PARCEL #102 LONDON TUBING EDITION

[Smitty-48]

A Met Police spokesperson confirmed the incident was not being treated as ‘terror-related’.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/19/teenager- ... n-6720310/

Not everything is a terrorist attack you know. Sometimes it is just a crime.

Breaking news is often unreliable. The report of ''stabbings'' in the plural clearly jumped the gun.

None the less, the threat level is at "critical", and you've got the whole city on edge, the British Army is deployed, but only 2500 troops, for all of London? What's the harm in bringing HQ Home Command to stand to? Better safe than sorry, Sergeant-Major.

What's the utility in being conservative about a stand to, when you've already invoked "critical"? Just get on with it Theresa May, you fuckin' git, pull your finger out and put the troops in, it's not going to stop anyone from carrying on with their summer, quite the opposite.

[Montegriffo]

A Met Police spokesperson confirmed the incident was not being treated as ‘terror-related’.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/19/teenager- ... n-6720310/

Not everything is a terrorist attack you know. Sometimes it is just a crime.

Breaking news is often unreliable. The report of ''stabbings'' in the plural clearly jumped the gun.

None the less, the threat level is at "critical", and you've got the whole city on edge, the British Army is deployed, but only 2500 troops, for all of London? What's the harm in bringing HQ Home Command to stand to? Better safe than sorry, Sergeant-Major.

When journalists have itchy trigger fingers it is one thing. When it is armed troops it is another matter. Ask Charles de Menezes. He was killed by experienced police officers, jumpy troops could be even worse.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64466.html

[Smitty-48]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/19/teenager- ... n-6720310/

Not everything is a terrorist attack you know. Sometimes it is just a crime.

Breaking news is often unreliable. The report of ''stabbings'' in the plural clearly jumped the gun.

None the less, the threat level is at "critical", and you've got the whole city on edge, the British Army is deployed, but only 2500 troops, for all of London? What's the harm in bringing HQ Home Command to stand to? Better safe than sorry, Sergeant-Major.

When journalists have itchy trigger fingers it is one thing. When it is armed troops it is another matter. Ask Charles de Menezes. He was killed by experienced police officers, jumpy troops could be even worse.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64466.html

OMFG, you Lefty Wefties are fuckin' ridiculous, it's no wonder the UK is such a dumpster fire, if it was Ottawa, even Justin Trudeau would have put the troops in by now, you pansy fuckin' nitwit.

You've invoked critical, you have 2500 troops in there already, it's not a question of if, it's just a question of how many and can they cover the bases? You had 13,500 troops deployed for the Olympics, but now you're going wanh-wanh Leftarded, when there is an actual war on, and the population is actually spooked about it? You're a fuckin' moron, and so is Theresa May.

The fewer troops backing the police up, the more the police are going to be on edge, more troops backing the police up, more hands on deck everywhere, less likely they will be panicking, more resources, more assets, more bases covered, that's how you get the time and space to keep your powder dry.

[Montegriffo]

If it makes you feel better they could put 50,000 armed troops in London. Wouldn't stop another van driving into pedestrians. Mostly they are there to make it look like something is being done.

[Smitty-48]

50,000 is too many, the logistics would make it counterproductive, 2500 is too few, just enough to make them a target, not enough to cover the bases, I'd say about the same as the Olympics, division strength, 12-13k, HQ Home Command, while "critical" is in effect, stand-to, stand-to.

[Speaker to Animals]

The Battle of London is going to be a great Internet spectacle. Bet that.

[Smitty-48]

When it comes to putting troops in, it's do or do not, if you do, go all the way, once you make them a target, make sure they have enough to cover the shifts, bear in mind, it's rotating, so 2500 troops is really only 1250 at any given moment, putting the troops in, but keeping the numbers down, for political reasons, because you don't like the looks of it, is the same sort of logic, that got 58 people burned to death, for cladding to spruce up the looks of a crumbling old building.

Don't worry about what morons like Monty say, Theresa May, when the threat is fire in your house, you don't mess about; stand-to, stand-to.

[heydaralon]

I think many of these attacks are resulting from the sort of lackadaisical attitude the British have take towards administration. Once you start letting people off the hook for paying tea and stamp taxes, this sort of thing is soon to follow.

[Smitty-48]

Well once people see that you can pretty much run amok in London and there's not enough coppers about to even make that a chore, why not just have at er right now, eh?

So if IS launches a complex attack here, what's on deck to get in their way? A Public Inquiry?

When IS attacked Paris, how many troops did the French deploy? Oh, 50,000, eh? Yeah, they don't mess about apparently.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hopefully, when the Battle for Londonstan kicks off, Monty will drive his van into the city to give us live updates.