[UK] Defence Review would have military policing the streets
12 replies, posted
Defence Review happened today.
[t]http://40.media.tumblr.com/b47e88d2e650cf2f7e7488e4af8b360e/tumblr_n85iztxjgw1tccb8io1_1280.jpg[/t]
[sp]our great leader[/sp]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34897076[/url]
[url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ten-thousand-troops-flood-britains-6887367[/url]
will add more sources once its reported on tomorrow
Basically a force of 10000 soldiers to help police Britain.
This comes after cuts were made to the actual police earlier in the year. Maybe that funding should be put toward police training and equipping instead of using military to fill the gap. That would be admitting they made a mistake though.
Nice one dave.
I honestly don't see how it'd be a bad idea for the military to stand in for police when they're not busy getting shot at in a desert half-way across the planet, which is probably like 99% of the time. As long as they aren't roaming the streets with guns and are under the command of the police anyway.
[quote=the article]Up to 10,000 troops could be deployed in the UK[B] in the event of a Paris-style attack, [/B]David Cameron has said, as he announced £12bn extra defence spending.[/quote]
Yeah, okay, not as sinister as the title makes this sound
[sp]1984[/sp]
Yeah the title makes it seem worse than it actually is, and if you don't think this wouldn't happen pre-spending review you are silly.
In the event of a paris attack there would never be enough police even with double the numbers to cover everything, so military filling the gap is perfectly fine, it's why the military also exists to help in the cases of floods and other shit, but people don't moan if they came to rescue you from a flooded home.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49174224]I honestly don't see how it'd be a bad idea for the military to stand in for police when they're not busy getting shot at in a desert half-way across the planet, which is probably like 99% of the time. As long as they aren't roaming the streets with guns and are under the command of the police anyway.[/QUOTE]
I think they will have guns.
Tbh when I was in Antwerp a few months back they had some military guys protecting the jewish district after some attacks. I don't disagree with military being used in very special, short term scenarios but the police should really be given the resources they need to do their job.
The military are trained to kill, the police are trained to keep peace and treat crime, totally different jobs and closing the gap is stupid.
Troops deployed in the event of a terrorist attack? Fucking mental idea tha[t]http://imgkk.com/i/kgm6.jpg[/t][t]http://imgkk.com/i/14-7.jpg[/t][t]http://imgkk.com/i/tj8g.jpg[/t][t]http://imgkk.com/i/ag5_.jpg[/t]t
A bit pointless in my opinion, if there is an attack most of the damage will be done before they can be deployed.
[QUOTE=Chryseus;49174540]A bit pointless in my opinion, if there is an attack most of the damage will be done before they can be deployed.[/QUOTE]
It's not so much about getting there and preventing an attack, it's about keeping it from getting worse due to not enough police/EMT/fire resources to go around. If the gaps between normal emergency response aren't closed, casualties that may otherwise survive turn into fatalities.
[QUOTE=Chryseus;49174540]A bit pointless in my opinion, if there is an attack most of the damage will be done before they can be deployed.[/QUOTE]
Yeah probably a waste of time to deploy as many assets as possible to hunt down perpetrators of any given attack - damage is already done.
That's why there isn't a police force. What's the point in arresting people for crime if they've already done it?
[QUOTE=Matriax;49177603]Yeah probably a waste of time to deploy as many assets as possible to hunt down perpetrators of any given attack - damage is already done.
That's why there isn't a police force. What's the point in arresting people for crime if they've already done it?[/QUOTE]
The military aren't investigators, they wouldn't really help with hunting anyone down.
I think it's more meant as a peace keeping affair and/or apprehending the suspected terrorists after they've been found.
[QUOTE=smurfy;49174270]Troops deployed in the event of a terrorist attack? Fucking mental idea that -pics-[/QUOTE]
The military aren't trained to deal with civil interaction to the same degree as police.
the 10000 soldier thing sounds like a long term solution. Instead we should have had a specialised police division similarly equipped but dressed as police officers, following similar rules as police officers but with extra powers, equipment and training to deal with terrorist threat.
And importantly only be deployed when terror threat is high. the british government has tried to arm the police before, I suspect this is a backdoor to that goal. Once the terror threat dies off we will continue to have armed police and, from this, the potential for soldiers to be deployed with police.
Will such measures be used against protesters? The 2011 riots and tuition fees protests both had heavy police response - if the police were armed that would be protesters being threatened with guns.
At the anti austerity rally this year police marksmen were deployed. For what purpose I ask? The british government criticised the ukrainian gov for deploying guns against its protesters, why would it not be hypocritical for them to deploy guns against its own protesters? Did they have the snipers there but have no intention to use them? Was it therefore just to intimidate protesters?
The French have a policing force outside of cities named Gens D'arms (men with weapons). It works quite well, carry around semi automatics on them, feel very safe :)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.