Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:08:39 GMT, "tim gueguen" wrote:


And we never will. We live under the rule of law, and have an armed
citizenry that will not tolerate such madness.


Are the WTC bombing , the Oklahoma City Bombing and the
events of Sept 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks supposed
to be examples of successful US counter terrorism ?

Fact is the US was protected by little more than geography.
In 1996 I visited Washington DC and was astounded at
how LITTLE security there was with not even the most basic
precautions in place. I was able to wander around the Capitol
with no scannning or check of bags going in. Planting a dozen
IRA style thermite bombs would have been trivial.

Keith

The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.

I guess it's how you interpret the government's intentions.

Personally, I'm OK with them knowing the ins-and-outs of my weekly shopping
trips; especially if they're bothered to go to all that trouble of setting
up the infrastructure and paying the x 1000s of guys to follow every move
each of us makes 24/7 - fairplay to them. It strikes me you've the
impression they're there to oppress us - simply not the case. They help
catch criminals.

That, at least, is what the telescreen in the corner tells me.
Doubleplusgood!

Jim Doyle

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:32:30 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:42:04 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


The WTC was not the result of internal terrorism. OK City was
an aberration. You do know what has happened to the
perpetrators, don't you?


Is external terrorism less dangerous to life and limb ?

We have an open society, and do not relish the "big brother"
school of security. The thousands of cameras all over outdoor,
public areas in the UK would never be tolerated in the US.


Nonsense, there are over 2 thousand in NYC alone

http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/overview.html

Keith

Did you miss the part where it explained that only less than
300 of the cameras were government owned, and that
these were security cameras on government buildings?


Ah so you believe that private surveillance cameras
by definition are non intrusive and that only 300
government cameras dont count

If I want to video the street in front of my house that is hardly
"big brother". In the UK the government maintains surveillance
on the public, the US government does not.


In the UK the police maintain surveillance of public
spaces, there are actually tighter controls on cameras
in workplaces and private locations than the US

We dont have a UK TV show called 'Busted On The Job'
showing surveillance footage of employees.

Lets get real here.

Keith