Beheading in London

Originally posted by Ushgarak
13 minutes for [b]armed response. British police aren't armed. They could have had general police on the scene much faster (and indeed they did, but they held back for the ARU) but an armed response unit needs to be specifically detailed to get going. 13 minutes is bloody good for London coverage. [/B]

Virtually none, and literally none by default unless a Chief Constable deploys firearms in response to a perceived threat. There is just a small group of very highly trained officers, working on a volunteer only basis, who get called in to respond to dangerous incidents; they only collect their guns when so called.

But it doesn't really raise that question, because the current setup proved perfect for dealing with this.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This does however bring up a question about whether the UK's police forces have sufficient numbers of armed officers.

This statement, although appropriate, worries me. The government using this to get more armed police on the streets.

In this case it wouldn't have mattered if beat police were armed unless one of them happened to be right there as the incident happened. From what appears to have happened. They attackers mounted the pavement in their car, knocked the victim down before hitting a road sign, jumped out and immediately started a frenzied knife and meat cleaver attack on him. He may have even been killed by the car running him over. Either way he was dead within a minute of them running him over and then hung around waiting for police. So unless there was an armed officer who happened to be right at the scene then it wouldn't have mattered. The the victim would still be dead.

Originally posted by jaden101
In this case it wouldn't have mattered if beat police were armed unless one of them happened to be right there as the incident happened. From what appears to have happened. They attackers mounted the pavement in their car, knocked the victim down before hitting a road sign, jumped out and immediately started a frenzied knife and meat cleaver attack on him. He may have even been killed by the car running him over. Either way he was dead within a minute of them running him over and then hung around waiting for police. So unless there was an armed officer who happened to be right at the scene then it wouldn't have mattered. The the victim would still be dead.

it is a very strange precedence that the UK has, when compared to places where there is no such assumption of unarmed police...

I don't see the argument that says this is a "crass political game" as a final answer, though I don't know a better place to start. Especially in a context where some perspectives will not be considered in a final analysis of aide distribution, but clearly there is a division between people in the state who want to effect real change and those attempting to be enforced by lobbyists.

huh...

ugh...

KMC wont host my atheist views....

Originally posted by Oliver North
but clearly there is a division between people in the state who want to effect real change and those attempting to be enforced by lobbyists.

Are lobbyists not defined by their desire to change?

There's been a copy cat style attack in France on a soldier there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are lobbyists not defined by their desire to change?

true...

though, I've read through that post probably a dozen times now and have absolutely no idea what I was trying to say, and it is likely a lot of booze are the reason...

It's been a rough couple of days, don't judge me

Glenn Beck, as poignant as always:

YouTube video

EDIT: Get him!

All hail the radio tough guy.

Let's not forget that the Greatest Generation said "Get him!" before lynchings. I bet Glenn Beck would like those to happen again.