If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
No Mention of any uniformed officers here.
I don't think the Government did the bombing, but they are milking it for all its worth. And with these latest bombs something doesn't add up.
Actually they first suspected he was one of Thursdays bombers. They were not going to take any chances, so to stop him possibly detonating a bomb on the train, they killed him.
The report I saw on the TV stated that there were 12 officers.
The facts are this
The police saw an Asian man come out of a BLOCK of flats that they had under surveillance.
They decided to follow him, and their suspicions were raised , they say, by the fact that he had a large coat on, and his behaviour (whatever that might mean).
What I would have liked them to do is this:
Having decided that a flat was linked to attempted bombings, they should have got a search warrant and searched the flat. To put the BLOCK under observation was, quite simply not good enough.
To assume that a man is a terrorist because he is an Asian and came out of the BLOCK is racist and not good enough.
At the least, if they were operating under a new SHOOT TO KILL policy, they should have made certain that they could positively identify suspects from THE flat that was under suspicion, and not just assume that any Asian man coming out of the BLOCK was a suspect.
When they were following him, they should have called for uniformed assistance, so that some guy who is walking along minding his own business is not suddenly confronted by three plain clothed men waving guns and shouting at him, but is aware that there are uniformed police there as well.
Bearing in mind that an Asian man was kicked to death in Nottingham recently, they should have been aware that he might think he was the victim of a racist attack (which he was) and that he might panic.
Any of that sound unreasonable?
at what point do you call in uniform and scare the potential suspect (assuming that he was someone that was connected to the bombings)
has it been prove that they assumed the man was a terrorist when he left the buildings? i think they only shot him when he started running away from the officers
You don't think that personal shit has any relevance? When does it become relevant? When the gun is at your head, or just after the bullets enter?
Melodramatic, I know. But the point is that if the police can kill a man, in public, on suspicion that he may be linked to terrorists, then we should all be worried because there is no guarantee that you aren't on their list. As you say, mistakes happen. This one should not be excused.
They were following him because they assumed he was linked to the flat they DIDN'T have under surveillance.
He leapt the barriers, and they shot him on the platform, which is quite a run.
If uniformed officers were going to scare him, what the hell were plain clothed men with guns going to do.
Most people haven't had training in how to respond to something like that. Some will freeze - others will flee.
Next time a group of racists want to give someone a kicking, all they have to do is yell - "Stop Police" - is that right?
You know I won't agree with that.
.. and I would expect nothing less of an entity where control is seen as a powerful tool. Difference between what you have written there and what Clandy's rhetoric assumes is there first part of that sentence.
As you said yourself, just because someone benefits doesn't mean that they caused it..
The flat was under observation for the simple reason that the police suspected the bombers had some link to the property and wanted to watch what the residents may lead them to. If you go in and search the place your going to blow the op - I think that's obvious.
Look back at klintock's comments earlier.
If the police had sufficient reason to believe that they were justified in killing the man, then they must also have had suffiicient reason to believe that he was carrying. If they thought that, the why on earth did they let him get into the Tube station in the first place?
If they weren't sure, then why the "double-tap"?
I certainly don't see how it gives your opinion any more weight?
They tried to stop him as he entered the tube station.
They had a suspicion that he had a bomb and that's enough for me. When you supsect tens/hundreds may be at risk you take no chances.
I don't disagree with that, but personal impact it partly what forms you opinion in the first place. Because you cannot see this happening to you, of a close one, then you think that the loss is acceptable.
Yes you do, it's called reasonable doubt.
If you are so sure tha tthe person is about to commit such an act then you don't let them get anywhere near the target surely?
If you aren't so sure then you don't kill them.
Do you think that someone would have been allowed to get this close to Tony Blair? Or do you think that the forces of "law and order" (a phrase with a whole new spin on it today) would intervene early?
A Scotland Yard statement read: "We believe we now know the identity of the man shot at Stockwell Underground station by police on Friday 22nd July 2005, although he is still subject to formal identification.
"We are now satisfied that he was not connected with the incidents of Thursday 21st July 2005.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets'
The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a house in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance.
His death is being investigated by officers from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards, and will be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Kepp up Jim, that link was posted pages ago.
You need to lay of the sauce mate
Still wonder why he ran. I mean, if it was three guys chasing you you'd be scared, but then again if there were uniformed police as well...
You think thats obvious?
The situation is that all of London is at risk because ( so we are told) 4 failed suicide bombers are on the run. Police suspect that this address may have a link, and yet they don't go in.
However, when they see an "Asian" (South American) man leave the BLOCK where the flat is located, they follow him AND think they have enough evidence to execute him on the spot.
Had they gone in much earler, they would have discovered that the FLAT which they were supposed to be watching was in fact inhabited by christians from Ethiopia. (So I am told)
They could then have got on with the business of finding the actual suspects elsewhere, and we wouldn't have a dead Brazilian electrician on our hands.
The op NEEDED to be blown - thats what's obvious to me........
For all we know they confronted him and told him too. Then they hunted him down like a dog and killed him.
Fact is, we don't know either way and so all explanations are possible, from a simple mistake to cold blooded sadistic murder. Perhaps the PNAC's are testing the public's swallowing of the shit they shovel. So far it seems 50/50 on the P&D board so i expect it to be about 80/20 in their favour with the general population.
Skive -
I quite agree. You don't let a wired to blow man wander around london for an hour before deciding he's a threat and then killing him next to hundreds of people. You stop him in the quiet street he first appears in.
Thats the only real point where you and I differ, perceptionally that is.
You say just because one benefits most doesn't mean they did the act, yet you readily accept and parrot the terminology of "suspect" for whomsoever is so declared by mainstream media, which in its turn is merely mouthing the unverified and unproven assertions (excuses?) of "officials".
What you seem ready to dismiss is the most fundamental starting premise of any criminal investigative process in identifying who indeed is most "suspect" and thus of top priority on the list of those to be scrutinised. In legal terms it's referred to as "cui bono" (who benefits [most]).
You simply will not conceded that those who are most demonstrably benefitting, as I've repeatedly suggested, are equally "suspect" if not more so than those random names and faces splashed so amazingly quickly and conveniently across the front pages mere days after every horrendous incident since 911.
Doesn't strike you as odd in the least that those sold to the public as being so capable of plotting (oooh dare we say "conspiring") and executing such events always happen to leave handy names and addresses and manuals and what-have-you in such readily found proximity (or places where "authorities" just happen to know to look within mere hours or days)?
The contrivance of this whole charade and its facilitation by corporate media is no less populistic propaganda in our present context as that which you can easily uncover from eras and regimes and administrations past.
The only difference is that thanks to the comfortable benefit of hindsight, you accept the lies for what they were then, despite the mass public acceptance of those " official explanations" in their day.
Why then is it such a "conspiracy theory" to realise that majority today, who rail at any suggestion of plausible self-serving establishment complicity in or outright perpetration of present events, are similarly being sold a lie by equally grasping powermongers and corporate profiteers to fuel the maintenance of a multi-billion dollar public tax-payer extortion racket, aka. the WoT?
Well hindsights a wonderful thing.
Especially where the only "evidence" in existance is the financial benefits which these companies/individuals reap.
My argument is that it is entirely possible for them to reap this benefit without having caused the circumstances which they benefit from. IMHO that is much more reasonable approach to take, because that is just business practice repeated across so many other sectors of the business community.
I don't dispute for one minute that the Govt will use the hype to further their own ideals, that many civil servants will see an opportunity to increase "control" over the population, that kneejerk laws will follow. But then those same reactions occur in many other places - wether those laws relate to benefits, gun controls or even dangerous dogs - yet I don't believe for one moment that the Govt defrauded the benefits office, attacked a class of 5-year-olds or encouraged dogs to attack small children...
You really think the system we have has come about so willy nilly and accidentally and not by careful and concerted design?
What you accept as realistic is a populist myth for which you, by your own unintended admission, only have FAITH as a basis for dismissing what history shows repeatedly to be more in line with my analysis.
You simply refuse to make the simple logical connection that those benefitting are far more likely "suspects" according to our own long accepted principles of criminal investigation. Your denial is tantamount to wishfully ignoring key suspects simply because it would undermine your "Faith" to discover they were in fact quite capable of culling their own citizens (as much as as any nation's citizens) to further their own power.
Notwithstanding the fact that the old addage "follow the money" is particularly appropo here, money is far from the "only" benefit. A point, once again, you willfully miss in your rush to avoid researching the matter beyond what you are told. The "WoT" is the extension of a systemic ideology of global hegemony, as clearly spelled out in The Grand Chessboard amongst many other detailed treatises on the "New World Order".
But be my guest, continue to watch innocents get shot and think its all just unconnected local incidents of momentary opportunism. Until the majority can acknowledge that nebulous shadowy "terrorist" boogeymen are no more plausible "suspects" than well armed, well funded, globally placed intelligence agencies with decades of activity in psy-ops, overthrows, contrived events and manufactured "news", it will remain as much a facilitator of history's repetition as were those who refused to believe that the Third Reich could be as evil as it eventually showed itself to be.
he was brazilian. it isn't known how good his english was, so he possibly didn't even know they were police.
and if it was obvious, i'm told brazilian police have a reputation for being corrupt and trigger-happy, so he possibly thought that either way he'd have a bullet through the face and decided to try to outrun them.
poor sod failed.
It would behoove you to put down the mainstream snippet sheets, turn off the tv and do some substantive reading on documented intelligence community complicities going back decades. Perhaps then events in the present context will not be dismissed so lightly.
Not such a great leap of faith at all, just a step over the line in the sand you've drawn for yourself. Go on, I dare ya!
Sands shift, I'm still open to be shown wrong...
I just haven't seen enough to convince me. And it's probably going to need to be something like the Wanasee Minutes
If you are open to being informed, then do some google searches for book titles. I have every confidence you have the wherewithall to do that much.