1. IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Members are encouraged to install GOM or HOLA or TUNNELBEAR for an added layer of protection.

    The SEX forum is HERE so please stop asking.

There are better ways to combat terrorist attacks in Singapore than to enmasse pro cr

Discussion in 'The Political / Serious Zone [no rep deductions]' started by bic_cherry, Aug 27, 2017.

  1. bic_cherry

    bic_cherry Alfrescian Old Timer

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    There are better ways to combat terrorist attacks in Singapore than to enmasse pro cry-wolf evesdroppers at every corner of the street.

    Legal question on security approach for smart Alek Singapore judges to answer should the 60yrs old clown get charged.

    (After the oxymoronic court of appeal judgement that corrupt pastor Kong Hee, the self proclaimed agent of God ("to build God a great house") was indeed no agent at all).

    PS: All my info is from reading this Straits Times report, so my opinion may change as more info is included.

    So if a man says haf bomb as part of an irate joke which the inspecting officer undestood it to be (a joke), does that actually meet the criteria of "intention of inducing a false belief that a terrorist act has been, is being, or will be carried out" or just a lame figure of speech joke e.g. 'dinner tonight costs a bomb' which should just be solved with a clarification, detailed inspection, risk assessment and then stern warning (maybe a side room interview by more senior AETOS supervisor etc) rather than the knee jerk reaction of detention by evesdropping AETOS officer with small brain and highly sensitive ears. Isn't AETOS a trained and professional organisation able to tell apart a joke from a genuine threat. Has AETOS earned itself a PR disaster by escalating a simple misunderstanding to a full blown police investigation and result in Sportshub receiving a BAD reputation for over reacting and thus having to price in venue bottled water exorbitantly (even after banning outside water, let alone empty plastic bottles) just to make up for lost revenue?
    Shouldn't the ground staff have handled the situation better rather than being overly reactive and crying wolf and inconveniencing the police who ostensibly should have more important things to do, especially as the AETOS officer should be able to differentiate a figure of speech from a genuine terrorist threat? Was the AETOS officer untrained to investigate further or he so ill equip to handle an irrate concert goer being forced to buy OVERPRICED bottled water?

    "Officers from Bedok Police Division responded and arrested the man. Preliminary investigations showed that he had no intention nor means to carry out his threat."... which means that the concert goer had no intention at all. Did the impressionable AETOS officer also have the belief of the threat.... wouldn't a reasonable person clarify an irrate retort before jumping to conclusions and choosing to believe the adverse to be true? Are AETOS officers rewarded according to how often the police are summoned or the number of arrests made?

    I just think that the AETOS officer should be counseled to apply proper interview, counseling and risk assessment techniques and to apply strip searches on suspicious persons accordingly rather than call the police for every small thing: if so, then the AETOS officer should most quickly be replaced with my Microsoft Word programme SPELL CHECKER which can highlight the word 'bomb' everywhere it is seen, and then alert the police to investigate accordingly. Singpost, our national postmen can also station their ground staff at entrences and reflexively auto-dial 999 each time any word resembling 'bomb' is heard.

    There are better ways to combat terrorist attacks in Singapore than to enmasse pro cry-wolf evesdroppers at every corner of the street.

    =========
    Man, 60, arrested at Wakin Chau concert after making false bomb threat
    A man was detained at a concert by Wakin Chau (pictured) after making a bomb joke during a security bag check, on Aug 26, 2017.
    A man was detained at a concert by Wakin Chau (pictured) after making a bomb joke during a security bag check, on Aug 26, 2017.PHOTO: SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS

    Fabian Koh
    SINGAPORE - A 60-year-old man has been arrested for making a false bomb threat, at Wakin Chau's concert on Saturday (Aug 26) evening.

    A security officer from the Singapore Indoor Stadium had detained a man, who claimed he had a bomb, and called the police at about 7.32pm.

    Officers from Bedok Police Division responded and arrested the man. Preliminary investigations showed that he had no intention nor means to carry out his threat.

    The Straits Times understands that the man was with his wife and a group of friends, and they were going through the bag check.

    The security officer asked him if he had any water bottles with him, since bottled water is not permitted in the venue.

    He replied that he had a bomb, intending it as a joke. But an Aetos officer overheard him and instructed the security officer to detain him. The matter was then referred to the police.

    The man was arrested under Regulation 8(1) of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations, in which it is an offence for someone to spread information known or believed to be false, with the intention of inducing a false belief that a terrorist act has been, is being, or will be carried out.

    Anyone found guilty of the offence can be fined up to $100,000 or jailed up to five years, or both.
    http://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...n-chau-concert-after-making-false-bomb-threat
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017

Share This Page