- 16
- Donegal
Pretty sure he's joking.....
London Bridge/Borough Market Terror Incidents
- Thread starter TRGTspecialist
- 282 comments
- 15,097 views
Pretty sure he's joking.....
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
To be entirely honest, I'm not exactly certain, which is why I asked a question. What would the effect be? I know merely asking such a question is devil's advocacy, and opinions would differ. But "what if?" Would or could there be a positive benefit to a greater respect for, or observance of, the period of Ramadan? I have no idea. But it was definitely not about letting "radical dickweeds take over". I'm trying to imagine a way forward for the social contract in the UK.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Like @homeforsummer said you can hardly tell with him. It'd help if he was saying so, because most times I take him more serious than not because he typically posts serious fringe posts of similar nature.
- 16
- Donegal
It'd be worrying if that was a serious post, we'll see though.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Why does it matter if it's UK or somewhere else? What exactly does it matter if it's an event like a concert or just people commuting about on a weekend when no massive social gathering is happening? What does it matter the time of the year, when radical dickweeds have time and time again attacked when ever they want, religious holiday or not?
These are more serious question, then shelter in place because of the low risk that crazies might be about, and the much lower risk of religious fringe crazies.
Seems like it was a serious post from his response, as I said from posting in the same place as this user for years. Typically what you or other may not find a serious post, question, response, for @Dotini is...
GTP_Ingram
Premium
- 1,916
- London
- GTP_Ingram
- NowtDaft
I'm still relatively new to living in London. Terrorism should be the last of your worries on a night out here - it's far more reasonable to be stressed out by the entry fees that most clubs ask for.
The risk in the UK as a whole is even more miniscule. Having reservations about visiting from a threat of terrorism would be like refusing to go to the Alps for fear of avalanche, Australia for fear of a spider bite, or America for the possibility of bumping into Piers Morgan.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Hey don't joke about that, Piers Morgan lurks everywhere
- 27,203
- United Kingdom
And here we have the ludicrousness of modern policing. I'm sure it won't come to anything, but the officers' actions will be subject to "thorough investigation". The IPCC, for those outside of the UK, is the Independent Police Complaints Commission. UK police can't even neutralise terrorists without coming under scrutiny.
- 29,145
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Let me first say that I completely accept Mark Rowley's explanation of his officers' actions and that I think they did entirely the right thing - an appalling, difficult job to do but one that (without wanting to seem jingoistic) is an essential one in the current climate and one that they did very bravely.
What I want to add is that every single police shooting, however clear the prima facie circumstances, should be thoroughly investigated so that the circumstances can be fully established and lessons learned. We should never be a country where we accept as routine armed officers with shoot-to-kill orders. It seems clear in this case that the investigation will have the facts quickly and readily available and that there should be little doubt about the severity of the threat that the Met command and its officers knew themselves and the public to be facing... but that investigation still has to take place, it's actually a normal part of the very society that the Met were protecting so well last night.
- 3,070
- Norway
Mark Rowley, Met police assistant commissioner, said a member of the public suffered a gunshot wound as officers attempted to neutralise the terrorists with an “unprecedented” level of gunfire.
The individual is being treated in hospital, Rowley said.
Source
I think it's nothing more than SOP.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 3,070
- Norway
The IPCC investigation.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I don't limit my likes to just posts I agree with, I throw up a lot of likes all over the place and, sometimes just because I find something particularly brilliant or insightful. I don't always agree with @Dotini but I really do enjoy his irreverent nature and rapscallion attitude
. I don't agree with his suggestion in this case at all, and I don't think he does either, but given that some here have called for a "let's stop angering the terrorists and they'll leave us alone" approach, I do find that particular post dripping with layers of sarcasm and irony in this particular setting and I appreciate that kind of insightful posting.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I don't limit my likes to just posts I agree with, I throw up a lot of likes all over the place and, sometimes just because I find something particularly brilliant or insightful. I don't always agree with @Dotini but I really do enjoy his irreverent nature and rapscallion attitude
His post is asking an inane question, which sums up to live in fear of radicals especially during religious holidays. So in a sense cater. Not sure what there is to like, usually a person likes something because is has likable traits, hence the option to like...
You even gave reasons why you give a like, all of them are based on finding something likable. So what does living in fear during a "holy month" have that is liked? As for people who say stop angering, I'm not one of those, thus that isn't relevant to me or the question I posed. Which is a serious one, compared to the what if that I'm arguing against.
So to me it is something people liked because they took it as a joke, without considering who posted it or actually agree with the idea. Since Dotini's response after the post to me as seen showed it not to be a joke or sarcasm but a potential, not sure how anyone could find it satire.
I see it done for more legal reasons than anything else. I'm sure there are things to learn, but you don't need an investigation to assess that. However, it's hard for me to see what is to be learned there are few options really to prevent innocent people being caught in such chaos, since those people were the targets.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Remember that British citizens were sent onto the street with "shoot to kill" orders which they carried out. I'm not going to argue that this wasn't a right and proper response - in the circumstances I feel it definitely was - but every citizen who carries arms for the Crown should know that their actions will always be scrutinised.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I can't believe y'all are arguing over the police shooting and killing a group of people who wouldn't stop killing, until killed...
Oh and don't forget the the London mayor! It's the new norm! I feel bad for y'all and wish y'all the best, but y'all gotta vote those idiots out ASAP. For your own good.
Stay strong and fight!
This is the problem. Just like the, ignore the bully he'll leave you alone. BS!!!!!!!!! I was bullied from 5th to the 7th grade. Guess what stopped the same butthole after 3 years? It definitely wasn't ignoring him...
Oh and don't forget the the London mayor! It's the new norm! I feel bad for y'all and wish y'all the best, but y'all gotta vote those idiots out ASAP. For your own good.
Stay strong and fight!
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
I may have missed it, but where was it confirmed that British Police officers were sent on a shoot to kill order?
As I understand, Armed Police are trained to use appropriate force, in the instance of an armed attacker with potential suicide vest then this would likely result in the armed officers or commander on the ground making that decision at the point of contact.
I don't believe this was a team sent on a specific mission to kill, but to use their judgement.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
From my dad (ex Met officer):
There is a protocol in place with regards to endangerment of human life. Armed officers are deployed with the intention of shoot to maim. The officers on scene then make the decision whether to shoot to maim or kill. Whatever decision they make then will result in an investigation by the IPCC as to why that decision was taken and whether it was correct or not. During this time said officer/officers are suspended, until the investigation is concluded after which he/she will return to active duty, unless they made a colossal eff-up.
Edit: IPCC for those not aware outside the UK is the Independant Police Complaints Commission. Being suspended is not due to being negligent in duty, nor incorrect in actions, it is merely procedure as firearms are so rarely used in the UK.
In addition, a take from a perspective of myself and my dad. Arriving on scene, the officers would already know what had happened so far. They would pick their target and have merely a few seconds to make a decision. The first thing that would have been assessed was the number of civilians around and how many were in immediate danger. The next would be how many and who were down. They may have seen officers down which would naturally lean a decision further over as that meant officers had been overpowered trying to stop them. Next there was at least one we know of with a fake suicide vest. If he was killed and holding a dead-mans switch, that would result in an explosion, so the officers needed to determine if he was or not, or if the devices were even real, which in this case they were not. That would all factor into the decision to unload 50 rounds at these men, a number that whilst very high was correct in our opinions, given the volatility of the situation.
There is a protocol in place with regards to endangerment of human life. Armed officers are deployed with the intention of shoot to maim. The officers on scene then make the decision whether to shoot to maim or kill. Whatever decision they make then will result in an investigation by the IPCC as to why that decision was taken and whether it was correct or not. During this time said officer/officers are suspended, until the investigation is concluded after which he/she will return to active duty, unless they made a colossal eff-up.
Edit: IPCC for those not aware outside the UK is the Independant Police Complaints Commission. Being suspended is not due to being negligent in duty, nor incorrect in actions, it is merely procedure as firearms are so rarely used in the UK.
In addition, a take from a perspective of myself and my dad. Arriving on scene, the officers would already know what had happened so far. They would pick their target and have merely a few seconds to make a decision. The first thing that would have been assessed was the number of civilians around and how many were in immediate danger. The next would be how many and who were down. They may have seen officers down which would naturally lean a decision further over as that meant officers had been overpowered trying to stop them. Next there was at least one we know of with a fake suicide vest. If he was killed and holding a dead-mans switch, that would result in an explosion, so the officers needed to determine if he was or not, or if the devices were even real, which in this case they were not. That would all factor into the decision to unload 50 rounds at these men, a number that whilst very high was correct in our opinions, given the volatility of the situation.
Last edited:
I think some of you guys forgot this line...
I was far more concerned about that above happening to me when i go pretty much anywhere outside of my "Area", as in the west for example. The reason being is the amount of anti-muslim and anti-arab twitter and other places became. Sure it's the internet but it doesn't mean people on the internet are going to be the 180 opposite in real life. It hurts to see people being victims in a mass killing and it doesn't help when i get blamed for despite doing nothing at all. I feel like i don't have any voice at all. I
It's a matter of time before we get to see huge religious war between Muslims and Non-Muslims due to the amount of increasing hate.
I don't think what @Dotini said was serious, i don't see why Ramadan month would be any different from other months... Terrorist will still be terrorist all the time. Ramadan won't suddenly change someone.
- 29,912
- Thailand
Definitely triggering cityists. Which is fine, London's horrible
Having grown up in London and visited most of it I can honestly say it's 99% crap. I'd never want to live back there again if I didn't have to.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
They're not. They're debating what sort of precedent it sets. What if - heaven forbid - a man of Middle Eastern appearance is driving a car, jumps a kerb and runs down passengers ... but it's really a drunk Mexican behind the wheel? Giving a shoot-to-kill order in that case would be entirely unjustified.
The point is that however necessary the shoot-to-kill order was in this case, it's not something that should be issued lightly.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Or what if a man of Brazilian (iirc) origin has his backpack and is running for a train? He could take several fatal headshots in front of tube passengers because procedural failures led to commanders misidentifying him. Source: that happened.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,043
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Thanks for the advice but having already voted the previous idiot out I don't think London is quite ready to give up on this one just yet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/04/donald-trump-lashes-sadiq-khan-london-terror-attacks/
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
From overnight BBC radio reports I picked up some thoughts:
Despite internal family concerns over safety, many younger people are defiant, preferring to gather in concert and shout their defiance and fearlessness.
The main ideas of government seem to be more internet controls so that extreme content is removed, and encryption that can be readily defeated by police. And more police to break down more doors. There seems to be no shortage of Britons reporting each other to police, but a great dearth of police to do follow up. Despite some concern over foreign connections, the violence seems to be almost entirely domestic. Citizen against citizen. The nation divided against itself.
But as some wags have said, road accidents and bathtub accidents are a much greater threat. So why not root up the roads and bathtubs instead of bothering with people?
Despite internal family concerns over safety, many younger people are defiant, preferring to gather in concert and shout their defiance and fearlessness.
The main ideas of government seem to be more internet controls so that extreme content is removed, and encryption that can be readily defeated by police. And more police to break down more doors. There seems to be no shortage of Britons reporting each other to police, but a great dearth of police to do follow up. Despite some concern over foreign connections, the violence seems to be almost entirely domestic. Citizen against citizen. The nation divided against itself.
But as some wags have said, road accidents and bathtub accidents are a much greater threat. So why not root up the roads and bathtubs instead of bothering with people?
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
US libertarian site reports broad assault on speech planned by Tories in response to terror attacks.
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/06/04/may-pushes-internet-regulation-after-london-attack/
Tories Have Long Sought to Impose Censorship on Internet
Jason Ditz Posted on June 4, 2017Categories NewsTags Britain, censorship
British Prime Minister Theresa May wasted no time after yesterday’s London Bridge terror attack in announcing that she will be pushing a new series of international agreements aimed at global regulation of speech on the Internet, claiming that extremists have been using “safe spaces online” in their terror attacks.
While this is being couched today as a reaction to the London attack, the reality is that this is a long-standing goal of Britain’s Tory government, with the Conservative Party’s current manifesto vowing efforts to force Internet providers to participate in “counter-extremism” efforts that would tightly regulate speech.
The manifesto’s plan goes well beyond just terrorism, looking to regulate speech broadly defined by the ruling party as “harmful,” and also to severely curtail the access of pornographic materials on the Internet. The pornography angle is, obviously, not being mentioned in connection to the London attack.
London-based privacy and free speech advocacy group the Open Rights Group was quick to criticize May’s effort, and Professor Peter Neumann, the director for the Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London, mocked the effort as “politically convenient but intellectually lazy.”
Either way, it has the major social media companies promising to “do more,” by which they mean more strictly censoring their user base. Most of these companies have hoped such efforts would forestall global government action to censor the Internet outright, though it seems that the bar for acceptable content on the Internet continues to slide further the more they try to self-regulate.
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/06/04/may-pushes-internet-regulation-after-london-attack/
Tories Have Long Sought to Impose Censorship on Internet
Jason Ditz Posted on June 4, 2017Categories NewsTags Britain, censorship
British Prime Minister Theresa May wasted no time after yesterday’s London Bridge terror attack in announcing that she will be pushing a new series of international agreements aimed at global regulation of speech on the Internet, claiming that extremists have been using “safe spaces online” in their terror attacks.
The manifesto’s plan goes well beyond just terrorism, looking to regulate speech broadly defined by the ruling party as “harmful,” and also to severely curtail the access of pornographic materials on the Internet. The pornography angle is, obviously, not being mentioned in connection to the London attack.
London-based privacy and free speech advocacy group the Open Rights Group was quick to criticize May’s effort, and Professor Peter Neumann, the director for the Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London, mocked the effort as “politically convenient but intellectually lazy.”
Either way, it has the major social media companies promising to “do more,” by which they mean more strictly censoring their user base. Most of these companies have hoped such efforts would forestall global government action to censor the Internet outright, though it seems that the bar for acceptable content on the Internet continues to slide further the more they try to self-regulate.
Similar threads
