ordnance Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) The problem is they tried to come up with a defence for something there is no real defence for, unless they know definitely the person is a suicide bomber, something they usually don't advertise, then a innocent person could be shot as happened. The fact is apart from anything else de Menezes had plenty of time to detonate a bomb if he had one. ccording to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Edited February 24, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I don't get the question I am afraid, What perspective? You sure this forum aint mumsnet in disguise,? you give your view and people get all funny. Can you answer my question, and understand why I asked it? Nothing funny about it mate and don't want to fall out. Your perspective from what I can gather is these jobs shouldn't be paying anywhere near what they are paying. As some others have pointed out these types of jobs are attracting that pay scale in the private sector and if you want someone with the knowledge, experience and skills to do the job you'll have to be on par with the private sector. I imagine if any public sector worker could earn 2.7x their wage by going to work for a private company then they would. Sorry I didn't see what your question was, I would gladly give me perspective if you ask again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 And there is the crux, the vast majority of 'top' people in the public sector would be just average by private standards. Do you think the b of e governor is a superstar financial whizz kid from canada, or is he more likely to have been hired on 850k per annum, because he is politically correct. we are debating people on astronomical salaries who are unworthy, yet many think its fair remuneration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 And there is the crux, the vast majority of 'top' people in the public sector would be just average by private standards. Do you think the b of e governor is a superstar financial whizz kid from canada, or is he more likely to have been hired on 850k per annum, because he is politically correct. we are debating people on astronomical salaries who are unworthy, yet many think its fair remuneration. That's a better point than what you said before! Would these people get the same jobs in the private sector? Or do they get it because of who (or what) they know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 If there was any black cloud in relation to the Tube incident she would not have kept her job let alone getting the Met' top job. Perhaps other people see things differently to you? I think the fact that SO19 had unofficially, and illegally, adopted a policy of 'Kratos' and that she had actually given that codeword as authorisation for the shooting in the build up to the CdeM incident should have definitely cost her her job and should have resulted in prosecution. Shoot to kill has never been legal Part of the back story is that she held a "Get out of jail free" card, and those in the know were aware from the start There is a feeling in some quarters that the subsequent plethora of misinformation after this (and other) shootings is becoming a well oiled machine. Senior officers and politicians have had it made clear that if any member of SO19 is ever prosecuted every other member will hand in their ticket on the spot. That has been made crystal clear to the top brass, To suddenly lose every firearms officer in London would be anarchy, it could never be allowed to happen They are seen as untouchable and above the law, Its part of the reason that the rest of the Met don't like them. They would say its for self protection. In most other countries police officers don't face the scrutiny they do here after a shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 The problem is that the vast majority of the senior police officers have no real policing experience to speak of. Many have been fast tracked through the ranks and spent hardly any time on the beat or in a response role. I cannot remember any of these flyers managing a crime list as they were constantly flitting from one department to another for a few weeks at a time to gain what little experience you could in such as short space of time. So, they haven't any real life policing experience and they have no business experience as most of them joined straight from College or University. If you accept that is correct then you will understand why I advocate experienced business people running police forces not police officers. At least the business experts will have one of the two main qualifications required for the job. They can then leave the operational / legal side to those in uniform. At present the police top brass only learn from those who have gone before them and the same mistakes are being repeated over and over again. Lancashire County are about to lose one that went from Con to Ch. Con., during his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I think the fact that SO19 had unofficially, and illegally, adopted a policy of 'Kratos' and that she had actually given that codeword as authorisation for the shooting in the build up to the CdeM incident should have definitely cost her her job and should have resulted in prosecution. Shoot to kill has never been legal Part of the back story is that she held a "Get out of jail free" card, and those in the know were aware from the start There is a feeling in some quarters that the subsequent plethora of misinformation after this (and other) shootings is becoming a well oiled machine. Senior officers and politicians have had it made clear that if any member of SO19 is ever prosecuted every other member will hand in their ticket on the spot. That has been made crystal clear to the top brass, To suddenly lose every firearms officer in London would be anarchy, it could never be allowed to happen They are seen as untouchable and above the law, Its part of the reason that the rest of the Met don't like them. They would say its for self protection. In most other countries police officers don't face the scrutiny they do here after a shooting. All police shootings would be termed 'shoot to kill' as that is the aim to best negate the threat. But 'shoot to kill' policy has nothing to do with Kratos. The Kratos policy came from Government, but only relates to specific incidents regards terrorism and protection of political summits such as the G8. It was Kratos tactics that resulted in what those not in the know deem excessive use of force.That multiple head shot was specifically put in place as it was the best way to prevent a suspect from detonating a bomb. And as for the wise guys who talk about the dead man's trigger; well it was going to be anyway. For reasons of the Government's own the policy was never published and the law was never altered. In such circumstances it might seem to be necessary to make provisions for armed officers to act 'outside the law' but 'within the policy' otherwise such acts could result in officers being tried for criminal acts. In actual fact the Common Law has a stipulation regards 'reasonable force' which would cover any eventuality provided that it was done in good faith. What people fail to realise is that the current situation is not 'Cowboys and Indians' or WW2 where each side is easily distinguishable. That all stopped in the 50's in places such as Oman and Cyprus where terrorists blended in with the ordinary public, weapons concealed. Latterly the public, not just the officials and armed forces have become legitimate targets. The de Mendes incident came a day after the tube bombings when many people had been killed. When de Mendes came out of the house he was spotted by an officer who was there specifically because there was information about a possible terrorist cell operating from there. If he had have been a suicide bomber on a mission he would have blended into the crowds and detonated his bomb at the specified time and place. He would not have advertised that or made himself stand out in any way. There would have been no way of telling if he was carrying a bomb, where he was going or when he was intending to detonate. No way at all. So those officers, acting with the best interests, despite what some people might think, had a sole task was to protect the general public. They had no way of making sure one way or another whether he was armed with a bomb without giving him opportunity to detonate one. The decision was made in the light of the location from where he came, his likeness to the suspects and two innocent, but suspicious acts of behaviour. If the decision had been to allow him to continue and there had been another explosion the same people claiming that the police were useless would still be saying the same. But for different reasons. You can't win with the 'Armchair Warriors'. If you examine the demands put by armed officers in the light of such incidents you will see that they are quite happy for their actions to be investigated. What is wrong is when they are investigated and tried under laws designed for criminal acts. If they have acted in good faith, have followed procedure and have not been negligent then under Common Law their actions and use of force should be deemed as acceptable even if it is the wrong result. Same goes for the armed forces abroad. If you take away that protection then nobody in their right mind is going to volunteer for the job as the line between doing it right, getting killed or injured because you hesitated or getting it wrong is too close to call AT THE TIME. And at the time is the only time that decision can be made. Not afterwards with the benefits of hindsight. It is a split second decision and people ought to realise that you can't always get it right. Nobody can. As for your last sentence; I am confused. How can they be seen to be untouchable and outside the law if your second point of them being more accountable than AFOs in other countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Lancashire County are about to lose one that went from Con to Ch. Con., during his career. They all used to start as a constable. It is only relatively recently that they allowed people to come in at management level. The problem with those who spend time in the lower ranks is that often they just flit from department to department without learning to understand the problems and issues faced by those officers in the department. So effectively they are wasting their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) Whats the answer, should armed police should be immune from prosecution when they get it wrong. ? That would be a dangerous road to go down. Edited February 24, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Whats the answer, should armed police should be immune from prosecution when they get it wrong. ? You keep banging this drum. Sorry, but I can't make it any simpler for you to understand. To be honest I don't think you want to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 You keep banging this drum. Sorry, but I can't make it any simpler for you to understand. To be honest I don't think you want to understand. Its a simple question, its made clear to armed police that they can be prosecuted if they get it wrong, no point then complaining after accepting that when they join. Its not banging a drum its asking a fair question on something you posted in post 82 not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I am not debating anything with you. Your simple question has been answered time and time again only you don't want to, or can't see it. End of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) I am not debating anything with you. Your simple question has been answered time and time again only you don't want to, or can't see it. End of. Good. Edited February 25, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I think the fact that SO19 had unofficially, and illegally, adopted a policy of 'Kratos' and that she had actually given that codeword as authorisation for the shooting in the build up to the CdeM incident should have definitely cost her her job and should have resulted in prosecution. Shoot to kill has never been legal Part of the back story is that she held a "Get out of jail free" card, and those in the know were aware from the start There is a feeling in some quarters that the subsequent plethora of misinformation after this (and other) shootings is becoming a well oiled machine. Senior officers and politicians have had it made clear that if any member of SO19 is ever prosecuted every other member will hand in their ticket on the spot. That has been made crystal clear to the top brass, To suddenly lose every firearms officer in London would be anarchy, it could never be allowed to happen They are seen as untouchable and above the law, Its part of the reason that the rest of the Met don't like them. They would say its for self protection. In most other countries police officers don't face the scrutiny they do here after a shooting. I don't want to go to far into this but operation kratos was not illegal and officially not a shoot to kill policy, more a shoot to stop a particular type of threat which obviously is highly likely to result in death as it involves shooting to the head (more particularly a certain point of the brain if possible), it is still in use but called a critical shot I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 (edited) The thread is not about the rights and wrongs of police shootings its about Cressida D's suitability for her job. After the shooting of CdeM the then commissioner Ian Blair went on TV and publically gave out a heap of misinformation about CdeM wearing a bulky jacket, jumping the barrier, running from the police etc He ultimately carried the can for that but he could only have been told that by CD because she was gold command on the day. I can't imagine for one moment he would have just plucked it from the air and gone on TV with it I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of the shooting, the officers who went in to that station firmly believed they were going to die, I'm not even debating CD's judgement on the day although it was her call, what I am debating is whether she lied to Ian Blair about it afterwards to cover up. That's the pivotal question about her Edited February 25, 2017 by Vince Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 i just refreshed what i knew about the menezes shooting via wiki, it says he was followed on a bus, why was he not apprehended before then? its shocking when you read it, 7 bullets in the head. Would he have survived if he had just sat in his chair and put his hands up on the tube? Or was it decided he would be dying whatever? i was also under the thinking that he was here illegally, but it says, that although he had a forged stamp, on this day he was actually legally allowed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Vince, unless you know for sure that the commissioner was misinformed then your opinion is purely speculative. He carried the can and rightly so. As for Wandringstar's question of why he wasn't stopped on the bus you have to ask were the officers following him in a position to stop him? When did the authorisation come? Were they suitably armed? Shooting someone is the last resort, not the first. It is easy to make judgements in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 It seems pretty weird to say Ian Blair "carried the can", he was rewarded with a peerage and a seat in the House of Lords! That must be a really heavy can to carry. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 i just refreshed what i knew about the menezes shooting via wiki, it says he was followed on a bus, why was he not apprehended before then? its shocking when you read it, 7 bullets in the head. Would he have survived if he had just sat in his chair and put his hands up on the tube? Or was it decided he would be dying whatever? i was also under the thinking that he was here illegally, but it says, that although he had a forged stamp, on this day he was actually legally allowed here. Also what does him being here illegally / legally have to do with it? Is it ok to shoot a foreigner who's here illegally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Westley is about right. It all went to rat dood doo after 1974 when the 'Accelerated Promotion' deal was brought in. I worked with such people who would pour petrol and strike a match if they thought it would get them another rung up the ladder. I also had them who couldn't wouldn't make a decision on the hoof without checking to see if the decision would effect their promotion prospects. When I left in 1990 there were still a few proper police men and women who wanted to do the job and remembered what their function was ...protection of life and property ... Today those with that in mind are having to watch their backs constantly, as a wrong ill thought out word or action can result in them being suspended or sacked and that word to senior management could come from a colleague working alongside you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Also what does him being here illegally / legally have to do with it? Is it ok to shoot a foreigner who's here illegally? here we go again, another righteous response, if you act illegally, and break into someones country, you have played a hand in your own fate, however its academic, as the record says he was meant to be here, although he wasn't adverse to forging a passport stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I don't want to go to far into this but operation kratos was not illegal and officially not a shoot to kill policy, more a shoot to stop a particular type of threat which obviously is highly likely to result in death as it involves shooting to the head (more particularly a certain point of the brain if possible), it is still in use but called a critical shot I believe. If their was any success in that policy, would the bombers not just use dead man switches in future. I am debating is whether she lied to Ian Blair about it afterwards to cover up. That's the pivotal question about her. I am sure there was a lot of a** covering going on by lots of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 If their was any success in that policy, would the bombers not just use dead man switches in future. Can you name one tactic used in policing or warfare that has stood the test of time? That is why tactics are always evolving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 (edited) Can you name one tactic used in policing or warfare that has stood the test of time? That is why tactics are always evolving. I am just assuming they are mad dangerous etc but not stupid, i that case shooting them would just guarantee the bomb would explode. The tactic they did use wouldn't have worked, as i posted before he had plenty of time to detonate a bomb if he had one. What the security services are doing, preventing most planed attacks before they get to the stage of someone having a bomb strapped on them is the only real defence. Edited February 25, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I am just assuming they are mad dangerous etc but not stupid, i that case shooting them would just guarantee the bomb would explode. The tactic they did use wouldn't have worked, as i posted before he had plenty of time to detonate a bomb if he had one. What the security services are doing, preventing most planed attacks before they get to the stage of someone having a bomb strapped on them is the only real defence. So how would you have stopped him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts