Printable View
Climate protest on Heathrow plane
Where the bloody hell are the armed police who are supposed to protect all those people trapped in aircraft ?
These bloody stupid people could have been suicide bombers, they should have been shot!
It's about time someone held these bloody useless policemen to account.
Did you even read the article? :unsure:
"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."
"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."
Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
It says everyone had already got off the plane :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beeb
Ah! So you think the airport police knew in advance that they were going to an empty plane do you ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
And you think that empty planes with fuel tanks full of fumes don't make a hell of a big bang do you ?
So come on then tell me how you think the police gained this foresight about the intentions of these people, enough foresight according to you to know that these people didn't pose a threat to people trapped in a tin can ?
'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
The other report I read said they came out of the terminal building and walked over to the empty plane. Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that they had already been screened for explosives.
You can't stop people walking from terminal buildings to planes, otherwise no-one would be able to get on.
So you're saying they're lying about breaching security then ? And that they'd been screened ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Oh and I'm fairly sure that no one should be walking across the tarmac unless they are airport staff who have been cleared for and trained in airside procedures, or passengers being guided by trained staff.
No, I'm saying your sensationalising what is actually a minor incident
No I'm not!Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
I'm asking what the point of having armed police at airports is ?
If they're not going to actually shoot people who could well be a threat to the people using that facility what is the point of them being there ?
Why will they yet again not be held to account for not shooting these people ? They have failed in their primary mission surely ?
You can't just shoot people because you don't like the look of them, or they may have taken a wrong turn. The Stockwell Tube incident proved that.
If they had shot them there would be all sorts of calls about police brutality, overreaction, bad intelligence, and there would have been calls for resignations, etc.
We don't really know the full facts yet, but I'm pretty sure that the police were more aware of what's going on than you seem to believe. I can only hope that as soon as they made it to the tarmac they were under surveillance, and options about how to handle them were being weighed up.
It was probably quickly apparent that the only danger they posed was to themselves.
As far as I am aware, nobody has ever tried to blow up a plane on the ground. :idunno:
The armed police are usually there to stop terrorists boarding planes about to take off, or causing mayhem in the terminal buildings themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
Perhaps. Maybe the police didn't even arrive on the scene until after the banner had been hung, making the situation easy to size up and not that of a violent nature. I don't see any police in any of the pictures the Greenpeace activists took (which shows the ground directly below and a large distance outward) so I would think that to be true for now.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Even if not, I would think it reasonable to assume that the police had been informed as to whether the plane had passengers on-board or not.
... while standing atop it with reflective safety vests to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Remember, "Safety First" when blowing up an airplane.
Sorry!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
It's nothing to do with how they looked. It's about where they were. They were in a place where they (for all anyone knew) could have killed a couple of hundred people.
Oh and you need to go look at some history, blowing up planes on the ground is something that has been done since 1941, it's a standard military practice, and if you extend it to terrorism it would be most effective if you could blow up a plane full of people, and if you think the only plane these people could get to airside at Heathrow was an empty one from Manchester you are mistaken.
I'd imagine that a suicide bomber could probably blow up a wing fuel tank of a arriving plane quite easily, lets face it arriving planes have tanks that are full of fumes, so a big bang under the wing would make for a fantastic fireball.
Right and so the point of having armed police at airports is what precisely, they can't even stop people reaching targets ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Like I said where were the police ? How did these people ever get near a plane without being shot ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
As they didn't disrupt any flights I don't mind much that they weren't shot. If, however, they had delayed one of my flights and thus caused me to have to answer further complaint letters I would have shot them myself.
Oh c'mon...I don't think anyone is debating that there was a gap in security.Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. Maybe the group of 4 had tickets to a flight which was boarding on the tarmac and broke off to put up a sign. The whole thing may have taken just a few quick minutes and may have been all over by the time the police showed up.
You need to get the facts first.
Point being, perhaps shooting the four was never even an option if the act was complete upon the arrival of the police.
No matter what unfolded, I'd bet that the proper officials are looking into how the event occurred and what can be done to stop a possible harmful situation in the future.
You're making a mountains out of a molehill though...
A Rod Stewart concert perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
:huh:
Then you should be grateful that it's only a molehill, it could so easily have been a mountain of dead bodies, a mountain that would have happened because of the inability of the armed police who are supposed to be deployed to prevent such a possibility from happening.... mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Lets all be grateful that those wonderful greenpeace people have demonstrated another attack vector to the terrorists shall we.
...except that it wasn't a real threat :frusty:Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeek
No it was a real threat, saying it wasn't a real threat with hindsight is how people get blown up. The police had no way of knowing if it was a threat before the fact and have to react to it as a threat until they know otherwise... if they're not doing this they might as well all go home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
By your logic the police should treat everyone as a threat until proved otherwise. This is not a way to run a society, unless you'd like to live in a totalitarian society.
Personally, I wouldn't.
Make your mind up, do you want them to shoot suspicious people on sight or don't you?Quote:
mind you they're good at shooting blokes carrying table legs and they're good at following innocent people for 45 minutes before shooting them dead at point blank range... it's just a problem they have with dealing with real threats.
No that's not true either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
By my logic the police should treat anyone who is in a position whereby they pose a threat as a threat until proven otherwise. That is how you run a society, at least it is if you don't want dead bodies littering the streets.
I want them to shoot people who pose a credible threat, not a bloke who they've followed and had ample opportunity to challenge before he ever became a threat of any kind, or a bloke with a wooden table leg in his hand.
What's so difficult about that ?
Please define the word "threat".
Anyone who is in a public space is posing a threat, or do you think it is only airports where we are vulnerable to attack?
I think the families of 55 people who were killed in the tubes or on that bus in London in 2005 would beg to differ.
Don't you think that Greenpeace, was aware of the fact that if they did one of their protests in an airport, in post 911 hype, that it would be highly dangerous for them.
They probably made sure, that they did not look like "credible threateristas".
Manicgeek, it is at this moment that it is ok to say "damn hippies".
Well if you want to live in a totalitarian state you could define "posing a threat" that way, I don't so I'll stick with people who have deliberately put themselves into a position where they could do harm as my definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
So you agree then that people who are identifiable as a threat should be shot ? Because if that's not what you're saying why are you suggesting that the families of past victims would disagree with me ? Or do you think that the families of past victims wouldn't want future attacks stopped ?
Actually I didn't have a problem with what they are protesting about, they may have a valid point, however any group that uses idiot stunts like this will never get my support for anything that it argues for. All stupid stunts like this do is make me want them to lose their argument and for whatever it is they're trying to stop to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
Hence, anyone who acts out of the ordinary should be shot.
Move to norway, nothing humane happens here.
You may have something there :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
are you expecting a baby by any chance?
(your avatar)
A baby! Not in my condition :lol: I'm male.Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
No you see what I've done there is pointed out how flawed and narrow your definition of a "position where they could do harm" is, and what you've done there is interpreted that as being what my opinion is. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by manicgeekWell if you want to live in a totalitarian state you could define "posing a threat" that way, I don't so I'll stick with people who have deliberately put themselves into a position where they could do harm as my definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
So you agree then that people who are identifiable as a threat should be shot ? Because if that's not what you're saying why are you suggesting that the families of past victims would disagree with me ? Or do you think that the families of past victims wouldn't want future attacks stopped ?
Also, you haven't addressed the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Namely that we would be living in a totalitarian state in much more of a perpetual state of fear that we may inadvertantly blunder into the wrong place and be shot for it by the authorities, than we currently are about being the victims of a terrorist attack.
For the record, I'm not against shooting suspected terrorists if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that to do so would prevent a terrorist act which would result in the loss of innocent lives. However we must not lose the principle of innocent until proven guilty. It's much too important.
No you haven't. I can only assume you are confused about what you have said. You said that anyone in a public place poses a threat and that by my logic he should be treated as such until proven otherwise. So you are saying that the bloke sat in his shirt sleeves in Hyde park eating his sandwiches in the middle of summer should be treated as a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
I dispute that and say that if someone deliberately puts themselves in a position of being able to do harm then they should be treated as such until they are proven otherwise, as is the case with motorcyclists who wear helmets into banks.
And to imply that it is possible to 'inadvertently' wander airside in an airport is very misleading, and also fails to account for greenpeaces own claims to have breached security.
These people deliberately set about obtaining access to somewhere they shouldn't have, and our wonderful airport security apparatus completely failed in their primary missions, to ensure that security was maintained and to prevent any attack on the general public.
So what is the point of having them ? They are unable to prevent major security breaches of the kind that could cost hundreds of lives. They are unable to shoot people who deliberately put themselves in positions where shooting them would be a valid response to their presence.
The sign of a good law enforcement officer, especially armed, above knowing when to shoot, is knowing when not to. Dealy force is not the default action and never should be, it's the last resort.
The fact that this was resolved without anyone being shot shows the professionalism of the officers involved.
No it doesn't. If they'd have been in a position to shoot then these people would never have managed to make it to the plane to hang their banner, because they would have been arrested or shot before making it to the plane!Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
What it probably shows is that they are so unaware of what is going on the the area that they have been tasked to control that it was all over bar the photos by the time they arrived.
So if they're not capable of protecting the public, why are they there at all ?
You seem to be under the impression that armed police should be standing guard at every gate and have a shooting solution at any time any area. They patrol general areas and have standby rapid response. Unlike you I wasn't there to asses the situation as it happened. I am glad however that you were not one of the armed police stationed at the airport at the time the incident occurred. The professionals assessed the situation, correctly determined it to not be a danger to the public and the proper outcome was achieved.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Yeah right they did... OMG are you seriously expecting us to believe that they had a clue that someone had breached security and they just stood back and never deployed some policemen to intercept them ? Good god you'll be asking us to believe in fairies next :lol:
The truth as is plain for all to see is that they knew nothing about it until someone told them about the greenpeace protesters who had just unfurled a banner on an aircraft that was parked on the tarmac.
So I assume you'll support those professionals you spoke of being sacked, as they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress, by four people (who could have been god knows whom, with god knows what intent) that they knew about. They made no attempts to intercept these four unidentified people or to prevent them reaching anything that could make an almighty bang ? And if they did that as you claim with knowledge before the protesters reached their target they have been grossly negligent, wouldn't you say ?
Where did I say they knew of the breach until the protesters were on the aircraft? I said they assessed the situation and dealt with it correctly.
I stated that they patrol general areas with rapid reponse and not have a man every gate to provide firecover for every inch. Do you know how many personel it would require?
No I would not support them being sacked, they did their job. I take it you were there and you saw these police watching the protesters approaching the aircraft and totally ignore them.
Why do you think it's necessary to actually see the protesters reach the aircraft ? Do you not trust the news media ?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
So if the news media and greenpeace themselves aren't lying then it's safe to assume that the protesters reached the aircraft, yes ? and by doing so they showed that the police didn't have a clue that they were doing it until after the fact, yes ? So I'll ask again...
What is the point of having armed police officers in airports ? They obviously can't protect the public, you have admitted as much yourself when you said they only have a few designated patrols areas, meaning that they don't patrol large areas of the airport, and their reaction force would take some time to deploy in an area the size of Heathrow, in which time large numbers of people would be dead. They obviously can't maintain security of the airport, you have again admitted as much yourself when you said that they cannot deploy enough officers to cover the entire airport. So what purpose do they serve ?