Berlin Lorry Crash

[Deleted member 16999]

That sweep was something I mentioned to rod earlier on on this thread, re once in the EU you are free to travel where ever. I quite enjoyed reading the Mirror piece before it started giving out its " opinions". Quite frankly I thought some of its opinions were Rammel to say the least. Incidently what the piece never said was that once he fled Berlin he travelled from Berlin through France via train and onto Milan. All this time he was armed. He could have caused a major terrorist attack on that/ them trains.

With the amount of weapons available to criminals never mind terrorists, the risk to joe public is immeasurable, it's nothing new terrorists driving round mainland Europe with weapons, the IRA did it quite freely in the 80's and 90's attacking British Servicemen and their families. As much as I liked the Mirror article, you have to take most of the media opinions with a pinch of salt, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Sweep]

With the amount of weapons available to criminals never mind terrorists, the risk to joe public is immeasurable, it's nothing new terrorists driving round mainland Europe with weapons, the IRA did it quite freely in the 80's and 90's attacking British Servicemen and their families. As much as I liked the Mirror article, you have to take most of the media opinions with a pinch of salt, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Every bad rule in my golf club is based on the premise "we have always done it that way". Just because the IRA did it in the 80's and it's nothing new does not make it right. If we weren't in Schengen I would be very worried for the UK with this seemingly lax attitude in Europe.
The questions I raised were based on the facts as we know them. The Mirror article doesn't dispute them as far as I can see. Whichever way you dress it up and whatever spin you put on it, there are some serious questions to be answered.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Every bad rule in my golf club is based on the premise "we have always done it that way". Just because the IRA did it in the 80's and it's nothing new does not make it right. If we weren't in Schengen I would be very worried for the UK with this seemingly lax attitude in Europe.
The questions I raised were based on the facts as we know them. The Mirror article doesn't dispute them as far as I can see. Whichever way you dress it up and whatever spin you put on it, there are some serious questions to be answered.

In no way am I saying it's not a problem or we've always done it that way etc, what I am saying is, some people seem to think it's only arisen due to the refugee crisis and isis and us being part of the EU and is a modern problem.
It is not a lax attitude in Europe at all, they're constantly vigilant.

 

[Sweep]

In no way am I saying it's not a problem or we've always done it that way etc, what I am saying is, some people seem to think it's only arisen due to the refugee crisis and isis and us being part of the EU and is a modern problem.
It is not a lax attitude in Europe at all, they're constantly vigilant.

I think this case has exposed a lax attitude. They allowed him to roam free even though they knew he was a potential terrorist. Even though they knew he had offered to carry out a suicide mission, even though they knew he was planning a break in to fund the purchase of firearms to be used in a terror attack, even though they knew he was dealing drugs and even though they had refused him asylum and knew he had already absconded from Tunisia. I am sorry but all that adds up to a lax attitude.

 

[larmen]

As far as the Grman officials were allowed to, within German law, they had a id on it. They are just very restricted under current law, which is being reviewed. The plan to review was a little older, but I think it's due in autumn 2017. It might get accelerated now.

It is mainly limited by the guy not having any papers, and Tunisia not supplying them. They have now done so, 2 days after. A cynic would think they fast tracked it after the event, but they will say it was done in due time when it was his turn.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think this case has exposed a lax attitude. They allowed him to roam free even though they knew he was a potential terrorist. Even though they knew he had offered to carry out a suicide mission, even though they knew he was planning a break in to fund the purchase of firearms to be used in a terror attack, even though they knew he was dealing drugs and even though they had refused him asylum and knew he had already absconded from Tunisia. I am sorry but all that adds up to a lax attitude.

All well and good if they aren't tracking hundreds more suspects, internmemt didn't work well in NI, suspicions and evidence are 2 completely different things, security services are busier across Europe than they've ever been, lax is the furthest thing from the truth.

 

[MegaSteve]

Unfortunately or should I say fortunately we often don't get to hear about when the 'security services' are on top of a situation...

As has proved, possibly too many times previously, if folk are of a mind to commit a dirty deed they'll do so...

 

[Blue in Munich]

I think this case has exposed a lax attitude. They allowed him to roam free even though they knew he was a potential terrorist. Even though they knew he had offered to carry out a suicide mission, even though they knew he was planning a break in to fund the purchase of firearms to be used in a terror attack, even though they knew he was dealing drugs and even though they had refused him asylum and knew he had already absconded from Tunisia. I am sorry but all that adds up to a lax attitude.

I'd politely suggest that you have no idea how much manpower it takes to watch one of these guys 24/7, and just how many they are trying to keep a tab on. There will be a constant battle trying to might the right judgement call over which ones they do and don't fully watch using the finite resources available and working within the constraints of the law. As someone else has pointed out you rarely if ever find out about the success stories on these sorts of cases. To claim that this one incident demonstrates a lax attitude amongst the security forces is highly disrespectful to their efforts and is utter cobblers.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'd politely suggest that you have no idea how much manpower it takes to watch one of these guys 24/7, and just how many they are trying to keep a tab on. There will be a constant battle trying to might the right judgement call over which ones they do and don't fully watch using the finite resources available and working within the constraints of the law. As someone else has pointed out you rarely if ever find out about the success stories on these sorts of cases. To claim that this one incident demonstrates a lax attitude amongst the security forces is highly disrespectful to their efforts and is utter cobblers.

Fair point but for me he should be detained as soon as he is identified as a suspect and at the minimum be tagged and expected to report to a Police station every day.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Fair point but for me he should be detained as soon as he is identified as a suspect and at the minimum be tagged and expected to report to a Police station every day.

Impractical, we simply don't have the resources and how is a suspect identified to the level of tagging and reporting?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Fair point but for me he should be detained as soon as he is identified as a suspect and at the minimum be tagged and expected to report to a Police station every day.

In terms of what I'd like to see, I'd agree with what you say; indeed I'd prefer to see anyone with a credible threat level against them interned for the safety of the rest of us. However the rules and the resources set by the politicians (not the security forces) unfortunately don't provide for that.

interesting to see what I view as some opposing views between this and the Marine A thread. And yes, I realise that there are some fundamental differences between the two cases, and no that isn't aimed at anybody; just a observation that in two cases involving terrorists intent on destroying the Western way of life, there is a concern that Marine A has overstepped the mark after the suspect has engaged in an act of terror, yet the mark can quite happily be overstepped in this instance prior to the act of terror when at that point was less evidence against the perpetrator than there was in the Marine A case.

 

[Sweep]

I'd politely suggest that you have no idea how much manpower it takes to watch one of these guys 24/7, and just how many they are trying to keep a tab on. There will be a constant battle trying to might the right judgement call over which ones they do and don't fully watch using the finite resources available and working within the constraints of the law. As someone else has pointed out you rarely if ever find out about the success stories on these sorts of cases. To claim that this one incident demonstrates a lax attitude amongst the security forces is highly disrespectful to their efforts and is utter cobblers.

I would politely suggest that the manpower needed to watch one of these suspects would not be required if they had done the right thing in the first place and detained him for any one of the reasons I highlighted.
Presumably you are happy with the standard of security demonstrated in this case otherwise you would not view my genuine concerns as "utter cobblers"
I am sorry but I believe the families mourining their loved ones right now are more likely to agree with me. But hey, let's just carry on because everything is working perfectly.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I would politely suggest that the manpower needed to watch one of these suspects would not be required if they had done the right thing in the first place and detained him for any one of the reasons I highlighted.
Presumably you are happy with the standard of security demonstrated in this case otherwise you would not view my genuine concerns as "utter cobblers"
I am sorry but I believe the families mourining their loved ones right now are more likely to agree with me. But hey, let's just carry on because everything is working perfectly.

No one has said it's working perfectly and I'm sure with hindsight lot's of different decisions would be made, but as BiM said there isn't infite resources and decisions have to made and cases prioritised, Security Services are working flat out and no matter what actions and procedures you put in place you will never stop everything or everyone.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I would politely suggest that the manpower needed to watch one of these suspects would not be required if they had done the right thing in the first place and detained him for any one of the reasons I highlighted.
Presumably you are happy with the standard of security demonstrated in this case otherwise you would not view my genuine concerns as "utter cobblers"
I am sorry but I believe the families mourining their loved ones right now are more likely to agree with me. But hey, let's just carry on because everything is working perfectly.

Please read the quote below;

As far as the Grman officials were allowed to, within German law, they had a id on it. They are just very restricted under current law, which is being reviewed. The plan to review was a little older, but I think it's due in autumn 2017. It might get accelerated now.

It is mainly limited by the guy not having any papers, and Tunisia not supplying them. They have now done so, 2 days after. A cynic would think they fast tracked it after the event, but they will say it was done in due time when it was his turn.

What I dismissed as utter cobblers is the view you expressed that the security forces have a lax attitude; they have anything but and work their backsides off on our behalf and deserve better. As has been posted by someone else, they work within the rules set by the politicians, so if you've got an issue with that address the comment to those whose rules cause it, not those busting a gut to keep us safe whilst having to work within those rules.

The suggestion in the second part of your post that I'm in some way okay with the fact that 12 people died as a result of this terrorist act because he wasn't unlawfully detained or thrown out is beneath contempt.

 

[SocketRocket]

Impractical, we simply don't have the resources and how is a suspect identified to the level of tagging and reporting?

He was already identified but there seemed to be a technical problem with his passport. In that case tagging and monitoring prior to being deported would seem more reasonable than letting him remain at large. How much resource does it take to tag and monitor some suspects?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

He was already identified but there seemed to be a technical problem with his passport. In that case tagging and monitoring prior to being deported would seem more reasonable than letting him remain at large. How much resource does it take to tag and monitor some suspects?

I believe the posts above answer your questions, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

 

[SocketRocket]

I believe the posts above answer your questions, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

I only asked one and cant see an answer to that.

 

[Blue in Munich]

He was already identified but there seemed to be a technical problem with his passport. In that case tagging and monitoring prior to being deported would seem more reasonable than letting him remain at large. How much resource does it take to tag and monitor some suspects?

How would tagging & monitoring him prevented this; I'm not seeing it?

 

[Sweep]

Please read the quote below;



What I dismissed as utter cobblers is the view you expressed that the security forces have a lax attitude; they have anything but and work their backsides off on our behalf and deserve better. As has been posted by someone else, they work within the rules set by the politicians, so if you've got an issue with that address the comment to those whose rules cause it, not those busting a gut to keep us safe whilst having to work within those rules.

The suggestion in the second part of your post that I'm in some way okay with the fact that 12 people died as a result of this terrorist act because he wasn't unlawfully detained or thrown out is beneath contempt.

I think you are, probably purposefully, missing the point that I am not simply blaming the people on the ground. The system and procedures put in place are clearly inadequate too. Nevertheless the rules do allow detention of people refused asylum and there was plenty of evidence that he was likely to abscond, but he was allowed to go free. And that is even before you consider all the potential terrorist stuff.
Neither am I questioning how hard the Security forces work and I accept they have an almost impossible task on their hands. Again this is made harder by the rules put in place and actions of politicians. Mrs Merkel now trying to shut the door after the event by phoning the Tunisian President and saying we must speed up deportations is woefully inadequate and in itself demonstrates a lax attitude. Nevertheless you must accept that mistakes were made and opportunities lost by those on the ground and by those higher up.
Neither was I suggesting that you were happy that 12 people had died. I was making the point that they wouldn't have died if this case had been handled better and within the rules. Your claim that any detention or deportation would have been unlawful is both convenient for your argument and incorrect. I was suggesting that if you are happy with how this case was handled and that this should be the blueprint going forward then more people are going to be killed and I am not happy about this. More can and should be done.

 

[Sweep]

I am still wondering how is it that under Schengen it is OK for the Italians to order him to leave Italy, effectively deporting him, but it's OK for him to go to another area in Schengen. Surely, if you are going to operate several countries in one passport area, deportations should operate for the same area too and he should have been told to leave Europe? Otherwise it's like customs in London telling someone to leave England and it's OK for him to go to Scotland.
I don't think the Italians should be too surprised that he ended up back on their soil