Police shoot man in forest gate
- Thread starter Rollem
- Start date
spartacus mills
let's wee on each other
A report on BBC News24 this morning made me chuckle. The reporter said that neighbours knew something was up as they'd seen plain-clothed rozzers sat in a car for the past week drinking coffee and watching the house.
lostexpectation
New Member
spartacus mills said:
If they saw it how did the occupents not?
lostexpectation
New Member
zArk said:
lol zark
lostexpectation
New Member
TAE said:
which could have dictated the timing of the raid...
If they have a warrant or an authority granted under s.32 or s.18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (or any other lawful authority), I would suggest you cooperate with them as much as possible.lostexpectation said:
If they are under a misapprehension as to some of the activities at the house, I suggest you put them right at the earliest opportunity. People seem to think that because they know they are innocent the police should as well ... but the police only know what they have been able to ascertain from other sources - until you give them your bit of the jigsaw it is missing from the picture they have.
If they have no warrant, authority or other lawful grounds then you would be within your rights to resist their entry, or eject them, using such force as is reasonable and necessary based on the law of trespass. But beware - if they do have a lawful power to be there and you do this you will be committing an offence of assault.
If you resist, you are likely to dig yourself a hole whether or not their original suspicons were correct. If you cooperate, and when they have finished they find nothing, then you can take legal advice as to whether or not you can take any action against them.
They will not go away just because you say "There must be some mistake, we're all sweet and innocent here you know" ... because everyone does that, even the guilty. (I can see the headline now: "Criminals in "We lie to police" shock!").
Contrary to what you see in The Bill, it is not possible to carry out surveiallance for hours on end, on your own, in uniform, in a marked car.lostexpectation said:
Contrary to what those who inhabit an ideal world believe, police do not have some sort of cloaking device which makes them invisible.
Contrary to what the conspiracy theorists believe, there is not an unbridled power to go round planting listening devices, cameras, etc. And even where an authority is granted, it is often not possible to actually carry out the necessary installation work.
The art of conventional surveillance is to make sure that the subjects see either nothing or things which they don't "notice". But soeone looking from the other side (i.e. behind a surveillance team rather than in front) will see (and probably notice) all sorts of stuff.
Which is why surveillance-aware subjects practice anti-surveillance tactics and employ people to look out around them.
Sometimes, as a surveillance team, you just have to hope that your subject is not that aware.
And, yes. A compromise of a surveillance operation would be one reason for a decision to intervene. Been there, done that. (On one occasiion being met at the door at 5am by Mr Robber, who invited us all into the kitchen where Mrs Robber had the coffee on and a big pile of bacon sandwiches on the go ... guess what we found during our (somewhat cursory) search ...
)lostexpectation
New Member
detective-boy said:
alright, alright I just asked if the neighbours saw that means the targets probably knew also, thats not an idealist or stupid thing to say is it?
And, yes. A compromise of a surveillance operation would be one reason for a decision to intervene. Been there, done that. (On one occasiion being met at the door at 5am by Mr Robber, who invited us all into the kitchen where Mrs Robber had the coffee on and a big pile of bacon sandwiches on the go ... guess what we found during our (somewhat cursory) search ...
eh a nicked coffee machine and a george forman?
Badger Kitten
oof
The Times said today ''polititical opponents'' were wondering whether the recent high-vis spate of intelligence activity and grabby headlines coupled with Reid's '' twenty conspiracies under investigation'' comment in a 7/7 survivior meeting indicated a determination by the security services to try to aviod a 7/7 public enquiry by claiming they were overstretched and needed to work on imminent threats.
Or words to that effect; it is in the paper, not online for some reason.
In which case I'm rather chuffed.
Or words to that effect; it is in the paper, not online for some reason.
In which case I'm rather chuffed.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
That's happened to you as well has it?detective-boy said:And, yes. A compromise of a surveillance operation would be one reason for a decision to intervene. Been there, done that. (On one occasiion being met at the door at 5am by Mr Robber, who invited us all into the kitchen where Mrs Robber had the coffee on and a big pile of bacon sandwiches on the go ... guess what we found during our (somewhat cursory) search ...
More news from Newham
People in Newham and Forest Gate in particular are shocked and concerned over the shooting incident. Yes lets wait for more facts but lawyer for the wounded man on C4 news says todat that he was in his pyjamas and shot by the police without warning.
If this is true - expect major recriminations. Urban users beware of spin coming from u know who.
Zeppo
People in Newham and Forest Gate in particular are shocked and concerned over the shooting incident. Yes lets wait for more facts but lawyer for the wounded man on C4 news says todat that he was in his pyjamas and shot by the police without warning.
If this is true - expect major recriminations. Urban users beware of spin coming from u know who.
Zeppo
I don't think 'intelligence' is the word for it. Gross stupidity more like.detective-boy said:
http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/june/ha000003.html
lostexpectation
New Member
Jazzz said:
forget jazz DB proove to us the Old Trafford threat was real, does it not embarass you, I know it not your job but you so quic to speak up on everyother subject
Zeppo said:
Yes, the account from the lawyer was that heheard crashing and shouting downstairs, started downstairs in his jim jams and was shot without warning. He is lucky to be alive. The neighbours were saying that this was a regular household.
If it turns out, as seems likely, that the police have shot an innocent man, will the coppor be done for attempted murder or unlawful wounding?
It seems likely that if harmful materials were used to prepare a device in the house that the police would have had something to say to the media by now. Though today they are searching the workplaces of the two.
If - and it is still if, though it is looking likely, that the police have raided a law abiding Muslim household what will happen to the 'reliable' source of information? Remember the police were quoted in the papers as having said they had '100% reliable' info. (as they said when they killed De Menezes) Will the police protect their source? Was it 'intelligence' or was it a neighbour? If I hate my neighbours and they are Muslim can I just tell the police a load of bollocks and get them shot?
We don't know as it is speculation. But if I was a betting man, I would bet the victims were innocent and that the 'reliable source' will not be revealed. If they hadn't shot him, it may have been just another barely reported raid, and yet another largely ignored incident of daily harrassment of the Muslim community. Of course, if the police have actually arrested a terrorist before an incident that'll be a turn up for the books. What are the odds on that? Do the bookies take bets on such things? I guess they can't always be wrong can they??
ice-is-forming
With dignified ease and grace..
the impression in the news in auss is that the police are looking like they were in the wrong.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Why didn't they just arrest him on the way to work rather than going in whilst he was still in the house, seems to make little sense considering how 'dangerous' the alleged materials apparently were.
And why force a no fly zone over the house AFTER they had raided it, surely if they were that concerned they'd have done it before hand?
BBC News 24 were showing pictures of the Tokyo subway attack and talking about sarin nerve gas on the 11pm bulletin - knobeds
And why force a no fly zone over the house AFTER they had raided it, surely if they were that concerned they'd have done it before hand?
BBC News 24 were showing pictures of the Tokyo subway attack and talking about sarin nerve gas on the 11pm bulletin - knobeds
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
We was only talking about this yesterday, it seems from what someone who knew them said, that one of the brothers had beaten up/assaulted a neighbour at some point, but they had moved away. Who's to know if this wasn't a revenge thing?Groucho said:
his solicitor, Kate Roxburgh, described her client's account of the shooting: 'He was woken up about four in the morning by screams from downstairs, got out of bed in his pyjamas obviously unarmed, nothing in his hands and hurrying down the stairs. As he came toward a bend in the stairway, not knowing what was going on downstairs, the police turned the bend up towards him and shot him - and that was without any warning.'
She added: 'He wasn't asked to freeze, given any warning and didn't know the people in his house were police officers until after he was shot. He is lucky still to be alive.'
As details began to emerge, it seems certain that it began with an original tip-off local informant known to security services as 'an asset' suggesting that the brothers, who were under surveillance, were planning an imminent, biological attack on the British mainland.
Intelligence had suggested it was a potentially fatal device that could produce casualty figures in double or even triple figures
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1789965,00.html
She added: 'He wasn't asked to freeze, given any warning and didn't know the people in his house were police officers until after he was shot. He is lucky still to be alive.'
As details began to emerge, it seems certain that it began with an original tip-off local informant known to security services as 'an asset' suggesting that the brothers, who were under surveillance, were planning an imminent, biological attack on the British mainland.
Intelligence had suggested it was a potentially fatal device that could produce casualty figures in double or even triple figures
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1789965,00.html
Badger Kitten
oof
Cyanide, say de Sunday Times chaps
Badger Kitten
oof
Never said it was. Sorry if you thought I implied it. Like evertything in life surveillance sounds easy until you try it. Was just trying to explain the reality.lostexpectation said:
And, no. Nothing! (We did get him and his team doing another one about 9 months later though)
Similar threads
