Trying to get in between the row: Miro, please, Occam's Razor would suggest that this action was the result of a crazed person.
As are most attacks.

As to can armed police stop such persons acting violently on our streets, the evidence of the average Saturday night is NO. Fortunately such individuals usually single out one or two persons and rarely go as far as killing them.

This subject under discussion on ' Sunday morning live ' on the Beeb ATM , again the simple question asked " How do you stop somebody willing to die from killing potentially hundreds of people without actually shooting them ? "

And therein lies the problem.
Any attacker who is "happy" to die for their cause (whatever that may be), is very difficult to defend against.

The Nice incident was impossible to defend.

There has to be more done to cultivate an environment where there is more tolerance in the world, on all sides but, currently The Middle East is extremely volatile and with Mr Trump trying to gain power in the USA, the world will become less stable.

It's only a matter of time before something on a similar scale happens in the UK.

It's even worse than that. There only ever was a Nice incident because the lunatic managed to perpetrate the act. But had he been barred from driving into the area, then nobody would ever know or even suspect that such an insignificant "stop" had prevented a massacre.

It would have been nigh on impossible to blockade every French Town/City centre for the Bastille Day celebrations and if, a "lock down" is required before any "mass" gathering of people, there are all sorts of issues with staging these type of events. Even the different types of "protest" march that we regularly see in England, would become difficult to stage.
Of course, any type of gathering can become a target, if somebody or organisation wishes to target civilians (The Boston Marathon being a prime example).

Ultimately and ironically, this ends up being part of the cost of freedom.

100% false flag

We don't bother addressing mass killings on the roads anyway so why would the government bother arming for potentially saving just a handful of deaths by comparison. Such a waste of money, I mean it's only a few here and there, no big deal really is it. Acceptable casualties of life and all that!

1700 deaths on the roads at the hands of the real threat to our society that are motorists and the 22,500 serious injuries caused by same every single year is a national disgrace. if 6 people were killed every single day by terrorism there would be an outcry and public condemnation of the government for not doing anything solid to stop it. And yet we celebrate that this number is acceptable and the lowest it's been.

Armed police, ing ridiculous, fight the cause at its roots not the outcome ffs!

Don't be stupid. Motorists aren't a threat to society. For every crash caused by a pillock driving stupidly there's one that is purely an accident.

I agree it's an issue and that the media and government blow every terrorist incident way out of proportion but don't try and label motorists as some kind of threat. The vast majority of motorists drive perfectly safely.

If we want lower road deaths we need much harsher punishments for the minority that drive like pillocks and a massive road building and improvement scheme across the entire country to reduce congestion and make roads safer for everyone. Not labelling and attacking motorists as a whole. That's exactly what the media and the government do with Muslims, despite the vast majority having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

The media deliberately slant their news print to sell newspapers.
Although they may report real life events, they pick and choose what they report, purely for impact.

Occasionally they will purge certain topics to create concern, hysteria, sometimes even euphoria but, nobody should think that the press is balanced.
We are drip fed the media moguls personal agenda.

If they reported every death on the roads there would be public outcry but, as you rightly say, very few motorists set out injure someone else.
Of course, some drivers do increase the risk, drink, drugs, speed, needless aggressive driving etc.

throwing personal insuts immediately defeats anything you had to say, but actually motoring/motorists ARE the biggest threat and have being for decades to our society. I guess you think that 30,000 pollution deaths from motoring is no big deal, I guess the cost to the nation of subsidising every single motorist is no threat to our nation. I presume you think that obesity levels that cost the NHS billions due to people being sat in cars are no threat to our society, what about the £30billion cost to the nation just from thos KSI stats?
Motoring is far more a bigger threat to our society than terrorism ever could be, you simply have no idea!!

Obesity levels are because people eat too much and dont exercise enough. I drive everywhere, including the 30 second drive to work and im not fat. Do you know why? Because i dont fill my face with junk food whilst sat in front of the TV like 95% of the population. If you are fat, you eat too much (bar those that have an underlying condition), not because you have a car.

Regards

King James

Lol. I think you've pretty comprehensively defeated yourself there.

There is a lot of evidence between private car use and obesity levels and why people don't exersice enough. maybe you might want to bother to do some research and not use a singular anecdote as facts.
regards

People dont exercise enough because they are lazy, not because they own a private car. Its like saying people are fat because they own an oven.

Regards

King James