beast 1,884 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals? he might be british born, but that doesnt mean he was british bred; since he had brown skin that means his immediate ancestors are from overseas so wouldn't be hard to find where his origins lie. personally, i wouldnt be considering deportation for such criminals, rather hang em Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan85 722 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals?A caged Lion can be born in Britain, still doesn't make it British does it? Edited March 23, 2017 by DogMan85 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I think the idea of the police being unarmed at parliament is a statement of our "free" state... I kind of see the point but obviously it's a redundant sentiment now... Arm em to the teeth I say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/09/british-police-officers-asked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/ Dunno what the result was. Also, although I understand that that individual copper wasn't armed, there were armed officers in the immediate vicinity who responded and dealt with the threat. It highlights very well how having 'a good guy with a gun' on the scene can stop these attacks very quickly. BUT....they failed to stop it.if that cop had of had a high powered short 2 in the chest would have put the stabbing out of his head. From what I can see the armed officer did stop it. He killed the attacker at the point at which the terrorist had only killed 3 people. Arming the bobby wouldn't have saved any lives other than his own. That's not to say he shouldn't have been armed, just stating some facts. There were armed officers in the immediate vicinity to end the violence and they did. No amount of police firepower would have prevented the attack entirely. Arming all officers is sensible, I agree, the more good guys with guns spread about the faster attacks can be stopped. But this wouldn't have changed much here other than to have saved the officers life by making him an undesirably hard target. Terrorists don't hit armed targets unless suitably armed themselves. yes..but there was cops on the bridge hurted at the start,if all cops were armed some of them could have fired at the jeep.its not dixon of dock green anymore running after them blowing a whistle,this is peoples lives, Arming them wouldn't have done anymore good than arming the bobby that got stabbed, the bulk of the damage had been done at that point. And weren't they off duty at some award ceremony or something anyway? Even if those three were armed or if the dead bobby was armed, you've still only saved the bobby's life, still 2 dead and 40 wounded with 7 in a critical condition. My point here is this. These days in highly sensitive areas likely to be terror targets there are armed officers nearby ready to respond up to and including counter terrorism specialists. As proven by the fact that as soon as the terrorist hit the ground running he was shot by two plain clothed officers as soon as practically possible. The more of these good guys with guns the better to improve reaction times but I simply can't see how that bobby or indeed every bobby being armed would have made much of a difference in this specific case. None of that means I don't believe all officers should be armed, I do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) I think the idea of the police being unarmed at parliament is a statement of our "free" state... I kind of see the point but obviously it's a redundant sentiment now... Arm em to the teeth I say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/09/british-police-officers-asked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/ Dunno what the result was. Also, although I understand that that individual copper wasn't armed, there were armed officers in the immediate vicinity who responded and dealt with the threat. It highlights very well how having 'a good guy with a gun' on the scene can stop these attacks very quickly. BUT....they failed to stop it.if that cop had of had a high powered short 2 in the chest would have put the stabbing out of his head. From what I can see the armed officer did stop it. He killed the attacker at the point at which the terrorist had only killed 3 people. Arming the bobby wouldn't have saved any lives other than his own. That's not to say he shouldn't have been armed, just stating some facts. There were armed officers in the immediate vicinity to end the violence and they did. No amount of police firepower would have prevented the attack entirely. Arming all officers is sensible, I agree, the more good guys with guns spread about the faster attacks can be stopped. But this wouldn't have changed much here other than to have saved the officers life by making him an undesirably hard target. Terrorists don't hit armed targets unless suitably armed themselves. That's good enough reason in itself surely? Where did I say it wasn't? Bloody hell, there's been enough threads over the years on here about private citizens being able to concealed carry. Read any? I'm usually at the fore taking the shit for being an advocate of CCW in the UK. LOL Edited March 23, 2017 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I think the idea of the police being unarmed at parliament is a statement of our "free" state... I kind of see the point but obviously it's a redundant sentiment now... Arm em to the teeth I say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/09/british-police-officers-asked-want-carry-guns-wake-terror-attacks/ Dunno what the result was. Also, although I understand that that individual copper wasn't armed, there were armed officers in the immediate vicinity who responded and dealt with the threat. It highlights very well how having 'a good guy with a gun' on the scene can stop these attacks very quickly. BUT....they failed to stop it.if that cop had of had a high powered short 2 in the chest would have put the stabbing out of his head. From what I can see the armed officer did stop it. He killed the attacker at the point at which the terrorist had only killed 3 people. Arming the bobby wouldn't have saved any lives other than his own. That's not to say he shouldn't have been armed, just stating some facts. There were armed officers in the immediate vicinity to end the violence and they did. No amount of police firepower would have prevented the attack entirely. Arming all officers is sensible, I agree, the more good guys with guns spread about the faster attacks can be stopped. But this wouldn't have changed much here other than to have saved the officers life by making him an undesirably hard target. Terrorists don't hit armed targets unless suitably armed themselves. That's good enough reason in itself surely? Where did I say it wasn't? You didn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desertbred 5,490 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) All police are not suitable candidates to be armed in public places that is a fact even the police accept. I have no objection to specialised trained officers being armed as a matter of course but the calibre of the officer has to be of the utmost importance. A policy of incapacitate should be discarded and a shoot to kill any armed dangerous threat to public safety should be endorsed. One shot to the Chest and one to the Head that way it would be very difficult to keep the perpetrator on life support as all human rights cease the minute the intent to take innocent life is attempted. That means being in a public place with an unauthorised leathal weapon Edited March 23, 2017 by desertbred 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 46,811 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I personally don't think British police should be armed as a whole........your average 2 bob stealth tax collecting Bobby just could not be trusted with a gun. It's not like the states where lots people are brought up round fire arms, we don't have that culture........you'd have innocent people getting plugged right, left and centre imho 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals?A caged Lion can be born in Britain, still doesn't make it British does it? Actually yes it does, by legal nationality. People confuse ethnicity with nationality. To deport someone they have to be a foreign national unless you can find a government that will take them anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Accip74 7,112 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I'm warming to the idea of all british bobbys armed tbh, having got used to it over here.....even the nice young policewomen who does the school crossing at my boys local village school is packing! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beast 1,884 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 photo.php 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals?A caged Lion can be born in Britain, still doesn't make it British does it? Actually yes it does, by legal nationality. People confuse ethnicity with nationality. To deport someone they have to be a foreign national unless you can find a government that will take them anyway. What about anthrax island? Sea views and fresh air. What's not to like? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals?A caged Lion can be born in Britain, still doesn't make it British does it? Actually yes it does, by legal nationality. People confuse ethnicity with nationality. To deport someone they have to be a foreign national unless you can find a government that will take them anyway. What about anthrax island? Sea views and fresh air. What's not to like? I reckon Germany would accommodate? LOL Either that or just recognise the Levant as a state, they'll take more willing soldiers I'm sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desertbred 5,490 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 In short it's never going to happen because as I keep saying ( like a broken f***ing record) the people don't have the fibre for it........f**k sake, 16 million are crying like babies over Brexit because they are afraid they may not be able to afford the latest telly in 3 years time. That's the reality of Britain folks ! What do you want folk to do about it? I wouldn't risk my freedom, my job or my family for an event that didn't directly affect me even if I would deport the lot today given half the chance. They are allowed to carry out these acts because the government allows it despite their entire knowledge of the situation. Apparently the terrorist who carried out this Barbaric act was British born so where to and how would you deport such criminals?A caged Lion can be born in Britain, still doesn't make it British does it? Now answer the question without the pound shop philosophy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 I'm warming to the idea of all british bobbys armed tbh, having got used to it over here.....even the nice young policewomen who does the school crossing at my boys local village school is packing! Got an image of this sweet looking 6 stone lass packing a 8 inch 44magnum and having a deceiving attitude to match when provoked! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Greyman 28,439 Posted March 23, 2017 Report Share Posted March 23, 2017 Surprise surprise. The attacker was known to MI5 for violent extremism. No name yet. and yet all the bbc and any politician they speak to just keeps saying, is he was ,British born, as if that makes a shit bit of difference, he was as British as the Taj Mahal, time to start calling a spade a spade without fear of having your door kicked in 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpeg.cc7f0feb08deb4ccbfbd2e27a4df3100.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.