Germany-Netherlands game 'canceled for security reasons'

[Buzzer]

I hate that I feel like this, but I can't help feeling you're right.

Look at Cameron's speech the other day. He knows that his Government have made their bed with the cuts to public spending, and he can't lose face by making a u-turn now. I read what he said as "Hey, it's going to happen, and we're not going to risk looking stupid by changing our minds on cutting back on police and the military and the security services. So look after yourselves, people, be vigilant, and do the work that you thought you were paying taxes for. And remember: it's not the Government's fault! It's those ISIS *******s!".

Alright, he chucked a bit of money at MI5 & MI6 as a token gesture to make it look like he was actually reacting to events. But that's massively shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I normally agree with you and defer to your better knowledge of these sort of things but I just don't accept that we're considered expendable. I commute into St Pancras every day and I can assure you that the security presence just there alone is remarkably heavy. Obviously I can't back any of this up with any firm facts but as Thunderbolt has pointed out, dozens of attacks have been prevented and no major incidents (touch wood) for 10 years suggests that our safety is being taken very seriously.

I went up to London on Saturday with my two sons and I ummed and aah-ed about whether to but a combination of just getting on with our lives and trusting the authorities to protect us as much as they can persuaded me to go. If I thought that our safety was an afterthought there's no way I'd risk the lives of the 2 people I love most in this world.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Reuters now saying no explosive found, and no arrests made in Hanover.

Mirror tweeting that no explosives found at the stadium.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I normally agree with you and defer to your better knowledge of these sort of things but I just don't accept that we're considered expendable. I commute into St Pancras every day and I can assure you that the security presence just there alone is remarkably heavy. Obviously I can't back any of this up with any firm facts but as Thunderbolt has pointed out, dozens of attacks have been prevented and no major incidents (touch wood) for 10 years suggests that our safety is being taken very seriously.

I went up to London on Saturday with my two sons and I ummed and aah-ed about whether to but a combination of just getting on with our lives and trusting the authorities to protect us as much as they can persuaded me to go. If I thought that our safety was an afterthought there's no way I'd risk the lives of the 2 people I love most in this world.

Perhaps "expendable" was a bit strong. But everything Cameron said the other day smacked of being resigned to the inevitable.

I'm realistic. We talk of bombs and the like, but if somebody was able to get hold of a pair of automatic weapons, jump in a couple of taxis, head for Oxford Street in peak Christmas shopping time, and enter from either end, then it's the simplest thing in the world.

In my- non expert- opinion, the only reason something like this hasn't happened is because it's a lot harder to smuggle heavy duty weaponry like that into the UK than it is into continental European countries like France. But the police (and presumably military) have been training for just this scenario since the Mumbai shootings a few years back. The difference between here and Paris is that the French were able to get far more police to the scene far quicker than I believe we ever would. They simply have vastly more of them (yes, I know France has had a few Socialist leaning Governments, who tend to create public sector jobs to ease unemployment figures).

I've no idea how true this is, but one publication reported the other day that Hollande was able to mobilise something like 80,000 police after it all went off. We only have about 120,000 in the entire country, of which considerably fewer will be front line officers, and which about one in five will be on duty at any given time, given shift patterns, leave and so on. I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do. Cameron wants to get our total numbers down to 80,000 by whenever their next deadline is.

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Perhaps "expendable" was a bit strong. But everything Cameron said the other day smacked of being resigned to the inevitable.

I'm realistic. We talk of bombs and the like, but if somebody was able to get hold of a pair of automatic weapons, jump in a couple of taxis, head for Oxford Street in peak Christmas shopping time, and enter from either end, then it's the simplest thing in the world.

In my- non expert- opinion, the only reason something like this hasn't happened is because it's a lot harder to smuggle heavy duty weaponry like that into the UK than it is into continental European countries like France. But the police (and presumably military) have been training for just this scenario since the Mumbai shootings a few years back. The difference between here and Paris is that the French were able to get far more police to the scene far quicker than I believe we ever would. They simply have vastly more of them (yes, I know France has had a few Socialist leaning Governments, who tend to create public sector jobs to ease unemployment figures).

I've no idea how true this is, but one publication reported the other day that Hollande was able to mobilise something like 80,000 police after it all went off. We only have about 120,000 in the entire country, of which considerably fewer will be front line officers, and which about one in five will be on duty at any given time, given shift patterns, leave and so on. I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do. Cameron wants to get our total numbers down to 80,000 by whenever their next deadline is.

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course.

Don't forget, in France, gendarmes are military and armed. The ordinary policier isn't.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Perhaps "expendable" was a bit strong. But everything Cameron said the other day smacked of being resigned to the inevitable.

I'm realistic. We talk of bombs and the like, but if somebody was able to get hold of a pair of automatic weapons, jump in a couple of taxis, head for Oxford Street in peak Christmas shopping time, and enter from either end, then it's the simplest thing in the world.

In my- non expert- opinion, the only reason something like this hasn't happened is because it's a lot harder to smuggle heavy duty weaponry like that into the UK than it is into continental European countries like France. But the police (and presumably military) have been training for just this scenario since the Mumbai shootings a few years back. The difference between here and Paris is that the French were able to get far more police to the scene far quicker than I believe we ever would. They simply have vastly more of them (yes, I know France has had a few Socialist leaning Governments, who tend to create public sector jobs to ease unemployment figures).

I've no idea how true this is, but one publication reported the other day that Hollande was able to mobilise something like 80,000 police after it all went off. We only have about 120,000 in the entire country, of which considerably fewer will be front line officers, and which about one in five will be on duty at any given time, given shift patterns, leave and so on. I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do. Cameron wants to get our total numbers down to 80,000 by whenever their next deadline is.

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course.

Do you think the police in London(and other major towns/cities) need to be armed now ?

 

[severnside gull]

Mirror tweeting that no explosives found at the stadium.

There will be a lot of this in the aftermath of Paris and many of the false rumours and scaremongering are what will remain as "truth" in many peoples' memories when it fits their agenda/mindset.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Do you think the police in London(and other major towns/cities) need to be armed now ?

It would make me uncomfortable. I've carried before & I have no desire to do so again. People in this country simply aren't used to it. Every now & again when I worked at Gatwick, people would come up to me and say how disgusting it was to see police with guns.

That said, I can't help feeling there needs to be a greater capacity to respond, particularly in areas which might be seen as bigger targets, like London. It's a far, far thinner blue line than you'd imagine.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It would make me uncomfortable. I've carried before & I have no desire to do so again. People in this country simply aren't used to it. Every now & again when I worked at Gatwick, people would come up to me and say how disgusting it was to see police with guns.

That said, I can't help feeling there needs to be a greater capacity to respond, particularly in areas which might be seen as bigger targets, like London. It's a far, far thinner blue line than you'd imagine.

Pretty much the same view as my landlord who is an officer in London, he seems to think there will be police with guns on the streets on London within 2 years - not all. But a noticeable amount.

I'm not sure if that makes me feel safer or more uneasy.

 

[Buzzer]

Perhaps "expendable" was a bit strong. But everything Cameron said the other day smacked of being resigned to the inevitable.

I'm realistic. We talk of bombs and the like, but if somebody was able to get hold of a pair of automatic weapons, jump in a couple of taxis, head for Oxford Street in peak Christmas shopping time, and enter from either end, then it's the simplest thing in the world.

In my- non expert- opinion, the only reason something like this hasn't happened is because it's a lot harder to smuggle heavy duty weaponry like that into the UK than it is into continental European countries like France. But the police (and presumably military) have been training for just this scenario since the Mumbai shootings a few years back. The difference between here and Paris is that the French were able to get far more police to the scene far quicker than I believe we ever would. They simply have vastly more of them (yes, I know France has had a few Socialist leaning Governments, who tend to create public sector jobs to ease unemployment figures).

I've no idea how true this is, but one publication reported the other day that Hollande was able to mobilise something like 80,000 police after it all went off. We only have about 120,000 in the entire country, of which considerably fewer will be front line officers, and which about one in five will be on duty at any given time, given shift patterns, leave and so on. I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do. Cameron wants to get our total numbers down to 80,000 by whenever their next deadline is.

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course.

I can't comment about police numbers as I don't know enough about it but if smugglers can get people and drugs into Britain then I reckon they can surely get guns in here with the same ease. The IRA managed it after all. But the 7/7 bombers didn't need guns, neither did the Brick Lane/Old Compton St bomber.

Actually, with regards the French police numbers, is France safer generally as a result of all those police (not just terrorism but normal crime) or do they just do things differently? Genuine question, I'm not fishing.

 

[portlock seagull]

There was a trial last year of a terrorist plotting to assassinate Blair, which was foiled by our security forces. Another 6 cases were heard where the plots had been uncovered.

Interesting. Didn't know that. Worrying too, and I'm no fan of Blair.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Interesting. Didn't know that. Worrying too, and I'm no fan of Blair.

There's a trial started today at the Old Bailey, where the jury was told if they had any connection to victims in Paris, they could be excused duty.
I believe there was also a foiled plot for the VE Day celebrations. I can't remember the details of that.

 

[Titanic]

Pretty much the same view as my landlord who is an officer in London, he seems to think there will be police with guns on the streets on London within 2 years - not all. But a noticeable amount.

I'm not sure if that makes me feel safer or more uneasy.

It already happens. There are regularly armed police at London Bridge station in the mornings.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I hate that I feel like this, but I can't help feeling you're right.

Look at Cameron's speech the other day. He knows that his Government have made their bed with the cuts to public spending, and he can't lose face by making a u-turn now. I read what he said as "Hey, it's going to happen, and we're not going to risk looking stupid by changing our minds on cutting back on police and the military and the security services. So look after yourselves, people, be vigilant, and do the work that you thought you were paying taxes for. And remember: it's not the Government's fault! It's those ISIS *******s!".

Alright, he chucked a bit of money at MI5 & MI6 as a token gesture to make it look like he was actually reacting to events. But that's massively shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Or you could sum it up by calling him a selfish c***

 

[Bozza]

I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do.

England and Wales 129,584 (227 per 100,000 of population)
France 220,000 (356 per 100,000 of population)

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course

As you just said (and those stats illustrate) France has a far bigger police force and they've just got done big time. And got done not long before that too.

It goes back to the old IRA phrase doesn't it? "You have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once." The rules of the 'game' have changed immeasurably and I'm not sure any country believes with absolute surety that it can protect itself.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I think we all know when the shit finally hits the fan over here many hundreds of people will die, due to insufficient policing/security

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Perhaps "expendable" was a bit strong. But everything Cameron said the other day smacked of being resigned to the inevitable.

I'm realistic. We talk of bombs and the like, but if somebody was able to get hold of a pair of automatic weapons, jump in a couple of taxis, head for Oxford Street in peak Christmas shopping time, and enter from either end, then it's the simplest thing in the world.

In my- non expert- opinion, the only reason something like this hasn't happened is because it's a lot harder to smuggle heavy duty weaponry like that into the UK than it is into continental European countries like France. But the police (and presumably military) have been training for just this scenario since the Mumbai shootings a few years back. The difference between here and Paris is that the French were able to get far more police to the scene far quicker than I believe we ever would. They simply have vastly more of them (yes, I know France has had a few Socialist leaning Governments, who tend to create public sector jobs to ease unemployment figures).

I've no idea how true this is, but one publication reported the other day that Hollande was able to mobilise something like 80,000 police after it all went off. We only have about 120,000 in the entire country, of which considerably fewer will be front line officers, and which about one in five will be on duty at any given time, given shift patterns, leave and so on. I can't quite believe the 80,000 statistic was correct, but they certainly have about twice as many police in France as we do. Cameron wants to get our total numbers down to 80,000 by whenever their next deadline is.

If somebody wants to get at us, they will. Cameron knows this, and that speech was his way of saying "Don't blame me when it happens". IMHO, of course.

Possibly the French called back onto duty most, if not all of their Police officers from across the country. They may have had cross region support from other forces in France, who have sent officers to Paris to help with security there in the same way that a lot of British forces probably provided support to London following the 7/7 attacks. (be it specialist units or just officers to patrol the streets / higher risk areas and to reassure the public through a visual presence)

Look at the Sussex response to the Shoreham plane crash, i'd have thought that it would have stretched them as they sent a lot of resources there to deal with the tragedy and i imagine that they got support from other forces too, but they still managed to Police that incident whilst maintaining Policing coverage for the rest of Sussex (i'd imagine with a lot of cancelled rest days, etc for that and i'd have thought that the situation in France is likely to be similar with rest days cancelled and officers brought back onto duty to bolster the numbers there.)

I think the language used by Cameron reflects the fact that it is possible for an attack to succeed regardless of how much a country spends on security / police forces and alike. No electronic monitoring will work if the plotters don't use electronic systems to communicate (verbal face to face communication only) and if the attackers are complete unknowns to the security forces and do nothing to arouse suspicion for anyone to report them to the authorities, then how is anyone supposed to be able to stop them?

The call for people to report suspicious behaviour is to increase the chances of the discovery of a plot by those unknowns and gives the authorities a chance to find out before its too late and act to prevent an attack.

 

[Bozza]

I think we all know when the shit finally hits the fan over here many hundreds of people will die, due to insufficient policing/security

So France have nearly twice as many police as us. How many would they need to have to stop such an attack?

 

[Bry Nylon]

All the while we have these utterly useless Police and Crime Commissioners telling Chief Constables how to spend their resources I see little point in giving additional resources to the police. Get rid of these pointless bureaucrats voted in by about 3% of the electorate and let the professional police officers get on with policing as they see best.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

All the while we have these utterly useless Police and Crime Commissioners telling Chief Constables how to spend their resources I see little point in giving additional resources to the police. Get rid of these pointless bureaucrats voted in by about 3% of the electorate and let the professional police officers get on with policing as they see best.

Didn't the Police Commissioners replace a Police authorities, each with several unelected board members telling the Police Constable how to spend their resources?

 

[Hampster Gull]

I think we all know when the shit finally hits the fan over here many hundreds of people will die, due to insufficient policing/security

I dont think it wil be due to that