quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
More incidents. Unclear if copycat, or just trying a different tack. Seem to be minor, only one person injured. Causing panic and disruption, which at least does not include murder.

BBC report

The question is, how many more of these can we expect and why is it always on Thursdays?

---

'Cos it's the day before Friday.
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
Plese God, not again.

Lets hope this is just some wompet with a few firworks rather than yet more bombs.
 

---

Posted by Mark M (# 9500) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PhilA:
Plese God, not again.

Lets hope this is just some wompet with a few firworks rather than yet more bombs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
i had to be depressing, but since there were four new explosions, its not likely to be just one person playing around. my fear is that its a sort of "gentle reminder"... like, "we did it once, we can do it again, despite all your security".

---

Yes, that does sound likely. To be honest, they really don't need carnage to have an impact - just maximum chaos, and that is what they acheived.

In a way, I wouldn't be surprised if the perpetrators of this had absolutely nothing to do with the original group - or even their cause. A precendent has been set for how to cause chaos and I guess it is tempting for people that way inclined to follow the example.
 

---

Posted by Back-to-Front (# 5638) on :
 
Lord, have mercy.

I don't know what to say or feel.
 

---

Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
My prayers and sympathies with you all.

I hope this doesn't turn into something like our high school shootings, where one act fed multiple repetitions.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I wouldn't call what's going on here at the moment exactly chaos. More like business as usual.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Hoping this doesn't appear insensitive, but please post the votive smilies and expressions of sympathy in All Saints. They tend to suppress discussion in Purgatory. I'm changing the thread title accordingly. Thanks for your cooperation.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
From the point of view of terror, it doesn't matter that they were (apparently) damp squibs. It's the message ... "we did it and we can do it again."
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
This is just a theory and not backed up with anything, but, it sounds to me as though this could have been a real attempt to bomb London, but they the terrorists used some 'bad' stuff and it didn't explode as planned.
 

---

Posted by Hazey Jane (# 8754) on :
 
There has been talk on the news that perhaps this was supposed to be a lot bigger than it actually was. Praise God that it wasn't, for whatever reason.
 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 
I often wondered why bombers haven't caried out subsequent attacks. If I were a 'mastermind' behind a campaign, I would certainly not limit to one attack; in the 'terror ratings' surely repeat attacks in the same place a few weeks apart is how to maximise the effect?
Anyway, thank God there wasn't the destruction and loss of life this time. The police, etc were superb. As was the population of London; "we are not frightened" is the message from my friends there.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
True and for that we all give thanks. The hard truth though (as many as have warned us before) it's not IF the big one comes, but WHEN.

There is very little anyone can do to stop suicide bombers. Just how many rucksacks are there in London on any given day? Do we have enough manpower and sniffer dogs to mount guard over all entry and exit points on arterial routes and sensitive sites for, say, the next two decades?

That's why it's better (psychologically) to think of this as a long drawn out war rather than "a little local difficulty." I hope I'm wrong but it's what the professionals are saying as well.

Meantime we can do a lot by keeping out the imported rabble rowsers, hate mongers and violence inciters. Moreover we need to support the overwhelming Muslim majority as they seek to bat back the fanatics. It's going to be a long haul for everyone. The Olympics are going to prove especially testing.

[ 21. July 2005, 17:45: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
 

---

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :
 
Mark worte:

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
. . . Moreover we need to support the overwhelming Muslim majority as they seek to bat back the fanatics. It's going to be a long haul for everyone...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland:
. . . I hope they get some good information from this that leads to arrests. Some of the explosives didn't go off so they must get good forensics and stuff from that.

---

quote:

---

Police sources say the blasts may have been near-simultaneous and that they are being linked with the 7 July bombs.

---

from the article I linked to.

So I hope they will be able to build a better picture from the comparison of forensics and what turns up. I heard they had made a couple of arrests already and we still don't know what the outcome of the hospital incident was so maybe that was an arrest.

(Armed Police went in there after someone seemingly)
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
What??
FOUR devices that failed to go off? Hard to believe, after the 'successes' of two weeks ago.
The first casualty of war is the truth and I guess it's the same at this time - I reckon a whole lot of stuff is being witheld from us (I'm not saying we should be told everything).
 

---

Posted by Lady Alicia of Scouseland (# 7668) on :
 
I think at least one of them did go off else how did we get the reports of a window being blown out on the bus earlier?

You're right of course, that the truth is often something we aren't too sure of especially in times like these, though the Met did say that they would not confirm anything until they were sure it was correct, and not jump to any conclusions until they had got all the evidence together.

quote:

---

Sir Ian said there was a "resonance" with the bomb attacks two weeks ago, but that it was too early to draw any conclusions about whether they were linked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
The question is, how many more of these can we expect and why is it always on Thursdays?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
This should open up the case for the investigators. Lots of good evidence to be gathered. I expect you'll see lots of arrests soon. Hang in there, Londoners! Our hearts are with you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by I_am_not_Job:
The question is, how many more of these can we expect and why is it always on Thursdays?

---

This is only the second wave we've had, I'd hardly say it "always" happens. Both have been on Thursdays but I doubt very much that they're trying to lull us into some kind of sense of false security by deciding only to plant bombs on Thursdays. You can't deduce a pattern from just two instances.

We were bloody lucky this time to get off this lightly. What worries me though is that the perpetrators seem to have escaped unharmed i.e. are still at large and free to do it again. They should have CCTV footage of the people who escaped, I hope this will lead to something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What worries me though is that the perpetrators seem to have escaped unharmed i.e. are still at large and free to do it again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What worries me though is that the perpetrators seem to have escaped unharmed i.e. are still at large and free to do it again.

---

Yeah, WTF's up with that? I'd have thought that as soon as the commuters realised they were still alive they'd have taken their chance to 'apprehend'* the slime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
The BBC site is still just saying someone was shot. But the link above suggests they may have been a suspected bomber, possibly from yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Good-o, one of 'em's just been shot at Stockwell station.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
Good-o, one of 'em's just been shot at Stockwell station.

---

I too would hold off rejoicing until the facts are known. It is going to be no improvement to replace the capital crime of Being Irish and Carrying a Table Leg with that of Looking Foreign While in Possession of a Rucksack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
It seems like a very odd thing to do - if you've caught a potential bomber, and got him on the ground, surely the thing to do would be arrest and question him? Shooting him at that point would seem like the least useful option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
It seems like a very odd thing to do - if you've caught a potential bomber, and got him on the ground, surely the thing to do would be arrest and question him? Shooting him at that point would seem like the least useful option.

---

Yes, questioning would be useful, but if they believed him to be wired up with a bomb, and he's in a confined space with members of the public around, is there not a risk that he might still attempt to detonate it.

Not a judgement call I would like to have to make
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Yes, but ... they know more about this than I do but I wouldn't have thought shooting at someone who could be carrying explosives on his person is a good idea. Supposing you set them off.

(Crossposted with HJ)

[ 22. July 2005, 12:16: Message edited by: Ariel ]
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
BBC News 24 is saying Police have new guidelines, and are to 'shoot to kill' - even (sorry for the gruesome details!) they are supposed to shoot suicide bombers 'in the head', so that a bomb they may have strapped around them, will not explode.

This chap was obviously running onto a tube train in order to flee, and very possibly to blow himself up, plus the people on the train, AFAIK.
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Standing orders are to shoot suspected suicide bombers dead, by shooting them in the head. There is no requirement for a warning to be given. Any other course of action could lead to the bomb being detonated with massive loss of life.

The difficulty comes if they turn out to be innocent. As an Assistant Chief Constable I was talking to once said, it will be curtains for his career either way if he makes a mistake - if he doesn't order the shooting, and a bomb goes off, it's a catastrophe. If he orders it and the victim is an innocent member of the public, it's a tragedy.

They couldn't pay me enough to his job.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
You're right, it would make sense in those circumstances, if he had a bomb and could still set it off. And of course they could hardly shoot at him before he was on the ground, not in a crowded train.

For some reason I had it in my head that he was yesterday's bomber, not someone actually planning a bombing today (though of course he could be both).

How awful to be the policemen who had to take that decision, too. They must have been petrified.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Why was the guy wearing a heavy padded coat??? I know London isn't DC (93F today, bleah!) but isn't it high summer? The BBC front page are reporting that people nearby saw he had wires hanging out of the coat.

But, no, I wouldn't want that job, either.

Firenze et al: The crime of DWB, or "Driving While Black" is well-known in the US.

[ 22. July 2005, 12:39: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
This morning I cancelled a planned visit to the capital (arrive Mon-leave Thurs). The visit was to be an extended culture hop with a bit of nature (the heath, the wetlands centre)and the odd church thrown in.

I'd have been alone - my husband is working and my son would rather do his own thing now he's grown - stopping off on the way to my folks in Kent.

Now I'll just be passing through. In some ways it's a bit like giving in to the terrorists but I don't want to keep looking over my shoulder with no companion for support, when I'm off work for the summer break and ought to be chilling.


How do these dudes equate violence with spirituality? How can interpretations of a religion breed such hate? I know there is injustice against Muslim people but this is not the answer. How do these guys become quite so angry and get so ideologised (if that is actually a word - sort of politicised but into a twisted version of religious ideology)? To me this is one of the scariest examples of how belief in absoloutes can go horribly, horribly wrong.

J

[ 22. July 2005, 12:36: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Why was the guy wearing a heavy padded coat??? I know London isn't DC (93F today, bleah!) but isn't it high summer? The BBC front page are reporting that people nearby saw he had wires hanging out of the coat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Why was the guy wearing a heavy padded coat?

---

Possibly to hide a bomb?

Its T-shirt weather here - about 25 degrees C and hazy sunshine. There was no-one wearing any coats when I came up on the train this morning, though a few hoodies around and one or two jacket-and-tie wearing blokes.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
I'm guessing also that "heavy padded coat with wires hanging out" isn't the latest thing on the runways in Paris for summer in Britain.

Or, um, it certainly won't be now.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
If you reasonably suspect someone to be wired up to a bomb, then you have to do your best to disable their motor nerves by shooting them repeatedly in the head; otherwise they can detonate the bomb in the act of dying.

Rather bad news if he was just late for his train, though...

[ 22. July 2005, 14:08: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Wow! They've got CCTV footage of four suspects, and are asking the public to assist...

(News conference live now on BBC 24 TV, webcast available at http://news.bbc.co.uk)


 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
also rather bad news if he was rigged with a dead-mans switch, ie, if he was holding the detonator in the off position, and killing him caused it to blow.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Why was the guy wearing a heavy padded coat??? I know London isn't DC (93F today, bleah!) but isn't it high summer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For someone used to temperatures in the 90s, London temperatures of mere 70s would probably seem fairly cool. Perhaps he'd recently arrived from warmer climes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
There's a bloke I know from Togo who took to walking 6 miles home from work a few weeks ago because the buses were too hot...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
also rather bad news if he was rigged with a dead-mans switch, ie, if he was holding the detonator in the off position, and killing him caused it to blow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Living in Gin:
In reading the most recent BBC article, it seems as if police did the right thing. The guy had apparently already been under surveillance in connection to the earlier bombings, and repeatedly ignored instructions from police. Some witnesses reported that he appeared to be wearing a bomb belt. Now that he's dead, has this been confirmed?

---

I heard a report that nothing was found on him, but that's hindsight. The guy was wearing a thick coat when nobody's wearing much more than a T-shirt or the like at the moment, the police couldn't take a chance on it.
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 
The Stockwell shooting is the nearest to home this has come for us, my daughter travels through that station on her way to and from school. Ah well, term finished today.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
They've just arrested someone in Birmingham. "He was reportedly carrying suitcases that may be connected with the London attacks on Thursday." That's interesting - and I've just missed the TV news
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 
I hear now there's been an arrest in Stockwell, separate from the shooting this morning.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
One has to feel for the police who must be shaken up by their actions.

---

quote:

---

It is no easy call to make- but I am certain they would not do something so drastic without VERY GOOD reason.

---

quote:

---

IMHO we should wait for facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I'm not criticicizing the police, and I hope that more information will come out in due time, but all of this makes me very uneasy. Someone being shot dead by the police - for whatever reason - in Britain? I'm not used to things happening like that here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
There's been an increased police presence at some railway stations since the beginning of July.

---

I'd assume that from the end of June there were increased police numbers trying to intercept any known anarchists passing through London towards Scotland for the G8 summit. Plus general policing of the crowds coming and going for the Live8 concert. With the spotlight on the UK at the time, even without any specific intelligence re: terrorists there were plenty of reasons to have lots of police around.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Police are not trained 'overnight', I hope and believe. The presence of so many with arms in the last few weeks confirms our observation over many months of large numbers of police with guns 'at the ready' standing along Whitehall, Victoria Street and Parliament Square (to mention three main locations).
In East London, I have an impression that armed police can more quickly be deployed these days (to deal with incidents in homes etc) along with helicopters (5am for 30 minutes over our house one day last week).
Blessings!
 

---

Posted by Goar (# 3939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
So I guess we propbably will see a sort of gradual arming of the police

---

This saddens me. As an American living in London I have loved the fact that EVEN the police are unarmed. It's one of the nicest things about London relative to large American cities.

Yesterday at Baker Street Station, where I was changing busses, I watched some 20 to 30 yellow-coated police going door to door searching buildings and flats. Presumably, for terrorists.

It struck me that it would be very difficult or impossible for US police to obtain right of entry to US homes. They would have to appeal to the courts to obtain search warrants on an address by address basis, demonstrating probable cause. Searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. would require a second search warrant.

Question for UKers: Can UK police search a home without a warrant? I mean, not that there's any contraband lying around here or anything....

And another thing (perhaps better suited for Hell). I can't believe it's been over twenty-four hours now and we still have not been given a reasonable explanation for a man being shot to death while fleeing arrest after he was apprehended. The most that has been said is that he was "directly llinked" with the London bombs investigation and that he refused to obey instructions the police....

AND YOU KILLED HIM?!?!?!?! WTF? Make a statement, damn it. Tell us what happened, authorities! Explain yourselves. This is bullshit.

[ 23. July 2005, 15:30: Message edited by: Goar ]
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
There are any number of possibilities for silencing him. He may have been an informant who suddenly got cold feet and had too much information on how and who the police are investigating. Doubtful if the details of why he was being followed will ever come out.

There have been over 300 arrests in Pakistan alone, since July 7, related to the ongoing investigations.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
From the BBC web site: "But Pc Norman Brennan, head of the Protect the Protectors group, said the recent attacks proved all officers should be armed."

See what I mean? I know some police have been saying this for years but I suspect it's coming quite soon - perhaps by stealth, which seems to be the case at the moment.

Blessings!
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
My understanding is that under various anti-terrorism acts that police can search people and properties without obtaining a search warrant.
 

---

Posted by Hazey Jane (# 8754) on :
 
Breaking news - the guy they shot dead had nothing to do with the bombings.

Oh dear
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hazey Jane:
Breaking news - the guy they shot dead had nothing to do with the bombings.

Oh dear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
There are any number of possibilities for silencing him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
They had good reason to believe he was a terrorist.

---

Because he left a house with terrorists in it? And that makes it okay to kill him without trial?

If (and this is a big if) the authorities state that and explain how they reasonably thought he was a suicide bomber about to explode a bomb, then maybe I might accept this death as a necessary injustice. But not yet. Not till we're told more.

[ 23. July 2005, 16:42: Message edited by: Goar ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
I'm with you, Goar. What makes anyone think they had good reason?
Until they tell us . . .
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Wasn't the guy already down when he was shot? Seems a bit extreme, to say the least.
 

---

Posted by Goar (# 3939) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
Wasn't the guy already down when he was shot? Seems a bit extreme, to say the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
Wasn't the guy already down when he was shot? Seems a bit extreme, to say the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Well, consider the alternative explanation. That they are basically racist; badly trained; poorly led; over aggressive; and that the operation is being conducted in the kind of gung-ho atmosphere that leads officers to exhibitionist acts of violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I think the London police are doing a damned fine job under extreme pressure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
Right now I'm just feeling shocked and, to tell the truth, imagining the dawning horror in the minds of the officers involved.

---

Yes, I suspect someone is in the midst of a dark night of the soul.

For all involved.
 

---

Posted by Mark M (# 9500) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
He didn't halt when he was told to, he just ran. When all security is on top alert he behaved like a terrorist. I hate to say it, but from the reports thus farm it seems he invited this action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peronel:
I agree that he should have stopped, but does anyone know if the police were in uniform. If not, it seems entirely possible that he did not know they were police

---

That's one scenario that occured to me too. Eyewitnesses say the police were all plain-clothes.

This is just awful.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
There's a lot about this I don't understand.

Why, if the team that had him under surveillance from the point where he left the house where the terrorists, wearing the heavy coat, didn't they detain him almost immediately? Why let him get as far as the train station in the first place if you believe he's wired to a bomb? It simply doesn't make sense that they'd let him move from a street to an area with a much denser concentration of people. Perhaps a Londoner can tell me if there's a geographical explanation.

Given the officers assumed he was a terrorist, after he had been subdued, wouldn't it have been more beneficial to take him alive, so he could be interrogated, etc.?
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
It is a tragedy in the most literal sense of the word. The police saw a man in a heavy coat leaving a house under surveillance. The man must have seen a bunch of men--not in police uniform--with guns-- running after him. Does anyone know if they said 'Police' before they said 'stop'? Does anyone know how well he understood English? I imagine that he was running for his life, and the plain-clothes men were equally afraid that he was about to detonate a bomb on the train. When this happened in New York a few years ago, the man shot was holding something harmless--his keys or his mobile, I can't remember which--and the police shot him 55 times.

[ 23. July 2005, 19:35: Message edited by: Amos ]
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 
1. This guy was seen leaving the home of one of Thursday's bomb suspects.
2. He matched the description of a bomb suspect.
3. He was wearing a long winter coat in the summer.
4. When he realized he was being followed, he ran to the Tube station, jumped a turnstile, and tried desperately to get on the train.

IMO, the police had every justification for putting five bullets into his head. Unfortunately, the police don't have X-ray vision and weren't able to see whether he was actually wearing a bomb or not, but given the circumstances, they had a split-second decision to make and did the right thing. Imagine the outrage if he actually had been a suicide bomber, and blew up the Tube train because the cops didn't take him out when they had a clean shot.

It's tragic that the guy turned out to be not involved, but he had ample opportunity to de-escalate the situation by not acting like a suicide bomber. I feel bad for the cops involved and for the people on the Tube who witnessed the incident, but I can't muster a great deal of sympathy for the guy with the holes in his head. He took a stupid gamble and lost.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The innocent person who got shot was Brazilian. I think it does raise questions of whether he understood that the people chasing him were police. Stockwell is a pretty rough area and armed violence isn't unknown there.

This sort of thing has happened with people who were mistaken as Irish terrorists too - there was a horrible case a few years ago

When Harry Stanley decided to help his brother repair a broken table... he began a chain of events that was to end with his death.

I think in a situation of tension like the present one that it's just one of these rotten, rotten things that happen. It's a terrible thing to say but I'm just glad the poor soul wasn't (so far as we know) Muslim as that could really have made things worse - alienating the very community from which the police need most help - though it's bad enough as it is.


L.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I agree with every word in your post, Louise. Brazilian, was he? Poor man. And Gin, 'matches the description of a bomber' translates for many, police included, as 'having brown skin'.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Did he know the plain clothes people had a gun?

And, just like all blacks look alike, so all Asian-looking people (that includes Brazilians) are Pakis, aren't they?

This is not a joke! Just listen to some of the eyewitnesses and onlookers.
 

---

Posted by Living in Gin (# 2572) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
And Gin, 'matches the description of a bomber' translates for many, police included, as 'having brown skin'.

---

Granted. It happens here too, sadly. If that were the only factor, then I'd be outraged. But taken in combination with points #1, #3, and #4 in my post above (especially #4), I don't think the police had much of a choice in how they should have responded.

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback (sorry, I don't know what the equivalent term in the UK would be ) and second-guess the police several days after the incident, but based on what's been reported about the circumstances at the time, I think they acted appropriately.
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
In addition to Living in Gin's 4 points, the article in the Independent that I read said that onlookers described wires hanging from his padded coat. Of course that may have been just wishful thinking/subsequent elaboration on their part.

But what if the coat really looked that suspicious? Wouldn't that add to the defence of the police's prompt action?
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
More details now. He was named as Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 who was working as an electrician.



L

[ 23. July 2005, 21:46: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goar:
Question for UKers: Can UK police search a home without a warrant? I mean, not that there's any contraband lying around here or anything....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I'm not criticicizing the police, and I hope that more information will come out in due time, but all of this makes me very uneasy. Someone being shot dead by the police - for whatever reason - in Britain? I'm not used to things happening like that here.

---

But it's all very familiar to those of us who live in places where police officers and sheriff's deputies are all armed.

If you arm your police force, people are going to get shot, sometimes innocent people. Even with well-trained and impeccably professional officers, even with an excellent departmental policy on when and when not to shoot, a few officers are going to make mistakes, and some of those mistakes are going to be fatal. You can't give police officers the option of shooting people and not think it won't ever happen, and not think it won't ever happen when it shouldn't.

Yes, it's "regretable," to say the least; it's also inevitable, and the people with the power to decide whether or not to arm police officers need to face that. The decision to arm the police force means they've said to themselves on some level that it's okay if a certain number of people get shot.
 

---

Posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus (# 2515) on :
 
This country has had a largely unarmed police force for a very long time. But the terrorists won't make us change our way of life. No, of course not.
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Listen to Ruth. She lives in Los Angeles, where the policy has long been "Shoot first and ask questions later".

I once was standing at a freeway entrance in the valley, hitchhiking. Bearded, long-haired with a backpack, I had staked out my position on the legal side of the "No Hitchiking Beyond This Point" sign. Suddenly a squad car came barreling around the corner and screeched to a halt in front of me. Two officers jumped out and leveled their automatics at me from behind the open car doors.

Three more squad cars came rushing up as the original two officers ordered me to the ground over the car's PA system. "PUT YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND LAY DOWN ON THE GROUND!!!

I soon had 8 guns leveled at my shaking body as one officer kicked my legs apart and began to pat me down and another dumped out my pack. As it turned out, I matched the description of someone who had just robbed a bank a few blocks away.

If I hadn't complied instantly with their orders, I would have been dead meat and probably rated a 2-inch column on the eighth page of the LA Times next day.
 

---

Posted by Rain Dog (# 4085) on :
 
What angers me the most in this tragedy is the response of the police. Is it really that difficult to say "we're sorry"? Apparantly it is in today's UK Saying they regret what happened does not go far enough - how about presenting your flaming apologies for having killed an innocent person for the vile crime of living in the same block of flats as a suspect, being tanned and being scared senseless of baseball capped men running after him with guns?


 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
I don't care if the gunmen were wearing clownsuits and big red noses. If they ordered me to stop, I wouldn't have gone vaulting over the stalls into a deadend subway station with the whole city on the alert for terrorists with backpacks.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I don't think the cops apologize here when they kill the wrong person; they say it's "regretable" and that "their thoughts and prayers are with the family" of the victim. But they don't say they're sorry because admitting guilt when they're likely to face a wrongful death lawsuit is a bad idea. A Long Beach cop (years ago I lived in LA, Gort, but now I'm in Long Beach now) shot and killed a mentally ill homeless woman who was threatening him with a knife a few years ago. The family sued for $25 million, though they only got about $200,000.

When cops tell you to do something, you do it--immediately. I get the impression that new immigrants to this area are told that by other immigrants when they get here. If people are yelling and someone has a gun, I'd say your best bet is to hit the deck, pronto, and worry later about whether it's the police or gang members or some nutburger behind the gun.
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goar:
Question for UKers: Can UK police search a home without a warrant? I mean, not that there's any contraband lying around here or anything....

---

Some of the police entry powers are stated here, scroll down to Powers of Entry.

This is a tragedy. There is no doubt about it. It's a tragedy for the person involved (who may have been running from the police for all sorts of reasons) and it's a tragedy for the police. It also makes life very difficult for the police. A dilemma that's so difficult.

---

quote:

---

what else could the police think but what they did think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think the cops apologize here when they kill the wrong person; they say it's "regretable" and that "their thoughts and prayers are with the family" of the victim. But they don't say they're sorry because admitting guilt when they're likely to face a wrongful death lawsuit is a bad idea.

---

quote:

---

When cops tell you to do something, you do it--immediately. I get the impression that new immigrants to this area are told that by other immigrants when they get here. If people are yelling and someone has a gun, I'd say your best bet is to hit the deck, pronto, and worry later about whether it's the police or gang members or some nutburger behind the gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
If you're going to blow someone's head off, I think you have to be very certain they are going to blow themselves up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
I guess that's the difference between the UK and the US - I would never think of hitting the floor - and given that cops don't usually have guns, I'd be inclined to believe they aren't cops and either unstable or out to get me. I'd run without a doubt as hitting the floor would just make me an easier target. Get on the train and you can get away from them...

Interestingly the train's driver had the same reaction - didn't think it was cops but rather an attack, left his cab and ran down the side of the tunnel. Another plainclothes cop ran after him and pointed a gun in his face. Luckily for him, he didn't get shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think the cops apologize here when they kill the wrong person; they say it's "regretable" and that "their thoughts and prayers are with the family" of the victim. But they don't say they're sorry because admitting guilt when they're likely to face a wrongful death lawsuit is a bad idea.

---

Surely saying sorry is not admitting guilt though - they've gone so far to admit they were incorrect and have now "ruled the man out of the investigation". Surely a sorry will not make them anymore guilty?

---

quote:

---

I guess that's the difference between the UK and the US - I would never think of hitting the floor - and given that cops don't usually have guns, I'd be inclined to believe they aren't cops and either unstable or out to get me. I'd run without a doubt as hitting the floor would just make me an easier target. Get on the train and you can get away from them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
what Gort and I are saying is that it is a very big thing to arm your police officers; it creates major changes in how you relate to them and it implies important changes in your society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Exactly. And what Gort and I are saying is that it is a very big thing to arm your police officers; it creates major changes in how you relate to them and it implies important changes in your society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark M:
It is truly a tragedy, but on the other hand if armed police command you to stop and you don't, you will most likely get shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Perhaps this reads differently in the UK, but I think in the US if the police made an official statement of apology it would sound like an admission of guilt. You only apologize when you did something wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I echo all that has been said about immense sympathy for the man's family and the police concerned, and I recognise the need for extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances. But, if we take "carrying on as normal" as equalling "beating the terrorists", then in this case we lost. This is not normal life in the UK, and I pray it never becomes such.

---

quote:

---

my fear is that its a sort of "gentle reminder"... like, "we did it once, we can do it again, despite all your security".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
[QUOTE] I remember President Bush after September 11 declaring "this was an act of war" and I also wonder whether there will soon be soldiers in force in London. Not necessarily in an alarmist way but I imagine the police force has a limited capacity and they are fairly stretched at the moment - and pessimistic or not I truly don't know - I can't see this wave of violence ending soon.

I hope I am wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end.

---

Just run that one past again. Are you seriously advocating a theistic, monocultural state as the only natural organisation of society?

---

He was making a joke.

Wasn't he?
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Perhaps this reads differently in the UK, but I think in the US if the police made an official statement of apology it would sound like an admission of guilt. You only apologize when you did something wrong.

---

Yes, that does read differently here. If I was standing on a crowded tube train, say, and the motion of the train caused me to step on someones toe while trying to maintain balance I'd say "sorry" - and there's a good chance the bloke who had his toes trod on would say "sorry" to me. It doesn't, in everyday use at least, carry any implication of guilt (which would imply some sort of intention or failure to take reaonable precautions) or even necessarily fault. Perhaps in a formal statement saying "sorry" would carry more weight in regards to admitting fault than a spur of the moment "sorry". But, to me, the police saying "sorry, we made a mistake" is an admission of fault and human fallibility, not guilt.

---

That's true in the US too, Alan, you'd say, "sorry" for something you did that caused pain to someone else. What Ruth is talking about is corporate or official groups who face liability for apologizing sometimes. Like the police who've killed an innocent person, or hospitals where someone had the wrong leg amputated.

Though interestingly, studies show that apologies tend to curtail lawsuits. Mostly what people want when they file suit is some godd*&^ recognition that the injuring party did something wrong and recognizes it.

Laura
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
This on the BBC website:
Sir Ian told Sky News: "This is a tragedy. The Metropolitan Police accepts full responsibility for this. To the family I can only express my deep regrets."

It sounds like an apology and I'm thankful. But I do agree that apologies may mess-up court cases and justice cannot be seen to be done because of previously admitted guilt etc.

Oh, Lord, bring peace with justice.

Blessings!
 

---

Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end.

---

Just run that one past again. Are you seriously advocating a theistic, monocultural state as the only natural organisation of society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end.

---

Just run that one past again. Are you seriously advocating a theistic, monocultural state as the only natural organisation of society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
I once was standing at a freeway entrance in the valley, hitchhiking. Bearded, long-haired with a backpack, ...Suddenly a squad car came barreling around the corner and screeched to a halt in front of me. Two officers jumped out and leveled their automatics at me from behind the open car doors.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
You can't see that Firenze's deduction is exactly what you implied? Difficult to "argue" if you won't back up your own statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
What I said was - "The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark M:
It is truly a tragedy, but on the other hand if armed police command you to stop and you don't, you will most likely get shot.

---

Shooting a suspect to stop him gettign away isn't legal in this country, they have to believe he is armed and presents an imminent danger to the police or public around him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
However the earlier part of what you say seems to me, now, extremely naive... perhaps a measure of how life has changed here in just two weeks.

---

What? About not hitting the floor when people are shouting frantically behind you? Have you noticed anyone hitting the floor instead of running?

[ 24. July 2005, 18:50: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
It is very tragic that an innocent man was killed at Stockwell and it was a gross mistake on the part of the police. But before baying for anyone's blood, I emphasise the word mistake of which all humans are capable. This reminds me of an incident which took place some 30 years ago in which an imitation firearm was pulled on an armed police officer and the many carrying it was hot dead. His father made a statement saying, "the police should find out if the gun is real before they shoot anyone." The absudity of this is obvious. The only way to find out is to get shot.

We are living in a new era. The murdering scum of the IRA never once planted a bomb on an underground train. Although they killed many innocent people at Enniskillen, Warrington and Omagh, they war was generally fought against the British establishment, not the British public. This new campaign is against us , the travelling public who work hard to climb up life's greasy pole. We are not yet menatally equiped to deal with this. Neither are the police. If a "swarthy skinned man" and this is not racist, it fits with the known facts of the other bombers, wears a big winter coat on a summer day and runs away when asked to stop, what should the police do?

Wearing a coat and running away aren't things a man deserves to die for, but how are the poluce to know that, given how taught the situation on the underground has become now that it is becoming obvious that we may be in for a series of attacks? These are uncharted waters in which a shoot to kill policy is necessary in order to prevent detonation and more mass killings. In church this morning, we prayed for this victim of mistaken identity and his family. I pray to God that no such thing happens again. This is the evil the terrorists have brought us to. They must be laughing.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Sorry typo or bad English. Read taut for taught.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The poor Brazilian who was shot is as much a victim of the 7/7 bombings as those who died or were injured that terrible day.

I don't often agree with PaulTh, but I do now.
The police wouldn't have been armed, jumpy or inclined to shoot at the head (particularly at very, very close range) unless they thought, albeit in the heat of the moment, that they were pursuing a suicide bomber.

The worrying thing in all of this is the guilt-by-association aspect. The dead man lived in a house under surveillance. Therefore he was a potential suspect, even if he'd been completely unaware of the circumstances leading to the surveillance.

It does not bode well.

Here in Leeds, I've been impressed so far by the apparent calm and co-operation across the various faith and cultural groups that make up the city where two of the 7/7 bombers lived. But people who live in the area they came from tell me that the whole place is like a tinder-box and could go up at any moment. I've heard accounts of young Asians on factory shop-floors laughing, cheering and dancing at the news when the bombings were first announced. I don't know whether they're still laughing. Equally, there have been instances of bone-head white youths tanked up on lager shaking taxis driven by Pakistani taxi-drivers when they pull up at the lights opposite pubs around there. It'll be a long hot summer and there are many pressure points ...

PaulTh is right. It is a different kettle of fish entirely to the IRA campaigns, murderous and despicable though these were. Governments of both stripes were negotiating with Sinn Fein/IRA throughout the Troubles. Warnings were, generally, given. This is an entirely different landscape we're entering. Mistakes will be made.

I'm relieved that the Police have held up their hands and admitted the mistake. They must be stretched almost beyond endurance. As if they haven't enough to contend with already.

We need cool heads to ride this out. Cool heads alround.

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by RobinGoodfellow (# 9236) on :
 
Gort - klatu verada nikto (loosely translated - down boy).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
This statement is possibly the most ridiculous departure from reality I have yet to see on these boards

---

quote:

---

You have only to look around you to see secular, multi-cultural states that are in fact grounded in reality and not an invention of the human mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:
given that cops don't usually have guns, I'd be inclined to believe they aren't cops and either unstable or out to get me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

What I said was - "The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end."

---

quote:

---

You have only to look around you to see secular, multi-cultural states that are in fact grounded in reality and not an invention of the human mind

---

quote:

---

If 'secular' is absurd, unnatural and doomed, what is the alternative?

---

quote:

---

My suggestion is 'theistic', which is to say enforcing the public worship of a god or gods as a duty of citizens Like the Roman Empire, for example. Can you explain to us why this is a good thing?

---

quote:

---

'Multicultural' - tell me, have you ever eaten pizza/curry?

---

quote:

---

or drunk beer or wine?

---

quote:

---

Were any of these orginated on the landmass where you live?

---

quote:

---

Do they owe nothing to Italians, German, Indians, French?

---

quote:

---

Your whole life, if you examined it, would be a tissue of borrowings and assimilations from every nation under heaven.

---

quote:

---

What society is not an 'invention of the human mind'?

---

quote:

---

'Out of sync with nature'. As far as I can see nature is a system of parasitism and predation. Everything battens on the life and death of something else.

---

quote:

---

I don't actually have a problem with the 'doomed'. History is full of civilisations and empires that have risen and fallen. I don't accept that we are are unique, nor that whatever order you think acceptable would not, too, were it ever to flower, would not also decay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The only type of society in which multicultuarlism has any chance is in our Western liberal democracies in which, as a matter of principal we recognise the rights of all to practice their religion free from interference. But unfortunately, it is that very liberalism which succours them, that many of these Eastern religions so despise. Multi culturalsim is a worthy aim. You do as you do and I do as I do and we do it in mutual respect. Sadly it seems that there are few places on earth where this works. Blame it on the badness of human nature.

---

quote:

---

The blacks, who were there long before the Irish or the Jews, never seem to have benefitted, as a group, from the prosperity of the country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
I don't know. What's your point - that the citizens of Iraq will be better off when there's a McDonalds on every street corner? OK. Dinner will certainly be cheaper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[...] But it would be fair to say that, statistically, blacks remain at the bottom of the social ladder. This isn't a criticism of black people, its an observation.

---

quote:

---

Secular multicultural states did not grow naturally. Man is an animal and animals stick to their own kind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
That's the bit that has become naive RD, though just a short while ago it wouldn't have been. Naive firstly because it's now a safe bet that anywhere in London or any other city there are armed police close at hand. So if anyone points a gun at you yelling "police" it is highly probable that they are just who they say they are. And secondly, as this won't have happened unless the officer thinks you are a threat to the public, if you then don't do exactly as you are told you are likely to be shot. That's the world we're in now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gort:
The attacks in London are an example of narrow-minded cultural bigots who see their religous identity threatened by creeping westernization. Nevermind that same westernization allows for freedom of mixed cultures and religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
There are however still some of us left who don't worship the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Neither did any other form of political organisation. Human beings are prone to organise themselves according to something called culture which derives from nature...

---

quote:

---

Persian Empire, prior to the rise of Islam, the Empire of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, which was officially Islamic but tolerated Christians and Jews within its borders,

---

quote:

---

The idea that we can have a British culture untainted by other cultures ...that British Beef, which is considered axiomatically British derives from the Latin Brittania which comes from our Roman antecedents, the notion of Britishness comes from a complex interaction of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and that Beef comes from the French boeuf which derives from the invasion of England by a group of French speaking Scandanavian warriors. Historically, multi-culturalism is the norm. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I don't worship Allah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
First - thank you for an intelligent (as opposed to a ranting) response.

---

quote:

---

their way of life is threatened by westernization

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
I don't worship Allah.

---

If you were an Arabic-speaking Christian you would. Just like if you spoke French you'd worship Dieu.

---

Yes, I would Ruth.

But since I am neither Arabic-speaking or a Christian or a follower of any other religion I don't.

I wasn't having a go at those who worship Allah and/or are Muslims. Apologies if that was not clear.
 

---

Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
Robin, when you return, would you mind unpacking a bit more what you mean by "traditional societies" that "piss off liberals because they tend to be hierarchical, believe men and women are different, and value children"?

Are we talking hunter-gatherer societies, Renaissance Florence, polygamous sects in remote areas of Utah and Arizona (all of whom arguably fit your criteria) - what, exactly?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
No problem, Papio. ButI'd go a step further--I have no doubt that the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians all worship the same God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
The other think I wish to refute is your idea that it is liberalism which is the problem. I think the problem is squarely in the camp of those authoritarian right-wingers who simply don't understand that there will always be conflicts in any society, for the simple reason that you cannot force somebody else to share your views and neither can I or anybody else.

The answer to this is to live and let live as far as is possible within the bounds of decency. Or, if you prefer, the answer is not to impose one's will on everyone else. Because you can't and it is stupid and unrealistic to even try. In fact, I am not sure that it is not also narcisstic into the bargain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
Well right, but you bias your response by using the term "political." Political organizations are unnatural - but organization itself is not.

---

quote:

---

All animals organize themselves - and they do it without any culture. By and large they organize themselves acording to Darwinian principles designed to ensure their group survival. The impetus for that organization is in their nature. My claim is that humans have the same innate Darwinian nature.

---

quote:

---

The Neanderthals who were suspicious of outsiders tended to survive and have children - those who lacked that suspicion tended to die young.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
No problem, Papio. ButI'd go a step further--I have no doubt that the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians all worship the same God.

---

quote:

---

I think we have a lot more to fear from authoritarian right-wingers both at home and abroad than we do from liberals.

---

Yes. Although I also think we have more to fear from authoritarian left-wingers like the Baarthists...

I tend to be economically left-wing but socially liberal, as anyone who reads my posts has probably spotted.

However, I think there is room for misunderstandings in my last post to this thread and so I may have to go back to bed and see if I can get to sleep this time...
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
As far as I can see nature is a system of parasitism and predation. Everything battens on the life and death of something else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I Who knows what his reasons were for running? <snip> Maybe he had been in trouble in Brazil and thought that trouble had finally tracked him down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
That's the bit that has become naive RD, though just a short while ago it wouldn't have been. Naive firstly because it's now a safe bet that anywhere in London or any other city there are armed police close at hand. So if anyone points a gun at you yelling "police" it is highly probable that they are just who they say they are. And secondly, as this won't have happened unless the officer thinks you are a threat to the public, if you then don't do exactly as you are told you are likely to be shot. That's the world we're in now.

---

Well this world of shoot to kill had not been clearly established - I don't recall anyone telling me (or the media reporting) that anyone acting suspiciously would be shot 5 times in the head. The police had not made that kind of statement at that point - of course, no-one will run now even if it isn't the police. They've made sure that everyone is aware of their shoot to kill policy now but there was no evidence of it before hand.

Now you are also assuming that he had heard this without any shadow of doubt and they had clearly IDed themselves to them - neither of which has been established yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ginga:

Quite. To follow on from what Louise said ages ago: There have been reports that he was from the kind of area of Brazil where running away from plain-clothed people with guns is a frequently-practised and pretty ingrained survival mechanism. I doubt four years of London would be enough to re-train the mind.

I've never been to Brazil, so I don't know how reasonable an explanation this is, mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The problem with your approval of the Neanderthals' suspicion of outsiders, Robingoodfellow, is that the Neanderthals' choices don't exactly constitute a moral standard, whereas Christianity encourages us to extend hospitality to the strangers who come among us (Matthew 25, I believe). [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
Morality is a virus contracted by civilizations in their last stages when men listen to their heads rather than the trees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
But equally, it's not the fault of the police. It was just a tragic accident.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pulsator Organorum Ineptus:
This country has had a largely unarmed police force for a very long time. But the terrorists won't make us change our way of life. No, of course not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
I don't know where you're from Rain Dog, but if you're a Londoner, haven't you caught how, for all the bravado, this city is wobbling on the edge of a precipice?

---

quote:

---

Because this isn't like the IRA in the 70's, with their coded warnings and very occasional bombings.

---

quote:

---

If this is the start of a sustained campaign which simply aims to kill as many of us as possible as frequently as possible, in a densely populated city like this life could very quickly become untenable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

my fear is that its a sort of "gentle reminder"... like, "we did it once, we can do it again, despite all your security".

---

The gentle reminder is that a secular, multi-cultural state is an absurd ideology - an invention of the human mind - completely out of sync with nature and doomed to an ugly violent end.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I'm not criticicizing the police, and I hope that more information will come out in due time, but all of this makes me very uneasy. Someone being shot dead by the police - for whatever reason - in Britain? I'm not used to things happening like that here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
I agree - and that is a devastating rebuttal to those of use who worship her. Monotheism exists only because people cannot face the terrifying reality of nature - which is that killing needs no justification other than that "I am stronger" - and dying needs no explanation other than that "I am weaker".

Believe me, I would love to put a happy face on nature. But nature is real. The fevered constructions of your mind - are like vapors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
I don't know where you're from Rain Dog, but if you're a Londoner, haven't you caught how, for all the bravado, this city is wobbling on the edge of a precipice?

---

That really doesn't fit in with what I see round here.

quote:

---

Because this isn't like the IRA in the 70's, with their coded warnings and very occasional bombings.

---

Not that occasional and very, very professional. Unlike this latest lot. This is in some ways like that - not so much the 1970s as the 1980s I think.

quote:

---

If this is the start of a sustained campaign which simply aims to kill as many of us as possible as frequently as possible, in a densely populated city like this life could very quickly become untenable.

---

Why? Cities have taken much worse thatn this anf carried on. We managed to get through the Germans dropping tens of thousands of tons of bombs on us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Latest on BBC.

So the man who was shot shouldn't perhaps have been here. That is a red herring IMHO as on that basis the plod could shoot half the young Aussies, Saffies and New Zealanders over here on "working holiday visas".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:

if a guy runs from armed police, directly into a tube station, leaping over a barrier and sprinting headlong for a train, then, given recent events, and the information available to the officers with the gun, then they have a right to take the action authorised by their superiors.

The way some people are talking, its as if the police suddenly pulled guns on some random punter walking down the street minding his own business. In this case, they told the guy to stop and he disobeyed them, and made a run for it towards a crowded public area

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
in the context of the incident, if someone running towards a train having refused the orders to stop isn't grounds for deploying the weapons then I don't know what is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
What is the difference? Well firstly the threat was external, Ulster may be UK but I suspect most mainland Brits would be happy to push them off and let them drift across the Atlantic. These terrorists are domestic in every sense and virtually unidentifiable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
The threat of force has to be credible, and, in the context of the incident, if someone running towards a train having refused the orders to stop isn't grounds for deploying the weapons then I don't know what is. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In my normal daily life I could bump into people who supported the IRA (at least rhetorically) who would argue in their favour, who would raise money for them. I still do now and again. Entirely an internal threat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HairyOrangutan:
What if he had been a suicide bomber? They should have stopped him well before the station if they thought that was a possibility.

From the accounts of what happened so far, it seems not unreasonable to me to believe that the police had ample opportunity to avoid the tragic outcome that did occur. And it's that that they should be criticized for. Not for split-second decisions in the middle of the tube station.

(Of course, as always, I was not there, I am not a trained armed police officer etc. etc. But I don't think that means I can't have an opinion.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
They have a lot to learn about what's happening and in the process some innocent people will get caught in the crossfire but for the time being, I think we need to let them get on with it.

---

quote:

---

As my parents' generation used to say 60-plus years ago, there's a war on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
In my normal daily life I could bump into people who supported the IRA (at least rhetorically) who would argue in their favour, who would raise money for them. I still do now and again. Entirely an internal threat.

---

I was related to someone (I think I can say this now as he is dead) who it later emerged was involved in gun running to the unionist paramilitaries during the 70s. How closely involved depends on who you talk to, but I'm pretty sure through him we probably met people socially who were far more deeply 'involved'.

Personally I didn't like him or his friends, but they didn't have horns, or scaly tails, or even speak with Irish accents. You'd have drunk with them down the pub with no problems, so long as you kept off one or two touchy subjects. A good hail-fellow-well-met bunch of blokes. You don't get much more of an internal threat than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
However, if a guy runs from armed police, directly into a tube station, leaping over a barrier and sprinting headlong for a train, then, given recent events, and the information available to the officers with the gun, then they have a right to take the action authorised by their superiors.

---

quote:

---

Well right, but you bias your response by using the term "political." Political organizations are unnatural - but organization itself is not. All animals organize themselves - and they do it without any culture. By and large they organize themselves acording to Darwinian principles designed to ensure their group survival. The impetus for that organization is in their nature. My claim is that humans have the same innate Darwinian nature.

---

quote:

---

The Neanderthals who were suspicious of outsiders tended to survive and have children - those who lacked that suspicion tended to die young.

---

quote:

---

I think you are wrong about multiculturalism as a positive force. I think it is hubris thinking that what God made separate - you can mold into one. And even worse - to decide for yourself that such a thing - if you could do it - is good.

---

quote:

---

Yes but these multicultural empires were not entered into voluntairily by the peoples they subdued - they were held together by the power of the gun [Tito's Yugoslavia and Stalin's Soviet Union are more recent examples].

The empires you cite never tried to supplant the indiginous population, culture, and faith with something else. They existed primarily to exploit the wealth and labor of those peoples.

---

quote:

---

The Bolshevik revolution however did declare the Orthodox faith to be its enemy. So does the modern secular democracy. You cannot have separate religions - particularly separate monotheisms - living together unless deep down - the believers in those religions put the secular democracy above their god. Gort never understood this - but that Islam refuses to do this means they cannot be dominated by secular democracy. Either we will live separately - or we will live in a Muslim nation under Islamic law.

---

quote:

---

Secular democracy sees real faith as its enemy - and it is right to do that - Christ is an enemy of the state - all states. Man cannot serve two masters.

---

quote:

---

It is this circumstance that makes the whole incident sound more like a summary execution than an attempt to apprehend a suspect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Could they (did they, and if not, why not) have got ahead of the bus ready to meet him (meanwhile alerting the bus authorities, perhaps)?

---

Yes, why didn't they use their powers of telepathy to predict where he was going to get off the bus?

[damn work keyboard]

[ 25. July 2005, 15:38: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
dear mr goodfellow, allow mer to tell you about my day yesterday.

i live in new york city, queens to be precise. my family (of mixed english, irish, scots, welsh, bavarian, prussian, danish, dutch french, polish-jew, and native american extraction) went to our local park for a picnic. as we came in we passed the large group of black, probably jamaican, cricket players, and settled down on our traditional red-checked picnic cloth. in front of us, somewhat down the slope, were a small asian family, teaching their young son how to ride a bike. alas, the bagpiper who practices in the park some times did not show up, but at 6 we had a concert of traditional irish music, starting out with a flag ceremony and the national anthem lead by a local girl scout troup. a part of the audience were a large group of, i think pakistani girls and women, twenty to thirty of all ages, who had set out a cloth, and were sitting around with their coffee maker, in traditional dress, very brightly colored and cheerful gauzy things. a few wore head scarves. after the concert, my daughter flew her radio controlled plane with her half korean, half italian best friend. a lovely day was had by all, as far as i can see, with no bloodshed, fights, or sectarian violence.

multiculturalism rocks.
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 
It seems to me that what we have on this thread is occupiers of two different worlds.

Some live in the world of three weeks ago, where police weren't meant to shoot people without a clear and provable threat of danger, where they identified themselves with warrant cards before they arrested anyone, where nobody of goodwill and good intent should have had anything to fear from them. It wasn't perfect (ask an Irishman with a chair leg) but that is the world I wish I still lived in.

Others, me included, live in the post 7/7 world where there are at least four, very likely more, scarily perhaps many more potential suicide bombers at large in this city with access to explosives and intent on killing as many of us as they can and the police, with limited information or experience of this kind of threat, are doing their level best to protect us.

To each group, the other seems quite unreal, as seem to me suggestions that once a suicide bomber is pinned down he is no threat, or that police should positively identify themselves before challenging someone (so when the suspect is jumping over a tube barrier and bolting down an escelator they presumably wave their warrant cards at him and shout "Halt in the name of the law"?)

When I quoted my parents' generation, "there's a war on", I was making the point that there are crises when normal considerations have to be put on hold. It can only be, as I said, for the time being. I just think this is one of those times.

As for it being a generational thing, as I've said earlier, I was in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings... and cheered when those wrongfully convicted were released. So I guess I straddle that divide at least. But there's a difference between a calculated fitting up, and an innocent death when police have to make split-second decisions with many lives at stake.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Back-to-Front:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Could they (did they, and if not, why not) have got ahead of the bus ready to meet him (meanwhile alerting the bus authorities, perhaps)?

---

Yes, why didn't they use their powers of telepathy to predict where he was going to get off the bus?

[damn work keyboard]

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat
Who knows what his reasons were for running?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodFellow
One doesn't need morality to get people to act in the interest of their neighbors - simple humanity will do. But the lowest depths of hell is for those who sell their childrens inheritance on the promises of some "christian" preacher or capitalist or anti-western bigot telling us we are doing Good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The problem with your approval of the Neanderthals' suspicion of outsiders, Robingoodfellow, is that the Neanderthals' choices don't exactly constitute a moral standard, whereas Christianity encourages us to extend hospitality to the strangers who come among us (Matthew 25, I believe).

---

Correct. Nature is not moral. Morality is a virus contracted by civilizations in their last stages when men listen to their heads rather than the trees.

But I don't think that's what you mean - I hope not. Because you seem decent enough to be misled but not malevolent enough to mislead.

---

quote:

---

2,000 years ago in Palestine - the hospitality one extended to someone on the road was personal and human - not political. Today it is invoked by those who hate western civilization to sell a political, capitalist, and secular agenda to the gentiles. Feeding a traveler and opening the borders to a culturally and environmentally hostile nation are entirely different things.

---

quote:

---

When nature appears to be moral it is a tribal, personal, and pragmatic response which provides for the survival of the group. The only morality in nature is that which derives from a bio-social response to tribal self-interest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
To each group, the other seems quite unreal, as seem to me suggestions that once a suicide bomber is pinned down he is no threat, or that police should positively identify themselves before challenging someone (so when the suspect is jumping over a tube barrier and bolting down an escelator they presumably wave their warrant cards at him and shout "Halt in the name of the law"?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
It seems to me that what we have on this thread is occupiers of two different worlds.

Some live in the world of three weeks ago, where police weren't meant to shoot people without a clear and provable threat of danger, where they identified themselves with warrant cards before they arrested anyone, where nobody of goodwill and good intent should have had anything to fear from them.

---

quote:

---

When I quoted my parents' generation, "there's a war on", I was making the point that there are crises when normal considerations have to be put on hold. It can only be, as I said, for the time being. I just think this is one of those times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
It seems to me that what we have on this thread is occupiers of two different worlds.

Some live in the world of three weeks ago, where police weren't meant to shoot people without a clear and provable threat of danger, where they identified themselves with warrant cards before they arrested anyone, where nobody of goodwill and good intent should have had anything to fear from them.

---

I think I see the difference. I always thought that the main, not the only, function of the police was to excercise social control in order to perpetuate the state. Not the only function - even the KGB sometimes used to catch real criminals and actually defend people against them. And I always thought the police and other organs of the state were capable both or incompetant and random violence (anyone remember the battle of the beanfield?) and of competant, effective, but illegal violence.

And I always thought there were nasty people out there who wouls glady kill us all - or not care if they did.

So this new world you have discovered isn't a shock because its the one some of us have always lived in. A shock our culture went through in 1914 and 1915 when we realised we were no better than previous generations, that we could descend to ruthless and bloody mass murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
And I'm afraid that the idea that "everything" is completely different post 7/7 does indeed seem "unreal" to me, HopPik. I'm not sure what else I can add to that observation, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
"A summary execution"? If you have any evidence to back up the claim that this was a deliberate cold blooded murder then lets hear it.

---

quote:

---

It is this circumstance that makes the whole incident sound more like a summary execution than an attempt to apprehend a suspect.

---

quote:

---

Your explanation makes it sound as if the policemen had callously decided to throw the best practice manual out of the window. This is manifestly not the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Bass:
No, but I do think that the man who pulled the trigger allowed the intensity of the situation to overrule his training.

---

quote:

---

No, but I do think that the man who pulled the trigger allowed the intensity of the situation to overrule his training. The best practice manual went out of the window,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
[QUOTE]
Aristotle observed that man is a "political animal". Human beings are innately social.

---

quote:

---

"what is the best form of social organisation".

---

quote:

---

They are all, therefore, inherently political. The idea that one can have a form of social organisation which is based not on politics, in the broad sense of the word, but which is merely natural is not borne out by any society which has got beyond the hunter gatherer phase into an agrarian society and, frankly, I'm not sanguine about hunter-gatherers who can be a pretty diverse lot.

---

quote:

---

As we are not Neanderthals and our social arrangements, I imagine, bear scant relationship to theirs this seems somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand.

---

quote:

---

Which God are we talking about? The God revealed in Scripture and Tradition who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit calls all human beings into communion with Him and with one another. The Church is the greatest multi-cultural organisation in history. As a Christian I am united with people of every race and nation.

---

quote:

---

If by "God" you are referring to Wotan then that is a separate issue.

---

quote:

---

But you would be hard pushed to suggest, based on the New Testament, that God is particularly concerned to keep cultures separate from one another.

---

quote:

---

Are only social arrangements entered into voluntarily by the governed "natural" then? This would mean that few forms of social organisation have ever been natural.

---

quote:

---

So how do you reconcile that with St Paul's fairly clear teaching in Romans that the civil power wields the civil sword by God's ordinance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Bass:
No, but I do think that the man who pulled the trigger allowed the intensity of the situation to overrule his training.

---

Gosh I just get pulled back to this. D the B, can you not see the arrogance, presumption of a statement like that? What do you know of that officer's training, of his state of mind at the time? What do you know of what he thought he was doing?

---

quote:

---

Have you ever been in a position where you have to do your duty in a state of danger? The only time I came near to that, and it's paltry in comparison, was as a teacher when I had to help clear kids out of a burning school building. Standing at a junction of corridors, propelling them in the right direction with the fire roaring and cracking in the roofspace above my head. When I walked round the next day, the place I'd been standing was a mass of debris that had fallen through, I don't know how long after I left. But in that kind of situation you're in professional mode, doing your job as well you can and I'm sure that's exactly how those police were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Did they shoot that man for the fun of it? Do policemen who carry arms not care about protecting the innocent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rain Dog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Did they shoot that man for the fun of it? Do policemen who carry arms not care about protecting the innocent?

---

You're going OTT again here - of course they should (hopefully) care about protecting the innocent but one of these innocents is dead with 7 bullets in his head and another somewhere else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Yes we know that - the question is what else could have been done. And I have to tell you, I find it uniquely offensive to be comparing the numbers of bullets the British and French think necessary to kill a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Yes we know that - the question is what else could have been done. And I have to tell you, I find it uniquely offensive to be comparing the numbers of bullets the British and French think necessary to kill a terrorist.

---

Please, a suspected terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Are only social arrangements entered into voluntarily by the governed "natural" then? This would mean that few forms of social organisation have ever been natural.

---

No - this is important!! I believe that traditional societies are entered into voluntarily - by all - even those whom you would judge as having inferior status in such a society.

I have no problem with giving people the right to opt out. It is my opponents who have a problem with giving people the right to opt in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
When I quoted my parents' generation, "there's a war on", I was making the point that there are crises when normal considerations have to be put on hold. It can only be, as I said, for the time being. I just think this is one of those times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:

When I quoted my parents' generation, "there's a war on", I was making the point that there are crises when normal considerations have to be put on hold. It can only be, as I said, for the time being. I just think this is one of those times.

As for it being a generational thing, as I've said earlier, I was in Birmingham at the time of the pub bombings... and cheered when those wrongfully convicted were released. So I guess I straddle that divide at least. But there's a difference between a calculated fitting up, and an innocent death when police have to make split-second decisions with many lives at stake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
I also feel that to use the term "ignominious" about police conduct in any respect over the last couple of weeks is fairly... ignominious? Misuse of the term perhaps but you get my drift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
the question is what else could have been done.

---

quote:

---

And I have to tell you, I find it uniquely offensive to be comparing the numbers of bullets the British and French think necessary to kill a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a previous post, I asked how you draw the distinction between "natural behavior" and "unnatural behavior". It seems the terminology has shifted, but I think my question still applies: what's the distinction you're drawing between "traditional societies" and "nontraditional societies"?

Is the supposed voluntary association described above the defining characteristic? Are there others? Can you provide some examples of these societies, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Robin

God didn't tell black cats not to mix with white cats -- or even Manx not to mix with Burmese. And that is the proper parallel to -- well, not ENglish, because that's already a mongrel and therefore a contrary-to-God kind of thing as I understand your position -- let's say, arab and chinese mix. Black and white cats, you see, like arab and chinese, are all variants descended from the same original source.

If you want to talk about what God has forbidden (though I would personally not impute to God some of the things you seem to be happy to) I suppose you could look at dogs and cats mixing. On one level that's impossible, no matter how hard they try. But no-one's talking about humans mixing with -- goats? On another it's perfectly possible, since cats and dogs can co-exist perfectly happily in the same house, doing their catly and doggy things without in any way harming each other.


John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:

---

Aristotle observed that man is a "political animal". Human beings are innately social.

---

OK - the political is natural - everything is natural since everything occurs in nature. Fine.

---

quote:

---

I would like to point out that on more than one occasion God has decided to throw down political organizations He didn't like. Do you really think He can be argued with?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As we are not Neanderthals and our social arrangements, I imagine, bear scant relationship to theirs this seems somewhat irrelevant to the point at hand.

---

But we are a part of nature.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Which God are we talking about? The God revealed in Scripture and Tradition who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit calls all human beings into communion with Him and with one another. The Church is the greatest multi-cultural organisation in history. As a Christian I am united with people of every race and nation.

---

It is indeed - we agree there. So, if it is Christianity that is under attack here - should it be defended in the name of multiculturalism - or abandoned in the name of multiculturalism?

---

quote:

---

In Genesis I see an example of God's deliberate separation of peoples.

---

quote:

---

No - this is important!! I believe that traditional societies are entered into voluntarily - by all - even those whom you would judge as having inferior status in such a society.

---

quote:

---

I have no problem with giving people the right to opt out. It is my opponents who have a problem with giving people the right to opt in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
My point is that you cannot design a stable society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
In a previous post, I asked how you draw the distinction between "natural behavior" and "unnatural behavior". It seems the terminology has shifted, but I think my question still applies: what's the distinction you're drawing between "traditional societies" and "nontraditional societies"?

Is the supposed voluntary association described above the defining characteristic? Are there others? Can you provide some examples of these societies, please?

---

Clearly when a foreign power imposes its will on a stable society it changes that society in a way inconsistent with its history and the stability it previous had.

I really hate to get into arguments over definitions and degrees. We have to use words. If you don't understand me I'll take the responsibility for that. But if you do understand and just want to make the point all societies change - we agree.

My point is that you cannot design a stable society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't know what kind of rhetoric you're getting there in the UK, but we get a lot of rhetoric about the "war on terrorism" here in the US. When I hear people talking about there being a war on, even if they only mean it metaphorically, I feel like the Bush administration has won a round in the battle of the rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

I think it is hubris thinking that what God made separate - you can mold into one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glimmer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't know what kind of rhetoric you're getting there in the UK, but we get a lot of rhetoric about the "war on terrorism" here in the US. When I hear people talking about there being a war on, even if they only mean it metaphorically, I feel like the Bush administration has won a round in the battle of the rhetoric.

---

You're quite right, RuthW. Although most news programmes are concerned with the London bombings and we are flooded with the weighty views of every conceivable expert on security, Islam, etc etc., the focus is more on criminal investigation. Personally I haven't heard the phrase 'War On Terror'; I suspect that there is a widespread acknowledgement that such expressions aren't credible and if someone were to wave that phrase around it would be the equivalent of say, 'drawing a target on themselves' to paraphrase Ship idiom.
I suggest ignoring posts which talk about 'war'; generally, Ken's assessment of life on the ground in London is realistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It is natural to us, but its not natural to all species. Most animals don't have anything resembling politics.

---

quote:

---

Politics is the way we get on in groups. It is the thing that stops us from behaving like cats or rats or robins or deer.

---

quote:

---

We really aren't territorial animals - put 500 cats together in one big room and there would be blood on the floor. You can put 50,000 humans together and they usually work out ways to get along. That's politics. We've been doing it for as long as we've existed as a species.

---

quote:

---

Do you really think he exists? You imply that you don't below. You talk about "those who call yourselves Christians" implying that you don't call yourself one, and say "I don't have a problem with God or gods" indicating that you don't believe yourself. Your position seems to be something like "God doesn't exit but if he did he'd be a racist" .

---

quote:

---

I'd suggest that its a bad idea to be telling God what he ought to think.

---

quote:

---

I strongly suspect that you know nothing at all about Neanderthal social arrangements. And that the fairy story you parroted earlier about the suspicious ones surviving and the trusting ones dying out was made up out of nothing.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, you lost me there. If you recognise that the Christian church is "the greatest multi-cultural organisation in history" how can it be "abandoned in the name of multiculturalism"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It is natural to us, but its not natural to all species. Most animals don't have anything resembling politics.

---

My original response was to his claim that organization is a result of "culture." I pointed out that animals have no culture (of which politics is just one attribute) but they do have organization.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Politics is the way we get on in groups. It is the thing that stops us from behaving like cats or rats or robins or deer.

---

I believe that we are much more animal than we like to think. Politics is just warfare by another means - and the strong prevail.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

We really aren't territorial animals - put 500 cats together in one big room and there would be blood on the floor. You can put 50,000 humans together and they usually work out ways to get along. That's politics. We've been doing it for as long as we've existed as a species.

---

I challenge that. We certainly are territorial. How many great migrations, border skirmishes, wars, have been fough over what (from a macroscopic POV) was really just population pressure? Your island was settled by several waves of invaders who left their home due ultimately to population pressure.

---

quote:

---

No you tell me - do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I strongly suspect that you know nothing at all about Neanderthal social arrangements. And that the fairy story you parroted earlier about the suspicious ones surviving and the trusting ones dying out was made up out of nothing.

---

Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

---

quote:

---

Do you believe that biological and cultural stability are the result of an adaptive response to enviornmental pressure?

---

quote:

---

The problem with multiculturalism is that the relativism it must adopt leaves it without the moral absolutes it needs to defend itself or condemn whose who disagree with it.

---

quote:

---

Earlier I was refering to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis (Ch 6) - not Cain and Abel.

---

quote:

---

I would rather we stepped up intelligence gathering than give the police carte blanche to get their retaliation in first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

I would rather we stepped up intelligence gathering than give the police carte blanche to get their retaliation in first.

---

I think to refer to this shooting as a "retaliation" is grossly offensive to the characters of the police officers involved in the incident. An enquiry is being held into the circumstances. The officers made a serious mistake and admitted it, but language like that is an insult to their integrity.

If any malpractice is revealed, in this country criminal charges may be brought against those officers. But it would surprise me if there were any such finding. I believe that, given the circumstances and the high state of alert they did what they had to do, and that any enquiry will find the same. Tony Blair himself has said that tragedies of this nature may occur in this current atmosphere, and in a Sky News poll yeaterday 86% were in favour of a continuation of the shoot to kill policy if there is a chance that another 7/7 can be prevented.

Can you justify your suggestion that this man was shot in retaliation presumably for 7/7? We don't yet live in a country which would allow the police to get away with that behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As for asserting that I suggested that Menezes was shot in retaliation for the bombings on 7th July I did nothing of the kind. My suggestion was that the police got their retailition in first, ie to prevent another bombing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Further to all that, it appears that this policy has been in place for over three years. It seems more than a coincidence that the first (known) use of this policy comes just two weeks after bombings that kill fifty or more and the very day after some more bombings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
So Robin, if you're not a Christian or -- this is an extrapolation -- a Jew, why did you base some of your arguments on what "God" "said" in Genesis? You've just referred to the story of the Tower of Babel -- why? Unless you believe Genesis is more or less literally true, you can't base what you want to on that story.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
I have a great deal to do with the police and can only speak as I find. The vast majority of them are just trying to do their best. Having been out on patrol with them, I often marvel at their politeness and restraint in the face of gross provocation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK then, my experience of the Met.

I was doorstepping (with another young man) for a General Election campaign with party stickers on my jacket and two plain-clothes police approach us. They flashed (and I mean flashed) their warrant cards and asked what we were up to so we told them.

We didn't think much of it until we got back to party HQ and found that we weren't the opnly party activists to have been stopped! The scretary arranged an interview with the superintendent i/c who denied all knowledge; in other words we had made it all up. As the car the plain-clothes officers had used was in the car park behind the station they were real police who for some reason were stopping and questioning canvassers for one party but not those for at least two other parties!

I lived in South London in the late 1970's and early 1980's and have seen the eccenticities of policing in that area although I (quite genuinely) believe it has improved since then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
My argument was always that man cannot design a stable society. I could use any of dozens of quote in the Bible when God was clearly displeased with man to make my point - I chose that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio.:
My view is: The police are no better or worse than anyone else.

Some are laudable, decent human beings. Some are corrupt, incompetant, brain-dead scumbags.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
So Robin, if you're not a Christian or -- this is an extrapolation -- a Jew, why did you base some of your arguments on what "God" "said" in Genesis? You've just referred to the story of the Tower of Babel -- why? Unless you believe Genesis is more or less literally true, you can't base what you want to on that story.

John

---

My various discussions on this thread are degenerating into tit-for-tats on issues far from the topic of of the London bombings so I will stop - but I had to respond to you to say emphatically - NO - I am NOT Jewish.

I have nothing to hide I just want to avoid being labelled because my religious beliefs have nothing to do with the topic. I suppose you could call me a secular Christian if you need a label.

My argument was always that man cannot design a stable society. I could use any of dozens of quote in the Bible when God was clearly displeased with man to make my point - I chose that one.

Something can be true even if it is not "literally true."

peace

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Hmmm am I being paranoid here or is someone talking about me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
As for how things are "on the ground" in London, whose ground are you talking about Glimmer? This is a multi-faceted, multi-layered place, we none of us can speak for everyone.

---

Come on, loosen up! People getting affronted by specific interpretations of hyperbolic phrases has seen off one thread already recently. I'm speaking of my personal observations and those of my friends and relations. People are going about their business in much the same way as they ever did. There is a superficiality of the 'Diana Drama' in which everyone participates in the current drama by talking about it and there is a little surrupticious looking at young men of Mid-Eastern appearance and their handbags (but as there is a dazzling kaleidoscope of people and their accessories, this quickly becomes fruitless and boring).
I was responding to RuthW's comment about the phrase 'War on Terror' and its ilk.

But, as I'm at the bar so to speak, may I offer something I haven't seen yet in this thread? Namely what would it have been about this young Brazilian man and his behaviour that would give grounds for reasonable doubt that he was desperately attempting to detonate a bomb on a tube train? What could have persuaded the police that he might not be a suicide bomber?
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Just an interesting little story - not proving anything really, except the tendancy for us to lump people together when it's not justified.
My grandson has a parent with pink skin and a parent with very dark skin - so he is dark Afro-Caribbean looking. Late last week he was travelling on the tube with a rucksack - and got some odd looks, and a seat to himself.
Sad.
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glimmer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HopPik:
Hmmm am I being paranoid here or is someone talking about me?

---

You're being paranoid. Stop it!

---

Haha point taken! But maybe having kids is the difference... dunno who does and doesn't here, but after 9/11 I had a daughter (whose school is a stone's throw from parliament) waking in the night crying that she didn't want to die... now I have a 13yr old son who is convinced he won't use public transport forever. Nothing to do with me, I'm the stoical parent always. But these things condition your responses.

As for Mark's comment about having dark skin, oh yes. My wife is Greek Cypriot, I have some Spanish ancestry and our son has the mediterranean look, is often taken for mixed race or middle-eastern. A couple of years ago we were in Zurich, eating on the pavement outsid a McD's (please don't laugh). Son went inside to use the loo, took a while so I went in to check it out, found him being thoroughly intimidated by some local teens... so I stepped in between, said (in probably useless English) "Excuse me this is my son" but anyway they backed off. Was it his colour? I suspect so.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
HopPik, go ahead and be paranoid. I was talking about you, if you were the one who used the phrase "there's a war on." But I qualified my remarks by saying I don't know what kind of rhetoric you're getting over there; over here we're getting "war on terror" rhetoric all the time, so that influences my response when someone refers to war metaphorically. Clearly it doesn't read the same way in the UK. But if someone in my local coffeehouse said "there's a war on," I'd figure they'd had their brain thoroughly washed by the Bush administration.
 

---

Posted by HopPik (# 8510) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Clearly it doesn't read the same way in the UK. But if someone in my local coffeehouse said "there's a war on," I'd figure they'd had their brain thoroughly washed by the Bush administration.

---

Actually I don't think anyone here much talks like that, I think I said something like "as my parents' generation used to say" and that's where it comes from. My fault if I was misunderstood, I should have realised it would push buttons.
 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 
HopPik,
Re-reading my post, I should make it clear that my comment about ignoring 'war' posts was about any posts which may use the 'War on Terror' catchphrase to support the idea that a war is in progress.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
With regard to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, I don’t know any more of the facts of this case than anyone else, but what it find worrying is that previous accounts of what happened are being challenged.

According to the family the early version of events that was reported was incorrect:

The victim was not wearing a bulky coat, but a denim jacket.

The victim did not jump the barriers at the tube station, he used his Travelcard in the usual way.

He was not carrying a bag or rucksack.


According to at least one eye witness no verbal warning was given by the police. On this point I have to ask whether a warning would be given? One of the reasons given for having to shoot Mr Menezes, even though he was already pinned to the floor of the carriage was that he might have detonated a bomb anyway. If that is the case then a shouted warning while a potential bomber still has the opportunity to escape or move to a more crowded area before detonating the bomb would be a very dangerous thing. Wouldn’t the sensible action on the part of the police be to jump first and warn later?

If this version is true (and I don’t know one way or the other) then it leaves the one “suspicious” thing Mr Menezes did as being running for a tube train. But the train was already in the station when he approached it; pretty much any reasonably young and fit person will run for a tube train that is standing in a station as one comes down the stairs – it quite likely to mean the difference between catching the train and having to wait an unknown length of time for the next one.

I find this matter increasingly worrying.
 

---

Posted by Papio. (# 4201) on :
 
In any case, I habitually carry a rucksack. That fact hardly makes me a bomber...
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Since so much of this depends on facts we don't know, we need to wait for the enquiry to find out. I really don't think anyone can conclude anything in this sort of rumourmill about the facts. I heard some of the early interviews with witnesses on the train, and they were also contradictory about some things, so we may never be clear about exactly what happened. The way the deceased was dressed etc. will be clear from the photographs at the scene and the post mortem.

To be honest, I think the only question worth asking is, "Do we want the police to shoot those who they believe to be suicide bombers through the head without warning?" If the answer is yes, then mistakes will occur, and we will have to accept that. If it is no, then we should have done with it and order them not to shoot, accepting that they might thereby fail to prevent the detonation of a bomb.

Once the facts are known to the best of the equiry team's ability, we can go on to assess the competence/good faith of the actual officers in this case. Before the facts are known, it's pointless.
 

---

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
A lot of weighty stuff in this thread, and a lot of quite naturally high feelings.

It's a source of grim amusement to me that western cultural reality is daily approaching a full manifestation of Terry Gilliam's dystopian vision in Brazil.

For cathartic effect, I recommend reviewing this masterpiece.

May God have mercy upon us all.

Shalom
FF
 

---

Posted by Billfrid (# 7279) on :
 
As someone who lives just off Tulse Hill and not far from the flats where the unfortunate Mr. Menezes lived, I was horrified by the way the police handled this incident.
Most worrying was that Mr. Menezes was allowed(even though the police suspected him of being involved in terrorism/suicide bombing) to board the No. 2 bus! one of the busiest bus routes in south London. Did they think that a suicide bomber would just think "nah, I won't bother blowing up the crowded bus, I'll wait the twenty minutes it takes to get to Stockwell and then blow up the tube"????

I take the 2 regularly, to Brixton and to work, the thought that the police would let a suspected terrorist board the bus gives me the creeps. They missed countless opportunities to stop the man, they hadn't even established who lived in the flats, they actually didn't know who they were looking for....a huge catalogue of errors and poor judgement.

Let's assume the worst case scenario: that a terrorist being watched (and followed) by armed police is allowed to board a bus and then kills himself and others because the cops thought that he was going to get into the tube at some stage???? How moronically stupid can you get?

Jean Charles de Menezes RIP another innocent victim of terrorism.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
...Most worrying was that Mr. Menezes was allowed(even though the police suspected him of being involved in terrorism/suicide bombing) to board the No. 2 bus! ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
...Most worrying was that Mr. Menezes was allowed(even though the police suspected him of being involved in terrorism/suicide bombing) to board the No. 2 bus! ...

---

So, they should have shot him when they first spotted him leaving the appartment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
...Most worrying was that Mr. Menezes was allowed(even though the police suspected him of being involved in terrorism/suicide bombing) to board the No. 2 bus! ...

---

So, they should have shot him when they first spotted him leaving the appartment?

---

sharkshooter, if you are being serious, that's not fair. I didn't see Billfrid saying any such thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
I wondered about this on another thread - what changed between them following without intervention as he got on the bus and later at the tube station deciding that intervention was essential?

I'm absolutely sure the police didn't think 'oh, never mind, he might be a bomber but it's only a bus'

But everybody just seemed to think I was being silly. I still don't understand why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
...He can speak for himself, now, I suppose. ...

---

quote:

---

I think the police would try quite hard not to shoot someone in the head if they could avoid it - the officers concerned are always suspended pending enquiries, and risk criminal charges if they acted improperly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:
Just to clarify - they could have shouted 'armed police' as soon as he stepped out the door. If he ran they could have chased after him and stopped him. They could have shot him in the legs. When he boarded the bus, they could have got a police radio operator to contact bus control and tell the driver to pull over and empty the bus. They could have radioed ahead to have Stockwell Station closed etc. etc. My husband (please don't make sexist assumptions about my user name!) works for the Metropolitan Police, and assures me that it's not hard to get these things done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:

Acting on the advice of the Israeli Police, the armed police in the Met now shoot people in the head, so they have no chance of surviving when the police make a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billfrid:

quote:

---

I think the police would try quite hard not to shoot someone in the head if they could avoid it - the officers concerned are always suspended pending enquiries, and risk criminal charges if they acted improperly.

---

Moth

Acting on the advice of the Israeli Police, the armed police in the Met now shoot people in the head, so they have no chance of surviving when the police make a mistake.

---

I do know the protocols - I explained them myself further up the thread. What I meant was, the police are likely to carry them out only if they believe they have ample justification, since the certain death of the subject raises the spectre of a murder charge if they act improperly.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
Seems they've got 3 of the 4 suspects now, according to BBC News 24 (also live webcast, BTW).


 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
Good for the police!

Now I do hope my friends in the UK haven't been so foolish as to abolish the death penalty.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Good for the police!

Now I do hope my friends in the UK haven't been so foolish as to abolish the death penalty.

---

quote:

---

In 1974 Judith Ward was convicted of murder of several people caused by a number of IRA bombings 1973. She was finally released in 1992.
The Birmingham Six were wrongly convicted in 1975 of planting two bombs in pubs in Birmingham in 1974 which killed 21 people and injured 182. They were finally released in 1991.
The Guildford Four were wrongly convicted in 1975 of being members of the Provisional IRA and planting bombs in two Guildford pubs which killed four people. They served nearly 15 years in prison before being released in 1989. (See Tony Blair's apology under The Maguire Seven below.)
The Maguire Seven were convicted in 1976 of offences related to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings of 1974. They served sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years. Giuseppe Conlon died in prison. Their convictions were quashed in 1991. On 9 February 2005 British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a public apology to the Maguire Seven and the Guildford Four for the miscarriages of justice they had suffered. He said: "I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and such an injustice. They deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated."

---

These are just the very high profile cases - but it's worth looking at a few of the individuals involved. Judith Ward was mentally-ill young woman of 25 who was wrongly convicted of an appalling bombing which killed 12 people. It took her 18 years to prove her innocence.

This lady, Anne Maguire - seen here receiving an honour given by the late Holy Father for her christian witness of forgiveness of those who persecuted her - was wrongly convicted of running a bomb factory in her home. It took 15 years for her conviction to be quashed. She'd have been executed under your approach, Mark.


The urge to get convictions in terrorist cases is so strong that they're particularly prone to miscarriages of justice. The police reckon we've got 3 out of the 4 suspects but last week we 'reckoned' that they'd shot a suicide bomber boarding a train in Stockwell - remember how that turned out?

Its really ironic to see people denounce terrorists for what they do and then turn round and advocate approaches which we know have a grave potential to kill innocent people in these circumstances.

L.

[ 29. July 2005, 16:26: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
4 out of 4 (BBC News 24) - the last one arrested in Rome.

Well, at least they were not killed during their capture, whatever one may think of this. There is a fair chance to find out more about their connections and perhaps motives.

I don't think the struggle is over yet (will it ever be?), but it is impressive to see this.

[ 29. July 2005, 16:37: Message edited by: Wesley J ]
 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Good for the police!

Now I do hope my friends in the UK haven't been so foolish as to abolish the death penalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glimmer:
We have, of course, 99.9% abolished the death penalty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Good for the police!

Now I do hope my friends in the UK haven't been so foolish as to abolish the death penalty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
But as I keep saying, rather boringly, it's hopeless to speculate until we know the facts. If we ever do - we certainly won't know what the poor deceased chap was thinking or why he did whatever he did that finally led to his shooting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Good for the police!

Now I do hope my friends in the UK haven't been so foolish as to abolish the death penalty.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0