Manchester Arena Incident (22/05/2017)

[Dave1987]

I don't know but the police would then go back to guarding Buckingham Palace and such like and the military would return to their normal duties. I don't see what you are objecting to?

I'm annoyed that the politicians only do stuff like deploying the military and extra policing as a reaction to events like this after innocent children have been killed. Once the reaction all dies down the police presence will go down until the next attack and more innocent people are killed, yet the MPs and Royals will be in their bubble.

 

[Dave1987]

And that's exactly what we're getting.

For about a week.....

 

[Antman]

I'm annoyed that the politicians only do stuff like deploying the military and extra policing as a reaction to events like this after innocent children have been killed. Once the reaction all dies down the police presence will go down until the next attack and more innocent people are killed, yet the MPs and Royals will be in their bubble.

And what do you realistically expect to happen?

Obviously nobody could have foreseen the dreadful events in Manchester.

 

[Dave1987]

And what do you realistically expect to happen?

Obviously nobody could have foreseen the dreadful events in Manchester.

I answered that. Proper policing. I mean I remember when the deputy Met Commissioner told Londoners not to bother calling the police if you have been burgled, and don't expect the police to attend. Yet someone manages to get into Buck House and the full force of the law is thrown at them. One rule for those who matter, another for normal innocent people.

 

[scarby]

It may seem like a very glass half empty attitude, but I have three young children, what sort of a world are they going to grow up in to? It's bad enough now, what could it be like 10 years down the line?

Well, no-one knows the answer to that.

However, I grew up in a Britain where at some points I thought nuclear war could break out literally any day (and the country made active preparations for the scenario), where IRA attacks were extremely frequent and where the PLO was very active across Western Europe, including some horrific attacks.

All those dangers have at least vastly diminished in Europe but at the time we could see no end to any of them. I was at college in 1986 and in politics classes it was still being said that there was no prospect of the Berlin Wall coming down.

 

[Darandio]

Indeed, but it's certainly not naïve to think that it could continue indefinetely.

 

[Iskra]

And what do you realistically expect to happen?

Obviously nobody could have foreseen the dreadful events in Manchester.

I'm currently in Italy. I travelled the length of Italy last year, there were soldiers stationed at every major train station and outside every major tourist attraction.

The police and carbierneri (sp) are regularly patrolling the relatively rural area I'm currently in and it is normal to come across police roadblocks where they stop you and ask for your papers. I visited a cafe in a small town earlier and an army Land Rover pulled up with operation secure streets written on the side and two armed soldiers got out and wandered around for a bit.

It is too little too late from the English authorities. The attitude of complacency needs to end now, How many more attacks do there need to be before we see some form of tangible security increase rather than just kind words about the deceased.

 

[bramling]

I'm annoyed that the politicians only do stuff like deploying the military and extra policing as a reaction to events like this after innocent children have been killed. Once the reaction all dies down the police presence will go down until the next attack and more innocent people are killed, yet the MPs and Royals will be in their bubble.

To be fair, if there was a bubble, it got burst with the Westminster attack -- one suspects this was a little close to be comforting for the "Westminster village". Likewise, one of their own, Jo Cox, was on the receiving end of an attack - although I'd classify that as more of a hate crime rather than terrorism, not that this changes the outcome of course.

 

[bramling]

I'm currently in Italy. I travelled the length of Italy last year, there were soldiers stationed at every major train station and outside every major tourist attraction.

The police and carbierneri (sp) are regularly patrolling the relatively rural area I'm currently in and it is normal to come across police roadblocks where they stop you and ask for your papers. I visited a cafe in a small town earlier and an army Land Rover pulled up with operation secure streets written on the side and two armed soldiers got out and wandered around for a bit.

It is too little too late from the English authorities. The attitude of complacency needs to end now, How many more attacks do there need to be before we see some form of tangible security increase rather than just kind words about the deceased.

How much more security can we reasonably have? Find a way of securing one place, and unfortunately those with evil intent will simply find somewhere else. Sadly, they only have to find one hole in the fence, we have to get it secure all the way.

This is the unfortunate reality of the situation - there's only so much we can do to prevent it. And this is before we get into the discussion about how much security we want before it starts impinging on our own free way of life, which is of course likely to be one of the objectives of attacks.

Meanwhile, another difficult question is how much coverage should be given. The current practice seems to be to make it out to be a big deal, which of course gives it the very graphic publicity the perpetrators seek. But if we don't make it a big deal, we go down the Sadiq Khan route that it's just part and parcel of life, which it definitely isn't and shouldn't be. No win unfortunately. The only comfort is we've gone 12 years between mass-casualty events, so in that sense our security services have done pretty well.

 

[Iskra]

How much more security can we reasonably have? Find a way of securing one place, and unfortunately those with evil intent will simply find somewhere else.

This is the unfortunate reality of the situation - there's only so much we can do to prevent it. And this is before we get into the discussion about how much security we want before it starts impinging on our own free way of life, which is of course likely to be one of the objectives of attacks.

I agree that it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But, the current policy of 'surge the policing for a week and then back to normal' is not good enough. My personal opinion is that wherever there are large crowds, there should be an armed police prescence- currently that is only the case some of the time and mainly in London in my experience.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems a number of those reported as missing have now been confirmed as being among the 22 fatalities. One 20 yr old student who survived lost both her parents in the attack.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I answered that. Proper policing. I mean I remember when the deputy Met Commissioner told Londoners not to bother calling the police if you have been burgled, and don't expect the police to attend. Yet someone manages to get into Buck House and the full force of the law is thrown at them. One rule for those who matter, another for normal innocent people.

And what would "proper policing" be able to do to stop what happened in Manchester? He detonated the bomb in a public area, so unless you are suggesting the police constantly stop and search every single person in such a public area (which would be impossible given the number of people there)?

 

[Antman]

I agree that it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But, the current policy of 'surge the policing for a week and then back to normal' is not good enough. My personal opinion is that wherever there are large crowds, there should be an armed police prescence- currently that is only the case some of the time and mainly in London in my experience.

You're saying that you want an armed police presence yet somebody was on here yesterday saying that the armed police presence in Glasgow was scary.

 

[Darandio]

You're saying that you want an armed police presence yet somebody was on here yesterday saying that the armed police presence in Glasgow was scary.

Indeed, but differing opinions are to be expected.

 

[Antman]

And what would "proper policing" be able to do to stop what happened in Manchester? He detonated the bomb in a public area, so unless you are suggesting the police constantly stop and search every single person in such a public area (which would be impossible given the number of people there)?

There is a considerable police presence around the houses of parliament, some of whom are armed, but it didn't stop the recent atrocity there.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm annoyed that the politicians only do stuff like deploying the military and extra policing as a reaction to events like this after innocent children have been killed. Once the reaction all dies down the police presence will go down until the next attack and more innocent people are killed, yet the MPs and Royals will be in their bubble.

Would you prefer to see the Army on the streets every day?

 

[Iskra]

There is a considerable police presence around the houses of parliament, some of whom are armed, but it didn't stop the recent atrocity there.

I disagree. The attacker being shot by an armed police officer reduced the number of casualties.

 

[Antman]

I disagree. The attacker being shot by an armed police officer reduced the number of casualties.

Yes that's true but it didn't prevent him killing others before he was shot.

 

[HSTEd]

I disagree. The attacker being shot by an armed police officer reduced the number of casualties.

So how do armed police magically stop suicide bombers?
If they challenge a suspicious person, he detonates his device.
And if you have checkpoints to stop him getting near a crowd in the first place he will just attack those since they will have queues near them anyway.

If they just shoot him he doesn't detonate his device but then it turns out we have police conducting extrajudicial executions based on simple suspicions.

And armed police on show just give a group of attackers additional weapons when they are the first to die.

 

[Iskra]

Yes that's true but it didn't prevent him killing others before he was shot.

Also true.

I think it's impossible to stop every committed terrorist; 'the bomber will always get through' to use a relevant phrase from a different era. However, there are some glaring weaknessses in our current security, that ought to have been addressed more proactively by now- it's hardly a new threat.

 

[Tetchytyke]

there are some glaring weaknessses in our current security, that ought to have been addressed more proactively by now

Such as?

Security is maintained through intelligence, catching these people before they get to this stage. If you get to the stage where the bloke's on the street with the suicide bomb, then you've lost, regardless of whether he gets into the Arena foyer or he blows himself up on the street outside.

 

[Iskra]

Would you prefer to see the Army on the streets every day?

The army are an already paid-for resource that can free up armed police. Why wouldn't you use them in the current climate?

 

[Saint66]

Reported that police are hunting a bomb maker following Monday's attack.

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course the problem with this is that those who would commit such atrocities only need to get lucky once to inflict the pain and suffering we have seen in Manchester (and other cities before it). The security services need to get luck every single time. On the whole, thankfully, they do. I can't remember the figures but I'm sure MI5 or a similar agency released figures for the number of foiled plots in the previous twelve months and they were substantial.

We shouldn't lose sight of that.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And armed police on show just give a group of attackers additional weapons when they are the first to die.

When was an armed police officer last killed in this country?

 

[Antman]

Also true.

I think it's impossible to stop every committed terrorist; 'the bomber will always get through' to use a relevant phrase from a different era. However, there are some glaring weaknessses in our current security, that ought to have been addressed more proactively by now- it's hardly a new threat.

Even more so when the terrorist is willing to kill themselves in the process.

What are these glaring weaknesses'?

 

[DarloRich]

And armed police on show just give a group of attackers additional weapons when they are the first to die.

what are you on about?

 

[northwichcat]

I think it's impossible to stop every committed terrorist; 'the bomber will always get through' to use a relevant phrase from a different era. However, there are some glaring weaknessses in our current security, that ought to have been addressed more proactively by now- it's hardly a new threat.

I seem to recall for the London bombings the bus bombing was plan B due to the suicide bomber getting scared off by the security presence at a tube station.

 

[Antman]

what are you on about?

I think he means that if the police were killed or incapacitated then the terrorists could take their weapons and use them?

 

[HSTEd]

When was an armed police officer last killed in this country?

When was the last time we had a serious gun/knife-based terrorist attack in the UK beyond one man on a suicide run? Like the so called 'Mumbai-style' attack often cited.

what are you on about?

If we are going to have a 'Mumbai-style' attack which people often cite as an example of the need for armed police all over the place...... the attack will open when the attackers walk up behind the policemen who are just standing around and shoot them in the back of the head at point blank range.
Or take their head off with a machete.
Then you've handed the attacking force all the weapons and ammunition the police were carrying.