London Bridge incident (03/06)

[All Line Rover]

Can't quite believe the reports that "the general election will go ahead as planned on 8th June". Were we somehow supposed to expect that it would be suspended as a result of this incident?

 

[Pinza-C55]

Meanwhile 40 people die in road accidents per week on average. EVERY week.

We need to be mindful of it but overstating it is really not helpful at all.

That may be true but it is an absurd analogy. I don't suppose the car drivers are deliberately setting out to kill people ?

 

[Pinza-C55]

What do the attackers want? Are we going to let them have it?

They want us to convert to Islam and have Sharia Law.

 

[PHILIPE]

On BBC News this evening, Nick Farron was condemning this awful event and agreed that suitable action must be taken but, in true liberal fashion, said civil liberties must be observed. What happened to the civil liberties of the victims.. To be tough on terrorism, the politically correct brigade must also be ignored if it saves lives by doing so and must be stood up to.

 

[yorkie]

On BBC News this evening, Nick Farron was condemning this awful event and agreed that suitable action must be taken but, in true liberal fashion, said civil liberties must be observed. What happened to the civil liberties of the victims.. To be tough on terrorism, the politically correct brigade must also be ignored if it saves lives by doing so and must be stood up to.

So what do you propose? What liberties do you wish to take from us?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes, sadly a few days before this incident I remarked to a friend that London Bridge felt exposed and could do with some bollards.

The problem with that though is that there are miles and miles of similar streets that are exposed and busy (some more so than London Bridge). What do you suggest, putting bollards on every busy street?

On BBC News this evening, Nick Farron was condemning this awful event and agreed that suitable action must be taken but, in true liberal fashion, said civil liberties must be observed. What happened to the civil liberties of the victims.. To be tough on terrorism, the politically correct brigade must also be ignored if it saves lives by doing so and must be stood up to.

Well apart from the fact that removing civil liberties does nothing to keep people safe, ever.

Can't quite believe the reports that "the general election will go ahead as planned on 8th June". Were we somehow supposed to expect that it would be suspended as a result of this incident?

Quite a few people online have suggested that it should be, and certainly amongst friends there was the question. Also don't see the harm in spelling it out, if nothing else as an act of defiance incase these attacks are specifically timed because of the election (from what I understand the increase in attacks at the moment is more to do with Ramadan, but you never know).

 

[radamfi]

That may be true but it is an absurd analogy. I don't suppose the car drivers are deliberately setting out to kill people ?

There are regular murders and countless stabbings/attempted murders which only get a few seconds mention on BBC London News and no national publicity whatsoever, because they are in London's ghettos and often involve black people.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Regarding people bringing up other methods of dying, isn't the point more that even if we continue to see attacks at this much increased frequency, you are still much much much more likely to die whilst walking about in your day to day lives from something non terrorist related, so much so that the idea that we should all be scared and shouting from the rooftops about "waking up" etc is a bit over the top. Yes it is a problem, yes it is awful, yes these people are vile and disgusting and yes we need to do more to stop it happening. But please keep some sense of proportion here. We don't restrict freedoms in authoritarian ways for many things that kill more people than terrorism does, so why are we talking about it for this?

 

[Barn]

The problem with that though is that there are miles and miles of similar streets that are exposed and busy (some more so than London Bridge). What do you suggest, putting bollards on every busy street?

Yes. They probably need to become the default for all streets which have London Bridge levels of pedestrians.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes. They probably need to become the default for all streets which have London Bridge levels of pedestrians.

Good luck doing that! Time, money, materials, workers, inconvenience etc. Not going to happen. You may see it in a few very very specific areas, but the your suggestion is just too ludicrous to happen.

 

[Barn]

Regarding people bringing up other methods of dying, isn't the point more that even if we continue to see attacks at this much increased frequency, you are still much much much more likely to die whilst walking about in your day to day lives from something non terrorist related, so much so that the idea that we should all be scared and shouting from the rooftops about "waking up" etc is a bit over the top. Yes it is a problem, yes it is awful, yes these people are vile and disgusting and yes we need to do more to stop it happening. But please keep some sense of proportion here. We don't restrict freedoms in authoritarian ways for many things that kill more people than terrorism does, so why are we talking about it for this?

Yes we do. We restrict speed limits, we ban smoking in public places, we ban drugs, we're taxing sugary drinks, we regulate workplace safety, we fence off dangerous areas, etc, etc.

 

[Barn]

Good luck doing that! Time, money, materials, workers, inconvenience etc. Not going to happen. You may see it in a few very very specific areas, but the your suggestion is just too ludicrous to happen.

A. Very few streets have similar footfall to London Bridge in the morning peak in such a risky configuration. There are hundreds of people in an easy straight line target with virtually no street furniture. It's also very high profile. I can't think of a riskier street than London Bridge for this type of attack. I'm not inviting people to post better locations for killing pedestrians, before anybody gets any ideas.

B. Not all streets have to be done in the next week. It can be done as roads are maintained in a risk assessed way.

 

[WelshBluebird]

A. Very few streets have similar footfall to London Bridge in the morning peak. There are hundreds of people in an easy straight line target with virtually no street furniture. I can't think of a riskier street than London Bridge for this type of attack. I'm not inviting people to post better locations for killing pedestrians, before anybody gets any ideas.

B. Not all streets have to be done in the next week. It can be done as roads are maintained in a risk assessed way.

A - But this wasn't the morning peak. This was in the night. Other bits of London, other bits of the country, with streets just as vulnerable would have been busier at the time. Not naming specifics because of what you say, but there are many I can think of.

B - Most roads are barely maintained anyway, have you not seen the state of many around the country? It just isn't going to happen. Sure we need to think of ways to reduce the impact of such incidents, but we also have to be realistic in what we think up. What you are suggesting could work for specific streets in small areas (the Square Mile, Westminster, etc), but for the vast majority of London and indeed the country? No chance.

 

[GB]

Ok so you fence off or bollard every street (not going to happen), how do you propose to deal with the nutters that then get out and start stabbing people?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes we do. We restrict speed limits, we ban smoking in public places, we ban drugs, we're taxing sugary drinks, we regulate workplace safety, we fence off dangerous areas, etc, etc.

But there is generally a line. What has been suggested by various people today has gone way over that line. I'll just give you a list of things I have seen seriously suggested since I woke up this morning:

1 - Banning end to end encryption services. Won't work (as the terrorists will move to another platform) and will heavily impact the economy and innocent people.

2 - Heavily regulating the internet and restricting content. Do we really want to go down the route of the kinds of censorship only seen in authoritarian countries? Though I guess it is one way to get rid of the tax evasion question anyway as companies will avoid the UK and the UK market altogether!

3 - Deporting all people on the terrorism watch list. Well apart from the fact some may be innocent, some are actually British etc.

4 - Banning the practice of Islam. Really? Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of banning religions?

5 - Bombing IS. We already have been. But that doesn't really help you in the cases where the attackers were British born (and I know we don't know about London yet, but the Manchester bomber was a Brit).

Infact the only sensible suggestions I have read relate to our foreign policy, trade deals and police numbers!

 

[Barn]

Ok so you fence off or bollard every street (not going to happen), how do you propose to deal with the nutters that then get out and start stabbing people?

The fact that something doesn't solve everything doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. You can't easily prevent stabbings; you can take steps to mitigate the effectiveness of weaponised vehicles.

 

[Barn]

A - But this wasn't the morning peak. This was in the night. Other bits of London, other bits of the country, with streets just as vulnerable would have been busier at the time. Not naming specifics because of what you say, but there are many I can think of.

The thread you're quoting me from was merely me remarking that London Bridge feels very exposed. It's not about the last attack in isolation. It's felt very dangerous since the Westminster bridge attack.

 

[swj99]

Yes we do. We restrict speed limits, we ban smoking in public places, we ban drugs, we're taxing sugary drinks, we regulate workplace safety, we fence off dangerous areas, etc, etc.

And people ignore those speed limits. Some of them smoke in places where it's prohibited, others take drugs, even though it's illegal, and some of them probably put 11 sugars in their coffee. These restrictions only influence the law abiding people.
Anyone who wishes to break or ignore rules will find ways to do so. I think this is one of those situations where attempting to treat the symptoms, by erecting a few bollards, sticking some soldiers on the streets and cancelling a bit of police overtime for a couple of weeks, might placate the public, but will do little to stop the actual illness.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The thread you're quoting me from was merely me remarking that London Bridge feels very exposed. It's not about the last attack in isolation. It's felt very dangerous since the Westminster bridge attack.

Which kind of takes me back to the point that there are many similar streets that would be just as vulnerable, within and outside of London. I just don't see it as realistic that you could put protective bollards up in the places that would need them (according to some kind of "vulnerability" metric).

I think this is one of those situations where attempting to treat the symptoms, by erecting a few bollards, sticking some soldiers on the streets and cancelling a bit of police overtime for a couple of weeks, might placate the public, but will do little to stop the actual illness.

Totally agree with that. Sure in the very short term those things may also put off some would be attacks, maybe. But they certainly won't stop these things from happening going forward.

 

[Barn]

It's not a difficult concept people. Terrorists are expressly being told by Isis to kill with trucks and they are doing so. It's a really difficult attack to prevent using intelligence, as getting hold of a truck is easy. So we need to protect the weakest spots. Identify the highest risk streets (including London Bridge), whack up some bollards, save lives.

You'll be surprised by how many bollards there already are around London (some are well disguised). They're a major part of new developments.

I remember speaking to the Crossrail design team and asking about security and "bollards" was certainly the takeaway message.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's not a difficult concept people. Terrorists are expressly being told by Isis to kill with trucks and they are doing so. It's a really difficult attack to prevent using intelligence, as getting hold of a truck is easy. So we need to protect the weakest spots. Identify the highest risk streets (including London Bridge), whack up some bollards, save lives.

You'll be surprised by how many bollards there already are around London (some are well disguised). They're a major part of new developments.

Indeed, new pedestrianised areas are usually well designed to allow free flow of people whilst making entry to vehicles rather difficult. I agree that they could be retro-fitted to some areas which are deemed high-profile or high-risk. This of course cannot stop every attack but would make it more difficult in the future, as well as providing some protection from out-of-control vehicles (which are probably far more common than terrorist attacks).

 

[infobleep]

I hope the attacker/s is/are dead.

Personally I wanted them alive for questioning but under the circumstances if the situation the armed police found themselves in, I'm not surprised they shot the attackers dead. It would be difficult if not impossible to know for belts were actual bombs. Rather than fakes.

Just another stabbing which will be ignored.

I'm sure I read in the Evening Standard reported there have been 18 deaths related to stabbings recently, or a number similar to that if I'm out.

Hopefully it wasn't number 19.

 

[Bromley boy]

Personally I wanted them alive for questioning but under the circumstances if the situation the armed police found themselves in, I'm not surprised they shot the attackers dead. It would be difficult if not impossible to know for belts were actual bombs. Rather than fakes.


I'm sure I read in the Evening Standard reported there have been 18 deaths related to stabbings recently, or a number similar to that if I'm out.

Hopefully it wasn't number 19.

Dead is a good result for all concerned.

That said, I feel for the armed police involved in this incident. They will probably need extensive trauma counselling.

Putting a kill-shot bullet into the head or abdomen of another human being is no walk in the park as an ex-army mate of mine who did several tours in Iraq and Afghan can attest.

He's shared some even darker stories about what happened after he was commanded to fix bayonets and get up close and personal with the enemy. Stories I won't share here.

These dark realities are now being visited on the streets of London and Manchester.

That thought makes my blood run cold.

 

[EM2]

That's quite right the caliphate is quite a dead duck now and the main intention of ISIS is very much to strike at the heart of western society, either from the many millions of muslims who live in it or returning Jihadists.

Their base ideal is a caliphate. The fact that they are retreating from it at the moment does not alter the fact that that is the whole objective of Daesh and why they use the name that they do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which kind of takes me back to the point that there are many similar streets that would be just as vulnerable, within and outside of London. I just don't see it as realistic that you could put protective bollards up in the places that would need them (according to some kind of "vulnerability" metric).

Erm, that's precisely how bollards are put up now. There's just been a bit of a shift to the threat, which requires a small change to the calculation in the risk assessment that decides where they go.

 

[najaB]

A little reading for those who are of the opinion that all that is wrong with the world is the result of radical Islamist terrorism. The main thrust of the article is that the problems go far deeper than the surface veneer of religion - there are nutjobs on both 'sides' and the narrative needs to recognise that fact or we won't get anywhere in trying to solve the problems.

It is US-centric, but it's worth nothing that Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 and injured 319, and the membership of European far-right and neo-Nazi organisations has increased significantly over the last few years.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: White Far-Right Terrorists Pose a Clear Danger to Us All

Back in February, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin told CNN’s Alysyn Camerota that white terrorists of the far-right variety did not pose the same level of danger to Americans as so-called “Islamist” or “jihadist” terrorists. Why? “I don’t know, but I would just tell you there’s a difference,” proclaimed Duffy, who went on to dismiss as a “one-off” the attack on a mosque in Quebec by a Trump-supporting white nationalist, in which six Muslim worshippers were killed.

One-off? Seriously? Has Duffy been reading the news in recent days? On May 20, Richard Collins III, a black, 23-year-old U.S. Army second lieutenant, was murdered while visiting the University of Maryland by a member of a Facebook group called “Alt-Reich: Nation.” According to University of Maryland police chief David Mitchell, the group promotes “despicable” prejudice against minorities “and especially African-Americans.”

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I watched most of the One Love Manchester concert last night. One thing that really struck me was the way just about everyone on stage was emphasising the importance of love for your fellow human beings. Not fear, or retaliation, or kneejerk political reactions, but love. This little bit from Katy Perry struck me

It's not easy to always choose love is it? Especially in moments like these, right. It can be the most difficult thing to do.

But love conquers fear and love and love conquers hate. And this love that you keep will give you strength. And it's our greatest power.

(It's 30s into this video for anyone interested).

That of course doesn't mean to say we shouldn't be doing whatever we reasonably can to try to stop awful events like those of Manchester and London happening again. Of course we should. And that requires rational decision-making on the basis of what is most likely to work (while being consistent with the moral and ethical values that I'm sure most of us hold). Remember too that it's perfectly possible to make rational, well thought out, decisions, with the fundamental motivation still being love for all humanity, rather than coming from fear of some groups of people.

Reading this thread, it seems to me that some people perhaps should ask themselves whether perhaps they are making the mistake of responding with fear and kneejerk reactions, rather than thinking rationally.

 

[Greenback]

I don't usually want a 'Like' button on this site, DynamicSpirit, but your post has made me wish we had one. Well said, sir.

 

[AlterEgo]

Walked down Westminster Bridge this morning, and noticed full-length, waist-high crash barriers had been installed along with concrete obstacles on the pavement at each end.

 

[KN1]

Walked down Westminster Bridge this morning, and noticed full-length, waist-high crash barriers had been installed along with concrete obstacles on the pavement at each end.

What a waste of money, are they going to put barriers around every single place in the UK that has crowds, if not then why bother here, just trying to look as if they're on the ball.