Jump to content

General Chat


Stevo985

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Genie said:

I'm amazed a major sporting venue has not been hit yet.

Tens of thousands of people, weak security, panic, stampedes, worldwide media coverage. I guess its only a matter of time :(

I remember being at VP in the 80's and over the tannoy they announced that there had been a telephone warning of a suspicious package and they were opening the gates if anyone wanted to leave ... you heard about 35,000 people laugh and the game carried on .

 

I can't imagine it being so carefree if they received such a phone warning now

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think bombing the entrances to the main national stadium, during an international football match, can be counted as 'hitting a major sporting venue'.

Ok if you want to be pedantic. The explosion 'near' to the stadium killed 4 people, including the 3 bombers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know whether its just the way I think and have learnt about this stuff, but I tend to notice lots of places that, if you were so inclined, you could bomb and cause major damage, and probably not have to dodge many defences.

Thankfully our defence is largely about preventing any plot getting to that point. We seem fairly good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I don't know whether its just the way I think and have learnt about this stuff, but I tend to notice lots of places that, if you were so inclined, you could bomb and cause major damage, and probably not have to dodge many defences.

Thankfully our defence is largely about preventing any plot getting to that point. We seem fairly good at it.

One of Richard Herring's favourite questions on RHLSTP is to ask for best ideas for terrorist atrocities. Seems you and he have something in common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I don't know whether its just the way I think and have learnt about this stuff, but I tend to notice lots of places that, if you were so inclined, you could bomb and cause major damage, and probably not have to dodge many defences.

Thankfully our defence is largely about preventing any plot getting to that point. We seem fairly good at it.

Ferries.

I regularly get car ferries to Ireland, for example.

They're huge. Packed full of people. And the security is nonexistent.

They stop the odd car on the way in for a random search, but most cars go straight through. There could be anything in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I don't know whether its just the way I think and have learnt about this stuff, but I tend to notice lots of places that, if you were so inclined, you could bomb and cause major damage, and probably not have to dodge many defences.

Thankfully our defence is largely about preventing any plot getting to that point. We seem fairly good at it.

It makes me laugh every time I have to go through airport security.

Sports stadiums, concerts, shopping centres, train stations, Tesco 10 minutes before closing on a Sunday. All massively populated areas with close to (or literally) no security at all.

I could understand it in America, but we even had the underground targeted in the UK, and we still have TSA levels of airport security but nothing at train stations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What are you suggesting there should be? 'Security' at every turn and police armed to their teeth at all travel hubs?

How have you gleaned that?

 

I took his point to be the complete opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What are you suggesting there should be? 'Security' at every turn and police armed to their teeth at all travel hubs?

I'm not sure, really. I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with the current approach, it's just a fairly odd contrast, I thought; we have one public space with incredibly stringent security, thorough searches, and armed police, while other spaces with just as many people are completely defenseless. We're always planning to protect against yesterday's attack.

If there are clearly such vulnerable, highly-populated public spaces with no security, do we need such high levels of security at airports? On the other hand, it's absolute political suicide to suggest less of a focus on airport security, because if there's ever another attack afterwards, whoever suggested it will get almost as much blame as the terrorists. We're stuck with the current levels no matter how unlikely future attacks on planes are, I think, even if it doesn't make much sense.

 

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

We're stuck with the current levels no matter how unlikely future attacks on planes are, I think, even if it doesn't make much sense.

I don't think we're stuck with the same levels - unfortunately, I think that they will keep on increasing (see calls for greater security after each incident that occurs).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â