lurcherboy Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Very effective in the field when mad dogs and Englishmen really shouldn't go out in the midday sun. http://www.surplusandadventure.com/shop/ho...he-shemagh.html It takes 10 minutes to learn. LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattslaptop247 Posted July 30, 2008 Report Share Posted July 30, 2008 Do that and you'll look like Michael Palin lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilv Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Go wandering about like that with a gun and you are likely to be shot by SO19 or any passing farmer. Never forget that Jean Charles Menezes was shot seven or eight times in the head by SO19 for having a sun tan and black hair and being on the London Underground. Harry Stanley died for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag and being a little drunk. Harry Stanley RIP Jean Charles Menezes RIP Why is it that the cowboy cops are always exonerated? Edited July 31, 2008 by Evilv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chard Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 I've got a khaki green one of them somewhere Very warm in winter and cool in summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Go wandering about like that with a gun and you are likely to be shot by SO19 or any passing farmer. Never forget that Jean Charles Menezes was shot seven or eight times in the head by SO19 for having a sun tan and black hair and being on the London Underground. Harry Stanley died for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag and being a little drunk. Harry Stanley RIP Jean Charles Menezes RIP Why is it that the cowboy cops are always exonerated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnymills Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Unfortunately the term 'cowboy cops' in my humble opinion doesn't really apply to either of these scenarios you refer to, some objective and impartial research suggests otherwise. In the case of Jean Charles Menezes the officers involved were responsible for dealing with a proven and very real threat, the decision to shoot was not one they had to take as individuals, this was apparently made by a senior officer with a complete overview of the whole operation, they were simply told to shoot or not and as such when that order was given they were to believe that the person they had (in this case pinned to the floor underneath them) had an explosive device on his person... would you do that? I know I couldn't. The failings in this instance it seems were not of the officer responsible for pulling the trigger. As far as Harry Stanley goes, there was a whole series of events leading to the fatal shooting, a good number of people for different reasons had real concerns that it was indeed a firearm and the decision to shoot or be shot had to be taken by an individual, not from a rooftop 200 yards away, but in close proximity, with the honest held belief that your or someone elses life was in danger. Again, an equally unenviable position to be in. Regards John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harv Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 i have a green and black shemagh which i often wear in the hide,they are very comfortable compared to some face masks. our lads in the desert also wear them so should not just be associated with baddies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drut Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Not too certain about the shemagh but some of the other items on that site(which I had'nt come across) have now cost me money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilv Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 Unfortunately the term 'cowboy cops' in my humble opinion doesn't really apply to either of these scenarios you refer to, some objective and impartial research suggests otherwise. In the case of Jean Charles Menezes the officers involved were responsible for dealing with a proven and very real threat, the decision to shoot was not one they had to take as individuals, this was apparently made by a senior officer with a complete overview of the whole operation, they were simply told to shoot or not and as such when that order was given they were to believe that the person they had (in this case pinned to the floor underneath them) had an explosive device on his person... would you do that? I know I couldn't. The failings in this instance it seems were not of the officer responsible for pulling the trigger. As far as Harry Stanley goes, there was a whole series of events leading to the fatal shooting, a good number of people for different reasons had real concerns that it was indeed a firearm and the decision to shoot or be shot had to be taken by an individual, not from a rooftop 200 yards away, but in close proximity, with the honest held belief that your or someone elses life was in danger. Again, an equally unenviable position to be in. Regards John. Hi John. I can argue with most of that and will very happily, if you indicate you want to discuss it further. The fact is that two wholly innocent men were shot down by police in circumstances in which they had the right to expect to be left alone. No one has been held accountable in either case. It is not threatening, or an offense to be in possession in the street of a table leg that's been repaired by your brother, and nor is it a menace to society to be in possession of a sun tan on the tube. These are not my arguments by the way. The behaviour of police in both these cases is well documented to be deeply flawed and full of crass misjudgments. If you or I made a mistake with a .22 rimfire and through a ricochet hit someone in the head, you can be sure that we would be in the dock. Not so if you're a cop and put seven into an electrician's head on the tube though - oh and one in his shoulder. That's OK. You just need to get the Met Chief to apologise. Regards EV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANO Posted July 31, 2008 Report Share Posted July 31, 2008 i wear a cammo head / face mask keeps the sun off aswell as making me invisible when shooting ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnymills Posted August 1, 2008 Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 Unfortunately the term 'cowboy cops' in my humble opinion doesn't really apply to either of these scenarios you refer to, some objective and impartial research suggests otherwise. In the case of Jean Charles Menezes the officers involved were responsible for dealing with a proven and very real threat, the decision to shoot was not one they had to take as individuals, this was apparently made by a senior officer with a complete overview of the whole operation, they were simply told to shoot or not and as such when that order was given they were to believe that the person they had (in this case pinned to the floor underneath them) had an explosive device on his person... would you do that? I know I couldn't. The failings in this instance it seems were not of the officer responsible for pulling the trigger. As far as Harry Stanley goes, there was a whole series of events leading to the fatal shooting, a good number of people for different reasons had real concerns that it was indeed a firearm and the decision to shoot or be shot had to be taken by an individual, not from a rooftop 200 yards away, but in close proximity, with the honest held belief that your or someone elses life was in danger. Again, an equally unenviable position to be in. Regards John. Hi John. I can argue with most of that and will very happily, if you indicate you want to discuss it further. The fact is that two wholly innocent men were shot down by police in circumstances in which they had the right to expect to be left alone. No one has been held accountable in either case. It is not threatening, or an offense to be in possession in the street of a table leg that's been repaired by your brother, and nor is it a menace to society to be in possession of a sun tan on the tube. These are not my arguments by the way. The behaviour of police in both these cases is well documented to be deeply flawed and full of crass misjudgments. If you or I made a mistake with a .22 rimfire and through a ricochet hit someone in the head, you can be sure that we would be in the dock. Not so if you're a cop and put seven into an electrician's head on the tube though - oh and one in his shoulder. That's OK. You just need to get the Met Chief to apologise. Regards EV EV, I agree, that with hindsight, both men were indeed innocent and I also agree there were some outrageous misjudgments made as far as Mr Menezes death was concerned, noteably with senior officers involved, who for the record I believe should be held accountable, perhaps that should have been made clearer on my original post. As far as Mr Stanley goes, there's a bit more to it than he was shot for being in posession of a table leg... I've also never taken a shot with any firearm without a totally safe and appropriate back stop, if you don't then perhaps indeed you should be held responsible for your actions, in any case it's certainly not a comparable example to the two previously mentioned scenarios. However I'm aware that we have hijacked this thread for which I apologise and perhaps we could agree to disagree on the matters? If you're ever about in Essex PM me, we'll shoot some pigeons and perhaps discuss it further down my local! Regards John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted August 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2008 I'm glad you two made it up. LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 (edited) wearing that thing is a good way to get your *** shot. try sun screen and a wide brim hat. Edited August 13, 2008 by deadeye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auto Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 Er..... 45 Commando are only a few miles from my shooting ground.......... You catch my drift right!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilv Posted August 13, 2008 Report Share Posted August 13, 2008 I agree, that with hindsight, both men were indeed innocent and I also agree there were some outrageous misjudgments made as far as Mr Menezes death was concerned, noteably with senior officers involved, who for the record I believe should be held accountable, perhaps that should have been made clearer on my original post. As far as Mr Stanley goes, there's a bit more to it than he was shot for being in posession of a table leg... I've also never taken a shot with any firearm without a totally safe and appropriate back stop, if you don't then perhaps indeed you should be held responsible for your actions, in any case it's certainly not a comparable example to the two previously mentioned scenarios. However I'm aware that we have hijacked this thread for which I apologise and perhaps we could agree to disagree on the matters? If you're ever about in Essex PM me, we'll shoot some pigeons and perhaps discuss it further down my local! Regards John. Sorry John, just found this post and must have seemed churlish for not responding. I would be pleased indeed to PM you and come for a shoot and a few pints in your local. Thank you. If I am ever down that way, I will try and arrange it. meanwhile keep on at those pigeons. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.