A bomb or a fish supper?

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 23 Jul 2005, 20:53

Dadaist wrote:
Democracy surrenders!!

Give it a rest

Talk about getting carried away. If this incident had happened three weeks ago then I might just about have seen the point of this melodramatic statement

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 21:26

foxy wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Democracy surrenders!!
Give it a rest
Talk about getting carried away. If this incident had happened three weeks ago then I might just about have seen the point of this melodramatic statement

I'd rather get carried away in an argument than get carried away in a bag.

There is no objective difference in whether the incident took place before or after 7/7 unless the law of the land changed. What has changed is that we have had the opportunity to find out who is on what side - some call for internment camps (The Sun newspaper after the bombings) and some say that peace campaigners are terrorist sympathisers (Porty), some get the Pot Noodle Horn for the establishment when they shoot some "chap" from Brazil (Epykat and Jamesie).

Like I said, democracy surrenders.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 23 Jul 2005, 21:50

Dadaist wrote: Does your blanket ban on criticism by "anyone" include the family of the individual who was shot?

Q3 - if the basis of their criticism is that their loved one was shot after running away from the Police following orders to stop then they can criticise as much as they like, but to me such criticism is worthless.

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 23 Jul 2005, 22:00

Dadaist wrote:
There is no objective difference in whether the incident took place before or after 7/7 unless the law of the land changed.

While the law may not have changed it reacted. The incident that occurred on Friday was prempted by the events on 7/7 in the heightened terror level resulting from the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Acts.

Any balanced individual with an oodle of common sense would realise that running away from the Police into a tube training, hurtling the barriers in the process, while wearing a heavy jacket in the current climate - both meteorologically and politically - is not a sensible move.

What has changed is that we have had the opportunity to find out who is on what side - some call for internment camps (The Sun newspaper after the bombings) and some say that peace campaigners are terrorist sympathisers (Porty), some get the Pot Noodle Horn for the establishment when they shoot some "chap" from Brazil (Epykat and Jamesie).

Like I said, democracy surrenders.

Anyone who attempts to factionalise over this plays straight into the hands of those committing the atrocities. We need a calculated unified response, which does not seek to appease the PC brigade.

At times I think some individuals take a perverse satisfaction from the fact the deceased did not have explosives strapped to him.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 22:02

Jamesie wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Does your blanket ban on criticism by "anyone" include the family of the individual who was shot?
Q3 - if the basis of their criticism is that their loved one was shot after running away from the Police following orders to stop then they can criticise as much as they like, but to me such criticism is worthless.

I don't think the Met will have you as their next spokesperson - bit too much Cyberman in there for your average Public Relations job, old chap!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jul 2005, 22:34

The incident that occurred on Friday was prempted by the events on 7/7 in the heightened terror level resulting from the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Acts.

And again, in English please?

Any balanced individual with an oodle of common sense

You can't even put somebody in prison just on suspicion, let alone shoot them in the face. And now you're lowering the bar on shoot-to-kill to include balance and common sense?

running away from the Police into a tube training, hurtling the barriers in the process

Yes, he should have bought a ticket. It's face-shooting time.

while wearing a heavy jacket in the current climate- both meteorologically and politically - is not a sensible move.

I don't want to live in Jamesieville. Thur's a new Sherriff in town!

Anyone who attempts to factionalise over this plays straight into the hands of those committing the atrocities.

Wow, that's the second time you're attempted to stifle debate/dissent during this debate. Excuse me for "factionalising" but :

(1) Politics is about taking sides
(2) I care not which faction I end up in, just don't put me in yours as your rhetoric is a bit too Bushy for me - if y'all ain't with us, y'all are against us!

We need a calculated unified response, which does not seek to appease the PC brigade.

Hahahaha I was wondering how long it would be before somebody used the word appeasement. I remember Jack Straw calling the Nazis "Europe's Taliban". Those damn appeasers!!

At times I think some individuals take a perverse satisfaction from the fact the deceased did not have explosives strapped to him.

No we don't - you're wrong. But sling as much mud as you like - the sharper this debate is, the better.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 23 Jul 2005, 22:55

Epykat wrote: I also think Mr Magnolia is being a wee bit insulting to the Police to imply that they simply drew their guns and started chasing the guy. These are professional and well trained people

Epykat,

my comments regarding the police were considered, heartfelt, and meant to be insulting. At the time I posted them I was also hoping against hope that the 'facts' would eventually justify in some way the actions. Sadly, my presumptions were correct. The psychopaths are on the warpath; they have a history written in the blood of innocent people and no matter how highly trained they are, the point of their training is to kill people. If the guy they killed wasn't connected with recent bombings but might have ben connected with 'other' events or terrorist activities then they are idiots for killing him.

and in this absolutely ridiculous instance even the Daily Mail carries a story that brands the state forces as idiots to me. They let a man leave a property that was under surveillance (and I wait to have that confirmed), then they let him on a bus, let him off again unchallenged and then they decide he is so dangerous they have to kill him? Obviously tube train passengers are more important than bus passengers and have to be protected by extreme force...

As I said last night, the killers were not uniformed plod, they were the hooded death squad - just look at the pictures of them and ask yourself whether on the streets of Rio you would look at them and their guns and their snarling faces as they yelled at you suddenly and startlingly and think 'Oh I bet these chaps are laughing policemen just wanting to ask me a couple of questions and then let me on my way' And that's if you're an innocent tourist - what if he was a drug smuggler/illegal alien/faredodger/lover of some criminals' bit of tottie? Well by jove, in this brave world of ours, just wipe him out.

here's a quote from the beebs website that at least lets me know that others have the same concerns:

What if this man did not understand English, and all he saw was 3 normally dressed large built men screaming, looking aggressive and running after him in a tube station? Put yourself in his position.
Hiroki, UK

I am sick sick sickened beyond words by both the actions of the polis/sas and by the apparent complete lack of outrage at this event.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Jul 2005, 22:59

mr magnolia wrote:The psychopaths are on the warpath and they have a history written in the blood of innocent people and no matter how highly trained they are, the point of their training is to kill people.

Yep, I think you'll find they're called bombers...........

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Jul 2005, 00:21

Epykat wrote:
mr magnolia wrote:The psychopaths are on the warpath and they have a history written in the blood of innocent people and no matter how highly trained they are, the point of their training is to kill people.
Yep, I think you'll find they're called bombers...........

I agree. The B-52 is a cowardly and indiscriminate ordnance platform.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Jul 2005, 12:04

Dadaist wrote: What irks me is even when the Met's own anti-racist unit describes the force as "institutionally racist".....

Well, we obviously don't need to worry about that now, they've just proved they can't tell a person's race at all.

Mr Magnolia wrote:I am sick sick sickened beyond words by both the actions of the polis/sas and by the apparent complete lack of outrage at this event.

Mr M you beat me to it on a few points, though I think others such as Wangi and ecm had also voiced their concern about some of them. You certainly aren't on your own in feeling outrage.

1. Looks like (still the information is unclear!) it wasn't a single abode they had under surveillance but a block of flats. Anyone who came out that front door was a potential victim. The poor intelligence gathering involved in this operation shows just how inadequate and panicked our Security Services must be.

2. You believe the man is a suicide bomber, but you wait until he's on a tube train before 'neutralising' him? A shoddy job whatever way you look at it.

3. You expect a person to stop when shouted at by a group of people in ordinary dress at least one of whom has a gun pointed at you? Why?

4. Eye witness* reports can't always be believed. What happened to the bomb belt with wires spotted by one? I'm surprised we didn't have someone say that he was reciting from the Koran as well...

If (as even Ken Livingstone says) you are forced into a situation where you instigate a 'shoot to kill' policy complete with unpublished 'rules of engagement' then you'd better make 100% sure you get it right. I don't believe (and this is where I deviate from you Mr M) that all Police marksmen are psychopathic killers, but we don't know even what forces were involved here; was it the Police or Army? You certainly 'volunteer' yourself for such training in the Police so I assume that is how you've come to your conclusion that there is something 'psychopathic' about a policeman who is a marksman?
I think the whole tragic tale shows us what a panic exists within our Intelligence/Security Forces and how wrong they can get it. So far all we had heard of were innocent men being held under the Terrorism Act (we've had a fair number of those incidents here in Edinburgh) but at least these men lived to have their innocence admitted. Now the innocent can be killed. I have no faith whatsoever in our intelligence gathering and if I was a Policemarksman I'd be thinking twice right now about retaining that status and the extra cash it brings in.

edit.
*Commuter Anthony Larkin, who was also on the train at Stockwell station, told 5 Live he saw police chasing a man.

"I saw these police officers in uniform and out of uniform shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out and people were panicking and I heard two shots being fired."

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 24 Jul 2005, 14:26

Marya wrote:
Mr Magnolia wrote:I am sick sick sickened beyond words by both the actions of the polis/sas and by the apparent complete lack of outrage at this event.
Mr M you beat me to it on a few points, though I think others such as Wangi and ecm had also voiced their concern about some of them. You certainly aren't on your own in feeling outrage.

Absolutely not. Very well said Mr M. and M.

I don't think there's anything I can add to what you've both said about the whole sorry incident.

Beach Babe · Post by **Beach Babe** » 24 Jul 2005, 21:34

absolutely agree with Marya and Mr M

so if this guy had just gone to the shop to buy a pint of milk then would they have still shot him? Or was it the normal, commonplace action of enttering the underground that prompted this action?

I can't imagine how this guy must have felt in the last minute of his life. Actually I really don't want to think about it as it's so upsetting

Equally, it must have been horrible for the victims and their families on 7th July and I'm sure that people will never really recover from that.

However, if you are going to be involved in life and death decisions, in the way that Police marksmens are, then there is no room for error in your work. You have to be absolutely sure about what you are doing and if you are not then you do not kill (there must have been many far more appropriate ways to have safely captured this man in order to ascertain who he was). Something terrible went wrong here and there needs to be a full and very open investigation with regards to this. For many reasons, not just because he was innocent, this shooting is indefensible and I'm just saddened that some people cannot see this.

To put it in a different context, say a loved one died suddenly due to a medical error. Someone made a life or death decision that was wrong. Even if they could justify it (as I'm sure the Police will feel that they can in this situation) would you complain about it or accept that it was professional well trained people doing their job. I'm damned sure that many of you would complain. Not quite sure if I'm explaining my point well but it boils down to why would you defend the Police when they've been shown to be wrong but (imho) people would be less likely to defend another profession who may make a mistake

On a totally different subject, but one that explains my outlook with regard to this shooting, I am against the death penalty because it is very very difficult to be 100% certain in this life and until you are, another life should not be taken

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 24 Jul 2005, 21:40

Beach Babe wrote:absolutely agree with Marya and Mr M
so if this guy had just gone to the shop to buy a pint of milk then would they have still shot him? Or was it the normal, commonplace action of enttering the underground that prompted this action?

Entering the underground whilst failing to stop when requested to by the Police, hurtling the barrier in the process, can hardly be classified as the commonplace action of entering the underground though can it?

Jamesie · Post by **Jamesie** » 24 Jul 2005, 21:47

Dadaist wrote:somebody describes the officer involved as a "chap". What is this - cricket???

You seem to a strange aversion to the term "chap". Care to enlighten the rest of us?

I'm sure the vast majority of Israeli public opinion is behind each and every IDF soldier who has shot somebody. I'm sure the vast majority of US and UK white public opinion is similarly focused. But it does tend to be the minority groups who get targeted (excuse the pun) in each of these countries so I guess your "vast majority" theory must hold true.

So are you advocating a targeting of the white majority with the aim of targetting potential white Muslim suicide bombers, leaving the Asian minority with a higher percentage Muslim population alone?

Beach Babe · Post by **Beach Babe** » 24 Jul 2005, 21:50

Jamesie wrote:
Beach Babe wrote:absolutely agree with Marya and Mr M
so if this guy had just gone to the shop to buy a pint of milk then would they have still shot him? Or was it the normal, commonplace action of enttering the underground that prompted this action?
Entering the underground whilst failing to stop when requested to by the Police, hurtling the barrier in the process, can hardly be classified as the commonplace action of entering the underground though can it?

well sadly we'll never get to find out why the guy didn't stop. It could have been for a multitude of reasons, almost none of which merit being killed. Maybe he had a guilty conscience about something. As I said previously, I cannot believe that those highly trained policemen could not have apprehended the man without killing him

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Jul 2005, 22:06

chap

noun (informal)
A grown man referred to familiarly, jokingly, or as a member of one's set or group

Inoffensive in the correct context, totally inappropriate in others....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Jul 2005, 22:09

Jamesie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:somebody describes the officer involved as a "chap". What is this - cricket???
You seem to a strange aversion to the term "chap". Care to enlighten the rest of us?

I'm sure the vast majority of Israeli public opinion is behind each and every IDF soldier who has shot somebody. I'm sure the vast majority of US and UK white public opinion is similarly focused. But it does tend to be the minority groups who get targeted (excuse the pun) in each of these countries so I guess your "vast majority" theory must hold true.
So are you advocating a targeting of the white majority with the aim of targetting potential white Muslim suicide bombers, leaving the Asian minority with a higher percentage Muslim population alone?

The subtle implication of familiarity, or at least lack of formality, that you had for the executioner is chilling when contrasted with your contempt for the views of the family of the executed.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 24 Jul 2005, 23:19

Jamesie wrote: Entering the underground whilst failing to stop when requested to by the Police, hurtling the barrier in the process, can hardly be classified as the commonplace action of entering the underground though can it?

It's not clear if any of the men initially giving chase were actually uniformed officers.
Not one of the eye witness accounts I heard given or read mentioned the word "Police" being shouted, simply "Get down" and "Get out".

Even the train driver fleeing the train had a gun held to his head by an un-uniformed person.

Perhaps the victim thought he was being chased by terrorists or a bunch of armed lunatics?

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 24 Jul 2005, 23:28

http://hrw.org/wr2k2/americas2.html

Quote:
According to the SÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â£o Paulo police ombudsman, military police in that state killed 272 people in the first half of 2001, an average of three killings every two days. While shocking, these numbers actually represented a decrease from comparable figures from 2000. Most victims of police killings had no prior criminal record. Notably, black and dark-skinned people were disproportionately subject to fatal police shootings

And from a piece on the Beebs webpages

The BBC's correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 24 Jul 2005, 23:29

Jamesie wrote: Entering the underground whilst failing to stop when requested to by the Police, hurtling the barrier in the process, can hardly be classified as the commonplace action of entering the underground though can it?

ecm wrote: It's not clear if any of the men initially giving chase were actually uniformed officers.
Not one of the eye witness accounts I heard given or read mentioned the word "Police" being shouted, simply "Get down" and "Get out".

Even the train driver fleeing the train had a gun held to his head by an un-uniformed person.

Perhaps the victim thought he was being chased by terrorists or a bunch of armed lunatics?

I agree with ecm's latter statement, it has now been said that the 'police' were plain clothed.
I am sure anyone would have done the same thing, faced with a group of menacing looking guys, one's first reaction would be to run..

Hiboz · Post by **Hiboz** » 25 Jul 2005, 01:08

Point is:

Police in uk don't carry guns.
They were called out especially.
He was up to something suspicious therefore
He looked dodgy
in the current climate better safe than sorry.
He'll have done something at some point to deserve it.

**************************************************
Two threads have been merged here, to avoid a split debate on a single topic - Marya

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Jul 2005, 07:45

Hiboz wrote:Point is:

Police in uk don't carry guns.

Apart from the ones with guns. And all that proves is that when somebody with plain clothes points a gun at you, you're less likely to think "phew, it's the Law, my problems are over"

They were called out especially.

To look at a block of flats. Welcome to "You're Wrong" night.

He was up to something suspicious therefore
He looked dodgy
in the current climate better safe than sorry.

You should put some of your Judge Dredd comics up on Ebay.

He'll have done something at some point to deserve it.

Only in your mind. Back in the real world, the Polis have issued an apology.

On an internet forum, if there is an ongoing discussion about something and you'd like to have your say, it's best to post it in that discussion as opposed to starting your own. It means that people will take what you have to say more seriously.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 25 Jul 2005, 08:24

Judge Dread - Alive and Kicking in the USA

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le9527.htm

Hiboz · Post by **Hiboz** » 25 Jul 2005, 08:38

I have left the quotation of your reply below... symbolic, could be.

Welcome to you "you're a pompous pretentious self-contradicting lightweight night"

LOL. you accuse me of being similar to Judge Dredd in a roundabout manner, yet continue to point out where I have gone wrong, gone wrong with my posting etiquette, then attempt to chastise me. Exactly what you accuse me of.

I'd hate to think what might happen if you get called up for jury duty in a few years when you're old enough.

Silly wee boy.

Look forward to your unfounded and no doubt incorrectly based abuse.

Dadaist wrote:
Hiboz wrote:Point is:

Police in uk don't carry guns.
Apart from the ones with guns. And all that proves is that when somebody with plain clothes points a gun at you, you're less likely to think "phew, it's the Law, my problems are over"

They were called out especially.
To look at a block of flats. Welcome to "You're Wrong" night.

He was up to something suspicious therefore
He looked dodgy
in the current climate better safe than sorry.

You should put some of your Judge Dredd comics up on Ebay.

He'll have done something at some point to deserve it.
Only in your mind. Back in the real world, the Polis have issued an apology.

On an internet forum, if there is an ongoing discussion about something and you'd like to have your say, it's best to post it in that discussion as opposed to starting your own. It means that people will take what you have to say more seriously.

Post by **wangi** » 25 Jul 2005, 09:31

Pssst, hiboz:

http://porty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1081

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 25 Jul 2005, 10:34

Hiboz wrote: Look forward to your unfounded and no doubt incorrectly based abuse.

Welcome Hiboz and eh, good luck.

*can't bear to look*

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Jul 2005, 10:57

Thanks for showing our newbie to the guidelines Wangi.
Please take some time to read them Hiboz as it will save any grief further down the line. We welcome healthy disagreement but please refrain from personal abuse and show respect for others. You won't have been the first to slightly mis-judge the tone of this board (eh Porty?

) with your first posting and will no doubt not be the last. Newbies are our life blood, but please be more careful in future posts.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Jul 2005, 10:57

I love Hiboz already. This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Already did the jury thing - managed to find the right room too!

Welcome to the forum - I like your style.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Jul 2005, 10:59

Dadaist wrote:I love Hiboz already. This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

.

A sort of Ying and Yang eh?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Jul 2005, 11:04

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I love Hiboz already. This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

.
A sort of Ying and Yang eh?

Me and Porty can fight over who gets to argue with him.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 25 Jul 2005, 13:20

Marya wrote:I don't believe (and this is where I deviate from you Mr M) that all Police marksmen are psychopathic killers, but we don't know even what forces were involved here; was it the Police or Army? You certainly 'volunteer' yourself for such training in the Police so I assume that is how you've come to your conclusion that there is something 'psychopathic' about a policeman who is a marksman?

I don't believe all of them are, either. I've made a sloppy choice of word also, although the strength of the word does accurately echo my strength of feeling - Sociopath is perhaps another modern equivalent, but again is not quite the right one. I'll have a think about the word that I think is really the best one to use.

generally though, there is something distinctly 'different' about someone who volunteers for these duties - both at the time of volunteering and then, moreso, after training.

Good letter in todays Metro from Conscious Bob, suggesting that Blair (Tony) and Osama have now found common ground in that all 'ordinary' people are acceptable casualties and will be expected to die if need be to satisfy their goals.

Talking of Blair, I also was stunned to see last night that top bobby blair, when offering his apology for killing an innocent man, did not have the simple human grace to limit his speech to actually being an apology - he had to have the last word and, while offering absolutely zero explanation of the events, couple it with dire warnings and underlinings of the 'serious nature of the threat blah blah...'

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Jul 2005, 14:04

mr magnolia wrote:
Marya wrote:I don't believe (and this is where I deviate from you Mr M) that all Police marksmen are psychopathic killers, but we don't know even what forces were involved here; was it the Police or Army? You certainly 'volunteer' yourself for such training in the Police so I assume that is how you've come to your conclusion that there is something 'psychopathic' about a policeman who is a marksman?
I don't believe all of them are, either. I've made a sloppy choice of word also, although the strength of the word does accurately echo my strength of feeling - Sociopath is perhaps another modern equivalent, but again is not quite the right one. I'll have a think about the word that I think is really the best one to use.

Moderator?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Jul 2005, 14:07

Porty wrote:
mr magnolia wrote:
Marya wrote:I don't believe (and this is where I deviate from you Mr M) that all Police marksmen are psychopathic killers, but we don't know even what forces were involved here; was it the Police or Army? You certainly 'volunteer' yourself for such training in the Police so I assume that is how you've come to your conclusion that there is something 'psychopathic' about a policeman who is a marksman?
I don't believe all of them are, either. I've made a sloppy choice of word also, although the strength of the word does accurately echo my strength of feeling - Sociopath is perhaps another modern equivalent, but again is not quite the right one. I'll have a think about the word that I think is really the best one to use.
Moderator?

Grapes?

Post by **wangi** » 25 Jul 2005, 15:13

Beach Babe wrote:well sadly we'll never get to find out why the guy didn't stop. It could have been for a multitude of reasons, almost none of which merit being killed. Maybe he had a guilty conscience about something.

His visa was up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 25 Jul 2005, 16:32

Eyewitnesses reported that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, where he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train. He was pushed to the floor of the carriage. Two officers pinned him down, while a third shot him five times in the head and neck with a handgun. He died at the scene

I have yet to come up with a word other than 'psychopath'

Whoever these people are/were, I'm quite happy to agree that they probably didn't go out the front door saying' I wonder how many I can kill today?'

But they have previously, and are continuing to, psyche themselves up to snuff out life 'in the name of duty', and without very much questioning, either, as THE essential element of their 'work'. And because that's always an option, that's why they're doing that work...

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

A bomb or a fish supper?

Police shooting

Re: Police shooting

Re: Police shooting

Re: Police shooting