It would appear several people were mowed down by a vehicle prior to the man stabbing the police officer.

Presumption always seems to be terrorist related, but it might just be people with a grudge against Politicians.

These events are rare in the UK compared to most countries.

The name of the attacker is circulating on Twitter and if confirmed to be correct, it is a person who is very likely to be subject to monitoring by Police and security services.

In some ways it would be a relief, because it would be a known threat, rather than someone not already known. Questions will then be asked about how such people can commit such acts, if they are being watched.

The name of the attacker is circulating on Twitter and if confirmed to be correct, it is a person who is very likely to be subject to monitoring by Police and security services.

 

In some ways it would be a relief, because it would be a known threat, rather than someone not already known. Questions will then be asked about how such people can commit such acts, if they are being watched.

They're being watched but cannot be monitored 24/7.

Imo all terrorist suspects in police books should be constantly under surveillance, every phone call, every web page visited, every bank transaction, every place visited, everyone in contact with them, what they eat, how often, where they go shopping, in other words, don't let them do anything without police knowing and taking action.

Unfortunately the European union says that by doing so we would breach their human rights, so let them be amongst us and kill us all.

What happens to the victims' human rights???

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-london-attack-westminster-terror-responsibility-latest-islamic-state-daesh-a7645696.html

Well it looks like Islamic State has now claimed responsibility and the attacker was apparently known to the security forces - albeit sometime ago and not considered a threat.

You have to feel so sorry for those French Students - come over here to get away from the problems in their own country only to be attacked here !.

They're being watched but cannot be monitored 24/7.

Imo all terrorist suspects in police books should be constantly under surveillance, every phone call, every web page visited, every bank transaction, every place visited, everyone in contact with them, what they eat, how often, where they go shopping, in other words, don't let them do anything without police knowing and taking action.

Unfortunately the European union says that by doing so we would breach their human rights, so let them be amongst us and kill us all.

What happens to the victims' human rights???

I imagine that we will lose even more of our freedoms because of this.

It is my understanding that the gate the attacker went through was the only one not locked and not manned by armed police!. It would appear that the gate is constantly in use and presumably left unlocked to save time for those going in and out !! Ooops !

Unfortunately the European union says that by doing so we would breach their human rights, so let them be amongst us and kill us all.

typical rubbish. its nothing to do with the eu and 'human rights'

apparently, it wasn't deemed high enough on the watch list for 24/7.

anyway. fact is, the human rights act and the echr provide for stated 'rights' balance to be outweighed by national security and the prevention of terrorism measures.

have you not seen the forthcoming 'snoopers' act, which is not deemed contrary to the hra or echr...

typical rubbish. its nothing to do with the eu and 'human rights'

apparently, it wasn't deemed high enough on the watch list for 24/7.

anyway. fact is, the human rights act and the echr provide for stated 'rights' balance to be outweighed by national security and the prevention of terrorism measures.

have you not seen the forthcoming 'snoopers' act, which is not deemed contrary to the hra or echr...

I'm a layman and all I hear is terrorists and hardcore criminals getting away with murder because of human rights.

Again: What about the victims' human rights???

I would have no problem being monitored 24/7 because I don't do anything against the law and many people have my same view.

I am always suspicious of do gooders who claim that they don't want to be monitored because of their human rights.

They prefer to safeguard human rights and sacrifice public safety and security.

That sounds like madness to me... or maybe the do gooders have something to hide...

I would have no problem being monitored 24/7 because I don't do anything against the law and many people have my same view.

I am always suspicious of do gooders who claim that they don't want to be monitored because of their human rights.

They prefer to safeguard human rights and sacrifice public safety and security.

That sounds like madness to me... or maybe the do gooders have something to hide...

When you write to people or they write to you, do you use letters or postcards?

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say.

Edward Snowdon

“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”, in order to justify increased and invasive surveillance. This argument is not only dangerous, but dishonest and cowardly, too.

Laws must be broken for society to progress and privacy a basic human need. Anything else is Fascist ideology

So let the terrorists enjoy their human rights and kill innocent people who incidentally have lost the fundamental right to live.

Surveillance shouldn't be secret like the one exposed by Snowden, but everyone of us should expect to be monitored for the common good.

Privacy in my book comes second to public safety and security.

Ask the children of killed mothers if they feel strongly about right to privacy and human rights...

Some of you should try to look at the world from the prospective of victims rather than librarians professing human rights in a locked room.

The world out there today is a dangerous place because we have tried to create utopia and we have failed.

Humans are not perfect and perfect society is just a dream, that's why i think full power of surveillance should be given to the authorities.

I don't care if they read my letters, text messages or listen to my conversations.

They'll soon get bored once they realise that I don't conspire to kill innocent victims.

OD, please research the word Fascism...

You'll find that it was very much different from Nazism which you should be referring to.

So let the terrorists enjoy their human rights and kill innocent people who incidentally have lost the fundamental right to live.

Surveillance shouldn't be secret like the one exposed by Snowden, but everyone of us should expect to be monitored for the common good.

Privacy in my book comes second to public safety and security.

 

and in such voices are the liberties that make life worthwhile eroded until none are left,

and our society becomes something very different where peoples lives, liberties and choices become subservient to some 'overlord' whether that overlord be called ayatollah or prime minister,

and in those changes in our society, it is destroyed more effectively than 100,000 terrorists with tanks and warplanes could ever do

- and the terrorists win and democracy can do nothing but die choked in lies.

If surveillance is the price we have to pay to go about our business with the knowledge we are relatively safe from harm, so be it. As far as I am concerned this is my Human Right.

If surveillance is the price we have to pay to go about our business with the knowledge we are relatively safe from harm, so be it. As far as I am concerned this is my Human Right.

London, the city with the most CCTV in the UK and in Europe. didnt stop this attack at all now did it?

What gets me, including the media is that this is being branded a terrorist action.

At the moment it seems nothing more than a deranged single individual who went on and murdered innocent people.

Nigel Farage is 52 and born in kent,, so was the Westminister attacker, When will we tackle this problem of a 52 year olds from Kent?

What is the difference between what happened in Westminister and New York, was he a terrorist, or simply a deranged individual, a criminal, nothing more? People need to stop jumping on this terrorist band-waggon to fuel their own prejudice

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/white-supremacists-lament-backlash-fatal-nyc-sword-attack-article-1.3006653

Lone wolf wanting to go out in a blaze of glory. The government and media saw the opportunity to grab attention and called it a terrorist attack when there was no terrorist aspect about it.

Tobyjugg, no it didn't stop the attack but if the police or whomever has surveillance on a suspect then it might have prevented this happening. I don't mean CCTV I mean proper survelliance. Eavesdropping, interception of communications, that kind of monitoring. 13 terror attacks have been prevented in three years; sadly this person slipped through. it's a hard one, what do they have to do, to be a high risk and warrant this type surveillance?

And who are suspects??

Just because you practice a certain religion, A trade Unionist on a demonstration due to political affiliation. What next McCarthyism, Where do you draw the line?? .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_League_(United_Kingdom)

Tobyjugg, no it didn't stop the attack but if the police or whomever has surveillance on a suspect then it might have prevented this happening. I don't mean CCTV I mean proper survelliance. Eavesdropping, interception of communications, that kind of monitoring. 13 terror attacks have been prevented in three years; sadly this person slipped through. it's a hard one, what do they have to do, to be a high risk and warrant this type surveillance?

Of course it would be far more effective if proper travel permits were required of everyone who visits London, with it being a criminal offense to visit London without one. (Like it already being a criminal offense not to give your name when walking along a street minding your own business)

It could be tied in to the personal ID which could be tied in to the car monitoring system. All automated, so any telephone or car NOT linked to a permit, or any one seen on a security camera who was not transmitting a valid permit signal should automatically have armed police arrest them.

No excuses as not having a valid transmitting permit would be an offense under the terrorism act.

This could probably be implemented for under £10B utilising the existing systems in London, funded by further cuts in Health and social care.

This could be so effective at both reducing terrorism that once the potential gap in caused by terrorists who actually already live in London should immediately be addressed by requiring everyone who lives in London to require a valid permit to travel outside their own borough.

This would require a slightly larger £20B but the reduction in spending on all other services and requirement to get visas to visit relatives, or go shopping outside your immediate borough are small prices to pay for the added 'security'.

As terrorists could potentially just move to other cities, this should then be rolled out to all other major cities possibly at little more than the cost of renewing our nuclear deterrent security, possibly only £200B yet so much more security at such a relatively small cost to taxes and freedom of movement.

Then that darn terrorist would potentially move to the smaller villages, BUT luckily the costs to implement these travel visas and security systems would have fallen very dramatically due to the existing widespread implementation.

By now It would probably cost less than £200B to roll out to every major village despite the number.

Our society turned into a police state - All for the sake a a single terrorist driving a car at some people and killing a single policeman?

or even for a handful of far worse incidents?

- The horrible dustbin lorry incident caused more real harm.

PAPERS (electronic demand of course)

Nothing has ever worked over the ages. Those who want to impose their ideologies on others will use whatever means at their disposal to gain their aim. it seems it is up to us to do our best to stop this.

Others just give up and accept what is happening. Perhaps there is an armchair critic to the present methods who does have a solution.

Nothing has ever worked over the ages.

Really?

Despite the rivers of blood declarations of Enoch Powell, I think that the tolerant society we have mostly enjoyed in the years since those divisive utterances have given us something worth keeping whatever the latest fear and hate mongering followers of his tenets might decry.

What do terrorist want publicity what do we give them. Until investigations prove a terrorist agenda surely we call it a criminal act.

Nothing has ever worked over the ages. Those who want to impose their ideologies on others will use whatever means at their disposal to gain their aim. it seems it is up to us to do our best to stop this.

 

Others just give up and accept what is happening. Perhaps there is an armchair critic to the present methods who does have a solution.

Define 'worked' from "nothing has worked".

If your definition is "prevent all terrorist attacks" then you are correct: nothing has worked, and nothing short of a totalitarian state with intrusive surveillance could.

Even that would only ever limit attacks, nothing can completely prevent them!.

But reconsider 'worked'. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise.

Any death or damage is an incidental by-product of their desire to induce fear. They want fear, they want people to change their way of living, they want governments to draft strict laws and polarising responses.

So, terrorism hasn't worked. It 'works' when we react as they desire, but it hasn't 'worked' when we grieve for those killed and injured, adopt sensible and proportionate responses and increased security, but don't over-react, don't infringe civil liberties, and carry on ..... as London has done after previous attacks (from terrorism of any 'flavour' : be that the IRA or Islamist).

IRA is to Catholic (or to Irish) like Daesh is to Muslim. We didn't ban Irish or Catholics in response to the IRA, nor should we react against Muslims.

We didn't start intensive surveillance against all Catholics, all the Irish, or everyone to battle the IRA : nor should we start similar in response to Islamist terrorism.