|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New blasts in London
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
My parents were adults during the Second World War and made it clear to me that "There's a war on" was a term coined and used by jacks-in-office to excuse their own idleness and every shortage, delay and inconvenience whether it was due to the war or not. It was, by and large, the excuse to trump all excuses.
Please, let's not have a rerun to excuse incompetence.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
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.
In this case, it is a shameful and despicable failure on their part but at least they've got the grace to accept their mistakes. I made it very clear that it was "in this case" not "over the last couple of weeks". Did that escape you?
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rain Dog
Shipmate
# 4085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HopPik:
the question is what else could have been done.
Knock him out? (I already said that in the post you're quoting BTW)
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.
Oh get of your high horse... It's pretty obvious what that comparison is aiming for - if you're offended by it, then I can only suggest the application of a skin-thickening lotion.
[ 26. July 2005, 09:41: Message edited by: Rain Dog ]
Posts: 620 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RobinGoodfellow
Apprentice
# 9236
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The People of the Hills have all left...little people, pishogues, leprechauns, night-riders, pixies, nixies, gnomes, and the rest—gone, all gone! I came into England with Oak, Ash, and Thorn, and when Oak, Ash, and Thorn are gone I shall go too.’
Posts: 44 | From: Pennsylvania, USA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RobinGoodfellow
Apprentice
# 9236
|
Posted
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
I don't really get your point here John. But you are the host so..thanks for the reply.
--------------------
The People of the Hills have all left...little people, pishogues, leprechauns, night-riders, pixies, nixies, gnomes, and the rest—gone, all gone! I came into England with Oak, Ash, and Thorn, and when Oak, Ash, and Thorn are gone I shall go too.’
Posts: 44 | From: Pennsylvania, USA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
It is natural to us, but its not natural to all species. Most animals don't have anything resembling politics. 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. 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. You are doing it now. Without politics you wouldn't work or eat.
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?
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" . I'd suggest that its a bad idea to be telling God what he ought to think.
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.
Yes, a part of nature that has done rather well by finding out how to get on in groups.
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:
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?
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"? That sounds like saying you were going to leave your family in order to spend more time with your parents and children. You can't abandon something for itself.
quote:
In Genesis I see an example of God's deliberate separation of peoples.
And I see a quite clear description of God's creation of us as one people, each other's kin. (And out brother's keepers - was Cain a different "race" from Abel?) And humans bringing about separation due to sin. And God's promising to reconcile us. And - later in the Bible - the Church as an instantiation of that reconciliation, a sign of the Kingdom in the world, an attempt to live as God's one people as a proclamation of God's love for all.
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.
Surely "traditional societies" are entered into at birth? That's what makes them traditional. How voluntary is that?
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.
Opt in to what? My local traditional society is British, urban, industrial, Protestant, working-class, left-wing. It has long had a rather odd mix of tolerance at home and extreme violence abroad. You have a perfect right to opt into my society if you want to come here and do it. As does anyone else as far as I'm concerned.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RobinGoodfellow:
My point is that you cannot design a stable society.
There cannot be a stable society. They are all dynamic, metastable, under continuopus adjustment. It's like walking, which is a constant struggle between falling over and catching your balance. Societies survive because of rather than despit constant change. The rules are always changing, always being tweaked. Pwople are always reacting to the last challenge but one & over compensating and moving slightly too far backwards and forwards, never getting it right but somehow, on the whole, rarely getting it quite so wrong that society cannot reproduce itself. That's politics of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.
I don't think I'm arguing with you over definitions; I'm asking if you'd explain what you mean in some more detail. I can guess about what you may mean by "natural" or "traditional," but without some additional information, I really don't know with any confidence.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Robin --
Well, I read the following:
quote:
I think it is hubris thinking that what God made separate - you can mold into one.
in the context of what you have been writing about people from different countries coming together in, in your case, the UK. And I assumed that your reference to God separating had to do with the creation of different kinds of animals according to the account in Genesis, since I see no signficiant evidence in Genesis that God deliberately set about separating different "races" of humans in any way that would be contradicted by people living together. If I was wrong about that, then I clearly misunderstood what you mean.
And to clarify, the other hosts and I are only "Hosts" when we identify ourselves as such -- otherwise we are contributing to discussions as ordinary shipmates.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
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.
Hmmm am I being paranoid here or is someone talking about me? I think it's only me who's used the word "war" on this thread but it was nothing to do with any "war on terror" which is a notion I'll have nothing to do with. I was talking about a phrase from another time which implied that when there's some crisis, you can't expect to conduct life as normal. Please discriminate, don't knee-jerk.
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. My "ground" includes a lot of people who seem to feel that ground kicked from under their feet in a way they have never known or ever envisaged, this is obviously not your experience and presumably not Ken's either, but it's mine. And it's not that people are running round in any panic, it's just a feeling that something very significant is changing and we have to wait and see what that means.
RuthW, we had internment here during WWII, my late Austrian mother-in-law only escaped it because an influential ex-employer vouched for her. The greatest obscenity was that German refugee jews escaping from the holocaust were interned. But my logic only leads to that if you let it. Nothing is ever all-or-nothing. You go as far as you need to, but you know when to stop.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RobinGoodfellow
Apprentice
# 9236
|
Posted
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:
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:
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:
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" .
"racist" is your term - I observe nature and believe what I see. It's hard to deny that there are ugly things in nature - but pretending there's a big happy face in the sky is not a solution I can buy.
I can't answer as to whether I believe in God - because people mean so many different things by that. Tell me - do you believe there is any universal Truth - any whatsoever?
I don't care for religion. But I think it healthy for people of shared spiritual predisposition to form communities. And I certainly have no problem with the archaic notion of Christendom.
If we could sit down and discuss it I suppose you'd say I don't believe in God. I don't agree. But I don't anthropomorphize Him.
No you tell me - do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?
quote:
I'd suggest that its a bad idea to be telling God what he ought to think.
In as much as I don't believe in Him - how can I tell Him what He thinks?
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? Do you believe that biological and cultural stability are the result of an adaptive response to enviornmental pressure?
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"?
Because it believes it is Truth and other religions are not. Only polytheism allows for multiple Truths.
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.
Earlier I was refering to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis (Ch 6) - not Cain and Abel.
**
This is really interesting. I just want to say that you need your morality. You need to call me a racist. The reason you need that is because you are scared of the implications of my original thesis - that suicide bombings of your subways are not evil - they are instead a natural response to environmental pressure rooted in the struggle for survival. There is no God who is going to save you. You will have to save yourselves.
--------------------
The People of the Hills have all left...little people, pishogues, leprechauns, night-riders, pixies, nixies, gnomes, and the rest—gone, all gone! I came into England with Oak, Ash, and Thorn, and when Oak, Ash, and Thorn are gone I shall go too.’
Posts: 44 | From: Pennsylvania, USA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Pedantic point - many other animals do have culture of a sort.
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.
Warfare is just one part of politics, and usually not the most imortant part.
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.
That's not at all what is meant by "territorial". It means the automatic tendency to defend a large personal space violently - we don't do that. Not the way a robin does, or even a gorilla. If we did then the huge cities of today would be more violent places than those near-wildernesses the invaders you talked about left because of "population pressure". In fact they couldn't exist. And they aren't more violent, not by a long way. They are amazingly safe places.
quote:
No you tell me - do you believe in God? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?
Yes and yes.
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?
So you don't know anything about Neanderthal social arrangements, do you? No surprise, because neither does anyone else much.
Yes, I do think that the origin of species by means of natural selection is one of the most important, probably by far the most important, biological mechanism that explains the vast (and until recently increasing) diversity of life on this planet. The best answer we have to the question "why are there so many kinds of living things?" If that's what you mean by "Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" I'll happily sign up to it. If you mean some wishy-washy idea of onwards and upwards thrusting or inner drives to preserve the species then I won't.
quote:
Do you believe that biological and cultural stability are the result of an adaptive response to enviornmental pressure?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "biological and cultural stability" here. I believe that ecologial robustness is promoted by diversity - though it might not be what you'd call "stability" since the system tends to survive but neccessarily its members. And there is plenty of debate still, mostly on definitions of stability, robustness, and related terms. That's one of the many reasons why biological diversity tends to increase through the course of evolution. Stability as such, i.e. unchangingness, isn't really a feature of ecosystems, and there are at least some models (though not observations) implying that more complex systems are less stable under certain definitions.
I don't think there is such a thing as cultural stability - or if there is we haven't seen it for 40,000 years. Cultures are constantly changing, always adjusting, metastable, always reacting to both externally and internally driven change, often over-reacting, over-compensating, leaping one way then another. But on a large scale I would expect more complex diverse cultures to be more robust against external perturbations, just as more complex and diverse ecosystems are - again depending on your definition of complexity, diversity, stability, and robustness..
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.
Bollocks.
quote:
Earlier I was refering to the Tower of Babel story in Genesis (Ch 6) - not Cain and Abel.
Obviously. But picking and choosing out-of-context Bible passages to base your arguments on is an old trick, and particularly silly when someone who doesn't claim to be a believer does it.
(Ken, who just listened to the whole of Gotterdammerung while at the computer...)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
It would amaze me too if any malpractice were to be found, but for rather different reasons than those which would amaze you. These enquiries don't usually ask the right people the right questions.
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.
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
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.
I hardly think that retaliation is an accurate term here, with its denotation of payback. It does indeed sound libelous to the police to say so. If you only mean prevent another bombing then say solely that, not retaliation.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
This was a policy specifically devised to cope with suicide bombers. I would have been deeply disturbed if it had been used before we had any evidence that the explosions in question were caused by suicide bombers.
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.
If we don't want anyone shot by mistake, we'll have to order them not to shoot at all. Personally, I would prefer that, but I think I'm in a pretty small minority if my conversations at bus stops and on trains are any guide. What we can't demand is "mistake-free" shootings. My experience of the police is that they are more than willing to learn from their mistakes, but no-one can expect 100% error-free performance in a critical situation.
I will be interested to read the report of the investigation into the shootings. If you think the right questions won't be asked, why not go along to the Police Authority meeting when the report is discussed? You can always write to members of the MPA, suggesting questions to them.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RobinGoodfellow
Apprentice
# 9236
|
Posted
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
--------------------
The People of the Hills have all left...little people, pishogues, leprechauns, night-riders, pixies, nixies, gnomes, and the rest—gone, all gone! I came into England with Oak, Ash, and Thorn, and when Oak, Ash, and Thorn are gone I shall go too.’
Posts: 44 | From: Pennsylvania, USA | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
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.
I'll second that, a few years ago I spent a lot of time with police in South London researching for a project - hanging around the cells, riding in the back of patrol cars. I was impressed by the tact, restraint and good humour with which they went about their work, even in situations that were clearly stressful for them, eg outnumbered in a hostile pub bar, making an arrest from a flat in the North Peckham estate... it was beyond anything I had expected.
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
I think policing (like quite a lot of other things) has changed dramatically since the 1970's. The Stephen Lawrence enquiry really was a watershed in policing.
I'd be intrigued to know for which party you were canvassing. My view of the police before I had much to do with them was that they'd all be right-wing. Most of the higher ranks I've met are vaguely left-leaning liberals, often exasperated by the "sweep all the youngsters off the streets" attitude of the press. What irritates them most about governments of whatever party is the constant change of priorities - one week it's all neighbourhood policing "Dixon of Dock Green", the next it's shoot the terrorists on sight!
Mind you, public meetings often get like that as well - I sometimes think everyone wants a policeman outside their home, 24/7 except when they want to get away with something themselves!
I would add that the force I know best is not the Met. In fact, the force I deal with has, by and large, a low view of the Met, but that may be understandable tribal rivallry!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
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.
Oh I know, in the 80's I stopped going to a local pub just next door but one to an East London police station because I couldn't stomach the racist crap I kept hearing from off-duty police officers. Which is why I was a tad surprised at what I saw a few years ago. Just have to give credit where it's due.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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.
I a group of people in plains clothes, without anything to identify them as police and carrying guns, asked me to stop then I would run. If I could jump on a train or a bus then I would. More likely to be able to get away from the people with guns.
Am interested in why the police thought he "looked like a terrorist".
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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.
My argument is that no society is ever entirely stable and that a liberal, multicultural society is no more "designed" then any other type of society.
I note with interest that you have not addressed these points.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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.
But I thought that the personality type drawn to and recruited by the police is such as to make it more likely that officers enjoy being 'in charge', believe they know what's best (for us and for themselves) and are less likely to be flexible.
Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear from someone who knows of research in this area.
Blessings!
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
If you would like to see the kind of person the police are after, go to the police recruitment web site . The online form is designed to screen out those with inappropriate attitudes. You can judge for yourself how successful it's likely to be.
After the Panorama "Secret Policeman" programme, in which racist attitudes in some recruits were highlighted, a major change in police training was set in motion. There a number of pilot schemes in place, including training in a university setting and training in specific police stations (unkindly known as "portacabins out the back"!). All these are designed to alleviate the perceived "canteen culture" of the police, which it is thought was exacerbated by residential training courses in a "closed" environment.
It's true that shrinking violets are unlikely to make good police officers. However, bolshy types who attract numerous complaints aren't that popular with the service.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I don't know if the Met deliberately post black police in largely black areas, but a very large minority of those I see in the streets down our way are black - far more than even a few years ago.
And I now know they also have at least one uniformed and armed policeman with dreadlocks, or at any rate very long braids.
Over the last few weeks I've been seeing what looks like a new kind of policeman (& they always seem to be men). Or maybe its older desk-bound ones coming out of the woodwork. Or some kind of specialist that turns up when bombs fly.
They tend to be older white men, some quite middle-aged. And often overweight. Some of them look a lot like me, except rather harder. (OK, a lot harder) I've even seen grey beards and and shaved heads. They are usually armed, and carrying an awful lot of gadgetry, quite a lot of it very chunky-looking. And they seem to wear high-tech overalls rather than dark blue police uniforms. Black body armour over that, and those ubiquitous yellow shiny jackets over that.
Perhaps they sent all the middle-aged white cops off for anti-terrorist training a couple of years back and put the younger black ones on the beat.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
I'm not sure why it's so important to be so emphatic about not being Jewish -- being Jewish isn't a problem, so far as I know, and hardly something to run away from. No one's likely to think I'm Jewish, but I wouldn't be uspet if they did.
My point was only that if you aren't Christian or Jewish, the stories in Genesis are meaningless, and cannot be the foundation for anything. It would be like trying to base a point of view on the story about Jupiter's rape of Ganymede (or his rape of Europa if you prefer). So why cite them as justification for your point of view?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HopPik:
Hmmm am I being paranoid here or is someone talking about me?
You're being paranoid. Stop it!
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! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) 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?
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
HopPik, go ahead and be paranoid. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) 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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HopPik
Shipmate
# 8510
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and supposedly the pig enjoys it. G.B. Shaw
Posts: 2084 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
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 ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) another innocent victim of terrorism.
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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.
On Monday I raised a similar question - asking why the police let Mr Menezes get as far as the tube and then to enter the tube system (but I did not suggest they shot him).
Blessings!
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
What is not fair? Asking for clarification when I think he said something he may not have meant?
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
sharkshooter
I don't think he said it or implied it or even mentioned any idea of shooting.
He can speak for himself, now, I suppose. Until he does, I still think your post (implication) was unfair.
Blessings!
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
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.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question, and one which I hope will be raised and answered at the enquiry.
One suggestion thatt occurs to me is that they were trying to get confirmation that he was the suspect for which they were watching the building. Presumably, they eventually got that confirmation - and it was wrong. 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.
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. Perhaps he did nothing at all, and it was horrible case of mistaken identity.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
...He can speak for himself, now, I suppose. ...
She already did.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Billfrid
Shipmate
# 7279
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 58 | From: London UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
First, they probably didn't have authorization to shoot when they first saw him. He may have just been a person of interest at that time.
Second, if you shoot him in the legs, he detonates the bomb. Too bad.
Third, if the bus pulls over unexpectedly to empty the bus, he dotonates the bomb. Too bad.
Fourth, I apologize for referring to you as "he".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
