Strudul

That is what the word volunteer usually means... Not sure how many times I have to keep pointing out that it's not my plan and I don't think it's a good idea though...

Repeating myself once again... More people = more chance of being in the right place at the right time.

It's always going to be a case of right place right time. However, the more people you have, the higher the chance of it occurring is.

Yes. I'm not sure how to express it though, it might come to me later. One is intent to harm, with the killing being an accidental byproduct, the other is simple intent to kill. Same effect, different intent. Which is the difference between manslaughter and murder I believe.

But there is the chance that a terrorist whips out a knife, starts slashing, and one of the super civvy team is there and tasers him before he can do any harm. It's not going to stop a van, or a bomb, but neither are the police...

Is there a difference between mentally bullying someone until they kill themselves and persuading them to do so?

It's not even my point, I don't support it or think it's a good idea. All I did way deny the impossibility of it. I think I covered responses to the rest in previous posts.

As I said, some things can't be prevented, but you keep avoiding my question as to why we even bother having a police force to deal with terrorism at all if it's always too late.... It was my understanding that many of these terrorist attacks were conducted by people known to the police. Part of the reason for keeping personal information of potential terrorists limited to these specialised volunteer groups was to prevent: 1) Terrorists knowing 2) Random violent members of the public going round beating them up Knowing how to stay safe in an attack is a bit useless when you've already been blown up...

But the problem you get is similar to when people look up their symptoms on the internet and conclude they have bubonic plague.

Reminds me of 13 Reasons...

The title is irrelevant, the designated task is what matters. I thought part of TT's suggestion was to teach people what to look out for? However, it also involved giving people the training and equipment to better deal with a situation if necessary. But why not have people specifically on the look out? I don't know about you, but I am not generally on the look out for terrorists... And why not give more people that training?

Who stands a better chance vs 3 guys with knives A crowd of civvies. OR A crowd of civvies, 10 of which have training and gear to manage the situation

I'm saying it's better that 1 person dies instead of 100. The same way a terrorist would rather take out a large group of people or a high profile target rather than 1 random person.

It's a numbers game. Reduce the ease of an attack where there are lots of people. Even if it's just equipping a team of eyes with comms to report suspicious activity from known sources.

A lot of assumptions there... How do we and the terrorist know James has only trained for a week. It's not about scaring them, it's about deterring and mitigating the potential damage. Just because you have training and information doesn't mean you are going to die. Who says some of this new team weren't right around the corner at the time or already at the location? Your point seems to be that humans can't do anything, so why even bother. Let's just abolish the police and military and not even try defend against terrorists . You are quite right, I could get in my car and go drive over a load of people and nobody could stop me.

I said possible though, not feasible, hence I keep repeatedly saying it's not a good idea...

So you'd rather someone else was murdered than your car got keyed? you must not have read the same text as me as i cant see him saying anywhere he'd rather people get killed? He said more police should be dedicated to catching thieves and vandals. Applying some logic, if they are doing that, then they aren't stopping terrorists and murderers. Less people stopping terrorists and murderers = more people being murdered....

HMRC defines it as anything over 15 years old worth over £15k. Insurers usually charge less for classic policies though, which I don't they are particularly enthusiastic about doing, so i think their definition is valid.

So you'd rather someone else was murdered than your car got keyed?

There's a difference between possible and feasible.

Army cadets get given fully automatic SA80 rifles with live rounds and they are just children with next to no training... If it was done, people would be assigned to hotspots. Do you lock your car or house? How about using a padlock on a bicycle? A lock can be easily bypassed, so why do you even bother? It's because it's a deterrent. It doesn't require 100% guaranteed protection. Every little helps or why do we even have a police force at all....

I can't tell if you're purposefully ignoring it or just not understanding... I don't think it's a good idea at all. My point is purely that it's possible and could be effective. There are probably plenty of people willing to put in the time and effort without requiring payment should the need arise. You couldn't blag your way into it if it was designed well. It's not going to be the same psychometric test you do to apply to work at Sainsbury's.

Similar, but with much more specialised training and purpose. And who is funding all this? As above, you want someone to do an hour here and there to receive a fully fledged combat training and stress tested scenario training. To go out unarmed against armed terrorists and do what exactly? It would be cheaper than hiring and training a load more full time officers. Training could be easily provided by (qualified) volunteers. Who says they will be unarmed?