11 Sep 2017 12:08:03
I see that armed police have been authorised for tomorrow nite.
On the whole, I don't buy the terror argument; I don't even think the policy is primarily about preventing terrorism or catching potential terrorists. I live abroad and can't attend as often as I like, so it doesn't directly effect me, but I am curious how you all view this.
11 Sep 2017 12:17:26
You got s conspiracy theory you would like to share?
If an attack did happen, regardless of the level of risk and no armed cops where there, how do you think that would play out?
Yeah me too.
After the attack in Paris it has to be done. Regardless of risk.
11 Sep 2017 12:42:30
Not a conspiracy theory, Magic, but some more or less ideological considerations, which I'll be happy to share below.
11 Sep 2017 13:28:28
After Paris, Barcelona, Manchester and everywhere else, I mean I know they were talking about making it harder to hire a van, but don't know if they have done anything yet, after everything that has happened they would be better erring on the side of caution.
11 Sep 2017 13:29:34
Cut to the chase.
11 Sep 2017 14:18:12
The world has changed and there will be armed police at every major event from here on in. That's just common sense. To not do that and an attack happened, we would get, they don't care about Celtic fans blah blah.
It's just a requirement now in relation to terrorism.
11 Sep 2017 15:29:41
they are there to protect both sets of fans women and children aswell don't for what happened in manchester it doesn't matter to them isis targeted kids and women at that event.
11 Sep 2017 15:32:26
Don't agree with it at all. Don't trust the polis wae pepper spray never mind machine guns.
11 Sep 2017 15:15:14
I agree that in the extremely unlikely circumstanes of an indiscriminate attack on a large crowd, armed policing is the best way to quickly contain the threat, and will undoubtedly help to minimize the number of casualties, along with other emergency personnel. We may wish society to police every large gathering of people in this manner or not, but on this view it makes sense to allocate the resources to the largest gatherings, and the most high profile events, and perhaps especially to those with international dimensions. Maybe France, and Paris, should make us especially cautious given events of the last years.
The examples from London suggest that having armed units nearby or on call can be very effective in the event of even premeditated attacks. But I don’t think this is what is being proposed: rather, I imagine visible patrols of armed officers, and all the regalia of militarized policing. Why, if we can all agree that even the most robust armed police presence will not deter such an attack (although it might conceivably cause the perpetrator to choose a ‘softer’ target) ?
A storm-trooperesque spectacle, it can be argued, fosters certain behaviours in crowds, and by extension in the societies that they form part of. If you accept the idea that this ‘makes us feel safe, ’ as well you might, this is just one way in which an armed police presence can incline you to behave, or think, or feel, in a given way, but it is hardly the only one. Studies correlate much less intrusive surveillance practices with startling increases in self-correction, self-censorship, and broad civic obedience. People are known to curtail their self-expression by considerations of being watched, and by the potential of retribution. (Think of the videotapes being used to single out ‘trouble makers’ in the crowd, for example) .
At a time when the corporatization of football is virtually complete, where FIFA or UEFA or ‘the Board’ tolerate no dissent, no sullying of their brands, all sorts of behaviours are now deemed to be undesirable, and to ‘have no place in football. ’ The anti-British-establishment songs associated with our team are a prime example, as are our ‘illicit’ political banners. Now, does arming the police have a bearing on those sorts of behaviours? On setting off fireworks, or smuggling a flask into the ground? I would suggest it does—not on the supposition that deviant behaviour will meet with pistols at high noon—but because it projects an irresistible view of authority and produces a more deferential citizenry. That, some argue, is the point of an armed police presence.
Until recently, the UK police have sought to govern by consent: the social contract and, failing that, the law itself was thought to be coercive enough to maintain order. More visceral forms of coercion are not needed, the argument goes, and are anyway incompatible with prevailing ideas about freedom and democracy. At a time of austerity, of Brexit, of Independence—all fairly momentous as politics goes—it is not unreasonable to presume that some folks might reject the decisions of authority and, it may be, a new paradigm is required. Crises are often used to usher in unpopular changes. Either way, this move risks normalizing a more directly repressive and coercive version of state authority than we are accustomed to.
11 Sep 2017 16:50:37
You missed out Islamic terrorism from your list of things that are happening today, or is it not politically correct to say that?
11 Sep 2017 18:20:16
Could someone tell me how a police person with a machine gun could have stopped the Manchester attack or the London attack?
11 Sep 2017 18:44:26
Didn't the armed police shoot the guys dead in London and in that place near Barcelona, and that policeman that was stabbed to death in Westminster was unarmed.
11 Sep 2017 19:01:51
Let me repeat the question for you Aindoh as I don't think you quite understood it the first time.
"How would a police person with a machine gun could have STOPPED the Manchester attack or the London attack? "
I put the key word in capitals for you.
11 Sep 2017 19:14:30
Ah, I see what you mean, but you agree then police armed with machine guns can stop an attacker or attackers, from killing more innocent, after the initial assault.
11 Sep 2017 19:52:42
Yes shooting someone dead does stop them doing anything else but I suspect you could stop them without having armed officers with machine guns.
Here is a something to consider, why don't we just change our foreign policy and stop supporting terrorists in the first place and then the attacks wouldn't happen.
11 Sep 2017 20:22:05
Britain and America are the reason for most of the atrocities, leave other countries and their resources alone, their actions have stirred a hornets nest in the middle east n it's going to take a lot of fixing before anyone is safe.
11 Sep 2017 20:42:16
It will never be fixed, gone too far😞.
11 Sep 2017 20:57:40
@gedceltic - I'm sure they said the same in Ireland but that got solved by both sides sitting round a table and working on a plan to move forward.
12 Sep 2017 13:43:02
with some big names in town they're obviously not taking any chances after what happened with the dortmund team bus recently.