No real details yet... but looks like something has happened that may turn out to be more than a road traffic accident.
I was on the south end of that bridge earlier today. Spent a good day in London. Walked down to and over the Millennium bridge, down along the south bank to Tower Bridge and then back the other side.
Shocking if this is terror related.
|
Seen an image of a white van near a pup on the south end of the bridge. Also reports of stabbings and this possibly involving Borough Market. After visiting Southwark Cathedral we went through to market thinking of food and then went passed (and stopped at the point) where this van is stopped.
And then you start thinking one of the dead in the Manchester attack was a friend of someone close to the family... Small world.
Live life for now I guess. Stay safe.
|
Dreadful again!
Daughter was at the O2 last night for a concert and stayed over. If that was tonight I would be sick with worry until I got hold of her.
|
More than one fatality reported.
We were in Borough Market today. I stood where the van was abandoned for a few minutes deciding where to go next.
Dreadful is not strong enough a word.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 00:20
|
|
My wife has just arrived home from here birthday trip to Borough Market..wow, she says she was eating in ones of those places as people started running away, luckily got a train home from London Bridge before it was closed.
|
I was where this happened but earlier. But I don't think it would have been planned when I was there - the bridge was too busy with traffic (stop-start).
BBC saying the three suspects might have entered a bar/restaurant to attack people. Glad your wife and friends safe Rudedog.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 00:43
|
|
Thanks and yourself.. when something happens like this and you are so close to it it does make you think twice, I know my wife will be put off for a while.
|
Apart from it being 9 hours earlier we walked to Southwark Cathedral, into the food market at Borough Market and back to the bridge. We paused and looked at the area behind the cathedral where there was food/restaurant (new area for us)... and moved on.
So dropped down to the river, crossing at the south side of the bridge. Later on at Monument (the tower) and dropped down to the river and walked back.
So someone my youngest step son knew well as a friend died in the Manchester attack. And then hours earlier I was where this attack happened. I know of 6 degrees of separation but I'd like a bit more.
|
|
Actually 9 dead - 3 shot by police
|
>> 6 dead
>>
>> 48 injured.
>>
I wonder how long before we can mention the elephant in the room, the enemy within, without upsetting the man on the folding bike who is fixated by Hindus.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 08:07
|
>> I wonder how long before we can mention the elephant in the room, the enemy
>> within, without upsetting the man on the folding bike who is fixated by Hindus.
Can you illustrate this fixation?
Or is it another of your lies?
|
>>Elephant in the room.
Is that the Christians? I think the Catholic and Protestant sects still hold the records for the number of murders in the UK?
|
"I wonder how long before we can mention the elephant in the room,"
Oh, do relax, BBP; relax and feel enriched by the introduction of Middle Eastern culture into the boring British way of life. I was never too keen on morris-dancing, anyway.
|
>> I wonder how long before we can mention the elephant in the room, the enemy
>> within, without upsetting the man on the folding bike who is fixated by Hindus.
Stick to posting links from Wiki, at least that makes you look faintly intelligent.
|
>> Stick to posting links from Wiki, at least that makes you look faintly intelligent.
>>
....hmmmm; doesn't seem to be working here......
|
Pictorial in Daily Mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4569638/Car-ploughs-20-people-London-Bridge.html
Three Jihadi knifemen are shot dead by police after killing six and hurting 30: Gang yell 'This is for Allah' after mowing down crowd on London Bridge and then going from bar to bar in stabbing frenzy
|
"Three Jihadi knifemen are shot dead by police after killing six and hurting 30: Gang yell 'This is for Allah' after mowing down crowd on London Bridge and then going from bar to bar in stabbing frenzy."
So?
They were probably Islamic extremists who hate the West and everything it stands for.
Which we probably guessed fairly soon after the news unfolded.
What is your point, Brian?
|
I must admit this news upset me more than the Manchester attack, and I've been trying to analyse why.
I think it's because it took place in locations I know pretty well. (Sorry, Manchester - I know this is totally irrational.) I commute to college in SE London every so often. One route I take is to get off the train at Blackfriars and walk to London Bridge Station, where I get a Southern train. That walk takes me right by Borough Market.
It just seemed to hit home. The news came at a bad time, just before bed. Not a good night - sick to the back teeth.
|
Presumably wearing the bandoliers of hotdog sausages or whatever was to scare off 'have-a-go' heroes and also ensure a nice clean headshot (or 10) once the armed units caught up with them.
|
Deja vu.
Platitude central in full flow from the authorities on the TV this morning.
Without being able to suggest an acceptable solution myself - what can be done?
|
>>Without being able to suggest an acceptable solution myself - what can be done?
Probably very little, if anything. What we can do however is prevent inflaming matters in the future. Keeping out of other countries' problems wouldn't be a bad start.
|
So Daily Mail don't know difference between a car and a van?
Doesn't help convince of the accuracy of anything else they print?
|
Another tragic event.
I just hope the IPCC fast track their investigations of the events instead of letting them run and run. Looks like they are going to be busy as the current security situation develops.
Thoughts with the Officers who had to pull the trigger.
|
>> Another tragic event.
>>
>> I just hope the IPCC fast track their investigations of the events instead of letting
>> them run and run. Looks like they are going to be busy as the current
>> security situation develops.
>>
>> Thoughts with the Officers who had to pull the trigger.
>>
Always amazed at the first responders who head in to danger.
Thoughts for all the victims and especially to the apparently seriously injured British Transport Police officer who did just that. I hope he is honoured appropriately.
I think the IPCC will deal with this quickly. The terrorists had fake explosives attached to their bodies. There was no way the police would have thought they were fake and were therefore protecting themselves and the public.
(Eye witness on Sky suggested automatic weapons were used to kill the terrorists, so no messing about.)
|
>> Thoughts with the Officers who had to pull the trigger.
>>
Are they taken off firearms duties while being investigate?
If so, jihadis will have an easy means of neutralising Police armed response teams.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 12:12
|
>> Are they taken off firearms duties while being investigate?
>> If so, jihadis will have an easy means of neutralising Police armed response teams.
I believe that they are, but I can't see this processes taking too long.
And I can't believe that you are suggesting that we suspend due process?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 19:59
|
>> I believe that they are, but I can't see this processes taking too long.
>>
>> And I can't believe that you are suggesting that we suspend due process?
I would suspect while the terror threat is high, there is no way the Gov would dilute the resources with "process"
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 19:59
|
>> I would suspect while the terror threat is high, there is no way the Gov
>> would dilute the resources with "process"
Exactly that. I'd guess they'd be given some kind of debrief and leave if they need it. Return to duty when they're fit and ready.
Unless of course they've plugged the wrong guy again.
|
|
Collateral damage, sadly inevitable from time to time in a fast moving situation like yesterdays.
|
>> Collateral damage, sadly inevitable from time to time in a fast moving situation like yesterdays.
Yup stray shot, It wasn't a misidentified target, so its understandable and excusable.
|
>>Probably very little, if anything. What we can do however is prevent inflaming matters in the future. Keeping out of other countries' problems wouldn't be a bad start.
Totally.
But then we would need to build a time machine and go back to the East India Company (1600s).
There are a lot of things that could be done but are not, because it is not politically or economically convenient to do so.
One area that we don't do enough on is financial crime. In the industry, there are huge sums that a stolen each year that go to fund organised crime and potentially terrorism and we report them to our financial crimes units and they report it to the SFO but nothing really gets done because there aren't enough resources and not enough people understand how financial crime works and its implications.
Sort that out and we would be a much wealthier country and more secure.
|
>> So Daily Mail don't know difference between a car and a van?
>> Doesn't help convince of the accuracy of anything else they print?
>>
One typo and you condemn the whole newspaper?
Remember it is from a report first written at last night when the incident started.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 11:22
|
"One typo and you condemn the whole newspaper?"
1. The Mail doesn't need fresh ammunition for condemnation. It is endorsed only by those who feel right-wing sensationalism is better than news.
2. "Car" rather than "van" isn't a typo.
3. None of this addresses the issue you raised higher up this thread and which provoked some sharp responses from other posters, so I assume this post is a diversionary tactic.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 11:34
|
Theresa May says 'enough is enough'
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/03/london-bridge-closed-after-serious-police-incident-live?page=with:block-5933d49ee4b00493c8279288#block-5933d49ee4b00493c8279288
May says this is the third terror attack Britain has experienced in three months, after the Westminster and the Manchester Arena attacks.
The police have disrupted five credible attacks since the Westminster attack, May says.
The prime minister says we are seeing a new style of attack. People are copying each other.
Things need to change in four important ways, she says:
First, the attackers are bound together by Islamist extremism. It is an ideology that claims our values are incompatible with Islam. Defeating this is one of the great challenges of our time.
It will not be defeated by the maintenance of a counter-terrorism operation. It will only be turned around by persuading people are values are better.
Second, we cannot give the terrorists safe space. But that is what the internet provides.
May proposes to redouble international efforts to control extremism on the internet.
Third, there must be action at home.
May says there is “far too much tolerance of extremism in our countryâ€.
This will require some embarrassing and difficult conversations, she says.
Fourth, we need to review the counter-terrorism strategy, to ensure the police have the powers they need.
May proposes to review counter-terrorism laws, and suggests longer sentences for some offences.
|
>> But that is what the internet provides
Ok, shut down the internet then!....... Oh!
What she really wants is the right to read our personal encrypted communications. No thanks, mine are private for a reason. That reason being that I don't want others to know my business.
>> May proposes to review counter-terrorism laws, and suggests longer sentences for some offences
The current laws are more than sufficient. Catch someone. Prosecute them with conspiracy to commit murder. It gets a life sentence.
TBH her time on the plinth this morning was electioneering behind a "we are strong on terrorism and the causes of terrorism" speech. As I said yesterday, Thatcher, she aint!
|
The point is, they dont need access to encrypted comms. At the end of the day each and everyone of these eejits are known or have history, and have just slipped through the net.
And as far as the extremism being spread by the internet, it would be far better to shut down every newspaper and the TV news which reports these atrocities.
|
|
But all that must be done without over-reacting in a way which impinges on our basic freedoms, which is the terrorists goal. Shocking as this is, and without dismissing the impact on the victims and their families in worldwide terms it is a minor event.
|
BBC says:
"Speaking outside Downing Street moments ago, Theresa May said more action to deal with terrorism needed to be taken "here at home".
While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is - to be frank - far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations. But the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism, and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom."
Mrs May said there needs to be an international agreement to "regulate cyberspace" where extremists have "safe spaces".
We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet, and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide"
BBC: Theresa May's statement has prompted a lot of reaction on social media.
The Sunday Times' political editor tweets...
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound
Clear change in tone from May this time. Much more aggressive. Will it lead to anything?
10:45 AM - 4 Jun 2017
Editor of PoliticsHome.com tweets...
Kevin Schofield ✔ @PolhomeEditor
This is big. Theresa May calls for global effort to "regulate cyberspace" to crack down on online terror plots.
10:41 AM - 4 Jun 2017
And the BBC World Service's editorial director tweets...
Jamie Angus ✔ @grvlx001
To state the obvious, that PM statement went a lot further than a routine update on events. Takes in web, radicalisation and CT review
10:54 AM - 4 Jun 2017
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 12:11
|
Segregated Communities.
What a larf. Friends were told to leave a house they wanted to buy on cash terms in a very posh area because they were not English!
How many white householders refused Irish or black tenants.
How many white middle class families moved out of an area when the first Asian or black families moved in? Perhaps if they were accepted rather than shunned things would be different.
And yes there are cultural differences but the trick is to work with them rather than against them, the differences make the world a more interesting place.
|
>The Sunday Times' political editor tweets...
>Clear change in tone from May this time. Much more aggressive. Will it lead to anything?
What this means is "May is concerned about her image after being told she was being soft about Trump and the Paris accord"
Editor of PoliticsHome.com tweets...
This is big. Theresa May calls for global effort to "regulate cyberspace" to crack down on online terror plots.
She has absolutely no chance of international influence, after her subservient stance on Paris accord and our withdrawal from Europe" This country has no sway about anything anywhere, its just tough talk for the election
And the BBC World Service's editorial director tweets...
To state the obvious, that PM statement went a lot further than a routine update on events. Takes in web, radicalisation and CT review
10:54 AM - 4 Jun 2017
see point 1 above
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 12:35
|
Are you speaking of stuff from the last century/generation? Or are such happenings still going on?
EDIT: Response was to Zippy not Zero!!
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 12:46
|
>> Are you speaking of stuff from the last century/generation? Or are such happenings still going
>> on?
>>
>> EDIT: Response was to Zippy not Zero!!
>>
Both.
Very, recent experiences with friends.
Moving out of areas created ghettos which are still causing problems today.
|
The "ghettos" are not solely due to people moving out - anyone moving to a new area would naturally have a tendency to settle near those they have stuff in common with, including family, or nearby place of worship, or any other of 100s of factors. Just as I would likely do if I were moving to somewhere unknown abroad.
I also think that ghettos (or at least their UK version) exist in many UK towns regardless of ethnicity of the residents.
I'm worried that I'm sounding a bit UKIP, that's not the intent at all, far from it. But if there is any responsibility for lack of integration, it needs to be shared across all parties, and there is more to it than where people live.
|
Her statement seemed to me to ring of political campaigning - surprising since she had agreed that campaigning would be temporarily suspended.
|
>> Her statement seemed to me to ring of political campaigning - surprising since she had
>> agreed that campaigning would be temporarily suspended.
>>
Privileges of rank, so to speak.
|
>> Her statement seemed to me to ring of political campaigning - surprising since she had
>> agreed that campaigning would be temporarily suspended.
Yup, she'd have been much better to restrict herself to the expected condolences, assurances about security and anything else that needed to be said. She could then go on to say further actions will be needed but, in order to keep politics out, while these had been discussed at COBRA announcements be a matter for the incoming government.
Prescribing solutions, particularly something like controlling the internet which is in the Tory manifesto, makes her look opportunist (again!!!).
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 4 Jun 17 at 17:30
|
"This chap seems to see through May's empty rhetoric:"
Silly me - I thought she was going to magic them out of thin air.
|
>> I thought she was going to magic them out of thin air.
Maybe - that's where a fair number ended up under her watch as Home Sec.
|
>> Her statement seemed to me to ring of political campaigning - surprising since she had
>> agreed that campaigning would be temporarily suspended.
>>
>>
Oi! That's pretty much what I said here:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=24371&m=536463
|
>> Oi! That's pretty much what I said here:
>>
>> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=24371&m=536463
>>
That doesn't mean it's right!
I am quite happy for all of my comms and docs to be open to scrutiny by the relevant authorities - if that enable us to take one small step towards stamping out these atrocities the bring it on.
You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
|
>> You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
There are plenty reasons why that sort of thinking is a fallacy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument
www.aclu.org/blog/you-may-have-nothing-hide-you-still-have-something-fear
Do you believe that surveillance will be limited to terrorists and not quickly extended to nonviolent dissent? or to people who breach May's proposed restriction on internet pornography where anything that wouldn't pass muster for an 18 film would be illegal?
Nothing in this country's past record can give an iota of confidence that the surveillance mission won't creep forward. Look at police infiltration of environmental campaigns.
Fast track extradition to the US was justified for anti-terror reasons. The vast majority of those handed over have been accused of economic crimes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 5 Jun 17 at 10:53
|
>> You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
Are you being satirical or do you really mean that?
|
>> You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
>>
While I can understand concerns with this approach I do think for 90%+ of the population this is probably true. The vast majority of people never go close to the margins of activities that would show on anyone's radar.
Controls would be required but there is surely a discussion to be had and there must be some considered extra access to and use of data which could be explored without changing the whole nature of our society.
|
>>
>>
>> You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
>>
>>
As I've said on several previous occasions, anyone who has got to my age and never had anything to hide should have got out more.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 5 Jun 17 at 16:57
|
>>You should only be worried if you have something to hide.
True. And today, I haven't. But the fact that I do not wish to hide it, doesn't mean someone else has the right to know it. Neither does it mean that I will want it known in tomorrow's environment
What happens if in the future the BNP get into power and they would like to know the names of everybody who has a black relative?
Or some psuedo dictator gets in and would like to know details of everybody who doesn't like him and complains about him?
No doubt you will ask "Why do you want to know?", but they won't need to explain, they will have the right to know.
It is not whether or not I have something to hide, it is that nobody should have the *right* to know.
|
>> It is not whether or not I have something to hide, it is that nobody
>> should have the *right* to know.
>>
We're talking UK here - I totally disagree, much better that the relevant authorities have access if it catches just one psycho and saves just one life ....
|
>>We're talking UK here - I totally disagree, much better that the relevant authorities have access if it catches just one psycho and saves just one life ....
And here's me thinking the fact we're in the UK and not Zimbabwe was a reason to celebrate not living in an authoritarian Police State.
|
>> >>We're talking UK here - I totally disagree, much better that the relevant authorities have
>> access if it catches just one psycho and saves just one life ....
>>
>> And here's me thinking the fact we're in the UK and not Zimbabwe was a
>> reason to celebrate not living in an authoritarian Police State.
>>
That completely misses the point.
If the police, the SOs and/or MIs have clear reasons to suspect they should be able to apply to be able access that suspect's comms, email traffic, SMS and social media stuff.
It wont affect you or I as we are not plotting terrorist attacks, and if there is any price to pay it's a very small price for just one life, yet alone the kind of atrocities we have seen recently.
|
|
The law would enable either. You are relying on the forces remaining benevolent.
|
Words of wisdom well said Zippy.
Pat
|
It seems to me that either we are saying that one terrorist incident can suspend the democratic process, or we have to say it's business as usual.
But arguing over the rights and wrongs of each course, and then criticising and point scoring over whatever is decided simply transforms a political debate into the usual carping and recrimination that is all we seem to do nowadays.
If this is serious, eg a "war on terrorism", then we should suspend general elections for the duration as happened in the war. But if it isn't, and we can handle it comfortably with the resources and processes we have to hand, then just get on with it and let life carry on.
|
>> It seems to me that either we are saying that one terrorist incident can suspend
>> for the duration as happened in the war. But if it isn't, and we can
>> handle it comfortably with the resources and processes we have to hand, then just get
>> on with it and let life carry on.
Absolutely, Taken in a clear calm rational view, without all the media rhetoric, this is just another terrorism incident. Ones that London and Manchester and Birmingham et all have faced more or less for the last half century. Life, our lives, our way of life, progress and change goes on as it has always done, and this incident and incidents is a mere pinprick.
|
>> this incident and incidents is a mere pinprick.
>>
Until one of your loved ones is killed or severely injured.
|
>> >> this incident and incidents is a mere pinprick.
>> >>
>>
>> Until one of your loved ones is killed or severely injured.
More chance of dying of cancer. Or being killed on the road.
Its a pinprick.
|
|
More than a 1,000 people die every year as a result of falling down the stairs.
|
"More than a 1,000 people die every year as a result of falling down the stairs."
So a bit of terrorism here and there shouldn't be any cause for alarm, eh?
|
>> "More than a 1,000 people die every year as a result of falling down the
>> stairs."
>>
>> So a bit of terrorism here and there shouldn't be any cause for alarm, eh?
You wait till ISIS gets armed with stairs, then we are deep in the foo foo
|
Statistically no. The chances of being killed by a terrorist in the U.K. are so remote they can be safely ignored.
Not saying that terrorism doesn't need a response or that for those injured and killed those iit is not desperately sad though.
We just need to keep the threat in proportion and try not to let it affect our lives.
|
There's no comparison.
Falling down stairs or having an RTA are unfortunate occasional outcomes because all aspects of daily life carry some risk.
However that risk should not include deranged nutters with 12" blades running amok.
Therefore while we need to keep the threat in proportion our response needs to be disproportionate relative to the risk of falling down stairs etc so as to maintain the values we live our lives by.
|
"There's no comparison."
I never said there was. Just pointing out that the risk of dying as a result of terrorism is very very small. Something to keep in mind.
|
>> There's no comparison.
>>
>> Falling down stairs or having an RTA are unfortunate occasional outcomes because all aspects of
>> daily life carry some risk.
>>
>> However that risk should not include deranged nutters with 12" blades running amok.
>>
>> Therefore while we need to keep the threat in proportion our response needs to be
>> disproportionate relative to the risk of falling down stairs etc so as to maintain the
>> values we live our lives by.
Wrong on every level. Only when and if we treat terrorist threats like an everyday risk, does the purpose of terrorism loose its effectiveness and value. At that point they stop.
|
Does anyone know how long a firearms officer who discharges a weapon and kills is then stood down from active duty until the IPCC completes their investigations?
I ask and wonder because in London 8 officers presumably are currently not able to carry weapons. So if we had too many nutters willing to be shot by the police then we'd eventually have too few armed police active.
|
>> Words fail me.
>>
"the fences left anyone cycling totally unprotected and suggested they should be between the cycle lane and the road instead"
Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me ...
|
|
I hope someone in authority has the guts to tell them if hey don't like it push their bike across on the safe side of the barrier.
|
There's a good reason why cyclists are always moaning. They are the ones who get dedded when there is unintended contact.
What is wrong with voicing concerns? The barriers could have been put between the traffic lane and the cycle lane.
The barriers seem a good idea, but regardless of the crush hazard the cyclists would be just as vulnerable as pedestrians in the event of a another car/van attack.
|
So in trying to solve one problem the barriers have created another. As Guardian correspondent says The high concrete barriers on Westminster (and one side of Lambeth) bridge make sense for security, but could be perilous for cyclists.
Why shouldn't cyclists voice concern and ask if there's a better solution?
You'd be on the case quick enough if security measures slowed traffic and messed with driver's hours.
|
They won't reduce the frequency of attacks, just shift them elsewhere.
But then that's maybe what the Westminsterian NIMBYs want.
|
Its several decades since I was last in London - what is the fascination with bridges for these murders?
Are there not likely to be more casualties if you mounted a pavement down Oxford St or other busy shopping area?
|
>> Are there not likely to be more casualties if you mounted a pavement down Oxford
>> St or other busy shopping area?
People can dodge into shop doorways and hide behind street furniture/barriers. There is none on a bridge, you trap the people against the bridge sides.
|
>>what is the fascination with bridges for these murders?
Maybe that they usually guarantee straight bits of roadway to get up momentum. They also act as funnels, concentrating pedestrian traffic.
|
|
May simply be a lack of imagination on the part of the perps... it worked once so let's do it again.
|
Check Zeros's answer from last night
On a bridge there is nowhere to dodge to except the river
|
I walked across Waterloo Bridge this morning and a temporary barrier has been erected between the road and pavement on one side (which was much busier than usual). I'm not sure if it's linked to the London Bridge attack, but it seems to be a relatively recent installation.
|
>> I'm not
>> sure if it's linked to the London Bridge attack, but it seems to be a
>> relatively recent installation.
>>
news.sky.com/story/anti-terror-barriers-installed-on-three-key-london-bridges-10904977
"Large concrete barriers have been installed overnight at Waterloo, Lambeth and Westminster bridges.
Police have also been guarding the capital's main bridges in order to stave off any potential "copycat" attacks.
It has been reported that London's municipal governing body, City of London Corporation (COLC), ruled out installing anti-terror bollards in the London Bridge area just 24 hours before the attack."
I think the layout of the barriers could be much improved to aid flow of pedestrian while still protecting them from attacks from vehicles. I won't go in to details here.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Tue 6 Jun 17 at 10:01
|
Westminster Bridge and London Bridge are iconic and known throughout the world so a high-value target for monsters with a one-way ticket to their version of Valhalla.
Tower Bridge would have been high on their list if it wasn't for the barriers: preview.tinyurl.com/ya53rpm3
|
>> Its several decades since I was last in London - what is the fascination with
>> bridges for these murders?
>>
They go for iconic symbols. A byproduct of choosing these strategic transport links is the disruption from closures that result from a couple of days of forensic work.
Westminster may have been chosen for proximity to Parliament. It is usually crammed full of pedestrian tourists taking photos of "Big Ben" and of the "London Eye".
Similarly, London Bridge has now become a very popular tourist spot for taking photos of the lit up Tower Bridge and of London skyline.
The second one may have just been a copycat, i.e. which bridge to pick after the first one.
As for other other locations for "more casualties", I wouldn't want to give them ideas if they are so dumb not to know them already!
|
>>
>> Why shouldn't cyclists voice concern and ask if there's a better solution?
>>
>> You'd be on the case quick enough if security measures slowed traffic and messed with
>> driver's hours.
>>
Now that is where you are completely wrong Bromp, and you really should stop tarring lorry drivers with the same brush as cyclists.
I can speak from first hand on this one as yesterday morning at 5.30am all of my trainees for the day turned up absolutely appalled at the news of the attacks the night before and they continued to find more information as it unfolded during the course of the day when we had a break in the session.
We discussed the lorry hijacking in the Berlin attack and how easy it would be for that to happen here, we discussed restrictions which could be imposed to prevent it and it would impact lorry drivers and the work we do but all, without fail were in agreement that any restrictions would be justified and worthwhile.
All this, I might add, was with an unexpected auditor present to check the course was being carried out correctly, factually, legally and within the JAUPT guidelines.
We then went on to do the section on VRU's and, despite my own feelings I have to remain neutral and suggest that we all share the road, we are all entitled to the same space, we all need to consider each other and take that extra bit of care to ensure the safety of cyclists.
I countered all of their arguments, namely, that cyclists must be prepared to do that too, but when you come back with remarks like that I wonder why I bother.
The cyclists could, if they feel in danger, actually get off and walk across the bridges. It may well put a minute or two on their journey but it surely would be worth it to ensure the safety of others?
This was a hurried measure to protect as many people as possible but the minority had to have their say immediately and complain about it, didn't they?
London cyclists never seem to think of just how much they endear themselves to other road users with this sort of action.
They really do thin k the world revolves around them and only them as road users.
While they have this sort of reaction then those of us, who for years have tried to do our bit, to ensure their safety whenever possible, are weeing in the wind.
Pat
|
I wonder if it's too much to ask that when cyclists, or any other sub group of road users for that matter, are mentioned, that the word "some" is inserted as a preface?
There are plenty of people who cycle in the community without ever coming into conflict with, or causing any inconvenience to anyone. Just as there are plenty of, for example, lorry drivers who are courteous and empathic to those using the same roads as they are.
But it should surprise no one, and certainly not leave anyone speechless, that "some" in any group, are not so caring.
Dont you think?
|
I do agree Humph and of course I'm guilty of appearing to do that in print!
When I talk of cyclists I do mean London cyclists who are a completely different bread to those we meet every day on the roads around the country
By and large those are considerate when we get stuck behind them, aware of their surroundings and a wave is exchanged by both road users....exactly how it should be.
In the same context, when Bromp writes of lorry drivers he thinks of tipper drivers or small construction lorries, paid on a bonus scheme with a dodgy employer and even dodgier maintenance.
Of course, like you I take great offence to being classified with the few bad ones in our sector of road users.
....but I do take your point:)
What angers me is that in the commercial Press that I (have) to read, the websites and HGV related forums I have to keep up with a complaint like that, coming so quickly and so loudly from the London cyclists (see what I did there!) completely alienates them from us and confirms all the complaints I hear from them.
Pat
|
|
So the cyclists want to be protected by the barriers as well? Presumably then they'd be cycling with the pedestrians. Something SOME cyclists have shown themselves incapable of doing responsibly.
|
Was in London yesterday for a ride with London Brompton Club. Route from Euston to start took me over Waterloo Bridge. Three photos below, one augmented by my Brompton, show current layout.
goo.gl/photos/h86LTtN6Mhy98npF9
Steel barriers have been erected along whole of bridge on both sides. As first pic shows there are concrete structures at either end to prevent vehicles driving up inside of barrier.
They barriers abut the kerb and are presumably bolted to the structure.
The bridge has long had kerbside cycle lanes in both directions. As third photo shows the barrier reduces their width to less than a handlebar. This design is always, inadequate suggesting that space close to kerb is safe when it's actually the complete opposite, now worse. Barriers have removed the escape route onto the pavement and would grate you up like cheese if forced against them.
The nearside traffic lanes on main part of bridge are bus lanes for 12+ hours a day and, on Brompton I'm happy to ride out and mix it with busses. Would probably do same with other traffic outwith bus lane hours too. I an however reasonably confident and a Brompton is nippy and manoeuvrable. A more nervous and less experienced rider and/or a cumbersome bike, say a tourist a Santander hire jobbie, will inevitably hug the barrier.
Somebody will be squished before summer's out.
|
>> Somebody will be squished before summer's out.
Yeah but the hundreds of people on the pavement will be safe, and you could get off your bike and walk it over with them
It's not all about cyclists you know
|
>> It's not all about cyclists you know
Stay under your bridge, I'm not biting.
|
|
I assume the person that red-faced my factual and rather mild post is not bromp, because he is nowhere near that pathetic and sad. What an amoeba
|
>> Yeah but the hundreds of people on the pavement will be safe, and you could
>> get off your bike and walk it over with them
>>
>> It's not all about cyclists you know
And breathe!!
'If you don't like it get off and push' is the standard pathetic response to any hint that cycling facilities are dangerous or inadequate. ON was in there like a rat up a drainpipe with same suggestion witihn minutes of Pat's original expression of outrage.
Maybe, just maybe, we can protect the pavements but also take action to mitigate the risk to cyclists. Removing the old kerbside bike lane markings, making the bus lane more obvious shared space like on the CS routes and extending it's operating hours would be a start.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 2 Jul 17 at 21:00
|
>>I'm not biting.
Ummm......??
|
>> 'If you don't like it get off and push' is the standard pathetic response to
>> any hint that cycling facilities are dangerous or inadequate. ON was in there like a
>> rat up a drainpipe with same suggestion witihn minutes of Pat's original expression of outrage.
>>
I think that is a clear case of exaggeration Bromp.
My initial response was 'Words fail me' followed by this remark
'This was a hurried measure to protect as many people as possible but the minority had to have their say immediately and complain about it, didn't they?'
My stance hasn't changed and that was the correct immediate action to take.
Cyclists now have the opportunity to make suggestions for improvements to the way it was hurriedly put in as an emergency answer to protect the public.........and should do so.
It was the speed of their response to condemn something designed to protect everyone, including cyclists should they choose to dismount and walk over the bridge, that I disagreed with.
Pat
|
Pat,
The remark about pushing was a response to Zero being provocative rather than constructive. An unfortunate characteristic of his from which you suffer more than I do.
If you read the comments from the cyclists quoted in the ES article you linked to they're pretty well all along the lines of hang on a minute; recognise need is this best means of implementation?
The crush risk is obvious, why wait to point that out.
|
|
The crush risk is certainly there and if I was a London cyclist I would choose to walk across the bridge with the bike rather than risk being squashed. And I'd recognise protecting the pedestrians on bridges is needed. The trouble is there is no more room to accommodate a barrier and cyclists.
|
Could they not have reduced the pavement space to install the protection?
Presumably they couldn't keep the cyclists within the protected area because the road would be too narrow for buses etc.
Maybe they should widen the bridge and add a cycle lane on the outside ;-) Or underneath.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 2 Jul 17 at 22:56
|
London’s Muslim community:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/05/london-attack-isis-claims-responsibility-victims-named-live-updates?page=with:block-59357098e4b0bdd87e2f38dd#block-59357098e4b0bdd87e2f38dd
This terrorist attack is an attack on all communities, including Muslim communities.
Every time a terrorist attack takes place, Muslim communities either face or fear a backlash against them. The Muslim community appeals to all sections within their own communities to root out the scourge of terrorism which hides amongst their own people and masquerades as Islam.
The Muslim community is alarmed and concerned that this attack by three people would have required planning and yet was not reported. It is the Islamic duty of every Muslim to be loyal to the country in which they live and we are now asking questions to understand how extremism and hatred has taken hold within some elements of our own communities.
Terrorism and extremism is hurting Islam. Muslims must do more to stop such attacks from happening again and we want to know how we can play a greater role in the future.
|
|
It'd be handy Brian if you put quotes around the parts of your posts which are quotes, or put it in italics, like others do. It's not a biggy, just that I expected to see something different from what was in the your post when I opened the link.
|
>> It'd be handy Brian if you put quotes
>>
Apologies.
|
It is inpossible for any services to prevent attacks like this.They will pick their targets at random and in a city like London the choice is unlimited.
All very sad and unnerving what is going on this moment in time.As always the innocent are killed or injured.Terrible events in Manchester and London.
|
>> It is inpossible for any services to prevent attacks like this.
>>
I agree. One of the killers was known to MI5 and the Police. The only way to stop other 23,000 jihadists like him is if they are locked up for their ideology or are constantly followed and watched by the Police or security services.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq
"Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers"
|
Sadiq Khan's statement in yesterday's Evening Standard (05 June 2017 West End Final edition, page 14) could have been better worded. His words could imply that these attacks would be less objectionable if not carried out during Ramadan month.
"Sadiq Khan: This sickening act has nothing to do with the Islam I know
To murder innocent people, especially during Ramadan, is a rejection of the true values of my religion".
Surely the killing of civilians has to be unacceptable and abhorrent to the same degree, regardless of the time of the year.
|
>> Surely the killing of civilians has to be unacceptable and abhorrent to the same degree,
>> regardless of the time of the year.
>>
Of course it is abhorrent any time but his statement is no different to someone else saying "especially children" about the Manchester bomb. His words don't imply that the acts would ever be less objectionable.
|
>> Of course it is abhorrent any time but his statement is no different to someone
>> else saying "especially children" about the Manchester bomb. His words don't imply that the acts
>> would ever be less objectionable.
Not merely imply. His words state that attack was more objectionable because it was during Ramadan. The corollary is that it would have been less objectionable outside Ramadan.
It is quite different from saying "especially children." There is a long and noble tradition of "women and children first". Children have an innocence to them, which is why they are regarded as a particularly evil target. That's why children were evacuated from the big cities during the war.
I'm sure he didn't *mean* the attacks would have been more acceptable outside Ramadan. But he wrote it.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 6 Jun 17 at 12:23
|
>> Not merely imply. His words state that attack was more objectionable because it was during Ramadan. The corollary is that it would have been less objectionable outside Ramadan.
Agree. As a mayor of London he should have been more careful. He also wanted to water down the attack as just new normal (for which Trump was furious - and I agree with Trump).
A much more stronger response would have been "I am so disgusted of this act of terrorism that I denounce my religion from now on".
|
Movi, as a generalisation, people of Islam faith are pretty dedicated to their religion, and are not likely to renounce it due to the actions of a handful of extremists.
Trump took half of Khan's comment completely out of context to score points against Khan in their ongoing battle.
As is all too common these days people are over-analysing and reading stuff into statements and comments which simply isn't there, to satisfy their own agenda. Very easy pickings to be had.
|
> I'm sure he didn't *mean* the attacks would have been more acceptable outside Ramadan. But
>> he wrote it.
>>
I think you're trying to read something that's not there. If it had happened in December, and replace ramadan with Christmas and no one would have picked up on it.
|
I didn't believe you. I thought you were spreading fake news. But here it is:
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sadiq-khan-this-sickening-act-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-islam-i-know-a3557116.html
"To murder innocent people, especially during Ramadan, is a rejection of the true values of my religion."
|
"This sickening act has nothing to do with the Islam I know. To murder innocent people, especially during Ramadan, is a rejection of the true values of my religion"
Remove the bit between the commas and all becomes clear. He is saying that the murders are not in alignment with his religion. Then he qualifies it by saying even more so when they are supposed to be observing their Five Pillars of Islam.
|
There is a significant difference between
"To murder innocent people, especially during Ramadan, is a rejection of the true values of my religion" which is what he said
and
"To murder innocent people during Ramadan is a rejection of the true values of my religion."
Is it really any different to Theresa Villiers, when a bomb went off in Belfast in December 2013 -
"It's particularly callous to carry out this sort of attack at a time when people are starting their festive celebrations or maybe finishing their Christmas shopping"
|
Villiers' comments were a bit crass too; now you mention it I recall thinking so at the time (or maybe some other politician and some other atrocity at Christmas).
The distinction is that SQ said that for a Muslim to murder somebody is wrong, and the act of committing murder is especially wrong during Ramadan. (That, Smokie, is exactly what the phrase in apposition - between the commas - is pointing out.)
TV, on the other hand, was sympathising with the victims and saying it was worse for the victim because it was Christmas. Personally I think it makes diddly squat difference when it happens.
So yes, it really is completely different. TV did not say 'A Christian should not have done it because it was Christmas'.
|
|
Did I say something else? Never mind, that's essentially what I meant...
|
>> Did I say something else? Never mind, that's essentially what I meant...
Think I misread you...
|
It took about 10 seconds from Police arriving on scene to completely neutralise the terrorists.
Amazing video:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4582194/Video-shows-moment-London-Bridge-terrorists-shot-police.html
|
I would have been very proud
Had they put the handbrake on and the vehicle hadn't rolled down the road........
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 7 Jun 17 at 22:21
|
I feel for the blurred out victim. Those animals didn't give him or her a moments thought before plunging the blade in.
The coppers did the right thing by putting them out of our misery. They were clearly wild animals.
|
|
Nice work. Surely they must have had some idea what they were looking for, how many etc, there's no way they could have sussed it out that quickly. You have to admire their courage, decisiveness and speed of reaction though.
|
>> Nice work. Surely they must have had some idea what they were looking for, how
>> many etc, there's no way they could have sussed it out that quickly. You have
>> to admire their courage, decisiveness and speed of reaction though.
The fake bomb vests was a big clue, and SOP for the armed police when faced with that, is to put a lot of bullets into the target very quickly and ask questions later.
|
|
Anti terrorist police in this country now have a policy of confront rather than contain. They will engage the perpetrators as soon as they arrive on the scene, a method which worked well in this case. Considering how only specialised units here are armed our police are far more efficient in dealing with these incidents than those in other countries where all officers routinely carry guns.
|
|
Most regular police in westernised countries carry a side arm only, not all out police are armed, but those that are, are now equipped to zip you in half
|
not all out police
>> are armed, but those that are, are now equipped to zip you in half
>>
I think there's some 'super' armed response team in london. Counter terrorist force or some such, the training is supposed to be hard, ~40% drop out rate. Allegedly trained by the SAS, there was an article by the bbc all about them.
|
How many different channels of conversation are happening when something like this occurs?
I assumed the armed guys were all linked and listening to each other? But other videos that show the police all descending, are they all following the one feed or would they all have been getting directed by different feeds and units?
in one way, you would hope that they were all being told the same thing but reality there was so much going on it would need to be broken down?
|
Looking at some of the pictures I believe Special Forces are on the streets.
As regards communications I would imagine that a number of channels would be operating.
can you imagine the number of calls that would be entering the command centre at the same time with different information and two locations - London Bridge and Borough Market areas?
I would imagine that initial deployment with a message would be along the lines of 'potential terrorist incident/s' with the location/s. Mass response perhaps to pre designated locations. Potentialy self-deployed once out there they would have to deal with what they found.
Controlled chaots in the early stages as dynamic situations usually are.
|
Would like to see a posthumous bravery award to the nurse, Kirsty Boden who ran to help victims of what she thought was a crash.
Another to Ignacio Echeverria who went after one of the attackers armed only with his skateboard.
And finally, but far from least to the (unnamed I think) injured BTP officer who went in to the fray with only his truncheon, probably knowing that he was all that was between the terrorists and the public. A very brave man.
|
|
I'd like to see some kind of national thanks to Ariana Grande, too.
|
Van Strikes People on London Bridge - rtj70
