Nutter attack means Abbott is right and Ritchie should get vermine

This attack, like that at Manchester, was then an attack on us all. It requires a response that reflects that. Little can stop a person once they have launched such an attack: at that point life is likely to be lost whatever happens. But prevention is possible.

This country can afford 10,000 more police officers.

And the intelligence that they can bring.

As well as the sense of security that they might supply.

It can afford these officers without cuts elsewhere. There is underemployment in this country. The capacity to increase our security exists. And every police officer employed pays taxes, and then spends what they earn to people who pay tax, and so on and on. In that case because there is underemployment the real cost of engaging those officers is minimal. Bizarrely, Dian Abbott may have been right on that point, although it is clear she did not know why.

And we must afford those officers. Because what is at threat is our freedom. The physical threat to each of us is, realistically, tiny. But the threat to our right to enjoy life is real, and this morning many will be feeling that.

The right response across the political spectrum is to commit to more policing. But it is also to commit to building a society in which our freedoms can be enjoyed.

No amount of policing will stop nutter attacks. But, you know vermine…..

40 comments on “Nutter attack means Abbott is right and Ritchie should get vermine

  1. They could do that, or they could follow the Czech model. The latter is more likely to be effective, which means that the former is more likely to happen.

  2. So 10,000 extra police with visible presence. So say an extra hundred on duty in London at any one time – so how many per borough?
    And the difference a uniformed officer on a bike, on foot, whatever – would make to a terrorist attack is what?

    We had off duty police at the scene of each of the recent attacks – killed or injured. Would 10,000 more police spread across the country have made any difference to any of those attacks? No.
    The response times may have been slightly quicker or may have been unchanged – 10,000 extra isn’t a massive number when thinking about shifts and where people say they are needed – visible on the beat so generally not necessarily quickly responding and first on the scene.

    Would we have police presence at all music concerts in the entry / exit areas and streets immediately surrounding? Stops people driving into a crowd how? Stops people blowing up a bag or a vest how?

  3. “Bizarrely, Dian Abbott may have been right on that point, although it is clear she did not know why.”

    That’s a backhanded complement that’s not going to help is quest for vermine. And hasn’t Paul Mason declared all criticism of Abbott to be racist? So he’s also a racist in Labours’ eyes. Oh dear, looks like he needs to start looking North again.

    Anyway, yet again he shows a complete lack of the practical. How long does he think it will take to set up the training and recruiting organisation to deal with an influx of at least 12,000 to allow for attrition? Taking officers off the street to perform that task. Then they’ve got to be recruited, trained and gain experience before they can be let loose on the street.

    To allow for 24 x 7 x 365 working, holidays, trading and sickness it will mean no more than 2000 being available at any one time. Spread those across the top 10 cities and we’re looking at 200, at most, at any given time. That ain’t going to be the presence he, or anyone else, thinks is going to be a big difference.

    I’d be surprised if that could happen inside 5 years and the problem is now, or does he expect to ask the nutters to hold off for a while?

  4. How many police would be needed to prevent some random Islamist nutjob anywhere in the UK buying a kitchen knife and renting a van? A million? 10 million? Get real – this fight will not be won by putting more boots on the ground.

  5. Might the police force be more capable if minimum height requirements returned?

    Might the police be less stretched if they stopped trying to police Twitter (or virtue signal on it) and arresting people for training their dog to salute Hitler? Or acting as social workers for repeat offenders who should be locked up.

    Many avenues of public services seem to be like empires that have concentrated on expanding and forgotten to protect the homeland. For the police this is protecting the public, catching criminals and being a deterrent to crime. But no. Celebrating gay pride marches and being photographed touching a koran are apparently equally important. Seeing Cressida Dick on the telly talking to the media, infront of what I assume was a bust of Sir Robert Peel just seemed to illustrate how far from their origin the police have gone.

    The elected politicians in Westminster talk empty bullshit to the unelected politicians at the top of the public services and vice versa when what is needed is transparent and blunt talking from both.

  6. So here’s a plan that could be implemented quickly, but I don’t necessarily agree with it and it would have to be voluntary. Based on Hoppers post:

    Allow all current serving armed forces, including reserve, to carry concealed small arms at all times. It will need a bit of training because the environment is different but they are at least balanced and know how to respect fire arms and react at times of pressure.

    Allow all former servicemen to volunteer to be trained to carry concealed weapons.

    Start a program of allowing the general public to be armed. That would need a lot of psychological work before training could start.

    Lots of detail needed around rules of engagement, when they could be carried e.g. no alcohol etc.

    It has the advantage of fast implementation although loads of disadvantages but at least it’s doing something practical and immediate rather than wishful thinking of the likes of Spud.

  7. I’m in favour of the introduction of police bears, to replace police dogs. I think Grizzlies or maybe Polar Bears in the winter months. Also, sod Tasers, how about flame throwers?

    Obviously these would only be deployed in rough neighbourhoods where people have a poor grasp of English or wear baseball caps the wrong way round, so nowhere near where I live.

    And before people moan about the cost, the video footage of encounters would be on a pay-to-view website so it’d be self-financing.

  8. Start a program of allowing the general public to be armed. That would need a lot of psychological work before training could start.

    Especially when they start gunning down the innocent, or slightly aggressive but not actually deranged, in panic at another potential attack.

    In practice what you would do would be to allow the current knife-wielding maniacs to become gun wielding maniacs. They would kill just as many people — because they can do it quicker — before being gunned down.

    As a buy-product you also up-arm all criminals, even the ones currently who don’t think carrying a gun is a good idea.

    Terrorists will do what they do in the US, picking on the soft spots where armed citizens do not help — churches, nightclubs, concerts, schools. Nor will it stop bombs or trucks into crowds.

    Israel, which is heavily armed, cannot stop lone nutters.

    Arming the UK citizens is a truly shit idea. Worse than getting more coppers, because at least getting more coppers will stop other crimes.

  9. Armed forces? Balanced?

    Suggest you look at the prison population for ex armed forces. Suggest you ask the domestic abuse organisations how many of their clients were with armed forces or ex armed forces staff?
    Smashed car windows, dented car, thrown brick through lounge window, threatened to firebomb the house – that’s my sister’s ex-forces ex-boyfriend.

    A number of our local homeless in my area are ex forces. Mean drunks and I think every one of them has been arrested for at least assault.
    By contrast the local terrorist who frequented the homeless facilities was quite a nice guy, never served in the military (too ill as a young man) and really disliked the council.

    The armed forces will include many fine people that you could probably trust to be armed in a civilian area.
    It will also include people who cannot control themselves enough.
    Both can make excellent soldiers. The latter you tend to find out afterwards…

  10. Chester – have to agree with you.
    Would also get the US problem of not everyone shooting straight – incoming fire has right of way and innocent people do get shot. Even here with police trained with the guns they carry the innocent can get shot because they happened to be in the direction the gun was aimed at.

    With guns Manchester would still have happened. With guns London could easily have been a lot worse. Panic situation, adrenaline up, shaking hands – there are plenty of people who can miss a target at short range. Dying from a terrorist’s bullet or dying from a brickie’s bullet is still dying.

  11. “Arming the UK citizens is a truly shit idea. Worse than getting more coppers, because at least getting more coppers will stop other crimes.”

    Bullshit.

    We should never have been disarmed in the first place. And appropriate training would be required. Private training not the same clowns who train the police to shoot first and ask questions later. People don’t become more than they are via donning monkey suits and badges.

  12. To any who don’t want to defend yourselves–then don’t. But don’t put your stupidity on me.

    And we haven’t met the Jihadi shootists yet. We will and there won’t be any coppers arses wide enough for anti-gunners to hide behind.

  13. I’m in favour of the introduction of police bears, to replace police dogs.

    All coppers* should be replaced with bears. Studies have shown that shoplifters and people who park on double yellow lines are 100% less at risk of recidivism after PC Paddington rips one of their arms off and gives the grisly plaything to her cubs.

    *Except in Northern Ireland, where the spirit of the Good Friday agreement behooves us to deploy Africanised killer bees.

  14. ‘This country can afford 10,000 more police officers.’

    Just make EVERYBODY a police officer.

    Then what?

  15. Armed forces? Balanced?

    I was in the army, and I’m so sane it’s like everyone else is a mental.

    You’re probably thinking of RAF boys, who everybody knows are just airborne masturbators and low-effort transvestites.

    Contrary to popular opinion, the RN isn’t gay, because it’s only gay if you make eye contact.

  16. https://kakistocracyblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/the-high-cost-of-education/

    A man named Sadiq Khan is already vizier of London. What do prim anti-racist Brits think will become of their security apparatus once it is firmly in the hands of colonial Islamic administrators? Does no one wonder about this? Is math, and its electoral manifestations, deemed to Euro-centric for public contemplation? Well I’ve contemplated it in their stead. And what I’ve concluded is that the focus of European “anti-terror” efforts will shift dramatically once they are under the stewardship of non-Europeans.

    No matter how counter to one’s ecumenical worldview, the possibility must be considered that muslim political leadership will not primarily target muslims. In fact, I think future white minorities will be astounded at how briskly “anti-terror” efforts pivot toward those more resembling anti-regime, anti-infidel, and anti-apostate. All of which are certainly more terrorizing to a muslim majority than the periodic splattering of despised kafirs.

    And yet Westerners maintain the blithe expectation that an alien civilization can be imported to protect them from itself. I am skeptical that any presumption has ever strained against observable reality with more vigor. Though mere lunacy is not nearly sufficient to alter public policy. And neither will be its next macabre result. Most men never learn; they are only learned from. If there’s any Europe left in the ashes of liberalism, there will be no deficit of educational opportunities.

  17. All of this shit is reactive. The police are mostly there to put up that black and yellow tape and cart the bodies off. The only policy that has a chance of working is going to involve being very much more unpleasant to shariah-supremacist fifth columnists than hitherto. Given that that’s about a million people, I’m not holding my breath.

  18. Eventually someone will act on “enough is enough” and drive a dirt mover [us:dump truck] into a mosque. Then the RoP will kick off big time and we will need lots more riot police. 10,000 would be a start.

  19. Well you seem to want a police state or , of course, sharia law.
    Your beloved leaders don’t seem to care much for the whites -so you can guess which you will probably end up getting.
    Note that there was masses of guns in Britain in 1944 ish and most people didn’t get shot by their neighbors.
    I had an uncle who cleaned out his sooty chimney using his sten gun.

  20. Especially when they start gunning down the innocent, or slightly aggressive but not actually deranged, in panic at another potential attack.

    What a load of bollocks.

    In America, police are far more likely to kill innocent bystanders than ordinary gun-carrying folks, because the cops generally turn up after the shootnig has started, and have little idea of who is on what side. And Israel pretty much ended the random nutter attacks on Israelis years ago by encouraging people to carry guns. This is why the nutters switched to suicide bombs in the first place.

  21. Just make EVERYBODY a police officer.

    As Peel said many years ago: “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    Many of today’s problems are due to the usurpation of power by the police that should belong to the people.

  22. Police don’t and can’t usurp power. They get ordered to do stuff by politicians and judges. Everyone blames cops for UK law. Politicians voted for by the public make law. Time to grow up and look yourselves in the mirror UK electorate. Fifty years ago, our grandfather’s would see off three guys with knives

  23. “This country can afford 10,000 more police officers.
    And the intelligence that they can bring.”

    Appears now that they had all the ‘intelligence’ they needed.

  24. Roue de la jour – that’s the tragic thing. Every weak non-response by the Government leads to increased risk of vigilantism and retaliation. Not just in Islamist terrorism but everyday crime. If courts give weak sentences then eventually Joe Public will stop trusting the state with his defence and will take it upon themselves. Your thug in a bin lorry will be just the start

  25. 10,000 more cops will do nothing. I presume there were plenty of police in Rotherham.

    Now 10,000 more prison guards on the other hand…….

  26. “Would also get the US problem of not everyone shooting straight – incoming fire has right of way and innocent people do get shot. Even here with police trained with the guns they carry the innocent can get shot because they happened to be in the direction the gun was aimed at.”

    You think British cops are in general good marksmen? Trololololllllll…

    Plenty of anecdotal evidence of PC Plod being on the range near civvy shooters and getting their back up that the old dodders with 80 year old iron-sighted rifles are shooting better than the highly-trained dead-eye scoped-up shots of Chez Dibble.

    Let alone with handguns… But since there’s no civvy modern handgun shooting any more, they have nothing to compare themselves to.

  27. Julia M: “Appears now they had all the “intelligence” they needed.”
    They had the information which has not been intelligently used. We need smarter police, freed of their pc prism, not more of them.

  28. abacab – I never suggested british police were good marksmen. Might be a lot better than some gun owners though, they would be required to practice.
    Just from the other night we know someone innocent got injured by the police. Which for the number of rounds fired is quite low. Headshots are somewhat more difficult.

    We know from the US that giving right to carry a gun does increase innocent casualties. Can be from simply being in a building or walking along or driving by…

  29. “Would also get the US problem of not everyone shooting straight”

    “We know from the US that giving right to carry a gun does increase innocent casualties.”

    You are so full of shit, Martin. Give us your data. Or did you just make it up?

  30. “Martin
    June 5, 2017 at 11:02 am

    We know from the US that giving right to carry a gun does increase innocent casualties. Can be from simply being in a building or walking along or driving by…”

    OK, this is complete and utter bullshit.

    The worst you can say is that we’re no better than our police – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire.html

    Here you go. These two cops saw a dude, suspected of a workplace attack where he killed several co-workers, walking down a busy street. They straight up opened fire with no warning and no regard for who was behind the guy. Didn’t even attempt to arrest him. 9 people hit.

    The Waco incident – look at the released footage and you see literally *tons* of armed bikers with their weapons out *but not firing* because they don’t have a clear target. The fallout from that particular event is still ongoing but it looks like other than the initial shots, *every casualty was caused by the police* firing into the crowd.

    In Texas a few years back a pickup truck is gunned down by by a police shooter in a helicopter because he thought they had drugs – it was just some illegal Mexicans under the tarp over the bed.

    As far as being shot by a stranger, you’re far more likely that that stranger will be a police officer ‘protecting you’ than it will be a fellow defending himself. And that’s not counting all the other times the cops will shoot you.

    If anyone needs to be disarmed in the US, its our supposed ‘trained and professional’ law enforcement.

    And you can look at states (like my own, AZ) where open carry is common, concealed carry does not require licensing, and firearms are easily available to anyone over 18 and we have no more incidents of innocent bystanders getting hit by other non-police shooters than our neighbor CA (with way stricter gun laws) and a lot less ‘gun violence’ per capita than CA has.

    And we’re not an outlier. Texas, Utah, places like that – all are ‘the Wild West’ as far as easy access to firearms – you’re in less danger of being shot by a non-cop in Salt Lake City than you are in San Diego.

  31. Putting more police on the streets simply means that the police are more likely to be the first victims of any attack. A cheaper and in the long-term more effective approach is simply to make the lives of muslims increasingly more intolerable until they change their ways, change their religion or leave, while causing minimal troble to the rest of the population. Ideas for achieving this include:

    1. Blood money payable by friends, family and fellow mosque members of the attackers. Make that a tax paid collectively by all mosques.
    2. Ban on halal slaughter.
    3. Ban on burqaas and niqabs.
    4. Taxes on the income of mosques to pay for policing.
    5. Compulsory bacon on school lunch menus
    6. Wives required to walk ahead of husbands.
    7. Banknotes made from pig fat.
    8. Replacement of the BBC logo by cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

    Any more ideas welcome.

  32. ‘One of the London Bridge attackers was allegedly a well-known Islamist, who appeared on national TV, was reported to police, and can be linked to the network around notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary.’ – Breitbart News

    Adding police accomplishes what?

  33. @Bloke in North Dorset, June 4, 2017 at 10:20 pm

    So here’s a plan that could be implemented quickly, but I don’t necessarily agree with it and it would have to be voluntary. Based on Hoppers post:

    1. Allow all current serving armed forces, including reserve, to carry concealed small arms at all times. It will need a bit of training because the environment is different but they are at least balanced and know how to respect fire arms and react at times of pressure.

    2. Allow all former servicemen to volunteer to be trained to carry concealed weapons.

    3. Start a program of allowing the general public to be armed. That would need a lot of psychological work before training could start.

    1. Agree. Similar to NI

    2. Agree, but some not all. Similar to NI

    3. Agree. Similar to NI where some were allowed to. Some were unofficially allowed to if local police (or UDR) agreed – beat PC & his Sergeant’s decision.

  34. I disagree Pcar. Let all citizens carry guns, concealed or open*. No need to burden the yeomanry with training (Federalist 28, 29).

    *Except in government facilities like jail, court.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.