Another terrorist attack - London Bridge

[Vixen]

More of a suggestion than a criticism.

It's reported that one of the first cops on the scene only had a baton. He did go after the three but was stabbed multiple times and is in serious condition in the hospital. If that cop had a gun it may have all ended with him and no subsequent stabbing spree by the attackers. My suggestion is to arm all the cops with guns.

It's also reported that an off-duty cop happened to be there and he went after the attackers with bare hands. He was stabbed and is also serious in the hospital. It's not mandatory but it is fairly common for off-duty American cops to carry a concealed gun. This allows them to enforce the law at any time and also gives opportunity for self defense. Maybe these recent events in Britains will encourage cops to be armed when off-duty.

Please don't interpret my comments as being a slam against the British police or any officer. They seem to have done an excellent job with this incident.

AIUI that policeman was a British Transport Police, so not sure he'd be given arms anyway.

I do know all police in Germany are armed, or that's what I was told by a German cop!

The downside to that is that some of these guns find their way into the criminal world, although this is probably more true of third world countries.

 

[Agatha]

More of a suggestion than a criticism.

It's reported that one of the first cops on the scene only had a baton. He did go after the three but was stabbed multiple times and is in serious condition in the hospital. If that cop had a gun it may have all ended with him and no subsequent stabbing spree by the attackers. My suggestion is to arm all the cops with guns.

It's also reported that an off-duty cop happened to be there and he went after the attackers with bare hands. He was stabbed and is also serious in the hospital. It's not mandatory but it is fairly common for off-duty American cops to carry a concealed gun. This allows them to enforce the law at any time and also gives opportunity for self defense. Maybe these recent events in Britains will encourage cops to be armed when off-duty.

Please don't interpret my comments as being a slam against the British police or any officer. They seem to have done an excellent job with this incident.

The problem with arming all the police - apart from the reluctance of a majority of the police themselves to be armed¹ - is that it introduces many more guns into circulation in Britain. That means it's a lot easier for terrorists to arm themselves. If the three terrorists with knives had had automatic weapons, hundreds of people could have been killed before they were stopped.

Secondly, a change in our gun laws would have to be made to allow off-duty officers to be armed. And how would anybody be able to distinguish the off-duty officer with a gun from a random civilian with a gun? It would inexorably lead to more guns in Britain, and the sort of gun death figures we see in countries such as the USA where guns are a right.

I think it's important to note that British culture is quite different in many ways from American, and that the vast majority of the public do not want our gun laws relaxed in any way. (I'm trying to find a recent proper survey to put a number on this.)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ce-officers-firearms-specialists-union-survey 26% of police support being routinely armed.

 

[The Don]

Actually are they in this instance? On the beat doesn't seem to have much effect on a wide range of crime and disorder stats but I wonder if "counter-terrorism" may be an exception to this? Having police that regularly call into local shops and businesses, walk around local high streets and so on may enable the police to pick up more and better informed intelligence and be able to better asses what is important/significant/a change than the more hands-off approach of intelligence gathering?

Perhaps, I'd want to see some evidence for it before squandering all that money on it though. Certainly in the past, for dealing with other kinds of offences, the move has been away from bobbies on the beat to specialised officers.

While I suppose that bobbies on the beat could act as a conduit for anti-terror intelligence OTOH a constant visible police presence may just enhance the sense of isolation and being picked on which seems to make some people ripe for grooming.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The first highlight is a constant discussion in the UK, it wanes in and out of public discussion often after such an attack.

The second one is a no-way, if off-duty police officers can carry guns than so should I, and I really don't see the UK adopting such a fundamental change.

Remember if citizens were allowed to carry firearms such as pistols then the attackers would have been armed with those firearms.

Indeed. There might well be some middle ground where most British cops are armed but virtually nobody else is, but plainly if we had a national gun culture approaching anything like that of the US then the killers would have brought guns, not knives.

 

[baron]

I am taking it as given

Then don't, because it isn't.

that it was counteracting your nonsense attacking 'Corbyn and Abbott', which appears in the quote box above my reply, so there was no need for me to repeat your false claim. If anyone has been negligent on the security, intelligence and police issue, it is May, not Corbyn.

Corbyn isn't Prime Minister (and never will be, thank god), so clearly he has not been negligent on security, he only shows that he would be by his voting record and his very own statements.

But since you bring May and police numbers into the discussion, perhaps you can share with us all how these extra police officers would have prevented the latest three terrorist incidents. In your answer I'm sure you'll bear in mind the distinctions between beat officers, armed units (whose numbers dipped but are on target to reach peak levels again by 2018), MI5 (integral in combating terrorism but not even a law enforcement agency), the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (whose numbers have increased in the past two years) and the various specialist security units.

We have had penny-pinching measures which are mean and inappropriate (pension snatching, police slashing when she must have known security level threats were at dangerous levels [look at Europe] and her election manifesto aiming to abolish winter fuel allowances for many frugally-living pensioners who rely on them) and it is laughable for you to claim 'Corbyn & Abbott' would mean zero security, intelligence and policing, when Labour's written manifesto is to INCREASE police by 10,000.

I'm not defending May, as your absurd interpretation of my criticism of Corbyn asserts, but you could increase police by one million and it would make no difference to terrorism unless the resources were employed in the right areas, and, just as importantly, were given the legal powers to do their jobs. What use are 10,000 beat cops going to be in the war against terror? Corbyn would disarm the police and disband the security services, the beat cops would just be cannon fodder.

 

[Civet]

Corbyn would disarm the police and disband the security services, the beat cops would just be cannon fodder.

I don't follow UK politics as much as I probably should but is this on the level? Has Corbyn seriously proposed disbanding security services like MI5?

 

[William Parcher]

The second one is a no-way, if off-duty police officers can carry guns than so should I, and I really don't see the UK adopting such a fundamental change.

Remember if citizens were allowed to carry firearms such as pistols then the attackers would have been armed with those firearms.

Why would it be necessary to allow citizens to arm themselves along with the off-duty police? I don't get it. The police would be trained in firearm use and safety. Let them legally carry a gun, but exclude civilians from doing the same.

In this incident we had two cops who might have ended the attacks and reduced casualties but they couldn't because one had only a baton and the other had fists.

 

[baron]

I don't follow UK politics as much as I probably should but is this on the level? Has Corbyn seriously proposed disbanding security services like MI5?

Abbott, Shadow Home Secretary, backed a failed motion to abolish MI5 and Special Branch and more recently Andrew Fisher, Corbyn's policy advisor, advocated the same thing. John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor, recently signed a letter demanding MI5 be scrapped and the security services disarmed, then proudly posed with said letter, grinning. Corbyn refuses to condemn or even distance himself from any of these statements (aside from the u-turn last night on armed police, when he realised the if he maintains his stance he would get even fewer votes than the paltry number he's in line to garner on Thursday) and given his record on other aspects of national security, and his alignment of views with Abbott, it's pretty clear what he would do if he were ever in a position of power.

 

[William Parcher]

The problem with arming all the police - apart from the reluctance of a majority of the police themselves to be armed¹ - is that it introduces many more guns into circulation in Britain. That means it's a lot easier for terrorists to arm themselves. If the three terrorists with knives had had automatic weapons, hundreds of people could have been killed before they were stopped.

I understand but it would be a minimal number of guns leaking into the population if it's only the police that get them. And here I'm talking about pistols without high capacity magazines. Also if you don't have ammunition for sale the bad guys have to somehow acquire that to be able to carry out massive shootings.

Secondly, a change in our gun laws would have to be made to allow off-duty officers to be armed. And how would anybody be able to distinguish the off-duty officer with a gun from a random civilian with a gun? It would inexorably lead to more guns in Britain, and the sort of gun death figures we see in countries such as the USA where guns are a right.

I think it's important to note that British culture is quite different in many ways from American, and that the vast majority of the public do not want our gun laws relaxed in any way. (I'm trying to find a recent proper survey to put a number on this.)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ce-officers-firearms-specialists-union-survey 26% of police support being routinely armed.

An off- duty cop with a gun is indistinguishable from a civilian until the time that they need to act. What happens depends on the context. These off-duty cops also carry a star badge wallet thing that can be pulled out and displayed. They can yell "police!" and usually do. Actually firing the gun is a last necessary resort. You have the potential to disarm knife-wielders if you display a gun. "Police! Drop the knife and put your hands up."

Don't relax the existing gun laws for civilians. Just arm more police and also allow them to carry when they are off-duty if they personally choose to do that.

 

[Worm]

a failed motion to abolish MI5 and Special Branch

To be fair, it was an Early Day Motion. They don't 'fail' or otherwise. The most they can do is prompt a debate. Almost never happens though.

 

[catsmate]

According to the same poll, the corresponding figure for the control group was only 30%.

(This was the ICM Unlimited survey for Channel 4. You can find the full results in PDF format on their website).

So Muslims are slightly more likely to report potential terrorist activity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To be fair, it was an Early Day Motion. They don't 'fail' or otherwise. The most they can do is prompt a debate. Almost never happens though.

What did it actually propose?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So Muslims are slightly more likely to report potential terrorist activity.

Worse than that. You can't really tell anything from the question asked and data presented because its a really bad question.

Most of the control group state that nobody they know would ever be involved in terrorism which confounds the data and screws up the research more or less off the bat. You could interpret it to say that ~75% of the control who thought it might happen would report it vs ~50% for Muslims. But that would be stretching as well. The question itself is also uselessly non-specific. That's before we even look at the specifics of the methodology.

So , like pretty much every poll of this sort it's quite badly flawed from the outset and shouldn't really be used to conclude anything either way.

 

[Worm]

What did it actually propose?

I'm struggling to find it to be honest. It's reported as being in 1989, but I'm not sure if that's the 1988-1989 session or the 1989-1990 session. Helpfully, online archives seem to stop at the 1989-1990 session of parliament.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah. Okay. I didn't realise it was going that far back.

 

[baron]

Ah. Okay. I didn't realise it was going that far back.

The policy proposition was only a couple of years ago, and McDonnell's letter was this year.

 

[chrispy]

The downside to that is that some of these guns find their way into the criminal world, although this is probably more true of third world countries.

Like the US? http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/...ere-their-guns-are-and-the-law-says-thats-ok/

 

[Civet]

The policy proposition was only a couple of years ago, and McDonnell's letter was this year.

Got to admit, I was kind of hoping you were dropping some fake news there. It all checks out, though.

 

[IanS]

Latest news from BBC and all UK newspapers – police have named two of the attackers, one of whom was a man named Khuram Butt who, astonishingly, was not merely already well known to police as an Islamic extremist but even appeared last year in a national UK TV documentary where he was shown with other IS supporters unfolding an ISIS flag and later arguing with other Muslims outside a London Mosque berating them for not being Islamic enough etc. etc. -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40165646

 

[William Parcher]

The problem with arming all the police - apart from the reluctance of a majority of the police themselves to be armed¹
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ce-officers-firearms-specialists-union-survey 26% of police support being routinely armed.

Those two cops who are in the hospital would probably wish that they had guns the other day. The article says a majority want Tasers to be issued. That would have been better than a baton or bare hands. But the Tasers sometimes aren't as effective as hoped and the bad guy keeps going.

Armed cops also have the ability to shoot a driver who is mowing down pedestrians with a vehicle. You can't stop that person with hands, batons, or Tasers.