Brixton news, rumours and general chat

[Gramsci]

Posts here move from Isis to far right using a VAW as the jargon goes on Windrush square.

As TFL have extended the pavement of Brixton Road for social distancing reasons this is now prime target for a VAW driven by right wing / ISIS terrorist.

Perhaps all the railings that were taken down along Brixton Road bit of the High Street should be put back?

As some posters here think Brixton is prime target for terrorism.

Walls/ steel railings could be built along the Brixton road pavement edge with small gaps for people to get on or off buses. Gaps with doors like on the Jubilee underground.

Fence off the high street to stop a VAW. After all as Council say last terrorist attack was in the shopping area.

That is the logic that is being presented here.

 

[David Clapson]

Drinkers are a much better target for ISIS than random peds.

 

[teuchter]

Posts here move from Isis to far right using a VAW as the jargon goes on Windrush square.

As TFL have extended the pavement of Brixton Road for social distancing reasons this is now prime target for a VAW driven by right wing / ISIS terrorist.

Perhaps all the railings that were taken down along Brixton Road bit of the High Street should be put back?

As some posters here think Brixton is prime target for terrorism.

Walls/ steel railings could be built along the Brixton road pavement edge with small gaps for people to get on or off buses. Gaps with doors like on the Jubilee underground.

Fence off the high street to stop a VAW. After all as Council say last terrorist attack was in the shopping area.

That is the logic that is being presented here.

It's not really.

 

[David Clapson]

Ironically if they hadn't spent hundreds of thousands of pounds remodelling this civic area twenty years ago it would not now need blocks - if indeed it does.

ISTR that the TFL remodelling of the square cost MILLIONS! And the main result was removing places to sit. The logic was that seating attracts undesirables or something. But now ISIS has given us lots of new places to sit. Hooray for the Caliphate.

 

[Gramsci]

It's not really.

Yes it is. Posters have been justifying the Council/ Met decsion on basis of various scenarios / what ifs.

If that is the case my scenerio is completely in keeping with that.

The shopping section of Brixton road did use to have a lot of metal railings. In middle of road and on edges of pavements in certain sections. These were taken away due to idea that traffic calming would be encouraged if pedestrians were not hemmed in on pavements behind railings.

As some posters here think terrorism VAW is more important now then these railings separating pedestrians from traffic should be re instated and extended to protect against terrorism.

 

[David Clapson]

My scenario is the only one which makes sense.

 

[Gramsci]

ISTR that the TFL remodelling of the square cost MILLIONS! And the main result was removing places to sit. The logic was that seating attracts undesirables or something. But now ISIS has given us lots of new places to sit. Hooray for the Caliphate.

This is temporary.

Council/ Met will be designing permanent solution.

I agree the Met insisted that the public square to commenerate Windrush should be designed to be a place where the local community should be made to feel they can't sit in.

Now the Met want it surrounded by a permanent enclosure of some sort.

I do object to the increasing way the Police have final say on urban design.

Especially as they can't make their mind up.

I was thinking about these concrete blocks.

they are an architectural statement ( not by architects). Architecture has a politics.

Urban design sends messages out. It can be inviting and inclusive.

I think architecture / urban design is important.

These blocks send out message that "we" are still in this never ending war against terrorism. This involves everyone in every community.

They aren't just a rational response they are a statement.

Which is the changing of urban space into fortifications.

 

[Smick]

Common sense is that its desirable to reduce risk wherever possible. Fuck it though. Let people get murdered if its not reasonable to the lefties.

I really am not sure that it is. I'm prepared to take the additional risk on my life, and that of those who I love, to take the additional risks that leading a civilised existence entails.

If someone attacks a load of people in Brixton then fuck them and the cause they represent. Let them take what's coming to them.

But at least we have gone about life as we see best.

I'd honestly rather die, naively trusting society, than live thinking that a lunatic is going to mow me over every second.

 

[David Clapson]

I wonder whether we should worry about there being a temporary solution? Does it suggest that the risk is too urgent to wait for the permanent solution? Does the intelligence suggest that the Ritzy is somebody's target? It's owned by a very rich Israeli Jew who was in the news because of the pay dispute. I don't think we can take the council denial of a specific threat at face value. Anti-terror measures are not meant to be discussed very much in case you help the terrorists. The less you say, the more confident they get and the more likely they are to give themselves away. All we know is that there's a very long list of people being watched. M15 and the Met are run ragged day and night trying to keep track of far too much, and we only ever get told about a small fraction of it.

 

[Smick]

It's owned by a very rich Israeli Jew who was in the news because of the pay dispute.

Is that true? It's definitely traded on the LSE. It can't have a single owner.

And I hate the use of nouns like 'a jew' to refer to people.

 

[CH1]

Is that true? It's definitely traded on the LSE. It can't have a single owner.

And I hate the use of nouns like 'a jew' to refer to people.

It is a public company. I posted about their AGM in Southside Centre Wandsworth when the strike was still on Brixton Ritzy staff in pay dispute for London Living Wage with Picturehouse Cinemas

 

[Gramsci]

I wonder whether we should worry about there being a temporary solution? Does it suggest that the risk is too urgent to wait for the permanent solution? Does the intelligence suggest that the Ritzy is somebody's target? It's owned by a very rich Israeli Jew who was in the news because of the pay dispute. I don't think we can take the council denial of a specific threat at face value. Anti-terror measures are not meant to be discussed very much in case you help the terrorists. The less you say, the more confident they get and the more likely they are to give themselves away. All we know is that there's a very long list of people being watched. M15 and the Met are run ragged day and night trying to keep track of far too much, and we only ever get told about a small fraction of it.

To link the Ritzy pay dispute with anti semitism is objectionable as far as Im concerned.

Even to imply a link is a smear on a hard fought campaign by decent people. Fighting for decent pay and conditions.

 

[Gramsci]

Is that true? It's definitely traded on the LSE. It can't have a single owner.

And I hate the use of nouns like 'a jew' to refer to people.

Its a reference to the CEO - Moshe Joseph Greidinger who is an Israeli.

Him and his brother own about a third of Cineworld.

 

[David Clapson]

To link the Ritzy pay dispute with anti semitism is objectionable as far as Im concerned.

Even to imply a link is a smear on a hard fought campaign by decent people. Fighting for decent pay and conditions.

You're an idiot. As you have such difficulty comprehending my posts, please don't read them.

 

[David Clapson]

Is that true? It's definitely traded on the LSE. It can't have a single owner.

And I hate the use of nouns like 'a jew' to refer to people.

I think you'll find that ISIS uses that word. Fool.

 

[bimble]

And I hate the use of nouns like 'a jew' to refer to people.

This is way off topic but, I am one and I use that word all the time, instead of the polite version jew-ish, precisiely because it shocks people, it is a rude word, and i want to unpick why that is. It’s not rude to refer to a Christian is it.
But windrush square being identified as a relatively high risk target for a certain kind of attack would be nothing at all to do with that obvs. Wouldn’t be surprised if they wanted to get those blocks there before the annual reparations march.

 

[teuchter]

Yes it is. Posters have been justifying the Council/ Met decsion on basis of various scenarios / what ifs.

If that is the case my scenerio is completely in keeping with that.

The shopping section of Brixton road did use to have a lot of metal railings. In middle of road and on edges of pavements in certain sections. These were taken away due to idea that traffic calming would be encouraged if pedestrians were not hemmed in on pavements behind railings.

As some posters here think terrorism VAW is more important now then these railings separating pedestrians from traffic should be re instated and extended to protect against terrorism.

It's impossible to say whether the blocks around Windrush Square are "necessary". It'll be a risk based decision. Anyone can argue over whether or not it's over-cautious. But accepting that the risk of something happening in Windrush Square is proportionate to this particular measure doesn't mean that it then follows that defences should be placed along all roads.

There are fairly obvious reasons why Windrush Square could be at higher risk of attack than the pavements along the high street. And this is combined with the fact that it's relatively easy to put in place these kinds of defences around the square - the main downside is an aesthetic one. It would not be easy to put similar defences along the street - they would use up already restricted pavement space, and interfere with the functioning of bus stops.

So no, putting up defences along the street is not an extension of the logic that justifies the blocks around Windrush square.

The blocks around the square do not block access, or fundamentally change the way it can be used.

It's not like the Brockwell park metal fence for example - that did fundamentally change the way the space could be used. My feeling was that it was likely disproportionate to the risk. In this case, it's not so clear at all.

Do the blocks around the square encourage a mindset that we are under seige, or that public gatherings are unsafe? Maybe - but perhaps they also serve to make people who might worry, feel safer. Perhaps there are people who would be more likely to attend gatherings in Windrush Square as a result. Particularly at the moment.

 

[Gramsci]

It's impossible to say whether the blocks around Windrush Square are "necessary". It'll be a risk based decision. Anyone can argue over whether or not it's over-cautious. But accepting that the risk of something happening in Windrush Square is proportionate to this particular measure doesn't mean that it then follows that defences should be placed along all roads.

There are fairly obvious reasons why Windrush Square could be at higher risk of attack than the pavements along the high street. And this is combined with the fact that it's relatively easy to put in place these kinds of defences around the square - the main downside is an aesthetic one. It would not be easy to put similar defences along the street - they would use up already restricted pavement space, and interfere with the functioning of bus stops.

So no, putting up defences along the street is not an extension of the logic that justifies the blocks around Windrush square.

The blocks around the square do not block access, or fundamentally change the way it can be used.

It's not like the Brockwell park metal fence for example - that did fundamentally change the way the space could be used. My feeling was that it was likely disproportionate to the risk. In this case, it's not so clear at all.

Do the blocks around the square encourage a mindset that we are under seige, or that public gatherings are unsafe? Maybe - but perhaps they also serve to make people who might worry, feel safer. Perhaps there are people who would be more likely to attend gatherings in Windrush Square as a result. Particularly at the moment.

No there are not fairly obvious reasons why Windrush square is higher risk for attack .

 

[alex_]

No there are not fairly obvious reasons why Windrush square is higher risk for attack .

it’s a public square where groups of people can gather, there are a number of access points where vehicles can get speed up, from acre lane/down Brixton hill, it’s very open - it would be very easy for a car/truck to access it and it’s famously associated with black British culture. I think it’s fairly obvious why it’s at least medium risk, bearing in mind how well “obvious” targets are protected.

 

[Gramsci]

it’s a public square where groups of people can gather, there are a number of access points where vehicles can get speed up, from acre lane/down Brixton hill, it’s very open - it would be very easy for a car/truck to access it and it’s famously associated with black British culture. I think it’s fairly obvious why it’s at least medium risk, bearing in mind how well “obvious” targets are protected.

There is no evidence produced to back this up. Its purely conjecture.

 

[Gramsci]

These recent posts remind me of the Reds under the bed mentality of the Cold War.

 

[teuchter]

There is no evidence produced to back this up. Its purely conjecture.

 

[Gramsci]

Council say:

There is no current specific threat linked to the Windrush Square installation

 

[Not a Vet]

There will have been risk based assessments and these will not be in the public domain. I thought someone posted earlier that the council documents about this were heavily redacted or am I wrong?

 

[Gramsci]

There will have been risk based assessments and these will not be in the public domain. I thought someone posted earlier that the council documents about this were heavily redacted or am I wrong?

There is no way of knowing if their were risk based assessments.

Second part of document was withheld.

 

[Gramsci]

Posters faith in the authorities does surprise me. Considering this is decision by Met and the Council.

The Met had XR down as extremists on Prevent ( part of same organisation that made this decision on putting blocks on Windrush square) until the Guardian made a fuss about it.

Expected teachers etc to report pupils who voices sympathy for XR for de radicalisation.

 

[cuppa tee]

people have short memories ....... Darren Osborne jailed for life for Finsbury Park terrorist attack

 

[Not a Vet]

There is no way of knowing if their were risk based assessments.

Second part of document was withheld.

I can categorically say there will have been risk based assessments

 

[bimble]

Just been perusing the weird and probably booming world of 'hostile vehicle mitigation furniture', great heavy planters giant bins and extremely ugly benches mostly. I imagine lambeth will end up going for something like these.

 

[ash]

The Arsenal have some interesting ones. Can withstand a 7 tonne lorry apparently:

[