Police shoot man in forest gate

[detective-boy]

Can people not be critical of police actions without being anti-police? I really think that the people who gave the orders should at least be held to account. Why were the senior officers in charge not even sacked after the Stockwell murder?

Maybe because the investigation and assessment of the evidence has not even been completed yet (the file is with the CPS).

Maybe because there is no evidence they have committed an offence that is sackable.

Just because something goes wrong does NOT mean that someone is automatically to blame.

 

[detective-boy]

Due process. If I remember correctly, the police complaints report isn't even out yet. Once it's out and once we find it points the fingers of blame AND IF heads don't roll, then I'll sing in chorus with you.

My emphasis.

But that is exactly NOT due process. You are demonstrating that the investigation and report is a waste of time ... because you already know they are guilty.

 

[soulman]

Maybe because the investigation and assessment of the evidence has not even been completed yet (the file is with the CPS).

Maybe because there is no evidence they have committed an offence that is sackable.

Just because something goes wrong does NOT mean that someone is automatically to blame.

Shooting an innocent unarmed man in his home is not a sackable offence. What do they need to do, shoot him, kick him in the face and drag him down the stairs by one leg?

 

[cemertyone]

Shooting an innocent unarmed man in his home is not a sackable offence. What do they need to do, shoot him, kick him in the face and drag him down the stairs by one leg?

No its the same with these " teams" of police officers ever time.....The Met present one face..i.e. " officers working under pressure" etc etc. BUT the reality of how they operate has been graphically explianed ever time they mount a raid. The manner in which any one caught up in their operation is treated is not different from a hoodlum kicking you could recieve in croydon on a friday night...THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN STATE THUGS......

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

My emphasis.

But that is exactly NOT due process. You are demonstrating that the investigation and report is a waste of time ... because you already know they are guilty.

let's face it that assumption was made when they decided it was fair game to pump a round into the guy in his jimmys or mor ethan several rounds into JDM in fact not only was he judged but exicuted too...

in either case there is no question of guilt, they did shoot them the person was clearly shot...

it's a question of the process which allowed the action to take place....

 

[TAE]

What do they need to do, shoot him, kick him in the face and drag him down the stairs by one leg?

It sounds like not even that would be enough.

 

[detective-boy]

Shooting an innocent unarmed man in his home is not a sackable offence.

Not necessarily, no. As you perfectly well know.

 

[detective-boy]

The manner in which any one caught up in their operation is treated is not different from a hoodlum kicking you could recieve in croydon on a friday night...

Right. The hoodlums giving you a kicking in Croydon on Friday night are attempting to carry out which lawful action exactly ...

 

[TAE]

Why assume that the police officer concerned was being reasonable?

 

[detective-boy]

Why assume that the police officer concerned was being reasonable?

I'm not. But my experience is that police officers are trying their best to do their jobs in the vast majority of incidents. And we are not talking here about an individual officer making an individual decision to do something - it is part of a larger operation ... so there is at least a fighting chance that they were more likely to be trying to do something lawful than a random bunch of hoodlums in Croydon on a Friday night ...

 

[Jessiedog]

It is NOT enough to say "Well I was told such and such at the briefing", although that may be PART of the honestly held belief.

d-b,

I'm not having a go here.



What I'm saying is that, that in the two cases I mentioned, I cannot (personally ) imagine that the "briefing" given to the cops that pulled the triggers would not form a very large part of their defence.

As you note, I was using theatrics to create a point, but I feel that, in these particular cases, the "briefing" must strongly mitigate any proclavity to err on the side of "caution", as it were.

the investigation and proceedings which followed the killing of James Ashley in Hastings in 1988 established beyond doubt that those responsible for briefings and directions would be hald accountable for what they told the officers who they sent out on operations.

In these two cases then, the "briefings", whether last-minute at Stockwell or earlier at Forest Gate, were so patently wrong that someone should hang. The problem is, as I pointed out, that the responsibility (at least in the FG case) is likely to disappear rapidly up the chain of command until it disappears up its own bottom in MI5 somewhere and is "classified".

I think there's a fair chance, maybe, in the Stockwell case that some dick or other may get a slap, but in FG, I reckon there will be no real result. It's just a prediction based on what I've read so far, but you read it here first, right? No individual(s) will be held responsible for the FG debacle.

There is no get out of jail free card for either the armed officer (who must provide specific grounds for why THEY decided to use potentially fatal force, of which what they were briefed can only ever be part) or those managing the operation.

Yes. Perhaps that is so, but if no heads roll for FG, I can see why many will think there is.

As I say, I thought Medusa was lunging at me.



Woof

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm not. But my experience is that police officers are trying their best to do their jobs in the vast majority of incidents. And we are not talking here about an individual officer making an individual decision to do something - it is part of a larger operation ... so there is at least a fighting chance that they were more likely to be trying to do something lawful than a random bunch of hoodlums in Croydon on a Friday night ...

the comparision was clearly that the innocnet are treated as hoolums not that the treament meated out is that of hoodlums...

with spectatular failures such as this in basic understanding it's little wonder that people are gunned down...

 

[detective-boy]

the comparision was clearly that the innocnet are treated as hoolums not that the treament meated out is that of hoodlums...

That's not how cemertyone's post read to me - lets see what they say they meant shall we ...

 

[detective-boy]

What I'm saying is that, that in the two cases I mentioned, I cannot (personally ) imagine that the "briefing" given to the cops that pulled the triggers would not form a very large part of their defence.

I think how large a part it plays will depend on it's content - the more dramatic the briefing, the more the officers will be able to rely upon it to justify acting sooner but, even at it's worst, it cannot justify their action on it's own as some posters seem to think. In fact, I would guesstimate they would be foolish to rely on it even beyond 50%.

And as for the impression of a "get out of jail" card, I agree. The police service needs to address the perceptions people have, not they reality. I thought they had learned this years ago but, as I said a few days ago, I have not been impressed with how they have addressed the aftermath of Forest Gate. The brother's press conference provided an opportunity to succeed (well, an opportunity to regain some lost ground anyway) - I haven't seen them take it yet.

 

[Jessiedog]

I think how large a part it plays will depend on it's content - the more dramatic the briefing, the more the officers will be able to rely upon it to justify acting sooner but, even at it's worst, it cannot justify their action on it's own as some posters seem to think. In fact, I would guesstimate they would be foolish to rely on it even beyond 50%.

The audio/video will be pubicly available, I hope, and the transcripts.



Unless they get lost.



But I doubt that the 'slap on the shoulder': "Nail those bastards!" as everyone left the room was recorded in any medium.

And as for the impression of a "get out of jail" card, I agree. The police service needs to address the perceptions people have, not they reality. I thought they had learned this years ago but, as I said a few days ago, I have not been impressed with how they have addressed the aftermath of Forest Gate. The brother's press conference provided an opportunity to succeed (well, an opportunity to regain some lost ground anyway) - I haven't seen them take it yet.

Indeed.

And given that collectively, the organisation can't even handle its PR, it may also beg the question as to at which point the presention of an "accurate" account to the public blends into, or disintigrates into, a "baton down the hatches", desparate attempt to conceal anything that may implicate any (group of) individual(s) - either individually, or in the conspiracy of two or more.

I mean, there are pensions at stake here for fuck's sake.







Woof

 

[detective-boy]

But I doubt that the 'slap on the shoulder': "Nail those bastards!" as everyone left the room was recorded in any medium.

To be honest, I doubt that happened. Detectives and firearms officers are NOT part of the same bit of the organisation. And detectives have known for a long time (at least twelve years to my knowledge) that if they say / do things like that in briefings and something does go tits up, the firearms officers will (quite rightly) have no hesitation in telling it as it is.

Firearms officers (and many other specialists) are also advised, for their own protection, to make notes of the briefing they receive and to include them in their statements, etc.

I worked on the Flying Squad with a Detective Inspector who was a bit of a cockney geezer and he was prone to describe the robbers we were after in phrases such as "He's a drug-crazed maniac" ... which tended to be followed by Detective Sergeants adding "For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know Detective Inspector X, that's just his tendency to hyperbole kicking in ... in fact the suspect has one previous conviction seventeen years ago for possession of two spliffs ... please totally disregard all reference to him beinng a drug-crazed maniac"

 

[syd mullet]

Mistakes happen...and let us not forget that the biggest security threat to this country comes from Asian muslims. Like it or not that is a fact we must all live with.

 

[TAE]

The biggest threat to any country is the emergence of a totalitarien government / police state.

 

[ZAMB]

The biggest threat to any country is the emergence of a totalitarien government / police state.

Too right - there would be no Muslim terrorist threat here in the UK if Blair hadn't taken our troops into Iraq in an illegal war on phony evidence.

 

[zArk]

MAN with an IQ of just 69 is believed to be the trigger behind the bungled terror raid in Forest Gate, East London.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/...p---a-prisoner-with-i-q--of-69-name_page.html

In January he was jailed for six years for terror offences - and even described in court as an "utter incompetent".

I would draw historical references of low/subnormal IQ people being blamed for events but the sheer loonacy and stupidity of using evidence from sources such as this example is enough.
Enough is enough.
Anti-terrorism operations, anti-terrorism laws and the 'intelligence' community should be shut down immediately pending a full inquiry
No excuses. This is out of control.

 

[TAE]

After all the rubbish they printed about the two brothers, I am very very sceptical about the media at the moment. They don't seem to be any more competent than the police.

However, this grabbed my attention:

Mansha - serving six years for possessing an old address of a British Army war hero, which police suspected was part of a terror plot - is appealing against his sentence.

He didn't really get SIX YEARS for posessing someone's address, did he?

 

[TonkaToy]

Too right - there would be no Muslim terrorist threat here in the UK if Blair hadn't taken our troops into Iraq in an illegal war on phony evidence.

I thought Iraq was a secular country?

 

[TAE]

It had a (more or less) secular government but I wouldn't describe the population as mainly atheist.

 

[JHE]

He didn't really get SIX YEARS for posessing someone's address, did he?

Well, he was convicted of 'possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism' - so the address was very much part of it.

However, the case against him was a bit more than that.

A man has been jailed for six years for plotting to "hunt down" and kill a British soldier.

London's Southwark Crown Court heard that British-born Abu Mansha had planned to kill or harm the soldier in revenge for his success in Iraq.​

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4650000.stm



Re. the latest story about him:

If you were Spook or Plod, what would you have regarded as most relevant about Mansha - (i) that he's said to be dim (borderline subnormal) and incompetent or (ii) that he's a known (convicted) would-be jihadi?

I'd have thought (ii) was the more relevant fact. A would-be jihadi might well be in a good position to provide information about some other (perhaps less incompetent) jihadis. Mansha's dimness would only be very relevant if you thought that dim people are more likely to lie.

(In retrospect, it may well be that he's a bullshitter or fantasist - but did Plod or Spook have any reason to be confident of that?)

 

[zArk]

TAE --

Guardian
Market trader found guilty of plotting to kill British soldier

BBC
'Soldier's name' suspect remanded

According to the Islamic Human Rights Commission, since 9/11 some 950 people, the majority of them Muslims, have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these only 148 were charged and only 27 convicted of terrorism, defined so broadly now that a question mark hangs over some of these cases. Many thousands more have been stopped under the increased stop-and-search powers that anti-terror laws have given police. In 2003-2004 they were up by almost a third. Last year British Transport police statistics revealed that Asians were five times more likely to be stopped than whites. In the month following the London bombings, they had apprehended 2,390 Asian people. None was subsequently charged.

Mansha is 1 of the 27 convicted.

 

[JHE]

Anti-terrorism operations, anti-terrorism laws and the 'intelligence' community should be shut down immediately pending a full inquiry

Yeah, that'd be a really bright move. It's a proposal worthy of you... or Mansha.

 

[zArk]

Yeah, that'd be a really bright move. It's a proposal worthy of you... or Mansha.

why?

 

[TAE]

However, the case against him was a bit more than that.

A bit more perhaps, but not much. This is seriously fucked up. On that evidence, you could probably put most journalists behind bars.

Was there ANY evidence that he was, in fact, planning an attack?

 

[zArk]

A bit more perhaps, but not much. This is seriously fucked up. On that evidence, you could probably put most journalists behind bars.

Was there ANY evidence that he was, in fact, planning an attack?

at 69 IQ he could probably just about register and post on Urban75.

IQ Range Classification
70-80 Borderline deficiency
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
below 20 Editor of Internet Forum

Reber, A.S. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed. Toronto: Penguin Books.

 

[ZAMB]

I thought Iraq was a secular country?

It was - until Bush and Blair phoneyed up the evidence to include it in their war on terror - which both of them called a *Crusade* and they both used the fact that the population was Muslim to get in a lot of digs about *islamists* etc. while they were Shock and awing the hell out of them. The fact that they blew thousands of their co-religionists to bits must have had an effect on Muslims worldwide - I couldn't believe they were saying that 7/7 had no connection to Iraq. Of course it did!