By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
sometimes you see armed policemen. they were clear to see during the 2012 olympics, and are around and about the embassies here in kensington. and now they will be visible during the england/france match at wembley tomorrow.
jeremy corbyn was asked by bbc political editor laura kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on britain's streets. corbyn said: "i'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive. "i think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know. "but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."
given the recent events in paris, and the threat from isis that london is a genuine and valid target for attack, would you be in favour of not only having more armed police and army on the streets, but having them visible so you can see them, as opposed to them being in the shadows?
these terrorists have been brainwashed and genuinely believe in life after a violent death; i believe in life before death. if they are happy to meet their makers, and have 72 fukking ugly hairy virgins waiting for them, then i am only too happy to see them off on their way with a bullet to the head or other vital organ. i am reluctant to have a serious shoot out on the streets of london, but if the police are there to defend us, and we are not allowed to legally arm ourselves, then trained officers should not hesitate to pull the trigger.
i realise that some people will find this attitude absolutely abhorrent, and genuinely believe that dialogue is the way forward, but these cancerous shits are already infesting europe, poisoning our peaceful and tolerant way of life. they want nothing more that confrontation, to instil fear into the local communities, and push forward with their agenda of islamifying europe under one caliphate and sharia law. it is clear to me that this open arms policy is being taken advantage of by them, and if policies towards them don't change, then things will only get more dangerous for all law obiding people just looking to live a peaceful life.
the restaurant came under 'attack' from drunken group of about 10 males on saturday night, clearly upset by the events in paris. maybe they were just looking for a cheap and easy target, and saw a muslim owned establishment as that objective. it is sad, but i can sort of understand their frustration.
and i reiterate again, the vast majority of muslims in the uk want nothing to do with these murderous bastards, who deserve nothing less than hell. we do educate our children to be tolerant and follow a proper path in life. we do look out to members of our communities who might be a risk and weak towards these ideological temptations, and we do have open dialogue with the police and other security forces. just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not happen. but there are always week members of a flock that need help. in all communities in society. we pray for peace, but have to prepare for all scenarios.
you will understand that i need to keep a low profile during these challenging times for us all, but do not judge a whole community or religion based on the actions of a very small minority.
may the coming days and weeks be filled with peace and more joyful times leading upto the christmas festivities.
It's not what you've got; it's where you stick it.
Guns on the Streets on 21:56 - Nov 16 by CiderwithRsie
Good post. Meanwhile, in the US, where the police are routinely armed, they've killed 1,000 of their own people so far this year.
As Ted says, armed police are a fact of life now and so be it. But I'm much happier with our approach, of a small number of well-trained firearms officers rather than loads of guys tooled-up and no real idea what they're doing. There were armed police at Mumbai station and an armed policeman at the Charlie Hebdo office. Giving a policeman - who may be perfectly good at ordinary police work - a revolver doesn't turn him into an SAS trooper.
As others have said, having every police officer armed probably wouldn’t help to prevent attacks of this nature. As we saw with the Charlie Hebdo case, however, it would give police officers more protection when confronting these situations.
A friend of my wife was a firearms officer in Brum until transferring to a mainly rural force for a quieter life, and his view is that most police officers don’t want to be armed, partly because it is such a specialised skill, with the routine arming of police officers hugely increasing the potential for fatal mistakes.
He goes on a ridiculous amount of training courses and assessments to ensure that he’s in the right condition to carry out his job and without bigging himself up too much, reckons that it would be unfair to put the average copper in some of the situations he’s faced, because there’s no way the training and monitoring that he receives would be rolled out across the board, and because it does require a very specific temperament, if you’re not going to have people getting shot when they don’t need to be (as we see in the States, for instance).
Really interesting chatting with him about how his job changed over the years — from mainly dealing with West Indian drug gangs, to almost exclusively dealing with counter-terrorism jobs on a daily basis, whether through reconnaissance, raids or transfers down to Paddington Green nick. And he has all that responsibility for about 70% of what I earn doing IT system admin in the City. Ridiculous.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
0
Guns on the Streets on 08:57 - Nov 17 with 1195 views
Ed,you're going to have to take bull's testicles off the menu.
was flying back to the uk from amsterdam the other week, saw prob ten coppers fully armed walking around the departure hall fingers on triggers as they walked round , dosnt bother me seeing it something we all have to get used to now im sorry to say
I meant to say — Exiled — very sorry to hear you had grief at the weekend.
If I’m honest, my first thoughts when the news broke on Friday night was “fu cking Muslims — what’s wrong with these people?” and that’s me as a fully-signed-up Guardian-reader. I probably carried on thinking along those lines for an hour or so until I rationalised things. The ultimate aim of groups like ISIS is to exacerbate existing tensions between host and Muslim communities in Europe and elsewhere, so they can better sell their narrative of persecution, repression and the idea that the two groups can never peacefully co-exist. That in turn leads to more extremists and sympathisers, which they need to achieve their aims.
They would love nothing more than to see French Muslims become ever more removed from mainstream French society. It suits their purposes perfectly. Whatever your view on mass immigration in the past and the settlement of Muslims from former European colonies, whether it’s in the UK, France or elsewhere, you have to accept that these people aren’t going anywhere and so we need to bridge divides where possible rather than allow existing divisions to become more pronounced. I’m not sure how you do that exactly, but I’m pretty certain it doesn’t involve people treating all Muslims as though they were ISIS sympathisers.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
1
Guns on the Streets on 09:46 - Nov 17 with 1145 views
Guns on the Streets on 23:33 - Nov 16 by CiderwithRsie
While I completely agree with the points that Robith, Bazza and Lytham are making, I'm not sure anyone has quite addressed Deano's point.
He hasn't said that all or most Muslims are terrorists, what he's said is that he doesn't detect any other major world religion which has such a problem with a terrorist minority - and a minority at that which doesn't just happen to belong to that religion, but which explicitly justifies its terrorism in terms of that religion (however much that may be baloney and offensive to decent Muslims.)
I do feel that there are elements of Islamic history, specifically to do with jihad, that make it open to exploitation by killers than some other religions. It took Christianity 1,000 years to come up with the idea of a crusade (1st Crusade took place in 1097 years after the birth of Christ) whereas the first Muslim conquests took place in the lifetime of Muhammed.
But we all know about the Wars of Religion in Europe (or bloody well should do.) And the pioneers of suicide bombings weren't Al-Qaida, it was the (mainly Hindu) Tamil Tigers. The response to the Tamil Tigers by the mainly Buddhist Sinhalese was equally barbaric.
So I'd say that the reason why, say, Christianity does not produce terrorism in the world today is that it is largely practised in parts of the world which have moved beyond mass violence as a way of getting things done; and Islam is the dominant religion in certain parts of the world where that isn't so. In other words, I don't think it is Islam that is the problem per se, and certainly isn't Muslims; the problem is with the Middle East. Assad is and Saddam was just as much of a terrorist as IS, and neither of them were motivated by religion; Putin is less virulent example of the same thing; it is just that they are/were in government and had/have secret policemen and soldiers to do the terrorising.
I think that is an excellent and well-reasoned post, but for the sake of reason I would disagree completely that 'Christianity does not produce terrorism in the world today'. The U.S., Britain and now even France export violence on a colossal scale whether it is through the production and indiscriminate sale of weapons, drone strikes, full-scale invasions or - in the U.S.'s case taking part in over 200 wars since W22.
My own country has been the source of terrible violence both at home and abroad and has even facilitated the recent wars in the Middle East by giving up Shannon Airport to the U.S. so thy could perpetrate those illegal wars.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Guns on the Streets on 07:53 - Nov 17 by Northolt_Rs
Yes selected being the operative word here... These stats are blatantly skewed to show 'there aren't as many Moslems in Europe as people think and they don't really kill that many people' - which is quite clearly bullshyt.
'It's not as if everyone will forget' - those stats have conveniently forgotten or deliberately ignored them though haven't they?
[Post edited 17 Nov 2015 8:09]
Domestic violence kills more people in Europe than islamic terrorism (edit - reply too soon) - shall we ban men?
[Post edited 17 Nov 2015 9:54]
0
Guns on the Streets on 10:11 - Nov 17 with 1115 views
"I do feel that there are elements of Islamic history, specifically to do with jihad, that make it open to exploitation by killers than some other religions. It took Christianity 1,000 years to come up with the idea of a crusade (1st Crusade took place in 1097 years after the birth of Christ) whereas the first Muslim conquests took place in the lifetime of Muhammed. "
It might have taken a while to get round to a Crusade but from the moment Christianity got a proper foothold in rome it carried out wars and persecution on a large scale against pagans (no muslims to target in the early days)and very aggressively against fellow Christians with a different interpretation of Christianity that the accepted state approved version, Convert or die was the general rule wherever they had enough power to enforce it from Greece to Norway. And as soon as they managed to traverse the oceans they lost no time in either forcibly converting or destroying everyone they could manage to.
I think the point on timescales is valid though Wahhabism is only a couple of hundred years old and its relative newness may well be a significant factor in its ability to conver and drive fanaticism
0
Guns on the Streets on 10:29 - Nov 17 with 1100 views
Guns on the Streets on 07:53 - Nov 17 by Northolt_Rs
Yes selected being the operative word here... These stats are blatantly skewed to show 'there aren't as many Moslems in Europe as people think and they don't really kill that many people' - which is quite clearly bullshyt.
'It's not as if everyone will forget' - those stats have conveniently forgotten or deliberately ignored them though haven't they?
[Post edited 17 Nov 2015 8:09]
Yes but it says SELECTED, which means 'we've chosen these ones for convenience'.
If it was a graphic about Terrorist attacks (it isn't it's about perceptions) then you would have a point.
0
Guns on the Streets on 10:58 - Nov 17 with 1073 views
Domestic violence kills more people in Europe than islamic terrorism (edit - reply too soon) - shall we ban men?
[Post edited 17 Nov 2015 9:54]
Oh well that's all right then. Let's draw up a complete list of platitudinous examples to modify the events. Will you be the one to present it to the grieving relatives perchance?
Domestic violence kills more people in Europe than islamic terrorism (edit - reply too soon) - shall we ban men?
[Post edited 17 Nov 2015 9:54]
Wow, that wasn't meant to be a direct reply to that post. Sorry it's a busy day.
My reply to the statistics question was going to be the article it is with excluded pre 2006 as it had a separate piece looking at the radicalising effect of the Iraq war
0
Guns on the Streets on 11:58 - Nov 17 with 1009 views
Oh well that's all right then. Let's draw up a complete list of platitudinous examples to modify the events. Will you be the one to present it to the grieving relatives perchance?
Sorry blob, my blood was up and it was more facetious a point than I intended.
The point wider was that the masses of people shouldn't be punished for the actions of a minority. In the example I cited, 2 women a week are murdered by their partners, which is a lot, and unacceptable. But should every man in the country take the fall for that outcome? No, that would be ludicrous.
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:23 - Nov 17 with 988 views
Guns on the Streets on 21:45 - Nov 16 by Deano19766
Yes when it happens the odd time. But if a QPR fan stabbed a supporter of another team every week, or QPR fans (plural) stabbed supporters (plural) of other clubs every week, what would be the case then? Still not QPR? I doubt many other people not associated with QPR would see it that way in that scenario, and would demand the club be shut (and rightly so). Why should religion be an exception?
And I would love a genuine explanation as to why all these nutters are attached to Islam, so I can understand why it is not Islams fault as so many claim. The only conclusion I can draw at the moment, based upon the evidence, is that it is Islams fault. For the avoidance of doubt, if it were Christians, Jews or any other nonsense faith I would reach the same conclusion.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2015 21:58]
there are a few more muslims around the world than QPR fans though....not really a decent comparison!
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:31 - Nov 17 with 982 views
Exactly. 200+ innocent Russian people bombed out of the sky. More killed in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt etc but I don't see people falling over themselves on Facebook to put flags of those countries as their profile picture.
What happened in Paris was awful, we lost a member of staff and two ex staff at the Eagles of Death Metal concert, but it must not overshadow other countries that too have suffered/are suffering.
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:35 - Nov 17 with 969 views
Wednesday & Thursday last week I saw two armed police outside a French Embassy building on the Cromwell Road right by the Natural History Museum. They weren't there before.
I wonder if the authorities knew something was imminent?
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:40 - Nov 17 with 964 views
Exactly. 200+ innocent Russian people bombed out of the sky. More killed in Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt etc but I don't see people falling over themselves on Facebook to put flags of those countries as their profile picture.
What happened in Paris was awful, we lost a member of staff and two ex staff at the Eagles of Death Metal concert, but it must not overshadow other countries that too have suffered/are suffering.
I think you’re right, but Paris is only a couple of hours from town by train, it’s a city many of us have visited/know and it’s not difficult to imagine similar scenes in London, with people being out on a Friday night; France is another Western European Multicultural democracy with many of the same issues...it’s understandable that it resonates with people in the UK more than the tragedies elsewhere. Also, the media can shift half their correspondents out to Paris at the drop of a hat, will have senior correspondents who speak decent French etc, whereas the logistics aren’t so straight forward when you’re covering a story in Ankara, Sharm or Beirut. And these killings happen so often in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, that they're tragically barely deemed newsworthy. Essentially, I think the Paris slaughter was more dramatic and closer to home in every sense, than the other atrocities.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:47 - Nov 17 with 952 views
I think you’re right, but Paris is only a couple of hours from town by train, it’s a city many of us have visited/know and it’s not difficult to imagine similar scenes in London, with people being out on a Friday night; France is another Western European Multicultural democracy with many of the same issues...it’s understandable that it resonates with people in the UK more than the tragedies elsewhere. Also, the media can shift half their correspondents out to Paris at the drop of a hat, will have senior correspondents who speak decent French etc, whereas the logistics aren’t so straight forward when you’re covering a story in Ankara, Sharm or Beirut. And these killings happen so often in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, that they're tragically barely deemed newsworthy. Essentially, I think the Paris slaughter was more dramatic and closer to home in every sense, than the other atrocities.
Agree with that. I have said to people who have commented the same as I just have that we are so much closer, in may ways, to Paris than countries further afield and will therefore have a closer affinity.
Work was very sombre yesterday. I didn't know, or know of, the people we lost but that still doesn't lessen the feeling.
0
Guns on the Streets on 12:58 - Nov 17 with 934 views
Guns on the Streets on 21:34 - Nov 16 by Deano19766
Can I ask one question, and it's a genuine one. Why are the majority of these attacks all over the world linked to Islam as opposed to any other group? It simply cannot be a coincidence. I am no expert on Islam of course, but I can only question what I see in front of me. And I see that Islam must clearly has some serious flaw (more so than other religions, which are all bullsh!t as well I must add but each to their own) that causes all these people to do as they do, unless somebody can genuinely explain different?
If Islam was a football club whose fans were rioting every weekend and killing people the club would be shut down. Following a football club is akin to a belief. Why should religion be treated any differently? Sorry a bit of a crap analogy, but the only one I could think of quickly off the top of my head.
With regards guns, probably a bad idea to arm all coppers
[Post edited 16 Nov 2015 21:42]
The answer to your genuine question is: They aren't.
or even try doing your own research before asking questions.
Also this (from another thread)
It seems they'll claim anything to make it appear they are bigger and more widespread than they are. By the time it's established it was someone else, it's fish & chip wrapping and they still have the notoriety.
0
Guns on the Streets on 13:12 - Nov 17 with 896 views
Agree with that. I have said to people who have commented the same as I just have that we are so much closer, in may ways, to Paris than countries further afield and will therefore have a closer affinity.
Work was very sombre yesterday. I didn't know, or know of, the people we lost but that still doesn't lessen the feeling.
My company is headquartered in Paris, so we have quite a few French folk in our office and I sit next to a Parisian lad - very sombre atmosphere here too. They seem pretty pessimistic about the future - think that integration is far better in the UK (well, London) and that the forthcoming elections will see the FN do even better, with the Muslim population feeling even more unwelcome and remote from mainstream France.
Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts
0
Guns on the Streets on 13:24 - Nov 17 with 875 views
Sorry blob, my blood was up and it was more facetious a point than I intended.
The point wider was that the masses of people shouldn't be punished for the actions of a minority. In the example I cited, 2 women a week are murdered by their partners, which is a lot, and unacceptable. But should every man in the country take the fall for that outcome? No, that would be ludicrous.
No problemo. I'm more than a little prone to knee jerk comments.
Guns on the Streets on 23:54 - Nov 16 by Northolt_Rs
Great stats. Shame they don't go back to 2004 so they can't include the 190 innocent people killed in the train bombing in Spain....or the 52 killed and over 700 injured in the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005. Talk about skewing the facts.
[Post edited 16 Nov 2015 23:57]
London bombings were over 10 years ago is 10 years not a reasonable timeframe? The the Irish used to kill each other on a weekly basis with a fairly regular mainland spectacular. Terrorism is no worse now than it was over the last 30 years. Dont fall for the hype and the politics of fear. You Ford is more likely to kill you than some muslim terrorist
0
Guns on the Streets on 14:16 - Nov 17 with 984 views
If you read the articles I put up the theme appears to be that there is a bias in the number and nature of incidents reported. When the real figures are tallied later by more detailed research the picture is somewhat different
0
Guns on the Streets on 14:17 - Nov 17 with 984 views
This is what pi$$ed me off about the whole Mark Duggan episode that sparked the London (and elsewhere) riots a few years ago. He was in a taxi, with a gun and on his way to do something to someone with that gun (beit a threat, to wound or even to kill). The vehicle he was in got stopped. The taxi drivers life was at risk, pedestrians were at risk so the police took the split decision to shoot. Take him out of the equation.
Cue mass hysteria and mock-shock on Facebook about 'poor Mark Duggan'. Y'know, the person who had numerous convictions to his name, the person who was already facing two seperate trials. The person who was a known villain. The person who obviously luvved his Mum.
The police took him out - the population rioted. If the police hadn't and an innocent bystander got shot, the population would have rioted in disgust.
The situation was just an excuse, whichever way it ended, to go on the rob.
Although I still find it unnerving see police with guns, I rather they did than didn't. And by that I mean specialist units, not your average bobby.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
