London Attack

[Xtractorfan]

Whilst I'm sure the failure to set the parking brake was an oversight, with hindsight, the potential to have a Suicide Vest in front of one, and a fueled vehicle to the rear, perhaps it was best that it was 'allowed to roll on'.

Brave Officers. They, and their families, will have to live with the memories of that evening for the rest of their lives.

It's what they volunteered/were trained for but, no amount of training can erase the memories of what happened on that particular day.

Thoughts for the Officers involved.

The officers acted as they should have with urgency and direct, I do get the feeling that they will see what they did as necessary and correct in the circumstances, and not have the after thoughts that in some way they weren't justified.

 

[Craiglxviii]

You don't have to tell me Craig....

No, I'm sure your armchair experience far outweighs mine

 

[Naraic]

Chilling news this morning...they tried to hire a 7.5 tonne truck but their credit card was refused.

 

[Xtractorfan]

No, I'm sure your armchair experience far outweighs mine

No actually.. the number of things you have posted and then had to admit you were wrong.... Annnd... not taking into account the amount of tripe you have posted that you have yet to apologise for, but don't worry we all love you...And there is no need to change your name to Theresa.

 

[Craiglxviii]

No actually.. the number of things you have posted and then had to admit you were wrong.... Annnd... not taking into account the amount of tripe you have posted that you have yet to apologise for, but don't worry we all love you...And there is no need to change your name to Theresa.

No actually. Name some. Please. Do you mean the detail corrections on CT stuff that Carl comes out with- a guy 100% current and read into a subject I've not touched even peripherally in a decade? Or the stuff your pet Welshman- or you, perhaps- disagreed with, assuming you were right when you patently weren't? Or just general things like the snap election, hmm? I'll freely admit to being wrong on that. With the rest of the country.

Or do you mean technically, where, you know, I'm a technical design consultant for the Big Four automakers amongst others?

As to what I have to apologise for, my dear boy, you are funny. But perhaps you would like to change your name to PRWales?

 

[Craiglxviii]

Not quite the trained drill chap but close enough.

I didn't want to get into body T's here

 

[triumphstag]

No actually.. the number of things you have posted and then had to admit you were wrong.... Annnd... not taking into account the amount of tripe you have posted that you have yet to apologise for, but don't worry we all love you...And there is no need to change your name to Theresa.

Sorry, I had to double check who wrote this. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

I suppose the difference is all the rubbish you post is all correct (well maybe in your head at least)

 

[Naraic]

No actually. Name some. Please. Do you mean the detail corrections on CT stuff that Carl comes out with- a guy 100% current and read into a subject I've not touched even peripherally in a decade? Or the stuff your pet Welshman- or you, perhaps- disagreed with, assuming you were right when you patently weren't? Or just general things like the snap election, hmm? I'll freely admit to being wrong on that. With the rest of the country.

Or do you mean technically, where, you know, I'm a technical design consultant for the Big Four automakers amongst others?

As to what I have to apologise for, my dear boy, you are funny. But perhaps you would like to change your name to PRWales?

If only you'd been a technical design consultant to MB when ABC was being designed!!

 

[Craiglxviii]

If only you'd been a technical design consultant to MB when ABC was being designed!!

Ah, alas I don't work in warranty liability... or suspension!

 

[davemercedes]

Ah, alas I don't work in warranty liability... or suspension!

But you could easily couldn't you? Surely...
- You can spell "No"
- You can spell "Rejected"
- You coul enter the code for "outside our goodwill parameters"

What else is there to worry about!

 

[davemercedes]

Back on to the thread subject...:

According to The Mail... (and others)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...moved-ugly-London-Bridge-safety-railings.html

Boris Johnson removed steel safety railings protecting pedestrians on London Bridge because they were 'ugly', report reveals - as Sadiq Khan vows to continue scrapping barriers

 

[Frosty149]

Back on to the thread subject...:

According to The Mail... (and others)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...moved-ugly-London-Bridge-safety-railings.html

Boris Johnson removed steel safety railings protecting pedestrians on London Bridge because they were 'ugly', report reveals - as Sadiq Khan vows to continue scrapping barriers

Dave, I respect your sentiments here, however, do you not agreed that had the railings still been in situ, these lunatics may well have switched to another target e.g. Oxford St?
The railings were removed to protect cyclists in 2010 (Boris bikes!) and to improve the street scene around key London locations.
These decisions are not made without consideration, by committee.

 

[davemercedes]

Dave, I respect your sentiments here, however, do you not agreed that had the railings still been in situ, these lunatics may well have switched to another target e.g. Oxford St?
The railings were removed to protect cyclists in 2010 (Boris bikes!) and to improve the street scene around key London locations.
These decisions are not made without consideration, by committee.

Hang on - you have no idea about my sentiments
- I saw the news item and thought it relevant since they are now talking of setting up barriers as part of a "permanent solution".
- So I simply copied/pasted the item with no comment.
- As I said it was on a Mail page and others. On google, the first 8 x items all say "because they were ugly".

I wouldn't even begin to dispute that of course, if barriers had been in place, the scumbags would have gone elsewhere, but that would apply to any busy street area now that we face this kind of attack, unfortunately.

 

[Frosty149]

Hang on - you have no idea about my sentiments
- I saw the news item and thought it relevant since they are now talking of setting up barriers as part of a "permanent solution".
- So I simply copied/pasted the item with no comment.
- As I said it was on a Mail page and others. On google, the first 8 x items all say "because they were ugly".

I wouldn't even begin to dispute that of course, if barriers had been in place, the scumbags would have gone elsewhere, but that would apply to any busy street area now that we face this kind of attack, unfortunately.

Dave, I intended no judgment in my post hence the 'respect your sentiment' precursor. I merely sought to point out that the decision in 2010, to remove the barriers bore no relation to any perceived terror threat, but to the risk of cyclists being injured between the barrier/traffic.
IMO the reintroduction of such barriers would be a climb-down to the terror threat and a compromise to our everyday lives.
No offence or judgement was intended, indeed the discussion point is just that.

 

[C350Carl]

The problem with pulling up old stories is that they were considered against the threat at the time. Hindsight is wonderful. Unfortunately in the CT game it’s hard to keep ahead of the enemy. They will always find a weakness.

In 2010 the threat was mainly VBIED, SIED and a medium low chance of a repeat of Mumbai in a UK city. None of which would be prevented by those barriers.

The risk of people being driven into was also a consideration. But as it wasn’t a well used tactic at the time it was a very low threat score.

Everything is done on a threat matrix which is ever shifting. This is to ensure resources are targeted in the right areas. Terror attack methods go up and down the matrix all the time. As an example a mortar attack onto government buildings etc was once scored quite highly, even more so when PIRA managed to get one into the back garden of no.10. Now it’s lower scored than SIED, VBIED and Marauding attack like that seen recently in London and Westminster. It’s still on there but it’s currently considered a lower threat than in the 90’s.

We can’t live in a ultra secure bubble. The public just need to have faith that the security services do a fantastic job. 18 major attacks prevented in the last 4 yrs is testament to that.

 

[davemercedes]

The problem with pulling up old stories is that they were considered against the threat at the time. Hindsight is wonderful. Unfortunately in the CT game it’s hard to keep ahead of the enemy. They will always find a weakness.

In 2010 the threat was mainly VBIED, SIED and a medium low chance of a repeat of Mumbai in a UK city. None of which would be prevented by those barriers.

The risk of people being driven into was also a consideration. But as it wasn’t a well used tactic at the time it was a very low threat score.

Everything is done on a threat matrix which is ever shifting. This is to ensure resources are targeted in the right areas. Terror attack methods go up and down the matrix all the time. As an example a mortar attack onto government buildings etc was once scored quite highly, even more so when PIRA managed to get one into the back garden of no.10. Now it’s lower scored than SIED, VBIED and Marauding attack like that seen recently in London and Westminster. It’s still on there but it’s currently considered a lower threat than in the 90’s.

We can’t live in a ultra secure bubble. The public just need to have faith that the security services do a fantastic job. 18 major attacks prevented in the last 4 yrs is testament to that.

I know that's all true Carl and we have to bear but hopefully never pay the cost of our freedom. Any one of us can normally walk around without thinking of such dangers, and within the laws of libel/defamation etc we can slag off our MP, government, businesses etc whereas you wouldn't think of doing that if you thought you'd end up wearing concrete boots.

I do wonder whether instead of adding more barriers, we should add pop up "stinger" devices like the things that stop you driving out of car parks the wrong way. With the number of cameras we have these days it would be relatively straightforward to pop them up if an emergency arose.

 

[C350Carl]

Just a couple of points.

How do innocent people quickly escape a potentially life threatening situation? How do the Police, Ambulance service etc respond quickly? How do the Police now deal with all the abandoned vehicles, anyone of which could house a bomb or hide armed attackers? What if while raising these barriers you injure or kill innocent people (think of what would happen if a bus crossing the bridge hit one, lost control and went into the Thames)

Not trying to rubbish your idea. Just pointing out it’s been thought of and proposed before and I said the same things back then too.

This is an example of the dilemma faced by the security services. Any action/reaction/security measure has to be the safest possible for innocent people whilst preventing or reducing the threat.

 

[Frosty149]

Risk assessment is today's standard, a changing/developing set of controls to a perceived potential hazard and measures to mitigate those hazards and potential risks. The analysis is registered and analysed on a matrix...

 

[Craiglxviii]

Just to point out, we have had the sawtooth pop up barriers replaced in Top Secret Car Place at work. It cost £110k including new sensors and hardened datalink to the security office.

It wouldn't take many of those to quickly eat up any realistic budget...

 

[davemercedes]

Just to point out, we have had the sawtooth pop up barriers replaced in Top Secret Car Place at work. It cost £110k including new sensors and hardened datalink to the security office.

It wouldn't take many of those to quickly eat up any realistic budget...

Oh, I don't know, Craig - heh heh - by comparison how much per yard/metre does a straightforward bog standard road barrier cost from proposal through planning to installed status (not forgetting that the rates charged will - like those normally applied for any NHS work) be "over the top" ?