Police dealing with incident on London Bridge amid reports of shots fired

Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
17,959
Location
London
On the other hand, kids have been stabbing each other for years in London and the powers that be not giving a damn, now a "terrorist" stabs some people, (and anyone getting stabbed is a bad thing) now the government cares!?

To be fair, the government had a proper lid on it for years but then social justice groups started to cry about how "racist" stop-and-search was so they had to relax the scheme to not look bad. You can try so many things, but the only thing that has been shown to work was stop-and-search. I'm sorry if generic black kid #54 says he's been stopped for the 5th time that day, but if it ends up saving his life in the long run then sorry but tough.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2003
Posts
5,095
Location
West Midlands
Not really. As above, there it falls down to the individual officer to make the decision on whether to shoot.

They are presented with a situation where a person is out maurauding in the public having seriously harmed and continuing to actively try to harm others. On sight of him, he appears to be wearing what looks like a improvised explosive device which can cause significant injury over a wide area. At that point, a big portion of their working strategy will be to maximise the safety of the public right there and then. Taking shots to stop further action by the subject, to me, appears a wholly justified use of force.

I dont understand how people think that would not be an appropriate course of action.

Are you a TFC? Some good use of the NDM going on!

In my opinion, some real bravery shown by MOP and the AFOs. The moment that idiot placed that vest on ultimately took any other tactical option away from the officer(s) (unless there was red intel that it was not viable, which I doubt on a spontaneous job)

I just seen a post on bullshire that is fitting for the minority on here :) armed police tactics for utter buffoons on the internet.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
Hahaha.

Blaming the previous Labour Govt for the global credit-crunch has now evolved into shirking responsibility for the actions of their party's own 10-years in power on the basis "it was a different Tory Govt!"


The shirking knows no bounds. It's always someone else's fault.

It was the previous labour governments fault that we weren't better protected from it due to their deliberate pursuit of light touch regulation.
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 Jan 2005
Posts
45,671
Location
Co Durham
Well hopefully the Tories increase sentencing for serious offences. Comrade Corbyn is hardly going to bother...

It does seem ridiculous that someone plotting a terror attack only gets 8 years because they didn’t get to carry out the attack... I mean prison isn’t just about retribution it has a safety aspect... that the security services prevented it last time around shouldn’t mean a lighter sentence.

Likewise gangster types who stab or shoot each other, they can get a lighter sentence simply because medical treatment has improved or the attack happened on a Wednesday and the victim got taken to a central London hospital and just about escaped death...

That someone died or not through the actions of others trying to save them or stop the attack really ought to only be a minor factor relative to the fact that the attacker intended to kill.

This guy should have been locked up as if he’d actually carried out the original attack in the first place.

They didnt. He got 16 years and then released under licence and strict supervision after 8 years.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
They didnt. He got 16 years and then released under licence and strict supervision after 8 years.

Strict supervision? Really?

So again, in reality, he got 8 years...

Seems like a rather short sentence to give to someone who wanted to carry out a terror attack. Should have been more like 40 years if not for the rest of his life.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Mar 2008
Posts
9,180
Dont be pedantic, the same by making it political.
It's not pedantic - it's the whole point.

People are looking at a guy whose crime, conviction, sentence, and release have all occurred under a Conservative Govt and they are trying to blame Corbyn.

The point being made wasn't that it was wrong to make it political. The point was that it was ludicrous to make it political and attack anyone other than the Conservatives.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Posts
1,893
Location
Hants, UK
So now we're letting convicted terrorists out on licence to kill innocent members of the public? Not only do the inept ***** that set him free have some serious questions to answer but if this **** was supposed to be being monitored by the security services, then somebody from there also has a lot of ******* questions to answer.
There'll probably be a meeting to discuss failings, then once the tea and biscuits have been consumed it will all be swept under the carpet and back to business as usual.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,842
Strict supervision? Really?

So again, in reality, he got 8 years...

Seems like a rather short sentence to give to someone who wanted to carry out a terror attack. Should have been more like 40 years if not for the rest of his life.
His original sentence was indeterminate but was overruled by the court of appeal who amended it to the 16year, minimum of 8.

The entire process should at least ask some difficult questions of the prison release process. Reading articles back from 2013 during that appeal case the judges are quoted as saying the parole board are best placed to judge suitability for release.

"There is an argument for concluding that anyone convicted of such an offence should be incentivised to demonstrate that he can safely be released; such a decision is then better left to the Parole Board for consideration proximate in time to the date when release becomes possible."

Yet the parole board are saying it was an automatic release.

The Parole Board said it had no involvement in Khan's release, saying he "appears to have been released automatically on licence (as required by law)".

I would expect many people are under the impression that whilst 'minimum of' sentences are often low, that's tempered by the idea someone is reviewing suitability for release at the minimum duration and its not guaranteed. Seemingly that's not the case and it is simply an automatic release, rendering the 16 year bit meaningless.
 
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2011
Posts
324
Strict supervision? Really?

So again, in reality, he got 8 years...

Seems like a rather short sentence to give to someone who wanted to carry out a terror attack. Should have been more like 40 years if not for the rest of his life.
100% this.

He should never have been outside of prison in the first place.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
32,018
Location
Rutland
Tel Aviv Drill is the anti-suicide bomber version where multiple shots target the suspect’s motor cortex in an attempt to prevent them from triggering any SVIED they might be wearing. Doesn’t work if said SVIED is rigged with a deadman’s swtich

Clearly people have missed a trick. I'm expecting all police to armed with Narwhal tusks in future. Legendary.
 
Back
Top Bottom