Manchester bomb attack

[directhex]

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...idents_by_year

[directhex]

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.

How vague is targeting a politician for her support of refugees (i.e. stop supporting invading foreigners instead of us real people?)

You might feel it was vague & non-political, but nothing about Mair's trial supports your supposition. It was an entirely politically motivated attack.

Was he "a nut"? Maybe. Why is it only white terrorists ever get handwaved away with the "nut" label when they kill?

[ik9000]

How vague is targeting a politician for her support of refugees (i.e. stop supporting invading foreigners instead of us real people?)

You might feel it was vague & non-political, but nothing about Mair's trial supports your supposition. It was an entirely politically motivated attack.

Was he "a nut"? Maybe. Why is it only white terrorists ever get handwaved away with the "nut" label when they kill?

That's a poor definition of terrorist. That guy was simply a nut - no backing, no training, no cause, just disgruntlement.

From what we're reading in the press this manc guy however had a support network and ideology rooted in the principles of a proper terrorist organisation - and possibly tangibly linked to them in some way. A much better fit for the terrorist label - though time will tell if it's truly merited once all the facts come out.

A better example for your disgruntlement would be the hardline animal rights activists. Their violence and intimidation could be applied to terrorism in the wider definitions (those that do not stipulate a politically motivated cause).

[peterb]

I still think the biggest single step we could take against this is to limit the media frenzy that descends after an event, and limit coverage to brief, non-sensationalised factual reporting of what's known, not have every talking head drone on repeatedly for hours with non-stop speculation. Come on BBC, and others, get your heads out of your .... exhaust pipes, and realise your coverage is doing the terrorists job for them, for pities sake.

The BBC plumbed new depths this morning, interviewing a paramedic/nurse asking her to describe the injuries received.

How insensitive to the relatives of this and other bomb attacks, and music to a terrorists ears. And do we really need to know this anyway? How in any shape or form can this be described as in the public interest.

Probably the lowest point yet in the frenzied, breathless melodramaticisation of the tragic events, bolstered by armchair 'experts' giving their speculative views for their few pieces of silver.

[directhex]

From what we're reading in the press this manc guy however had a support network and ideology rooted in the principles of a proper terrorist organisation

Mair was active within Britain First

Britain First runs """knife defense""" training camps.

But sure, "lone wolf", no support network, no ideology, just a completely random act of random randomness.

[directhex]

Presented without comment, but suggest reading the whole thing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...op-manchester/

[MrJim]

The BBC plumbed new depths this morning, interviewing a paramedic/nurse asking her to describe the injuries received.

How insensitive to the relatives of this and other bomb attacks, and music to a terrorists ears. And do we really need to know this anyway? How in any shape or form can this be described as in the public interest.

Probably the lowest point yet in the frenzied, breathless melodramaticisation of the tragic events, bolstered by armchair 'experts' giving their speculative views for their few pieces of silver.

I heard that interview on the Radio 4 Today programme, and thought exactly the same thing. The interviewer was trying to elicit a graphic description of the injuries sustained by the victims of the bombing. Definitely a low-point in BBC 'journalism'.

[Top_gun]

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...idents_by_year

It seems there's an overreaction on the bottle ban when you consider the number of incidents is tiny compared to thousands of events taking place each year. The wiki list of bottling incidents seems to indicate a link with poor musicians/singers. Yes, I've been to events before and I always drank my beer from a bottle. Perhaps, I'm lucky to listen to highly respected singers/musicians and in attendance with an highly respectful audience.

[peterb]

It seems there's an overreaction on the bottle ban when you consider the number of incidents is tiny compared to thousands of events taking place each year. The wiki list of bottling incidents seems to indicate a link with poor musicians/singers. Yes, I've been to events before and I always drank my beer from a bottle. Perhaps, I'm lucky to listen to highly respected singers/musicians and in attendance with an highly respectful audience.

Or perhaps the tiny number of incidents is because of the bottle ban?

[scaryjim]

Presented without comment, but suggest reading the whole thing ...

Slightly harrowing tale, but really it just highlights what Saracen's already been saying about the difficulty of drawing lines.

He was on watch lists, but how long are those lists? Can we hope to watch everyone? You can't arrest someone just because you think they're a bit dodgy. You certainly can't arrest someone just because you don't like what they say - that's pretty the definition of having free speech.

It's a long stretch from "this person supports Islamist ideology" to "this person is going to walk into a public place and kill people". The goal of IS, as has already been mentioned, is to make everyone think that it's only a short stretch. And once you get to "all Islamists are terrorists & murderers", you're very close to "all Muslims are terrorists & murderers".

Intelligence isn't a matter of absolutes. It's taking little bits of information, from disparate sources of varying reliability, and trying to prioritise those factors that are most likely to point to an attack. It's riddled with uncertainty. You're always going to get it wrong somewhere. And you know that getting it wrong could easily mean that people die. Seems to me it's a horrendous job, and must be horrendous to live with in the aftermath of an attack like this.


Although imo that story very carefully buried the lede behind a lot of emotional wrangling - what on Earth are the US security services doing? The only reason I can see for leaking those images is to provoke an emotional response, increase the likelihood of anti-Muslim sentiments and promote vigilantism. I think it's pretty much taken that Trump wants a war with the middle East, but does he really want to do it with no allies? Why alienate the very people you claim to support? The entire US government realy does seem to have lost its head...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

He was on watch lists, but how long are those lists? Can we hope to watch everyone? You can't arrest someone just because you think they're a bit dodgy. You certainly can't arrest someone just because you don't like what they say - that's pretty the definition of having free speech.

Also not helped by the fact the police seems to be having more and more cuts,whilst at the same time we spend billion of pounds on the largest aircraft carriers since the 1940s,and even more on the associated aircraft.

And once you get to "all Islamists are terrorists & murderers", you're very close to "all coloured people are terrorists & murderers".

FTFY,this realistically that is the main problem - if someone has the wrong skin tone they will all be banded into the same bus,and that is basically a few billion people.

[Unique]

It seems there's an overreaction on the bottle ban when you consider the number of incidents is tiny compared to thousands of events taking place each year. The wiki list of bottling incidents seems to indicate a link with poor musicians/singers. Yes, I've been to events before and I always drank my beer from a bottle. Perhaps, I'm lucky to listen to highly respected singers/musicians and in attendance with an highly respectful audience.

Or perhaps the tiny number of incidents is because of the bottle ban?

bingo

[TheAnimus]

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.

Oh he commented about it at the time, have a read what he says....

He just is a bit of a dick.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Oh he commented about it at the time, have a read what he says....

He just is a bit of a dick.

Yeah,it appears so,as I just did a bit more research....didn't realise all these years,and it might explain why The Smiths never reformed.

[Xlucine]

Since 2014, anywhere selling alcohol must provide free drinking water by law:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/alcohol-licensing
So banning bottles isn't too bad as they should provide free water

[Saracen]

Also not helped by the fact the police seems to be having more and more cuts,whilst at the same time we spend billion of pounds on the largest aircraft carriers since the 1940s,and even more on the associated aircraft.

.....

Also not really affected by that.

Re: aircraft carriers. Ordered in the Blair/Brown days, pre-crash. In fact, the process started in the SDR initiated immediately after the '97 landslide, and tendering was invited in 1999, though contracts not finally signed until 2008. By Labour.

By the time the Tories get in, with the "austerity" measures that included police "cuts", contradts were well underway, and LOT of the cost either already incurred, or legally committed to. Cancelling at that point means billions wasted, and nothing gained, as contract cancellation would have led to some extremely expensive metal decaying in shiphards, and all the design work thrown in the bin. And, of course, the contracts are binding and enforceable. Or, you carry on, spend billions more but at least get something for your money.

As for following all 'suspects", if every policer officer in the country, before or after the "cuts", was dedicated 100% to doing nothing over than follow those the intelligence services have on their list, and NO other policing got done, we wouldn't have enough.

Doing a proper job of surveilling someone 24/7 takes a team of dozens, not just two blokes sitting in a car. And having put together all the resources you need, including several teams to actively watch, and communications, technical and command, etc, you can then triple it to give three eight-hour shifts.

Finally, given a background of a ruddy great deficit, the country needs to save money wherever it can. That means it's not just about numbers of police, but about outcomes. There have been a lot of antiquated practices in policing, and home secretaries have ducked dealing with them for decades for fear of police 'union' backlash. The huge budget deficit made in necessary, or if you like, have a political excuse, for significant systemic reform.

It's not just about how much you spend, but what results you get for your money, especially when the latter is running out,