Although derek bird did go far in the Lake District as he had his shotgun in his car, but in a crowded London street, such a shotgun wielding person would be restled to the ground by the public.
If I was the copper and I knew someone was close and coming at me with a knife, I'd be more inclined to go for a baton. Simple and effective. Doesn't need cocking, taking the safety off or anything else and no danger of shooting anyone beyond by accident either. I'm assuming he didn't know.
That's an admirable position to have so as not to kill another person. If it was me though and someone came at me with a knife and I had a taser I would use that taser, and if not possible to use it effectively I'd try and distance myself from the attacker, give a warning, then use a firearm in self defence if warnings were not heeded and they still came at me. It would be them and not me.
The poster called'krish' keeps marking this as funny. I think it's a very serious point and I think we know where the problem lies with people who think this funny and cannot come out and explain themselves to try and engage good debate.
Its begs the question why the unarmed officer decided he should tackle the man with a knife .When within secondsothers with guns could have stopped him. He still had a bit to go before reaching the entrance .Like a good boxer etc some might say he should have kept some distance ?
One thing is for sure , it goes to show that unlike years ago, you dont need bombs or guns to be a terrorist .A big 4x4 taken mins before at knifepoint (example)and you hit a high street or big tourist area and you are going straightto the "virgins in heaven etc". I past Madame Tussauds today .There was over 500 young people waiting outside .Big vehicle going 50mph is going to do a lot of damage . I would guess you would kill over 100 easily unless you lost control .
The Cabinet Office who are responsible for security there are going to be busy .Maybe many of us will remember walking down to Number"10" and having our pics taken etc .In those days it was all a lot more "open" .who knows, maybe they will close off the pavement on that side to the public etc .
Whats for sure , the Politicians know they havea lot more securityaround them. Its the public who need to worry .As terror doesnt seem to be aimed at Politicians that much .
I've marked every post where you've taken another member's comments way out of context just to suit your agenda as funny. There's no point debating someone who does that.
Explain please.
He is probably marking it as funny as you keep making ridiculous assertions about what that poster was saying. You suggest that he is condoning the actions and you also suggest that he is saying that the government should accept there is a risk, where he is saying that there is an inherent risk in getting involved in foreign conflicts that some may not see it the same as you do an may well take it upon themselves to attack the UK.
What he has actually said is that our foreign policy has "potentially" caused an increased risk of things like this happening.
(take note in particular the question to you, what deterrent do you use against someone who is willing to kill themselves for their cause?)
You then suggest that risk should be minimised to the point that there is zero risk of this kind of event happening, when in reality that is physically impossible without seriously damaging the freedoms of regular people - i.e no-one being allowed to leave the house/own a car/own a knife.
Risks can rarely be eliminated, only minimised
The highlighted part of your post is the most ridiculous, how you go from acknowledging risks to condoning terrorism is frankly pretty scary - but if you can propose a way to eliminate risk completely then you may be able to explain to some of us here where you are coming from
He said as above 'you then have to accept and manage the risk (accept the risk, manage the risk) that those people will try and hit back'. He isn't saying there is a risk in participating in foreign conflicts. That's a totally different issue to the rule of law and what we abide by as citizens. I can't go and mow people down because I have an objection to another policy, maybe a foreign one. He didn't say potentially either. You can read it very clearly above.
This is abhorrent, shocking, and horrendous for me. That our government accepts the risks of terrorism, or as citizens we should accept risks too, for decisions we have entrusted to our democratically elected government.
How has a foreign policy decision taken by our government under democratic process got anything to do with a British born uk citizen mowing people down on a pavement, governed by rule of law. Btw this is regardless of your views on foreign policy issues as I already explained too.
It's effectively being an apologist for terrorism. That people can't take responsibility for themselves under the rule of law, that they have committed terrorist acts, but it's somehow our governments fault and our faults as citizens. Nothing to do with the guy killing innocent people and depriving two kids from a mum . As I've said if you say someone should accept risk it's the same as condoning it or normalising it, and if you do that you think it's acceptable. If you think it's acceptable it goes into hate preaching and actually the terrorism itself. Do you think Theresa May would say today we should accept the risks of terrorism because of the decisions we took in foreign policy, or that we may take. Of course not!. He's also playing the role of our security services down in the future by saying 'we've done about as well in using intelligence and security methods as we could have hoped for, while still having a democracy'. There is always more they can do, and they will attemp to do, as with police. We will see over the coming days what they will be doing to protect us, as is right for them to do, and citizens to expect and they will come out and they say they will do more.
And if you start normalising and saying it's not the terrorists fault firmly and squarely, that somehow someone or an organisation can be responsible for another person killing another. What you'll do is make it easier for a nutter to go out, get radicalised and kill people.
Frankly his comments are un democatic, since he believes in Westminster having powers, but then its their fault (and they accept risks) when a nutter goes out and mows people down. Please have a think at what you are saying.
I would have given that 2 funnies if I could have