the moose

Ditto - I have a close relative (can't get closer!) in a similar position who displays exactly this attitude. Won't even admit to having sandwiches, let alone what's in them.

OllyK

Intelligence feeds in to Special Operations:


Head of it is the Assistant Commisioner is who is:

AC Tarique Ghaffur

So now we know who your cousin is. Does he know you are telling people that he is unable to keep secrets?

vindaloo

From the point at which the copper on surveilance was having a slash, the entire situation is a gigantic c*ck-up.

If we have to have a shoot to kill policy, then at least let us get the basic police work right. Whatever happened to establishing the likely "modus opperandi" and actually seeing with your own eyes that a bloke in a pair of jeans and a denim jacket doesn't fit the profile.

IMO this shooting is worse than another bomb going off. It shows the lack of grip that TPTB had on the situation. In demonstrates to the British public and internationally a lack of rationality in making decisions.

Don't get me wrong, another bomb would be a tragedy but it doesn't shake my confidence in the same way that that case has.

J.

Angry

Umm thats not my cousin, I'm gonna shutup now, dug a hole for myself it seems.

Leslie

I think the real point is that the general information given by the police in the first place indicated that he was very likely to be a suicide bomber. The later evidence obtained from a video in police possession from a cctv camera is reputed to tell a completely different story. The chief copper also asked the IPCC to delay the start of their investigation into the affair just after it happened. The police also offered an ex gratia payment to the poor bloke's family.

All this information does not look good from the authorities' point of view.

it is necessary to have an independent enquiry to find out whether there was a cover up attempt which is a serious affair or whether the bloke was killed because of trigger happy armed forces, or whether the police actions were correct in all respects.

It is not surprising that the media will latch onto this and ensure that it is not allowed to disappear out of sight.

I personally support the use of armed force as necessary to reduce the risks associated with terrorist attacks. It must be done and seen to be done correctly however.

Les

the moose

In which case your previous statement's incorrect. Perhaps your cousin's oversold the importance of his role to you?

mad_dr

Imposter! I'M the Head of Intelligence at the Met!

What do you guys want to know?

Angry

Perhaps, more likely I misheard his position, either way he is involved in the Intelligence unit.

unclebuck

RUBBISH!! I am.

Angry

Damn you all *shakes fist*

Reality

I'm Spartacus.

Markus

The police were doing their job, sometimes tragic mistakes happen, and that, I'm afraid is what we call life, it's not nice, it's not all bubbles and daisies.

Let us not forget the fact that the chap should not have even been in the UK at that point in time, his visa having expired (two years prior?). Everyone goes on about "Illegals" in the country and what to do about them and now we're having a bleeding heart moment for one of them. He should not have been here, and hey, if we shot a few more people who should not be here, along with religious fundamentalists and chavs, the UK would be a far better place

Bottom line here, the police acted, rightly or wrongly, to protect the majority.

Reality

Markus for Home Secretary.

I've no problem with a shoot to kill policy for bogus asylum seekers, Illegal immigrants and other undesirable scum (Chavs, paedos etc).

But you should explain it to people before implementing it .

Leslie

Markus,

Do you honestly think its alright to shoot illegal immigrants just for that?

The fact that he was here illegally has nothing to do with this incident and the resultant "flak"

Les

OllyK

I think that's what the inquiry will aim to find out, if they really were following procedure and doing their job.

While the majority may whinge about the less than adequate immigration policies in effect, I don't think too many people are suggesting point of capture execution is quite the way forward.

The police acted, the rightly or wrongly will I hope be investigated impartially by the IPCC. The thing that gets my goat is the "ifs" and "buts" that people put round things, the "ahh but what IF he had been a bomber", who cares, he wasn't it's a moot point.

Milamber

iTrader: (2)

Exactly.

OllyK

I thought their job was to stop / apprehend criminals, in this context suicide bombers. I didn't realise it was also their job to gun down innocent foreign nationals.

Markus

Yes I do. There is an immigration procedure in place for a very good reason. If you cannot or do not want to follow it then you should not be here.

He had a visa, it expired, he should have left, he did not. He should not have been here.

I'm an immigrant in Canada, I have a work permit/visa. It is valid for a certain length of time, at which point I apply to have it renewed, which is has been for the past two years. If, for some reason it is not renewed I will leave Canada, regardless of the fact I do not wish to leave and have very strong reasons for wanting to stay, but I would pack myself, Rosie and Lily up and move back to the UK (after, of course, exhausting every option to remain here, such as permanent residency and/or applying for citizenship). I would not stay here as I would not be legally entitled to be here.

Many people are not like that and don't care, so they would stay, for many reasons. But it is wrong!

If we were to introduce a policy of shooting illegal immigrants then we'd announce the fact, so if the same was done over here, I'd be fully aware that I'd want to get the hell outta dodge pretty quick when my visa expired, ain't gonna have no cap in my ***.

There are far to many illegal immigrants in the UK and maybe a shoot to kill policy might persuade them to leave, or make others think twice before entering the country.

Anyway, I digress, the topic of debate is whether we're fed up of hearing about this poor brazillian lad. Yes I'm fed up of it. An accident happened, investigations are taking place, and we should wait and see the outcome and not second guess things.

OllyK

The death penalty in this country was largely recinded many years ago with treason having it removed as a penalty in the late 90's IIRC. We will not extradite to countries that have the death penalty. Yet you are happy for people to be executed, without trial for no more than being a illegal immigrant. I thought I was hard line but I think you are way over the top on that.

Markus

Oh dear, sometimes it pays to think doesn't it Maybe a change of username from Angry to something like "Stupid" might be required?

Angry

I think that username is taken

Dream Weaver

Tragic events, but I agree with Markus, if his Visa had expired then he shouldn't have been here and would still be alive, end of story.

The minute we start prosecuting Police officers for shooting suspected suicide bombers, whether mistakenor not, is the minute this country goes into complete anarchy.

And as for the "what if it was a member of your family" question, I would still feel the same, they shouldnt be living somewhere illegally. The UK is too soft a target with all the bloody liberals we have here, the sooner we get the message across that we aren't to be messed with the better.

Reality

Errr - not quite end of story. If he hadn't been here it would have been the next poor **** to leave that block of flats that would have been gunned down as he went for a train.

Dave!

Well said Markus.
This is winding me (and virtually everone i talk to) up so much i feel i have to speak out somewhere.

My sentiments....
He was illegal.
He was shot as a direct consequence of being illegal.
Make it the policy to shoot all illegals (no matter what their race,creed or religion).
....But don't waste so many bullets....3 will do.

D.

OllyK

Please show me the proof that the police checked his visa and found it had expired BEFORE they shot him. That's the ONLY way him being illegal would be the direct reason for his death.

The reason should come out in the IPCC inquiry or better yet a public inquiry, but it looks like he was shot as a direct result of ****e surveylance and a failure check the identity of the person correctly before shooting him. If he was such a threat, why was he allowed on the bus first? The bombers were targetting those as well.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

we are hearing alot of it on the news because an innocent man was shot in cold blood due to a new shoot-to-kill policy. It was then covered up and the normal investigations hindered by Ian Blair.

By having a shoot to kill policy does not ensure you will be any safer on the LU. Killing people who look suspicious may not concern you but what about all the innocent people of black/asian backgrounds? Cant see them being too comfortable nowadays running for a train.

The people who killed the 52 people on that day are murderers. The people who shot and then covered up this innocent guys murder are supposed to be our law enforcement, which is why the whole thing stinks.

Look at what both the Blairs' are putting across to the public. Its okay to kill, lie and cover up. Then Tony bleets on about anti-social behaviour and trival things like that

And why would a suicide bomber by detered by a shoot-to-kill policy? Are they scared of dying?

Reality

Bollox - he was shot as a direct consequence of "looking like" a Muslim Terrorist and getting a train.

Markus' shoot-to-kill-illegals policy hasn't been approved yet (apparently it's stuck in the Lords - you know what they can be like).

davegtt

SO WHAT? hes dead now. **** happens.... if he wasnt here he wouldnt have died.... it tough titty as they say. Im sure if someone did drop a bollok then they'll be sorted and rightly so but in the mean time.... Lets shoot some more dodgy looking immigrants (last sentance was to lighten the mood btw, dont go presuming I want half of the countries population dead )

OllyK

So what? If it is as much of a SNAFU as it would seem, we have police officers about willing to shoot people dead with little or no corroboration that they have the right person, or even a suspect.

How many can they kill before it we decide we need to do something about it? Personally I think we have had 1 too many and I think the shoot to kill policy should be suspended pending the results of the investigation. When they find out what went wrong and what to do to resolve it, then by all means reintroduce it.

A suicide bomber isn't going to be too worried about dying so the policy is hardly a deterrant and there is always the chance that shooting the bomber may cause any bomb to detonate anyway - dead man's trigger and such like, so I don't see the policy is actually providing any protection anyway.

davegtt

Come on, its not like its happening every week. its been a month ago now since this happened. Every single 1 of us agree it was a tragic incident. No matter how many times I hear it on the news or read it on a forum will make it any less of a tragedy....