Points to Ponder

[Merddin Emrys]

Why is it wrong to have right wing articles yet ok for left wing clap trap ?

[Ian]

I think in the case of the Gatestone bunch they seem to have a flexible relationship with accuracy and truth...

[Hugo]

With the General Election just two days away and in view of the recent terrorist atrocities, selecting a candidate is going to be extremely difficult.   
It may not boil down to the Party manifesto that you prefer, but to the Leader  that you would prefer to take us through Brexit and all the other issues that have raised their ugly heads recently.
My worry is a world with leaders like Trump, Corbyn, Kim Jong-un  and others.
Corbyn has got the backing of the Communist Party for this election but the disturbing things are his views on the IRA, the Jihadi John and Osama Bin Laden killings and his objection to anti terror laws in the past.
It doesn't give him the credentials as a leader of a party let alone a PM
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jihadi-john-dead-jeremy-corbyn-says-far-better-if-militant-had-been-in-tried-in-court-rather-than-a6733316.html

[Bosun]

Why is it wrong to have right wing articles yet ok for left wing clap trap ?

A nice balanced comment.

[Merddin Emrys]

I'm not trying to be balanced, I am inclined to the right wing. 

[DVT]

Surely the terrorist problem should not be a deciding factor as to who will be Prime Minister ... I would hope that every political party wants to rid us of the problem - so that needs all the parties to work together as one ... the person to be PM should be the one that would best "chair" such a committee.

Similarly with Brexit ... the country has decided (rightly or wrongly) so again the PM should be the person best able to negotiate the best deal for us, and that again needs some cross-party talking.

It grieves me, when watching any of the recent politicial debates, that the people who are supposedly running the country seem unable to have a sensible discussion without resorting to bickering and criticising each other.

[BMD]

Is getting killed on the roads a growing threat BMD?
Have Afghan hounds declared direct war on you and your way of life?

Those who try and put this threat into some kind of perspective, merely trivialise it.
You only feel complacent in this way because it hasn't affected YOU, YET!

I hope to God it never does, or your 'roses around the door' outlook on life will never be the same again.

Don't presume to know how I "feel". Someone close to me lost their daughter in such an atrocity. The ONLY thing available to him now is to try to put the events in some kind of perspective. As a writer and journalist, he puts all his energies into countering (with facts/humour) the panic and hysteria which extremists exploit. He understands that terrorists are *encouraged* by those overreactions.

"your 'roses around the door' outlook on life"?

Really, where do you get this insulting personal sh*t from? Save it for someone who actually fits your clueless presumptions. With respect.

[Neil]

Jeremy Corbyn to visit Colwyn Bay tommorow, between the remains of the pier and the skip at 2PM.

[Fester]

BMD, I think you are venting your spleen at the wrong target.
I'm on the side of RIGHT thinking people, and would love to eradicate all extremists from the world, from every end of the spectrum.  Thereby making your fear or anger unnecessary.

Your venom would be better channeled at those who commit such acts as you refer to, not me.
I'm just surprised that you originally thought that armed officers were doing more harm than good.
Now, as further atrocities unfold, I'm not sure what your view is.

[Ian]

I would be concerned that the idea of arming all police as standard would mark a seriously dangerous concession to terrorists everywhere. The long-term aim of mobs such as Daesh is the destabilisation of Western democratic institutions, because that would lead to chaos and it's only in chaotic situations that mobs like Daesh thrive.

And it's worth remembering that in the most heavily armed country in the world, the USA, the death rates from mass shootings, terrorism, homicide by shooting and death by shooting are the highest anywhere on the planet - by a significant margin. Arming everyone or every Police officer does not prevent attacks - especially from those committed to dying, anyway. Remember: a terrorist only has to succeed once.

 

[Ian]

The major issue surrounding terrorist tactics, sadly, is nothing to do with the terrorists. It's do with us, habituation and the media.

If we examine the three most recent events in terms of deaths and serious injuries terrorism is still one of the lowest causes of deaths and serious injuries in the UK. In the past seven years just over 30 people have been killed by terrorists in the UK. In the same period 10,197 people died on the roads. So why are we not more exercised about the slaughter taking place, year in, year out on the roads? Simply put, we've become used to it, so it's no longer particularly newsworthy.

Terrorism is still relatively rare, so when it happens it's blown up out of all proportion by the media in their relentless drive to increase sales revenue. But the fact is that arming all Police is a futile overreaction to a still rare event.

Most people in the UK who died through terrorist offences did so at the hands of the IRA and Loyalists in Northern Ireland. And there should be lessons there. That was where internment was introduced, that was where all Police were armed and the army sent in, and that was where the deaths and serious attacks simply continued and became worse. These are facts - recorded and available for anyone to find - and they make clear that simply ramping up levels of force doesn't actually work. It didn't work for the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan, the US when they invaded Vietnam, the Romans when they invaded Britain and so on.

The only way forward is to get the communities themselves to reject and report these people. It won't stop everything - it never has - but it has been shown repeatedly to achieve more than simply arming all the Police.

[DaveR]

I would be concerned that the idea of arming all police as standard would mark a seriously dangerous concession to terrorists everywhere. The long-term aim of mobs such as Daesh is the destabilisation of Western democratic institutions, because that would lead to chaos and it's only in chaotic situations that mobs like Daesh thrive.

And it's worth remembering that in the most heavily armed country in the world, the USA, the death rates from mass shootings, terrorism, homicide by shooting and death by shooting are the highest anywhere on the planet - by a significant margin. Arming everyone or every Police officer does not prevent attacks - especially from those committed to dying, anyway. Remember: a terrorist only has to succeed once.

But Police throughout the majority of Europe are armed as matter of routine? Only Ireland, Iceland & Norway do not have armed police. It's pleasant to think of the UK as a bastion of decency and civilised behaviour that does not require armed police, but the reality of life in the 21st Century is sadly different. We have seen several recent terrorist attacks where Police on the scene were unable to deal with the terrorist due to lack of a gun, and ended up dead/seriously injured as a result.

[Merddin Emrys]

The big difference is that the terrorist deaths are deliberate, the road deaths are accidental,  but we will all die of something in the end.

Quote,  Terrorism is still relatively rare, so when it happens it's blown up out of all proportion by the media in their relentless drive to increase sales revenue. But the fact is that arming all Police is a futile overreaction to a still rare event.

Blown up, probably an unfortunate choice of words in the circumstances.  The media are surely duty bound to cover such awful events as these terrorist attacks, but they get no revenue from me, I never buy newspapers.

[Ian]

Denmark doesn't arm all its police, neither do Switzerland, Austria, Finland, France, Germany,  the Netherlands, New Zealand, Jamaica, Australia, South Africa or Sweden.

But my point was really about having Police routinely armed with those MP5s. That's what we see most of the time, and they're remarkably indiscriminate weapons - a sort of 9mm fly spray, in effect. But when you say

We have seen several recent terrorist attacks where Police on the scene were unable to deal with the terrorist due to lack of a gun, and ended up dead/seriously injured as a result.

I can recall the officer who was stabbed in Westminster but not really any others. And the aspect that characterised all the recent attacks has been surprise. A lot of people can get killed by a vehicle before anyone can stop it or react.

When they do react, as in the most recent incident, they shot the attackers 50 odd times. The problem then is that you get no more information from them. And I do think the USA is an excellent case study as to why arming everyone - the logical extension of arming all police - is not necessarily the best idea. 

I'm not sure many think of the UK as 'a bastion of decency and civilised behaviour that does not require armed police', because there are many occasions which would suggest otherwise - I agree. But the simple fact is that although Teresa May presided over the greatest cuts to the Police force in years, when she reduced the force and armed officers from a high under Labour's administration, offences didn't rise and in fact fell. What was more striking was that the number of firearm offences plummeted.

So we obviously need armed response officers, but arming all the police is not going to be effective unless you have enough police to have one on every road in every town at every minute. Which, again, is just what Daesh would like us to do. Think of the Manchester attack.  How would armed police have saved anyone in that instance? No one noticed the attacker until he detonated his bomb.

Or think of the Westminster and London Bridge attacks. The heavily armed police killed them within minutes, yet by that time the damage had already been done. How would having armed police have stopped the vehicle mowing down the pedestrians?

It's very tempting and understandable to demand we arm all the police but every scrap of information we have tells us that it won't work.

[Ian]

The big difference is that the terrorist deaths are deliberate, the road deaths are accidental,  but we will all die of something in the end.

Blown up, probably an unfortunate choice of words in the circumstances.  The media are surely duty bound to cover such awful events as these terrorist attacks, but they get no revenue from me, I never buy newspapers.

Yes - I could have chosen my words rather better.