Strudul

So basically you plan to help the police force out is an unpaid police force ?

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...

Or or hear me out this is a bit out there but humor me maybe there is a police officer there. I know I know it's a bit mental to think we can employee police to do this but I think it could just work.

Repeating myself once again...

More people = more chance of being in the right place at the right time.

OK now I know you are stretching it!

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.

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

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.

You could argue anything is possible therefore every debate is valid. Theres a tiny minute possibility I could drive a Zed across all the oceans in the world on skis but would expect the response to be that its a stupid idea and I wouldn't continue to debate it. As I said right up top the scalability and impact this would have if it had say £5bn thrown at it to make it work would be nigh on stupid and a waste of money and have no impact.

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...

How will it effect it you sitting in a course for 6 months isnt going to stop a transit full of knife wielding terroists

 

That's one incident that as I've said, nobody can really prevent, however, there are other ways that can be prevented.

 

call it what you want these people have gone out on that day to die nothing can deter that

 

You can deter them from targeting specific places / people by reducing the ease of doing so.

 

yea the target is the transit doing 70mph along the pathway, i dont think anyone needs training on thats probably a good point to call it in? Do you really think Margret whose on a day out with her friends is going to go is this normal and carry on their day? the reason the london attack was stopped so fast was multle members of public called it in as it happened. how would spending thousands help improve that?

 

Again, you're getting hung up on 1 example.

 

No you have the twister mind that 1 life is worth less than 50, if 1 person dies its fine aslong as 50 live ??, you will notice my theme here is to stop it before it gets to the point of them going out to carry out the attack not a case of lets jump them when we see something dodgy. and that level of intelligence and skill isnt going to be gained from putting guys with combat/profiling training on a patrol

 

Lol what? Yes, 50 lives are more valuable than one. No it's not fine if 1 person dies, but it's better than 50.

 

I'm not sure how can you be so indifferent to it.

 

 

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

OK so - backtracking, yes Strudul it is possible and appreciate your points to show that but as clear as day its got no scale, no feasibility, no practical laydown, no way it can be proved right now it would improve anything in terms of reducing murder by terrorists or improve over what the police do already. So why we have wasted pages of debate on one of the most daft ideas out there, only on 350z-uk.com!

 

As for being more aware, I am not sure I know what that means - maybe some other people who commute into London each day through the hotspots like I do can give a view also as to how you behave. I for one, am a very observant guy, but I dont walk into work eyeing up every person that walks by me, even if I do what do I do? Call in 5 innocent people to the police each day? I am not sure what the practicalities of this are? I saw plenty of people today of different cultures, colours, carrying all manner of bags and rucksacks, what exactly am I calling in? If I see a transit drive past with a middle eastern guy driving it, do I radio it in?

 

Most of these incidents happen instantly, there is from what I can see no pre-warning that would be visible - one second they are just another person driving past, the next something explodes or the transit mounts the pavement.

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.

Guy walks into a Bar..............Boooom

 

Bit late for you and your mate to profile him

 

Regarding the video i posted above. the point you know thats a terroist attack is once it has commence.

 

 

Also how do you train people on what to look out for them you cant?

 

What you train people to look out for middle eastern men with suit cases you looking straight out for a racism claim, or are suspicious of any car with a rental sticker on it now?

 

Also did it occur that you release the info on what to look out for they will change there approach and do it they way different to what your telling people to look for?

 

You dont train people how to look for terrorism you need to train people on how to stay safe in an attack or how to evacuate an attack. There is enough media from London to show people where more than happy to film it than run

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...

Yeah we can call them the Orwells.

 

I agree with that part in TT's idea, but if its what signs to look out for, its knowledge we should all be given.

And I its a very valid point not all things can be preempted.

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...

Do the terrorist really care if he trained for a week or 10 years? no.

 

If it affects how well they can carry out whatever their intentions are, then yes.

 

as above there not deterred by armed police and they have a wish to die nothing will deter them

 

I think you are confusing "deter" with "scare".

 

If im putting money on a guy with his hands and a guy with a semi automatic rifle or a bomb i know where my money is going

 

So all that training and information won't help identify the target, aid armed police, or mitigate losses??

 

Right around the corner is to late if they have slashed up people, this isnt a Call of Duty with a timer and a goal the point you know they are a terroist is when the @*!# has already started at that point its to late.

 

I'll ask again, so why even bother having a police force at all if they can't prevent all murders. You seem to have a twisted mindset that if 1 person dies it doesn't matter if another 50 die.

 

Unfortunately in reality the only way to stop them is to to stop them before they even start. There is nothing more we can do if they reach a stage of committing an attack

 

 

See above.

I read his point as we have a police force in place, we should look to invest in that. An influx of part time CSO's would cost a lot less. A switched on citizenship who know what signs to look for and can call the police etc earlier than disaster time, is free, allows us to feel helpful and preventative.

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.

Which is my point that through citizen knowledge, which we can all get through adverts, pamphlets, bus shelter posters etc. We all have a phone, if we all know what to look for we can make the calls hopefully before disaster strikes. Noone needs to confront them but we can call the already trained people who will.

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?

Deterring them? What, the guys who strapped fake suicide bombs on themselves so they knew they would get shot, or the guys that actually blow themselves up? Im pretty sure 5 fat lads giving them a kicking (if they can catch them) will be more than enough.

 

Mitigating potential damage? How are you going to do that against 3 guys with knives, lasso them all with a magic rope? Use The Force? No, you need highly trained armed operative to do that .......... like the police perhaps.

 

Vigilantes dont work for all of the reasons mentioned, even against relativel;y low level street crime. Suggesting they can take on extremist terrorist who actually want to die for their cause is just ****ing stupid, frankly.

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

Oh so you saying People in Village/towns deserve to die but people in built areas like cites dont?

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.

Define hotspot. Live events already have a heavy police presence. As do airports and train stations...and city centres.

This thread is playing on the feeling of uselessness and not knowing that these atrocities create. TT wants to play a part to help the country which is admirable. The problem is the attacks can happen at any location at any time, which relates to part of codels argument. As someone said, becoming a CSO would impact your local area and help the uniformed presence figure increase. You'd also have direct contact to the nearest bobby which would decrease the already impressive response time.

Dans point wasn't to ignore terrorists and focus on local crime, but if you want to help there are already avenues you can go down.

 

You can become a part time CSO

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.

If you think some terrorist is going to be scared of James the IT consultant who took a weeks course in self defense you've got another thing coming

 

these terrorist are not scared of armed police, Dave with a stitched on Civil Unit Neutralization Team on his arm isn't going to scare them one bit

 

Also ultimately your asking for people to volunteer themselves up to get killed first.

 

Also how is this New team going to get to a site any faster than the police going to speak out on vehicles for them to at which point we might as well just invest in the police.

 

Or even how many people would need to be enrolled as first sacrifice to come enough terrorist that they can be on site

 

i mean it would be terrible and awfully ironic for after all the training for a terrorist to bomb say a kids concert were very minimum Adults would be, and on that point please explain how even 100 of civil guards stop a bomb going off or even stop someone putting 2 tons worth of transit into a crowd?

 

This isnt the Avengers

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.

You're debating semantics. In fairness to codel, possible was my word, if i had said feasible...

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

If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis.

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.

If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis.

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

He understands, he disagrees with the usefulness and possibility.

There's a difference between possible and feasible.

Right so - we invent a civilian policing force, we train them like the military, they spend one hour a week patrolling and we give them weapons.

 

Am I seriously the only person on here seeing the insanity of this idea? There is absolutely no scalability to it.

 

OK, so 10m people in London, millions in Manchester Birmingham so on and so forth. People devote say 3 hours a week to patrol, you need patrols to cover say 18 hours a day, people patrol in pairs say. London is what 30 square miles. Some simple maths and....6 patrol hours (18/3) of 2 people thats 12 people per day. Covering 30 square miles in one city, say they cover around 250 square metres each...and so on and so forth.

 

You need to recruit tens of thousands of people, you need all the training to be given for free across the country confirming to specific guidelines probably aligned with the months of training that police officers get (let alone the years of training and graduation through the ranks that firearms officers get). All this is done for free, all the administration, process all the training itself. Then you need to buy, maintain and store equipment in secure locations across the country, again all this is free?

 

I probably have only looked at the tip of the iceberg, but the idea is just nuts. Sorry to be frank.

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....

1. Again (as you like that phrase) I never said you think its a good idea, I questioned if you think all that effort to result in little or zero impact is a good idea

2. Dedication, to achieve little or nothing

3. They could have additional powers, its called the police and its multitude of variants and its already in place

 

So who is funding this new civilian turned combat ready policing force? Seems like a waste of time, something you could blag your way into (having seen plenty of psychometric tests) and a complete waste of time when I believe we already have this in place hence the 8 minute response time from reporting of an incident to 3 dead terrorists.

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.

Special constables are already an option.

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?