[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

What we are seeing i think is a form of copy catting. Those not particularly stable see events on the news and think ... hey, i could do that. All it takes is someone a bit mentally vulnerable. I too don't take what I hear as fact, its not like the police are proven to be 100% accurate in their summation of situations in the past. For me, it was still a terrorist attack, albeit not clear if it was related to ISIS or not, it was still a terrorist attack and should be viewed as such.

It's pure conjecture; you could just as easily say that this was caused by xenophobia in the wake of Brexit. Maybe this mentally unstable individual who is not a UK native experienced higher levels of hostility / xenophobia in the wake of Brexit and that was enough to push him over the edge and start attacking people.

Is that what happened? I have absolutely no idea, it's a total guess, but it's just as likely a scenario as it being a terrorist copycat attack.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's pure conjecture; you could just as easily say that this was caused by xenophobia in the wake of Brexit. Maybe this mentally unstable individual who is not a UK native experienced higher levels of hostility / xenophobia in the wake of Brexit and that was enough to push him over the edge and start attacking people.

Is that what happened? I have absolutely no idea, it's a total guess, but it's just as likely a scenario as it being a terrorist copycat attack.

Someone that goes wild with a knife attacking members of the public, is terrorising them. Do you think the people being attacked were not frightened?

Therefore, by definition, it is a terrorist attack. No jumping to conclusions necessary, its a fact.

As i said, we don't know if it was directly related to ISIS, but at a minimum, it is a copycat of similar ISIS inspired events. We haven't had brexit random stabbings, so again, with respect, please don't attribute my statements to lacking coherence and clarity.

The details will no doubt come out over time, but I share Cherie's concern that it is being swept under the carpet when it should most certainly not be.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

What we are seeing i think is a form of copy catting. Those not particularly stable see events on the news and think ... hey, i could do that. All it takes is someone a bit mentally vulnerable. I too don't take what I hear as fact, its not like the police are proven to be 100% accurate in their summation of situations in the past. For me, it was still a terrorist attack, albeit not clear if it was related to ISIS or not, it was still a terrorist attack and should be viewed as such.

My thoughts exactly, I understand the need for people to retain perspective but let's not just shrug our shoulders and call mental illness the police won't have had time to make an informed judgement on that. He was 19, what brought him to London from Norway, who did he live with, was he under medical supervision all questions I would like to get an answer to,

[Cherie]

Also, how long was he here, who funded his trip and how was he supporting himself, I have a lot of questions, that's not xenophobia that's common sense

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I'm the last person anyone could accuse of paranoia, this is the second knife attack on the public in London in recent months that has been attributed to mental health, I have lived in London for years so I'm entitled to ask questions as to whether we are being told the truth, the streets were flooded with armed police only the day before the attack even though the UK has been in high alert for years and yes TS killings have been going on for years blah blah but random knife attacks on members of the public in crowded areas are not as common as you north of the border might assume. I agree that people should wait for the facts before assuming terror, that said I don't think we need to lap up every thing we are told either.

"At 8.20am we were called to the first stabbing and that man went to hospital where he is in a serious but stable condition.
"Forty-five minutes later other calls came in to other stabbings in the area. One of those people stabbed has died.
"The stabbings were random and there appears to be no link between the victims. They were also a cross-section in terms of ethnicity.

Us north of the border get the same news as the south... There have always been random attacks, I do feel that with the recent attacks in Europe, our armed response and the media there is a slight urge to presume a link whilst maintaining the perspective that there is still going to be unrelated violent crime as there was before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-attacks.html

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

"At 8.20am we were called to the first stabbing and that man went to hospital where he is in a serious but stable condition.
"Forty-five minutes later other calls came in to other stabbings in the area. One of those people stabbed has died.
"The stabbings were random and there appears to be no link between the victims. They were also a cross-section in terms of ethnicity.

Us north of the border get the same news as the south... There have always been random attacks, I do feel that with the recent attacks in Europe, our armed response and the media there is a slight urge to presume a link whilst maintaining the perspective that there is still going to be unrelated violent crime as there was before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-attacks.html

Most people killed in terrorist attacks are random, and aren't linked so I'm not sure what that comment is meant to prove

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Most people killed in terrorist attacks are random, and aren't linked so I'm not sure what that comment is meant to prove

It was just a news article to show there have always been random stabbings, but there's no point really,

[arista]

Evil

[Kizzy]

The mental health issue could just as well be due to substance abuse? It seems the increased armed presence has had the opposite effect, far from making those in the capital feel safer it has ramped up the pressure to feel vulnerable to immediate attack.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The mental health issue could just as well be due to substance abuse? It seems the increased armed presence has had the opposite effect, far from making those in the capital feel safer it has ramped up the pressure to feel vulnerable to immediate attack.

I don't know anyone that feels like that Kizzy, police presence on the streets is reassuring as it would be in any City

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I don't know anyone that feels like that Kizzy, police presence on the streets is reassuring as it would be in any City

A police presence yes...an armed presence no.

I felt like that, I was in London recently and the armed presence was unnerving.
Of course I'm just another northern monkey.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

A police presence yes...an armed presence no.

I felt like that, I was in London recently and the armed presence was unnerving.
Of course I'm just another northern monkey.

Soft Northerners, you need to toughen up

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Soft Northerners, you need to toughen up

Toughen up for what... walk around like a coiled spring? no thanks

[Liberty4eva]

Brexit was really only half the battle. The other half is to hold the UK politician's feet to the fire and stop this scum from going to your country.

[bots]

armed police are necessary in order to be able to react effectively to the threats the UK currently faces, or are people actually saying the UK isn't vulnerable at the moment? Cause that seems to be the notion in this thread.

When we had the 7/7 attacks, I was very happy to see an increased armed police presence, and everyone working and living in London echoed that sentiment.

Perhaps the Jeremy Corbyn pacifist approach of ... don't do that again is seen as the better option?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

armed police are necessary in order to be able to react effectively to the threats the UK currently faces, or are people actually saying the UK isn't vulnerable at the moment? Cause that seems to be the notion in this thread.

When we had the 7/7 attacks, I was very happy to see an increased armed police presence, and everyone working and living in London echoed that sentiment.

Perhaps the Jeremy Corbyn pacifist approach of ... don't do that again is seen as the better option?

And we're back to the "we don't live in dangerous times" comment. There was a whole swathe of people who agreed with that... and apparently that still do. It's like, if they ignore it, it'll go away. I suppose it's not close enough to home for some people.

Like I said in another thread armed police are everywhere on the continent, Paris was littered with them well before the terrorist incidents but the Parisians managed to carry on without buckling. The USA the same... I spend a bit of time in Israel every year and everyone's armed there, including primary school teachers... and people still live a normal life.

Something about this incident that's annoyed me from the start... they keep saying he's Norwegian of Somalian descent. He is not. He is Somalian with Norwegian citizenship.

[user104658]

We DON'T live in "dangerous times". That doesn't mean that we live in "safe times" or that the world isn't dangerous. That's where people seem to be getting confused. Saying that we live in dangerous "times" suggests that there is something abnormal or different about the "times" compared to the entirity of history. We arguably live in a more dangerous world than the world of the latter half of the 20th century (IF you ignore cold war rumblings, as nothing actually kicked off). Before that? The world has ALWAYS been a vaguely dangerous place for the average person... and if you bother to look at the actual stats for even 5 seconds it becomes VERY obvious that, if you are a healthy adult, your risk of dropping dead tomorrow (by any means) is far less (FAR far less) than at any other point in history. If you take road traffic deaths out of the equation that difference is even more staggering.

Does that mean there aren't dangers in the world? No, of course there are dangers. It's a dangerous world, but these are not especially dangerous times. If anyone has ANY facts or figures to dispute that - I will happily alter my stance.

[Livia]

We live in dangerous times. I'm not failing to understand anything. On the contrary.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

We live in dangerous times. I'm not failing to understand anything. On the contrary.

Compared to when?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Compared to when?

Compared to before the rise of IS, and them appealing to every skewed Muslim in the world to kill the infidel; compared to a time before we let in hundreds of thousands...millions... of unchecked people into Europe and have no idea at all how many are followers of IS. One in a million? One in a thousand? One in ten? Maybe it's different in the little village where you live... I expect the people who live in the little village where the priest was murdered thought they were far enough from the fray, but there's no such thing any more. Maybe because of the nature and area of my work I'm a little more aware? Maybe I've heard and seen things that make it more clear to me? It doesn't govern my life, but I have to acknowledge that the times are more dangerous now and to deny that... well... where's that picture? You know? the head in the sand one...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Compared to before the rise of IS, and them appealing to every skewed Muslim in the world to kill the infidel; compared to a time before we let in hundreds of thousands...millions... of unchecked people into Europe and have no idea at all how many are followers of IS. One in a million? One in a thousand? One in ten? Maybe it's different in the little village where you live... I expect the people who live in the little village where the priest was murdered thought they were far enough from the fray, but there's no such thing any more. Maybe because of the nature and area of my work I'm a little more aware? Maybe I've heard and seen things that make it more clear to me? It doesn't govern my life, but I have to acknowledge that the times are more dangerous now and to deny that... well... where's that picture? You know? the head in the sand one...

So you're at more risk now than you would have been in the 1940's? You're more at risk walking down the street in London today than you would have been in the Victorian era or earlier?

Like I said; I'm not saying we don't live in a dangerous world but the phrase "these are dangerous times" is comparative; it's stating that an individual is more at risk TODAY than they were in the past... which is simply false. The statistical likelihood of you, me, or any other healthy adult going out and dying today is FAR lower than it has been throughout the vast majority of history - and as I said, that's even WITH automotive accidents (the number one killer of healthy people, by a country mile). This can actually be verified by actual numbers and stats. You are safer today than you would have been in any other era, bar perhaps a few parts of the latter 20th century when things were pretty "quiet" in western Europe... but I would call that an uncommon period of calm, rather than the world now "uncommonly dangerous".

So... like I said; I've nt been claiming that the world is not a dangerous place. It obviously can be. And all you've done is explain why you think the world is dangerous, and that's fine. But it doesn't answer my question, other than in pointing out that we had a very briefly calm period before the rise of ISIS.

More dangerous, compared to WHEN? In terms of broader history.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So you're at more risk now than you would have been in the 1940's? You're more at risk walking down the street in London today than you would have been in the Victorian era or earlier?

Like I said; I'm not saying we don't live in a dangerous world but the phrase "these are dangerous times" is comparative; it's stating that an individual is more at risk TODAY than they were in the past... which is simply false. The statistical likelihood of you, me, or any other healthy adult going out and dying today is FAR lower than it has been throughout the vast majority of history - and as I said, that's even WITH automotive accidents (the number one killer of healthy people, by a country mile). This can actually be verified by actual numbers and stats. You are safer today than you would have been in any other era, bar perhaps a few parts of the latter 20th century when things were pretty "quiet" in western Europe... but I would call that an uncommon period of calm, rather than the world now "uncommonly dangerous".

So... like I said; I've nt been claiming that the world is not a dangerous place. It obviously can be. And all you've done is explain why you think the world is dangerous, and that's fine. But it doesn't answer my question, other than in pointing out that we had a very briefly calm period before the rise of ISIS.

More dangerous, compared to WHEN? In terms of broader history.

We are more at risk of ISIS terrorist attacks now than we were 10 years ago. Ask those Brits attacked in Tunisia, ask the family of the beheaded soldier.

These are more dangerous times than most peoples living memory. To deny that, is sticking your head in the sand.

[Braden]

More sad news. I hope those who are injured pull through and are not to effected by the trauma of this incident.

Poor woman