London Bridge

RE: London Bridge

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:20:01 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Point is, I know many slip through the net. But the limit has to be put somewhere. I don't want to sound dogmatic and arrogant, but you had this protection in the UK for many years. In Spain, it was very new, and lessons of not protecting the innocent until proven guilty were learnt the hard way.

[/quote]

Also, what price information? I remember my mother (she was Hungarian) showing me a copy of her secret police file - she had been informed on by a classmate in college in the 1970s. In the classmate's defense, the report was absolute harmless fantasy that never hurt anyone - the reason he was informing was because he had been blackmailed to inform on his classmates in order to get his girlfriend out of jail. He sent Mom a copy of the report after the wall came down and the archives opened, along with a heartfelt apology letter.

Sure, 'it could never happen here'.

Well, 'it could never happen here' over there, either. (context: communist Hungary)

(edit: girlfriend married him and they raised a lovely family so no harm came to them either in the end, but that's still not right.)

RE: London Bridge

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:38:50 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Thousands of idiots spouting this pseudo-religious nonsense will always be a major headache for the security services and it is inevitable that some attacks will get through.

[/quote]The fact that every terrorist who has perpetrated an attack has been on the radar basically boils down to a choice: Intern indefinitely/deport every person who has shown any tendency towards extremism or accept that our present laws/human rights do not allow us to do it and that some attacks will succeed. Whatever resources you throw at the police and security forces there will never be enough manpower to monitor every nutter 24/7.

RE: London Bridge

Gillian Mostyn — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 07:19:35 GMT

RE: London Bridge

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 07 Jun 2017 00:48:50 GMT

More Bobbies on the beat, that's the answer - I heard that nice Mr Corbyn say so.

RE: London Bridge

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 23:11:17 GMT

[quote user="Utlendigur"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

That's my point. 'Enough is enough' means that either what happens before a specific point in time wasn't sufficient or a change has taken place.

If it's the first, the implication is that the job wasn't done properly. Either because of own failings or a cry to request further powers from the authorities. It is quite obvious that, on one hand, the opposition parties are looking at cuts not being done properly (there are recordings of policemen/ex-policemen denouncing this) and, on the other, the Conservatives are asking for more powers (which begs the question of why this wasn't requested before.

[/quote]

When Control Orders were introduced they were repeatedly challenged under human rights legislation, abetted by the Lib Dems in particular, to

[/quote]

Shorten purposely to reduce the thread length.

My point here is that these terrorist attacks, as despicable as we all agree they are, and the two people you mention shouldn't be the reason to strip 65m people of their human rights.

Once this line is crossed, it might be difficult to know how far we should be allowed to travel. One of the main reason I side with this are based on experiences from my country of origin.

Cases exist of Pro self-determination activists (not necessarily violent or belonging to ETA), being held and being subject to 'alternative' courts in order to get a convinction. The GAL was created to fight terrorists without having to be subjected to courts. They got it so wrong that innocent civilians were kidnapped and traumatized for life (Segundo Marey) and suspects were tortured and buried in 'cal viva' (caustic lime?) after having their nails pulled and digging their own grave, to make their mistake disappear.

What was the result? More extremism. A pretext for those who only wanted independence to become violent in revenge.

RE: London Bridge

Utlendigur — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 22:40:49 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

That's my point. 'Enough is enough' means that either what happens before a specific point in time wasn't sufficient or a change has taken place.

[/quote]

When Control Orders were introduced they were repeatedly challenged under human rights legislation, abetted by the Lib Dems in particular, to the extent that they became virtually impossible to use (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/oct/31/theresa-may-lord-macdonald-control-orders), and were eventually replaced by the watered-down TPIMs. Nothing to do with resources. Not to mention all the years of trying to convict Anjem Choudray or deport Abu Hamza frustrated by the judiciary, all the while allowing them to actively encourage fundamentalist/jihadi views - and some of the recent attacks have been linked with Choudray's group. The government wasn't allowed to stop him converting and inspiring more potential jihadists.

I took "enough is enough" not as an indication that the government was going to start mass internment of muslims or any other hysterical media over-reaction, but that there needed to be a subtle shift away from a presumption that any and all extreme views, or harmful cultural practices must be tolerated, and they are somehow off limits for challenge for fear of causing offence or appearing racist/colonial. FGM is still happening (1 prosecution, 5000 new cases a year), Rotherham happened - laws were there, the will to use them effectively wasn't because of a fear/unwillingness to challenge the people involved.

RE: London Bridge

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:51:05 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Stephanie Fursland"]The cuts ('necessary' being a matter of opinion) are to the police budget[/quote]

Sorry, but have to challenge you on that one, Stephanie.

When you look at what the government inherited (source: http://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/two-parliaments-of-pain-the-uk-public-finances-2010-to-2017)

So surely the real question is only whether the necessary cuts were made

[/quote]

If you reduce the deficit by some, but the debt continues to be a lot. Isn't a bit of a pointless exercise to advertise one and not the other? Genuine question.

RE: London Bridge

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:14:36 GMT

[quote user="Stephanie Fursland"]The cuts ('necessary' being a matter of opinion) are to the police budget[/quote]

Sorry, but have to challenge you on that one, Stephanie.

When you look at what the government inherited (source: http://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/two-parliaments-of-pain-the-uk-public-finances-2010-to-2017)

I doubt there are many people who would argue that cuts weren't absolutely necessary. And given that the cuts we've had so far have only succeeded in reducing the deficit, not the debt, some would argue they haven't been big enough cuts.

So surely the real question is only whether the necessary cuts were made in the right places? That is always going to be hugely subjective. I happen to think that health and education should be cut less than policing, but then I live in an area where its big news if someone steals a bicycle (I ignore my own contribution to the local crime stats as a statistical anomaly). I probably wouldn't feel the same if I lived in a high crime area.

The other problem I have with the notion that cuts were unnecessary is that it's a bit implausible.

What I mean is that broadly speaking, every political party; every politician wants to give the electorate more of what it wants: more education, more police, more healthcare. That's what gets them elected.

Sure, the Tories broadly prefer a smaller, cheaper state, and therefore lower taxes, whilst Labour are in favour of a bigger state and higher taxes.

But I don't think even the Tory party would be cutting police budgets unnecessarily. It's political suicide.

RE: London Bridge

ruths — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 19:31:07 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

[quote user="ruths"]Have you followed the money yet?

where did you end up? [/quote]

Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain the point you are trying to make.

Niall

[/quote]

sorry- that's not usually my style -))

The funding for ISIS has been from our friends the Saudis

wiki leaks revealed emails from USA involving a report that explores this further but the report has been surpressed by both UK and USA gvmnet.

SAudi is cutting off Qatar just now due to its apparent support for ISIS - but it's more becuase Qatar is angsty about the genocide that Saudi is carrlying out in the Yemen.

But saying enough is enough and being strong and stable is going to fix this apparently. Oh and longer sentences (for suicide bombers??)

Basically, our allies are supporting the people who want to destroy us.

We can't sit down and talk with the terrorists, not like in days gone by with IRA and ETA where there's a political resolution. ISIS want a caliphate state and that involves destroying us.

when there is a problem, you always needs to follw the money. It's the thing that makes the world go round.

When the tories win this election- May will resign. She's humiliated her party horrifically and they are all jostling behind her.

Boris is placing himself in the frame right now. Amber Rudd is also working the party and I reckon it will be her that's the PM by the end of the year.

Anyway- I absolutely agree that Diane Abbot is incapable and has to go. She's called in sick again apparently.

RE: London Bridge

Niall Taylor — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:19:58 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]Have you followed the money yet?

where did you end up? [/quote]

Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain the point you are trying to make.

Niall

RE: London Bridge

Bob Russell — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:12:24 GMT

From what I have seen the Police are doing their jobs extremely effectively! Everybody would like more resources and funding . Perhaps able to do better.

She actually does have a very good record. The Home Office was considered a failed department and unfit for purpose. She left it functioning far more effectively than before she took over.

Remember the passport office fiasco? There were plenty more before that, piles of asylum applications sitting in rooms for decades? She is quite a tough lady which is why I have been so surprised by the lacklustre manifesto and apparent 'U' turns. Not really her style!

Policing is only a small part of the Home Office role.

I am sure that people liking her is not top of her agenda. Respecting her is far more important. Spoken to several Policemen clients and I accept she may not be liked but they have a grudging respect for her!

A blanket statement that all Police dislike her is somewhat sweeping without the evidence to back it up!

RE: London Bridge

Stephanie Wellings — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:22:00 GMT

I'm not saying they all vote Labour, I'm saying they all dislike Theresa May - in terms of their ability to do their job effectively, she doesn't have a good record. Pay is a bit of a separate issue, and I'm sure police are as diverse a group in their overall political leanings as vets are!

RE: London Bridge

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 15:59:48 GMT

[quote user="Stephanie Fursland"]However, talk to any police officer (and I am a believer in asking the people who know, rather than the politicians) and they will tell you that the cuts in resources over TM's time as Home Secretary made their job harder and them less able to work proactively, and the force is less effective than it was before she came in. [/quote]

Ok, I did. I asked my cousin...he has been a policeman in London for the last 30 years. I asked whether the conservatives really are so bad for policing...

It was a Labour Gov who went against the Edmund Davies report and renegade on police pay agreements. It was Corbyn who voted against every security bill put before the house has been an ardent EU opponent since he first sat in parliament and people say he has integrity. I have no love for May but the country under labour gives me the shivers.

i guess not all policemen vote labour..

RE: London Bridge

Stephanie Wellings — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 14:10:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Dianne Abbott is likely to do a better job?

[/quote]

Not at all, she is a disaster - I think if Labour get in, they would not have her as Home Secretary (she practically said as much in an interview - when asked if she would be HS in a week, she replied "If Labour wins, Jeremy will announce his cabinet")

RE: London Bridge

Bob Russell — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:23:13 GMT

Dianne Abbott is likely to do a better job?

RE: London Bridge

Stephanie Wellings — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 13:13:09 GMT

The cuts ('necessary' being a matter of opinion) are to the police budget - reduction in the number of 'bobbies on the beat' is always what you see in the media, probably because it is an emotive subject for the public, but actually 'police on the street' are not just mooching around waiting for something to happen.

You have your proactive groups (investigating, acting on intelligence), and your reactive (answering 999 calls, of which the armed police are a small subset). The cuts mean reduction in all areas - so less manpower to investigate, for instance, when suspicious behaviour is reported by the public (which according to the papers today, was the case with at least one of the London Bridge attackers).

Money isn't the whole story - the police need to have powers to act on intelligence and deal effectively with suspects, so they need support from the government and the CPS, which has also been lacking from Theresa May.

RE: London Bridge

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 12:48:14 GMT

I would expect that to be the case when you talk about policing in general, but I see it as the inevitable consequence of necessary cuts.

What I am struggling with is the idea that the reduction in police on the streets has caused an increase in successful terrorist attacks, or that increasing the number of police on the streets would reduce the number of successful terrorist attacks. I don't see any evidence for that, and it would strike me that there are better ways to tackle terrorism.

RE: London Bridge

Stephanie Wellings — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 12:05:04 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="ruths"]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-warned-by-manchester-police-that-cuts-risked-terror-attack-2017-5

[/quote]

OK, interesting, but it is one person's opinion and I'd like to know the facts behind the statement. Easy to say 'intelligence has dried up', but it needs detail. How many intelligence reports were being received? How many now? Was that intelligence related to terrorism? Has it really dried up, or are people reporting it in other ways.

I wish people dealt more in hard data than rhetoric (not you, BTW, I mean the person in that report).

[/quote]

It's hard to get 'hard data' because people can frame data in such a way that it supports their agenda (and I think both of the political parties do this). Also lots of the information regarding intelligence is sensitive and not released to the public.

However, talk to any police officer (and I am a believer in asking the people who know, rather than the politicians) and they will tell you that the cuts in resources over TM's time as Home Secretary made their job harder and them less able to work proactively, and the force is less effective than it was before she came in.

RE: London Bridge

ruths — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:58:53 GMT

Have you followed the money yet?

where did you end up?

RE: London Bridge

ruths — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:58:11 GMT

i agree Arlo, I usually do much better with facts and figures and evidence -)))

Mrs May dismissed the police being worried about the loss of 20,000 jobs as 'scaremongering '

The Manchester bomber was reported to the authorities by a number of people- maybe a more local

policing strategy would have added weight to the concerns people have, who knows.

its chilling that this police officer predicted this tho.

RE: London Bridge

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:35:56 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Corbyn was an ineffective leader and Abbott an idiot before the election was called. They still are!

Edit: I know it is in the Express but worth watching the Sky News interview in the link. This woman could be our new Home Secretary. She is unfit to be anybodies secretary let alone a senior member of a government.

[/quote]

Bob, I understand the desire to bring that interview about. But it seems to be the only move from the Tories. I'm sure she'd only have advisers or be sacked if not up to the job. Corbyn hasn't even confirm her as Home Sec.

Today Boris had to bring her name at least 3 times while being questioned about something unrelated in radio 4. However he won't say the name of his likely successor to negotiate Brexit, as if it thinks itd damage him.

Why isn't the PM condemn Trump attack on Sadiq? Have we not recovered our sovereignity?

RE: London Bridge

Bob Russell — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:15:39 GMT

It goes without saying that there will be 'failures' but people should not be so fast at apportioning blame.

If someone dials 999 stating that Mr X has headed out in a hired van, armed with a knife, screaming I am going to kill them then failure to act is a failure.

Thousands of idiots spouting this pseudo-religious nonsense will always be a major headache for the security services and it is inevitable that some attacks will get through.

Security is not a political football and the idea of having Corbyn and Abbott in charge of my family's safety frightens the living daylight out of me!

Corbyn was an ineffective leader and Abbott an idiot before the election was called. They still are!

Edit: I know it is in the Express but worth watching the Sky News interview in the link. This woman could be our new Home Secretary. She is unfit to be anybody's secretary let alone a senior member of a government.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/813448/Diane-Abbott-interview-car-crash-Sky-News-London-Bridge-terror-attack

RE: London Bridge

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:12:09 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-warned-by-manchester-police-that-cuts-risked-terror-attack-2017-5

[/quote]

I wish people dealt more in hard data than rhetoric (not you, BTW, I mean the person in that report).

RE: London Bridge

ruths — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 11:04:08 GMT

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-warned-by-manchester-police-that-cuts-risked-terror-attack-2017-5

RE: London Bridge

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 10:55:46 GMT

[quote user="Stephanie Fursland"] more investment in, and support of, the police would have had a better chance of stopping the attack[/quote]

But would it, I ask myself. I don't know. I mean, let's say there were another 10,000 police on the streets, as Corbyn proposes, that's an extra copper per 6500 people. Is that really going to make the difference between finding the lone nutcase or not? Is there any EVIDENCE that it has in the past?

It is already blindingly easy to report a terrorist threat using existing means (dial 999).

Surely it would be a far better use of money to spend it encouraging more people to dial 999 (and beef up the specialist investigation units) than to put more police on the streets.

and Francisco Gomez - thank you for sharing:

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

One of these guys was empowered by the media, and the Muslim community asked the media to stop giving him a platform.

Thread: https://twitter.com/mrjammyjamjar3/status/871829837262061568 (see replies to tweet and how he staged demonstrations)[/quote]

I think that's a crucially important point. The next time we see an extremist being given air time (if we do), we should all blitz the BBC with complaints.