Lord of the Llamas posted:

If you want to kill an MP you don't try and do it by ram-raiding into Parliament. As the Jo Cox tragedy showed MPs are easily accessible in relatively vulnerable situations a ton of the time. The venue was deliberately chosen to be high profile but the violence was completely indiscriminate.

Seaside Loafer posted:

They would loose though wouldn't they, so kind-of a flawed concept. A flawed concept that means loads of people dieing and resources wasted on military crap instead of nice things. Who is the head guy in charge of Daesh, just stick him on the phone to me and i'll talk some sense into him, im sure he is a reasonable bloke once you get to know him, just got to talk some logic with him

Lid posted:

I find this view, and other mitigators, reprehensible. Its the same as the attack on Jo Cox, just because tge perpetrators change the actions do not. If you said this same poo poo at Cox's murder you would have justifiably referred to as a psychopath. Moral relativism is loving irritating.

Edit: mistook my Jo's because im an idiot

Spangly A posted:

I watched crap footage of a small number of people dying today and I'm just coming out of the shock. I don't disagree with you on principle but I find it really hard not to empathise with the foreign secretary having a man die bleeding over him.

jabby posted:

Jo Cox was killed, which was tragic. It would also have been tragic if any MPs were hurt/killed in this attack. Jo Cox's murder was also basically brushed aside and people were actively discouraged from discussing the motivation behind it. Think that will happen this time?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I don't know if they would lose, but that's for Clancy-wank threads. I also don't know if I'd trust a man who couldn't persuade a train company to open a toilet as our lead negotiator either, sorry.

Rakosi posted:

A lot of posters ITT unironically think the biggest thing wrong with Cox's murder was that she wasn't Tory or UKIP, if you read the thread when it happened. Dont be so surprised.

feedmegin posted:

I hope you eat a probation for this, tbh.

OwlFancier posted:

I'm not entirely comfortable with using a purely qualitative concept of "tragic" in that instance given that David Davis, for example, is an MP.

Rakosi posted:

Of course this isnt how you do it. Thats why hes dead and MPS are alive, but there is really no question as to why he tried to gain access to the building when MPs were sitting inside. Indiscriminate violence by definition usually excludes specific targets.

Rakosi posted:

jabby posted:

Jo Cox was killed, which was tragic. It would also have been tragic if any MPs were hurt/killed in this attack. Jo Cox's murder was also basically brushed aside and people were actively discouraged from discussing the motivation behind it. Think that will happen this time?


It was a foreign minister, but you're probably right. I just find it annoying that people like Michael Gove immediately took to the airwaves to talk about how horrific it was to hear the sound of gunshots. It's like you voted to take us to war several times, maybe you could make it less obvious you live in a well-insulated and safe bubble while others literally die to protect you.

Lord of the Llamas posted:

I disagree. It seems to be more an attack "at parliament" than "on parliament". You don't blow your load trying to run over children if you actually have any target in mind.

jabby posted:

It was a foreign minister, but you're probably right. I just find it annoying that people like Michael Gove immediately took to the airwaves to talk about how horrific it was to hear the sound of gunshots. It's like you voted to take us to war several times, maybe you could make it less obvious you live in a well-insulated and safe bubble while others literally die to protect you.

Rakosi posted:

We'll have to agree to disagree then. As much arguments can be made for each side of the point, and the guy who did it is dead, so.

Rakosi posted:

We'll have to agree to disagree then. As much arguments can be made for each side of the point, and the guy who did it is dead, so.

Lid posted:

Of course not, but justifying the attackers because of the not perfect victim won't make it ok. Yes they'll emphasise the other and be racists and xenophobes and attempt to implement shock doctrine. This does not in any way make what was done today ok nor that politicians should expect to be murdered or their murders justified because it aligns with a political view. Cox' murder being downplayed was heinous especially in the culture of brexit that caused it, it was utterly unconscionable and evil. That should be one of the most harrowing and impoetant political stories in twenty years.

Gonzo McFee posted:

So what rapist were you defending?

I'm assuming it was a white one.

TheHoodedClaw posted:

Channel 4 News just lost a lot of money in a libel case if this is true.

Lord of the Llamas posted:

How much more indiscriminate can you get than trying to run over children before you've even started your so called "plan"?

Seaside Loafer posted:

Do you reckon they were actually going for ramming in through the gates after the mowing people down hollywood film style? I wonder if in their fantasy they shot and stabbed their way to victory or something.

kingturnip posted:

I suspect he was told that he could totally get through the gates, man and it wasn't until he got close enough to Parliament that the second thoughts kicked in and he remembered that the police would probably guard the place pretty well.
Thus the 'drive on the pavement and gently caress whoever gets in the way' business.

OwlFancier posted:

I would imagine a change in tactics, less desire to instil fear. They can keep armed guards around without having to have them stationed outside the door.

Presumably the same reason you don't have a random SAS guy in a balaclava outside number 10 with a machinegun.

Cerv posted:

He could theoretically sue, but the judge would laugh him out of court when they got on to he damage to his reputation.

OwlFancier posted:

Presumably the same reason you don't have a random SAS guy in a balaclava outside number 10 with a machinegun.

Party Plane Jones posted:

Is there a reason why Parliament has unarmed guards on the exterior of the building these days? Last time I visited (admittedly it was summer 2006 so the 1 year anniversary of 7/7 hadn't come around yet) every guard and cop on the street was armed pretty heavily.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

British people really don't like seeing armed police. There's generally a couple of DPG* hanging around somewhere in the vicinity and a bunch of them inside, plus ARVs/Trojans all around, and presumably a shitload of DPG inside, but unless something big is up you'll almost never see armed cops actually out on the streets, and the Met continually get poo poo from both the public and politicians if they're too visible.

* Spotters/anoraks guide here - there are three main flavours of armed coppers on the streets of London:

Protection officers (still mostly known as Diplomatic Protection Group, as that was what they were originally established as) are the ones in the red police cars. They're responsible for protection of buildings and officials (government, royalty, and diplomatic) in and around Westminster. They're generally in normal Met uniform but with guns.

SCD19 (formerly known as SO19) are the guys who tool around in the Armed Response Vehicles (normally marked BMWs, the giveaway is the yellow dot on the rear quarter) and Trojans, unmarked cars that are still blatantly obvious because they're souped-up Range Rovers and saloons absolutely festooned with aerials with two scruffy buggers looking very out-of-place in front. Out and about they're normally in blue jumpsuits or combats and t-shirts with big body armour and ridiculous little jockey hats. They're all over London (every Met Division will have at least one ARV) and of course get called in whenever the Police need someone shooting at. They also have a couple of donated-by-the-FBI massive jeep things that look loving ridiculous in London.

Counter-Terrorism Command (SCD15) are the ones who go and kick in the doors of people who look at the wrong websites. They're mostly made up of the old Flying Squad, who originally did royal and political protection but had it taken away from them in the eighties so they could concentrate on armed robberies (and perfecting the handbrake turn in a Ford Capri while shouting "SHUT IT YOU SLAG" which is the main qualification for getting in). Ironically they were too successful (seriously, when was the last time you heard of a successful large-scale bank robbery?) and because nobody likes having heavily-armed people like that just sitting around thinking about people who have wronged them, they were merged with the existing Anti-Terrorist Command and given many more new toys. They exclusively use unmarked cars, but keep the old Sweeny SOP of having three officers per car - one driver, one navigator and one "observer" in the back who runs the radio. You can tell them apart from SCD19 because of this, and that they're always in plain clothes, and of course love themselves even more than the other lot above.

Ratjaculation posted:

Hey don't forget the 4th type either. The ones whose job it is is to follow innocent unarmed non-white people onto trains and shoot them in the head 13 times

goddamnedtwisto posted:

seriously, when was the last time you heard of a successful large-scale bank robbery?

goddamnedtwisto posted:

short scruffy buggers with extravagant facial hair