Didn't I Shoot My Brother?
Lenin's Tomb don't think so. I get the impression they don't believe the police much. I wish I didn't have to agree with them - I'd like to live in a country where my first reaction to news of an anti-terror raid wasn't 'let's find the liar in the blue uniform'.
Latest from News 24 is a rather odd BBC woman called Margaret (her last name was drowned by my snort of derision), who explained the police case at great length (and the brother's case in five words, which is balance of a sort). Apparently the weapon was an MP5, which is 'like a small rifle'. Um. It's a submachine gun, a machine for killing and killing fast and efficiently at short range. The SAS used them at the Iranian Embassy and Prince Dipendra assassinated most of the Nepalese royal family with one. If you get shot with one of those and survive, you're doing well. Margaret's case (or whoever in the police is leaking her stuff, actually) is that because it was a Big Gun, it's easier to grab it and shoot your brother than if they'd had handguns. Personally I'd have thought that grabbing an MP5 off a copper surrounded by other coppers also armed with MP5s would be a one-way ticket to Harp City, but there you go.
I reckon a trigger-happy policeman fired by accident - if it was a deliberate attempt to kill with that weapon at short range he'd have fired more than once and there'd be a corpse. All of which leads to the conclusion that there was (like Stockwell) no need for a firearm to be discharged.
UPDATE:
Margaret *Gilmour* is the lady's name - thanks Anonymous. Check her out sometime and see what's wrong with the BBC.
8,000 British troops in Iraq
8,000 British troops in Iraq to quell millions in Basra, 250 police in East London to shoot some guy in his pyjamas.
Margaret *Gilmour*; very
Margaret *Gilmour*; very much an embedded correspondent at New Scotland Yard, hence all the "My understanding is..", "My sources tell me.." stuff. When she opens her mouth just listen carefully and when she has finished tell yourself "So, that's what the Police or Home Office or Security Service want me to think".
so many hours of
so many hours of intelligence, 250 police, and they shot an unarmed many and brutalised their next dooe neighbours. Something sounds very wrong about all this.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr020606_forest
There is a little more
There is a little more here
The safety catch was off and the officer was wearing gloves and a bulky chemical and biological protection suit after intelligence warnings that there could be lethal materials hidden inside the terraced house in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate. Senior officers emphasise that weapons teams are given extensive training on handling guns while wearing the suits. Scotland Yard sources deny that the experienced officer panicked in the darkness when a figure appeared, running towards him on the stairs.
I guess its not easy to shout a warning, or control a machine gun in a chemical suit, but whats all this about the bullet lodging in the ceiling?
The sound of fearsome
The sound of fearsome backpedalling in the Guardian this morning. Piquant quote:
They're not sorry they keep shooting the wrong people? Er.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790443,00.html
I see the BBC are now down
I see the BBC are now down to searching for a "possible chemical device". By tomorrow it will probably be "half-empty bottle of domestos". I suggest they look under the sink.
It's looking like the same pattern as the "no ricin" plot. A huge splash in the papers of how they've saved the world followed by quiet retractions and eventual acquitals. They know that a lot of the media are too lazy or ignorant to follow stories through and that what people read first will tend to stick in their minds.
I can't help thinking all these leaks are coming from someone fairly senior whereas its the ordinary coppers who are going to bear the brunt of all the mistrust that's being created.
re: bullet lodging in
re: bullet lodging in ceiling. If the man was coming downstairs and the injury is as described (upwards through his right chest and out of the shoulder) then it must have been fired at an upwards angle and could easily have ended up in the ceiling *after* passing through him. That this corroborates the impressive Kate Roxburgh's account of events as told to her by her client is interesting.
this is just an extension of
this is just an extension of the 7/7 hoax.Psyops is called.get a fuckin life.
Can we say police state.Law unto themselves.When you are the law you are above the law.
An attempt at control by fear.
There are so many holes in the 7/7 yarn an ape could spot them.
Its´really just the state saying we can raid anyone at any time.Shoot them and NOT be held accountable.After all its for your own protection.There are terrorists out their,somewhere and probably everywhere.We cannot afford to take chances.
Gilmour is an odious right
Gilmour is an odious right wing hack, much like the rest of the BBC news team now.
My impression was that she
My impression was that she (and not just her, to be frank (Gardner?)) relies on leaks and unnamed police contacts for her career, and thus won't do anything to jeopardise them, like engage in proper journalistic analysis. This, post-Hutton (or actually post-Campbell), is redolent of a lot of mainstream media which is why someone (i.e. us rank amateurs) needs to step in and try and sift the facts from the bullshit.
The famous 'media machine' that Bob complains about does exist, it's comprised of compliant journalists getting too matey with the source of their stories. When a journalist relies on someone for their job, be it Rupert Murdoch or a 'Scotland Yard source' you know who's paying the piper and can thus be better equipped to listen to the tune.
Tom,
Tom,
At the time of the BBC Charter renewal following the so called Hutton Enquiry, the government (who was it - Hazel Blears?) said that they wanted less analysis in the news. It doesn't leave much scope for journalism if the BBC is only allowed to report propaganda without analysing it.
Well, any analysis of Hazel
Well, any analysis of Hazel Blears would conclude that she's a complete waste of carbon, so perhaps she's just frightened. Or perhaps it was another of those bizarre calls you get from time to time for 'more good news stories' which usually translates as 'less effort spent watching us closely'.
Doughnut: No, indeed, no
Doughnut: No, indeed, no scope at all. This tendency has been studied somewhat (it is basically item 4 of the propaganda model in the media analysis "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Herman, for example).
The upside, if you can call it that, is that the BBC is so strongly defensive of the government that there can be no successful pretence of objectivity. This means that Medialens can easily go to work, for example.
I dont want to be contrary
I dont want to be contrary to everyones veiws here, but....I have two questions to ask:
1) Are we at risk from terrorist attack?
From 7/7 I would suggest we are.
2) How should the police respond to information on potential terrorists?
I think knocking on the door and politley asking for a quick peek may not be the safest way to proceed. Working on the assumption that terrorists have slightly more potential to cause damage than the ordainary Joe Bloggs, then any information (and i believe also incorrect information, better to be safe than sorry) needs to be acted on. Sending in armed police seems to me a reasonable thing to do. That someone was shot in such a situation is no big surprise to me. That the suspect claims to have been innocent is again no big surprise to me. That the police man claims his innocence again is no big surprise (who would like to stand up and announce to the muslim population that he shot one of them?).
This is a different kind of incident to Mr Haws demonstrations removal from the other day, that was pure folly and waste of police time and resources. A true police state action.
This recent terrorist raid is not the action of a state trying to opress but protect, I think that is worth remebering.
One man has been shot but there are non dead. If this has scuppered the plans for a repeat of 7/7 then i say its a good enough balance.
Are we at risk from
Are we at risk from terrorist attack?
Yep, nobody denies this sad fact.
Are we also at risk from being shot for no good reason by the police if we have darkish skin and wear a beard? Sadly this is also true.
I'm pretty pale and shave, but I nevertheless don't think it should be happening in the country I live in.
How should the police respond to information on potential terrorists?
It's pretty undeniable that we need to have a balance.
However, when the balance was that the police had shot and killed one innocent person, and no guilty ones, I started wondering what that balance should be.
We shall see. If it turns out that the police have shot and killed one innocent person, and shot and injured another innocent person, I shall be even less happy that we're going in the right direction.
If this has scuppered the plans for a repeat of 7/7 then i say its a good enough balance.
That might be true (though it might still have been unnecessary to shoot one of them, and that might still be a serious deficiency in their handling).
And what if it hasn't scuppered the plans for such a thing, as in the case of de Menezes? How will you feel then?
What if the Government never tell us, and we never manage to find out? How will you feel then?
It's subject to many of the same issues as capital punishment: it can be got wrong, and it can be done in uncertain conditions. The question is not really, "should you kill terrorists on the way to terrorist acts", but "should you kill people who might possibly be terrorists, but might just be innocent people"?
Crink you keep bringing up
Crink you keep bringing up the de Menezes case as if it is the holy grail of police coruption! At risk of been shot at by the police for having darkish skin and a beard??? I think were not quite there yet!!
Having both dark skin and a beard i feel quite at ease walking the streets of my country, no need to feel paranoid just yet. Ofcourse we cannot allow the government to hide mistakes and cover up the truth, however, we have to face facts that accidents will happen, especially in situations of heightened tension.
Terrorism is a threat and as such needs to be combatted. I'd love to hear your suggetions for this, perhaps sending in the heavies with tickle sticks and water pistols might be more safer for suspects but I doubt you'll get many police men volenteering to the first through a suspects door.