Any London left?
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
Eh?
Serious corruption?
Shooting people dead who have nothing to do with anything criminal and appearing to cover it up afterwards?
It's enough to make me think twice about believing a police report about a shooting, especially when the locals get angry about it, and I'm hardly the tinfoil brigade.
What serious corruption? You mean stories of coppers selling papers stories?
People getting shot dead - you make it sound like it happens a lot - menezes - I can understand how it happened.
That all you got?Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
What about all the police that arent involved in shootings or covering up.
I mean your basic PC whom is just trying to do a service to the Public - not your office type, MP pandering, suit whom hasnt been on the street for 40 years.
just cos there a few mistakes and a few bad eggs doesnt mean that they all are.
Just cos Ryan Giggs did what he did doesnt mean that all Footballers are cheating on their wives with their sister in laws.... bad analagy but you know what i mean.
Or all cyclists are doping because Floyd Landis says so...."If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got."
PX Kaffenback 2 = Work Horse
B-Twin Alur 700 = Sundays and Hills0 -
Lets put this in a bit of context:
In the Menezes case, tragic loss of life though it was. Sympathies still go out to his family and there is not intention to casue distress in the below.
Imagine this:
You are an undercover firearms officer.
You are given information that a terror suspect has entered a tube station with a backpack - this information turned out to be false, but you don't know that yet.
Your communications breakdown (because of the underground environment).
You are on your own in the decision making process.
Terror suspect is oppostite you and reaching for something in their bag - this could be a detonator or a mobile phone, it is not well lit, your heart is pumping as you could be about to be blown to sh1t and you have all the indications and intelligence to say that this person is a terroist and carrying a bomb - you are relying on your colleagues data to make the decision. You have no control room/senior backup.
Do you:
A, wait and see what happens? i.e 'Kaboom'
B, Shoot to injure? - Suspect not injured enough, gets up and triggers device.
C, Shoot until the clip is empty and there is no way the suspect is getting up?
I think that the stress that the officers are under is incredible and with hindsight and investigation we can say a million things were wrong.
What would we be saying now, if Mr Menezes was carrying a bomb and destroyed a tube train killing allot of innocent people - then we find out that officers "were not really sure that he was a terrorist"....and consequently got killed. The Public would be in uproar and there would be no confidence in public security.
It is very easy to immediately jump to conclusions regarding incompetence and corruption, but, if you don't believe that the Police force are doing the best job they can to protect the public under the current security threats then, you have to ask yourself if you really want to leave your house in the morning.
Riots like the one in Tottenham are self serving, waste taxpayers money and IMHO a small group of people exploiting a bad situation using rumour and half baked reasoning.
IMHO.0 -
Sketchley wrote:
That may well be true. But does it justify breaking in to a Currys superstore and stealing all the stock? Or setting fire to building? or burning a bus? It doesn't, and furthermore will such behaviour bring about a change for the better? Probably not, and ironically the only change that this is likely to cause is a reduction in the cuts being applied to the police so they can deal with civil unrest.
As for the rioters in Brixton and other parts of London, please feel free try and justify that on the Met's past performance or the shooting in Tottenham. This copycat looting is simply criminals looking north and thinking I'll have some of that and has nothing to do with the Met or the shooting.
No-one's defending looters and arsonists.
As I posted before, the feeling seems to be that the Tottenham riot got people in other areas angry too - at the way they get treated. I imagine it's compounded by people who just want to kick things off.
The point is that, often, when the police treat certain communities unfairly, it has been known to result in riots. the '92 LA riots and the Watts riots are classic examples.
There's a list on wikipedia that lists all urban riots and their causes. The majority are to do with discrimination, often police related, or general socio-economic issues (which usually have discrimination embedded)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riots0 -
rubertoe wrote:What about all the police that arent involved in shootings or covering up.
I mean your basic PC whom is just trying to do a service to the Public - not your office type, MP pandering, suit whom hasnt been on the street for 40 years.
just cos there a few mistakes and a few bad eggs doesnt mean that they all are.
Just cos Ryan Giggs did what he did doesnt mean that all Footballers are cheating on their wives with their sister in laws.... bad analagy but you know what i mean.
Or all cyclists are doping because Floyd Landis says so....
The met issues are systemic.
I don't think anyone can argue convincingly that the met doesn't have serious systemic problems.
While Floyd Landis was taking drugs, doesn't mean all cyclists are, we do know there is a systemic problem with doping, and he's an example of it.0 -
gtvlusso
Ok, so the officer makes the difficult (and given the info he had, in my mind, correct but tragic) decision to shoot Menezes.
Where is the justification for then putting out a load of rubbish about him wearing a bulky coat, ignoring police warnings ,jumping ticket barrier, sprinting onto the train? None of that happened.
Same with Forest Gate. Maybe the officers on the ground truly believed their lives were in danger, fine. But why then make up stories to feed to the press about how the shot man was a terrorist, or how it was his brother who shot him with his own gun, or that they attacked the police and a gun went off by accident, or that he's a drug dealer who's got child pornography on his computer? None of that happened.
That's a big problem with those events, not just the shooting of innocent people by police, but the concerted efforts of the police to blame/smear those people when they've done nothing wrong.
Not that these things excuse looting, burning down houses, but they do explain some anger at the police, if the same thing was perceived to be happening again in this case.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Sketchley wrote:
That may well be true. But does it justify breaking in to a Currys superstore and stealing all the stock? Or setting fire to building? or burning a bus? It doesn't, and furthermore will such behaviour bring about a change for the better? Probably not, and ironically the only change that this is likely to cause is a reduction in the cuts being applied to the police so they can deal with civil unrest.
As for the rioters in Brixton and other parts of London, please feel free try and justify that on the Met's past performance or the shooting in Tottenham. This copycat looting is simply criminals looking north and thinking I'll have some of that and has nothing to do with the Met or the shooting.
No-one's defending looters and arsonists.
As I posted before, the feeling seems to be that the Tottenham riot got people in other areas angry too - at the way they get treated. I imagine it's compounded by people who just want to kick things off.
The point is that, often, when the police treat certain communities unfairly, it has been known to result in riots. the '92 LA riots and the Watts riots are classic examples.
There's a list on wikipedia that lists all urban riots and their causes. The majority are to do with discrimination, often police related, or general socio-economic issues (which usually have discrimination embedded)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riots
Bollox. The looters in other areas saw the looters in Tottenham getting free TVs and Trainers and thought I want some of that! Nothing more than that.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I don't think anyone can argue convincingly that the met doesn't have serious systemic problems.
.
I don't think anyone can argue convincingly that the met has serious systemic problems.
An unarmed consensual Police force looking after a world city of 8 million people.
Overall pretty good really.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
bails87 wrote:gtvlusso
Ok, so the officer makes the difficult (and given the info he had, in my mind, correct but tragic) decision to shoot Menezes.
Where is the justification for then putting out a load of rubbish about him wearing a bulky coat, ignoring police warnings ,jumping ticket barrier, sprinting onto the train? None of that happened.
Same with Forest Gate. Maybe the officers on the ground truly believed their lives were in danger, fine. But why then make up stories to feed to the press about how the shot man was a terrorist, or how it was his brother who shot him with his own gun, or that they attacked the police and a gun went off by accident, or that he's a drug dealer who's got child pornography on his computer? None of that happened.
That's a big problem with those events, not just the shooting of innocent people by police, but the concerted efforts of the police to blame/smear those people when they've done nothing wrong.
Not that these things excuse looting, burning down houses, but they do explain some anger at the police, if the same thing was perceived to be happening again in this case.
Yes agreed. But doesn't the fact that the police have issued the statement about the bullet being of "police type" show they are passed this now? If they were trying to cover things up, why say this when they could of said they were still waiting on ballistic reports.
Sometimes giving out the right information is the wrong thing if it causes provocation or panic. For example 7/7 was initially reported as a electrical surge on the underground so as not to cause panic. This doesn't justify the cases you mention were the met clearly got the PR wrong.
On another note sirens are going off a lot around Old Street this afternoon.....--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
-
I think the problem here is that the Met state that this was a planned operation. i.e. one assumes they went to get this guy off the streets (and it apears that this is one nasty piece of work we're talking about BTW).
Anyway, presumably they knew the man, the time and the place and already had armed officers on the scene.
And when the smoke clears there is a dead scrote and (apparently) only police weapons discharged. There was a non-police weapon recovered from the scene, but it was apprantly in a sock.
The bullet in the radio was instantly used as justification for opening up a lead storm - but turns out to be police issue?????
In an environment of distrust I can see that it would be pretty easy to put two and two together and come up with a much higher number indeed.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
Are we talking about the guy whose main photo in the news appears to be of him making a gun sign, and who, it seems to me to be universally agreed, was carrying a gun at the time "but only in his sock"?
All the facts will surely out, and I'm sure many views will change as they do (very possibly mine) but for the time being I'll not be at the front of any queue of people demanding police resign.
SImilarly, the rioting seems to be nothing to do with any police brutality rather than an excuse for a bit of a ruck. I'm sure you can find some people with hands that smell of petrol, and a new TV in the living room who will now tell you they robbed Dixons for the cause, but really don't we all know that's just a load of self-serving B0LL0CKS?0 -
Sketchley wrote:
Yes agreed. But doesn't the fact that the police have issued the statement about the bullet being of "police type" show they are passed this now? If they were trying to cover things up, why say this when they could have said they were still waiting on ballistic reports.
.
The IPCC reported that, not the met.0 -
Sketchley wrote:bails87 wrote:gtvlusso
Ok, so the officer makes the difficult (and given the info he had, in my mind, correct but tragic) decision to shoot Menezes.
Where is the justification for then putting out a load of rubbish about him wearing a bulky coat, ignoring police warnings ,jumping ticket barrier, sprinting onto the train? None of that happened.
Same with Forest Gate. Maybe the officers on the ground truly believed their lives were in danger, fine. But why then make up stories to feed to the press about how the shot man was a terrorist, or how it was his brother who shot him with his own gun, or that they attacked the police and a gun went off by accident, or that he's a drug dealer who's got child pornography on his computer? None of that happened.
That's a big problem with those events, not just the shooting of innocent people by police, but the concerted efforts of the police to blame/smear those people when they've done nothing wrong.
Not that these things excuse looting, burning down houses, but they do explain some anger at the police, if the same thing was perceived to be happening again in this case.
Yes agreed. But doesn't the fact that the police have issued the statement about the bullet being of "police type" show they are passed this now? If they were trying to cover things up, why say this when they could have said they were still waiting on ballistic reports.
Sometimes giving out the right information is the wrong thing if it causes provocation or panic. For example 7/7 was initially reported as a electrical surge on the underground so as not to cause panic. This doesn't justify the cases you mention were the met clearly got the PR wrong.
On another note sirens are going off a lot around Old Street this afternoon.....
^^This.
I also think that there is so much media pressure for information that the Police say almost anything and everything - complete transparency with the ongoing investigation - perhaps things are said too early without results because of our media's lust for information. Iit is very easy to suggest and for suggestion that to be turned by misinterpretation by media and public. power of suggestion eh!
yes, there are inaccuracies in reporting, but we demand so much information that perhaps accounts are incorrect misleading and so on. Sometimes it may be a Police issue with an officer trying to cover something up - sometimes it is over analysed media coverage and suggestion that is, in the end incorrect.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Sketchley wrote:
Bollox. The looters in other areas saw the looters in Tottenham getting free TVs and Trainers and thought I want some of that! Nothing more than that.
I think there is some anger. I posted that quote above, a few pages back.
When people are happy, they don't riot.
Agreed. The anger is the rioters in Tottenham have free TVs and we don't hence the looting in Brixton.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:
.....
On another note sirens are going off a lot around Old Street this afternoon.....
not more than normal right?
there was a few this morning, but nothing around lunch time?
apparently twitter is going berserk and that's how they're "organising" ... somewhere else tonight?0 -
But we've already had the initial version of events where there was an exchange of fire between someone in the cab and the officers. If that turns out to not be true (I'm not saying it;s false, it could be that the deceased was firing police issue bullets at the police, stolen, illegally bought or homemade) then it's yet another case of the police lying in the immediate aftermath of them killing/wounding a member of the public*.Sketchley wrote:
Yes agreed. But doesn't the fact that the police have issued the statement about the bullet being of "police type" show they are passed this now? If they were trying to cover things up, why say this when they could have said they were still waiting on ballistic reports.
*He may well be a gang member, he may well have been dealing drugs or jumping red lights or eating kittens, it doesn't matter, he's still a member of the public and is innocent until proven guilty. The police can't shoot people without good reason, maybe they had it, in which case, fine.0 -
bails87 wrote:
But we've already had the initial version of events where there was an exchange of fire between someone in the cab and the officers. If that turns out to not be true (I'm not saying it;s false, it could be that the deceased was firing police issue bullets at the police, stolen, illegally bought or homemade) then it's yet another case of the police lying in the immediate aftermath of them killing/wounding a member of the public*.Sketchley wrote:
Yes agreed. But doesn't the fact that the police have issued the statement about the bullet being of "police type" show they are passed this now? If they were trying to cover things up, why say this when they could have said they were still waiting on ballistic reports.
*He may well be a gang member, he may well have been dealing drugs or jumping red lights or eating kittens, it doesn't matter, he's still a member of the public and is innocent until proven guilty. The police can't shoot people without good reason, maybe they had it, in which case, fine.
I may have misunderstood you here, so bear with me:
Are you saying that the Police are not allowed to return fire on a suspect firing at them? The Police may well have fired first if they had good reason to believe the general publics safety could be compromised by this individual.0 -
Garnett wrote:Are we talking about the guy whose main photo in the news appears to be of him making a gun sign, and who, it seems to me to be universally agreed, was carrying a gun at the time "but only in his sock"?
1. There's a photo of me on facebook with an actual gun. So what. I was on a shooting range, it was all legal and safe.
2.Obviously he shouldn't have had a gun, if he took the gun out or aimed it at anyone then yes, the police were right to shoot him. But if the gun was only discovered after he was shot dead then that's a very different matter.
I'm not saying anyone should resign or we should take to the streets and loot one of those lovely Le Creuset pans from John Lewis, but lets just wait for the IPCC report to come out and take anything else with a big pinch of salt.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:No-one's defending looters and arsonists.
As I posted before, the feeling seems to be that the Tottenham riot got people in other areas angry too - at the way they get treated. I imagine it's compounded by people who just want to kick things off.
The point is that, often, when the police treat certain communities unfairly, it has been known to result in riots. the '92 LA riots and the Watts riots are classic examples.
There's a list on wikipedia that lists all urban riots and their causes. The majority are to do with discrimination, often police related, or general socio-economic issues (which usually have discrimination embedded)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riots
+1, But I think the majority of the people on this forum will be more concerned with condemning the rioters rather than etiology. Trying to discuss the conditions that can lead to events like this is like pissing into the wind :P0 -
gtvlusso wrote:bails87 wrote:The police can't shoot people without good reason, maybe they had it, in which case, fine.
I may have misunderstood you here, so bear with me:
Are you saying that the Police are not allowed to return fire on a suspect firing at them? The Police may well have fired first if they had good reason to believe the general publics safety could be compromised by this individual.
Can you quote my post that gave you the impression that I believed the part in bold?
I think my stance on that is pretty obvious.0 -
Good quote:Rioting is often described as 'mindless'. The problem is, it's not. I know why the word is used: it expresses our incredulity and sometimes points to the rioting's counter-productiveness … But people who riot do have minds, and in these lie the reasons for their rioting.
Those reasons vary, and may be various. They will be bad reasons, even when miserably explicable. But reasons, they are. Call them motives, if you prefer. These may be greed, hatred, a craving for status, for battle and excitement and for an antisocial sort of liberty. Some deep, possibly incoherent rage against authority and a safer, kinder more prosperous world they can't join might be part of this story too. None of this is evidence of mindlessness, and to declare it so is to hide from reality.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:No-one's defending looters and arsonists.
As I posted before, the feeling seems to be that the Tottenham riot got people in other areas angry too - at the way they get treated. I imagine it's compounded by people who just want to kick things off.
The point is that, often, when the police treat certain communities unfairly, it has been known to result in riots. the '92 LA riots and the Watts riots are classic examples.
There's a list on wikipedia that lists all urban riots and their causes. The majority are to do with discrimination, often police related, or general socio-economic issues (which usually have discrimination embedded)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riots
+1, But I think the majority of the people on this forum will be more concerned with condemning the rioters rather than etiology. Trying to discuss the conditions that can lead to events like this is like pissing into the wind :P
Ah, it kills some time in a dull job and makes me feel better about myself because I'm sitting on the lefty high ground.0 -
bails87 wrote:But we've already had the initial version of events where there was an exchange of fire between someone in the cab and the officers. If that turns out to not be true (I'm not saying it;s false, it could be that the deceased was firing police issue bullets at the police, stolen, illegally bought or homemade) then it's yet another case of the police lying in the immediate aftermath of them killing/wounding a member of the public*.
The police can't shoot people without good reason, maybe they had it, in which case, fine.
Again - in full context as above;
In which case, where are the Police lying, what statement? And what are you arguing about? I am a bit lost with your line of thought. Are you saying that the Police have lied to the public on this very new investigation - already?0 -
Has this affected any of the Olympic test events?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
gtvlusso wrote:bails87 wrote:But we've already had the initial version of events where there was an exchange of fire between someone in the cab and the officers. If that turns out to not be true (I'm not saying it;s false, it could be that the deceased was firing police issue bullets at the police, stolen, illegally bought or homemade) then it's yet another case of the police lying in the immediate aftermath of them killing/wounding a member of the public*.
The police can't shoot people without good reason, maybe they had it, in which case, fine.
Again - in full context as above;
In which case, where are the Police lying, what statement? And what are you arguing about? I am a bit lost with your line of thought. Are you saying that the Police have lied to the public on this very new investigation - already?
My point was that originally we were told that:
1-Police stop car
2-Someone in car shoots at police
3-Police officer is hit by bullet from inside car
4-Police return fire
5-Mark Dugan is shot dead by police
As I said if that turns out not to be true, then it will be a case of the police lying. I did say "if".
I also said that if they had good reason to shoot then that was fine.
So, again, where did I say that the police should not shoot back at a suspect who's shooting at them?0 -
notsoblue wrote:+1, But I think the majority of the people on this forum will be more concerned with condemning the rioters rather than etiology. Trying to discuss the conditions that can lead to events like this is like pissing into the wind :P
Cause - thats easy:
1. Blame Wiggle
2. Blame Tony Blair for creating a country who expect everything handed to them on a plate and when its not and hard choices have to be made then kick off.
Simples.0 -
JZed wrote:notsoblue wrote:+1, But I think the majority of the people on this forum will be more concerned with condemning the rioters rather than etiology. Trying to discuss the conditions that can lead to events like this is like pissing into the wind :P
Cause - thats easy:
1. Blame Wiggle
2. Blame Tony Blair for creating a country who expect everything handed to them on a plate and when its not and hard choices have to be made then kick off.
Simples.
Tony Blair! Are we not supposed to blame Thatcher? Or am I showing my age?--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
I think the vast majority rioting yesterday had a reason to do so and an excuse.
It's just the reason (wanting a bit of violent vandalism, and the chance to nick stuff) and the excuse ("We was doing it becus'v that geeser that was shot, like") are two utterly different things. Even if the rioters are able to convince themselves otherwise.0
