The London knife attack!

[cee-dee]

I guess most will have seen something about the latest attack attributed to a "terrorist"?

I cannot for the life of me understand why the type of knives used in "knife attacks" continue to be sold in this country as most have no other use than the threaten, maim or kill someone.

The ownership of guns is pretty tightly regulated and many prohibited guns have no lawful use here so why not have some strict controls on knives?

A quick google for "knives for sale UK" brings up many knives which don't seem to have any domestic use so why are they allowed to be sold?

The video showing the actual moments the cop shot the terrorist has probably been taken down by now but the twisted thinking of "terrorists" will say/think that two for one is a good result so surely the ease with which weapons are obtainable should be curtailed?

[right-then-petal]

check the news there's another one in the  ( Dutch This Time )

[fallen-archie]

Already on twitter there is criticism of the police choosing to shoot the guy, what are they supposed to do,?

[cee-dee]

As I said on the Ambulance thread, sometimes you can't do right for doing wrong.

I see why he was shot. = He'd been "restrained" by the brave, public spirited passers by but he wouldn't stop fighting them. As he appeared to have a suicide belt and appeared to be trying to "detonate" it, the cops pulled the bloke off the terrorist who appeared to be "fumbling" with it, the cop shot him to stop him.

How was the cop to know it was a fake belt? If it had been real and had been detonated, the people who are now criticising the cop for shooting would have been saying that he should have shot the bloke to stop him.

I'll say it again, the cops can't do right for doing wrong!

[astrologica]

CeeDee...the knife that the member of the public is holding in the film clip looks like an ordinary large kitchen knife. A would be terrorist could go into any kitchen shop and buy a knife like that.😕

[cee-dee]

You are right, he had used "kitchen knives" in this attack and it's difficult to see how stricter controls on that type of knife could operate.

However, in mentioning "knife attacks" and the weapons used I was thinking of the street murders and the type of knives collected when knife amnesties conclude.

It's come out now that the bloke had already served part of a sentence for a terrorism offence and was out on licence at the time.

[al**bear]

Who led the 'Fight against cruel UK 'Human Rights, on loads of issues,Ulster, Iraq, etc etc and at Home.

Well the Chambers with Cherie BLiar , were at the forefront and made a fortune from the Public purse, raising these cases.

Now We have a whole plethora of 'Rights lawyers' The Government is permanently in Court somewhere

It was one of these, Who brought & Pushed - This Guys case through the Appeal on sentence Court.

Wonder How THEY slept last night

 

[dark_castle1]

They likely slept very well in their nice warm bed with the heating on in their big house, knowing full well they have a healthy bank balance Al.

In my opinion people like them do not really think or care what their so called clients do as long as they get well paid.

A huge well done to the police for shooting the attacker.

[astrologica]

Yes....a Very Well Done to the police..at least this low life won't be breathing good air anymore. And a humongous Well Done to the members of the public who bravely brought him down....one of them with a 5ft Narwhal Tusk! It's people like these who should be representing us in the House of Commons, unlike the useless self serving creatures that we have now. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

Al - if those lawyers actively sought out 'terrorist' leaning clients in order to represent them then I can see some merit in your argument.

If on the other hand they were asked to represent clients, either directly or by their solicitors, then what are you suggesting they should do? - refuse to represent them?

Under our legal system even the most vile individuals are entitled to the best legal representation available.

[upthecreekyetagain]

If it was one of the many 'human rights' lawyers who got this man 'released' then it wasn't them that got it wrong in doing so - it was either a failure to put the legal case to prevent their release, a failing in those who interpreted the law regarding his release or the law itself that is wrong.

[cee-dee]

It was a failure to recognise that once "radicalised", it's either a great deal more difficult or (most probably) impossible to deradicalise such people that "they" thought.