Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

Blade wrote:Sore point ?

There maybe some formal pleasantries exchanged through gritted teeth in those photos. But only one photo has a smiling fool cuddling up to a terrorist all very cosy

thats no way to talk about the queen .....

we also have all the necessary legislation to deal with terrorism , we do not need more civil liberties taken away from us in the name of security

I think the last 3 terror attacks prove we need to do some thing different.

If we have a PM who won't approve a shoot to kill policy I'm not sure asking the nasty men to please stop will result in murder being neutralised in 8 minutes.

Blade wrote:....If we have a PM who won't approve a shoot to kill policy I'm not sure asking the nasty men to please stop will result in murder being neutralised in 8 minutes.

The policy to employ "shoot to kill" is not actually simply dictated by the PM ?
Whilst the idea of swift & permanent elimination of these murdering scum is undoubtedly appealing, it also eliminates the opportunity to extract potentially valuable intelligence.: Dead men don't talk.
I personally think that inflicting a life changing injury would be a far better shot than a simple kill. Only when the incapacitated offender could still present a realistic danger to others should they be terminated IMHO.

I believe a "Shoot to kill if necessary" policy name would better sum up the current policy. It is supposed to be a last resort if people are in immediate danger.

In this instance the murderers were wearing fake bomb belts which from a distance and at night probably looked like the real thing - shoot to kill was the right decision in that situation.

I think the Police did a brilliant job of controlling the situation given the intensity of said situation and the quick thinking inevitably saved more injuries and lives.

Cav wrote:...In this instance the murderers were wearing fake bomb belts .....

It is in the interests of the organisers behind these fools that their pawns are not captured.
Those "bomb" vests were specifically to reduce the chances of that happening.
Our officers did exactly what the bastards wanted.

Using a firearm, the policy is ALWAYS shoot to kill. There is no shooting a weapon out of someone's hand, or trying to merely incapacitate them with a flash wound, or any other nonsense like that...it simply doesn't exist.

StMarks wrote:

Cav wrote:...In this instance the murderers were wearing fake bomb belts .....

It is in the interests of the organisers behind these fools that their pawns are not captured.
Those "bomb" vests were specifically to reduce the chances of that happening.
Our officers did exactly what the bastards wanted.

Without the knowledge of the vest being fake it is exactly the right thing to do.

You'd never have that knowledge.....it's just like a firearm that is not loaded at that point....you just don't take that sort of chance.

If there is a genuine intelligence gain to be made then obviously having the terrorist taken alive is preferable if mass causalties would not result from doing so.

The current lone Wolf attack's we are seeing are very low level terrorists with no real world intell to offer and therefore in that situation I would favour shoot to kill and elimination of the evil scum.

Cav spot on mate couldn't agree more.

D41 wrote:Using a firearm, the policy is ALWAYS shoot to kill.

Fwiw I'm not disputing that the policy those officers were adhering to is clear.
Nor am I suggesting that the presence of what appeared to be bomb vests did not dictate the action that they would be expected to take.
I am simply suggesting that the protocols that they followed actually play to the wishes of those behind these actions. ?
Dead is easiest, safest and therefore arguably preferable. I'm just pointing out that it may not actually be best.?

Different world, different application, different intentions & therefore can bear no relevance to this...
..However the sniper training used to impress on us that a mortally wounded target was usually far preferable to a kill shot. Maybe I'm just as brainwashed & bigoted in my own way as those attackers.

I agree - if we could capture them all and treat them like the inhumane subjects they are that'd be preferable but for the occasional, shoot to kill was correct

@ StM....Fair enough. Yep...they'd definitely get their wish, I suppose. Hopefully a tad sooner than expected.


Cav. Yes....capture them before or after...definitely.

During the event though and it's lights-out/time for bed.

Having re-read this I did slightly misinterpret your angle on this earlier - I was thinking you were saying the Police did the wrong thing.

Hope I haven't stepped on your toes at all as I realise we are on the same page

Cav wrote:Having re-read this I did slightly misinterpret your angle on this earlier - I was thinking you were saying the Police did the wrong thing.

Hope I haven't stepped on your toes at all as I realise we are on the same page

Fwiw I was pleased to read your viewpoint on the subject Cav.
I often have my own angle, and fully appreciate that it is frequently not in sync with popular opinions.
Reading differing viewpoints posted by others most certainly does not annoy me, on the contrary I usually appreciate the opportunity to learn from their assessment. If I believe it to be flawed I will try to explain why, whilst remembering that "every coin has two sides".

StMarks wrote:"everything has two sides".

Enough said

Well, that went well!

Looks like she'll be riding the "short bus" in no time at all.

Seeing as Lib Dem won't be forming a coalition with the Tories, it's down to the DUP if a Majority is to be formed.

What happens now?

Cav wrote:Seeing as Lib Dem won't be forming a coalition with the Tories, it's down to the DUP if a Majority is to be formed.

What, May doing a deal with terrorist sympathisers?

https://ansionnachfionn.com/2017/06/06/ ... -election/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cav wrote:What happens now?

lots of backroom meetings and dodgy deals