London attacks

That is the most salient bit, do we try to help repressed people or just ignore them?
When we ignore them people say we should do more to help, when we try to help they say we are getting the backlash from interfering.

 

Indeed...but we can't help them...brilliant BBC documentary on Afghanistan narrated by an ex governor of an Iraq province. End message..you can't go in with guns and say we are here to help you...

The Afghan saying? We can't listen to a person talking peace if he walks in with a gun.

Sorry....and this is controversial..middke East....africa..are behind culturally by the standards we think are important.. .

1) do our standards suit everyone?

2) even if our way is right...can we force it on others ahead of their time? We resisted every superior civilisation that came to teach us...

Hardest part as you say Diego...letting them be and stomaching the results...

 

There are some real arseholes in this world. Some really horrible people.

 

To clear this up, the police only need level of 30% suspicion to arrest.

 

Not an expert but its detaining them that's the problem, isn't it? Because unless you've committed a crime you can only detain them for so long?

 

Police have 24 hours after arrest to detain, interview, investigate and otherwise gather evidence to charge an individual for any crime. At the 24 hour point it's charge or release. Adding to that is the issue that authority to charge has to go through and come from the CPS who can have different criteria to the Police.

 

When is this senseless attack of innocent people going to stop?.

 

Well, the ****ing bastards. May they rot in hell.

 

pre trial detention is 14 days in terrorism cases down from 28 days in 2011.

 

It's important to keep in perspective, you're still more likely to be killed by lightning than a terrorist.

 

People can be idiotic to expose themselves to a lightning storm though. People aren't stupid going to a concert, eating out at restaurants and generally socialising.

 

Stupid is a government that in response to the last attack installed more barriers outside Buckingham Palace which was never threatened but ruled them out for the bridge that was then attacked

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...led-out-24-hours-earlier-latest-a7772386.html

 

Look these guys will look for the least protected target anywhere.

 

They attacked a bridge because they've been designed with zero protection and there are naturally no escape routes.

Security planners responded by adding another layer of barriers to the most secure residence in the country and nothing for the bridges. This is negligence.

All modern city planning now takes this kind of attack into account when designing roads and public spaces, but I understand if London is too poor to update bridges with a few bollards to protect the peasants who cross by foot rather than limousine.

 

And after that upgrade next time it will be a shopping centre or a sports stadium etc etc

 

Shopping centres and sports stadiums already have a lot of this kind of responsible planning done, often disguised as decorations but actually strategically placed barriers

Here's what Arsenal added after the London bombings

please log in to view this image

 

Pace section 1 is about detaining persons if you suspect they have a stolen item, prohibited article or prohibited firework or bladed or sharply pointed article. That's detaining for a search.

Section 24 pace is all about officers arresting people whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence, committing an offence or is guilty of an offence. I could write the whole section but I can't be arsed.

However it's all well and good arresting someone but you need evidence and proof to be able to get a conviction. Police just put the case before the courts, they don't decide the judgement.

 

Perhaps, but the naked truth is, yeah terrorism attacks are horrible horrible things, but quite frankly the odds of any individual being caught in one is pretty low.

There shouldn't be cause to fear for your safety in public, or call for deporting en masse immigrants.

You're probably more likely to get injured swerving a car to avoid an animal crossing the street than by a terrorist. (Unless you're @Red Hadron Collider and then it's because you're swerving to hit the animal).

You're much more likely to be attacked by a natural born citizen than an immigrant (even when taken per capita).

Terrorist attacks are terrible terrible things, and I'm in no way claiming otherwise, but I think they're published and spoken about way more than they deserve. If the news treated them with less deference and attention there would be less motivation for terrorists to perform those actions.

 

That's why I make the argument that if you care about saving lives you're far better focusing on stopping poor drivers.

Terrorists: Kill tens of people a year. Insane psychopaths who are almost impossible to stop.

People using mobile phones while driving: Kill hundreds of people a year. Add a £10,000 penalty to their insurance bill every time caught and it stops almost overnight.

 

Different subject; but studies have shown that increasing the odds of being caught is more of a deterrent than increasing the punishment. Big example is Saudi Arabia where foreigners frequently drink alcohol because they think they'll never get caught (despite terrible consequences).

If people think they'll never get caught, they'll still talk and drive even if the punishment is nettles shoved up the anus every day for the rest of their life.