In what can only be described as an open and obvious display of panic, the UK government has agreed to deploy troops on the streets. There are all kinds of issues here; on what basis? Aiding the civil power, martial law, or has control been handed to the military?
Are they to guard locations considered targets in a tactical or visible manner? Are they for go or show? Will they have body armour (the police do)? What are their rules of engagement?
Let's look at the decision. It is believed that the Manchester suicide bomber had a device that was sophisticated enough to make it likely others were involved (design, supply?) Plus of course, who made it and who convinced this imbecile to do what he did?
This suggests a wider 'cell' and a still extant ability to strike again. But would they? Well, if we accord them the status of dedicated fighters (soldiers, as the media insist on calling them), then yes. But if, as they undoubtedly are, they are cowards who don't quite make it as human, then they will go to ground, vanish.
The bomb maker is a valuable asset and the 'brains' will have no intention of getting caught, or killed. So my prediction is, that there will be no incident in the coming days, no follow up. Sure some other loner smack-head, psychotic cannabis freak might drive a car at people, but that will just be copying what they see on telly. Certainly no part of a plot.
So again, why the troops? Well, our senior police officers, who have repeatedly shown they are complete and utter failures, will have seen the political opportunity the murder of children presents. Whilst the rank and file want to keep a mainly unarmed force, the senior officers want an armed force (sorry, service).
What kind of ambitious, self-regarding officer of rank would not want to have high profile police, dripping with bags and equipment openly displaying guns? The bigger the better. And helicopters and maybe armoured cars.
But they have had to ask for the unusual and (in Britain) hugely political deployment of soldiers, because that will release the, clearly small number, of available trained firearms officers to face this 'imminent' threat. Of course, if they had the right numbers and the right weapons.....
These 'trained' police, don't forget, managed to shoot and wound the killer of Lee Rigby (despite us being told police can't 'shoot to wound'), shot dead a man with a chair leg in a bag, shot dead a criminal who was naked in his bedroom. They also fell down the stairs trying to deal with an unarmed drunk man who they fired at several times, mainly missing - in a house.
The 'experts' who numbered an instructor in their ranks who shot and wounded a student on a firearms course, in a classroom. And as an interesting aside, the police never get criticised or legally pursued over these events, unlike our hounded soldiers.
Consequently, I see it that the politicking of certain key, yet pathetic figures, has forced the Prime Minister to move to panic measures. And panicking, as Cressida Dick could tell you, if she is about and not under a desk somewhere, doesn't lead to good outcomes.
It was once said that the sign of an effective police force is the absence of crime, not their visibility, rushing around after a crime has been committed. But the fashion today is very much the opposite, that lots of blue lights and guns and robocops shows the police mean business.
This lazy, easy resort to deploying troops is a dangerous precedent, deeply un-British and in the circumstance pertaining, wholly unnecessary anyway. The separation of our volunteer army from the people has always been clear and carefully controlled. Thatcher unleashed the SAS for a particular operation, where their skills were essential at the Princes Gate siege of the Eighties.
Control was, briefly handed over from the civil power (the police) to the military. Once over, so control was handed back. It is that controlled, when done right.
The Army, with high velocity weapons are not the right defence in this situation on urban streets and our police have repeatedly shown themselves too often not fit for purpose. And their leadership, the root of the problem, is of very poor quality.
Dealing with this terrorism is the opposite of what we are doing. The people of Manchester have instinctively got it right, go out and show that we stand together against their plots, brave in the face of danger. What they are doing is standing up for the British values that has and does make our society great.
Thus by inference we reject their value system based on violence and coercion. But the politicians become more martial, they puff and bluster, whilst maintaining all the safeguards to keep terrorism amongst us. The Trojan Horse schools? They are not just not educating children properly, they are the start point for radicalisation, creating division.
The hate preachers - why are they still operating and often true, why are they still here? The potential terrorists returning from fighting for ISIS in Syria. Returning? Don't let them in! Even if, heaven forfend it should cause Corbyn sleepless nights to take such action.
And finally, please can I never be told again, after a terrorist atrocity that the perpetrator was 'known to police'. Or how many plots were prevented (that strangely saw no one arrested, no one is aware they happened and no one goes to prison as a result).