bomb alerts and stuff

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1366 of them)

also maybe i watch too much science fiction but are there not ways yet to incapacitate a person without knocking bullets in their heads? like some stun gun or something?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:13 (twenty years ago)

taser? perhaps not in this case, where they needed the target not to be able to move a finger, but in general, you would have thought so.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 13:20 (twenty years ago)

Err, couldn't an electrical impulse from a stun gun have triggered a device?

― NickB (NickB), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:22 (twenty years ago)

apparently they've raided somewhere 'north of muswell hill'.

Err, couldn't an electrical impulse from a stun gun have triggered a device?

depends on the device -- same goes for shooting, i think. i don't think *all* explosives go off if you shoot them.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 13:23 (twenty years ago)

And then you've got bomb dogs to worry about.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:36 (twenty years ago)

apparently they've raided somewhere 'north of muswell hill'.

This is probably Londoner-speak for "Leicester".

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:39 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps a Brazilian in late July would have had an impressive sun tan.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:40 (twenty years ago)

I'm waiting for the Met to announce a new policy of surveillance of tanning salons, because they've seen a suspiciously large number of dark-skinned people coming out.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:44 (twenty years ago)

All Islam channel staff are being advised to to carry bags on the tube when coming to work.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:44 (twenty years ago)

the flat they raided is in 'new southgate'. i've never heard of it. it's near friern barnet, which i know only as a bus destination. kind of wood green area.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 13:53 (twenty years ago)

I saw some big armoured police vehicles (US box backed pickups) screaming through stamfor hill yesterday.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)

As opposed to rucksacks, you mean?

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 25 July 2005 13:58 (twenty years ago)

there's a Homebase in New Southgate.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

I was in New Southgate on Friday visiting friends. It's not any nearer to Wood Green than Crouch End or Hornsey is. It's the name of the overland train station for the area including Friern Barnet - which you would know if you ever took the overland train out of Moorgate station like I do sometimes.

― marianna, Monday, 25 July 2005 14:04 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, I meant 'advised NOT to carry bags'

― Ed (dali), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:06 (twenty years ago)

haha, i wz gonna say, like 'TAKE the fkn bags, know your rights'. that would actually make more sense.

i like OTMBOT's post where he said we shd all ask people what's in their bags -- i'd reverse it: we should show the person next to us what's in out bag. it should be considred rude not to.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

haha, yeah, that is better

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

It'd be good if people would all flash each other before boarding a train too, just to show that no weapons are consealed inside the clothes.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:28 (twenty years ago)

i've been doing this for years.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 14:29 (twenty years ago)

Ah, so that ISN'T a gun in your pocket...

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)

>> Err, couldn't an electrical impulse from a stun gun have triggered a device?
> depends on the device -- same goes for shooting, i think.

isn't this part of why they are shooting at people's heads rather than their bodies?

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:33 (twenty years ago)

a guy, on telly, said that a shot in the body would be v. v. unlikely to trigger a device because it'd have to hit, like, the detonator or something and that that was v. v. unlikely

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:37 (twenty years ago)

I wonder if the policeman that shot him is on suicide watch.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:39 (twenty years ago)

I probably mean under.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:40 (twenty years ago)

a guy, on telly, said that a shot in the body would be v. v. unlikely to trigger a device because it'd have to hit, like, the detonator or something and that that was v. v. unlikely

You told me that RJG, and then I heard some police guy on the radio contradict it. Who here knows about explosives?

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:41 (twenty years ago)

yup, what RJG said sounds right. as i say, *some* explosives *might* explode if shot, but most do not. they probably are not carrying sticks of TNT.

but the real reason to shoot the head is to destroy the brain so the bomber (or electrician) cannot use his hands to detonate the bomb. a body shot has less immediate impact.

― N_RQ, Monday, 25 July 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

I need to start carrying a backpack full os sex toys.

― Jimmy Mod Is Sick of Being The Best At Everything (ModJ), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

And pornography.

― Jimmy Mod Is Sick of Being The Best At Everything (ModJ), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

they really ought to look next time to see if the guy had anything in his hands.. if not maybe they could have just cuffed him?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)

"IT" WAS UNDER HIS JACKET.

SPANKED UP MADMEN

HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING?

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:47 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, I meant 'advised NOT to carry bags'

Tsk, Ed, "careless talk costs lives" in wartime.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)

but without his hands he'd need to have perfected some kind of muscle spasm skill to trigger the bombs inside his jacket! was he some kind of belly dancer now?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 25 July 2005 14:55 (twenty years ago)

Reading the Guardian and Mirror on Saturday, the witnesses were all sure the person shot was 'asian', when in fact, they meant 'looks nothing like an asian man'. Funny that.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 25 July 2005 23:18 (twenty years ago)

Imaginative headline writers here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/today/img/1.jpg?Tuesday,%2026-Jul-2005%2000:49:28%20BST

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/newspapers/today/img/8.jpg?Tuesday,%2026-Jul-2005%2000:49:30%20BST

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 00:00 (twenty years ago)

Passing up an opportunity for alliteration makes the Baby Jesus cry.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 05:58 (twenty years ago)

yup, what RJG said sounds right. as i say, *some* explosives *might* explode if shot, but most do not. they probably are not carrying sticks of TNT.

Re: Acetone Peroxide from Wikipedia

"commonly used by amateur chemists and explosive makers, often for detonators, and is sometimes found in improvised explosive devices. It takes the form of a white crystalline powder with a distinctive acrid smell.

It is highly heat, friction, and shock sensitive. Professional chemists have been injured attempting to use it. Once manufactured the material can degrade during storage, becoming less likely to explode."

This was the stuff that was used on July 7, I think. I'm assuming that a gunshot could provide the requisite shock to set it off.

― NickB (NickB), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:14 (twenty years ago)

aha.

blimey they were on *benefits*? dyou think they were into kiddie porn and all?

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:25 (twenty years ago)

I also hear they are single mums with careers.

― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:27 (twenty years ago)

What exactly is the logic here? The bombers were on benefits, therefore everyone on benefits could be a bomber thus we should stop benefits?

Yeah I know tabloids and logic etc etc but still.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:33 (twenty years ago)

Why are people so surprised at the outrage this provokes. I don't think it's a "bombers were on benefits, therefore we should outlaw benefits" situation. It's more the hypocrisy of the situation - benefiting from the good parts of the very state they are doing their best to destroy. Decrying Satan while suckling at a witch's teat, that sort of thing.

Anyway, I'm sure I'll be told off for that opinion.

― It Is What A Man Does Which Demeans Him, Not What Is Done To Him (kate), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:37 (twenty years ago)

I think it's more like "we've just given you a big wodge of cash, so you should be a bit more grateful and stop trying to blow us up".

x-post

― NickB (NickB), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:37 (twenty years ago)

...which is the sort of thing you'd expect yer dad to say to you, minus the up-blowing part (or not). And it sort of reduces a complex relationship to an economic bond, but "that's tabloids" I guess.

― NickB (NickB), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:40 (twenty years ago)

i agree with kate, actually; it's more the humor of the sun using their most damning evidence. not only are they terrorists, they are also benefit cheats!!

the sun is kind of tarring all people on benefits with the 'homicidal maniac' brush.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:44 (twenty years ago)

Or tarring all homicidal maniac with the 'on benefits' brush.

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:51 (twenty years ago)

(add an 's' to 'maniac')

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:51 (twenty years ago)

Could pointing such things out be the very definition of 'swingeing'?

In the more biased British newspapers, it's sort of de rigeur to scrutinise the belongings of miscreants in a snidey way: a criminal or other somehow declassé person's home is always described in terms of how much it is worth (£400,000 cottage in leafy suburb), and like this case where a suspect has received £23,000 over six years, if they have received government assistance and how much. It really doesn't matter if you are a suspected bomber or the tabs' Slut Of The Week.

Reading the fine print of the benefits sums, you see that the suspect was paid these benefits for six years therefore the total for each year was a more humble £3833 or just short of £74 a week. It's not clear whether the original figure is a total of income support/JSA and housing and council tax benefits but it's below-poverty-line chump change whatever - consider there's NO WAY the journalist writing the diss is on anything less than £600 a week, for perspective's sake.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 07:55 (twenty years ago)

oh sure -- it's just the insane pointlessness of saying they were on benefits.

i mean it DOES actually tell you something about the bombers: getting benefits is an invasive procedure which involves the state scrutinising your life; they were in contact with state agencies over a long period; they were not funded by saudi millionaires, etc.

but the sun isn't making those points, i doubt.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 08:00 (twenty years ago)

It is a detail; it makes the story more vivid. This is one of the purposes of journalism, for better or for worse.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 08:11 (twenty years ago)

example: i was on housing benefit. i got a letter saying, to renew this, we will need to make a home visit 'at some point between 9.30 and 4pm'. so, y'know, keeping piles of paint-stripper is just that little bit harder.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 26 July 2005 08:13 (twenty years ago)

It does add insult to injury, though. It's (a bit) like paying someone to come round and fix your boiler only for them to steal your TV.

― Teh HoBB (the pirate king), Tuesday, 26 July 2005 08:15 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 1266 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.