On 07/01/2011 15:36, d wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:23:36 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" I would have to say no. I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.

If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

On the contrary, I think that an innocent person being deliberately shot
without warning by the police is one of the most serious things that can
go wrong in a democracy.

There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

With respect to the arming of the police, my preference would be for the
smallest possible number of guns to be around in Britain: if there's no
gun then there's no chance of anyone being shot by mistake. If more
police are using guns regularly, then there will be more shootings by
mistake.

See for instance http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com...8_toomany.html

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On Jan 7, 3:36*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:23:36 -0800 (PST)

bob wrote:
I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. *The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" *I would have to say no. *I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.




If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

B2003

Except that in the case of the Brazilian electrician, if that had been
the choice for the security services they should have intercepted him
before he travelled on two separate buses during his journey to
stockwell underground.

Unless of course they are so clever that they 'know' that potential
bombers are only going to explode themselves on sub-surface transport.

On Jan 7, 5:54*pm, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 07/01/2011 15:36, wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:23:36 -0800 (PST)
*wrote:
I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. *The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" *I would have to say no. *I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.

If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

On the contrary, I think that an innocent person being deliberately shot
without warning by the police is one of the most serious things that can
go wrong in a democracy.

There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

With respect to the arming of the police, my preference would be for the
smallest possible number of guns to be around in Britain: if there's no
gun then there's no chance of anyone being shot by mistake. *If more
police are using guns regularly, then there will be more shootings by
mistake.

See for instancehttp://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/police/08_toomany.html

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.


Also, people have a misguided notion that, at times of dissent, the
people become violent against the state. In fact, the state becomes
violent againts the people and does whatever it can to intimidate them
(as the police have demonstrated only too clearly in the last couple
of months).

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000
Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

On Jan 8, 6:18*am, MIG wrote:
On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:





On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

Meanwhile here on planet earth: The US State Department and British
Foreign Office are full of cowardly compromisers. There is a real
threat out there. We are at war, a war which has only just begun.

And, IMHO the police have shown commendable restraint while facing
gangs of vandals and thugs in Westminster. Would that they had taken
a more robust line. Rubber bullets and tear gas would soon restore
the streets to a civilized state.

MIG wrote:


The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

They're the choice of ANY violent government that despises its
electorate. Unfortunately, the Tories don't have a monopoly on that.

On Jan 8, 6:52*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 8, 6:18*am, MIG wrote:





On Jan 8, 1:57*pm, wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:54:36 +0000

Jeremy Double wrote:
There's a great difference between somebody being deprived of their life
by a deliberate act on the part of an agent of the state, and someone
being killed by the actions of a criminal.

No , theres no difference. Dead is dead.

Apart from anything else, arming all the police "ups the ante" and makes
them more likely to be targets for criminals.

So most of the world has got it wrong but little britain with its unarmed
police has it correct? Sorry , that just twee insular drivel. The british
police should have been armed from the day of their formation in the 19th
century.

B2003

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

There is far more threat to us from the people inventing the terror
alerts than from the religious loonys who would have no one listening
to them but for UK and US foreign policy.

Meanwhile here on planet earth: The US State Department and British
Foreign Office are full of cowardly compromisers. *There is a real
threat out there. *We are at war, a war which has only just begun.

And, IMHO the police have shown commendable restraint while facing
gangs of vandals and thugs in Westminster. *Would that they had taken
a more robust line. *Rubber bullets and tear gas would soon restore
the streets to a civilized state.

I was there and I am very very angry about what happened in front of
my eyes, and the unprovoked violence against children, elderly people
and anyone else in the path of the police baton and horse charges that
begain at 1530.

Perhaps you really are idiotic enough to believe that the police
attack at 1530 was somehow in response to minor vandalism that took
place at 1730 or 1930, after hours of unlawful imprisonment and
physical attacks.

However, given that I was there, I know that there was absolutely
nothing going on. I saw the police forming up according to a
prearranged schedule, not responding to anything external to them, and
charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

So, you've picked the wrong person to have an argument with and
confirmed what an idiot you are. You are exactly the sort of person
who constitutes a real threat to civilisation and decent values.

On Jan 8, 6:54*pm, "
wrote:
MIG wrote:

The more guns there are, the more people get shot.

I don't want any of the gangs in whose crossfire I may be caught to
have guns. *The police are just the most powerful gang which, for that
reason, are the first enforcement choice of a violent Tory government
that despises its electorate.

They're the choice of ANY violent government that despises its
electorate. *Unfortunately, the Tories don't have a monopoly on that.

Indeed not. I didn't mean to make a party political point, except
that it's quite shocking how violent this Tory government has become
in such a short space of time.

MIG ) wibbled on Saturday 08 January 2011 23:02:


However, given that I was there, I know that there was absolutely
nothing going on. I saw the police forming up according to a
prearranged schedule, not responding to anything external to them, and
charging with batons, horses and vans into a totally peaceful and
unsuspecting crowd, who would probably have gone home or to the pub if
they weren't kettled for hours thereafter.

and kettling lods of people including small children onto Westminster Bridge
for upto 8 hours in freezing conditions. And "they" make me get a CRB so I
can go on a school outing surrounded by teachers!

Here are cites with photos:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/de...le-risk-crush-
hillsborough

http://www.newleftproject.org/index....ge_Cuts_to_Un/

--
Tim Watts