http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/london-apartments-set-to-host-missiles-for-olympics-204477

 

London: Residents of some of the London apartments will get troops and surface-to-air missiles on their rooftops for the Summer Olympics to help combat airborne terror threats to the Olympic Games, which will be hosted from July 27 to August 12 this year. British security officials identified potential sites for the missiles on Monday and announced plans for security tests during the week.

 

The potential sites include Lexington Building in Tower Hamlets, the Fred Wigg Tower in Waltham Forest, Blackheath Common, Oxleas Wood, the William Girling Reservoir and Barn Hill in Epping Forest.

 

News of one of the sites leaked out over the weekend when a journalist who lives in one of the buildings found a flyer notifying residents of the plan.

 

"From the few people I've spoken to, and the security we have here, they're not happy about it," said Brian Whelan. "I don't think it needs to be here at all."

 

Around 700 people living at Whelan's building in Bow - about 3.2 kilometers from London's Olympic Stadium - have been contacted and warned that the weapons and about 10 troops are likely to be based at the site for around two months.

 

In the leaflet, the defense ministry said the venue offered an uncluttered "view of the surrounding areas and the entire sky above the Olympic Park." Troops plan to conduct tests this week at the building to determine if the high velocity surface-to-air missiles will be stationed on a water tower attached to the site's roof.

 

"The majority of this exercise will be played out in full view of the public and I hope that it will have a secondary effect of reassuring the British people that everything possible is being done to ensure this will be a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games," said Defense Secretary Philip Hammond.

 

Britain has previously confirmed that up to 13,500 troops are being deployed on land, at sea and in the air to help protect the Olympics alongside police and security guards. Typhoon fighter jets, helicopters, two warships and bomb disposal experts will be a part of the security operation.

 

Good to know the Brits are still at their old games almost 250 years later...

Can I ask what your issue with this is? It's a known fact that snipers are posted at large indoor sporting events, such as the Superbowl. Well the summer Olympics are outdoors, so a sniper can't exactly cover every issue. Yea, it may be overboard, but you don't know what kind of intel they have. Maybe they received some kind of intel that there may be an attack at the event?

Police snipers are not military units. Police snipers are also not SAM batteries.

Well, those Brits in that apartment could just dust off that old Third Amendment and ... oh, wait, never mind.

Can I ask what your issue with this is? It's a known fact that snipers are posted at large indoor sporting events, such as the Superbowl. Well the summer Olympics are outdoors, so a sniper can't exactly cover every issue. Yea, it may be overboard, but you don't know what kind of intel they have. Maybe they received some kind of intel that there may be an attack at the event?

 

Forcibly quartering 10 troops in your house would make you sing a different tune, I do not doubt. This is what the Brits are doing to their subjects.......yet again. This is one of the main issues that caused the British subjects in America to revolt against the English Crown.

Will they draw the line at impressment? If you go to see the Olympics, you might end up in the British Navy. Screw them.

it never said 'forcibly quartering 10 troops'. the article said 10 troops ON THE ROOF....meaning manning guns/SAMS. i highly, highly doubt theyll suddenly have an armed squad bunking in their living room during the olympics.

it never said 'forcibly quartering 10 troops'. the article said 10 troops ON THE ROOF....meaning manning guns/SAMS. i highly, highly doubt theyll suddenly have an armed squad bunking in their living room during the olympics.

 

So you would volunteer your house to be the site of a temporary military installation?

Forcibly quartering 10 troops in your house would make you sing a different tune, I do not doubt. This is what the Brits are doing to their subjects.......yet again. This is one of the main issues that caused the British subjects in America to revolt against the English Crown.

I must have missed that part. Please show me where this was stated.

So you would volunteer your house to be the site of a temporary military installation?

1. This is not THEIR house, this is an apartment complex. Apartment complexes are owned by a landlord of some sorts, who has the right and authority to allow this to happen...NOT the tenants. 2. WTF do you think the military does? You think they're going to turn around and kill you, or run over your house with a tank? No. They're there to protect YOU and YOUR FREEDOM. So if the military, for whatever reason, came to my house and needed to use my property for a temporary military installation to PROTECT ME and MY FREEDOM, I would seriously consider it. Our military is a group of people who VOLUNTARILY give years of service to protect your right to even post on this forum, along with your right to pursue your hobby with firearms, and various other rights. Shame on you for opposing it without even knowing any facts regarding WHY they're doing this.

I personally think it would be fun to have a SAM battery on my roof. I would make it a point to add in the contract that I am allowed free range of my property at the time, and I would want a few pictures at the end.

Frankly I wouldn't need any further facts to oppose US troops being stationed in a U.S. city. Military troops on domestic soil has been a huge no-no since the founding of this Republic. Many of the Framers saw a standing army as the biggest threat to Liberty. Think about it, short of the War for Independance, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, when have US troops done anything other than train on our home soil. The National Guard was intended to fill that role. I think the militarization of police forces is bad enough, I definitely don't want the Army in the streets, no matter how much I personally support the military.

I am glad it's happening in England rather than here.

Not on my roof!

Frankly I wouldn't need any further facts to oppose US troops being stationed in a U.S. city. Military troops on domestic soil has been a huge no-no since the founding of this Republic. Many of the Framers saw a standing army as the biggest threat to Liberty. Think about it, short of the War for Independance, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, when have US troops done anything other than train on our home soil. The National Guard was intended to fill that role. I think the militarization of police forces is bad enough, I definitely don't want the Army in the streets, no matter how much I personally support the military.

I am glad it's happening in England rather than here.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Frankly I wouldn't need any further facts to oppose US troops being stationed in a U.S. city. Military troops on domestic soil has been a huge no-no since the founding of this Republic. Many of the Framers saw a standing army as the biggest threat to Liberty. Think about it, short of the War for Independance, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, when have US troops done anything other than train on our home soil. The National Guard was intended to fill that role. I think the militarization of police forces is bad enough, I definitely don't want the Army in the streets, no matter how much I personally support the military.

I am glad it's happening in England rather than here.

Chris, I understand your point...but the point here seems to be that they're trying to deter a terrorist attack. Don't get me wrong, I'm not thrilled that the NG is supposed to be patrolling the streets of Camden, however for a REAL threat, such as a terrorist attack, at a major event....you don't think that's enough to warrant military presence as a deterrent? What if it wasn't just based on speculation, and there was serious intel that pointed towards an actual attack?

I couldn't care less who owns the building if I'm living it it and the military wants to put a battery of missiles on my roof. It makes my home a target!

I couldn't care less who owns the building if I'm living it it and the military wants to put a battery of missiles on my roof. It makes my home a target!

 

Ummm, maybe if our country was INVADED, then the objective of the invading force would be to attack our military installations. That's not the point of a terrorist attack, anybody trying to attack is going to STAY AWAY from any kind of military installation, especially a SAM site with troops stationed there. Let's try and use some common sense here guys...

I couldn't care less who owns the building if I'm living it it and the military wants to put a battery of missiles on my roof. It makes my home a target!

I wonder what the insurance company's line would be to get out of paying you damages for that one

I must have missed that part. Please show me where this was stated.

 

I'd be happy to.

 

From the OP's linked article:

 

Around 700 people living at Whelan's building in Bow - about 3.2 kilometers from London's Olympic Stadium - have been contacted and warned that the weapons and about 10 troops are likely to be based at the site for around two months.

 

There's also this:

 

Britain has previously confirmed that up to 13,500 troops are being deployed on land, at sea and in the air to help protect the Olympics alongside police and security guards. Typhoon fighter jets, helicopters, two warships and bomb disposal experts will be a part of the security operation.

 

Where do you think those troops are going to be housed, hrm?

 

1. This is not THEIR house, this is an apartment complex. Apartment complexes are owned by a landlord of some sorts, who has the right and authority to allow this to happen...NOT the tenants. 2. WTF do you think the military does? You think they're going to turn around and kill you, or run over your house with a tank? No. They're there to protect YOU and YOUR FREEDOM. So if the military, for whatever reason, came to my house and needed to use my property for a temporary military installation to PROTECT ME and MY FREEDOM, I would seriously consider it. Our military is a group of people who VOLUNTARILY give years of service to protect your right to even post on this forum, along with your right to pursue your hobby with firearms, and various other rights. Shame on you for opposing it without even knowing any facts regarding WHY they're doing this.

 

1. It is well established (at least in U.S.) case law that a person's apartment is their household, and they enjoy all the same rights as if they owned the domicile for legal purposes. Read up the laws on rental contracts, you cannot just boot someone out of their house whenever you feel like it.

 

2. The military is the martial arm of the government. They attack and destroy any threats (real or perceived) identified by the government. The primary purpose of the organized military is to protect the nation from hostile attacks from other nation states. They do not protect individual rights and liberty, that is not their job. That is your job, citizen. There is a difference between supporting the armed forces, and willing to be subjugated by them. Insinuating that someone who cherishes their Third Amendment rights is being unpatriotic is unfathomable to me.

 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

 

 

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

it never said 'forcibly quartering 10 troops'. the article said 10 troops ON THE ROOF....meaning manning guns/SAMS. i highly, highly doubt theyll suddenly have an armed squad bunking in their living room during the olympics.

 

While the 3rd amendment specifically mentions quartering troops, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers wouldn't look too kindly upon the army putting cannons on the roof of a house, nor armed soldiers (or police for that matter) on top of tall buildings in a city, during peacetime, without the owner's permission, "just in case" something happens.

I thought all this was happening in England? Why are we using the Bill of Rights to argue English military policies?

I thought all this was happening in England? Why are we using the Bill of Rights to argue English military policies?

 

My point (hence the title) is that they are still at some of the same stuff that started a war so long ago.

Ummm, maybe if our country was INVADED, then the objective of the invading force would be to attack our military installations. That's not the point of a terrorist attack, anybody trying to attack is going to STAY AWAY from any kind of military installation, especially a SAM site with troops stationed there. Let's try and use some common sense here guys...

unless they try to take over the SAM site

High profile target requires high security. Fine with it.

Ummm, maybe if our country was INVADED, then the objective of the invading force would be to attack our military installations. That's not the point of a terrorist attack, anybody trying to attack is going to STAY AWAY from any kind of military installation, especially a SAM site with troops stationed there. Let's try and use some common sense here guys...

 

Uh, yeah, common sense would say having a missile installation on your roof is not as safe as not having one on your roof. And who knows what kind of attack they are preparing for, could be state sponsored, could be planes etc. If the attack was via air (which obviously is a concern, hence the missiles) then it could easily be more than 1 plane and one of the planes could act as a kamikaze to take out defensive positions.