Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 He understands, he disagrees with the usefulness and possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Well that went well...sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Do we need a sticky for this thread that reminds people we already have a police force that is perfectly capable of doing the best they can with regards to terrorism, without a massive need for an influx of extra Super Civvy Cops Wiv Attitude? If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 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. Army cadets get given fully automatic SA80 rifles with live rounds and they are just children with next to no training... If it was done, people would be assigned to hotspots. Do you lock your car or house? How about using a padlock on a bicycle? A lock can be easily bypassed, so why do you even bother? It's because it's a deterrent. It doesn't require 100% guaranteed protection. Every little helps or why do we even have a police force at all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 He understands, he disagrees with the usefulness and possibility. There's a difference between possible and feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis. So you'd rather someone else was murdered than your car got keyed? Edited June 7, 2017 by Strudul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis. So you'd rather someone else was murdered than your car got keyed? you must not have read the same text as me as i cant see him saying anywhere he'd rather people get killed? Edited June 7, 2017 by StevoD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 You're debating semantics. In fairness to codel, possible was my word, if i had said feasible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 If you want to make a difference to our lives and security that would actually matter, we'd be far better off with regular police to catch regular criminals like burglars and vandals and stuff like that. Y'know, crime that actually affects us all on a day to day basis. So you'd rather someone else was murdered than your car got keyed? you must not have read the same text as me as i cant see him saying anywhere he'd rather people get killed? He said more police should be dedicated to catching thieves and vandals. Applying some logic, if they are doing that, then they aren't stopping terrorists and murderers. Less people stopping terrorists and murderers = more people being murdered.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Am I seriously the only person on here seeing the insanity of this idea? There is absolutely no scalability to it. No, but you seem to have the most time on your hand to keep the troll well fed 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 You're debating semantics. In fairness to codel, possible was my word, if i had said feasible... I said possible though, not feasible, hence I keep repeatedly saying it's not a good idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) 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. Army cadets get given fully automatic SA80 rifles with live rounds and they are just children with next to no training... If it was done, people would be assigned to hotspots. Do you lock your car or house? How about using a padlock on a bicycle? A lock can be easily bypassed, so why do you even bother? It's because it's a deterrent. It doesn't require 100% guaranteed protection. Every little helps or why do we even have a police force at all.... If you think some terrorist is going to be scared of James the IT consultant who took a weeks course in self defense you've got another thing coming these terrorist are not scared of armed police, Dave with a stitched on Civil Unit Neutralization Team on his arm isn't going to scare them one bit Also ultimately your asking for people to volunteer themselves up to get killed first. Also how is this New team going to get to a site any faster than the police going to spend out on vehicles for them to at which point we might as well just invest in the police. Or even how many people would need to be enrolled as first sacrifice to cover enough territory that they can be on site at the right time i mean it would be terrible and awfully ironic for after all the training for a terrorist to bomb say a kids concert were very minimum Adults would be, and on that point please explain how even 100 of civil guards stop a bomb going off or even stop someone putting 2 tons worth of transit into a crowd? This isnt the Avengers Edited June 7, 2017 by StevoD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Define hotspot. Live events already have a heavy police presence. As do airports and train stations...and city centres. This thread is playing on the feeling of uselessness and not knowing that these atrocities create. TT wants to play a part to help the country which is admirable. The problem is the attacks can happen at any location at any time, which relates to part of codels argument. As someone said, becoming a CSO would impact your local area and help the uniformed presence figure increase. You'd also have direct contact to the nearest bobby which would decrease the already impressive response time. Dans point wasn't to ignore terrorists and focus on local crime, but if you want to help there are already avenues you can go down. You can become a part time CSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 If you think some terrorist is going to be scared of James the IT consultant who took a weeks course in self defense you've got another thing coming these terrorist are not scared of armed police, Dave with a stitched on Civil Unit Neutralization Team on his arm isn't going to scare them one bit Also ultimately your asking for people to volunteer themselves up to get killed first. Also how is this New team going to get to a site any faster than the police going to speak out on vehicles for them to at which point we might as well just invest in the police. Or even how many people would need to be enrolled as first sacrifice to come enough terrorist that they can be on site i mean it would be terrible and awfully ironic for after all the training for a terrorist to bomb say a kids concert were very minimum Adults would be, and on that point please explain how even 100 of civil guards stop a bomb going off or even stop someone putting 2 tons worth of transit into a crowd? This isnt the Avengers A lot of assumptions there... How do we and the terrorist know James has only trained for a week. It's not about scaring them, it's about deterring and mitigating the potential damage. Just because you have training and information doesn't mean you are going to die. Who says some of this new team weren't right around the corner at the time or already at the location? Your point seems to be that humans can't do anything, so why even bother. Let's just abolish the police and military and not even try defend against terrorists . You are quite right, I could get in my car and go drive over a load of people and nobody could stop me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Define hotspot. Live events already have a heavy police presence. As do airports and train stations...and city centres. This thread is playing on the feeling of uselessness and not knowing that these atrocities create. TT wants to play a part to help the country which is admirable. The problem is the attacks can happen at any location at any time, which relates to part of codels argument. As someone said, becoming a CSO would impact your local area and help the uniformed presence figure increase. You'd also have direct contact to the nearest bobby which would decrease the already impressive response time. Dans point wasn't to ignore terrorists and focus on local crime, but if you want to help there are already avenues you can go down. You can become a part time CSO It's a numbers game. Reduce the ease of an attack where there are lots of people. Even if it's just equipping a team of eyes with comms to report suspicious activity from known sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Define hotspot. Live events already have a heavy police presence. As do airports and train stations...and city centres. This thread is playing on the feeling of uselessness and not knowing that these atrocities create. TT wants to play a part to help the country which is admirable. The problem is the attacks can happen at any location at any time, which relates to part of codels argument. As someone said, becoming a CSO would impact your local area and help the uniformed presence figure increase. You'd also have direct contact to the nearest bobby which would decrease the already impressive response time. Dans point wasn't to ignore terrorists and focus on local crime, but if you want to help there are already avenues you can go down. You can become a part time CSO It's a numbers game. Reduce the ease of an attack where there are lots of people. Even if it's just equipping a team of eyes with comms to report suspicious activity from known sources. Oh so you saying People in Village/towns deserve to die but people in built areas like cites dont? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 It's not about scaring them, it's about deterring and mitigating the potential damage. Deterring them? What, the guys who strapped fake suicide bombs on themselves so they knew they would get shot, or the guys that actually blow themselves up? Im pretty sure 5 fat lads giving them a kicking (if they can catch them) will be more than enough. Mitigating potential damage? How are you going to do that against 3 guys with knives, lasso them all with a magic rope? Use The Force? No, you need highly trained armed operative to do that .......... like the police perhaps. Vigilantes dont work for all of the reasons mentioned, even against relativel;y low level street crime. Suggesting they can take on extremist terrorist who actually want to die for their cause is just ****ing stupid, frankly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Oh so you saying People in Village/towns deserve to die but people in built areas like cites dont? I'm saying it's better that 1 person dies instead of 100. The same way a terrorist would rather take out a large group of people or a high profile target rather than 1 random person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I read his point as we have a police force in place, we should look to invest in that. An influx of part time CSO's would cost a lot less. A switched on citizenship who know what signs to look for and can call the police etc earlier than disaster time, is free, allows us to feel helpful and preventative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay84 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Define hotspot. Live events already have a heavy police presence. As do airports and train stations...and city centres. This thread is playing on the feeling of uselessness and not knowing that these atrocities create. TT wants to play a part to help the country which is admirable. The problem is the attacks can happen at any location at any time, which relates to part of codels argument. As someone said, becoming a CSO would impact your local area and help the uniformed presence figure increase. You'd also have direct contact to the nearest bobby which would decrease the already impressive response time. Dans point wasn't to ignore terrorists and focus on local crime, but if you want to help there are already avenues you can go down. You can become a part time CSO It's a numbers game. Reduce the ease of an attack where there are lots of people. Even if it's just equipping a team of eyes with comms to report suspicious activity from known sources. Which is my point that through citizen knowledge, which we can all get through adverts, pamphlets, bus shelter posters etc. We all have a phone, if we all know what to look for we can make the calls hopefully before disaster strikes. Noone needs to confront them but we can call the already trained people who will. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Deterring them? What, the guys who strapped fake suicide bombs on themselves so they knew they would get shot, or the guys that actually blow themselves up? Im pretty sure 5 fat lads giving them a kicking (if they can catch them) will be more than enough. Mitigating potential damage? How are you going to do that against 3 guys with knives, lasso them all with a magic rope? Use The Force? No, you need highly trained armed operative to do that .......... like the police perhaps. Vigilantes dont work for all of the reasons mentioned, even against relativel;y low level street crime. Suggesting they can take on extremist terrorist who actually want to die for their cause is just ****ing stupid, frankly. Who stands a better chance vs 3 guys with knives A crowd of civvies. OR A crowd of civvies, 10 of which have training and gear to manage the situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 A lot of assumptions there... How do we and the terrorist know James has only trained for a week. Do the terrorist really care if he trained for a week or 10 years? no. It's not about scaring them, it's about deterring and mitigating the potential damage. as above there not deterred by armed police and they have a wish to die nothing will deter them Just because you have training and information doesn't mean you are going to die. If im putting money on a guy with his hands and a guy with a semi automatic rifle or a bomb i know where my money is going Who says some of this new team weren't right around the corner at the time or already at the location? Right around the corner is to late if they have slashed up people, this isnt a Call of Duty with a timer and a goal the point you know they are a terroist is when the @*!# has already started at that point its to late. Your point seems to be that humans can't do anything, so why even bother. Let's just abolish the police and military and not even try defend against terrorists . Unfortunately in reality the only way to stop them is to to stop them before they even start. There is nothing more we can do if they reach a stage of committing an attack You are quite right, I could get in my car and go drive over a load of people and nobody could stop me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I read his point as we have a police force in place, we should look to invest in that. An influx of part time CSO's would cost a lot less. A switched on citizenship who know what signs to look for and can call the police etc earlier than disaster time, is free, allows us to feel helpful and preventative. you make a more composed point. but i have to ask at what point here do you ring the police to stop this happening or even i have to ask at what point is it too late. The thousands spend on training people wouldnt have stopped this. i know this wasnt what we class as a typical terror attack but matching this with the London attacks the only way to stop this is to stop them before they get in the vehicle Edited June 7, 2017 by StevoD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strudul Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I read his point as we have a police force in place, we should look to invest in that. An influx of part time CSO's would cost a lot less. A switched on citizenship who know what signs to look for and can call the police etc earlier than disaster time, is free, allows us to feel helpful and preventative. The title is irrelevant, the designated task is what matters. I thought part of TT's suggestion was to teach people what to look out for? However, it also involved giving people the training and equipment to better deal with a situation if necessary. Which is my point that through citizen knowledge, which we can all get through adverts, pamphlets, bus shelter posters etc. We all have a phone, if we all know what to look for we can make the calls hopefully before disaster strikes. Noone needs to confront them but we can call the already trained people who will. But why not have people specifically on the look out? I don't know about you, but I am not generally on the look out for terrorists... And why not give more people that training? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.