and close enough to get stabbed and murdered then ? thank fook the police wiped them out first
World war 3
- Thread starter OLOF
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
and close enough to get stabbed and murdered then ? thank fook the police wiped them out first
He has a point, but not in the way you think. 8 minutes is fine. But what if it had been in Harrogate. Or Exmouth. Or Prestatyn? It wouldn't be 8 minutes, would it. And even if it's 30 seconds, it's still a response - not a prevention.
I heard a very logical piece of analysis on the radio today. Can't remember who it was, but he was talking about arming the police, and the IRA was mentioned. He said that the biggest difference between these attcks & the IRA ones were that the IRA's were of the 'Wam, Bam, Thank You Ma'am variety - i.e. they go in, hit the target, then get out. Arms don't hel pin that situation, as they're gone by the time the police arrive. What he drew attention to is that in every one of these ISIS attack, they remain on the scene to cause maximum carnage. In this case, the first cop on the scene, if he was armed, could end it swiftly. It was a strong argument for arming the police against the current threat.
Apologies for the digression, but it just came back to me there & is an interesting point.
Back to my initial response - are we happy with 8 minute responses? Most of the damage has been done by then - and as I said, can the 8 min timing be guaranteed anywhere but big cities? I think he's right to focus on the root cause. Not a political view, but professional one. Root cause forms the backbone of the industry I was in before I retired.
If it had been in Harrogate Glory would be singing a different tune
Oh dear, how trite. Let me put the simple equation together for you - train the fcuking police to do mouth shots! Pillock. Who said anything about meetings. When have I ever advocated that? I gave you a very important piece of information & all you do it play with it rather than consider its import. We are talking about people's lives here, and you prefer to take the piss.
Stop all foreign aid, spend it on the security services, get the British army on the streets here with a shoot to kill policy instead of ****ing about in other countries, the war is here, its happening now
Yep,arm all cops,I live in spain mighty lives in italy,all cops are armed,if the feckers are wearing a bomb they will blow up anyway.
Shoot first questions later.
As for the fifty bullets,thank **** they peppered the bastards,none of the wound to the leg bollox.
Totally agree,the army are to protect get them on the streets,armed to the teeth and not just outside 10 downing.
I went to work this morn,police control on the motorway,made everybody stop,boys armed up.
OK took 5 mins of my time but,if the catch some murdering scum well worth it.
OK took 5 mins of my time but,if the catch some murdering scum well worth it.
Shoot to kill? Absolutely no chance! You should read a book by Sergeant Bomber Grahame called Firestrike 7/9. Well, Damian Lewis helped him write it. It's a true story that reads like the most exciting fiction. During his 6 month tour, the government changed the rules of engagement. I can't remember it exactly, but it went from some thing like 'you can only shoot when you see a subject that is armed & looks like he will fire on you' to 'you can only shoot at a subject when he has fired on you'. What chance have you got? As far as I'm aware, these rules will still be in place, unless they're replaced it with 'you can only fire when they've killed you', or something equally ridiculous. That's why this chap called in the Yanks to do his dirty work - they didn't ask questions.
But to get back on point - given the governments history, there's absolutely no chance of soldiers having an advantage of any sort these days. It just won't happen. I think the police are less constrained.
Really do recommend reading it, btw. Brilliant read.
Oh dear totall pc fail
Give them the right to shoot,army or police.
.Shoot to kill? Absolutely no chance! You should read a book by Sergeant Bomber Grahame called Firestrike 7/9. Well, Damian Lewis helped him write it. It's a true story that reads like the most exciting fiction. During his 6 month tour, the government changed the rules of engagement. I can't remember it exactly, but it went from some thing like 'you can only shoot when you see a subject that is armed & looks like he will fire on you' to 'you can only shoot at a subject when he has fired on you'. What chance have you got? As far as I'm aware, these rules will still be in place, unless they're replaced it with 'you can only fire when they've killed you', or something equally ridiculous. That's why this chap called in the Yanks to do his dirty work - they didn't ask questions.
But to get back on point - given the governments history, there's absolutely no chance of soldiers having an advantage of any sort these days. It just won't happen. I think the police are less constrained.
Really do recommend reading it, btw. Brilliant read.
oh dear back tp pc bollox,Shoot to kill? Absolutely no chance! You should read a book by Sergeant Bomber Grahame called Firestrike 7/9. Well, Damian Lewis helped him write it. It's a true story that reads like the most exciting fiction. During his 6 month tour, the government changed the rules of engagement. I can't remember it exactly, but it went from some thing like 'you can only shoot when you see a subject that is armed & looks like he will fire on you' to 'you can only shoot at a subject when he has fired on you'. What chance have you got? As far as I'm aware, these rules will still be in place, unless they're replaced it with 'you can only fire when they've killed you', or something equally ridiculous. That's why this chap called in the Yanks to do his dirty work - they didn't ask questions.
But to get back on point - given the governments history, there's absolutely no chance of soldiers having an advantage of any sort these days. It just won't happen. I think the police are less constrained.
Really do recommend reading it, btw. Brilliant read.
Give them the right to shoot,army or police.
Don't disagree - merely pointing out the ridiculous constraints the government have put on the military.
Give me a gun, if there are three muzzie bastards stabbing a defenceless young woman or anyone else I would not hesitate to blow their ****ing heads offShoot to kill? Absolutely no chance! You should read a book by Sergeant Bomber Grahame called Firestrike 7/9. Well, Damian Lewis helped him write it. It's a true story that reads like the most exciting fiction. During his 6 month tour, the government changed the rules of engagement. I can't remember it exactly, but it went from some thing like 'you can only shoot when you see a subject that is armed & looks like he will fire on you' to 'you can only shoot at a subject when he has fired on you'. What chance have you got? As far as I'm aware, these rules will still be in place, unless they're replaced it with 'you can only fire when they've killed you', or something equally ridiculous. That's why this chap called in the Yanks to do his dirty work - they didn't ask questions.
But to get back on point - given the governments history, there's absolutely no chance of soldiers having an advantage of any sort these days. It just won't happen. I think the police are less constrained.
Really do recommend reading it, btw. Brilliant read.
That's the problem WJ, we need a government to lift those constraints and get them on the streets whilst we're under attack, the coppers are ok for hounding motorists, the war is on our streets.
I'll check that book out
You'll enjoy the book. Btw, what would you do to these guys?That's the problem WJ, we need a government to lift those constraints and get them on the streets whilst we're under attack, the coppers are ok for hounding motorists, the war is on our streets.
I'll check that book out
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/london-terror-ringleader-appeared-channel-10562325
TVSee post #46. You're nearly 2 days late.
Then you have no grounds for an arguement.....
Well, seeing as one of those scumbags was one of the perpetrators they should have been locked up after that programme was shown, then probably a few more innocent people would be alive today, they should have been deported, and if they were born here they should have been put on a plane and thrown out of the thing over Syria minus a parachute and let them join the other camel shagging muzzie terrorists in that ****hole
I personally thing they need re-educated. A slice a day on the bacon slicer for a few months would be very persuasive
- Status