If I see any ISIS flags flying I won't rest until the occupants of the residence are dealt with in a severe manner. I think that means throwing stun grenades in first, and asking questions later as to who the dead people were. We dealt with hitler we can deal with these people also
Then you would be arrested for being a terrorist yourself or were you expecting someone else to do it for you?.
I would expect the police to do it just like they dealt with the 3 London killers on Saturday night
I was talking about how the border operates after years of cuts to the border agency.-
Drop 'dangerous' Border Force cuts, says Andy Burnham - BBC News
Border Force funding cut by quarter per person arriving to UK
How many terrorist acts in the UK have been carried out by someone who didn't have a legitimate reason to be here?
None so far, might well be plots the security services have foiled that we don't know of yet. But as seen with 9/11 you can have a legitimate reason to be in a country whilst planning and carrying out an attack. Though what concerns me is the lack of patrols around UK waters, which means along with drug smuggling, it might also be possible that weapons could be smuggled into the country not specifically with Terrorists in mind, but weapons could end up in there hands.
????
So if the first policeman on the scene is armed then he could have shot the guy. This idea of your sthat we must first send in unarmed policemen to be attacked and only then can we send in someone with a gun is daft. The first policeman on the scene last week saw the attacks on the civilians and rushed towards them so had plenty of time to draw a weapon.
He fought him off with his truncheon, if he had been armed he may well have survived - the police officer who shot the guy was only 10 feet away so the idea that you need 8 minutes warning to get ready is somewhat daft
Yeah, yeah so do I - I spent 9 years playing with guns and know exaclty how long it takes to prepare to shoot.
What the Police want isn't the primary issue, it is the safety of the Public.
To those considering giving up freedoms and liberties in exchange for stopping terrorists and being safe, I suggest examining examples of real world applications of the removal of freedom/liberties on the effectiveness of limiting illegal communication/transport and activity.
How far would we need to go/what sacrifices would we have to make in terms of reducing individual freedoms to reach a point where we significantly increased our safety ?
Well consider the war on drugs as a real world example of limiting people from taking narcotics.
Illegalisation hasn't stopped people procuring and taking narcotics. It may have reduced the numbers of drug users, but certainly not enough to a point that there are still a significant drug use demographic.
If we go to the extreme and restrict all liberties, removing or reducing peoples interactions with each other and the world at large to a bare minimum, will that stop them ?
Looking at the endemic drug problems in prisons where inmates can still get hold of drugs, it does not bode well for efforts to remove liberties from the general public to significantly increase their safety from extremists.
If you have police routinely armed then terrorists might try to get the weapon to kill others.
As happens in France.
We have unarmed policeman on the streets but we dispatch armed police to incidents. Why are you sending unarmed police? Do you want all police armed?
Once they are attacking they have the element of surprise gone.
If he had been armed the attack might have starred by attacking him. As happens over and over in France.
30 years. And no playing.
You aren't interested in their views? You have no experience but you know best?
Do you think an outsider knows your job better than you?
I see school trips are being cancelled due to fear......