London Bridge incident

[CheltenhamHacker]

I'm a bit confused at what your concern is. If it's the Police arresting close associates of terrorists after they have killed people then I fail to understand it. It is quite reasonable to assume that family and people in close association with the killers may be part of their support network and arresting them to either confirm collusion or rule it out is understandable. It may cause some short term disruption to the innocent but hopefully will lead to early apprehension of the guilty. We are living in some very dangerous times and must expect some intrusion to our normal way of life sometimes in the pursuance of apprehending those that would kill us.

I don't have an issue with those initial arrests. That's legal at the moment, and works quite well under current powers. The issue I have is the follow on being made by a number of people, that they should be deported as well, without much of a trial or "how's your father"

 

[Imurg]

Why are they naming the bombers/murderers/terrorists...?
It's helping to make Martyrs of them..
Deny them the publicity...just say " we have identified them, we know who they are and we're looking closely at all their friends, families and associates"
That's all we need to know isn't it?

 

[Slime]

On what grounds? So far we've talked about including 3,000 on the watch list, plus their families. I'm sure there are more extreme views out there about who should be included.
Victims of terrorism in the UK in the last 10 years are about 100-150.

What I'm trying to say is that anyone is far less likely to be accidentally killed by UK security forces than they are by a lunatic terrorist.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What I'm trying to say is that anyone is far less likely to be accidentally killed by UK security forces than they are by a lunatic terrorist.

One innocent person being killed due to collateral damage is one person too many.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

What I'm trying to say is that anyone is far less likely to be accidentally killed by UK security forces than they are by a lunatic terrorist.

Currently yes. If we bring in these "radical" rules people seem to believe in, then who knows.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

What I'm trying to say is that anyone is far less likely to be accidentally killed by UK security forces than they are by a lunatic terrorist.

Using that logic maybe we shouldn't worry about terrorism

 

[SocketRocket]

One innocent person being killed due to collateral damage is one person too many.

Should we not shoot terrorists in case someone gets hurt accidentally?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Should we not shoot terrorists in case someone gets hurt accidentally?

Big difference between mistaken identity and stray bullet.

 

[doublebogey7]

And making their evil plans easier to achieve if we run scared in the name of their Human Rights.

No one is talking about running scared. In fact I would argue that those that are arguing for a change to our generally liberal society are the ones running scared.

 

[SocketRocket]

View attachment 22843

Using that logic maybe we shouldn't worry about terrorism

Or give a life sentence to people who park on double yellow lines. They can block access to emergency vehicles and put others life at risk. If one or two were given life in prison then would anyone park on double yellows again?

 

[SocketRocket]

No one is talking about running scared. In fact I would argue that those that are arguing for a change to our generally liberal society are the ones running scared.

They are not running scared, they are facing up to the reality of the dangers we encounter. People who want to hide behind human rights and racism to protect their evil intentions are the problem and the leftist elite are allowing them to do it.

 

[SocketRocket]

Big difference between mistaken identity and stray bullet.

Really! If you believed someone was about to kill people and it was your on the spot decision to shoot or not, what would you do.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Really! If you believed someone was about to kill people and it was your on the spot decision to shoot or not, what would you do.

Shoot! The thread mentioned the innocent Brazilian shot on the Tube, different to shooting one of those holding a knife and a bullet passing through them and hitting an innocent person.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

They are not running scared, they are facing up to the reality of the dangers we encounter. People who want to hide behind human rights and racism to protect their evil intentions are the problem and the leftist elite are allowing them to do it.

So why after 7 years haven't the government done something before now, because they're getting desperate for votes and people are seeing the results of them cutting the security services, more deflection!

 

[bobmac]

So, what is the answer?

 

[doublebogey7]

They are not running scared, they are facing up to the reality of the dangers we encounter. People who want to hide behind human rights and racism to protect their evil intentions are the problem and the leftist elite are allowing them to do it.

My point is illustrated by the stats provided by Pauldj42. We do not make major changes to our rights because people die on the roads, so why do we wish to do that because terrorists cause a much smaller death rate. Anyone shown to have broken the law need to feel the full force but internment, forced repatriation of British citizens etc will only lead to more radicalisation and a further breakdown of our society.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So, what is the answer?

For me it's a proper cross party review of exactly what the security services are facing and what they need to carry out their job properly, the safety of our citizens should stop being a political football.
If it's changes to laws or more police on the beat, resources etc, then it should be done and be as drastic as the review finds, may upset some, but unlucky.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So, what is the answer?

Because humans are what they are there is imo no definitive answer to stopping terrorists and terrorism - it's been around for as long as human beings have walked the earth.

All the radical ideas being mentioned won't change anything , they won't stop it happening - a lot of it based on blood thirsty revenge with it now seems a sprinkle of innocents deaths thrown in

We need to put our trust into the hands of the security forces to continue to build intelligence to attempt to stop the incidents before they happen , those same security forces need our governments full support in terms of financial backing and boots on the ground. Tightening of laws in Regards confirmed religious zealots and fundamentalists none of the deporting of families etc

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

They are not running scared, they are facing up to the reality of the dangers we encounter. People who want to hide behind human rights and racism to protect their evil intentions are the problem and the leftist elite are allowing them to do it.

People who kill people are the problem.
People who sell arms to people are the problem.
People who incite hatred are the problem.
People who support human rights are not the problem.
People who don't support racism are not the problem.

I know it's nice and easy to say "let's kick everyone out, and that'll deal with it", but unfortunately it's a bit late for that. We need to radically re-think why this is happening, and how it can be resolved. Do you think we'd have peace in NI right now if we'd just kicked out everyone with an irish accent in the last few decades?
People

 

[bobmac]

For me it's a proper cross party review of exactly what the security services are facing and what they need to carry out their job properly, the safety of our citizens should stop being a political football.
If it's changes to laws or more police on the beat, resources etc, then it should be done and be as drastic as the review finds, may upset some, but unlucky.

Well that's not going to happen