Conflicting report - "dummy explosions - detonators only" - just now on
R5 - no one injured.

Simon Lane ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Conflicting report - "dummy explosions - detonators only" - just now on
R5 - no one injured.

Add a bus in Hackney to the list, too - but it looks intact from the shot
that's apparently of the bus in question.

LU's done a "Code Amber" and turfed everybody off everything.

Sensible precaution?
Bit jumpy?

Adrian wrote:
[...]
Add a bus in Hackney to the list, too - but it looks intact from the shot
that's apparently of the bus in question.

Windows blown out of bus but no one injured. No structural damage (R5).

Adrian wrote:
Sensible precaution?
Bit jumpy?

Real risk [1]? Or copycats who think it's "funny"?



[1] Not the best phrasing, but I cannot think of anything better at the
moment. Hopefully you know what I mean.



PhilD

--

In oups.com,
PhilD typed:

Adrian wrote:
Sensible precaution?
Bit jumpy?

Real risk [1]? Or copycats who think it's "funny"?



[1] Not the best phrasing, but I cannot think of anything better at
the moment. Hopefully you know what I mean.


It's safer to presume that it is a real risk in all incidents like this.

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the desired
aim!


--
Bob

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:10:18 GMT someone who may be "Bob Wood"
wrote this:-

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the desired
aim!

And the explosives are saved for another day.

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:10:18 GMT someone who may be "Bob Wood"
wrote this:-

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the
desired aim!

And the explosives are saved for another day.

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then? Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC), Mick wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:10:18 GMT someone who may be "Bob Wood"
wrote this:-

Without the injuries, we still have the massive disruption - the
desired aim!

And the explosives are saved for another day.

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then? Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

The problem is that hard cases make bad law. I tend to disagree with
David on most things, and I think that he tends to over-egg the
pudding when making his arguments, but he does have a valid point
here.

There is, in reality, little the government can do in terms of law
which will actually protect us against terrorism, especially
'home-grown terrorism'. After all, if there was some magic law which
could deal with the problem, it would have been introduced in the
1970s during the height of the IRA campaign.

It's a bugger, innit? We'd all like to think there was a solution open
to us, but the truth is that we aren't going to get someone standing
up saying "By Golly! I have _THE_ solution to the terrorism problem!",
because there simply isn't one.


The way to deal with terrorism is for our society (not our government)
to deal with it, and that means (for example) everyone being more
security aware ALL the time and EVERYWHERE, and of course the real
biggy which is our society actually recognising that we all, every
single one of us, have a responsibility for what happens in our
country, and everyone thus must make the effort to live and work
together, with our varied cultures integrating, rather than the slow
self-segregation of elements of the community which is all too
apparent if you come to places like Lincoln, never mind cities like
Birmingham which (as a former resident) I can tell you have what are
almost self-chosen ghettoes.

Integration and the understanding which comes with it is the only
thing which will (in the very long term) stop certain members of our
youth becoming extremists, whether they be right-wing, Muslim or
whatever extreme. Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
wrote this:-

It is also likely that it will encourage party politicians to do
what the terrorists want, reduce our freedoms even more.

Interested to know what your solution is then?

Do what Mr Liar said, continue as before. Terrorists want to change
the way things are done and they are succeeding when party
politicians reduce our freedoms even more.

Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

Emotional arguments don't make anyone safer. What matters is the
cold hard analysis.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:57:55 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mick"
wrote this:-

Or do we wait to you lose a
loved one before you start to think that something needs to be done.

I forgot to add yesterday. You are creating a distortion of my views
and then attacking that distortion. Not very useful.

The question is whether anything more can be done and if it can be
done whether it should be done. I did not suggest that nothing
should be done.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.