coldel

Somewhat ironic that by aiming for low IQ low engagement voters they want them to vote for the party that will ultimately screw them. Wasn't that long ago the Sun were campaigning for a leave the EU vote against the nasty Tories who just care about the rich

Im no Corbyn fan, but jesus christ what level of bottom feeding press we have to put up with in this country

Updated Rickdon

Good call, sounds like a company 'giving it a go' rather than being specialists at this. Its worth waiting out for what you want in the long run...

We voted against changing the system

What you say and what you imply are 2 very different things... Considering I've generally addressed each point individually, I'm not sure how you can accuse me of not reading what is written. However, seeing as the discussion is just going round in circles, I'm bored of repeating myself. There's 7 pages of responses that are relevant and can be applied. It's not about proving anyone wrong. This is a problem a lot of people seem to have. It's should simply be about discussing pros / cons. Starting to get emotionally and personally invested leads to the inevitable upset and name calling... Now, if stating that I don't think the suggestion is a good idea doesn't show acceptance of the merit of other peoples points, I don't know what does. However, since it wasn't my suggestion and I don't / didn't agree with it, there is nothing for me to admit I was wrong about... As for psych tests, if you go back to the beginning of this discussion, I said that answering questions alone was not enough. You are not a psychologist and have no idea how it works, yet you disagree with someones comments as if your idea is fact. Therein problem lies. And yes we go around in circles, so even when experts disagree with you, you always have to repeat yourself and have to tell everyone you are doing so as if they are idiots. What is happening is that you have no further point to make but feel you have to repeat yourself unnecessarily as if it will make your point more important. Funny how you always have to do this yet the other 1000 members on here never do...strange one huh. I am out of this conversation now. I should be moderating it not getting involved with people all chatting as experts about things they have no clue about.

Thing is Fox, terror adapts as mentioned somewhere up top. You can easily defeat a taser with the right clothing. All that effort for nothing. They will simply do something else. I do not agree of course we just sit and wait to be killed and the chances of that happening in London are very remote. But we need proper enforcement, resource etc. to minimise attacks like this. Arming the public seems wrong to me, the headlines I see are innocent people maimed or killed by bad decisions. And still people are killed by terrorists, that does not appear to be a solution.

...and in other news, TFL has apologised after traffic wardens put parking tickets on cars that were left in the Borough Market area sectioned off by police

And for the umpteenth time I haven't said that you think its a good idea. Instead of trying to prove everyone wrong why not read what is being written and for once just accept there is merit to it. I said I liked your example, I also said there were many others that are not so positive but equally possible. Like any 'solution' you have to stress test its strengths and weaknesses - any tom dick and harry knows that. To focus on one positive outcome and not consider possible consequences good and bad is just foolhardy and ultimately will lead down one path of failure. There is no 'solution' to terrorism, its not going away, not whilst the ideology exists anywhere in the world that can influence people. Ekona mentioned this way back but no one took any notice. Instead the solution being suggested is not a solution at all. As for psych tests, I have seen them as I worked with the Psychology department at UCL a couple of years back, and believe it or not they do have 150 question surveys that evaluate psychology (as stupid as it seems). The idea that we put all the thousand odd volunteers through extensive psych examinations by psychologists to really understand what is going on - for free - is just ridiculous and not worth comment. Otherwise you are looking at self assessment, which can always be rigged.

...might be more pertinent to ask how many owners its had

God knows, all I did was state that I think a psych exam could catch out sociopaths and everyone jumped on me and started making accusations about points I never made... People with the same amount of experience as you with psych exams then commented that people could easily get through these - which you then disagreed with despite I suspect and correct me if I am wrong, that you have no knowledge of what a proper psych test is. And then digressed into how volunteers could be trained for free by volunteers and so on and so forth. And here we are...

OK this discussion is as mental as the idea itself. And yes I somehow made it home safely with all those thousands of 'known to police' people out there not being deported every day. Strudul, I like your example - yes putting aside the stupidity of a volunteer training team, training volunteers for free, supplied with free equipment, that is stored for free securely and managed for free by a force of volunteers doing all the paperwork. And putting aside the idea that we have tens of thousands of people all across the country who would actually volunteer to do this, for free, and always turn up and always do it for the next 50 years, for free. That we change legislation that volunteer forces are allowed weapons in public and use them with possible fatal force. That by chance, the small miracle that there happens to be a chap there onsite who isn't cut down by five machete wielding lunatics before he shouts 'who goes there' and grabs a taser that has 5 charges all loaded into it and they all stand in a line and it goes through all of them incapacitating them. All that aside. Yes it might just happen like that. Or, it could be they miss and get hacked to death. Or another scenario is that they actually hit the guy and detonate the bomb under their vest killing many more people than it would have if the people had the chance to get distance and they are dealt with by police. Or another scenario, is that sod it the government funds the lot and takes £5bn off the police and funds our very own volunteers. They spend a year training everyone up, we are up and running and they are out there with their tasers. The terrorists then spend a few quid on some carbon for their jackets http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-carbon-tape-Taser-proof-jacket/ and said taser has no effect and the guy is hacked to death and the money spent on him instead of armed response units means they get there a few minutes later. Just a few other scenarios that might happen to consider...

But there is the chance that a terrorist whips out a knife, starts slashing, and one of the super civvy team is there and tasers him before he can do any harm. It's not going to stop a van, or a bomb, but neither are the police... OK now I know you are stretching it!

No I was being flippant and apologise!

...anyway I have to set off for home now - involves walking across Waterloo bridge. I will of course eye up every non white person with suspicion, pull people back from the edge of the pavement every time a transit passes by and probably call in about 7 middle eastern looking people who are carrying rucksacks then safely make my way onto my train feeling a sense of worth to the community for saving so many lives.

You could argue anything is possible therefore every debate is valid. Theres a tiny minute possibility I could drive a Zed across all the oceans in the world on skis but would expect the response to be that its a stupid idea and I wouldn't continue to debate it. As I said right up top the scalability and impact this would have if it had say £5bn thrown at it to make it work would be nigh on stupid and a waste of money and have no impact.

Interestingly assisted suicide is legal in the US (well a quick google turns that up!) but yes clearly there was ulterior motive here, she should have reported it to the police.

OK so - backtracking, yes Strudul it is possible and appreciate your points to show that but as clear as day its got no scale, no feasibility, no practical laydown, no way it can be proved right now it would improve anything in terms of reducing murder by terrorists or improve over what the police do already. So why we have wasted pages of debate on one of the most daft ideas out there, only on 350z-uk.com! As for being more aware, I am not sure I know what that means - maybe some other people who commute into London each day through the hotspots like I do can give a view also as to how you behave. I for one, am a very observant guy, but I dont walk into work eyeing up every person that walks by me, even if I do what do I do? Call in 5 innocent people to the police each day? I am not sure what the practicalities of this are? I saw plenty of people today of different cultures, colours, carrying all manner of bags and rucksacks, what exactly am I calling in? If I see a transit drive past with a middle eastern guy driving it, do I radio it in? Most of these incidents happen instantly, there is from what I can see no pre-warning that would be visible - one second they are just another person driving past, the next something explodes or the transit mounts the pavement.

Similar, but with much more specialised training and purpose. And who is funding all this? As above, you want someone to do an hour here and there to receive a fully fledged combat training and stress tested scenario training. To go out unarmed against armed terrorists and do what exactly? It would be cheaper than hiring and training a load more full time officers. Training could be easily provided by (qualified) volunteers. Who says they will be unarmed? Right so - we invent a civilian policing force, we train them like the military, they spend one hour a week patrolling and we give them weapons. Am I seriously the only person on here seeing the insanity of this idea? There is absolutely no scalability to it. OK, so 10m people in London, millions in Manchester Birmingham so on and so forth. People devote say 3 hours a week to patrol, you need patrols to cover say 18 hours a day, people patrol in pairs say. London is what 30 square miles. Some simple maths and....6 patrol hours (18/3) of 2 people thats 12 people per day. Covering 30 square miles in one city, say they cover around 250 square metres each...and so on and so forth. You need to recruit tens of thousands of people, you need all the training to be given for free across the country confirming to specific guidelines probably aligned with the months of training that police officers get (let alone the years of training and graduation through the ranks that firearms officers get). All this is done for free, all the administration, process all the training itself. Then you need to buy, maintain and store equipment in secure locations across the country, again all this is free? I probably have only looked at the tip of the iceberg, but the idea is just nuts. Sorry to be frank.

1. Again (as you like that phrase) I never said you think its a good idea, I questioned if you think all that effort to result in little or zero impact is a good idea 2. Dedication, to achieve little or nothing 3. They could have additional powers, its called the police and its multitude of variants and its already in place So who is funding this new civilian turned combat ready policing force? Seems like a waste of time, something you could blag your way into (having seen plenty of psychometric tests) and a complete waste of time when I believe we already have this in place hence the 8 minute response time from reporting of an incident to 3 dead terrorists.

Similar, but with much more specialised training and purpose. And who is funding all this? As above, you want someone to do an hour here and there to receive a fully fledged combat training and stress tested scenario training. To go out unarmed against armed terrorists and do what exactly?

Hence it would require something specifically designed for the situation and go beyond written exams and group activities I'm talking practical, high-stress scenarios and tests that bring out people's true personalities. So you are looking for someone who has no time to do anything in any real meaningful way, to commit to tonnes of time of testing, exams, stress test scenarios - to qualify as a volunteer who will have no powers apart from citizens arrest. Which is impossible when the person in question is a religion fanatic intent on dying. This seems like a good idea?

Because it's a full time job, not something volunteers can take part in when they have some free time... Special constables are already an option.

Neither did I - but this sort of organisation will encourage a certain mindset and having seen a few psychometric exams/tests (no they do not ask you direct questions) will not sort that out.

So, you have say 10 of these vigilante groups working in London say. Of 5 people each. A city of millions within a few square miles. I would imagine the chances of any of these groups being in the right place at the right time to be so remote that most Londoners would never see them anyway. Or instead of throwing time and money at tool up the civilians why not just increase the police resource who will have access to immediate information, vehicles, priority travel through the city more powers of arrest etc. The thing is its a moving beast - you spend a load of money and time training and testing civilians and equipping them with stab vests so terrorists adapt, they wear bomb belts as standard, what does this group do then? In all likelihood those less experienced will make a bad choice and more people die?