Deployment of troops following Manchester bombing

domtheone

How hard would it be to fake ID cards anyway?

doug56hl

I was thinking of the bigger picture.  Not just the nutter who blew himself up.

See above.

SteakAndCake

Agreed but deployment of troops is decided by politicians.

This will be the first time troops have been deployed on mainland UK soil as a result of terrorist acts.
London 2005 - no
Birmingham pub bombings (almost same death toll as Manchester) - no

There had always been an unwritten rule in Westminster post WW2 that troops wouldn't be deployed for action on the mainland (SAS excepted). Obviously times change but it's hard to see what practicable purpose this would serve. 5,000 isn't enough even if just spread over London let alone the other major UK cities.

It also exposes the troops to terrorist action as a particular target.
Following Woolwich attack it's reported troops were told not to wear their uiforms in public. The only reported action by French troops on similar duties in France was to shoot dead a Jihadi who attacked one of them to try and seize their weapon. In Canada there was the shooting of a soldier in 2014 while he was on guard duty in Ottawa.

The rules of engagement are going to have to be carefully written to allow troops to defend themselves with deadly force whilst at the same time not expose the military to legal action for murder/manslaughter.

Sonic67

It also puts hundreds of automatic weapons on the streets and one snatch and grab away from terrorist hands.

doug56hl

Ahem.

BBC NEWS | UK | In pictures: Army patrols Heathrow
Not done.

There's a worry The Sun would have a field day reporting that British troops can't wear their uniform in their own country.

Hence no order is given. Occasionally and locally there is an order given not to travel in uniform. That tends to be intelligence led.

There is also directives out as to when uniform can and can't be worn. You can't go in a pub and drink. You can't be incorrectly dressed. You can't go into a service station and be half in uniform. You can't go wandering round a shopping centre when you could have changed first. There's a lot to it but there was no blanket ban.

Sonic67

Although that report noted
Sources confirmed the detailed plan had been discussed at the highest level and would only be triggered by the Cobra committee chaired by the Prime Minister if there were two or three terror attacks at the same time in Britain, leaving police struggling to respond.
And
It is understood that Home Secretary Theresa May would not oppose soldiers taking to the streets in a ‘worst-case scenario’.

Worst case scenario was also widely reported as being a Mumbai or Paris type attack. One lone suicide bomber doesn't quite fit that. If a Bataclan type attack of multiple bombers at the same time had been used in Manchester the death toll would have been far higher. That only one bomber was involved would perhaps seem to point to not many volunteers being available.

IronGiant

You can say the same about armed police.

Because of the way the rifle is slung you'd need to pull it over the head. Not sure what the person with him would be doing. Besides I can't see armed soldiers patrolling down London streets. They might not be armed and just searching bags outside a venue with armed police around.

Just to be clear, I wouldn't want police in the middle of a battle and I doubt the police want armed soldiers generally around.

Sonic67

Why do you need to snatch an automatic weapon if you are wearing a bomb vest?

SteakAndCake

Might be intelligence led and there might be an expectation there will be more.

IronGiant

At the moment it is unknown whether that was an isolated incident or a test run of the first bomb off the production line of a small bomb factory.
Hopefully this is just a precaution until the details of Manchester are established.  So long as they stand down when no threat is found all is good and it will have been a valuable training exercise.