London Bridge

[frankblack]

Or possibly working on their other 500 active cases involving hundreds of other active people who are a clear and present danger and trying to make sure as few as possible blow up in their faces ? Its all about minimising the enemies successes. Stopping them completely is next to impossible. As the IRA used to say 'we only need to get lucky once'

 

This.

 

Politicians trying to point score as though the supposedly 20,000 Police would have made any difference in Manchester or London.

 

Unarmed police dealing with thugs with machetes or guns is a mismatch, and suicide bombers are even harder. Its doubtful these extra police when spread across the country would be able to make a dent on the surveillance required for all potential suspects.

[Space Mackerel]

Or possibly working on their other 500 active cases involving hundreds of other active people who are a clear and present danger and trying to make sure as few as possible blow up in their faces ? Its all about minimising the enemies successes. Stopping them completely is next to impossible. As the IRA used to say 'we only need to get lucky once'

But the Home Office gave them back their passports and sent then off to Libya to fight Gadaffi? That's after he was a pariah, then Tony's best mate, tent meets, Donald Trump gave him a space, then suddenly back again he was terrorist number one.

 

What are you not understanding here?

[Jammy T]

Also people questioning Corbyn etc fair enough.

 

I am saying that a Labour government will be strong on security.

 

Meanwhile Teresa May has also sucked up to Saudi Arabia as an ally to West and big buyer of UK arms.

 

Saudi Arabia sponsors the more extreme Islamic ideology that ISIS etc follows.

 

So which is worse? A few speeches or meetings in a position of zero power OR the firm backing in government of the nation that gave us 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists?

Dianne Abbott would be in charge of security

 

We'd be ****ed mate.

[Don Dan]

The body of Xavier Thomas has been found in the Thames. Another victim from Fridays horrible events.

[Rudolf's Mate]

I know it was unlikely but I really hoped those missing would be found in some hospital.

[Escobar PHM]

But the Home Office gave them back their passports and sent then off to Libya to fight Gadaffi? That's after he was a pariah, then Tony's best mate, tent meets, Donald Trump gave him a space, then suddenly back again he was terrorist number one.

 

What are you not understanding here?

Is this London or Manchester your talking about ? I havent seen anything that suggests that the 3 London Bridge terrorists were permitted or facilitated a trip to Libya for a pop at Gaddafi. That's the Manchester boy surely ? Who in hindsight should have been excluded from getting back once he went to Libya, except he dropped right off the radar as a live threat until he turned up at that concert. This latest mob, The mad stabbers, only the last one named even attempted to get to the middle east and even then he got as far as Bologna.

[maroonlegions]

Dianne Abbott would be in charge of security

 

We'd be ****ed mate.

 

 

The buck stops with the previous and PRESENT home office not on someone who has had feck all to do with the points below and who as not had a term as home secretary.

 

May as Home secretary in 2015 has a lot to answer for, lets stick with those who where in positions in the home office and see who was responsible for  major feck ups in border controls.

 

 

The below question that  May and the country need serious answers to is the pick of the bunch, it goes...

 

"Why did you lift the MI5 control orders on members of a LISTED terrorist organisation of whom has now killed 22 people in Manchester??"

 

 

 

Simply put the "oh we have too many to investigate" is a fecking cop out, those listed below were NOT just simply "suspects" the big difference here is that  they were "KNOWN" and could be termed as in the top % of  very high probability of committing terrorist attacks.

 

 

 

 Hard questions for Theresa May:

1. Under your watch as Home Secretary for six years, and now Prime Minister, around 850 Britons have travelled to Syria to join ISIS and fight to overthrow Assad. Many of the most notorious ones were already well known to MI5, such as Jihadi John, who in fact MI5 had sought to recruit as an informer. Are we supposed to believe that many slipped "through the cracks", or did MI5 expedite their travel given they were going to fight to overthrow Assad, which is also British government policy?

 

2. It is reported that about half of those who went to Syria to join ISIS have since returned to the UK. Have they also "slipped through the cracks"?  

 

3. MI5 claims that the London Bridge attackers also slipped through the net, which they excused due to the agency's work load of having to monitor 23,000 extremists. However, two of the three are known to be part of the network of extremists who follow Anjem Choudary, which has produced other terrorists, including the killers of Lee Rigby and Siddhartha Dhar, who skipped bail to travel to Syria to join ISIS, where he appeared in an execution video. Dhar even starred in Channel 4's documentary  

 

The Jihadis Next Door, alongside London bridge killer Khuram Butt. Surely out of 23,000 extremists, MI5 would prioritise the most likely terrorist, which by definition would include the members of this group. Why were they not prioritised by MI5? Is MI5 the most incompetent security agency on the planet, or were they protecting these extremists, as Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism officers alleged in the 21 August 2016 Telegraph that they repeatedly did for Anjem Choudary?  

 

4. Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi's father was well known to MI6, having participated in the failed MI6 plot to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 1996, and then being allowed to settle in Manchester. When your government initiated the Libyan intervention in 2011, now condemned as a disaster in a House of Commons report, your Home Office lifted control orders from Manchester-based Libyans who were members of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which your government listed as a terrorist organisation, to allow them to travel to Libya to fight Qaddafi. Why did you lift the MI5 control orders on members of a listed terrorist organisation, one of whom has now killed 22 people in Manchester?

 

5. Did you as Home Secretary expedite the travel of known LIFG terrorist because they were fighting for the same objective as your government in Libya, the overthrow of Qaddafi?

 

6. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation specifically warned MI5 in January 2017 that Salman Abedi was part of a North African terrorist cell and was planning a terrorist attack in the UK, which MI5 claimed to have investigated before letting Abedi "slip down the list of priorities". Again, is MI5 incompetent? Why wasn't Abedi arrested on the FBI's specific warning? Why was he allowed to continue to travel internationally, including just days before the Manchester attack?  

7. Isn't the truth that MI5 gave Abedi a pass because they knew he was a terrorist whose activities were in support of British government policy in Libya and Syria?

 

 

 

 Dianne Abbott would be in charge of security

We'd be ****ed mate.   

[Don Dan]

The buck stops with the previous and PRESENT home office not on someone who has had feck all to do with the points below and who as not had a term as home secretary.

 

May as Home secretary in 2015 has a lot to answer for, lets stick with those who where in positions in the home office and see who was responsible for  major feck ups in border controls.

 

 

The below question that  May and the country need serious answers to is the pick of the bunch, it goes...

 

"Why did you lift the MI5 control orders on members of a LISTED terrorist organisation of whom has now killed 22 people in Manchester??"

 

 

 

Simply put the "oh we have too many to investigate" is a fecking cop out, those listed below were NOT just simply "suspects" the big difference here is that  they were "KNOWN" and could be termed as in the top % of  very high probability of committing terrorist attacks.

 

 

 

 Hard questions for Theresa May:

1. Under your watch as Home Secretary for six years, and now Prime Minister, around 850 Britons have travelled to Syria to join ISIS and fight to overthrow Assad. Many of the most notorious ones were already well known to MI5, such as Jihadi John, who in fact MI5 had sought to recruit as an informer. Are we supposed to believe that many slipped "through the cracks", or did MI5 expedite their travel given they were going to fight to overthrow Assad, which is also British government policy?

 

2. It is reported that about half of those who went to Syria to join ISIS have since returned to the UK. Have they also "slipped through the cracks"?  

 

3. MI5 claims that the London Bridge attackers also slipped through the net, which they excused due to the agency's work load of having to monitor 23,000 extremists. However, two of the three are known to be part of the network of extremists who follow Anjem Choudary, which has produced other terrorists, including the killers of Lee Rigby and Siddhartha Dhar, who skipped bail to travel to Syria to join ISIS, where he appeared in an execution video. Dhar even starred in Channel 4's documentary  

 

The Jihadis Next Door, alongside London bridge killer Khuram Butt. Surely out of 23,000 extremists, MI5 would prioritise the most likely terrorist, which by definition would include the members of this group. Why were they not prioritised by MI5? Is MI5 the most incompetent security agency on the planet, or were they protecting these extremists, as Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism officers alleged in the 21 August 2016 Telegraph that they repeatedly did for Anjem Choudary?  

 

4. Manchester terrorist Salman Abedi's father was well known to MI6, having participated in the failed MI6 plot to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 1996, and then being allowed to settle in Manchester. When your government initiated the Libyan intervention in 2011, now condemned as a disaster in a House of Commons report, your Home Office lifted control orders from Manchester-based Libyans who were members of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), which your government listed as a terrorist organisation, to allow them to travel to Libya to fight Qaddafi. Why did you lift the MI5 control orders on members of a listed terrorist organisation, one of whom has now killed 22 people in Manchester?

 

5. Did you as Home Secretary expedite the travel of known LIFG terrorist because they were fighting for the same objective as your government in Libya, the overthrow of Qaddafi?

 

6. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation specifically warned MI5 in January 2017 that Salman Abedi was part of a North African terrorist cell and was planning a terrorist attack in the UK, which MI5 claimed to have investigated before letting Abedi "slip down the list of priorities". Again, is MI5 incompetent? Why wasn't Abedi arrested on the FBI's specific warning? Why was he allowed to continue to travel internationally, including just days before the Manchester attack?  

7. Isn't the truth that MI5 gave Abedi a pass because they knew he was a terrorist whose activities were in support of British government policy in Libya and Syria?

 

 

 

 Dianne Abbott would be in charge of security

We'd be ****ed mate.   

 

 

 

 

 

read this and it will explain why the Control Orders didn't work.

 

7215783.stm         7955677.stm

 

end-day-control-orders

 

uk-suicide-threat-man-seeking-escape-control-order

 

 

Surprise Surprise Corbyn also voted against them!!

 

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/news-opinion/labours-tom-watson-disagrees-both-13139513

 

Jeremy Corbyn also opposed the legislation. He voted against the Labour government to oppose it on its Second Reading and Third Reading, and also voted against the Labour government to support the amendment.

[Cade]

Control orders were an unworkable and illegal fudge, which is why they were taken off the statute books.

[Don Dan]

Control orders were an unworkable and illegal fudge, which is why they were taken off the statute books.

 

You're right. People screaming, understandably so, that we should have stopped these guys before they went on a rampage. In this country particularly you need to have committed a crime or be planning one before the police can intervene. AS we've seen elsewhere no amount of police or security is going to stop every attempt or attack. 

[Victorian]

You're right. People screaming, understandably so, that we should have stopped these guys before they went on a rampage. In this country particularly you need to have committed a crime or be planning one before the police can intervene. AS we've seen elsewhere no amount of police or security is going to stop every attempt or attack.

Indeed. But more security services capability will allow more of the threats to be assessed and monitored, especially the ones who have come to light in the past. Therefore decreasing the scale of the overall threat. Therefore saving lives on balance of probability.

[Don Dan]

Indeed. But more security services capability will allow more of the threats to be assessed and monitored, especially the ones who have come to light in the past. Therefore decreasing the scale of the overall threat. Therefore saving lives on balance of probability.

This million/billion pound question is what is the appropriate levels required.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Victorian]

This million/billion pound question is what is the appropriate levels required.

 

It would cost a hell of a lot to be able to eliminate all

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would cost a hell of a lot to be able to eliminate all threats. All you can do is provide more which will always help. What's the alternative? Give up and accept a level of constant threat? No, that's just not an option. Maybe the Tories can try to prevent terrorist activity by threatening them with Trident warheads.

[Don Dan]

 

This million/billion pound question is what is the appropriate levels required.

 

It would cost a hell of a lot to be able to eliminate all threats. All you can do is provide more which will always help. What's the alternative? Give up and accept a level of constant threat? No, that's just not an option. Maybe the Tories can try to prevent terrorist activity by threatening them with Trident warheads.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that would certainly put an end them [emoji23]

Never give up or give in.

IMO there is no answer to the Islamist threat certainly not anytime soon. We stamp this lot out and just like in the past another group of despots will surface.

So far we've escaped the Sunni Shia conflict on our soil. Give it give it time though and they'll turn on each other.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cade]

The very fact that 99% of attacks are prevented shows that the measures and powers the security services have are enough already.

All we need to do is increase manpower and funding in order for that last 1% to get caught too.

[Toggie88]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker? 

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc. 

[Victorian]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker?

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc.

Yes. Shoot to kill if there's a critical risk to life.

 

Perversely there's an unrelated quirk. Shooting these ***** dead actually fulfills their warped fantasies. Your common or garden jihadi martyrdom ****wit wants to die in the line of duty. Capture would deny all notions of paradise.

[Adam Murray]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker? 

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc. 

 

I'm always puzzled by the terminology 'shoot to kill', in all my years in the armed forces, working with many other countries armed forces, i've yet to meet any of them who go to a shooting range, be it a normal range, cqb, fibua or whatever, who practice a 'shoot to injure' procedure.

 

Of course you do mention the possibility of a suicide vest, there's also the possibility of a remote detonator in the hand of the terrorist, a mobile phone or such like, the armed officer has a split second decision to make, with a hostile target in front of him.

 

Cases like the Lee Rigby one are different, the terrorists were no longer a threat, although they did try to attack the armed police when they arrived, as did the ones on Saturday night.

How much is it costing/going to cost the taxpayer keeping those two at the luxury of Her Majesty?

 

Whether information gathered from any of these kind of 'internet radicalised jihadis' would add to the information the security forces all ready have, is up for debate.

[Toggie88]

I'm always puzzled by the terminology 'shoot to kill', in all my years in the armed forces, working with many other countries armed forces, i've yet to meet any of them who go to a shooting range, be it a normal range, cqb, fibua or whatever, who practice a 'shoot to injure' procedure.

 

Of course you do mention the possibility of a suicide vest, there's also the possibility of a remote detonator in the hand of the terrorist, a mobile phone or such like, the armed officer has a split second decision to make, with a hostile target in front of him.

 

Cases like the Lee Rigby one are different, the terrorists were no longer a threat, although they did try to attack the armed police when they arrived, as did the ones on Saturday night.

How much is it costing/going to cost the taxpayer keeping those two at the luxury of Her Majesty?

 

Whether information gathered from any of these kind of 'internet radicalised jihadis' would add to the information the security forces all ready have, is up for debate.

 

Surely they should be practising 'shoot to injure/disarm'? It's much more beneficial in keeping people safe further down the line to take these people alive and find out information. 

 

Cost shouldn't come into. By that logic, we should bring back the death penalty. 

[Morgan]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker? 

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc.

 

Agree with you.

 

Keep the bast@rds alive and then day to day give them a different torture.

 

Slowly.

 

Tell them it will be at the same time every day then do it half an hour before they are expecting it or, half an hour later so the c@nts are sweating waiting for it.

 

Whichever way, make these shit bags suffer. Big style .

[Adam Murray]

Surely they should be practising 'shoot to injure/disarm'? It's much more beneficial in keeping people safe further down the line to take these people alive and find out information.

 

Cost shouldn't come into. By that logic, we should bring back the death penalty.

But it's not Hollywood, neither are the ARU's full of John Wayne's, you can't go shooting guns or knives out of a moving targets hands, you shoot them till they no longer become a threat, till they stop moving, therefore the cannot cause anyone any more harm.

[Space Mackerel]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker?

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc.

2 audible warnings, 2 aimed shots in the chest area.

Stop watching Hollywood movies.

[Tott]

Surely they should be practising 'shoot to injure/disarm'? It's much more beneficial in keeping people safe further down the line to take these people alive and find out information. 

 

Cost shouldn't come into. By that logic, we should bring back the death penalty. 

 

There was a a video  circulating on the net earlier,showing the moment the three terrorists were shot.

 

Without doubt the  police made the correct decision.

Didnt look like there was any alternative.

[Francis Albert]

The very fact that 99% of attacks are prevented shows that the measures and powers the security services have are enough already.

All we need to do is increase manpower and funding in order for that last 1% to get caught too.

Where does this "fact" of the  99% figure come from? The security services? They are hardly going to admit to failure and the recent UK attacks are evidence of serious failures. The Muslim community seems to have done everything asked of it in alerting the authorities to people who seem to be an imminent threat but nothing seems to have been done about their warnings. It is not exactly going to encourage informers who may be putting themselves at risk by informing. 

[Francis Albert]

See the 'shoot to kill' order - does it mean that in the event of a terrorist attack, the Police are to deliberately aim to kill the attacker? 

 

Surely, if possible, it would be much better to try and take them alive - if it was safe to do so? I'm not counting last Saturday btw, if they have a suicide vest on then it the safest action is of course to completely eliminate them before they can push any button. But in a different situation, surely it would make more sense to try and take them alive - find out if they've accomplices, part of a larger cell etc. 

 

You are of course right in principle. But in circumstances like those of the weekend it seems to me to be asking a lot for a cool assessment of whether it is safe to try to "take them alive". In the absence of a clear surrender (and possibly  even then) the only safe option is to shoot to kill. Of course that means at some stage an innocent person may be killed and that will be equated by some with the terrorist actions ... but it would not be the same thing at all, rather another tragic consequence of terrorist activity. 

[Sharpie]

When required to shoot training was involved firing to injure was never taught, the intent was to disable even to the maximum extent, if you pulled your weapon you aimed for centre body mass, pointed and shot, if you went for the target there was a good chance because of the area you were aiming for it would be fatal. Never had to, was quite happy not to have to.  If in todays even more paramilitary police, firing an automatic weapon in anything above single shot is likely to kill.  I guess the message is if you don't want deided don't challenge the polis.

[elvoys]

Also people questioning Corbyn etc fair enough.

 

I am saying that a Labour government will be strong on security.

 

Meanwhile Teresa May has also sucked up to Saudi Arabia as an ally to West and big buyer of UK arms.

 

Saudi Arabia sponsors the more extreme Islamic ideology that ISIS etc follows.

 

So which is worse? A few speeches or meetings in a position of zero power OR the firm backing in government of the nation that gave us 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists?

The former is defo worse cos your showing your true colours and instincts with no pressure to sign job contracts with the devil- something successive govs Labour and Tory have done.

[elvoys]

Lone nutter attacks policeman with a hammer and gets shot.

Over pretty quickly

Of note - this guy was a PHD student who had won EU funding and prize for an article written in Sweden (cultural suicide central) complaining about attitudes to migrants.

 

Abedi reported his teacher for 'Islamophobia' who dared tell him suicide bombing wasn't that great.

 

Seems promoting a culture of victimhood is quite lethal.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Surely they should be practising 'shoot to injure/disarm'? It's much more beneficial in keeping people safe further down the line to take these people alive and find out information. 

 

Cost shouldn't come into. By that logic, we should bring back the death penalty. 

 

So if they just injure them and they have a bomb on them or a trigger for one placed near by they are still able to activate it. 

[Cade]

2 audible warnings, 2 aimed shots in the chest area.

Stop watching Hollywood movies.

That wasn't what happened the other day.

48 rounds were discharged and a civilian was hit in the head.

[Toggie88]

So if they just injure them and they have a bomb on them or a trigger for one placed near by they are still able to activate it. 

 

I said in my original post that I wasn't counting Saturday's incident. If they're wearing suicide vests, or there's a chance they have one on them (or press any button), then it's totally understandable why you would 'shoot to kill'. 

 

However, in a different situation, say where the attacker was in the open, shirt off with a knife or hammer. Police are 20ft away, with a clear shot. If one bullet to the leg, shoulder could take'em down, then it would make much more sense. 

 

Surely there's another point though - unloading a gun on someone wearing a suicide vest would run a fairly high risk of setting that vest off, no? 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

New CCTV footage on Sky News shows one of the attackers stabbing a man when the Police arrived and then they charged at the Police and were literally a couple of feet away when the Police opened fire, they were in so close contact one Policeman fell over an attacker during the firefight.

 

Watch the footage and everyone of those Police Officers first on the scene is a bloody hero for jumping straight into the fray not knowing if the attackers' suicide belts were real or not, or indeed how many attackers there were.

[Toggie88]

2 audible warnings, 2 aimed shots in the chest area.

Stop watching Hollywood movies.

 

I'm not suggesting some Die Hard shit. I've seen what happens when someone gets shot - it's nothing like movies at all, they don't just fall over -  I get that. 

 

I mean, if there's an obvious safe option to disarm without killing, then it's the best option for future terror prevention - not only finding out if they've any contacts, cells etc but it also deprives the attacker of what they want. It might put off other attackers if they think they're more likely to end up in HM Wakefield with a bunch of rapists and murderers, than paradise with 100 virgins or whatever. 

[Cade]

Wow, the CCTV footage of the armed police arriving on the scene is mental.

 

All over in a matter of seconds as the heidbangers went straight for the police. No wonder 8 of them discharged 46 rounds. Absolute mayhem.

 

Top work by the boys in blue.

 

Shame a bystander was hit by a ricochet.

[Victorian]

The footage shows in very clear terms how skillful these guys are. That was full-on mayhem but they were straight in there and got it done. They don't exactly do it every day so the precision and bravery is unbelievable.

[Dagger Is Back]

New CCTV footage on Sky News shows one of the attackers stabbing a man when the Police arrived and then they charged at the Police and were literally a couple of feet away when the Police opened fire, they were in so close contact one Policeman fell over an attacker during the firefight.

 

Watch the footage and everyone of those Police Officers first on the scene is a bloody hero for jumping straight into the fray not knowing if the attackers' suicide belts were real or not, or indeed how many attackers there were.

Couldn't agree more. We owe these guys and girls big time

[John Findlay]

Surely they should be practising 'shoot to injure/disarm'? It's much more beneficial in keeping people safe further down the line to take these people alive and find out information.

 

Cost shouldn't come into. By that logic, we should bring back the death penalty.

This is not the movies.

 

Shoot to kill is fine with me.

 

Well done SO19 last Saturday night.

[Morgan]

The footage shows in very clear terms how skillful these guys are. That was full-on mayhem but they were straight in there and got it done. They don't exactly do it every day so the precision and bravery is unbelievable.

I saw this and thought it tremendous work.

[Cade]

"Shoot to kill" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

When armed police are deployed and forced to act, they always shoot to kill.

 

They prefer to use the threat of deadly force as a final bargaining chip with a suspect before discharging firearms. See Raoul Moat and other such cases for examples.

 

Obviously on the Borough Market scene there was no such opportunity. The armed police had to discharge their weapons in self defence, shot to kill and did just that.

 

What people do not want is for the use of deadly force to become the first option of our armed police.

[Rocco_Jambo]

I'm not suggesting some Die Hard shit. I've seen what happens when someone gets shot - it's nothing like movies at all, they don't just fall over - I get that.

 

I mean, if there's an obvious safe option to disarm without killing, then it's the best option for future terror prevention - not only finding out if they've any contacts, cells etc but it also deprives the attacker of what they want. It might put off other attackers if they think they're more likely to end up in HM Wakefield with a bunch of rapists and murderers, than paradise with 100 virgins or whatever.

How naive do you have to be to think that a suicide bomber that is kept alive is going to start spilling the beans and providing information to the security services?

[Escobar PHM]

It might put off other attackers if they think they're more likely to end up in HM Wakefield with a bunch of rapists and murderers, than paradise with 100 virgins or whatever. 

Muslims account for just under 20% of the population in English prisons and most are segregated into their own block. Scottish prisons on the other hand ............

[Escobar PHM]

"Shoot to kill" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

When armed police are deployed and forced to act, they always shoot to kill.

 

They prefer to use the threat of deadly force as a final bargaining chip with a suspect before discharging firearms. See Raoul Moat and other such cases for examples.

 

Obviously on the Borough Market scene there was no such opportunity. The armed police had to discharge their weapons in self defence, shot to kill and did just that.

 

What people do not want is for the use of deadly force to become the first option of our armed police.

One of the things that the PCI will investigate is whether there was any other option apart from lethal force.

 

I think what folk mean when they talk about 'shoot to kill' is that perhaps shooting (and killing) was the first option used in given circumstances rather than the last option. In this case, from what we know and can see in the clip, it looks like the 'only option' in terms of saving lives. i.e. the immediate termination of the suspects. The only possible option would have been to 'tazer' all 3 at once but that looks next to impossible in that wee part of the street. These guys will have been well briefed and trained as to the 'rules of engagement' in close quarters terror situations.

 

I think there will be a deterrent effect on future terrorists due to the very prompt and decisive police action. From the terrorist point of view 3 of them got only 8 minutes and killed only 8 people before all 3 were dead themselves. Is that a highly successful operation or a bit of a waste of martyrs ?

[Sharpie]

I just have to repeat that although some time ago since I was part of it that the term "shoot to kill" was never used in orders, commands or policy.  The consistent factor was to use as much force as necessary to achieve the purpose, if this ended in a fatality that would be considered in  all agencies that I know of after incident inquiry as to whether the amount of force used was justified.

[Toggie88]

I just have to repeat that although some time ago since I was part of it that the term "shoot to kill" was never used in orders, commands or policy.  The consistent factor was to use as much force as necessary to achieve the purpose, if this ended in a fatality that would be considered in  all agencies that I know of after incident inquiry as to whether the amount of force used was justified.

 

This makes a lot more sense to me. 

[SwindonJambo]

I've just tracked down the Sky report. Mental anarchic scenes. I doff my cap to all the Police involved. You've got to be made of the best stuff to be able to deal with a situation like that under such immense pressure.