Oh Cack
-
Like I said, I cant see why they didnt stop him in the street way before he got to the tube. That decision was sheer stupidity. I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. OK, here you go, your car gets broken into. One WPC comes round, if you are lucky, and takes a statement. Fuck all happens. You get stopped without road tax, its a month out, and you have one special, one normal cop, a traffic car with a copper in it, and a panda with a copper for half an hour. Its hapened to me. I personally think our police are useless, they just pick on the motorist because it is an easy life and theyt are lazy fuckkers. They are also thugs. If they werent in uniform they would be behind bars. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years and I went to a lot of police social events. Nunc est bibendum!
Look, I've also had a couple of 'experiences' with the police but I won't be pushed to think they are all bad because 1 or 2 may be. And I wish you were not quite so quick to judge; especially as you say your wife was in the force. You display a singular lack of tolerance with your remarks. Shame.
-
Sorry, but in this case, you're wrong. According to the leaked report they had explicit orders to shoot to kill. Whoever gave that order needs to be punished. If the officers who pulled the trigger are held responsible, then you can kiss any armed police presence in London goodbye - the others would down their weapons and hand in their cards.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: According to the leaked report they had explicit orders to shoot to kill. Whoever gave that order needs to be punished. If the officers who pulled the trigger are held responsible, then you can kiss any armed police presence in London goodbye - the others would down their weapons and hand in their cards. And the terrorists will have free rein to run wild in London, safe and sound in the knowledge that the Police aren't armed. That would make me feel MUCH safer. Whoever gave the order to shoot to kill was absolutely justified and should be supported for having the courage to make that decision. Are we trying to protect the general population or the terrorists here?
-
Like I said, I cant see why they didnt stop him in the street way before he got to the tube. That decision was sheer stupidity. I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. OK, here you go, your car gets broken into. One WPC comes round, if you are lucky, and takes a statement. Fuck all happens. You get stopped without road tax, its a month out, and you have one special, one normal cop, a traffic car with a copper in it, and a panda with a copper for half an hour. Its hapened to me. I personally think our police are useless, they just pick on the motorist because it is an easy life and theyt are lazy fuckkers. They are also thugs. If they werent in uniform they would be behind bars. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years and I went to a lot of police social events. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: Its hapened to me. I personally think our police are useless, they just pick on the motorist because it is an easy life and theyt are lazy f***kers. They are also thugs. If they werent in uniform they would be behind bars. Don't forget that the role of the police is to protect the law. Politicians make laws, so if the police are spending a lot of time chasing motorists, it's largely because of the emphasis politicians have placed on speeding, because it's an emotive headline subject with deaths blamed on it. If you want to complain about the jobs the police are doing, lean on your MP or vote Monster Raving Loony Party. Oh, sorry, I forgot, they are already in power.
-
Sorry, but in this case, you're wrong. According to the leaked report they had explicit orders to shoot to kill. Whoever gave that order needs to be punished. If the officers who pulled the trigger are held responsible, then you can kiss any armed police presence in London goodbye - the others would down their weapons and hand in their cards.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Whoever gave that order needs to be punished I totally agree, but IMHO the shooters should be put in trial too, not with the same degree of responsability of course, even if they should be declared not guilty or be symbolically condemned. A weapon holder has to be responsible for the use (s)he mades of it, (s)he isn't a mindless robot.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Whoever gave that order needs to be punished I totally agree, but IMHO the shooters should be put in trial too, not with the same degree of responsability of course, even if they should be declared not guilty or be symbolically condemned. A weapon holder has to be responsible for the use (s)he mades of it, (s)he isn't a mindless robot.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
Sorry, but you won't convince me Karl - not in this specific case. Dragging an officer through the courts for this would a terrible error and would basically tell every other armed officer in the UK that they have no backup and no support from above. There are such things as rules of engagement - and on that day, the rule was "shoot to kill". This is not a Nazi soldier being ordered to shoot people he KNOWS are innocent - this was a someone shooting a man who he believed (thanks to crap intel) was one of the London bombers.
-
I can't say you're wrong in any of the points you make. I do feel that some of the posters are a being a little harsh in their judgements of the police. And of course I agree that where a mistake is made the perpetrator of that mistake should be big enough to hold their hands up and admit to it. Sadly, in real life, that does not (usually) happen. And with your final example I do agree but would point out that no amount of copensation can ever make up for the loss of a loved one, especially a child.
Agreed on everything. Mark Merrens wrote: I do feel that some of the posters are a being a little harsh in their judgements of the police. IMHO, people may be more shocked by the cover-up of the story than by the mistake which was made.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
Sorry, but you won't convince me Karl - not in this specific case. Dragging an officer through the courts for this would a terrible error and would basically tell every other armed officer in the UK that they have no backup and no support from above. There are such things as rules of engagement - and on that day, the rule was "shoot to kill". This is not a Nazi soldier being ordered to shoot people he KNOWS are innocent - this was a someone shooting a man who he believed (thanks to crap intel) was one of the London bombers.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: you won't convince me Hey, I'm not Jim Phelps[^] :-D
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
-
fat_boy wrote: What cock. If he was so suspicious he needed shooting if he ran, why the f*** didnt the police stop him on the street way before he got to any where crowded? The police are f***ing idiots. Riiiight, f***ing idiots. They were watching the house to try and get information about the activities of terrorists, for Christ's sake. They started trailing a suspect who could have led them to the ringleader, or to a meeting of suicide bombers, or to who knows what information. Taking him out as soon as he left the front door would have alerted everyone in the house, and they would have immediately alerted all their associates that they were being watched. That would have been really smart. The Police aren't just trying to prevent an attack, they are trying to collect enough information to convict the potential bombers, and to lead them to their associates, ringleaders, funders, leaders etc. If you're trailing a suspect, you don't take them out right away, you try to get as much information from them as possible while they don't think they're being watched first. "f***ing idiots" Jeez.....
If he had a bomb, and the police thought he had, then it is pretty stupid to let the guy anywhere near a crowded place and then only shoot hin if he runs. What idiocy! If he has a bomb and runs, he is as likely to set it off, so the police tactic to shoot only if he runs is dumb. If he is on his way to a meeting, he isnt going to be carying an active bomb so dosnt need shooting. Nunc est bibendum!
-
Yeah, she has thuggish tendencies, but as a copper, she was one of the rare ones who actually solved petty crime cases. The police get no thanks because they dont do their job. They just pick on motorists and drunk kids hanging around town centers. And as for their pay being peanuts, that is cock. Since these people are mostly un qualified, or ex-army, they actually get a good pay considering their level of inteligence. Any one with a degree will get fast tracked up to sargent within two years and will be on 35k sterling. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: The police get no thanks because they dont do their job. They just pick on motorists and drunk kids hanging around town centers. Speeding motorists, motorists parked illegally or causing an obstruction, and underage kids drinking are all breaking the law, so the Police have a duty to deal with them. How is that "not doing their job"? If they didn't have to spend so long filling in endless paperwork back at the station to ensure that the human rights of some inhuman thug that's just mugged an old lady are upheld, they would have far more time to spend on the sort of crimes you seem to consider more important.
-
fat_boy wrote: The police get no thanks because they dont do their job. They just pick on motorists and drunk kids hanging around town centers. Speeding motorists, motorists parked illegally or causing an obstruction, and underage kids drinking are all breaking the law, so the Police have a duty to deal with them. How is that "not doing their job"? If they didn't have to spend so long filling in endless paperwork back at the station to ensure that the human rights of some inhuman thug that's just mugged an old lady are upheld, they would have far more time to spend on the sort of crimes you seem to consider more important.
Oh yeah, 95 miles an hour, what a crime. I forgot just how serious that is and how much it impacts society. And as for parking, why not park on a roundabout. Nothing else is using it and its a perfectly safe place to leave a car for a few hours. Did I say underage? I think not! Puny 18/19/20 year olds, drunk, swearing at each other, being taunted by the police to the point where they mouth off at them giving said copper the excuse to wade in and give them a beating. (And yes, they take them to alleys where CCTV doesnt extend to give them the beating) So what sort of crimes do I 'seem to consider important' that you think are trivial? How about mugging, burglary, GBH, ABH, fraud, theft, are they not more important than doing 95 miles an hour? Nunc est bibendum!
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Whoever gave that order needs to be punished I totally agree, but IMHO the shooters should be put in trial too, not with the same degree of responsability of course, even if they should be declared not guilty or be symbolically condemned. A weapon holder has to be responsible for the use (s)he mades of it, (s)he isn't a mindless robot.
- Not a substitute for human interaction -
There is always an investigation after a shooting and then the decision is made about a prosecution. As others have said, the people giving the orders must be included in this. The tigress is here :-D
-
Yeah, this story has changed so much since the start, I don't think any of us public can be blamed for misinterpretting what happened. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
ColinDavies wrote: I don't think any of us public can be blamed for misinterpretting what happened. i disagree. seemed like a lot of people jumped to conclusions that weren't supported by much evidence. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
If he had a bomb, and the police thought he had, then it is pretty stupid to let the guy anywhere near a crowded place and then only shoot hin if he runs. What idiocy! If he has a bomb and runs, he is as likely to set it off, so the police tactic to shoot only if he runs is dumb. If he is on his way to a meeting, he isnt going to be carying an active bomb so dosnt need shooting. Nunc est bibendum!
So tell me, oh-so-smart-one, how do you tell the difference?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
So tell me, oh-so-smart-one, how do you tell the difference?
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
How the hell would I know the reasons why the police thought he had a bomb? The fact is they did or they wouldnt have shot him. The stupidity is that if he had a bomb, the police let him into a crowded area. Surely you can see what I am getting at. Nunc est bibendum!
-
There is always an investigation after a shooting and then the decision is made about a prosecution. As others have said, the people giving the orders must be included in this. The tigress is here :-D
-
Like I said, I cant see why they didnt stop him in the street way before he got to the tube. That decision was sheer stupidity. I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. OK, here you go, your car gets broken into. One WPC comes round, if you are lucky, and takes a statement. Fuck all happens. You get stopped without road tax, its a month out, and you have one special, one normal cop, a traffic car with a copper in it, and a panda with a copper for half an hour. Its hapened to me. I personally think our police are useless, they just pick on the motorist because it is an easy life and theyt are lazy fuckkers. They are also thugs. If they werent in uniform they would be behind bars. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years and I went to a lot of police social events. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. Just what did they say that was a lie? fat_boy wrote: get stopped without road tax Seems fair. It is illegal to drive without road tax. You broke the law, you got fined for it.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
fat_boy wrote: I've had police lie in court and cause me to get points and fines. Just what did they say that was a lie? fat_boy wrote: get stopped without road tax Seems fair. It is illegal to drive without road tax. You broke the law, you got fined for it.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
He lied about when he turned on the blue lights which caused me to be found guilty of failing to stop. No road tax is an offence. What is indicative is the amount of police interest it generated compared to my car geting broken into which is an offence and a crime. Nunc est bibendum!
-
How the hell would I know the reasons why the police thought he had a bomb? The fact is they did or they wouldnt have shot him. The stupidity is that if he had a bomb, the police let him into a crowded area. Surely you can see what I am getting at. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: Surely you can see what I am getting at. I can see what you are getting at, but I also think that your logic isn't right. viaduct's post a while ago gives a good explanation of the logic the police would have been using. 1. They don't want to alert the terrorists in the house to their precence. 2. They want to gather as much information as possible, hoping that trailing the guy will lead them to a ringleader or other person higher up the chain of command. 3. When the situation appears to be more dangerous for the public than anticipated they responde by taking out the perceived threat. Going by previous MOs walking down the street is not a threat. Entering a tube station and running for a train enter the realm of a previous MO used on multiple occasions and therefore the threat level immediately escalates. The police are always torn between getting as much information in order to convict or prevent future crimes and the safety of the public. They saw their suspect as a threat to public safety and when that happened they removed the threat. It boils down to the police making a desision of them taking one life over the potential of their suspect taking many lives. Robert's comments are right. The police have a thankless task in this and it is a job I certainly wouldn't want to do.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
He lied about when he turned on the blue lights which caused me to be found guilty of failing to stop. No road tax is an offence. What is indicative is the amount of police interest it generated compared to my car geting broken into which is an offence and a crime. Nunc est bibendum!
I assume that you do check your rear-view mirror regularly - at the six second intervals that are taught during driving lessons. I've found that surprisingly few people bother to check that regularly and fail to notice flashing lights behind them. I've seen many people sit in the motorway for ages with an emergency vehicle trying to get past completely oblivious until the siren is also turned on.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More
-
fat_boy wrote: theyt are lazy f***kers. They are also thugs. I happen to know this as my wife was a cop for 5 years Which, by your usual twisted logic, makes her a thug and a lazy fucker right? You seem to have this knack of tarring entire groups of people with the same brush. Pathetic. The police do a (mostly) thankless job for fucking peanuts.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The police do a (mostly) thankless job for f***ing peanuts. I must be ill... I've found myself agreeing with you on virtually all the points you've made.
My: Blog | Photos WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and More