-
@TeWaio said in Ferners in London:
I just found out that a guy I deal with at Citigroup.....his wife was one of the people killed on Westminster Bridge. Hit by the speeding car on the pavement, then thrown onto the road and under a bus. Was walking to pick their two kids up from school.
Farken terrible man
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
Just like sports it is hard to judge groups from different eras. The terrorists have more tech than the 70s and so do anti-terror agencies. What is really difficult now is that back then the terror organization planned and executed their operations. Now groups like ISIS can "inspire" whack jobs to give themselves to the cause
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
I don't buy that at all.
All the restraints in place now (Human rights acts etc) were not there in the 70's. The laws about detention without charge were far looser. As was the engagement laws - the SAS flat out exceuted a number of unarmed IRA guys (rightly IMHO). The security services in the 70's & 80's had carte blanche, the current guys are staggeringly contrained.
As for the idea that BM would be kittens, jeysus, do you know who the BM were?
-
@canefan said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
Lot of commentary out there on social media.
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
Just like sports it is hard to judge groups from different eras. The terrorists have more tech than the 70s and so do anti-terror agencies. What is really difficult now is that back then the terror organization planned and executed their operations. Now groups like ISIS can "inspire" whack jobs to give themselves to the cause
Compare the semi-professional sharpshooters at Munich airport in 1972 with the GSG9 today. It's night and day. My parents used to board planes with absolutely no security checks. Now look at what you have to go through.
-
@gollum @Rancid-Schnitzel Comparisons between the two eras and the various terrorist groups are not really going to prove anything. The times were different, the laws were different, the engagement rules were different, the aims of the terrorist groups are different.
For us the threat is without doubt real and potentially greater than it was, but as it stands the resultant atrocities bear no comparison with what went on in the 70's and 80's.
Not arguing one side or another here, just saying that comparisons are not much help.
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
You have to take into consideration that anti-terrorism and intelligence services are much better and more advanced now than they were back then. Governments are also spending billions more on preventing terrorism. I don't even want to think about what the situation would be like if the current lot of loonies were operating against 70s era resources. The Baader Meinhoff and co would be kittens in comparison.
I don't buy that at all.
All the restraints in place now (Human rights acts etc) were not there in the 70's. The laws about detention without charge were far looser. As was the engagement laws - the SAS flat out exceuted a number of unarmed IRA guys (rightly IMHO). The security services in the 70's & 80's had carte blanche, the current guys are staggeringly contrained.
As for the idea that BM would be kittens, jeysus, do you know who the BM were?
Ffs, I said they'd be kittens compared to the current lot of loonies. Learn to read.
As for the rest, yeah sure they had greater scope to electrocute a guy's nads, but the security and intelligence apparatuses were much smaller and less developed than they are now. Potential terrorist had access to places and targets they'd never get close to now.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
Ffs, I said they'd be kittens compared to the current lot of loonies. Learn to read.
Yes, and even that implies you don't realise how bad the BMG were. Or how well armed. The current islamic lot are struggling to use cars, BMG were fully armed with automatic weapons & semtex, both of which they used.
I get you are trying to discredit Nicks chart to "prove" that we are at much greater peril, but your arguement ignores literally everything about the BMG (that was a terrible group to talk about to make your point), the laws, the methods used to combat etc
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
Ffs, I said they'd be kittens compared to the current lot of loonies. Learn to read.
Yes, and even that implies you don't realise how bad the BMG were. Or how well armed. The current islamic lot are struggling to use cars, BMG were fully armed with automatic weapons & semtex, both of which they used.
I get you are trying to discredit Nicks chart to "prove" that we are at much greater peril, but your arguement ignores literally everything about the BMG (that was a terrible group to talk about to make your point), the laws, the methods used to combat etc
I am fully aware of how bad the Baader Meinhoff were. My parents were living in Germany when they were at their worst. At no stage did I say that they weren't a terrible group and didn't do some horrible shit. Stop making shit up.
But I contend the current lot are much worse. The BM never made a habit of indiscriminately targeting civilians like the guy yesterday or the rest of the Islamic nutjobs.
Btw what do you think the CH killers used? It wasn't flintlock pistols that's for sure.
I was not trying to discredit anything, I was simply making the point that intelligence and security services are far more advanced now than they were back then. Surely even you wouldn't dispute that.
-
@NTA said in Ferners in London:
@Catogrande said in Ferners in London:
You would also have to assume that back in the 70's and 80's the security forces were working hard in pre-empting IRA threats.
I've seen that a few times on facebook after each attack. What it doesn't consider is that this generation of terrorists are willing and in fact trying to kill themselves for their cause for a percieved afterlife of bliss. That is a very different beast to try and combat. Gollum is right its absolutely incredible that there haven't been more instances of this as it is almost impossible to defend against. I do think that is partly due to the exceptional work of the counter-terrorism forces as well as the UK having decent natural borders.
-
@Rembrandt said in Ferners in London:
I do think that is partly due to the exceptional work of the counter-terrorism forces as well as the UK having decent natural borders.
It's also due to the fact the actual risk is massively overplayed.
The IRA, BMG, ETA etc were all paramiltary trained groups heavily (professionally) armed, openly funded & supported by huge chuncks of the population who openly collaborated with them - when I got here there were still pubs with collection buckets to support the IRA in them, can you imagine that now?
Current group are lone wolf nutters, with limited / no training, very little weaponry, almost zero support in the community
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
Also worth noting that at its height over a quarter of Germans expressed support of some degree for the BMG....
Not exactly. A quarter of Germans under the age of 40. And that was when they were gunning for the establishment. I somehow doubt that they would have enjoyed anything like that support if they were driving lorries into civilians at the Christmas markets.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Ferners in London:
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
Also worth noting that at its height over a quarter of Germans expressed support of some degree for the BMG....
Not exactly. A quarter of Germans under the age of 40. And that was when they were gunning for the establishment. I somehow doubt that they would have enjoyed anything like that support if they were driving lorries into civilians at the Christmas markets.
Sure, but my point was (as the graph from Nick pointed out) the 70's & 80's in Europe were a far more dangerous time for terror than now. Because there were terror groups supported by huge chunks of the population, heaviliy armed, well trained.
In contrast to now. So I'm not sure how your comment re xmas markets is vaild? Unless its to explain why we are safer now - as the public very much do not support the current lot in any meaningful way? Thats an excellent point
In which case I fully agree with you. We are much,, much safer now yes.
-
If it's worth anything I have less fear of getting caught up in something horrible in London today as I did when here in the 80s.
Between the pickpockets, football hooligans and IRA there was a quite real sense of any day you had to be on your toes.
They have been replaced by Islamic terrorists that most of the time get stopped before shit goes down. -
Yeah I'm in that bucket too (from the early 90's onwards), there was genuine concern back then re bombs in pubs, then there was that spate of gay nail bombings (Admiral Duncan) that made Soho a pretty scary area. Euston / Kings Cross pubs on big match days were very dicey too.
I literally have zero concern going out anywhere in London now
-
@gollum said in Ferners in London:
Yeah I'm in that bucket too (from the early 90's onwards), there was genuine concern back then re bombs in pubs, then there was that spate of gay nail bombings (Admiral Duncan) that made Soho a pretty scary area. Euston / Kings Cross pubs on big match days were very dicey too.
I literally have zero concern going out anywhere in London now
I wouldn't say zero concern but I do remember back in the 80s thinking it wasn't the safest place to be. Even things like the Kings Cross fire would be unlikely now.
As I said earlier, I keep my eyes and ears open without being on edge and any whiff of trouble I get the hell out of there.
I was changing lines at Paddington one day and the alarms started. I was out of there quick time and plenty of people were just dawdling unconcerned. Sorry, but an alarm when I am in one of those rabbit warrens makes me want out damn fast.
Ferners in London