Manchester bomb attack

[directhex]

This kind of incident has more similarities to a mass shooting than a 'real' terrorist attack.

We should treat it in much the same way. Talk about the victims and avoid talking about the worthless loser that did it. It really doesn't matter what motivated he or she.

[Saracen]

The Jean Charles de Menezes is a great example of police incompetence and should not be used as an excuse of what happens if the police go hard after terrorists.

Here in London, people are stopped at random and searched. Even I was stopped and search by the police eight years. It is not unusual to see security men with metal detectors when visiting clubs. You see police officers with machine guns on the streets. Sometimes taking basic security measures can thwart an attack.

[Just seen the news headlines where the military are now involved so now we are a militarised state.]

I'd entirely agree about police incompetence, at least on some levels. Mistakes were made, not least in identifying the wrong bloke.

Rather than re-argue that, though, assume a similar situation today, but where the correct individual was identified, and consider what police can do. Or, assume that de Menezes, for the sake of argument, had been an extremist with a bomb, which in light of 7/7, was not an unreasonable scenario to consider.

What action do you take? I mean you, personally, if you're the commander.

Intelligence says, individual with known extremist connections, carrying or wearing a bag/package that could be, or is believed to be, a bomb? You don't know where he's going, but it's in the direction of a location of massed people, be it a tube station, pop concert, church, shopping mall, football stadium, etc. Or even, he appears to be heading for the tube, but his route takes him right past the entrancd to a school with several hundred kids.

If you act, what action? Shoot to kill? Do that, and you'll get crucified by the liberal intelligentsia in the media, almost none of whom have ever put their ar.... rear end on the line. If it turns out his backpack contained his laundry and his route also lead to a dry cleaners, that same media elite will .... ummm .... hang you out to dry, even if he's a kniwn extremist and a search of his flat uncovers explosives and a plan for an attack .... tomorrow. Sorry for that poor joke.

So, you don't act, and instead of going to the tube he dives into the school, and .... bang. You'll get crucified by exactly that same media intelligentsia for not acting and stopping hkm.

Arghh!!

Decisions, decisions.

So, you decide to act. Doing what? If you officers can't shoot, what do they do? Walk up, tap him on the shoulder and ask to have a word? So he pushes the detonator button and .... bang, a couple of dead officers.

Or, if you do decide to shoot to kill, better make sure there's no passers-by, in case he has a dean man switch on a bomb, and that goes a hundred fold if while you're trying to decide, based on incomplete evidence, he either gets on a tube train or darts into that school.

My point, in that last post, was that ONCE HE'S WEARING IT, there are no easy options, and odds are if he's carrying anything, or even wearing a bulky coat, he could be wearing a bomb.

The only easy and safe way to stop a suicide bomber is before he loads up, and then, you may well have a very tricky job proving what he actually inrended to do, unless you can walk the line of leaving it late enough to fatch him with the explosives, and fast enough to stop him triggering it.

Oh, and I refer to "him", but it isn't necessarily a he.

[Jonj1611]

http://news.sky.com/story/morrissey-...ttack-10891090

[Saracen]

....

[Just seen the news headlines where the military are now involved so now we are a militarised state.]

That's pushing it.

As I understand it, military will take over guarding fixed points, releasing the armed police normally doing it to act more generally as "responders", to any evolving threat, wherever it may be. It's not like we have tanks on every street corner or stormtroopers arresting people for littering.

There's also a long, and honourable, tradition of military heing used to backstop police, be it the embassy siege and SAS, or small(-ish) groups of very fit, healthy young men with heavy kit bags and short hair boarding cruise liners just before entering the Suez Canal, and disembarking shortly after exit. Unofficial 'rumour' has it as Royal Marine commandos, but I don't think there's any doubt about armed guards on warships as they transit the canal.

And personally, re: the cruise liner, I feel FAR safer with them there, than not.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

http://news.sky.com/story/morrissey-...ttack-10891090

So what does he want the PM of the country to have no bodyguards?? Is he is some bubble after the IRA near assassinated Thatcher when they bombed a hotel??

He talks about normal people and trying to be "anti-establishment" but he was a tax exile for many years - all pretend champagne anti-establishment figures.

[Saracen]

http://news.sky.com/story/morrissey-...ttack-10891090

"In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private," he added.

"Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections."

An idiot, and an idiot with a short memory. Politicians (and royals) are protected because they are targets, and moreover, targets because they are politicians. Airey Neave, Lord Mountbatten, Brighton bombing that nearly got Thatcher, the IRA mortar attack on Downing Street or for a historical perspective, Spencer Percival who (so far) is the only UK PM to be assassinated.

[Jonj1611]

Yes it brings out all the comments when events like this occur. Makes you wonder.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

An idiot, and an idiot with a short memory. Politicians (and royals) are protected because they are targets, and moreover, targets because they are politicians. Airey Neave, Lord Mountbatten, Brighton bombing that nearly got Thatcher, the IRA mortar attack on Downing Street or for a historical perspective, Spencer Percival who (so far) is the only UK PM to be assassinated.

Plus Jo Cox who was murdered and had zero protection or Olof Palme,who was PM of Sweden, who was assassinated.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yes it brings out all the comments when events like this occur. Makes you wonder.

The problem people are gullible to what these the real aims of the people pushing all this violence have - if they pushed to far in a conventional sense,ie,a total war scenario happened the west would probably win but it would devastate half the world,but instead the real reason they do this all is to cause anarchy and division in countries,so societies implode and they end up turning inwards and onto themselves,and it deflects attention off them in their strongholds.

The old adage - united we stand,divided we fall is apt here.

[Top_gun]

bottles are banned because they are easily thrown around and can hurt people, or the "water" is vodka or another alcoholic drink and someone get's wasted inside and causes trouble for themselves or others

for similar reasons that's why you get drinks in plastic glasses as they can't be as easily thrown or hit someone hard

I don't believe this is the case. Particular when you could easily buy bottled water and beer from the bar. Water being confused for Vodka is another weak argument as all alcohol leaves an alcoholic odour. Sorry, but I feel the venue has placed profits over people's safety.

If the venue does have zero tolerance for people bringing in water in bottles then their argument is negated if their outlets are selling drinks.

[Phage]

I don't have any words - as a father of 3 girls and step father to another....
My heart breaks.

[scaryjim]

read this morning they weren't carrying out bag checks, and "seemed more bothered about stopping people taking in bottles of water".

Seems like it's a misuse of security for the event's organisers to make money through selling drinks. I'd imagine this disaster could have been prevented. I'm sad that young lives were cut short.

Didn't post this earlier, but since the issue of bag checks/bottles has been raised again: the bomber did not enter the venue, nor was he present during the gig. If he'd got into the gig we'd've been talking more than 22 deaths, I'm sure. He entered the foyer of the Arena at the end of the gig, as people were leaving the controlled area.

For those who don't know the MEN, the foyer is publicly accessible at all times. No amount of bag checks on people entering the gig would've stopped this.

[Saracen]

Plus Jo Cox who was murdered and had zero protection or Olof Palme,who was PM of Sweden, who was assassinated.

Indeed. I was sticking to Britain as that's what Morrissey referred to, but if going abroad, mwe could add Indira Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi, JFK and several other US presidents, and so on, all of whom were targets because they were politicians.

I did consider Jo Cox, but from what I remember of the situation, the inference was that the killer was, basically, a nut. It may be that he targeted Jo because, as a politician she was prominent, but I saw little to suggest the motivation was politics, despite some vague suggestion of far right links.

Still, I guess if she hadn't been a politician, she'd probably be alive today.

So perhaps drawing a distinction between her being targeted because she's a politician and being targeted because of politics is perhaps both artificial and irrelevant.

So yep, add her to the list. And her colleague, Stephen Timms, stabbed (but survived) a few years earlier.

[Saracen]

....

For those who don't know the MEN, the foyer is publicly accessible at all times. No amount of bag checks on people entering the gig would've stopped this.

Quite. That's kind-of the tactical problem I was getting at. However far you push the security perimeter back, both the public and the perimeter security folks will be vulnerable to suicide bombers at the perimeter unless you adopt the Israeli-style stand-off at gunpoint method.

[Unique]

I don't believe this is the case. Particular when you could easily buy bottled water and beer from the bar. Water being confused for Vodka is another weak argument as all alcohol leaves an alcoholic odour. Sorry, but I feel the venue has placed profits over people's safety.

If the venue does have zero tolerance for people bringing in water in bottles then their argument is negated if their outlets are selling drinks.

it's not, because inside the venues they don't give bottles to people buying drinks. if you have ever been to an event inside an arena you will notice inside the event area if you buy a drink you get it in a plastic cup. they may have bottles of beer on sale, but they pour the beer into cups

in regards to alcohol and odors, do you expect security staff to have to smell bottles of liquid and try and identify from smell alone if there is alcohol inside? clearly you've never worked door security before. how is someone with a blocked up nose going to tell? regardless of that, the main issue for certain events is the use of bottles as throwing material. it's for the safety of the audience, staff and performers. you wouldn't want someone to throw a 500ml bottle of evian smack in your face from 3 meters away would you?

[g8ina]

Just catching up with this thread for the first time today.

I'm half tempted to remove the swear filter and give you lot full freedom to express.

Personally, Im beyond words.