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

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 14:21

https://news.sky.com/story/police-d...n-bridge-amid-reports-of-shots-fired-11873505

Genuinley hope no one is injured...

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 14:46

XeNoN89 said:
How long until we get morons claiming this is a conspiracy so Tories get more votes?

3 seconds after your post it seemed xD

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 15:21

omnomnom said:
Really? Is that how low we are going now...just executing people on the spot?

Suspect was probably shot through fear of a bomb, we dont know what the guy was saying..

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 15:23

Officers have a right to go home today, if they though the man had explosives i fully support blowing the guys head off wven if he is unarmed.

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 15:25

Waiting for Corbyn "he should have been arrested."

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 15:30

omnomnom said:
If he's unarmed he should have been yes.

Not if there was reasonable suspicion to believe he had a suicide vest. Unarmed or not.

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 23:16

StriderX said:
I feel it's a little irrelevant what each incident was (hindsight...), they're still incidents in which a firearm was used, and it should be scrutinised each and every time it happens, regardless (to my knowledge this does occur, but it's just sensible to reiterate). I feel better in a society that is vigilant, and that is entirely my position.

Maybe i'm being overcautious, but I simply don't want to be in a situation decades (or years) down the line where the rules are being weakened or broken because society no longer cares.

I'd argue that is a very pessimistic view of human nature.

terley · 29 Nov 2019 at 23:50

thenewoc said:
Most people with a gun trained on them would be compliant and maybe for a moment it was thought he was, enough for an officer presumably to drag the member of public out of the way. The terrorist then choose to get up against the instructions being directed at him to stay down, he didn't and a skilled firearms officer judged it to be on balance a clear shot to neutralise the threat. We don't know at what point the vest was identified, whether the restrainer called it out or it was spotted whilst the restrainer was being pulled away. Whoever the firearms officer was made the call as it unfolded based on several bits of info, at worst if he wasn't a terrorist they knew he'd just stabbed 5 people so at worst it was a reasonable call that this wasn't time for a straw poll on what to do next.

Most suicide bombers would use that exact opportunity to detonate their explosives, i value the life of the officers more than the ability to prosecute the person.

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 20:47

VincentHanna said:
Come off it!

This guy committed a crime, was convicted, served his time and released all under a conservative government.

And you want to make it political against Corbyn somehow?

Under tory changes hed still be in prison, sentances arent retroactive

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 21:21

garnett said:
What's the evidence you base an assertion like this on?

Can you show it's anything more substantial than an unquestioning acceptance of something a Tory MP has posted on twitter?

IIRC the term would have been 12 years under current law.
https://www.ft.com/content/9710702a-31cf-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22f03

And sentances in the UK aren't retroactive, you can't be sent to prison for 4 years only for law changes to mean that same crime would get you 14 years. (for example)

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 21:23

FortuitousFluke said:
Good post. In response to those saying he's not a hero, he's a murderer, no, he's both.

This 2bh

A lot of people ive spoken to are saying "he should be set free, he's a hero!"

You can still be a hero yet be required to serve your time... Freeing the man devalues the life of the woman he killed.

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 21:36

garnett said:
Can't see it - pay-walled.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...19-02-11_Criminal_Sentences_Fact_Sheet_RA.pdf

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 22:00

Uther said:
''Usman Khan was given a sentence known as "imprisonment for public protection" (IPP) in February 2012 for his part in a terror plot, meaning he could not be released without the approval of the Parole Board.

First introduced by New Labour, IPPs had become controversial amid concerns they were being misused and keeping lower level offenders locked up indefinitely.

In September 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled they were "arbitrary and unlawful".

Three months later, IPPs were abolished by the Conservative-led coalition government and replaced with new beefed up fixed-term sentences...''
https://news.sky.com/story/london-b...ine-how-atrocity-influences-election-11874704

Im not saying conservative pre-2019 would've done any better, i'm just stating the fact that under new legislation this wouldn't have happened.

"IPPs were abolished by the Conservative-led coalition government and replaced with new beefed up fixed-term sentences."

Do you have any more information on that? its a big chance with very little description

terley · 30 Nov 2019 at 22:37

mmj_uk said:
Indeed, I can understand situations such as where parents don't want convicted paedophiles being left alone around their children but I don't think people should be hated for all eternity (and by everyone) based upon singular mistakes, you have to give them a chance to make amends. I tend to treat people as they treat me, anything bad they've done in the past is between them and the justice/rehabilitation system. Rehabilitation will never have a 100% success rate though unfortunately, so what do we just throw everyone in jail until the day they die?

The issue is, when you murder somone the sentence isn't just to remove a danger from society.. Its recompense for the life taken.

Of all crimes murder is different, you may be able to rehabilitate a murderer away from commiting a similar act in future, but the life taken is something that cannot be undone.

No amount off rehabilitation will ever restore the damage caused by murder.

terley · 1 Dec 2019 at 00:10

Em3bbs said:
Prison isn't supposed to be about getting revenge, that's nonsense.

Revenge:
"the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands."

Some may argue that imprisonment is harming somone, i'd argue that it only becomes that once you put people in solitary confinement and don't give them their basic human needs.

I have no issue in a society that if you murder somone by slicing their throat open with a knife, you are required to spend the rest of your mortal life locked away from society, and even if you have truly atoned for your sins and are no longer a threat to society then you can earn more privledges and move towards a prison facility that allows more freedoms. But you should serve your time as a punishment for taking that life.