Around this time last year, after the Russel Square stabbing, the Met launched Op Hercules which saw CT police deployed and checkpoints with armed officers. Are they still in place? Although it does give the impression the city is under siege, I think it could have really stopped many attacks ie, Westminster, if they had checkpoints on all main motorways and roads into London. Yes, they would cause congestion in some areas, but given the events in Barcelona, they could have been stopped. 

Checkpoints won't stop everything from happening anyway because you can always conceal stuff somewhere somehow, but I'll give you another possible reason as of why it's not viable over long periods of time.

 

After the first terrorist attack in France, the government launched the Sentinel operation, which basically consisted into using our army to protect most crowded cities and touristic areas. A decent idea, if it lasted just a few months. As of now, it's been two years our soldiers have been posted around the country like that, just standing on specific spots or walking around areas, with their assault rifle, hand weapon, bulletproof vest and 30 kilos of equipment on their back. Without a single day off. They're exhausted, frustrated, and become easy targets (just last week, a guy rammed into a patrol just as they walked out of their barracks). They can't do their job at optimal efficiency. Worse, they're so disgusted that they don't even renew their contracts and leave the military all together, because they enrolled to fight, and not to stand there and play the role of overseers.

 

Now imagine that, with police officers. Forced to just stand there, on a checkpoint. All day everyday, doing the same thing over and over, for months. This kind of thing works on short period of times when you need an immediate protection in the waiting of a bigger, more structured plan, but becomes liability when it is extended over long periods of time.

Edited August 20, 20178 yr by Hystery

Just now, Hystery said:

Checkpoints won't stop everything from happening anyway because you can always conceal stuff somewhere somehow, but I'll give you another possible reason as of why it's not viable over long periods of time.

 

After the first terrorist attack in France, the government launched the Sentinel operation, which basically consisted into using our army to protect most crowded cities and touristic areas. A decent idea, if it lasted just a few months. As of now, it's been two years our soldiers have been posted around the country like that, just standing on specific spots or walking around areas, with their assault rifle, hand weapon, bulletproof vest and 30 kilos of equipment on their back. Without a single day off. They're exhausted, frustrated, and become easy targets (just last week, a guy rammed into a patrol just as they walked out of their barracks). They can't do their job at optimal efficiency. Worst, they're so disgusted that they don't even renew their contracts and leave the military all together, because they enrolled to fight, and not to stand there and play the role of overseers.

 

Now imagine that, with police officers. Forced to just stand there, on a checkpoint. All day everyday, doing the same thing over and over, for months. This kind of thing works on short period of times when you need an immediate protecting in the waiting of a bigger, more structured plan, but becomes liability when it is extended over long periods of time.

Well, many officers in London basically do the same thing. They stand outside Downing Street or embassies, all day, every day, with an MP5. They could recruit more of these officers to do the checkpoint. 

 

I hear they are making more checks on people hiring vans, but to me that sounds like it might solve some problems, but not all. For example, Khalid Masood, the 52 year old terrorist who attacked Westminster, had no history of radicalisation. And the truck used in the Berlin attack was hijacked. The same thing could happen here. Or, they could buy or use their own cars. It really isn't a very well thought solution if you ask me. 

49 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Well, many officers in London basically do the same thing. They stand outside Downing Street or embassies, all day, every day, with an MP5. They could recruit more of these officers to do the checkpoint. 

They could, but you can't prevent terror attacks by checkpoints. Moreover, it's not even police work, it's the matter of intelligence, national security and other privacy invading cool stuff which allows men in black to strike preemptively, targeting immigrants and minorities on the grounds of not-so-good intelligence [i'm not really being serious here]

 

We have, honestly, not so good and not so many patrol cops and our security measures are a joke. But old KGB masterminds somehow keep us protected, and I'm not sure I'm eager to know how. When it comes to the war on terror, there's no country for lawyers and cops... 

And also, quick question, what about the nearly a million people who commute straight to the heart of the city via train? 

Not to mention the stations all the way out in Zone 9. 
London's already become a huge traffic nightmare, and this doesn't really seem like a practical investment of time and effort. 
The money would be better invested in intelligence and actual response teams. That's what I think at least.

Just now, Starmix said:

And also, quick question, what about the nearly a million people who commute straight to the heart of the city via train? 

Not to mention the stations all the way out in Zone 9. 
London's already become a huge traffic nightmare, and this doesn't really seem like a practical investment of time and effort. 
The money would be better invested in intelligence and actual response teams. That's what I think at least.

you can't monitor everyone, khalid massod had no links to terrorism apart from a text at the last minuet on encrypted whatsapp. 

i agree about the traffic and yes the trains I guess they would find a way around it 

1 hour ago, qwertyK said:

you can't monitor everyone, khalid massod had no links to terrorism apart from a text at the last minuet on encrypted whatsapp. 

So a random guy all of a sudden decided to kill people just because some unknown person said so? Either we (the public) not getting the whole story due to intelligence reasons, or... 

34 minutes ago, Hastings said:

So a random guy all of a sudden decided to kill people just because some unknown person said so? Either we (the public) not getting the whole story due to intelligence reasons, or... 

What I mean is that its not like some really sophisticated attack, he had no contacts reportedly, no links to ISIS, and planned it all himself. We will never know how exactly he had planned it and how long he had planned it for, but he was a "lone wolf attacker". The terrorists at London bridge however, were known to security services and should have been apprehended. Why they don't just lock up the 23,000 jihadis living in the UK is beyond me. 

The total UK prison population is 85,975, with a total capacity of around 88,000.

That's why we don't jail 23,000 people, and also, what specific crime do you convict them with, since I doubt all of them are planning attacks. 
 

2 hours ago, qwertyK said:

 Why they don't just lock up the 23,000 jihadis living in the UK is beyond me. 

The disadvantages of a sophisticated legal system I guess? Prosecution costs money, so if there's no stone hard evidence (and I guess there're none apart from "googled how to kill everyone in the name of the religion of peace") you probably won't get a conviction. 

Besides, putting them in jail isn't going to solve anything, they'll probably just manage to radicalize some of their cellmates.

8 hours ago, qwertyK said:

 Why they don't just lock up the 23,000 jihadis living in the UK is beyond me. 

Take it from an American: locking up people in the prisons does nothing but cause more problems with the justice system, private prisons, etc. If they try and lock all of these suspects up without evidence, your legal system will become more fucked up than ours.

23 hours ago, Starmix said:

The total UK prison population is 85,975, with a total capacity of around 88,000.

That's why we don't jail 23,000 people, and also, what specific crime do you convict them with, since I doubt all of them are planning attacks. 
 

They said that about the ringleader of the London Bridge Attackers. You can't afford to take chances when human life is at risk.

21 hours ago, Hystery said:

Besides, putting them in jail isn't going to solve anything, they'll probably just manage to radicalize some of their cellmates.

Well, that's why they need to be kept in solitary confinement so that opportunity inst' available to them .

15 hours ago, thegreathah said:

Take it from an American: locking up people in the prisons does nothing but cause more problems with the justice system, private prisons, etc. If they try and lock all of these suspects up without evidence, your legal system will become more fucked up than ours.

I think our one is, our one doesn't give justice to anyone, at least your one does. Hell, a prison just gave every cell a mobile phone and a computer. 

So your saying lock up 23,000 people up for no wrongdoing in solitary confinement.

Well, I'm sure as hell happy you aren't leading our police.

Hell, by the time you get enough prison capacity, let alone solitary capacity, this probably wouldn't even be a threat anymore.

Maybe rather than spending hundreds of millions on upgrading the prisons to wrongfully imprison a load of people, once more, how about response units, teaching public to handle it safely. You'll never stop any form of terrorist group without locking up every single one of them. Even then, more people would have been influenced. You lock them up, and they'll probably get more and more in to replace them.

1 hour ago, Starmix said:

So your saying lock up 23,000 people up for no wrongdoing in solitary confinement.

Well, I'm sure as hell happy you aren't leading our police.

Hell, by the time you get enough prison capacity, let alone solitary capacity, this probably wouldn't even be a threat anymore.

Maybe rather than spending hundreds of millions on upgrading the prisons to wrongfully imprison a load of people, once more, how about response units, teaching public to handle it safely. You'll never stop any form of terrorist group without locking up every single one of them. Even then, more people would have been influenced. You lock them up, and they'll probably get more and more in to replace them.

They are extremists. Not innocent. They have either returned from syria, planning to go, sympathising with isis, sharing isis beliefs, or planning an attack. 

16 hours ago, qwertyK said:

They are extremists. Not innocent. They have either returned from syria, planning to go, sympathising with isis, sharing isis beliefs, or planning an attack. 

Trust me, you don't want to live in a country where people are locked up without hard proof just because they're "bad". It works the other way around too when the regime changes.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hastings said:

Trust me, you don't want to live in a country where people are locked up without hard proof just because they're "bad". It works the other way around too when the regime changes.

 

 

I'd say the fact that they're extremist is enough to either put them on watch or conduct a thorough investigation.

Locking 23,000 people would not only be an ethically difficult question, but also horribly ineffecient and an absolute logistical nightmare, which makes it nigh impossible. Some sort of a watch list for extremists alone is way more sound, and then if they are found suspect of something, you act.

 

Still, there's no easy way to handle 23,000 guys even on some watch list, but I'm sure there's way brighter minds already working on that question.

Edited August 22, 20178 yr by Olanov

54 minutes ago, Olanov said:

Locking 23,000 people would not only be an ethically difficult question, but also horribly ineffecient and an absolute logistical nightmare, which makes it nigh impossible. Some sort of a watch list for extremists alone is way more sound, and then if they are found suspect of something, you act.

 

Still, there's no easy way to handle 23,000 guys even on some watch list, but I'm sure there's way brighter minds already working on that question.

Yeah I know it wouldn't be easy, but we should build special facilities. It is very hard to monitor them all, but as well as high priority ones, they need to be paying attention to those seen posting things online, like the Barcelona attacker - "kill all infidels" etc and those with petty or no criminal records as they can often be the most dangerous

3 hours ago, Olanov said:

Some sort of a watch list for extremists alone is way more sound, and then if they are found suspect of something, you act.

 

Isn't that already the case though? I'm pretty sure most intelligence services around the globe have a watch list with names of possible terrorists in them. Though widening the list to extremists would be a direct attack on privacy (on top of ethical problems, like who's there to judge what's extreme or not, and what kind of extreme is judged dangerous or not).

 

2 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Yeah I know it wouldn't be easy, but we should build special facilities. It is very hard to monitor them all, but as well as high priority ones, they need to be paying attention to those seen posting things online, like the Barcelona attacker - "kill all infidels" etc and those with petty or no criminal records as they can often be the most dangerous

 

Stuff said on the internet can hardly be concrete proof. Many times over the internet I have been told to 'kill myself' and the like. Should they have a police investigation on their asses for pushing to suicide?