Security alert outside Bushey Station
By Bronwyn Scanlan (Watford Observer)


A SECURITY alert outside Bushey train station caused traffic mayhem this
afternoon (Wednesday).

The incident began when a man carrying a rucksack was apprehended on a 258
bus to Watford.

The bus, travelling from Harrow, was terminated at Bushey station around
4pm.

Police ordered the driver and passengers off the vehicle, before arresting a
man, who had been wearing a rucksack.

All houses and businesses within a 500m radius of the station were
evacuated, and several roads were closed off.

About 20 squad cars and two ambulances attended the scene.

Police were in the process of leaving the scene at around 6pm.

Were you an eyewitness?

If you have been affected by this incident please contact the Watford
Observer newsroom on 01923 216294 or send an email to
editor@watfordobserver.co.uk.

5:12pm today

"Marratxi"  wrote in message
news:dc92uu$42g$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> Security alert outside Bushey Station
> By Bronwyn Scanlan (Watford Observer)
>
>
> A SECURITY alert outside Bushey train station caused traffic mayhem this
> afternoon (Wednesday).
>
> The incident began when a man carrying a rucksack was apprehended on a 258
> bus to Watford.

> Were you an eyewitness?
>
> If you have been affected by this incident please contact the Watford
> Observer newsroom on 01923 216294 or send an email to
> editor@watfordobserver.co.uk.
>
> 5:12pm today


Surely thousands of men carry rucsacs as routine?
I certainly do when needing to carry something more than just my camera bag.
Or have all the rules now changed, until the bombers recruit women, and
handbags or shopping bags become the modus operandi.

-- 
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:37:14 +0100 someone who may be "Malcolm
Stewart"  wrote this:-


>Surely thousands of men carry rucsacs as routine?


Presumably the man was not white. As Britain becomes more and more
like a banana republic it appears to be entirely acceptable to pick
on non-white men with rucksacks.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

And we wouldn't want to pick on non-white people would we but it is ok
for Islamic murderers to pick on white people. Surely it is entirely
acceptable to target profiles, what is the point of targeting white
grannies.

Kevin

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:23:08 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 00:37:14 +0100 someone who may be "Malcolm
>Stewart"  wrote this:-
>
>>Surely thousands of men carry rucsacs as routine?
>
>Presumably the man was not white. As Britain becomes more and more
>like a banana republic it appears to be entirely acceptable to pick
>on non-white men with rucksacks.


FOAD you twat - it's not  a racism thing but an observation of fact.

Just like some weak liberal tool like you to put a white supremacy
slant on it - we can all do well without you stirring things

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be
unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-


>FOAD you twat


Excellent, someone else who appears unable to answer the point and
instead resorts to bad language in an attempt to divert attention.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

All the video shots I've seen of suspects were very definetly not
white, why would the police want to waste theit time harrassing
innocent white people. Now if picking on white people because of pc
reasons is acceptable then ok but if the IRA ever start up again I hope
that Asians don't mind being targeted as IRA terrorists, for pc
reasons. Is that polite enough for you.

Kevin

David Hansen  wrote

>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be
>unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
>
>>FOAD you twat
>
>Excellent, someone else who appears unable to answer the point and
>instead resorts to bad language in an attempt to divert attention.
>
>

Well i wouldn't go so far as to use the phraseology of 'Unclewobbly' as 
above BUT one has to say that in all your MANY postings re 'bombers' you 
do seem to have some additional agenda re the plods; that is getting to 
be like toothache or a record needle stuck in a groove.

  I will state that i don't think that everything is wonderful and rosy 
re the boys in blue and this case of 'execute on sight' leaves a very 
bitter taste in ones mouth.

On 28 Jul 2005 05:21:42 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>All the video shots I've seen of suspects were very definetly not
>white, why would the police want to waste theit time harrassing
>innocent white people.


If one buys the propaganda then the UK is being attacked by Muslims.
That religion is not confined to people of particular racial
origins.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537572,00.html
illustrates the sort of thing that can happen when the police are
told to do anything they like. I note that, yet again, the police
and mass media were keen not to publicise that the people grabbed in
a blaze of publicity at Grantham station were released without any
further action. The same is true of all sorts of people, like the
man grabbed at Birmingham Snow Hill.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:55:59 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be
>unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
>
>>FOAD you twat
>
>Excellent, someone else who appears unable to answer the point and
>instead resorts to bad language in an attempt to divert attention.


Divert attention? There is plenty more expletives that apply to people
who try to water the gravity of this down.

Did you lose a colleague in the first little lot? I did - well he
hasn't been heard from since not turning up at work in the Angel that
morning - probably one of the un-identifiable charred remains. Watch
out and see if they ever identify Giles H.

Go back and look at all the attrocities that have happened, a mixture
of non-white muslims, 9/11 7/7 - the only white muslims I have seen in
this lot was the wife of Germaine Lindsay and a couple of other out-of
place faces in Leeds. 

Do you see a pattern emerging here?

I am sorry you see it as "picking on non-whites"and muslims but the
fact remains they are the sole denominator and until people start
wearing tattooes on their foreheads that illustrate their religious
habit, it follows that people are twitchy of Asian guys with
rucksacks. I am watching, and I watch others on my train and I assure
you I am not alone.

Having looked at your past posts, you always seem to slant stuff like
this to your own agender... in light of this I re-iterate: FOAD

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:11:34 +0100 someone who may be
unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-


>Did you lose a colleague in the first little lot? I did - well he
>hasn't been heard from since not turning up at work in the Angel that
>morning - probably one of the un-identifiable charred remains. Watch
>out and see if they ever identify Giles H.


While I'm sorry to hear this I'm also unsure how the killing of a
53rd person does anything useful for the family and friends of the
52 other dead people. It does seem that the fact that the 53rd
victim was non-white has something to do with his killing.

One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. I see that the
killer has now been sent on family holiday at taxpayer's expense.
This perfectly illustrates the claim that the police do not live in
the "real world". When train drivers kill someone, leaving aside the
circumstances for a moment, are they and their family sent on a
holiday at tax payer's expense?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:32:28 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:

: One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. 

Nobody has ever claimed that the shooting was anything other than 
deliberate.

Ian
--

On 28 Jul 2005 15:59:11 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>Nobody has ever claimed that the shooting was anything other than 
>deliberate.


Not in so many words. However, the weasel words of Mr Blair and many
party politicians appear to be intended to convey a particular
impression.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:


> One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. I see that the
> killer has now been sent on family holiday at taxpayer's expense.
> This perfectly illustrates the claim that the police do not live in
> the "real world". When train drivers kill someone, leaving aside the
> circumstances for a moment, are they and their family sent on a
> holiday at tax payer's expense?


But they are completely different circumstances.

If I ever have the misfortune to kill someone, it won't be because I
have just wrestled someone I strongly suspect to be about to detonate a
bomb to the floor, and had a split second to decide how to stop him
from doing that.

I suspect like you, at the first sniff of someone carrying or wearing a
bomb I'd have been taking steps to distance myself, f*cking fast ones.

Those police officers must have genuinely, however WITH HINDSIGHT
wrongly, thought that he was about to blow himself up. However much it
could be argued that it is their duty as police officers to try to stop
him in some way, how much courage does it take to chase after him and
then in whatever way try to restrain him on the floor. Somehow, I doubt
you'd have done that. I'm sure you'd have been legging it, somewhere
behind me.

For them to have shot him as they did, knowing the repercussions of
this, especially with multiple witnesses, they must have been sure
beyond a doubt that he was a bomber. The fact is that now, again with
hindsight, we know that despite him coming out of a flat thought to be
used by bombers, wearing a thick apparently unseasonal jacket, and
legging it from the police towards what they would have previously
considered a prime target, he was innocent. But they didn't know that
at the time, did they?

Put yourself in their position. You have a guy two feet away from you
who you are sure is wearing a bomb. He is struggling to get away from
you. You aren't sure how easy it would be for him to detonate the bomb,
but you are sure that if he does, you'll be dead. If you shoot him in
the chest or back, the bomb might detonate anyway.

What would you do?

One shot, or eight shots in the head, what does it matter?

I think the met police sending them on holidays is a rare example of an
employer completely supporting employees who have just performed above
and beyond the call of duty, with the information available to them at
the time.

David Hansen wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2005 05:21:42 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
> wrote this:-
>
> >All the video shots I've seen of suspects were very definetly not
> >white, why would the police want to waste theit time harrassing
> >innocent white people.
>
> If one buys the propaganda then the UK is being attacked by Muslims.
> That religion is not confined to people of particular racial
> origins.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537572,00.html
> illustrates the sort of thing that can happen when the police are
> told to do anything they like. I note that, yet again, the police
> and mass media were keen not to publicise that the people grabbed in
> a blaze of publicity at Grantham station were released without any
> further action. The same is true of all sorts of people, like the
> man grabbed at Birmingham Snow Hill.


Crap, and you know it! The police were very quick to tell the media
when people were released and in most cases the media themselves
plastered the info all over the TV and Radio before the police
themselves were ready to say if anything had occurred. There were 11
incidents today on the GWML at stations and car parks which resulted in
police attendance,travel delays and line closures, how many of those
will cause a "blaze of publicity"?
The simple fact is you do have a beef about the security services which
shows itself regularly in your postings, be it about day to day events
or the situation we are in today. You offer no feasible alternatives to
the actions taken, and since the majority of those carrying out the
attacks do have coloured skins it is only natural for attention to be
drawn to those groups whilst not ignoring the fact that there are many
within the more extreme elements who are yellow or white skinned.
Since much of the action is also being carried out by Civil Servants
and Military Personnel I'm assuming your rant about the police covers
those organisations as well. Armchair experts really need to learn that
those they love to pontificate about are often those putting their
lives at risk in order to protect the majority of us from harm. Ever
had to deal with an explosive device, had your finger on the trigger?
No? Thought not!

On 28 Jul 2005 09:30:21 -0700 someone who may be "terzal"
 wrote this:-


>If I ever have the misfortune to kill someone, it won't be because I
>have just wrestled someone I strongly suspect to be about to detonate a
>bomb to the floor,


Even though you or your colleagues have sat on a bus with this
"suspected bomber" for 15 minutes? It does not compute.


>and had a split second to decide how to stop him from doing that.


It appears that the gunman was carrying out a premeditated plan and
had been ordered to carry out this plan some minutes before. That is
not a split second decision. The particular circumstances add to
this, as the "suspected bomber" had been out of the house for about
half an hour, which is hardly a split second.


>Those police officers must have genuinely, however WITH HINDSIGHT
>wrongly, thought that he was about to blow himself up.


I am sure they will claim/have claimed that.


>how much courage does it take to chase after him and
>then in whatever way try to restrain him on the floor. Somehow, I doubt
>you'd have done that. I'm sure you'd have been legging it, somewhere
>behind me.


You may well be right. I hope never to find out.

However, members of my family have deliberately and calculatingly
carried possibly unstable explosives in their bare hands on a couple
of occasions, in order to remove them from other people. In both
cases these would have caused a big bang killing anyone in the
vicinity. Therefore I have a very small insight into the courage
involved in such things. Note that I do not claim any of this
courage has rubbed off on me.




-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:32:28 +0100, David Hansen wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

> When train drivers kill someone, leaving aside the
> circumstances for a moment, are they and their family sent on a
> holiday at tax payer's expense?


Not this one. But I have spent 8 months being paid my full rate to sit
at home doing nothing, which has cost something in the region of 20
grand and which has presumably been paid for out of the subsidy my
employer receives from the taxpayer.

I suspect that had I made a good case for it, the company *would* have
paid for my family and I to go on holiday, which would effectively
have been at tax payer's expense.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:31:56 UTC, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

: The simple fact is you do have a beef about the security services which
: shows itself regularly in your postings, be it about day to day events
: or the situation we are in today. You offer no feasible alternatives to
: the actions taken..

He's simply "asking questions" ...

Ian


--

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:55:59 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:

: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:34:17 +0100 someone who may be
: unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
: 
: >FOAD you twat
: 
: Excellent...

Hmm. Almost a hit.

Ian

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:32:28 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:11:34 +0100 someone who may be
>unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
>
>>Did you lose a colleague in the first little lot? I did - well he
>>hasn't been heard from since not turning up at work in the Angel that
>>morning - probably one of the un-identifiable charred remains. Watch
>>out and see if they ever identify Giles H.
>
>While I'm sorry to hear this I'm also unsure how the killing of a
>53rd person does anything useful for the family and friends of the
>52 other dead people. It does seem that the fact that the 53rd
>victim was non-white has something to do with his killing.
>
>One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. I see that the
>killer has now been sent on family holiday at taxpayer's expense.
>This perfectly illustrates the claim that the police do not live in
>the "real world". When train drivers kill someone, leaving aside the
>circumstances for a moment, are they and their family sent on a
>holiday at tax payer's expense?


The man was very deliberately shot dead - no one has ever stated otherwise.
As far as I can see the only person implying that this has been said is
you.

The way you write, referring to "killer", "family holiday", "taxpayer's
expense", is worthy of The Daily Express or Daily Mail at their most crass.

You carp on about how much you dislike Blair's spin yet here you are doing
the same thing - only worse.


-- 
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:31:56 UTC, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>
> : The simple fact is you do have a beef about the security services which
> : shows itself regularly in your postings, be it about day to day events
> : or the situation we are in today. You offer no feasible alternatives to
> : the actions taken..
>
> He's simply "asking questions" ...
>
> Ian
>
>
> --illustrates the sort of thing that can happen when the police are

told to do anything they like.

Show me the question in that statement. I've been reading his various
pontifications about the police, security services etc. for the last
two years. I find his statements insulting (which he no doubts wishes
them to be) and some may remember his posting some time ago that public
awareness is no defence against terrorism. Despite overwhelming
evidence that it is. How else does he think the West London bomb was
found? How else does he think the Pangbourne bomb and firearms stash
was found? How else was it that we picked up an IRA quartermaster in a
bedsit in Reading? Public making phone calls that's how.

David Hansen wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2005 09:30:21 -0700 someone who may be "terzal"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >If I ever have the misfortune to kill someone, it won't be because I
> >have just wrestled someone I strongly suspect to be about to detonate a
> >bomb to the floor,
>
> Even though you or your colleagues have sat on a bus with this
> "suspected bomber" for 15 minutes? It does not compute.
>
> >and had a split second to decide how to stop him from doing that.
>
> It appears that the gunman was carrying out a premeditated plan and
> had been ordered to carry out this plan some minutes before. That is
> not a split second decision. The particular circumstances add to
> this, as the "suspected bomber" had been out of the house for about
> half an hour, which is hardly a split second.
>
> >Those police officers must have genuinely, however WITH HINDSIGHT
> >wrongly, thought that he was about to blow himself up.
>
> I am sure they will claim/have claimed that.
>
> >how much courage does it take to chase after him and
> >then in whatever way try to restrain him on the floor. Somehow, I doubt
> >you'd have done that. I'm sure you'd have been legging it, somewhere
> >behind me.
>
> You may well be right. I hope never to find out.
>
> All Mr. Hansen knows is what has been said in the papers and has built his version of events on that. Cock ups happen in the real world, traffic snarl ups, obstructions of any kind are a real bind when one is trying to do an intercept without using two tones that can alert the suspect. That could well be why the uniformed officers arrived when they did, and remember that the officers probably only had a few seconds before knowing he was running into the station. In this particular case CCTV coverage of the entire event is there in great detail. The actions of those officers will be be pored over at length for months for something they had very few moments to consider.  The rumour mill, aided by the media (and this includes all papers not just the tabloid rubbish) are filling in the gaps with all sorts of crap which does a lot to misinform. It just so happens that I learnt today that one of the officers involved is a former close colleague, and that officer is not away on holiday. The effect on that officer and family is not something I would wish on anyone, and armchair experts armed with hindsight and speculative media coverage do nothing to ease the pain of those involved, both police and the unfortunate victim's family.

> he simple fact is you do have a beef about the security services which
> shows itself regularly in your postings, be it about day to day events
> or the situation we are in today. You offer no feasible alternatives to
> the actions taken, and since the majority of those carrying out the
> attacks do have coloured skins it is only natural for attention to be
> drawn to those groups whilst not ignoring the fact that there are many
> within the more extreme elements who are yellow or white skinned.
> Since much of the action is also being carried out by Civil Servants
> and Military Personnel I'm assuming your rant about the police covers
> those organisations as well. Armchair experts really need to learn that
> those they love to pontificate about are often those putting their
> lives at risk in order to protect the majority of us from harm. Ever
> had to deal with an explosive device, had your finger on the trigger?
> No? Thought not!


John

Take time to chill out and let the fools rant on and make idiots of 
themselves.

I've had knives and guns pulled on me while on duty on the railway which 
can be a little disconcerting. Probably never faced what you've had to 
but 'armchair experts' will always be there to wind us up with their 
limited experience of real life [as they see it] in their own little 
world in front of a PC.

Please ignore them and continue with your insightful and educating posts.


Mark F

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 22:32:47 UTC, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:31:56 UTC, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
: >
: > : The simple fact is you do have a beef about the security services which
: > : shows itself regularly in your postings, be it about day to day events
: > : or the situation we are in today. You offer no feasible alternatives to
: > : the actions taken..
: >
: > He's simply "asking questions" ...

: > --illustrates the sort of thing that can happen when the police are
: told to do anything they like.
: 
: Show me the question in that statement. I've been reading his various
: pontifications about the police, security services etc. for the last
: two years. I find his statements insulting...

Good point. Yes, he does seem to have a very, very peculiar bee in his
bonnet about the police (excellent - personal abuse). 

There were eight officers on duty at Haymarket when I caught my train 
to Lockerbie this afternoon. They were friendly and cheerful and I was
delighted to see them. Well, I'd rather we didn't need them, but I am 
also very glad that someone is willing to do that job.

Ian

On 28 Jul 2005 15:32:47 -0700 someone who may be
jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote this:-


>I've been reading his various
>pontifications about the police, security services etc. for the last
>two years.


Feel free to point out the errors in them if you like.

For example, how does someone turn into a "suspected suicide bomber"
after getting off a bus? We can assume that they were not a
"suspected suicide bomber" when they go on the bus, if they were why
did the police let them get on the bus? Having got off the bus did
they meet someone in an Osama bin Laden costume and strap a bomb to
themselves, or do the police thing a bomb was teleported to them?
There does not seem to be a third option.

I have asked this question several times, so far nobody has come up
with a convincing explanation. I will be interested to see if the
"Independent" Police Complaints Commission can come up with a
convincing explanation.


>I find his statements insulting


Really. Have I ever aimed any personal insults at you that
criticised your current or former work, your motives?


>(which he no doubts wishes them to be)


Your mind reading skills have let you down again.


>and some may remember his posting some time ago that public
>awareness is no defence against terrorism.


Did I really?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:21 GMT someone who may be Tessy
 wrote this:-


>The way you write, referring to "killer",


I am being moderate in my language by using that term. What term
would you use?



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On 28 Jul 2005 15:32:47 -0700 someone who may be
jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote this:-


>I've been reading his various
>pontifications about the police, security services etc. for the last
>two years.


Just one further thought.

I suspect that you think I blame the gunman exclusively for this
killing. If that is the case then that is incorrect.

Time will tell who is to blame, but I doubt it will be one person.
That would be like just blaming the train driver for causing the
crash at Southall.

I suspect http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1536751,00.html
is beginning to get to the truth when it says the following at the
end of the article:

====================================================================

Insiders say there may have been flaws in the operation that led to
Mr De Menezes's shooting, which is being investigated by the
Independent Police Complaints Commission.

There are questions about why the intelligence was so faulty and
about the identification of Mr De Menezes as a target. The decision
to let him run and get on a bus is also suspect, although it may
have been taken in the hope of finding out who he might meet.

One officer said an examination of the intelligence used, the
decision making and identification of the supposed suspect "may
reduce the culpability [of the officer who fired] quite
significantly".

Another senior Met insider said: "When the truth comes out it is
going to be horrific."

====================================================================

When Mr Blair takes his head out of the sand there is the
possibility that lessons can be learnt.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:32:28 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:11:34 +0100 someone who may be
>unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
>
>>Did you lose a colleague in the first little lot? I did - well he
>>hasn't been heard from since not turning up at work in the Angel that
>>morning - probably one of the un-identifiable charred remains. Watch
>>out and see if they ever identify Giles H.
>
>While I'm sorry to hear this I'm also unsure how the killing of a
>53rd person does anything useful for the family and friends of the
>52 other dead people. It does seem that the fact that the 53rd
>victim was non-white has something to do with his killing.
>
>One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. I see that the
>killer has now been sent on family holiday at taxpayer's expense.
>This perfectly illustrates the claim that the police do not live in
>the "real world". When train drivers kill someone, leaving aside the
>circumstances for a moment, are they and their family sent on a
>holiday at tax payer's expense?


killer?

you see there you go putting the slant on it again. One thing you
probably don't (want to) realise is that in hightened situations like
this, people tend to ensure they have control of a situation. 

have you *ever* been in a situation that forced you into acting in a
rare and dramtic (possibly violent) self-preserving manner.

The Israeli forces have been dealing with suicide bombers for years
and they know that the only way to stop a suicide bomber is a
head-shot. Legs and arms may not fully incapacitate the protagonist
and a body shot carries a tremedous risk of detonating the bomb. The
police were right to act as they did. The bloke should not of run (but
of course we now know why he did).

I suspect you are incapable of empathising with this as it is clear to
me from your posts that you are a limp troll. I feel stupid that I
have allowed myself to even be drawn into exchanging posts with you.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:20:24 +0100, David Hansen wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:
[...]

> When Mr Blair takes his head out of the sand there is the
> possibility that lessons can be learnt.


David, whatever you think of the people concerned, can you *purely for
the sake of clarity* please start calling the cop Sir Ian or something
other than Mr Blair? 

Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

I was on Clapham Junc station yesterday and was very reassured by the
police presence but alarmed that in this country it has come to police
with machine guns patrolling the platforms. Three weeks ago Islamic
suicide murderers killed 56 innocent people yet as bold as brass there
was an Asian guy on the station with his jacket over his shoulder
trying, very badly, to disguise the fact that he had a back pack under
the jacket. He also looked very lost or agitated, difficult to tell
which.
My train arrived and I was very glad to get on but I fully expect to
arrive home to the news that there had been a suicide bombing or some
fuckwit had get shot.
No doubt this guy would have been so pissed of if he had been singled
out to be searched.

Kevin

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:28:23 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
>whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
>the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.


I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
context. Of course Mr Liar is Mr Liar and thus not to be confused
with Mr Blair:-)


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

How many have been targeted by the police as a legitimate stop and
search stereotype, as some of you suggest all non whites with rucksacks
must now be?
I have, and sometimes twice in one day. After 3 or 4 times in a week
for several weeks, it does begin to make one want to stick something
sharp up every patronising plod in the country. "just doing my job,
sir". Bollocks you are. You are just ramming your uniformed superiority
down other peoples throat. It must be great for the plod ego, but does
nothing for their intelligence.

And what, you may ask, was my 'crime' that I was targeted so much? This
was in the early 70s and I made the 'mistake' of owning an old car,
wearing a tee shirt and jeans, and having shoulder length hair. This,
apparently, put me into a category where I was deemed likely to be
committing a crime (no insurance, no tax, worn out tyres, cannabis
possessor, etc. etc), so I only had to drive a few miles and the blue
lights started flashing. I even got pulled over by unmarked cars, which
is quite disconcerting. At no time did they ever find anything wrong
with the vehicle I was driving or the activities that I might be
undertaking, i.e walking to work with my sandwiches in a bag, but the
bag had to be searched, and sarcastic comments made by them "not going
to eat these now are you, sir?".

I was only cautioned once, on the M2 near Chatham in 1975. My crime?
Apparently my offside indicator cover had a small piece missing out of
it.

Now, I feel for all Muslims in this country. Most white people will
never know what their lives will be like from now on - fanned by the
predjudice put out by the Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph, Evening
Standard, and more subtly, the Times.

David Hansen wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:28:23 +0100 someone who may be Ross
>  wrote this:-
>
>> Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
>> whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge
>> of the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to
>> read.
>
> I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
> context.


Well, try a bit harder and call him Ian Blair if you mean the Met Police
Commissioner.  Making it clear "by the context" generally means that one
has to read the whole sentence before it's clear who you mean.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
   David Hansen  wrote:

> >Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
> >whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
> >the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.

> I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
> context. Of course Mr Liar is Mr Liar and thus not to be confused
> with Mr Blair:-)


I seem to remember someone saying that using personal abuse shows that they
have no case.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:53:38 GMT, Richard J. wrote in
<CxqGe.79232$G8.39843@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, seen in uk.railway:

> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:28:23 +0100 someone who may be Ross
> >  wrote this:-
> >
> >> Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
> >> whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge
> >> of the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to
> >> read.
> >
> > I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
> > context.
> 
> Well, try a bit harder and call him Ian Blair if you mean the Met Police
> Commissioner.  Making it clear "by the context" generally means that one
> has to read the whole sentence before it's clear who you mean.


My point exactly. Thank you.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

On 29 Jul 2005 05:24:24 -0700, crazy_horse_12002@yahoo.co.uk wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:

[...]

> And what, you may ask, was my 'crime' that I was targeted so much? This
> was in the early 70s and I made the 'mistake' of owning an old car,
> wearing a tee shirt and jeans, and having shoulder length hair. 


My sole experience of arsy coppers in which I felt distinctly
uncomfortable (as opposed to dealing with arsy coppers in a situation
in which I also had a uniform and a degree of authority) was when I
was 15. I was walking to a private museum, at which I volunteered,
from the bus stop some 1/2 mile away. 

I was followed by a plod in a car, at walking pace, for most of that
distance, until he decided that it was time to "have a chat". My crime
that day was being a 15-year-old with a big bag who'd alighted from a
bus which had come from the "big city", and had done so in an area
where people thought having some money made them superior.


Well, I suppose I *might* have been casing the place up whilst dressed
in the rather distinctive museum uniform and I might have been
carrying the "sack" in which to hold my ill-gotten gains, despite the
fact that my *bag* was clearly full and heavy. 

But I doubt it.


I suspect that a few dealings with coppers like that would explain why
teenagers as a whole dislike the cops, never mind those from ethnic
minorities.

-- 
Ross, Lincoln, UK

We're *not* afraid
http://www.werenotafraid.com

David H Wild  wrote:


>In article ,
>   David Hansen  wrote:
>> >Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
>> >whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
>> >the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.
>
>> I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
>> context. Of course Mr Liar is Mr Liar and thus not to be confused
>> with Mr Blair:-)
>
>I seem to remember someone saying that using personal abuse shows that they
>have no case.



Nice try.

;-)

Ross  wrote:


> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:20:24 +0100, David Hansen wrote in
> , seen in uk.railway:
> [...]
> > When Mr Blair takes his head out of the sand there is the
> > possibility that lessons can be learnt.
> 
> David, whatever you think of the people concerned, can you *purely for
> the sake of clarity* please start calling the cop Sir Ian or something
> other than Mr Blair? 
> 
> Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
> whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
> the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.



Are they linked, family in one way or another  ?
Just curious, from Belgium.

Theo

-- 
From the heath in the Nord of Belgium

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:21 GMT someone who may be Tessy
 wrote this:-


>The man was very deliberately shot dead - no one has ever stated otherwise.
>As far as I can see the only person implying that this has been said is
>you.


BBC television news stated otherwise yesterday evening. I am fairly
certain the phrase they used was that he was shot, "by mistake."



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 20:08:29 +0100 someone who may be Ross
 wrote this:-


>My sole experience of arsy coppers in which I felt distinctly
>uncomfortable (as opposed to dealing with arsy coppers in a situation
>in which I also had a uniform and a degree of authority) was when I
>was 15.


The police let themselves down in a big way around here recently at
the G8 meeting. Lots of arrogance and stupidity from them.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:06:47 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:21 GMT someone who may be Tessy
> wrote this:-
>
>>The man was very deliberately shot dead - no one has ever stated otherwise.
>>As far as I can see the only person implying that this has been said is
>>you.
>
>BBC television news stated otherwise yesterday evening. I am fairly
>certain the phrase they used was that he was shot, "by mistake."


David, playing with words again, I see.

The man was deliberately shot dead.  The fact that he was targeted was a
mistake.

Your silly weasel words just make you sound silly.
-- 
Tessy @ nospam.com
Life is complex: it has real and imaginary parts

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:42:14 GMT someone who may be Tessy
 wrote this:-


>David, playing with words again, I see.


If you wish to characterise discussion as that then yes, I am proud
to be "playing with words again" and will continue to do so.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:17:37 +0100 someone who may be David H Wild
 wrote this:-


>I seem to remember someone saying that using personal abuse shows that they
>have no case.


People have made the same observation before. My answer is the same
as it has been in the past. I am not perfect and Mr Liar and The Mad
Woman of Finchley will remain.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:23:45 +0100, Edgar Iredale
<Please@no.spam.invalid> wrote:


>On Friday 29 July 2005 13:09 David Hansen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:28:23 +0100 someone who may be Ross
>>  wrote this:-
>> 
>>>Every time you talk about Mr Blair I have to stop and figure out
>>>whether you mean our beloved Prime Monster or the bloke in charge of
>>>the Met Police. It makes your posts unnecessarily difficult to read.
>> 
>> I have tried to make the distinction clear in my posts by the
>> context. Of course Mr Liar is Mr Liar and thus not to be confused
>> with Mr Blair:-)
>> 
>I'm confused. I thought Liar was a magazine. Please use something more
>understandable. 
>Perhaps the cunning plan is to promote members of the Blair surname to all
>prominent positions to confuse the issue (and I don't mean in the
>genealogical sense).
>Edgar


Of course, an added confusion is to read books by Eric Blair.

MM

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:24:10 +0100, MM wrote:


> Of course, an added confusion is to read books by Eric Blair.


Down-and-outs do it, I hear, at the two principal Eurostar destinations.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309745.html
(43 070 at Peterborough, 3 Sep 1979)

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:06:47 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:

: On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:21 GMT someone who may be Tessy
:  wrote this:-
: 
: >The man was very deliberately shot dead - no one has ever stated otherwise.
: >As far as I can see the only person implying that this has been said is
: >you.
: 
: BBC television news stated otherwise yesterday evening. I am fairly
: certain the phrase they used was that he was shot, "by mistake."

There is no contradiction there.

Ian

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 22:42:14 UTC, Tessy  wrote:

: Your silly weasel words just make you sound silly.

Excellent, more personal abuse.

Ian

--

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:09:33 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:

: The police let themselves down in a big way around here recently at
: the G8 meeting. Lots of arrogance and stupidity from them.

That's one point of view. Many of us in Edinburgh were extremely glad 
that they took a robust approach to the small number of arseholes who 
wanted to subvert the protests and have a bit of a rammy. 

Ian
--

David Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:11:34 +0100 someone who may be
> unclewobbly@talk21.com wrote this:-
>
> >Did you lose a colleague in the first little lot? I did - well he
> >hasn't been heard from since not turning up at work in the Angel that
> >morning - probably one of the un-identifiable charred remains. Watch
> >out and see if they ever identify Giles H.
>
> While I'm sorry to hear this I'm also unsure how the killing of a
> 53rd person does anything useful for the family and friends of the
> 52 other dead people. It does seem that the fact that the 53rd
> victim was non-white has something to do with his killing.
>
> One does not accidentally shoot someone eight times. I see that the
> killer has now been sent on family holiday at taxpayer's expense.
>

Total crap as taken from some newspaper, they, (there was more than
one) are not on holiday. As stated previously there is much that is not
known in the public arena and Mr Hansen is using much of the inaccurate
speculation/lies/and so called informed sources to put his own spin on
the events leading up to the shooting. The way the rumour mill works is
amazing. I even heard of a Met DS describing to a mutual friend that
the shooters were SAS because a police officer would never shoot
someone in the head. His "expert" testimony was given credence because
he worked in the same large organisation. He no more knows about SO19's
workings than most others outside the Met. There are Sabre teams in
London, as there always are. I've no doubt that they were employed on
several occasions during the last three weeks. But the training to the
police includes the tactics employed and has done so for at least the
last 24 years.

In article , 
kajr@mwfree.net writes

>Three weeks ago Islamic
>suicide murderers killed 56 innocent people yet as bold as brass there
>was an Asian guy on the station with his jacket over his shoulder
>trying, very badly, to disguise the fact that he had a back pack under
>the jacket.


If I was an Asian-looking person carrying a backpack, I might feel 
nervous about showing it lest I were attacked by a collection of idiots 
or shot by armed police.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> In article ,
> kajr@mwfree.net writes
> >Three weeks ago Islamic
> >suicide murderers killed 56 innocent people yet as bold as brass there
> >was an Asian guy on the station with his jacket over his shoulder
> >trying, very badly, to disguise the fact that he had a back pack under
> >the jacket.
>
> If I was an Asian-looking person carrying a backpack, I might feel
> nervous about showing it lest I were attacked by a collection of idiots
> or shot by armed police.
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
> Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
> Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
> Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:  

The point was that he was very obviuosly hiding something which made it
suspicious.
Yesterday evening I sat down on a train at Euston and didn't
immediately notice the unattended bag opposite. The consumption of
alcohol probabley being the factor but very soon afterwards a guy
walked through the carriage connection and sat down with the bags. A
guy behind me spoke up appologising for going through the guys bags as
they looked suspicious. This is four weeks after the 7 July and with
all the publicity that that generated.
When we got off at Watford I pointed out that I didn't think that he
has anything to appologise for, if I had in fact noticed it I would
have reported it and got Euston evacuated, much to everybodies
annoyance.
The sheer bllody stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

On 5/8/05 09:03, "kajr@mwfree.net"  wrote:

> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
>> In article ,
>> kajr@mwfree.net writes
>>> Three weeks ago Islamic
>>> suicide murderers killed 56 innocent people yet as bold as brass there
>>> was an Asian guy on the station with his jacket over his shoulder
>>> trying, very badly, to disguise the fact that he had a back pack under
>>> the jacket.
>> 
>> If I was an Asian-looking person carrying a backpack, I might feel
>> nervous about showing it lest I were attacked by a collection of idiots
>> or shot by armed police.
>
> The point was that he was very obviuosly hiding something which made it
> suspicious.
> Yesterday evening I sat down on a train at Euston and didn't
> immediately notice the unattended bag opposite. The consumption of
> alcohol probabley being the factor but very soon afterwards a guy
> walked through the carriage connection and sat down with the bags. A
> guy behind me spoke up appologising for going through the guys bags as
> they looked suspicious. This is four weeks after the 7 July and with
> all the publicity that that generated.
> When we got off at Watford I pointed out that I didn't think that he
> has anything to appologise for, if I had in fact noticed it I would
> have reported it and got Euston evacuated, much to everybodies
> annoyance.
> The sheer bllody stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.


So being Asian and carrying a backpack now counts as 'sheer bllody
stupidity' does it?