Someone should put up a utoob video burning the bible, see if its considered inciting racial hatred..

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Someone should put up a utoob video burning the bible, see if its considered inciting racial hatred..

You know darn well that is "Protected Free Speech" and is to be lauded, applauded, and encouraged.

All the 'authorities' there can do is run around and stamp down those daring to insult islam and/or point out that there really IS a terrorism problem. They can't (or won't) do a thing to stop the terrorists, so they have to crack down hard on everybody who dares point out how impotent the govt is.

It's really pathetic, and it's obvious that the Brits' actions and priorities are INCOMPATIBLE with solving their problem.

Another police officer who didn't run away...he seems somehow to have been overlooked -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...ice-officer-stabbed/

And a brave Spaniard who died protecting another person with his skateboard, and died from his injuries -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...-dead-london-terror/

'Greater love etc'.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Someone should put up a utoob video burning the bible, see if its considered inciting racial hatred..

You know darn well that is "Protected Free Speech" and is to be lauded, applauded, and encouraged.

All the 'authorities' there can do is run around and stamp down those daring to insult islam and/or point out that there really IS a terrorism problem. They can't (or won't) do a thing to stop the terrorists, so they have to crack down hard on everybody who dares point out how impotent the govt is.

It's really pathetic, and it's obvious that the Brits' actions and priorities are INCOMPATIBLE with solving their problem.

My broken record again, two things I have posted in times past.

- The Atheist Club at Silicon Valley college had a "draw god" competition in the college square to mock all deities. The Muslims promised violence if they were mocked. The end result from the admin was that it is acceptable to mock all deities on campus, except Islam.

- If, when trying to solve a problem, you eliminate the correct solution, it doesn't matter what you do instead, it won't work.

Maybe I have become too cynical and skeptical.

But when the London Mayor said (something like) :"As a Muslim, these people are not acting in my name!" I was thinking, of course they weren't! That would be something that EVERY Muslim could say, even terrorist-supporters, because they weren't doing it in any person's name; they were doing it in the name of Allah.

I'm an equal opportunity mocker.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

And a brave Spaniard who died protecting another person with his skateboard, and died from his injuries -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...-dead-london-terror/

'Greater love etc'.

tac

That's a shame. Brave men are what the gene pool needs.

Hopefully His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh will reward him posthumously.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
Another police officer who didn't run away...he seems somehow to have been overlooked -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...ice-officer-stabbed/
...
tac

From the article:

quote:

The brave British Transport Police officer who was stabbed in the face during the London terror attack as he tried to protect the public using only a baton has spoken out.

At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

I understand the historical context, etc. but given the world situation which currently exists, it would appear prudent to look at both the present and toward the future and make the appropriate changes that common sense would dictate are needed rather than clinging to policies from the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

And a brave Spaniard who died protecting another person with his skateboard, and died from his injuries -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...-dead-london-terror/

'Greater love etc'.

tac

That's a shame. Brave men are what the gene pool needs.

Hopefully His Royal Highness, The Duke of Edinburgh will reward him posthumously.

Bravery awards are a matter for the government awards committee, not royalty. The awards are often, in the case of the seriously big stuff, presented by members of the royal family - the Queen, in particular, usually makes a point of awarding the Victoria Cross, either to the person who earned it, or, more usually, to their relatives.

My one and only medal for doing something or other was presented to me by my own brigadier, and meant as much as it could possibly mean as a result of that.

I'd like to think that all those who put themselves in harm's way for their fellow humans last weekend, including the Australian nurse who ran to help those injured, and was herself killed as a result, get the recognition that they deserve.

Bless 'em all.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. In spite of being 'off his watch' he got stuck in. The BTP are responsible for the maintenance of the Queen's Peace on the RAIL transport infrastructure, not the streets of London.

His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

I understand that, tac. That is precisely the issue my question is directed toward. That policy may have made sense at some time in the past but a compelling case can be made that it needs to be changed.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

I understand that, tac. That is precisely the issue my question is directed toward. That policy may have made sense at some time in the past but a compelling case can be made that it needs to be changed.

If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

tac

Tac - a question about the armed officers, such as those that responded to the bridge attack.

Any thoughts on their backgrounds? Are they typically ex-military, for example?

Wondering what makes them different enough to volunteer for the added training / responsibility... How are they regarded by their non-armed peers?


thanks

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

I understand that, tac. That is precisely the issue my question is directed toward. That policy may have made sense at some time in the past but a compelling case can be made that it needs to be changed.

If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

tac

I'm reticent to comment on such things, but I will say this: if your police would resign en masse for being forced to carry firearms, then perhaps it is the case that either the thinking needs to change, or the people being hired are not the right people for the job that needs to be done. The job they think they're doing has changed.

The article posted a few pages back from one of your armed officers had some sentences that made my jaw drop. One, exactly what you said, and the other claim that arming all officers simply simply isn't possible. The thinking over there needs to change to evolve with the threats you face. And if the thinking can't be changed, then the staff should be.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:



If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

tac

Good Lord. I never would have dreamed that, tac. Thanks for the insight.

The thought that police officers would NOT want to be armed is just such a foreign concept to me.

A firearm is a tool. Why would anyone not want to have the proper tools for the job?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The thought that police officers would NOT want to be armed is just such a foreign concept to me.

A firearm is a tool. Why would anyone not want to have the proper tools for the job?

I think it is a foreign concept to all of us, especially since many of us here carry guns ourselves everyday.

So please bear with us, Tac. Your insight is eye opening and quite frankly a little shocking as well.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

I understand that, tac. That is precisely the issue my question is directed toward. That policy may have made sense at some time in the past but a compelling case can be made that it needs to be changed.

If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

tac

I was aware that many in the police forces themselves do not wish to be armed prior to this thread. That matters not. Leadership is about making hard decisions and choosing the best course to implement them.

Among the highest priorities of any government should be the protection of its citizens, especially when many of those citizens lack the ability to defend themselves to the degree possible in other locales.

If it is determined that an unarmed constabulary is a concept which should largely be consigned to the dustbin of history, a good start would be to begin training and arming any current officers who don't have an aversion to being armed. All future hires should have no choice in the matter. It would merely be a requirement of the job.

That would at least be a start. Otherwise, you will continue to be dealing with police who, when faced with an opponent who is armed to an extent which they are ill-equipped to deal with, either run away or who, despite being ill-equipped, attempt to deal with the opponent anyway and become casualties themselves suffering totally unnecessary grievous bodily harm as a direct result of their valor.

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by FiveFiveSixFan:At some point, I would like to think that the question will be asked as to why this British Transport Police officer was limited to using only a baton as he tried to protect the public.

Because that's what he had at the time.

British Transport Police, like the rest of the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales, are not routinely armed. His duty equipment is precisely the same as that of a street police officer.

tac

I understand that, tac. That is precisely the issue my question is directed toward. That policy may have made sense at some time in the past but a compelling case can be made that it needs to be changed.

If you had been reading my posts in this thread, you would realise that it is the police forces themselves who do not want to be routinely armed.

And if the Home Office, that 'owns' the police forces, were to change that policy, then police officers would be resigning en masse.

tac

I was aware that many in the police forces themselves do not wish to be armed prior to this thread. That matters not. Leadership is about making hard decisions and choosing the best course to implement them.

Among the highest priorities of any government should be the protection of its citizens, especially when many of those citizens lack the ability to defend themselves to the degree possible in other locales.

If it is determined that an unarmed constabulary is a concept which should largely be consigned to the dustbin of history, a good start would be to begin training and arming any current officers who don't have an aversion to being armed. All future hires should have no choice in the matter. It would merely be a requirement of the job.

That would at least be a start. Otherwise, you will continue to be dealing with police who, when faced with an opponent who is armed to an extent which they are ill-equipped to deal with, either run away or who, despite being ill-equipped, attempt to deal with the opponent anyway and become casualties themselves suffering totally unnecessary grievous bodily harm as a direct result of their valor.

You might find this odd, but I agree with everything that you have written. However, the sea-change required would be immense - not as immense as the population getting slaughtered on a daily basis by an alien race of murderous shite - but a totally different take on the actual existence of the UK as an entity.

As a former soldier, I take the proactive view - find them wherever they are, and kill them. Not argue with them, not use persuasion to convince them that they are acting irresponsibly, just kill them where they stand or lie, and move on to the next one. Singly or wholesale, I don't care.

Until the government - whoever they are - makes up its mind that there is a very real problem that all the 'watch lists' on the planet cannot deal with, then the UK can expect to suffer the consequences of its government's inaction in dealing with the insidious erosion of the UK way of life.

Poland has it right - no moslems are permitted to enter the sovereign territory.

So does Japan - again, no moslems, apart from embassy staff, are permitted to enter. I worked in Tokyo for almost eight years, and never saw a covered-head-to-toe woman or bearded PJ-wearing moslem, and my offices were less than a hundred yards from the Saudi embassy.

We don't have a problem here in UK with piranas in the rivers, because we haven't let any of them in.

There is a lesson there that any governments needs to learn, and fast.

tac

What is little appreciated, is this is not a war between Mohammedans and the West. It is a war between Mohammedans and everybody. They deliberately slaughter people from all countries and all faiths. Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Atheist, and other Mohammedans. Did I miss anyone or did they? Don't worry. Eventually they will try to kill or convert everybody. It is a central tenet of their faith.