|
Sad is the word, WP; I thought the same thing listening to the BBC radio news at breakfast time this morning. All so unnecessary, right from the start.
|
|
A sad & tragic end to a life that was torn apart through no fault of his own. RIP.
|
The poor man not only had the blindness to deal with but he was also in constant pain from the gunshot wounds.
He gave a series of interviews to Victoria Derbyshire on Radio 5 Live, which were repeated today.
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01cmsk2/Victoria_Derbyshire_Phil_Williams_sits_in/
|
Despite being in a career at the time that constantly had contact with some of the dregs of society...it truly surprised me the amount of people that supported the Facebook entry for 'poor old Moaty'.
What a side show that was.
|
|
Some disgusting old tart from near where I live traveled up with her kids to be at Raul Moats funeral and show support for him. Its a pity her bloated rotting corpse was not strung up at a gibbet on the A1 for all to see.
|
Actually, most of her children are OK and she can be perfectly pleasant (apart from supporting Chelsea) when it suits her.
Her children have been through the same schools as mine.
A variety of different fathers though.
|
>> Her children have been through the same schools as mine.
Scabbeylands?
|
>>
>> Scabbeylands?
>>
Nope, W By then Fullbrook.
|
|
My lad went to Fullbrook.
|
A variety of different fathers though.
4X4 ?
A very sad conclusion - he sounded quite bitter towards his job in the end - what happened must have been absolutely horrendous, a nightmare of the worst kind a sort of a living hell..
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17220008
"Being suddenly blind"
"Losing your dominant sense is shattering and confusing. "
|
We - as in the assembled hacks - thought he was too positive about his predicament in the immediate aftermath of being shot.
Having watched many people - from a distance - deal with serious injury, illness or bereavement, I reckon showing at least some resentment is probably a good thing.
Things started to unwind late last year when he got himself arrested for thumping his wife.
|
|
The impression from the BBC this morning was that he was taken from the house to the another address rather not actually arrested for "thumping" his wife....
|
These days suspects are arrested first and asked questions / charged as necessary later. I don't think the late PC was ever charged.
"Police are questioning a man" and "a man is helping the police with their enquiries" don't happen any more.
|
It may not matter a lot now, but Northumbria Police seem to think they arrested him:
tinyurl.com/7bnnmvd
|
|
I stand corrected - as I say the BBC's choice of language was different this morning.
|
|
Poor guy. Went out to work as normal one morning, and had his life changed beyond recognition by a nutter, just for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You have to feel for him. RIP.
|
They had the opportunity to deal with Moat via cross hairs and should have done so. This is not in hindsight. Too much pandering to Lily Livered liberals nowadays. Enough said. RIP Sir.
Given sufficient time the bad WILL bring down the good if we stand back and allow it. It may not sit easy with some, but I am with the Big Stick brigade, but then again I have nothing to fear.
Take care all.................M
|
>It may not matter a lot now, but Northumbria Police seem to think they arrested him:
No. Rob Pattinson of JournalLive reported that an un-named "spokeswoman for Northumbria Police said:..“Officers attended and a 43-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of assault. Inquiries are ongoing."
A friend of PC Rathband was interviewed on TV today and made it perfectly clear that plod attended the family home but he was not arrested.
|
|
That was my understanding as well. My understanding he was arrested for a breach of the peace and taken to a relative's house and released into their custody.
|
God bless him. He took the only way out of his hell that he could see.
Moat,, by all accounts, was a worthless piece of crap. The sort of person who gives nothing to society...except illegitimate children........and takes all he can. May what passes for his soul suffer a thousand torments for eternity.
The officer lost his sight, career, family, hopes and life. I would have happily pulled the trapdoor on Moat.
Ted
|
|
Get to the back of the queue....
|
>> Get to the back of the queue....
>>
+1
|
I think a lifetime in the clink would have caused far more suffering to Moat than a .303 through the heart.
State-sponsored execution is fortunately a relic of the past in the UK.
Unless you're a Brazilian on the Tube.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 1 Mar 12 at 22:43
|
>> State-sponsored execution is fortunately a relic of the past in the UK.
>>
>> Unless you're a Brazilian on the Tube.
>>
Lygonos,
I take great umbrage at that.......for an educated man you should know better. Read up about it...properly...not just the whining of some left wing rag. Find out what was going on at the time, how short staffed all the firearm's teams were...how they were run ragged...how they all thought he WAS a suicide bomber...yet still braveley dived in... and the brave decision of a good police commander Cressida Dick.
How on earth can a mistake be 'execution'?
...and lastly IMO and that is echoed by many other people, there SHOULD be state sponsodered execution for some.
|
|
..and 'yes' it was me that awarded the scowly face....you deserved it.
|
>>How on earth can a mistake be 'execution'?
The fact that they messed-up royal doesn't make it any more or less of an execution.
Was shooting him 9 times in the head accidental?
No. It was a deliberate act to end the man's life so his tiny 'backpack bomb' didn't blow everyone up.
Thus it was an execution.
By agents of the state.
Hence... that's right!: 'State-sponsored execution'.
Not quite seeing the problem with the phrase.
Obviously if he had been an Al Qaeda suicide bomber the officers involved would've been heroes in the same ballpark as the SAS who liberated the Iranian Embassy in 1980.
But he wasn't.
And they aren't.
|
so his tiny 'backpack bomb' didn't blow everyone up.
What do you mean 'backpack bomb' don't you consider them a threat?
'Thus it was an execution.'
Just so I understand, would consider all killing involving agents of the state to be execution?
'Not quite seeing the problem with the phrase.'
I think you do, you know what connotations the word execution means and how it is used. It was hardly preplanned tied up bring a crowd bullet in the head stuff. The outcome was the same but they arrived to this point by wildly different circumstances.
'Obviously if he had been an Al Qaeda suicide bomber the officers involved would've been heroes in the same ballpark as the SAS who liberated the Iranian Embassy in 1980.
But he wasn't.
And they aren't.'
Do you believe those from 1980 to be heroes?
|
|
Our 'boys' were for sure. Real people, real job well done in the circumstances.
|
>>Just so I understand, would consider all killing involving agents of the state to be execution?
Not usually - most killing is reactive to a situation - in this instance as soon as de Menezes had entered Stockwell he was only leaving in a bodybag.
He was shot 8 times by 2 officers in the head with dum-dums (presumably to avoid ricochets and collateral damage) - after being restrained, and without any warning shout.
Cressida Dick wanted him apprehended before going into the station - this didn't happen. I agree with Westpig she made the right operational decisions, unfortunately with the wrong information (ID).
de Menezes and Ozman look nothing like each other - he was positively ID'd at 9.30am on a June morning - this ID appears to have been upheld by an officer who recognised his "Mongolian eyes" (???).
As usual the Police dropped the ball afterwards with their attempts to control the information released - "he jumped the barrier" umm no, "a warning shout was made" umm no - Ian Blair did not want an IPCC investigation "to prevent operational information becoming known to terrorists" showing a big lapse in judgement - there was no way this event would not be investigated and have a coroner's inquiry.
I have no doubt everything was done in good faith leading up to the killing of de Menezes, but the initial ID was flawed so the outcome could never be anything other than flawed.
As the IT boys used to say: Garbage In - Garbage Out.
Postscript: I believe Osman Hussain was later detained in Italy and jailed for 40 years.
|
The De Menzes situation, was primarily a massive inteligence failure, as indeed was the london bombings. With the benefit of hindsight its clear it was a massive cockup.
However you cant blame the guys on the ground or the local commander based on what they had been told.
Also I cant really find too many holes in the argument that the use of lethal force to prevent a masacre is justified. Is that what you mean by "state execution"?
At the end of the day, if De Menezes was a LEGAL citizen with all the records and knowledge of his presence that entails, he would still be sending postcards home to mummy and daddy.
|
>> At the end of the day, if De Menezes was a LEGAL citizen with all
>> the records and knowledge of his presence that entails, he would still be sending postcards
>> home to mummy and daddy.
Genuine question; how do you come to that conclusion?
|
|
I guess he wouldn't have ran !
|
He was an illegal citizen and therefore to officialdom at the very least an unknown, at the very worse highly suspicious.
Had he been a settled legally domiciled person, address details would have been known, possibly a driving license, there would, in all likelyhood, been something official or available to put a name and face to that person at that location. That information would probably have saved him.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 09:17
|
And if he was just a visitor (which irrespective of a dodgy stamp in his passport was more or less the position)?
Since the police believed they were following someone else his I/D was not in question at the time of the shooting.
|
>> Since the police believed they were following someone else his I/D was not in question
>> at the time of the shooting.
At - but that's the point, he was not properly identified because there was no information to do so. They didn't know exactly who they were following - only a suspicion, which was strengthened by his subsequent flight behaviour, which as Rob states he would not have done if he had been legal.
You cant argue that his immigration status was NOT a factor in his death, because clearly it was.
|
>> You cant argue that his immigration status was NOT a factor in his death, because
>> clearly it was.
Accept that flight behaviour might have been the final nail. That's different from your original, frankly offensive, assertion that if he were 'legal' he'd still be sending cards home.
Inner London always has a large number of transients not on any electoral register and with no bank or other official links to their current digs. The vast majority are legit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 14:22
|
>> >> You cant argue that his immigration status was NOT a factor in his death,
>> because
>> >> clearly it was.
>>
>> That's different from your original,
>> frankly offensive, assertion that if he were 'legal' he'd still be sending cards home.
Dont be rediculous. It was clearly, as you well know, a reference to the fact that as he was unkown at that address, and could not be identified so cut out the trendy fake offense.
|
'Not usually - most killing is reactive to a situation - in this instance as soon as de Menezes had entered Stockwell he was only leaving in a bodybag.'
Really how so?
'and without any warning shout.'
I'm not sure how that matters?
'but the initial ID was flawed so the outcome could never be anything other than flawed.'
I'd disagree with that, there was opportunity to have a better outcome it wasn't taken. But that's not to say it was impossible or that it was fate.
|
|
And there's always the 20/20 vision in hindsight argument. Whatever the background, MPS was working to breaking point on major events - a flawed decision was made and this guy paid with his life, sad but true - the Officers involved have been held accountable. Hopefully work has been done to minimize the risk of this happening again. People die every day for a variety of reasons, I've lived alongside death all my life (or so it feels) it can be random - I'm a believer in the "If your number's on it" school of thought.
|
>> As the IT boys used to say: Garbage In - Garbage Out.
That is a typical armchair general's viewpoint...and takes no account whatsoever of the real difficulties endured by the police at that time.
You are showing a naive prejudice to this subject matter and as you've now done this twice despite the fact I have previously spent quite some time informing you privately (via a helpful Mod) of another shooting, one I had a lot of information on...so that you could understand the full picture...and for which you thanked me...then I can only come to the conclusion you have an 'issue' about the subject matter, that no amount of informed dialogue is going to dispel.
There's a full picture with this one as well.......what a surprise.
I am not at liberty to go into the full detail (and to be frank don't see why I can be bothered, if you are so blinkered), in any case some of my briefings received at the time are to remain confidential, hopefully for obvious reasons.
What what I can say is the authorities in the West are worried about another atrocity or something like Mumbai....and have taken steps to combat that...and i'm damned glad they have.
|
>> Obviously if he had been an Al Qaeda suicide bomber the officers involved would've been
>> heroes in the same ballpark as the SAS who liberated the Iranian Embassy in 1980.
>>
>> But he wasn't.
>>
>> And they aren't.
The officers that ran down in to that tube station, having blue's and two's it across the whole width of London...whilst being told (incorrectly) on the radio that the subject had been positively identified....they are heroes....regardless of the outcome.
They ran down there, into a tube carriage, with their knowldege being this man WAS the real deal.....and that he could blow himself and everyone else, inc them, to kingdom come.
The surveillance officer following him bear hugged him, whilst the firearms team shot him...it doesn't get any braver than that for all of them...because they thought this was real.
The fact that it wasn't is a tragedy, but it does not lessen their bravery one iota.
|
>> No. It was a deliberate act to end the man's life so his tiny 'backpack
>> bomb' didn't blow everyone up.
>>
>> Thus it was an execution.
Are you one of those folk that would be on his high horse and having a right moan, if this fellow HAD been another bomber...and the Old Bill had prevaricated, were too afraid to make difficult decisions...and let him carry on...and he then blew up 30 people?
...or would you say, "i'm glad the police didn't step in too quick, o.k. 30 people have copped it, but at least the police showed restraint".
I think not.
|
>> had prevaricated, were too afraid to make difficult decisions >>
I liken it to the difference between working in a GP's surgery and A&E trauma unit.
I do not blame the Police at all because in a heightened state of alarm and emergency (with little time to call conferences and take minutes and have a discussion about it), these things can and will happen.
De Menezes was a victim of circumstances in that he looked like a foreigner, came out of the flats under surveillance, he carried a backpack, entered the tube network. He was the right person, at the right time, in the right place, looking the right part -except in hindsight he was none of those. But that is how the Police saw him in the heat of the moment.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069113
|
Several jokes are now doing the rounds - as per usual when someone dies.
Can I just say that they're not Raoulmoatly funny.
On a more serious note though, I can't imagine to think what David went through. You'd have thought someone might have spotted some signs of how desperate he was to want to take his own life.
RIP.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 13:02
|
>> You'd have thought someone might have spotted some signs of how desperate he was to want to take his own life.
It seems they did. But it's a free country.
|
>>But it's a free country.
What? No smiley after that?
:-)
|
>>But it's a free country.
>>What? No smiley after that?
I don't think it's a thing to smile about Lygonos, and I'm sure you don't either.
The point I was trying to make, somewhat telegraphically, is that the moment at which a person under severe stress for reasons some of which are known (but others less so) breaks and becomes a 'patient', needing close surveillance and supervisory care, isn't necessarily clear to those who will be called on to do the supervising. The tendency is to take the sufferer's word for it if they say they are all right, because anything else might seem intrusive or patronising.
We are particularly bad at this psychological stuff in this country (although no one is much good at it). Masculine, manly professions like policing are especially vulnerable to stiff upper lip syndrome, seems to me. I agree with Rob that this is a particularly heart-wrenching case. It must have been fairly obvious, well in advance of the suicide, to a close observer that something like this could happen. But no one it seems was in any position to alter the course of events.
Iffy's post above suggesting the poor chap was in denial from the start is a good one. Someone gave him a red scowl for it though. Quite wrongly.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 14:53
|
>>Iffy's post above suggesting the poor chap was in denial from the start is a good one
Absolutely right, AC and Iffy, this poor man was likely to be a strong personality like most policemen (being able to make difficult decisions in a pinch without being able to go back to the manual/boss) - used to being self-reliant, unused to needing to ask for help - often almost incapable of discussing their emotions and feelings with others.
These are the guys who worry me most in practice as if they go down they often hide all signs of distress and even close friends and relatives may be unaware of the degree of inner turmoil (perhaps Gary Speed a similar example?).
The double-whammy is that these chaps are also unfortunately usually very successful if they choose to commit suicide - it's not a handful of pills with alcohol for them - it's a rope, or a blade, or a high fall.
I would be surprised if the officers involved in the thread-drift events at Stockwell didn't suffer horrendously after realising the outcome of events - and I would expect many of them required (or should have received) significant psychological input afterwards.
|
I've no problem with the actions of the individuals concerned, or the reasons they did what they did.
I stand by this act as one of execution - the man was killed after being restrained - no attempt to arrest and detain appears to have been made once he was in the Tube station.
It has not been deemed unlawful after a coroner's inquest, but it was still a deliberate act of killing - 'shoot-to-kill' if you prefer.
ergo Execution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos
If you want to argue the toss that this was not within the definition of 'execution' fire away.
|
The important question is - given the same information, given the exact same circumstances that you had found yourself in as an "authorized shot" - what would you have done ? No need to hide behind the "well I'm not a Firearms Officer so I can't tell" pretend for a minute you are - that you're armed you know what's happened at other tube stations, you have the (incorrect) information that these Officers had, you are there.....what would you do - according to the (flawed) information you have you're confronted with this guy - you believe he's a suicide bomber and that his finger is on the button......
(a) Shoot him dead
(b) Try to negotiate with him
or (c) come up with an immediate effective plan c
I'm with (a) by the way.
|
If the same situation happened today and the same facts were known, I believe the outcome would still be:
(a) Shoot him dead
It doesn't matter if Lygonos calls it an execution.... they still should shoot to kill. Perhaps the only difference would be shooting him to maim before he was in the underground.
|
Officially, we don't 'execute' people informally, and we don't use extreme forms of coercion either for intelligence or crime-fighting purposes.
Because we don't do these things with the same gay abandon as some foreign countries, it is (just) possible for us to continue claiming that we don't do them at all.
Fortunately we do do them when they seem necessary. But it would be foolish to admit it, wouldn't it? Hypocrisy is even more necessary than murder and torture.
|
>> Perhaps the only difference would be shooting him to maim before he was in the
>> underground.
IIRC the experts at time said there's no such thing as a shot that disables immediately without killing. Think how far a mortally wounded animal runs in wildlife films.
|
>> >> Perhaps the only difference would be shooting him to maim before he was in
>> the
>> >> underground.
The thinking behind law enforcement shooting is do it properly the first time...and... a wounded person is as dangerous, if not more so, than a non wounded person.
Trouble is law enforcement ammunition and weaponry has to take in to consideration collateral damage and you don't want your bullets travelling too far...so you tend to get the weaker stuff.......hence why people often survive.
|
My logic was out in the open he might not be such a risk and you could confront. Enclosed space with many passengers will lead to a bigger problem.
I realise if someone really was a terrorist then you need to take them out.
I suppose what you need to take them out without too much collateral damage is low velocity bullets which is what Westpig is saying. And lots of them to be sure.
But back to the purposes of this thread....! The officer who has sadly dies was gunned down when sat in his car unarmed. Blinded and seriously injured and now sadly dead.
RIP I say. I can understand why at only 44 he did what he did.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 21:53
|
>> My logic was out in the open he might not be such a risk and
>> you could confront. Enclosed space with many passengers will lead to a bigger problem.
In the Stockwell case the armed units were desperately trying to get there in time...and failed...hence the tube station end game.
There was so much going on in London at the time that resources were very stretched, one of the reasons why the surveillance team failed to properly identify de Menezes, an officer went for a pee, when usually there would be more staff available to cover that essential absence.
|
>>Trouble is law enforcement ammunition and weaponry has to take in to consideration collateral damage and you don't want your bullets travelling too far...so you tend to get the weaker stuff.......hence why people often survive.
In military small-arms firefights survival is very common - a dead:injured ratio is often around 1:5 (excepting sniper hits - if a Barrett .50 hits you you're gone). Of course first-world soldiers have a degree of armour usually.
In this specific instance officers were given hollow-point ("dum-dum" named after the Indian city they were originally made) ammunition.
This is used to prevent ricochets causing collateral damage as the rounds disintegrate on impact (and are also much less likely to pass through a target and enter a second.
When the surface they penetrate is human bone/tissue then the damage they cause is impressive to say the least as the bullet expands massively, and also loses none of the energy of impact as they do not pass through the target.
|
I used the term low velocity above - dum dum did some to mind. I did not know their origin but they are what is needed in the circumstance. A few of them to be sure.
Move on and let this thread be about the heroic policeman that eventually took his life. He was shot at point blank range albeit a shotgun I think.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 23:35
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos
I did not realise Op Kratos was quite so much in the public domain. When briefed on it, it was to remain confidential for public confidence purposes as well as not giving away tactics.
If someone is wired up to blow themselves up...you try to kill them as quickly and decisively as possible...and that is by shooting them in the head.
It has to be authorised at a very senior level.
The traditional view of 'State sponsored execution' would not to my mind fit the UK, one of the foremost democracies in the world.
The fact that British cops now have to consider the immediate death of someone in their tactics, is a sad fact of life brought on my the criminal and terrorist organisations around the world that would like to harm this country .
I'm glad our leaders have tactics to deal with this...and haven't sat on their backsides.
I'm mindful of the fact that no one was deemed to have committed any criminal offences regards this...and in this country we have one of the (if not the) most robust police monitoring systems in the world.
Some years back, when there were strong rumours doing the rounds about arming all police, I can remember thinking 'I hope I can last out and retire before that comes in'.. not because I couldn't handle a firearm...but because I would not be prepared to put up with all the post op weariness that goes with it....most coming from the woolly liberal brigade and the clever dick armchair generals who'd never put themsleves in any danger.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 15:42
|
>> coming from the woolly liberal brigade and the clever dick armchair generals who'd never put themsleves in any danger.
It must be very annoying Westpig. But we sometimes mean well.
At the time of the incidents involving the crazed twerp Moat, I posted on HJ something to the effect that tasering someone with a cocked sawn-off shotgun pointed at his head might well have the secondary effect of causing him to fire the shotgun.
I seem to remember getting some flak for it and having to add that I didn't blame the fuzz in the least and had no problem with Moat being tasered or even shot. I thought people would take that as read, but apparently they didn't.
|
Moat deserved to die a nutcase.But why was he let out of prison?He treatend to harm his girlfriend who he thought went out with a copper.He looked the type to me who meant what he said.
Very sad for the policeman who became a victim.
|
>>I'm glad our leaders have tactics to deal with this...and haven't sat on their backsides<<
Pity 'our leaders' didn't sit on their backsides instead of giving the OK to invade Iraq + Afghanistan,
Then most likely we wouldn't have to worry about "terrorist organisations around the world that would like to harm this country".
|
|
Terrorist attack in the UK where homegrown .The same in Spain.
|
Been away for a couple of day and have just seen this!
Unbelievably sad!
RIP
Z
|
>>most coming from the woolly liberal brigade and the clever dick armchair generals who'd never put themsleves in any danger.
Wool makes me itch and I prefer a couch to an armchair.
If the police or any other agency are going to kill then they must be absolutely transparent about these events.
Communication is the oxygen of our democracy - We all share a little responsibility for actions done in our name.
I assume whenever arming more police is considered the risk of more criminals choosing to arm themselves is evaluated?
Having seen the results of a shooting atrocity I would be in favour of substantially increased sentencing for illegal gun carrying/use.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 18:07
|
>> Communication is the oxygen of our democracy - We all share a little responsibility for actions done in our name.
Yes, we all share the responsibility. But not all of us can really get our heads round it, especially when something goes wrong (Menezes, or the drunk lawyer in Chelsea firing a shotgun into the air out of his window). And of course the well-meaning often object even when some group that has asked for it is put down (the Iranian embassy kidnappers, basically an Iraqi intelligence operation I seem to remember). So it doesn't pay to make such policies explicit. The well-meaning idiot and the bad guy can both take advantage, and with the world media as they are today the boring clamour would be unbearable. Hypocrisy is best for everyone. A nod's as good as a wink.
Maintaining that we don't do it, while explaining that we may seem to sometimes for perfectly good reasons, is not a job for the faint-hearted. That's one reason why Home Secretary/Foreign Secretary are stepping stones - qualifications almost - for the top job.
|
>> Maintaining that we don't do it, while explaining that we may seem to sometimes for
>> perfectly good reasons, is not a job for the faint-hearted. That's one reason why Home
>> Secretary/Foreign Secretary are stepping stones - qualifications almost - for the top job.
To be honest, I think that message has become easier to broadcast. As soon as you arrive at Heathrow and see the British bobby in body armour and touting a loaded machine gun, you have to realise times, and the message, have changed.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 2 Mar 12 at 18:37
|
>> As soon as you arrive at Heathrow and see the British bobby in body armour and touting a loaded machine gun, you have to realise times, and the message, have changed.
Of course you are right up to a point Zero. Years ago I remember seeing a tank parked on the roundabout at the entrance to the Heathrow tunnel. IRA I think, that time. I also remember how anomalous the old bill seemed in Belfast when I went there first in the late sixties, with their neat little sidearms and at country roadblocks, Patchett carbines. Also apparently anomalous to one used to the Met was their very courteous demeanour. Everyone in Northern Ireland is polite by London standards. Americans are politer than us too, perhaps because so many of them are armed and irascible.
All the same... we don't kill people. When we do it's because an emergency has arisen and we, er, have to. I think that is our attitude, and I approve of it.
|
>>That's one reason why Home Secretary/Foreign Secretary are stepping stones - qualifications almost - for the top job.
Who was the last Home/Foreign secretary to become PM without being an inhabitant of No 11?
I always thought they were the jobs the PM gave to guys they wanted rid of!
Chancellor has been the choice for PM replacement for a generation.
|
|
Perhaps I should have said 'Used to be' Lygonos. We've gone decadent, faffing about the piggy bank and hopeless at telling proper necessary lies...
|
>> >>That's one reason why Home Secretary/Foreign Secretary are stepping stones - qualifications almost - for
>> the top job.
>>
>> Who was the last Home/Foreign secretary to become PM without being an inhabitant of No
>> 11?
Callaghan in 1976 - Foreign Sec to PM. But he'd been Chancellor during the previous (64-70) Labour administration.
|
>> Wool makes me itch and I prefer a couch to an armchair.
I wouldn't have said that was something to be proud of.
>>
>> If the police or any other agency are going to kill then they must be
>> absolutely transparent about these events.
What, like having the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission have an automatic referral on every occasion and be the lead investigator.
>>
>> Communication is the oxygen of our democracy - We all share a little responsibility for
>> actions done in our name.
Yes, mostly i'd agree...apart from the times when it isn't sensible to discuss too much due to letting the bad guys know too much.
>>
>> I assume whenever arming more police is considered the risk of more criminals choosing to
>> arm themselves is evaluated?
Chicken and egg situation. I've taken calls as a firearm's commander, gone to a RVP unarmed, with unarmed officers...and safely sat up the road knowing the firearms team assinged will be at least 25 minutes....whilst the bank tellers and public in the bank being robbed at gunpoint 400 yards away are in immense danger.
If you think that is wrong...then so do I...however, why should I or my officers go down the road unarmed, knowing there are armed people there? Why shouldn't I have the correct tools for the job?
The reality is you ignore the clearly written guidelines and either send an unmarked car past to see what's going on, having given them the clearest instructions imaginable..or.. if you haven't got an unmarked car available you drive past yourself (and that could be considered incredibly foolish, because if you get taken out, the most experienced and senior cop there isn't available to direct and keep safe everyone else...and isn't available to direct the firearm's team when they turn up...and runs the severe risk of someone junior risking themselves unnecessarily to help you...but what else do you do)?
>> Having seen the results of a shooting atrocity I would be in favour of substantially
>> increased sentencing for illegal gun carrying/use.
100% agree on that one....but there are other people with itchy jumpers sat on couches that don't like that either.
>>
|
>>What, like having the INDEPENDENT Police Complaints Commission have an automatic referral on every occasion and be the lead investigator
In the case of Stockwell, however, Met Comissioner Blair tried to stop an IPCC investigation from happening on grounds of 'national security' suggesting it would lead to potential terrorists gaining insight into how the Police and security teams operated.
That was never going to fly, and I think showed a big lapse of his judgement (although I understand his reasoning, or at least the reason he was offering).
|
Whatever the right and wrongs of the Stockwell shooting, the guy's family have certainly had their money's worth out of it.
I hope they realise there are lots of countries where they wouldn't get that opportunity.
|
Claim by PC Rathband that his force failed to protect him, pursued posthumously for his family, has failed:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/rathband-v-northumbria-police.pdf
|
|
That claim appeared to be slightly distasteful and frivolous to me.
|
Family now ordered to pay the force's legal costs.
It would be best in my book if this was all written off by those concerned.
|
How sad is this - WillDeBeest
