On Jan 6, 10:02*pm, sutartsorric wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:16*pm, "DB." wrote:

* * Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide bomber
from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

On Jan 7, 1:59*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:02*pm, sutartsorric wrote:





On Jan 6, 9:16*pm, "DB." wrote:

* * Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide bomber
from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

And if they kill a Brazilian electrician?

Robin

On Jan 7, 12:59*pm, 1506 wrote:
If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

Depends how many uniforms it takes, and how much crime is permitted
^H^H^H paperwork is left un-done by them not being elsewhere

AE

On 07/01/2011 13:02, bob wrote:
On Jan 7, 1:59 pm, wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:02 pm, wrote:





On Jan 6, 9:16 pm, wrote:

Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide bomber
from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

And if they kill a Brazilian electrician?

Robin

This was a terrible case, but the fact is that honest people made a
ghastly mistake.

On Jan 7, 3:09*pm, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 07/01/2011 13:02, bob wrote:





On Jan 7, 1:59 pm, *wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:02 pm, *wrote:

On Jan 6, 9:16 pm, *wrote:

* * *Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide bomber
from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

And if they kill a Brazilian electrician?

This was a terrible case, but the fact is that honest people made a
ghastly mistake.

I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" I would have to say no. I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.

Robin

On Jan 7, 12:59*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:02*pm, sutartsorric wrote:



On Jan 6, 9:16*pm, "DB." wrote:

* * Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide bomber
from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

In Western Europe the chances that a terrorist attack will be Islamic
is small.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Ireland, for example, in
2010 that had nothing to do with any religion except Christianity -
and even then only in a tribal way.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:23:36 -0800 (PST)
bob wrote:
I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" I would have to say no. I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.

If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

B2003

"Jeff" wrote in message

On Jan 7, 12:59 pm, 1506 wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:02 pm, sutartsorric wrote:



On Jan 6, 9:16 pm, "DB." wrote:

Railway stations across London have been put on high alert amid
fears of a terrorist attack on transport hubs.

More
at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-uk/8244622/Tr...
orhttp://tinyurl.com/36qnwqb

--
DB.

I wonder how they think this will prevent a determined suicide
bomber from detonating themselves?

Or maybe in their security scenario bombers always carry the
explosives in rucksacks in order to be easily identified.

If a uniformed presence discourage one islamist from killing one
person is that not worth the effort?

In Western Europe the chances that a terrorist attack will be Islamic
is small.
There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Ireland, for example, in
2010 that had nothing to do with any religion except Christianity -
and even then only in a tribal way.

And many of the Islamic plots seem to be put together by small groups of
minimally trained amateurs, who fail much more often than they succeed.
Even if they don't get caught first, they are much more likely to blow
themselves up than any innocent passers-by, or their bombs don't explode
properly.

Some seem pretty stupid in their target selection, too: the recently
arrested groups were apparently aiming for the US embassy in London,
possibly one of the best defended buildings they could have thought of.
Even if they wanted to hit a US target in London, I would have thought
they could have identified plenty of less protected examples.

On Jan 7, 4:36*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:23:36 -0800 (PST)

bob wrote:
I don't dispute that mistakes happen, but that is exactly my concern:
another mistake might happen. *The OP asked, "If a uniformed presence
discourage one islamist from killing one person is that not worth the
effort?" *I would have to say no. *I do not believe the risk of
another terrible mistake is worth taking for the hope that lots of
uniforms and guns at railway stations might perhaps deter a bad person
from doing a bad thing.

If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

But the specific question posed by the OP was about *one* person being
saved. I can't help but feel that we would be more likely to save
*one* person if we used the money being spent on this particular
counter terrorism measure on some sort of road safety project (anybody
have the current DfT figure for cost per life saved used in evaluating
road safety projects to hand?).

While there are plenty of armed police in many countries, because
police being armed in the UK is not normal, the perception when there
are armed police about in the UK is that they are more likely than
your average Swedish beat bobby to use those arms. Given that the
presence is abnormal, the police command structure is likely to be
under abnormal load, conditions which would make mistakes far more
likely.

Robin

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:51:20 +0000, bob wrote

If its a choice of one civilian dying because of a mistake or dozens dying
because of a bomb the choice is a no brainer. Anyway , I don't see what
your problem is - almost every other country in the world has armed police
as the norm, even fluffy liberal sweden.

While there are plenty of armed police in many countries, because
police being armed in the UK is not normal, the perception when there
are armed police about in the UK is that they are more likely than
your average Swedish beat bobby to use those arms. Given that the
presence is abnormal, the police command structure is likely to be
under abnormal load, conditions which would make mistakes far more
likely.

Isn't that a good reason for the police to be armed as part of their day to
day duties?