Are the liberals happy now?

Eh? What has that got to do with anything?

Time will reveal the reasons for my post, I believe

How about you reveal the real reasons for your post...

Let's see what comes out before leaping to any conclusions.

It was only a matter of time, sadly.

Happy that the UK's sensible gun laws meant that only 3 people died compared to probably 30+, yes. Not happy that we will have to endure weeks and weeks of idiots 'protesting' against Muslims, other idiots 'protesting' that "terrorism has no religion" or some such nonsense and all kinds of other moronic rhetoric based on what was in relative terms a fairly minor incident.

Suspect publicly named and now his solicitor is saying it can't have been him as he's still in jail!

#winning

Nuff said Charlie Sheen

If it wasn't for those pesky liberals, there'd have been bollards on Westminster Bridge already.

Never seen Channel 4 squirm so much. Apparently his brother rang them to tell them he was still banged up. At least it diverted them from that expenses 'scandal' no-one actually gives a flying fck about.

Today was always going to happen despite the outstanding work of our intelligence services. To paraphrase the IRA, "we have to get it right every time; they only have to get through once". Awful for all concerned.

Terrible scenes on Westminster Bridge, reminiscent of Nice last year. We'll see more of this as ISIS and other Islamist groups know a 'lone wolf' attack using a vehicle and a knife is almost impossible to identify or stop before it's begun. Full credit to the Police and NHS for their rapid response, and of course to the officer(s?) who brought him down.

Some of us very much *do* care about that...

But I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post - the security services and NHS once again prove that they are ready and willing to do things that very few of us could.

Sadly, this is the world in which we all live.
There is little if anything that can be done to prevent this type of "attack", it seems like Nice but on a much smaller scale (thankfully).

There did seem to be tome hysteria whipped up by the media regarding this being an attack on parliament though ?

Horrible thing to happen and it is unlikely to be a one off.

Was it just coincidence that a car rented in Bham driven by a guy from the Midlands crashed into a fence that surrounds Parliament?? and kills a copper guarding Parliament.

Of course it's an attack on Parliament.

It mowed people down on Westminster Bridge.
If Parliament was his target, why would you do that ?

Btw, I am in no way condoning the "terrorist" that carried out the attack, just questioning that this was a direct attack on Parliament.

Well, maybe he had a plan that involved MORE THAN ONE "target". Hard to conceive, I know, but probably just about possible.

If you somehow doubt that being prepared to knife to death a police officer stopping you, in an attempt to enter Parliament, wasn't a direct attack on Parliament, maybe you haven't thought it through.

Sorry Mr Ardvark for "not having thought it through".
For a lunatic, intent on attacking parliament to mow down innocent pedestrians on their way to "attacking parliament" seems a bonkers way to get to their intended target.
Surely, if you were trying to get to parliament, you would blend in with the crowd and then attack your target and not draw attention to yourself en route ??
Surely it is more likely that they had gone to cause maximum harm to the innocent pedestrians and then "risked" something else, almost as an after thought ??

This is just my take on it but, I clearly hadn't thought it through

Yes, on reflection, this seems much more likely. He picked Westminster Bridge at random, and then suddenly thought, why, fsck me, this bridge seems completely fortuitously to be bang outside Parliament, I'll try and have a go at that.

You have now convinced me that the location of Westminster Bridge next to the Houses of Parliament was purely co-incidental.

I think you're a good person. You're trying to cause as little upset as possible, make no waves and let everyone go about their day. You're my kind of ideological nutjob.

I would think he probably picked it because it's a notable, busy, internationally-known landmark and somewhere where he could carry out the attack with relative ease. Appreciate that Parliament being there probably factored into his decision but it is a little disingenuous to say he was 'attacking Parliament' when he was attacking complete strangers outside.

I'm struggling to understand why Adrian Elms

would waste the fuel and time when he could have mowed down friday night revellers on Broad street Birmingham.

Am sure the smiley was a typo/autocorrect. Broad Street, Canal Street Manchester are targets, but Westminster is a target that was used to make us all afraid

Any act of terror in London will gain maximum publicity, compared to other cities in the UK, which may explain his drive from Birmingham.

Well I'm not afraid.

Balls to ISIS and their ilk.

It might be, if your personal definition of "disingenuous" is not the one we get in dictionaries, but something else you just made up.

You don't have to agonise over detailed analysis of everything he did, though. Just the bit where he entered the grounds of Parliament and knifed to death a policeman trying to stop him getting into the building. That bit. And had to be shot to halt his determined attempt. It is reasonably fair to say he was making a direct attack on Parliament when he was, er, making a direct attack on Parliament.