Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Police State

Our RoE are rubbish, but have you seen the video, I like the bit where the upper deck sentry nails the guy on the RIB with a single shot in the dark, well thats naval gunnery for you!
 
Not qualified in any way, shape or form to comment on Armed Police procedures, or whether Jean Charles was killed because he was a real risk. But if my son was going about his reasonable business, even if he had stayed beyond his visa permit, I'd be desolate if he was shot to death for something that was absolutely nothing to do with him.

It is entirely reasonable that the de Menezes family should be given the dignity of an open public enquiry. It won't bring the poor boy back, but it would show that UK plc admits its mistakes and treats the bereaved in a humane manner. It would also help the family to begin to put this horrific sequence of events behind them.
 
asst_dep_to_dep_asst said:
Not qualified in any way, shape or form to comment on Armed Police procedures, or whether Jean Charles was killed because he was a real risk. But if my son was going about his reasonable business, even if he had stayed beyond his visa permit, I'd be desolate if he was shot to death for something that was absolutely nothing to do with him.

It is entirely reasonable that the de Menezes family should be given the dignity of an open public enquiry. It won't bring the poor boy back, but it would show that UK plc admits its mistakes and treats the bereaved in a humane manner. It would also help the family to begin to put this horrific sequence of events behind them.

Well said sir and I concur with every word. Its time that the province of Blairopia stood up and admitted "Ooops we got it wrong " Sorry...and heres a few quid in compo
 
sboatsforever said:
Peps before we start slating the police in this country please remeber that we have just as hard a job as the guys abroad fighting wars that they shouldnt be in!
They wouldn't be slated if they didn't cock up so badly, this op was a clusterfcuk.
 
ThePunisher said:
Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing police officers using stress/pucker factor etc as an excuse for POOR DRILLS.
Even allowing for adrenalin, why was it deemed necessary to shoot a man while he was being restrained by an other officer? He was not carrying or wearing ANYTHING that could have contained explosives. His arms were pinned, so he could not have reached for any type of concealed weapon.
After the SAS stormed the Iranian Embassy, they found one of the terrorists hiding among the hostages. There was no doubt to his identity but, because he was unarmed, the Hooligans took him alive.
If a police officer, even under extreme stress, shoots a man who is being restrained, who could not possibly be concealing explosives on his person, then that officer should never be allowed to bear arms again. He is simply not good enough.
The worrying thing is that SO19 is supposed to be the top police firearms unit in the UK, But they have'nt exactly covered themselves with glory since 7/7; one innocent man shot dead and another wounded.

The Punisher

I was there, stationed as a CID Officer at Gerald Road PS, at there time of the siege, which covered the Iranian Embassy. All recorded public details indicate that the Government and Military were looking for a clean sweep. The un-armed terrorist was taken into the rear garden where with others he was filmed and photographed, alive, by Police Officer. Upon finding out he was a terrorist he was taken back inside where a member of the Regiment saw sense and prevented his execution which would of meant soldiers facing a charge of murder under British law, no argument no discussion they would have been charged, If a jury had found them guilty is a different matter.

Rightly or wrongly thats what happened. The Military were about to murder a suspect who was in lawful custody.

Also what are these poor drills. After 20+ years on the mean streets of South London who gives feck about drills, Plod faces 30 or 40 different situations on each shift. They can't even cover all the beats let alone do drills. They are not soldiers who train for 51 weeks and do it for 1, its 8 hours a day every day for real.

So why should any Plod voluntary carry a weapon when they do not have to and even less reason when ill-informed pricks like you want to crucify them.

Nutty
 
Nutty said:
Also what are these poor drills. After 20+ years on the mean streets of South London who gives feck about drills, Plod faces 30 or 40 different situations on each shift. They can't even cover all the beats let alone do drills. They are not soldiers who train for 51 weeks and do it for 1, its 8 hours a day every day for real.

Nutty
Agreed, coming from a long line of fedaralis that is correct. Soldiers do train for the most part and the feds do it every day. Anybody see combat missions? It was a competition in the states between all the "elite" units, Seals, USMC recon, SWAT, Delta etc. Everyone excelled in their own areas of fitness and drills, the cops suffered a bit on the running and swimming etc. but SWAT kicked ass on the hostage rescue ans all shooting tests. In the end it came down to 2 men in a dircet shooting match, one shot deal, of course SWAT won. Why? Because they are at war 24/7, often with little backup. Unfortunately for the feds in London they fcuked up in a big loud public way, it happens, not sure they should have got away with it, but then none of us were there and only know what we are told from the press, so for that we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think.
 
I cannot and would not criticise the police for their behaviour however perverse it may have been. What I do criticise is their refusal to admit that they made a mistake and compensate the poor lads family.
Come on guys...own up...you got it wrong (To err is human and we all do it) so just give the lads parents the satisfaction of a government and police apology
 
Chief Tiff

Like all senior management they pass the blame down the line until it reaches a point where it can no longer be dumped. Be that person a PC, AB, CPO or Police Inspector.

This makes little difference to what ever organization is involved, a charity, PLC, Armed Service, Fire Brigade, Boys Brigade. No doubt we, have all in our time tried to pass the buck on. The more power you have the easier it is.

Many years ago the Commissioner was my immediate boss. I am not a fan, even then it was obvious his interest lay in reaching the top not being a effective Police Officer serving the public on the streets. All organisations have the ambitious, few are good at the core tasks, but still make the top.

So blame both the senior military who's man went for a piss and lost eyeball, which then started a chain reaction of poor decisions made in panic. That would have got anyone thrown off a survelience course or team a few years ago. Cardinal error. It matters little if it was their first Op. it was a basic school boy mistake which should have been removed long before they hit the streets of South London, for which management from the most junior level upwards should take responsibilty.

Then blame the Senior Police and Home Office Officials who were so busy covering themselves that any admittance would be seen as a sign of weakness. Hence no admission, I cannot see for the life of me why any financial compensation should be paid as the man had no financial dependants.

Nutty
 
It is always the same Nutty, those at the bottom of the pile usually, though not always, carry the can. A classic example is those businessmen accused of fraud connected with Enron. If they were any poor employee there would be no Parliamentary protests because they could not afford expensive lawyers and would not have friends in the City to lobby on their behalf. When you are wealthy or powerful, different rules are seen to operate, promoting a degree of cynicism about the criminal justice process.

The problem with the Menedes shooting was that the Police Commissioner spoke before he knew the full facts and slandered the victim, then having ascertained a fuller picture of the facts tried again to shift the blame onto the victim. The Menedes family deserve a public apology by the PM, who again fully backed the Police Commissioner before being fully cogniscant with the facts. Compensation should be paid by the Met. and Commissioner Blair should take personal responsibility, for his actions, and resign. Likewise, those elsewhere who did not act professionally should be invited to consider their positions. Those that decide to stay should be sacked. None of this will happen of course.

Steve.
 
I don't want to blame anyone Nutty me old chum. I just want the goverrnment and the police authorities to admit they made a mistake. I don't want a witch hunt or an enquiry because I don't believe they will achieve anything but a list of recommendations for Tony or his successor to ignore.

No mate, all I ask is that we "The British people" admit that whilst in pursuit of peace within our shores and whilst defending our citizens, we simply made an awful tragic mistake for which we are sorry. Compensation such as it may be will never ease the pain or the feeling of loss the poor parents may be feeling but it would go some way to helping them.
 
This country is all backwards. We hate stop and search to deter knife carrying (civil liberties) so we send plod out to deal with villains with one hand tied behind his back.
This is obviously a issue that has broadly divided people into the 'right or wrong' camps. Yet without having witnessed either the shooting or the original incidents which led to it I find it difficult to make too much comment in either direction.

However, a couple of points. Whether or not the man had a bomb when he was confronted is really not pertinent. It is the actions of the police that are under examination. There is a very thin dividing line between people who are prepared to use violence and particularly those who are prepared to use bombs and those who are not. Those who are so prepared will, when cornered, pull the cord, so cannot just be 'sat down and guarded' without danger. The reality for plod is, if you continually take chances like that eventually you will lose.
So when the police came across this “Poor lad†visiting terrorist haunts they obviously did a radio check and found he didn’t exist on paper, so they followed him, He looked like a terrorist, he acted like a terrorist, so he was challenged, NOW HE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AND PUT HIS HANDS IN THE AIR, but he didn’t, he ran, after that the pursuing plods had no other choice but to take him out, quick.
The family ( who have given a whole new meaning to the term economic migrants) would like us to believe he was murdered, but in reality when he decided to run the “poor lad†committed suicide.

………
 
UncleAlbert said:
However, a couple of points. Whether or not the man had a bomb when he was confronted is really not pertinent. It is the actions of the police that are under examination. There is a very thin dividing line between people who are prepared to use violence and particularly those who are prepared to use bombs and those who are not. Those who are so prepared will, when cornered, pull the cord, so cannot just be 'sat down and guarded' without danger. The reality for plod is, if you continually take chances like that eventually you will lose.

So when the police came across this “Poor lad†visiting terrorist haunts they obviously did a radio check and found he didn’t exist on paper, so they followed him, He looked like a terrorist, he acted like a terrorist, so he was challenged, NOW HE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AND PUT HIS HANDS IN THE AIR, but he didn’t, he ran, after that the pursuing plods had no other choice but to take him out, quick.
.

………

UA

I have edited your post for sake of clarity. I agree with what you say but the two high lighted points I feel are very open to debate and may not reflect what actually happened as so far reported facts are known.

A: I doubt very much if plod had any idea who was in the premises which were under surveillance let alone have sufficient details of the occupants to have completed any CRO, S/B etc.checks it just ain't like the movies. I doubt if the identity of the victim was known until after his death.

B: To date the evidence that the victim even ran is conflicting to say the least and even if he did it could have been to catch the train. Any person who regularly uses the LT Underground will run at least every other day to catch a train.

It looks like no sight of the report of the incident will be available for at least 2 years and even longer for all the appeals etc. to be completed

Nutty
 
Nutty

Well as we only have the media evidence available its hard to know the truth but I find it difficult to believe the police are that bleedin useless. Perhaps nowadays they have got their priorities wrong with their bludgeoning of middle England with traffic fines, but they are still pretty professional as far as terrorists are concerned. After all they have been fighting them hands on since 1968.
Ask yourselves (and be honest) if you had been that plod would you have tried to physically restrain him and asked him to come quietly or would you have blasted him?

………
 
As I understand it Menedes WALKED to the train, boarded it and sat down, and was then held down and in the course of being restrained, shot multiple times. There were claims that he ran initially but most eye witness evidence appears to conflict with this (though of course eye witness evidence is notoriously unreliable) and then there is that interesting missing video. Walking/running to catch a Tube is what the majority of Tube passengers do everyday. If this is to form the basis for shooting somebody then there would be few Londoners left to defend. :roll:
 
I don't think how he got on the train realy matters, the descision was made when he entered the tube station as the officer in charge decided that another tube bomb had to be avoided at all costs.

It is clear the whole operation was poorly set up and managed, and blame for that must lie at the door of the officer in charge. In sufficient and poorly briefed survailance staff, armed unit also poorly briefed and late on the scene, poor comms, and that is even before one considers the lack of good radio cover underground.

Now as the officer in charge is one of the met's figurehead women it seems every thing is being done to protect her.

As to Nutty's coments about the present commisioner displaying more interest in promotion than policing, I would suggest that in most organisations those who get to the top display similar characteristics.

Peter
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top