New terror attack

[Oldjohnw]

Our esteemed Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke six times is an interview today about 'counter terrorism offenders'.

Does anyone have a clue about what on earth she was talking about?

And stopping early release is not the answer. He'd have got out in another year so what would have changed given the total failure of our prison system to effect change?

[mattheus]

Our esteemed Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke six times is an interview today about 'counter terrorism offenders'.

Does anyone have a clue about what on earth she was talking about?

Yes!

And stopping early release is not the answer. He'd have got out in another year so what would have changed given the total failure of our prison system to effect change?

An excellent point.

[pwa]

Our esteemed Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke six times is an interview today about 'counter terrorism offenders'.

Does anyone have a clue about what on earth she was talking about?

And stopping early release is not the answer. He'd have got out in another year so what would have changed given the total failure of our prison system to effect change?

I thought she said that and then told myself I must have misheard. She's taking all the right words and assembling them, not necessarily in the right order!

That bloke should not have been released. He had been assessed as being a real risk but there was (reportedly) no legal mechanism to keep him locked away. So he was released to do his worst. There ought to be a system to assess and if necessary extend the detention indefinitely. Not just for terror offences. For all violent offenders.

[mjr]

Do his worst and his worst was taking some cutlery to Boots the chemist? I'm sorry to the people hurt and hope they recover but don't most modern terrorists seem much less scary than the ones most of us grew up with?

Alternatively, was this a great success for the police, following him and stopping him before he hurt any more? Of course, that doesn't fit with minister Patel's hang 'em stance.

[Marcus Aurelius]

That bloke should not have been released. He had been assessed as being a real risk but there was (reportedly) no legal mechanism to keep him locked away. So he was released to do his worst. There ought to be a system to assess and if necessary extend the detention indefinitely. Not just for terror offences. For all violent offenders.

I’d have made sure he was subject to an extraordinary rendition, the second he was released.

[Oldjohnw]

That bloke should not have been released. He had been assessed as being a real risk but there was (reportedly) no legal mechanism to keep him locked away. So he was released to do his worst. There ought to be a system to assess and if necessary extend the detention indefinitely. Not just for terror offences. For all violent offenders.

I’d have made sure he was subject to an extraordinary rendition, the second he was released.

There was legislation to keep him in until the Parole Board said he was ready, if at all. Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs), brought in by Jack Straw. It was rather blunt but it could have been smartened up. The current government repealed it and it lapsed to the default of 50% in prison and 50 % in the community.

Blair and Patel have a nerve blaming others.

I remain, however, concerned at extra judicial killings by police. It is easy to justify but is it becoming a pattern? A new normal?

[pwa]

That bloke should not have been released. He had been assessed as being a real risk but there was (reportedly) no legal mechanism to keep him locked away. So he was released to do his worst. There ought to be a system to assess and if necessary extend the detention indefinitely. Not just for terror offences. For all violent offenders.

I’d have made sure he was subject to an extraordinary rendition, the second he was released.

There was legislation to keep him in until the Parole Board said he was ready, if at all. Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPPs), brought in by Jack Straw. It was rather blunt but it could have been smartened up. The current government repealed it and it lapsed to the default of 50% in prison and 50 % in the community.

Blair and Patel have a nerve blaming others.

I remain, however, concerned at extra judicial killings by police. It is easy to justify but is it becoming a pattern? A new normal?

In this sort of instance I'd want the bloke down and immobile ASAP and if killing him does that, fine. There must be a protocol to be followed but once an attack has begun, as it had in this case, the primary concern is the safety of the public. We did have a case in the past where an innocent man was shot dead because it was thought wrongly that he was carrying a bomb, and that is of course the exact opposite of what we need, in that it is infliction of harm on the innocent rather than protection of the innocent. But once a knife is being waved about and blood has been drawn, I have no problem with lethal force being used.

[Oldjohnw]

I don't have a problem but we have to remember are not the USA: shoot first and ask questions later.

[pwa]

I don't have a problem but we have to remember are not the USA: shoot first and ask questions later.

I agree entirely. It probably helps if the armed officers are highly trained in use of firearms, including when not to use them.

[mercalia]

I could have been one of the victims. My neck of the woods +/- 20m. I would normaly go to Lidls where the event took place at that time +/- 30 minutes but decided to go to Sainsburys on the common instead as my m/c needed a run, other wise I would have been on my bike coming up behind ( the shooting ) along Pinfold road. so I am glad they shot him dead. Any comparisons with the USA are silly as it rarely happens here, in the USA it is the beat cops who are killing people, not anti terrorist squads

[Oldjohnw]

I hope it's silly.

Twice in a few weeks. And it does appear Johnson is keen to emulate his American master. Today named journalists were excluded from a Number 10 briefing. Others sensibly walked out.

We can't afford to be asleep on the job.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I remain, however, concerned at extra judicial killings by police. It is easy to justify but is it becoming a pattern? A new normal?

It’s a tactic taken from the Israeli military, specifically for apprehension of suspects with I.E.Ds ( suicide vests et.al.) or suspicion of. Essentially shoot at the shoulders, followed by the head. Hitting the shoulders prevents them using their arms, the head shot is to kill them. That explains the witness reports of 3 shots heard. It’s also specifically mandated for this type of incident only. The shooters weren’t police either, they were Special forces soldiers, deployed under the auspices of operation Samson.

[661-Pete]

I remain, however, concerned at extra judicial killings by police. It is easy to justify but is it becoming a pattern? A new normal?

Me too. There may be no alternative in this case, but if that individual had been restrained without any further harm to others, so that he could later stand fair trial, I'd have felt a lot more comfortable. And let's not forget Jean Charles de Menezes. An innocent man gunned down by police who mistook him for a terrorist wearing a suicide vest.

One of my nieces is married to a man of Brazilian origin, and I remember him once remarking, when the word "Stockwell" came up in conversation, "Dangerous place for someone like me to be..." Of course he wasn't speaking of danger from terrorists!

[pwa]

I remain, however, concerned at extra judicial killings by police. It is easy to justify but is it becoming a pattern? A new normal?

Me too. There may be no alternative in this case, but if that individual had been restrained without any further harm to others, so that he could later stand fair trial, I'd have felt a lot more comfortable. And let's not forget Jean Charles de Menezes. An innocent man gunned down by police who mistook him for a terrorist wearing a suicide vest.

One of my nieces is married to a man of Brazilian origin, and I remember him once remarking, when the word "Stockwell" came up in conversation, "Dangerous place for someone like me to be..." Of course he wasn't speaking of danger from terrorists!

That is indeed the cautionary tale we need to keep in mind when we talk about this topic. You can't rewind when you've killed an innocent man. But in this case an attack was underway so that danger was not present.

[Oldjohnw]

My worry is: Oh we don't need to properly deal with the problem. We'll just kill them.