|
Post by Naselus on Jun 17, 2006 13:33:50 GMT
Ian Blair should be arrested and held in custody until he's answered the questions. I might also be in favour of holding him in custody and then not getting round to asking the questions until August, since I'm going to be quite busy until then.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jun 17, 2006 14:11:32 GMT
Like a bad joke, this.
Hayman has been given a CBE, just days after his apology to residents of Lansdowne Road. You know, the ones he inconvenienced. By shooting them.
Is this not possibly the worst timed honour EVER? What message does this send out? "Shoot an Asian! Fabulous prizes to be won!"
Oh, and I missed this gem when you posted it last week:
I think that you've both covered the sheer nonsense of the WMD argument, but neither of you seem to have noticed that he seems to be implying that terrorists have the weapons on them, and apparently concealed in some way.
Now, it's not particularly easy to carry a nuclear device. They are, for practical reasons (i.e. so they work), rather bulky, and generally have to be carted around by two people. They also take around half an hour to set up. This makes shoot first, question later a total nonsense. The chances of a (suspected) terrorist carrying a plutonium bomb about in his jacket pocket, ready to fire the moment he hears the cry of "Stop! Police!" are vanishingly small, to the point you could be tempted to say non-existant.
In fact, since it might be a good idea to find out if they have more such weapons, and where they aquired them from, the WMD argument would be considerably more effective (not to mention realistic) if used against shooting with prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 17, 2006 14:27:33 GMT
I noticed that CBE business, and I don't see what Hayman has ever done to earn it, but I think the timing is more unlucky than stupid. I'm sure the honour was assigned some months ago.
An even stronger one would be that if the terrorist does happen to have a neutron bomb secreted inside his jacket pocket (and yes, we did realise how ridiculous that sounded - in my case I just thought it was a suggestion too gross to be worth dignifying with a retort), shooting him is a risky move. Bullets may trigger the warhead. The terrorist toppling over as he dies might trigger the warhead.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jun 17, 2006 14:33:35 GMT
An even stronger one would be that if the terrorist does happen to have a neutron bomb secreted inside his jacket pocket (and yes, we did realise how ridiculous that sounded - in my case I just thought it was a suggestion too gross to be worth dignifying with a retort), shooting him is a risky move. Bullets may trigger the warhead. The terrorist toppling over as he dies might trigger the warhead. Actually, that's not true. It's very hard to trigger a WMD. Very, very hard, in fact. The bombs that were dropped on Japan had to have timing devices fitted because a mere 10,000 foot fall would not be enough to cause an explosion. Generally people try to avoid shooting at nuclear weapons, but there's no real reason to; the extremely complicated interal devices have to be used in precisely the right way or you just and up with a box of used pinball machine parts.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 7, 2006 9:52:19 GMT
Today is the anniversary of the blasts that shook London and took over fifty lives.
A year of heightened paranoia, a year of accusation and, in some cases, anger.
A few days ago, Al-Jazeera broadcast a recording of one of the bombers, Shezad Tanweer, speaking just before he launched his suicide attack. He promised that it was just one of a string of attacks that would be launched against the Government of the United Kingdom. He insisted those who died in the attacks deserved their fate because they had implicated themselves in Western oppression of the Middle East by re-electing Tony Blair.
While these are clearly the ravings of a lunatic, it once again goes to prove that Tony Blair is either a shameful liar, or just in pathetic denial, when he claims that a 'heightened terror threat' from Islamic Radicalism is not caused by the Iraq War or Western policy in general. The bombers were hopelessly deluded and shamefully wrong in their actions, but the motivation of the Wars in the Middle East was all too real.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jul 7, 2006 11:30:53 GMT
Thank god we haven't seen more attacks since last year. How many more people have to kill themselves or others for Blair, Bush et al to face up to the fact that nothing they've done in the so-called "war on terror" has lessened the risk of terrorist attack. Heightened it in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 7, 2006 19:02:52 GMT
I disagree with the idea that there is a heightened risk of terrorism. The over-blown security measures are enough to almost precisely countermeasure the increased danger; nothing has really changed outside of (amazingly) a few oil-rich middle-eastern countries. Odd, that...
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 10, 2006 17:27:49 GMT
The final decision on which, if any, police officers will face criminal proceedings for the murder of Jean Charles di Menezes will be announced on July 17th.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jul 13, 2006 0:48:25 GMT
Can we have a straw poll on outcomes? I vote for slap on the wrist and maybe a transfer out of SO19
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 13, 2006 10:32:52 GMT
CBEs all round.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 13, 2006 18:51:11 GMT
Advanced word of Monday's announcement has been leaked to the BBC. According to this, the report will conclude one met commander and two firearms officers should face charges over the killing. Please feel free to faint dead away in astonishment at the following news; Sir Ian Blair is not one of the ones who would face charges.
Details of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report into the killing have also been released. Criticisms levelled at the police are sweeping and damning. They include; -
: That a written log of events was altered by an officer, but not signed, presenting a serious danger of falsification;
: That Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair delayed, even obstructed, the IPCC investigation. The watchdog said if it had gone in earlier it could have stopped the log being changed, although Scotland Yard denies that this would have made a difference (well, they would say that wouldn't they?);
: That the firearms unit were too slow getting to the incident, so much so that Mr Menezes was already underground when they arrived. And as police radios of course do not work on the Tube, they then lost communications with their base.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 17, 2006 19:28:03 GMT
The final decision has been announced, and it's another moment completely and totally devoid of surprise. The Crown Prosecution Service has concluded that there is "insufficient evidence" to prosecute any individual over the Stockwell murder. The Met will be charged as a force under Health and Safety laws.
All we need to ask is, is this a put-up compromise, a fudge, or a whitewash?
And can anyone tell the difference between any of the above?
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 18, 2006 23:26:47 GMT
It's conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and being an accessory after the fact of murder. And possibly incitement to murder (the fuzz will feel more ready to do it again).
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jul 19, 2006 1:24:18 GMT
Not enough evidence? Codswallop! The whole sordid affair was captured by several CCTV cameras, as well as there being eyewitnesses. Colour me unsurprised that they're getting away with murder...again.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 19, 2006 5:33:16 GMT
I'm now genuinely nervous about living in this country. Still let's look on the bright side; as long as there are Arabs living here I'll be down the police list of scapegoats for society's ills. (But seeing my mother's Jewish, I can't be all that far down the list...)
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 19, 2006 19:33:07 GMT
Oh, I should think you're safe by vague association with the state of Israel, which rather wrote the book on getting away with murder because of one's uniform; the Metropolitan Police is a lowly pupil.
Oh, and if your mother's Jewish, you are; no half measures (I don't count, as only my father is).
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 19, 2006 19:47:01 GMT
Oh, I should think you're safe by vague association with the state of Israel, which rather wrote the book on getting away with murder because of one's uniform; the Metropolitan Police is a lowly pupil. True, but these things have a habit of inverting themselves in the longer term, especially when the scapegoat-of-the-day dwindles and dies out. Probably won't get to that stage in my lifetime though. Hey! Don't you oppress me! I'm a non-Red Sea pedestrian and I'm proud of it! Seriously, I was Jewish when I was younger, but I reckon if you're in your thirties, you have no intention of upholding your Jewish heritage, and you still haven't had a bah mitzvah - as in my case - you can probably count yourself as 'outside the field of play'.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 20, 2006 9:04:10 GMT
Seriously, I was Jewish when I was younger, but I reckon if you're in your thirties, you have no intention of upholding your Jewish heritage, and you still haven't had a bah mitzvah - as in my case - you can probably count yourself as 'outside the field of play'. Ha! I bet you won't be saying that when you get to the Pearly gates and they tell you the Jews were right after all.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Jul 21, 2006 0:37:39 GMT
No, HStorm, that just means you're a non-practising Jew. You don't get a choice about whether you're a Jew any more than you do about whether you're white (Michael Jackson aside). Though I suppose you could get away with "I'm not a Jew, I'm Jewish."
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jul 21, 2006 5:54:53 GMT
I think you'd better explain that. If being a Jew isn't entirely a matter of what faith you are, what exactly is it? Is it a racial group? Is it a nationality? If so, terms like 'non-practising' sort of fall between the stools, because when applied in terms such as, "I'm a non-practising white," or, "I'm a non-practising Englishman," it doesn't really mean anything.
I suppose it could be classed in a broader sense of an entire lifestyle, except that then, 'non-practising Jew' becomes a contradiction in terms.
Also, let's carry the logic to its fullest extent; would a Jew who's converted to, say, Hinduism still be Jewish?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Jul 21, 2006 11:01:36 GMT
In the eyes of the Jews, the Nazis and God, yes.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Jul 22, 2006 1:04:08 GMT
Well that's just nuts.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 3, 2006 14:07:17 GMT
Two interesting developments today. First, the shooting of Mohammed Kahar has been deemed an 'accident' by the police enquiry. The sad punchline tells itself, so I shan't bother saying it.
And second, Kahar has now been arrested under conveniently-timed charges of possessing child pornography.
Why do I detect the whiff of suspicious police conduct regarding both of these developments...?
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Aug 3, 2006 17:16:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Aug 4, 2006 7:50:53 GMT
I particularly like the bit where the police acuse the brothers of being in the Ku Klux Klan. Shows the intelligence of the average copper is somewhat lower than that of the average criminal.
|
|