Westminster

Surprised there isn't a thread on this.

What tragic events yesterday. R.I.P to the 5 people that sadly lost there lives.

3 people that sadly lost their lives. 4 dead total.

Sad, response from the emergency services seems to have been good.

Often find these events show the best of humanity at work as well as the worst.......People working together as one whether on the bridge or inside the gates putting their own safety on a backburner whilst tending to the fallen....

A strong message to the people who commit these atrocities that you can take lives (Thoughts and prayers with the families)...But you'll never take the spirit...

Incredible bravery from PC Keith Palmer - an unarmed officer - who tackled the knife-wielding terrorist without thought for his own safety. I hope his sacrifice is formally recognised later.

His armed colleagues responded quickly...but sadly not fast enough to prevent him being fatally stabbed.

As Nick said, it was a brilliant all-round response from our emergency services, to secure the area surrounding Westminster Palace, attend the injured and generally bring calm and order to a confused and frightening situation.

Aside from Keith Palmer's death, a Spanish lady who taught at a nearby college and an American tourist, who was celebrating a wedding anniversary with his wife are among those confirmed dead.

A number of French schoolchildren were among those injured in the bridge attack, along with Greek, Italian and Asian tourists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-39355505

The terrorist has been identified and apparently was on MI5's watch list several years ago, as part of a different anti-terrorism investigation. He had been arrested previously for GBH and possession of knives (ironically) but had never been linked to terrorist activity.

Brilliant response from the people of London in general, getting on with their lives and refusing to let the threat of violence stop them.

Police have made several arrests in Birmingham and London in efforts to flush out any further possible threats from the attackers' associates. Unsurprisingly (so-called) Islamic State have claimed responsibility for the attack. Police believe the attacker was inspired by their propaganda.


There has been a similar incident in Belgium today, when a man tried to drive into a crowd of shoppers in Antwerp. The man was identified as "a French national, of North African origin".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39369202

Sadly, these sort of attacks are unpreventable. Barring banning cars then that mode of transport can always be used for sinister means. The policeman that died doing his duty unarmed was the ultimate display of bravery and tragic he couldn't be saved. The police and emergency services though coped admirably in stressful circumstances. My thoughts go out to all of those involved.

Charlton Athletic paying tribute to Keith Palmer, by playing scarfs on the seat he usually takes at home games.

Bad news is, i feel this is just the start of something.

What genius decided that some officers at Westminster should be armed and some shouldn't. Would like to see that risk assessment….severe threat from terrorism in the UK, one would think that within that context Westminster would certainly qualify as one of the severest of severe threats.

NickisBHAFC wrote:Charlton Athletic paying tribute to Keith Palmer, by playing scarfs on the seat he usually takes at home games.

Bad news is, i feel this is just the start of something.

We should prevent further attacks by rounding up any men from Kent in their 50's with a past history of hate speech.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sadly, these sort of attacks are unpreventable. Barring banning cars then that mode of transport can always be used for sinister means. The policeman that died doing his duty unarmed was the ultimate display of bravery and tragic he couldn't be saved. The police and emergency services though coped admirably in stressful circumstances. My thoughts go out to all of those involved.

Could they not put billards on the streets in central London which prevent cars being able to mount the pavement. As we have seen over the last year, car rammings seem to be the new way terrorists are using to attack us so something has to be done.

The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

150 percent agree with this (shock horror i know :-).

At least there should be an explanation of why only some were armed.

Derbymanc wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

150 percent agree with this (shock horror i know :-).

At least there should be an explanation of why only some were armed.

There won't be

It is an example of current Policing's imperative obsession with image control versus operational efficacy.

Such a high risk site should demand every officer to be armed, that is, if the risk profile suggests it demands any officer to be so armed then all should be; to ask that officer to work unarmed was ringing the dinner bell.

I was recently at Bluewater shopping centre and there were armed police there because some youtube plum was doing a book signing. It's as if media personalities are protected more than those that protect us.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sadly, these sort of attacks are unpreventable. Barring banning cars then that mode of transport can always be used for sinister means. The policeman that died doing his duty unarmed was the ultimate display of bravery and tragic he couldn't be saved. The police and emergency services though coped admirably in stressful circumstances. My thoughts go out to all of those involved.

Could they not put billards on the streets in central London which prevent cars being able to mount the pavement. As we have seen over the last year, car rammings seem to be the new way terrorists are using to attack us so something has to be done.

That still wouldn't stop these kinds of attacks UNLESS they placed bollards along every single metre of every single stretch of road in the country. And even if they did that they'd just move on to using articulated lorries or something which would still make mincemeat of these bollards.

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

Not really, no. Amazing as it may seem, this country has done quite well on the basis that default firearm use isn't necessarily the solution to everything.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I was recently at Bluewater shopping centre and there were armed police there because some youtube plum was doing a book signing. It's as if media personalities are protected more than those that protect us.

You're presuming they were there to look out for the YouTube cretin then? Sure about that? It wasn't simply that they were present at Bluewater anyway, given that Bluewater is presumably deemed to represent the sort of target a nutter might go for?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

Not really, no. Amazing as it may seem, this country has done quite well on the basis that default firearm use isn't necessarily the solution to everything.

Done quite well? How did this work out then?

You obviously don't have direct knowledge of Police threat and risk assessments and alert states. I do.

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

Not really, no. Amazing as it may seem, this country has done quite well on the basis that default firearm use isn't necessarily the solution to everything.

Done quite well? How did this work out then?

You obviously don't have direct knowledge of Police threat and risk assessments and alert states. I do.

Would it have made a difference if the officer was armed? I don't know how the attack happened but if the offender just casually walked past the officer and then stabbed him as he was walking past, having a firearm wont prevent that. There was a video in Israel where an armed police officer was talking to a suspect and the suspect was acting normal and then suddenly just stabbed the officer in the neck.

Obviously if the offender had brandished his weapon whilst a few feet from the officer a firearm would help, but then didn't the officer have a taser?

its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.

Gwlad wrote:its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.  

What lack of knowledge am I displaying? I am simply stating that having a firearm wont help you if a random person walks past you and as they are close to you just stab you as I have seen in many videos and a recent video in Israel.

I don't know how the attack happened as in did the attacker charge the officer or was he next to him before pulling out his knife etc. But what I am saying is that just having a firearm wont protect you against attacks where the offender is unknown, and acts casual and walks next to the officer before striking.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.  

What lack of knowledge am I displaying? I am simply stating that having a firearm wont help you if a random person walks past you and as they are close to you just stab you as I have seen in many videos and a recent video in Israel.

I don't know how the attack happened as in did the attacker charge the officer or was he next to him before pulling out his knife etc. But what I am saying is that just having a firearm wont protect you against attacks where the offender is unknown, and acts casual and walks next to the officer before striking.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Unless you know this happened it is entirely irrelevant to this thread. And, as i pointed out, the guy had crashed his car, no officer is going to be 'acting casual' in that location in those circumstances. (You say that could happen - you saw a video - but then say you don't know how the attack happened)

The officer was aware of the crash and would consequently have been on high alert; his reactionary gap was breached and he had no adequate means to defend himself. In fact the more i think of it the more blood ridiculous it is. Thank god it was only a knife because you could reasonably expect a terror attack on Westminster to involve firearms hence the placing of an unarmed officer there is pure idiocy.



The point is not how it happened, the point is he should have had a firearm.

Gwlad wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.  

What lack of knowledge am I displaying? I am simply stating that having a firearm wont help you if a random person walks past you and as they are close to you just stab you as I have seen in many videos and a recent video in Israel.

I don't know how the attack happened as in did the attacker charge the officer or was he next to him before pulling out his knife etc. But what I am saying is that just having a firearm wont protect you against attacks where the offender is unknown, and acts casual and walks next to the officer before striking.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Unless you know this happened it is entirely irrelevant to this thread. And, as i pointed out, the guy had crashed his car, no officer is going to be 'acting casual' in that location in those circumstances. (You say that could happen - you saw a video - but then say you don't know how the attack happened)

The officer was aware of the crash and would consequently have been on high alert; his reactionary gap was breached and he had no adequate means to defend himself. In fact the more i think of it the more blood ridiculous it is. Thank god it was only a knife because you could reasonably expect a terror attack on Westminster to involve firearms hence the placing of an unarmed officer there is pure idiocy.



The point is not how it happened, the point is he should have had a firearm.

what are you confused by? I am quite clear in my post so maybe you need to stop getting so red and you might be able to understand my point.

You keep talking about this particular case when I am talking about having armed officers in general. I am saying that just having a firearm will not prevent certain types of attacks on police officers such as the type I posted above.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.  

What lack of knowledge am I displaying? I am simply stating that having a firearm wont help you if a random person walks past you and as they are close to you just stab you as I have seen in many videos and a recent video in Israel.

I don't know how the attack happened as in did the attacker charge the officer or was he next to him before pulling out his knife etc. But what I am saying is that just having a firearm wont protect you against attacks where the offender is unknown, and acts casual and walks next to the officer before striking.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Unless you know this happened it is entirely irrelevant to this thread. And, as i pointed out, the guy had crashed his car, no officer is going to be 'acting casual' in that location in those circumstances. (You say that could happen - you saw a video - but then say you don't know how the attack happened)

The officer was aware of the crash and would consequently have been on high alert; his reactionary gap was breached and he had no adequate means to defend himself. In fact the more i think of it the more blood ridiculous it is. Thank god it was only a knife because you could reasonably expect a terror attack on Westminster to involve firearms hence the placing of an unarmed officer there is pure idiocy.



The point is not how it happened, the point is he should have had a firearm.

what are you confused by? I am quite clear in my post so maybe you need to stop getting so red and you might be able to understand my point.

You keep talking about this particular case when I am talking about having armed officers in general. I am saying that just having a firearm will not prevent certain types of attacks on police officers such as the type I posted above.

confused by how you can be so obtuse. We aren't talking about armed officers in general are we, we're debating THIS incident about which you have admitted you know nothing so I suggest you stop being ignorant and keep your half baked theories on Firearms policing to yourself.

You clearly know nothing about Policing, policing with firearms or this subject so best move along

In the US on average 50 police are killed every year. They also kill over 1000 people each year through the use of firearms.

The main issue should be why SOME officers were armed and SOME weren't. With the bikini state how it is and the security state being high then it should have been all officers armed or none.

I actually again (shock horror) agree with GWLad on this that there's no point talking about a different incident as we're focusing on this one.

The question is why were some armed and some not? seems like a really daft thing to do and i'd like to know why

Gwlad wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Gwlad wrote:its difficult to comment really as you are displaying your lack of knowledge of the subject. I'd just leave it at : I don't know how the attack happened.

Most offciers will maintain a reactionary gap where possible but where this is impossible and the attacker leads them to suspect they are in mortal danger they are lawfully entitled to use such force as is reasonable including lethal force. Now, he ocudl hardly have done that with spray or asp or Taser and should have at least been carrying a sidearm.

Any officer working in Westminster who sees a car driven into a railing is first and foremost going to think terrorist attack. The fact that he wasn't armed while others were is nonsense. If, as I have said, the threat assessment was such that 1 officer is armed then all of them should be. To have an unarmed officer in Westminster at the moment is to invite them to be put in situations where they are unable to defend themselves.  

What lack of knowledge am I displaying? I am simply stating that having a firearm wont help you if a random person walks past you and as they are close to you just stab you as I have seen in many videos and a recent video in Israel.

I don't know how the attack happened as in did the attacker charge the officer or was he next to him before pulling out his knife etc. But what I am saying is that just having a firearm wont protect you against attacks where the offender is unknown, and acts casual and walks next to the officer before striking.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Unless you know this happened it is entirely irrelevant to this thread. And, as i pointed out, the guy had crashed his car, no officer is going to be 'acting casual' in that location in those circumstances. (You say that could happen - you saw a video - but then say you don't know how the attack happened)

The officer was aware of the crash and would consequently have been on high alert; his reactionary gap was breached and he had no adequate means to defend himself. In fact the more i think of it the more blood ridiculous it is. Thank god it was only a knife because you could reasonably expect a terror attack on Westminster to involve firearms hence the placing of an unarmed officer there is pure idiocy.



The point is not how it happened, the point is he should have had a firearm.

what are you confused by? I am quite clear in my post so maybe you need to stop getting so red and you might be able to understand my point.

You keep talking about this particular case when I am talking about having armed officers in general. I am saying that just having a firearm will not prevent certain types of attacks on police officers such as the type I posted above.

confused by how you can be so obtuse. We aren't talking about armed officers in general are we, we're debating THIS incident about which you have admitted you know nothing so I suggest you stop being ignorant and keep your half baked theories on Firearms policing to yourself.

You clearly know nothing about Policing, policing with firearms or this subject so best move along

We are debating whether officers should be armed in general and you are using THIS incident to back up your claim whilst I am using OTHER incidents to support the other side of the argument.

Gwlad wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

.

Amazing as it may seem, this country has done quite well on the basis that default firearm use isn't necessarily the solution to everything.[/quote]

Done quite well? How did this work out then?

You obviously don't have direct knowledge of Police threat and risk assessments and alert states. I do.

Gwlad wrote:What genius decided that some officers at Westminster should be armed and some shouldn't. Would like to see that risk assessment…..

There is nothing to say this officer doesn't die if he is armed...Surreal situations take a while to grasp..

WTF moments...Adrenalin is an amazing thing...You don't always have time for risk management...

The Cop did Britain proud...and he deserves better than.."Needless"

No we're not (well i'm not). I'm arguing why some officer were told to be armed, whilst others weren't. Who made that decision and why? as ultimately they may have cost a man his life. (I really really hope it wasn't a money or qualification thing).

Your right Truss, there's nothing to say anything went down differently BUT again the question is what i've posed above.

The risk management is supposed to be done before hand with a number of scenarios mapped out so something should have been picked up then.

He definitely did do us proud it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring these points up though as hopefully they'll stop somebody else (and there family etc) having to do the same thing.

And if it's preventable we want to know why

I think it can safely be said that the attacker vetted the whole security set-up many times before carrying out this attack. If that were the case and he saw one lone unarmed police officer manning the entrance to The House of Commons he probably fancied his chances. I'd hazard a guess that if that police officer had been armed in what was a key position manning the most important building in the UK then the attacker would have taken a different course of action.

Derbymanc wrote:No we're not (well i'm not).

 by Gwlad on Thu Apr 13, 2017 6:42 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
The Policeman that died doing his duty died needlessly

The genius who decided that the highest profile of high profile sites needed only some officers to be armed with the current threat risk profile needs to be named and shamed and then fired.

Not really, no. Amazing as it may seem, this country has done quite well on the basis that default firearm use isn't necessarily the solution to everything.

Done quite well? How did this work out then?

You obviously don't have direct knowledge of Police threat and risk assessments and alert states. I do.

That looks to me like you were debating with navyblueshorts about whether default firearms should be the norm for the police

GW isn't me Musclular.

I don't think firearms should be the default state, I do however think that if your going to arm some then you need to arm all in an area that's declared high risk, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Happy to leave decisions on Security to those who have more knowledge than me in this area...

Don't really want gun happy Cops gunning down Asian tourists at Westminster when one goes into his pocket to get out a map to ask for directions.

I imagine arming all Cops is a debate that has already been discussed in the past by the relevant authorities.

I am if questions are asked and answered after the matter.

Why was one cop armed and one not (was the armed cops in the area or called in after it started?)
Would the policeman have lost his life (in this instance) if he had been armed?
Can they all carry tasers?
If there were armed and unarmed coppers, why was it not patrols of 2? and/or who made the decision who was armed, where they were stationed and why?

One constant in life is that S**t happens....

You can say that if the cabin doors were locked..With no access to the cockpit..Planes don't crash into the Twin Towers...

All well and good playing Monday morning quarterback.....

Maybe this guy was lucky to get as far as he did....Maybe he wasn't.

Easy to be wise after the event...When you start handing out guns for all high risk areas then you open the door to interpretation of those areas... With the amount of innocent people getting tapered this year....Not sure grey areas are a good thing when it comes to firearms in Britain.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:One constant in life is that S**t happens....

You can say that if the cabin doors were locked..With no access to the cockpit..Planes don't crash into the Twin Towers...

All well and good playing Monday morning quarterback.....

Maybe this guy was lucky to get as far as he did....Maybe he wasn't.

Easy to be wise after the event...When you start handing out guns for all high risk areas then you open the door to interpretation of those areas... With the amount of innocent people getting tapered this year....Not sure grey areas are a good thing when it comes to firearms in Britain.

Yes it is easy to be wise AFTER the event and the point is now to be wise. Arm police officers in key positions such as manning the grounds of the Houses of Parliament. Yes the horse has bolted but change the laws now to prevent any more horses bolting in the future and causing needless deaths to occur.

Fair enough...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Happy to leave decisions on Security to those who have more knowledge than me in this area...

Don't really want gun happy Cops gunning down Asian tourists at Westminster when one goes into his pocket to get out a map to ask for directions.

I imagine arming all Cops is a debate that has already been discussed in the past by the relevant authorities.

British cops don't tend to be as trigger happy as their American counterparts so don't see it being a massive problem to be honest but your first point is spot on. It's easy to be wise after the fact and in hindsight it might look like a poor decision but the police become a lot less approachable to the general public when they're carrying a firearm.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Happy to leave decisions on Security to those who have more knowledge than me in this area...

Don't really want gun happy Cops gunning down Asian tourists at Westminster when one goes into his pocket to get out a map to ask for directions.

I imagine arming all Cops is a debate that has already been discussed in the past by the relevant authorities.

British cops don't tend to be as trigger happy as their American counterparts so don't see it being a massive problem to be honest but your first point is spot on. It's easy to be wise after the fact and in hindsight it might look like a poor decision but the police become a lot less approachable to the general public when they're carrying a firearm.

I agree with that 100% and is probably the reason why some police are not armed at Westminster or central London.

Also when you start having armed police everywhere it does create a sense of panic and unease amongst the civilian population. People start to fear that an attack is coming, it is one of the main reasons why the Army are not deployed on the streets of London.

I think the wider picture is not should we arm police officers to prevent a future attack, but should we do more to stop British men turning into Islamic extremists ( or any extremists to be fair) to prevent further attacks. How can we prevent young british men from wanting to kill innocent people and commit terror attacks. Why are British people wanting to kill other British people. Could we do more in schools through education, could we have more community projects to better integrate communities?