Rotor

I think you are wrong there , read up a little about their culture.

KieronF

The sad fact is that there is no simple answer. Terrorism, in one form or another, has been a part of modern life for decades and various cultures have tried their own and varied response with varying degrees of success. As for routinely arming the UK police, that would work in some circumstances such as the knife attack at the houses of parliament - but would have had no influence on the tragic events on the bridge that preceeded it. Attacks such as the knife rampage in Borough Market would be ended sooner, but loss of life is inevitable at the outset of such an attack.


So arming police is a response, not a solution. It is widely held that effective sharing of intelligence is the best solution - authorities that are alert to a potential problem can monitor the situation and formulate an appropriate response, however, as was the case in the recent attack in Barcelona, that too relies on the response being effective and proactive.


Those who suggest that the families of the attackers are made to pay need only look at the Saudi model to see that that too does not work. If anything, history shows that it can be counter-productive and can isolate and radicalise further those who are already potential enemies of the state.


The only effective answer is to provide adequate resources and funding to the security agencies and forces that are fighting the spread of the doctrine of hate on the ground and online. The vast majority of modern terrorists are 'home-grown' - they have not themselves been the victim of suffering or conflict but have become radicalised through ready access to twisted and extreme messages of hate on the internet. Stop that and you go a long way to preventing the spread of terror.