CLEAVER ATTACK IN LONDON

[AndyDufresne]

So how do you "shoot to wound" when you're aiming at a guy's face?

"But Chief Constable, I was just trying to tickle his nose with a bullet!"

Well, If he is forward facing you, it is certainly not possible. But if his side is facing you, then you just indeed my clip his nostril! They teach that right, in copper school over there?




--Andy

[Nordik]

It is only recently (in the last 20 years or so) that ANY police can carry guns.

Don't take this personally, but I don't think maths are your strong area.

Armed police timeline: from truncheons to submachine guns

1829 - The Metropolitan Police Act establishes the country's first formal police force under Sir Robert Peel. The officers patrolled with 20in wooden truncheons, but had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -guns.html

There was something about that when I lived there. I forget the exact details though. It may just have become liberalised how easy/ difficult it was for them to be allowed to access guns.

[BigBallinStalin]

So how do you "shoot to wound" when you're aiming at a guy's face?

"But Chief Constable, I was just trying to tickle his nose with a bullet!"

Well, If he is forward facing you, it is certainly not possible. But if his side is facing you, then you just indeed my clip his nostril! They teach that right, in copper school over there?




--Andy

Copper cannot be schooled. Therefore, your argument is invalido.

[Dukasaur]

It is only recently (in the last 20 years or so) that ANY police can carry guns.

Don't take this personally, but I don't think maths are your strong area.

Armed police timeline: from truncheons to submachine guns

1829 - The Metropolitan Police Act establishes the country's first formal police force under Sir Robert Peel. The officers patrolled with 20in wooden truncheons, but had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -guns.html

There was something about that when I lived there. I forget the exact details though. It may just have become liberalised how easy/ difficult it was for them to be allowed to access guns.

Don't let him wind you up, lol.

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

[Symmetry]

So how do you "shoot to wound" when you're aiming at a guy's face?

"But Chief Constable, I was just trying to tickle his nose with a bullet!"

Well, If he is forward facing you, it is certainly not possible. But if his side is facing you, then you just indeed my clip his nostril! They teach that right, in copper school over there?




--Andy

Copper cannot be schooled. Therefore, your argument is invalido.

Have you even seen the Police Academy documentaries?

[Nordik]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

He's not winding me up. I'm just not adverse to admitting when I've made a mistake. I know... I know... is rather a novelty on the internet.

[saxitoxin]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK inhabited by families]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

[Nordik]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

What a load of crap. They're allowed weapons when they think there's going to be a high likelihood of them getting shot at. Otherwise not. THAT is not a routine patrol.

I was a student in the UK and lived in one of the 3 areas that had a bright red insurance code. I saw policemen all the time and they never had guns. Even when busting people's doors in.

[Symmetry]

Sorry, Saxi, you're wrong on this one. Try to play nice.

[saxitoxin]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

What a load of crap. They're allowed weapons when they think there's going to be a high likelihood of them getting shot at. Otherwise not. THAT is not a routine patrol.

unless you consider the Irish to be sub-human or unless you consider patrols through Irish neighborhoods to be exotic adventures into some kind of jungle - then yes, yes that is a routine patrol by a RUC stormtrooper

the officers in a land area comprising 20% of the UK carry massive firepower unheard of anywhere else in the west to terrify the locals into obedience and, when that doesn't work, to mow them down in the streets

[Symmetry]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

What a load of crap. They're allowed weapons when they think there's going to be a high likelihood of them getting shot at. Otherwise not. THAT is not a routine patrol.

unless you consider the Irish to be sub-human or unless you consider patrols through Irish neighborhoods to be exotic adventures into some kind of jungle - then yes, yes that is a routine patrol

the officers in a land area comprising 20% of the UK carry massive firepower unheard of anywhere else in the west to terrify the locals into obedience and, when that doesn't work, to mow them down in the streets

Still not a fan of British people. eh Saxi?

[saxitoxin]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

What a load of crap. They're allowed weapons when they think there's going to be a high likelihood of them getting shot at. Otherwise not. THAT is not a routine patrol.

unless you consider the Irish to be sub-human or unless you consider patrols through Irish neighborhoods to be exotic adventures into some kind of jungle - then yes, yes that is a routine patrol

the officers in a land area comprising 20% of the UK carry massive firepower unheard of anywhere else in the west to terrify the locals into obedience and, when that doesn't work, to mow them down in the streets

Still not a fan of British people. eh Saxi?

On the contrary, I'm quite the anglophile. What I'm not a fan of is family neighborhoods where small children are playing and people are lunching being routinely disrupted by police racing through in armored cars bristling with machine guns while barking orders through loudspeakers and pointing their high-powered, military-grade weapons menacingly.

[Symmetry]

Yes, until recently, although British Police stations had firearms available, policemen weren't allowed to carry them on patrol, or even to take them out of the storage locker without special permission from farther up the chain of command.

... unless they were patrolling neighborhoods where despised ethnic minorities - like the Irish - lived, in which case the policemen routinely carried sub-machine guns capable of firing 800-rounds per minute.


[this man is a UK police officer on a routine patrol in a neighborhood in the UK]

Those police don't count, though, because everyone knows when you characterize a nation's police force you only use police in affluent, homogenous areas during certain, subjectively chosen periods of time as a benchmark.

What a load of crap. They're allowed weapons when they think there's going to be a high likelihood of them getting shot at. Otherwise not. THAT is not a routine patrol.

unless you consider the Irish to be sub-human or unless you consider patrols through Irish neighborhoods to be exotic adventures into some kind of jungle - then yes, yes that is a routine patrol

the officers in a land area comprising 20% of the UK carry massive firepower unheard of anywhere else in the west to terrify the locals into obedience and, when that doesn't work, to mow them down in the streets

Still not a fan of British people. eh Saxi?

On the contrary, I'm quite the anglophile. What I'm not a fan of is police routinely racing through family neighborhoods in armored cars bristling with machine guns while barking orders to women and children through loudspeakers.

Ok, Saxi.

[Qwert]

Qwert just wishes he didn't live in Europe. Also, civilians are never harmed by his homeland too.


--Andy

So British are Europe for me? I dont understand why British and US constantly provoke wars? If in some country start Civil War, why British and US try to be involved?
British and US are live far away, and can live in peace, but they dont want to live in peace.
Last time when US have reason to start war ,its Japan attack in Pearl Harbor, after that nobody declare war to US.
Just try to go back in history to understand why this happend, who create Osama Bin Laden, who sponsoring Talibans when SSSR invade Afghanistan,, Who send Military Equipment to Iraq in Iraq-Iran War.
Maybe then you will realized who have big credit why today you have terrorist.

[Symmetry]

Qwert just wishes he didn't live in Europe. Also, civilians are never harmed by his homeland too.


--Andy

So British are Europe for me? I dont understand why British and US constantly provoke wars? If in some country start Civil War, why British and US try to be involved?
British and US are live far away, and can live in peace, but they dont want to live in peace.
Last time when US have reason to start war ,its Japan attack in Pearl Harbor, after that nobody declare war to US.

Interesting logic. You presumably think that 9/11 occurred because we invaded Iraq?

[Ray Rider]

how's that a religion of peace?

Fixed for symmetrical purposes.

Hold on a second, you're comparing a children's processional song from the 1800s which was written for kids on their hike from one village to another up a steep hill, the basis of which is clearly symbolic in nature (see below); you're comparing that to a couple guys walking around the streets of London in 2013 chopping off people's heads with meat cleavers?? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your correctly.

You didn't, I don't think. He was comparing it to some specific passages from the Quran and "How's that a religion of peace?".

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I just went back and reread the original quote he was comparing:

well that's not what islam is, that's what some fanatics think it is. What are they really trying to acheive with all this seriously? moderate muslims to be persecuted by national extremists in western countries? then these moderate muslims might turn extremists after being persecuted. quite sad. Too bad buddhism isn't the most popular religion on this planet.

Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Within the context of Islam it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah).[1]
It is based on the definitions provided in the Quran.[2] 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. 2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. 2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

how's that a religion of peace?

Still, it's an invalid comparison between a clearly allegorical song ("like a mighty army" "marching as to war") and commands of physical violence against unbelievers.

As for "written for kids"...that particular song's lyrics being written for kids isn't exactly something I'd want to wave around if I were wanting to look peaceful...

You're looking at a song from the 1800s. There was no such thing as PC language back then. Get used to it.

Secondly, I think it's an awesome song to march to and have done so many times. Ever been on a teen wilderness camping trip and tried portaging a heavy canoe through a couple miles of bush on a hot summer day with tons of mosquitoes sucking your blood? A marching song really helps your endurance.

Thirdly, FYI it's one of the Salvation Army's main processional songs. With four million volunteers around the world, the Salvation Army is one of the world's largest providers of social aid (second largest charity in the US) and is usually one of the first aid organizations on site in disaster areas. Actions speak louder than words in terms of "wanting to look peaceful" as you say.

[Woodruff]

As for "written for kids"...that particular song's lyrics being written for kids isn't exactly something I'd want to wave around if I were wanting to look peaceful...

You're looking at a song from the 1800s. There was no such thing as PC language back then.

I'm well aware of that. It doesn't change my point in the slightest, but ok.

Secondly, I think it's an awesome song to march to and have done so many times. Ever been on a teen wilderness camping trip and tried portaging a heavy canoe through a couple miles of bush on a hot summer day with tons of mosquitoes sucking your blood? A marching song really helps your endurance.

Absolutely. Our cadets use them all the time. Ours don't typically advocate using children in war, however. They tend to make fun of our school or the Air Force. Or sometimes me, the little rats.

And again, that really doesn't change my point.

Thirdly, FYI it's one of the Salvation Army's main processional songs. With four million volunteers around the world, the Salvation Army is one of the world's largest providers of social aid (second largest charity in the US) and is usually one of the first aid organizations on site in disaster areas. Actions speak louder than words in terms of "wanting to look peaceful" as you say.

Again, this really doesn't change my point at all. I also wouldn't really push the Salvation Army as being all that concerned about all people, if I were you. They're not.

It's like you're throwing things at the wall and hoping they'll stick, but they're not even making it to the wall.

[Nordik]

What I'm not a fan of is family neighborhoods where small children are playing and people are lunching being routinely disrupted by police racing through in armored cars bristling with machine guns while barking orders through loudspeakers and pointing their high-powered, military-grade weapons menacingly.

So kind of like they do in the US?

[saxitoxin]

What I'm not a fan of is family neighborhoods where small children are playing and people are lunching being routinely disrupted by police racing through in armored cars bristling with machine guns while barking orders through loudspeakers and pointing their high-powered, military-grade weapons menacingly.

So kind of like they do in the US?

For purposes of responding to your question I am invoking the "Northern Ireland exemption" to remove Watts, Compton and Torrance from being considered parts of the United States. So, in answer to your question - no, that doesn't happen in the U.S.

[Dukasaur]

What I'm not a fan of is family neighborhoods where small children are playing and people are lunching being routinely disrupted by police racing through in armored cars bristling with machine guns while barking orders through loudspeakers and pointing their high-powered, military-grade weapons menacingly.

So kind of like they do in the US?

For purposes of responding to your question I am invoking the "Northern Ireland exemption" to remove Watts, Compton and Torrance from being considered parts of the United States. So, in answer to your question - no, that doesn't happen in the U.S.

Also remove Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho....

[clanger35]

Some peculiar takes in this thread of what was the murder of a young man (a father of two children) in a public place.

I find it a little strange that one poster manages to repeatedly find ways of linking this to Northern Ireland (perhaps there's some hidden agenda there, who knows).

A few general points and a summary of the information in the press over here:

a) There are always armed police around somewhere in the UK and have been for decades - specially trained cops in cars (armed response vehicles) equiped with gun safes operate in every area in the UK. Why they took so long to arrive in this instance is a mystery.
b) The barracks weren't far away, but I guess they wouldn't have known this was happening until it was too late, and I doubt there was any thought by the police to tell them as they wouldn't have known the victim was a soldier from there at that time.
c) The murderers were british, born in the uk, educated in the UK, and had catholic Nigerian roots. There is little in the way of concrete information on why they became radicalised Muslims.
c) One lone woman confronted one of the murderers, a mother and daughter confronted the other demanding to be allowed to comfort / pray for the victim.
d) The EDL and other far right factions are making capital out of this tradegy, although they no more represent the average British resident than these two idiots represent Muslims.
e) British politicians remain at their insipid norm, repeating the same platitudes they always do. Even before this, british politics appeared to be moving to the right with the increase in support for UKIP at recent local elections - this looks likely to increase the trend if you believe newspaper editorials.

Finally, just to be clear, I'm fairly anti-establishment and was opposed to both the war in Iraq (no legal justification imho, regardless of whether regime change may have been desirable), and Afghanistan (target terrorist training camps fine imho, but even the Russians couldn't sort the place out, and they weren't bothering with any "hearts and minds" stuff).

[Phatscotty]

Except we are not living in the middle ages.

[Woodruff]

Except we are not living in the middle ages.

Much to your personal chagrin, I am sure.

[Phatscotty]

Whoa, okay. I just decided to read this thread from beginning to end, and only made it to the 2nd post about the EDL and immediately looked into it can came up with this.

What's the skinny on this bloke and what he is saying (in this video)? Burning puppies alive? gang rape gangs?

[saxitoxin]

Whoa, okay. I just decided to read this thread from beginning to end, and only made it to the 2nd post about the EDL and immediately looked into it can came up with this.

What's the skinny on this bloke and what he is saying (in this video)? Burning puppies alive? gang rape gangs?

He's the leader of a 100,000-man British white supremacist militia that periodically loots shops, attacks police stations and overturn/burn cars in the north of England; it's been rumored their leadership is funded by the Israeli embassy in London. It's basically like the British version of the Ku Klux Klan except about 50 times larger and more active and they actually elect members to various government offices, so are part of the mainstream of UK civil society.

The EU formed EUROGENDFOR to provide a brigade of French/Italian/Spanish military police that can be rapidly deployed to the UK (or similarly vulnerable EU states, like Hungary) in the event of a breakdown in government if his group (or similar) manage to take over the state institutions, which will likely happen soon.