Attacks in London

Liverpoolphil said:
Because the country isn't in the state to need a fully armed police force - your local village bobby doesn't need to be armed , my local town police force don't need to be armed , the motorway police don't need to be armed.

It's not that dangerous living in this country for their to be a fully armed police force.

Yes in certain areas and in certain situations you need to have an armed presence but sorry but the UK isn't that bad an area to require every single person to be armed
Click to expand...
We don't have village Bobbies anymore, we dont even have beat Bobbies in Towns. You say they don't need to be armed but not why.

You also say it's not dangerous living in this country. Read this:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-named-gun-crime-10894912

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/england-wales-homicides-rise-knife-gun-crime
 
SocketRocket said:
We don't have village Bobbies anymore, we dont even have beat Bobbies in Towns. You say they don't need to be armed but not why.

You also say it's not dangerous living in this country. Read this:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-named-gun-crime-10894912

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/england-wales-homicides-rise-knife-gun-crime
Click to expand...

That second article proofs my point - ten years ago there were 1000 homicides - now it's just over half that.

Birmingham in an area that does have an armed response unit

And yes it's not dangerous living in this country

The level of crime we have in this country does not justify the need to have armed police.

The General public as a majority do not have firearms.

Firearms is not a major issue in 99% of the country so why have the whole force armed
 
clubchamp98 said:
Could be Army officer. MI6 , MI5.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be in or even be ex-forces to be in or involved with MI5 or MI6, however, diplomatic security officers or diplomatic security personnel all carry side arms and that was the very first initial report I heard as the terrorist was gunned down before the other armed resonces arrived as he was shot whilst grappling with the officer who was sadly killed. If that individual whoever he was, was not in that vicinity at that time, who knows how much further the terrorist would have got? But in saying all that, diplomatic security personnel are everywhere in and around Westminster and are plain clothed.
 
IanM said:
Completely correct... and as likely as me winning the Masters.

A element (of unknown size) in one religious community is committed to the destruction of secular western culture and its replacement with a Caliphate. They don't care if we kill them as they think they'll be getting their leg over for eternity in paradise. They take their instruction from old men who think the Earth is flat and women in tight jeans cause earthquakes. (I just wish that was a joke)

Until we see mass "grassing" of offenders, expulsions from Mosques of offenders by their communities and protests of moderates on the streets , we've no chance. These don't happen cos of fear or collusion ... or both
Click to expand...

But it is the only way I think. Rather than take the approach some on the far right in Europe have taken over this (including Le Pen) who have used it as an argument for controlling immigration - when we now know our attacker was a fella called Adrian Russell Elms from Kent.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
But it is the only way I think. Rather than take the approach some on the far right in Europe have taken over this (including Le Pen) who have used it as an argument for controlling immigration - when we now know our attacker was a fella called Adrian Russell Elms from Kent.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we have allowed mass immigration and then have been brainwashed by the leftist Elite to accept multiculturalism so that these people with very different values are encouraged to live detached lives and live in detached communities where many (especially Women) do not even speak English. You can suggest he is a British born Englishman with a British name but that hides the fact that he's not that, he is someone who detests us and wants our lives and culture destroyed. I accept that all Muslims are not like this but it's about time they showed us by positive action that they are totally against these people, they need to show how they love their country and are committed to it's values by rejecting this brutality in the most verbal and demonstrative manner. Multiculturalism was a mistake and needs binning so that we can truly be an integrated Nation.
 
There was an MP called Enoch Powell who, while pretty extreme, tried to say too much immigration was a bad idea. The trouble was that his language was extreme which enabled him to be easily written off.

When the numbers were manageable and the vast majority of immigrants were legal they were accepted and welcomed. Unfortunately as numbers have increased some communities have become segregated leading to distrust. Religious zealots have fanned these flames and with significant numbers of illegal entrants disproportionately swelling numbers in some areas the distrust is getting worse and extreme jealously can be the result.

Hard to see how we can turn the clock back when many politicians refuse to admit there's an issue.
 
SocketRocket said:
I just dont subscribe to this type of argument. As I keep saying, most European Countries have armed Police, we are not talking about special response Officers armed to the teeth with weapons but your normal Bobby carrying a pistol. Why do people think it wouldn't work in the UK and that the training would be difficult or many would refuse. Why doesn't Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Spain and so on have problems with doing this but somehow it would be a big problem in the UK, surely if carrying a weapon was part of the job then they would just get on and do it or someone else would. Regarding the truck in Germany that drove through the Market I believe it was stopped by police shooting through the windows.

It's a different world now than the those of John Peel and Dixon of Dock Green, many people are carrying guns, it's rife with young people in gangs and drug dealers, hardly a day goes by in Birmingham or London without someone using a gun. If someone is coming at a Policeman with a weapon then the best defense is to be armed, OK sometimes it may not make a difference but the chances are that it will. Taking the other argument against that arming Police will make more criminals carry guns, where is the evidence for this again in other European countries, it's not there. As for not trusting the Police to carry guns, well I just despair at that one.
Click to expand...

In the European countries that you quote, what are the laws about carrying firearms? When you know that you'll probably have the answer as to why these foreign forces carry firearms as the norm.

So you want to give every bobby on the beat a gun? Well the majority don't want it, as Police Federation polls have shown, so it's a reasonable bet that many would refuse to carry. Even if you could force them, why would you want them to carry a piece of equipment that they don't actually want? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

How often do people come at policemen with a weapon? Most of the incidents that involve serious injury don't start with people taking running jump at an officer, which would give him sufficient time to draw a firearm, give the required warning and then discharge it; they start when a close contact situation goes downhill, or in an attempt to avoid arrest and in those circumstances the officer is unlikely to be in a position to draw & use a firearm.

How many situations would an officer encounter when the firearm would be useful; nowhere near as many as those where it would be likely to be a liability is the truth of the matter. Take the typical Saturday night British sport of the good old roll around in the boozer. Going into a crowd situation like that, there is little if any chance that the officer will draw & use that firearm. However there is every chance that one of the crowd will think it a good idea to try and relieve him of it. So we've now got the officers dealing with the incident handicapped by the very piece of equipment that you think will solve the problem.

Add to this the costs, abstractions from duty for training, what to do with officers who don't meet the required standards and your bright idea isn't looking quite so bright; it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it won't even succeed in that. The post you attempt to discredit is much nearer the truth than your counter argument. if you honestly think the answer to whack jobs like this one is to hand out a sidearm to every serving officer then you really have lost the plot.

And could you possibly explain the relevance of John Peel to your argument; is it the legendary huntsman or the late DJ to whom you refer? The modern Metropolitan Police force was started by Sir Robert Peel, hence the nickname "Bobbies".
 
Blue in Munich said:
In the European countries that you quote, what are the laws about carrying firearms? When you know that you'll probably have the answer as to why these foreign forces carry firearms as the norm.

So you want to give every bobby on the beat a gun? Well the majority don't want it, as Police Federation polls have shown, so it's a reasonable bet that many would refuse to carry. Even if you could force them, why would you want them to carry a piece of equipment that they don't actually want? Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

How often do people come at policemen with a weapon? Most of the incidents that involve serious injury don't start with people taking running jump at an officer, which would give him sufficient time to draw a firearm, give the required warning and then discharge it; they start when a close contact situation goes downhill, or in an attempt to avoid arrest and in those circumstances the officer is unlikely to be in a position to draw & use a firearm.

How many situations would an officer encounter when the firearm would be useful; nowhere near as many as those where it would be likely to be a liability is the truth of the matter. Take the typical Saturday night British sport of the good old roll around in the boozer. Going into a crowd situation like that, there is little if any chance that the officer will draw & use that firearm. However there is every chance that one of the crowd will think it a good idea to try and relieve him of it. So we've now got the officers dealing with the incident handicapped by the very piece of equipment that you think will solve the problem.

Add to this the costs, abstractions from duty for training, what to do with officers who don't meet the required standards and your bright idea isn't looking quite so bright; it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it won't even succeed in that. The post you attempt to discredit is much nearer the truth than your counter argument. if you honestly think the answer to whack jobs like this one is to hand out a sidearm to every serving officer then you really have lost the plot.

And could you possibly explain the relevance of John Peel to your argument; is it the legendary huntsman or the late DJ to whom you refer? The modern Metropolitan Police force was started by Sir Robert Peel, hence the nickname "Bobbies".
Click to expand...
Since you don't seem capable of having a debate on the subject without throwing around insults and petty put downs then I wont bother replying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
The forum at its very best
Replies
8
Views
472
SocketRocket
SocketRocket
Tashyboy
Happy new year everyone.
Replies
16
Views
1K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
Hobbit
Britain’s longest serving prisoner
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
9K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
T
Just how good is Scheffler?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
Orikoru
Short Game Thoughts
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
6K
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
Top