Make your land like ours!

[andym]

Not to get off the subject,but a few posts back
AndyM said something I was wondering about...

Pie & mash?( Like "bubble and squeak")?
Bacon butties? (the Beatles taught me about jam butties)

Sorry,all,was hoping a little levity in the face
of it would be OK. :oops:

For answers to the above check out the "National Delicacies" thread. :wink:

[Arthes]

Well,
they were playing 'White Christmas' in town today.....and appropriate as it is now rather white outside...it always does this about a week beforehand then disappears on the day..... :lol:
Anti terrorism...I would still like to know the truth about the innocent guy the police shot on the Underground in front of the public and the suspected terrorist who was invited to visit the Houses of Parliament.
regards
Arthes

[Robert Vermaat]

I would still like to know the truth about the innocent guy the police shot on the Underground in front of the public

I did a quick Google scan. Apparently, Jean Charles de Menezes from Brazil was not running from the police, did not carry a large backback nor an impossibly large coat, nor was he cautioned.
In fact, he just had a dark face and the policeofficers just panicked and shot him several times.
The police actually said (when they apologized) that this was very much likely to happen again.

[Tarbicus]

In fact, he just had a dark face and the policeofficers just panicked and shot him several times.

It's not that simple really. The house he lived in was under surveillance by the police as suspected terrorists were living there (ie, the ones involved in the previous day's failed bomb attack). The surveillance officer who could make a good call as to who to follow had to go to the bathroom and that was when the poor lad left to go to the station. The policemen couldn't get advice, so in view of what had happened in London the day before (the failed bombs) they followed him.

Believe me, if some moron left a bag unattended on a train they got a lot of grief from the other passengers, sometimes the carriage suddenly being empty within seconds. I was in a train when that happened and EVERYONE was pretty paranoid on public transport, including me.

Sincerely believing he may have had a bomb on him they ran up to him once he entered the train and, receiving orders to shoot to kill (remember where he had just left), they did so. Don't forget what it was like in London on that day, and the police had to make a life or death decision on the spot soon after a lot of people had been blown up, maimed and injured, and another attempt had been made the day before. They were also accutely aware that a bomb can be triggered in a number of ways, but unfortunately the one initially capable of assessing whether he could be carrying a bomb had been relieving himself. In this case I personally think the terrorists were the indirect root cause of his death. The theory of how to react in these situations is very different to being there, and I'm pretty sure empty bottles will be close to hand on future surveillances.

[Robert Vermaat]

It's not that simple really. The house he lived in was under surveillance by the police as suspected terrorists were living there (ie, the ones involved in the previous day's failed bomb attack). The surveillance officer who could make a good call as to who to follow had to go to the bathroom and that was when the poor lad left to go to the station.

You're right of course, it's never that simple. Yet, it is also clear that this tragic event happened because of a number of grave mistakes.
For one, if the identity of the suspect had really been known (the house was under surveillance, after all) he would not have been shot. Also, the actual action rested on the one officer being able to make a good call being on the loo!

More so, the police reported a number of things that, after investigation, proved to have been false: no bag pack, no big coat, he was not running, nor did he ignore cautions to stop. Especially these things worry me, because the police did claim these were the main reasons why they shot him.

The policemen couldn't get advice, so in view of what had happened in London the day before (the failed bombs) they followed him.

Apparently, without being able to get advice, they had orders to shoot? And since they weren't the officers that were able to make a good call, does that not mean that every cop with a gun and unable to get good advice on the spot, can and will shoot anyone of which he has a notion they might be suspect?

Believe me, if some moron left a bag unattended on a train they got a lot of grief from the other passengers, sometimes the carriage suddenly being empty within seconds. I was in a train when that happened and EVERYONE was pretty paranoid on public transport, including me.

It happened to me thrice on as amny weeks, when I visited Israel within days after Saddam occupied Kuwayt. Once in a bus, once in Jerusalem's main bus station, once on the airport.

Sincerely believing he may have had a bomb on him they ran up to him once he entered the train and, receiving orders to shoot to kill (remember where he had just left), they did so.

Sincerely? Maybe, but based on what intelligence? Remember, there was apparently just one officers who actually knew anything, they were just the support team. The criticism about this case is this that - they acted without prpoer intellingence. What remains unclear is what their orders were exactly, because a 'shoot to kill any suspect' standing order would be very damaging to the police, not to mention the ministry of the interior or the justice department (correct names?).

Don't forget what it was like in London on that day, and the police had to make a life or death decision on the spot soon after a lot of people had been blown up, maimed and injured, and another attempt had been made the day before.

That's true, it was absolute pandemonium. And I fully understand the reason for the panic. Yet if we can't trust the police to keep a clear head and not start shooting when they panic, can we be safe at all? The police have the monopoly on legal violence, yet these days it's apparently normal that innocent civilians may be arrested, held without trial, even tortured and shot, if that saves the lives of other innocent civials. A hard choice to make.

They were also accutely aware that a bomb can be triggered in a number of ways, but unfortunately the one initially capable of assessing whether he could be carrying a bomb had been relieving himself.

Were they? In fact, the police already knew, based on countless reports of similar bombings, that such packages are normally (and that's of course the problem here) not dropped or immediately exploded.
But a) the oficers probably did not know that (so it's a case of the police failing to inform the officers on the street?) and b) the suspect did not run from them at all, as they originally claimed, but later took back. So why would there have been a hury to shoot him? He was not even cautioned!

In this case I personally think the terrorists were the indirect root cause of his death.

A cause, without any doubt. Without tye bombings, he would not have been shot.
But not the cause, because with proper orders for the police, they would not have shot him. they panicked. Yes, his house was under surveillance, but he was not a suspect himself. he just came from the wrong door, and with a dark complexion he was misidentified as an Arab.

All in all, a very tragic event that could have been prevented with cool heads and proper procedures. And especially the latter should have been implemented long ago, with UK having been bombed by IRA terrorists for such a long time.

The theory of how to react in these situations is very different to being there, and I'm pretty sure empty bottles will be close to hand on future surveillances.

Amen to that!! I hope..

[hoplite14gr]

Usually field security operatives (army-police) get the blame for the mess in order to cover some high-ranker behind the scene who did not do his thing properly or even was criminaly negligent. Robert´s net search in my opinion proves that the "front-lines" get the blame as usual.
Kind regards

[Tarbicus]

Apparently, without being able to get advice, they had orders to shoot?

They couldn't get advice from the specialist, but they could from Central Command who changed the operation from Surveillance to something like Code Red which makes it an armed response operation.

And since they weren't the officers that were able to make a good call, does that not mean that every cop with a gun and unable to get good advice on the spot, can and will shoot anyone of which he has a notion they might be suspect?

Probably, to be honest. And if an armed policeman believes someone is about to blow up a busy train then more than probably. In the UK the police aren't actually required to give a warning, but always will if no lives are immediately at stake.

Sincerely? Maybe, but based on what intelligence? Remember, there was apparently just one officers who actually knew anything, they were just the support team. Remember, there was apparently just one officers who actually knew anything, they were just the support team. The criticism about this case is this that - they acted without prpoer intellingence. What remains unclear is what their orders were exactly, because a 'shoot to kill any suspect' standing order would be very damaging to the police, not to mention the ministry of the interior or the justice department (correct names?).

Now, I think I have to disagree with you. What that means is the police must forsake split second decisions for the sake of PR. And don't forget that hesitation could cost many innocent lives instead of just one.

The whole thing was a no win situation. Jean Charles de Menezes was damned if they did, but the police felt that many many others were damned if they didn't. All it took was for a specialist needing to answer the call of nature, and unfortunately that kind of thing happens, and always will. Even if that kind of problem is addressed something else will happen that nobody would ever expect, it's Murphy's Law - "If something can go wrong it will, and at the worst possible time."

Yet if we can't trust the police to keep a clear head and not start shooting when they panic, can we be safe at all? The police have the monopoly on legal violence, yet these days it's apparently normal that innocent civilians may be arrested, held without trial, even tortured and shot, if that saves the lives of other innocent civials. A hard choice to make.

I don't think that applies in this individual case, although I agree about other aspects of what you say. If the terrorists hadn't blown people up in trains and a bus, and then tried again, Jean Charles de Menezes would be alive today. Likewise, if the terrorists hadn't done what they did, and I believe even if the house had been under surveillance anyway by armed police, he would also be alive today - The terrorists were the root cause of his very tragic death.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
I heard something on the radio news earlier, I think the Police are being asked whether they want to carry guns. This is a result of the shooting of the two Policewoman in Bradford a few weeks ago during a robbery by non-whites. A little girl had the birthday present of being told her mum had been killed that day...
[url:e11v1ooi]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/4451508.stm[/url]
I can't find any reference online to the vote on guns, or whether this is localised or national.
I agree with some officers being armed, after specialist training and with instructions to shoot to disarm or disable when necessary, so no more accidential murders. There is talk about stun guns, which would probably be the best option.
regards
Arthes

[hoplite14gr]

There is never a perfect situation were weapons are involved.
The only aid is extensive training and VERY CLEAR "Rules of enagegement".
Let it be clear when it is permissible for the security force to use weapons and also to every person that some type of lawless behaviour carries risks!
Everybody plays the tough guy with "over-restricted" security force.
I DO NOT advocate to leave the security force unregulated either.
BUT a line MUST be drawn.
Also since we try to regulate human behaviour why don't we define what is selfdefence and what is not. In many countries the law is very ambigous, sometimes even to the favor of the "wrong-doer"
Kind regards

[Marius_Ursus]

Usually field security operatives (army-police) get the blame for the mess in order to cover some high-ranker behind the scene who did not do his thing properly or even was criminaly negligent. Robert´s net search in my opinion proves that the "front-lines" get the blame as usual.
Kind regards

Given the choice between the risk of one innocent people killed by police or hundreds of innocent people killed by a terrorist, I'll take the one.

[hansvl]

Given the choice between the risk of one innocent people killed by police or hundreds of innocent people killed by a terrorist, I'll take the one.

Then I hope it's not your wife, it's not one of your children, not one of your parents or anyone of your family or even yourself!

Hans

[Arthes]

Greetings

Given the choice between the risk of one innocent people killed by police or hundreds of innocent people killed by a terrorist, I'll take the one.

Then I hope it's not your wife, it's not one of your children, not one of your parents or anyone of your family or even yourself!

Hans

I have to admit that was exactly what I thought on reading that post....it has to be somebodys loved one, or even yourself.
Being a matyr for a cause you believe in, is different to being killed under suspicion of being a mass murderer, when innocent.
NO....I do not mean that is condoning terriorism, I mean that in respect of giving your own life to save others...not having it forced on you without warning.
regards
Arthes

[Marius_Ursus]

Given the choice between the risk of one innocent people killed by police or hundreds of innocent people killed by a terrorist, I'll take the one.

Then I hope it's not your wife, it's not one of your children, not one of your parents or anyone of your family or even yourself!

Hans

You can what if anything to death. It doesn't change facts. That being said, I hope it's not, as well, but I'd stil rather have one death than hundreds.

[hoplite14gr]

Well blessed is the life who give his life for his friends and though ussually the lesser evil is usually prefered (TO MI CHEIRON VELTISTON) I hope I´ll never have to choose. An I am sure Tom talked about the unavoidable -"last dich" descision. Not the "clear cut" cases.
Kind regards

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

Do you think it fosters the feeling that after moving here, there's no need to learn the language?

[size=150:iiurjhgt]H[/size]ell yes ot does. As a resident of the Socialist Republick of Kahleefornyaa, I can tell you that it's not just the fact that people live here now for 20 years and don't learn the language... it's more. There is a movement here that says California and Texas should be returned to Mexico. The problem HERE is that they come here for a bette rlife, yet wish to have the same patterns of failure they have at home. I am sorry, but when you have gang shootings and other crap ALL THE TIME, it gets old.

Hell, i wa sin Virginia for most of December and it's wierd there now. If you go by a 7-11, there are LITERALLY 30-40 South Americans out there looking for day work... illegals mind you and nothing is done about it :-0 I wa si a WalMart in Manassas and it was almost all in Spanish :-0 Sorry, but when my great grandparents came here from Bohemia, they didn't keep their same language, they LEARNED English, the language of their new home. If I moved to Germany, I doubt 'd be able to get away w/ never learning or speaking Deutsch!
Marsh ([size=75:iiurjhgt]who undoubtably is a Xenophobe or something[/size])