons only takes them out of the good guys and puts them in the hands of the bad guys...
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:31 GMT Tom 38
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
More importantly if just ONE of the civillians who was near was armed & trained, they could have intervened, taken out the criminals and rendered first aid before the police even turn up...
More importantly if just ONE of the civilians who was near was armed & trained, they could have intervened, killed the criminals before they could be interrogated and shot a couple of by-standers by accident.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:39 GMT NomNomNom
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
"restricting weapons only takes them out of the good guys and puts them in the hands of the bad guys..."
Then how come the bad guys in this instance only had one rubbish gun?
It's because most criminals can't get hold of decent guns because they are so illegal.
If guns are widespread the criminals will have easier access and choice and they are going to be the ones coordinated and shooting first.
-
Friday 24th May 2013 12:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
"restricting weapons only takes them out of the good guys and puts them in the hands of the bad guys..."
You are a complete bell-end, you know that!
The bad guys will own guns without or without laws and that's a given but at least at the moment the few armed and correctly trained Police can shoot an armed criminal knowing he is in the wrong for waving a gun around in public, they know quite clearly that they are in the right and the nutter is in the wrong to have a gun out in public space.
When I see gun manufacturers making special small version assult rifles and pistols in shocking pink for small 6 year old girls to be able to handle ( yes they do exist and are sold openly in the States ) I know the world is in a sad state.
Controlling guns stops us having even more killing technology on the streets, as proven so horrifically this week you don't need a gun to kill someone, your local B&Q has all you need. Gun laws stop kids thinking gun violence is acceptable in a civilised society. I see a Copper with a gun I get concerned and rightly so. I see a Copper with a gun and he looks edgy, good! I want him to be on edge and alert because he has a killing machine in his hands. A gun is a tool that deserves respect and that Copper has trained and earned the right to handle that weapon, he did not wait 7 days for his license and then simply pickup 2 hand guns at the local supermarket because there was a special BOGOF offer that week on Glock's!
-
Friday 24th May 2013 13:01 GMT Maharg
Re: The guys were already known to the authorities
Got to disagree, if any of the civilians nearby had have been armed it would mean that guns are easy to get hold of, dramatically increasing the chance that instead of having an assortment of stabbing implements and one pistol this attack could have been carried out with a large number of firearms.
If they had more guns, they would not hesitate to fire at everyone else with a gun around them, and there would have been a much higher death toll, and a much more dangerous situation for the police to deal with, as it is the police shot them as they were running at the police to attack them with blades, change that to a couple of semi-automatics and the result would have been a lot different.
I’m proud to live in a country where guns are a rare thing, and the only way I would accept being able to buy a handgun is if I had to be trained to use it, and it was strictly controlled the way the Swiss do it.
-
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 14:21 GMT Peter Gathercole
Re: Other soldiers @MJI
Most military bases have unarmed civilian security (I kid you not). There will be military armed guards somewhere on the base at any time, but every soldier checks their weapon in to the armoury when they are off duty.
I believe that there have to be specific orders in order to allow weapons and ammunition to be issued for use off-base, and that would not have happened (in the British Army) for an incident like this. Even if it were protecting a fellow soldier, off base it is the Police's responsibility. British soldiers are in every way professionals.
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 14:49 GMT John Smith 19
Re: Other soldiers @MJI
"I out to point out that I was referring to UK military bases in the UK."
It might have been a very different story had the soldier been carrying a side arm however AFAIK most British troops do not have side arm training and I don't think it's been anything like a common practice (in the UK) since the resolution of the Northern Ireland situation.
It's one of those simple ideas that would have serious consequences.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 24th May 2013 10:32 GMT Daggersedge
The ones who should be monitored
The ones who should be monitored are the ones who let Britain become a hellhole of diversity. The ones who should be monitored are those who let the 'religion of peace' flourish in Britain. It's the ones who provided benefits upon which Islamic fanatics could live while they preached their hatred of all things Western who should be watched. Yes, the ones who branded as 'hate criminals' and 'racist' anyone who spoke against all this should have their lives ripped apart.
No, wait, they shouldn't be monitored. Why waste the time and the money? Just take them out and shoot them.
But nothing will happen and in a month or so, the mainstream media will cease to speak of this barbaric murder. Islamic fanatics will continue to preach hate and will continue to take over parts of Britain. I'm glad I left Britain. France is, by no means perfect on this point, but at least it banned the burkha.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
