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 17:42:03 +0100, Ross
wrote:

Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

A very wise statement.

May I also add to the pot the following two quotes?
1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter[1].
2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
nor security[2].

Very relevant in the current situation, and I'll give the Government
some credit (rare, that) for *not* overreacting to either incident.

I am, however, very disappointed (but not surprised) by some of the
rubbish that is being spouted by some members of the Great British
Public, including people seriously suggesting the idea of baggage
scans on LUL and buses, and someone in this week's Milton Keynes
Citizen suggesting that ID cards would in some way have helped prevent
either of these sets of attacks.

[1] An uncomfortable truth, but one we have to understand if we're
going to get anywhere near solving the issue. There is an
unwillingness to accept that seeking to understand terrorists and
their motivation is not the same thing as supporting them,
particularly among readers of low-end gutter tabloid newspapers.

[2] Or something to that effect.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 GMT, Neil Williams wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:42:03 +0100, Ross
wrote:

Without extremists, there is no terrorism.

A very wise statement.

Thanks.


[...]
I'll give the Government
some credit (rare, that) for *not* overreacting to either incident.

Must admit I was surprised, but I think that because it became clear
so quickly that this was a bit of a damp squib, it would have been
difficult for them to make a panic situation out of it.

Listening to BBC News 24 this afternoon there was an almost palpable
sense of disappointment (on the part of the anchors) that nothing
bigger had happened.


I am, however, very disappointed (but not surprised) by some of the
rubbish that is being spouted by some members of the Great British
Public, including people seriously suggesting the idea of baggage
scans on LUL and buses, and someone in this week's Milton Keynes
Citizen suggesting that ID cards would in some way have helped prevent
either of these sets of attacks.

As time goes by I become less and less enamoured of a significant
proportion of the Great British Public. I think it's partly due to
living in a city which is struggling to handle the year 2005 with
attitudes better suited to 1965, so perhaps I need to get back to a
big city where there's a tad more understanding of different cultures.


[1] An uncomfortable truth, but one we have to understand if we're
going to get anywhere near solving the issue. There is an
unwillingness to accept that seeking to understand terrorists and
their motivation is not the same thing as supporting them,
particularly among readers of low-end gutter tabloid newspapers.

Well, the writers of articles for publication in low-end, etc. I'm not
always sure how much attention people pay to the crap written in some
of the tabloids, beyond using it justify views they already hold. I
don't think people's opinions *change* as a result of the tabloids;
they just become more firmly held.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

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

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

Ian


--

On 22 Jul 2005 12:06:03 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

No, of course it doesn't. How does using a PIN infringe on your civil
liberties?

It isn't an absolute statement, anyway. The point is that I would
prefer to live in a society where unpleasant things happen
occasionally, and where if/when caught the perpetrators of said
unpleasant things are punished suitably[1], than in a police state.

(Similarly, I applaud the 15-year-old who overturned a curfew order
recently. Punish those who do cause trouble, and do it harshly, but
do not impinge on the freedoms of the innocent. I do not believe in
collective responsibility of that type).

[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

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


You probably won't appreciate me replying to your post, but the bit
I've snipped struck a chord with me, even if you didn't mean it the way
I've taken it.

I am very conscious of my failure to prevent Tony Blair from lining up
with George W to beat up the world in my name. I do object to anyone
trying to blow me up for this failure, but I recognise the failure for
what it is and don't expect to be seen as "innocent" by the victims of
it, or those who consider those victims to be their brothers.

We can do something about it, and we chose not to on 5 May.

On 21 Jul 2005 16:07:40 -0700, MIG wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:

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

You probably won't appreciate me replying to your post, but the bit
I've snipped struck a chord with me, even if you didn't mean it the way
I've taken it.

Actually, I do agree with the context you've chosen to use it in.


I am very conscious of my failure to prevent Tony Blair from lining up
with George W to beat up the world in my name. I do object to anyone
trying to blow me up for this failure, but I recognise the failure for
what it is and don't expect to be seen as "innocent" by the victims of
it, or those who consider those victims to be their brothers.

Quite. I just wish that in this supposedly enlightened age people
would realise that beating them up because they beat us up because we
beat them up because they beat us up (ad infinitum) simply doesn't
work. It's pointless.

I strongly object to people using Iraq débacle to further their own
twisted objectives, because I really do not believe that those who
instigate these things give a damn about Iraq or the Iraqis other than
as a justification, although I think the deluded fools they use as
cannon fodder do. But I'm also realistic enough to know that those
instigators don't give a damn what I think either.


We can do something about it, and we chose not to on 5 May.

I can honestly say that I voted against, but unfortunately in many
cases people felt there was no viable alternative.

--
Ross, Lincoln, UK

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