There is an interesting article in the September issue of History Today 
about bomb attacks on the Underground.

In 1883.
-- 
Sue
The Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Preservation Trust is now at
http://www.sirnigelgresley.co.uk
Including - 00 gauge Hornby and Bachmann models for sale.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:28:31 +0100 someone who may be Sue McNaughton
 wrote this:-


>There is an interesting article in the September issue of History Today 
>about bomb attacks on the Underground.
>
>In 1883.


And around that time Scotland Yard was blown up by terrorists. IIRC
this was the first New Scotland Yard, there having been several
since.

The cartoon in the Independent today is quite amusing in relation to
2005, http://comment.independent.co.uk/ and click on the cartoon for
the full size version.


-- 
 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.

Yes, very amusing how the events of 15 days before the 22 July have
been swept under the carpet.

Kevin

wrote in message
news:1124449664.670671.167620@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Yes, very amusing how the events of 15 days before the 22 July have
> been swept under the carpet.


Personally, I find the idea of the police (those sworn to protect us)
murdering innocent people far more horrifying than when terrorists do it.

Ronnie

>Yes, very amusing how the events of 15 days before the 22 July have
>been swept under the carpet.



No they haven't, they are hardly ever off the news, with reports of
trials and extraditions.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:00:47 +0100, David Hansen wrote:


> The cartoon in the Independent today is quite amusing in relation to
> 2005, http://comment.independent.co.uk/ and click on the cartoon for
> the full size version.


I can see I am now going to have to put "amusing" in the "wicked list".
(This is the list of words I have encountered people using in a sense
precisely opposite to the classical one).

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632765.html
(09 026 at Eastleigh, Nov 1988)

Are you serious?

Kevin

MIG wrote:

> >Yes, very amusing how the events of 15 days before the 22 July have
> >been swept under the carpet.
>
>
> No they haven't, they are hardly ever off the news, with reports of
> trials and extraditions.

Precisely, and how are the dependents and relatives of the 52 murdered
people coping. We seem to know all about the Brazilian guys family, how
the bomber in Rome only intended to scare us,how Muslims are scared to
go out of their front doors, trade in the West End is down 13%, but how
are the relatives of the victims, you know the ones who were actually
affected on 7 July coping.

Kevin

wrote in message
news:1124451630.686086.299850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Are you serious?


Assuming you're replying to my comment about being more worried by police
killing innocents than terrorists killing innocents, then yes, of course I
am.

When the police start killing innocents, who am I to turn to for protection
from the terrorists?

Ronnie

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> MIG wrote:
> > >Yes, very amusing how the events of 15 days before the 22 July have
> > >been swept under the carpet.
> >
> >
> > No they haven't, they are hardly ever off the news, with reports of
> > trials and extraditions.
> Precisely, and how are the dependents and relatives of the 52 murdered
> people coping. We seem to know all about the Brazilian guys family, how
> the bomber in Rome only intended to scare us,how Muslims are scared to
> go out of their front doors, trade in the West End is down 13%, but how
> are the relatives of the victims, you know the ones who were actually
> affected on 7 July coping.



I don't think it's my business to invade their privacy until/if ever
they are ready to talk about it.  Nor would it provide any information
about what happened or how to prevent it.

But the suspected perpetrators are all over the news, rather than
"swept under the carpet".  The opposite is the case with the shooting,
with the IPCC investigation being delayed while evidence disappears.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:39:59 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>I can see I am now going to have to put "amusing" in the "wicked list".
>(This is the list of words I have encountered people using in a sense
>precisely opposite to the classical one).


Gallows humour.

Having abolished official murders because of the difficulties
involved in such things, a gang of dibbles, party politicians and
officials conspired (in secret) to re-introduce such things. Some of
the conspirators carried out their conspiracy on 22/7/05, the first
most plebs knew of the conspiracy. Instead of being arrested the
conspirators are praised by Mr Blair, a fairly "senior" dibble and
sent on holiday at my expense.

The terrorists are winning.


-- 
 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 19 Aug 2005 06:02:06 -0700 someone who may be "MIG"
 wrote this:-


>But the suspected perpetrators are all over the news, rather than
>"swept under the carpet".  The opposite is the case with the shooting,
>with the IPCC investigation being delayed while evidence disappears.


Indeed, but this didn't stop the "Independent" Police Complaints
Commission boasting that, "The IPCC has the strongest powers of any
police oversight body in the world." They made this assertion in
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr170805_stockwell 

Meanwhile the police are busy causing danger to the public as in 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15877247%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2di%2dthought%2di%2dwas%2dgoing%2dto%2ddie%2dlike%2djean%2dcharles%2dwhen%2darmed%2dpolice%2djumped%2dme-name_page.html

The article starts off with:

"A TRAIN passenger has told how he feared armed police would kill
him like Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes when he too was mistaken
for a bomber.

"Plainclothes officers pounced on Daniel Morton without warning,
snatched his rucksack, then forced him at gunpoint to kneel down on
a platform.

"The group of up to five men, who did not initially reveal they were
police, hurled him to the ground and searched him before letting him
go."





-- 
 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.

In message , David Hansen 
 writes

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:28:31 +0100 someone who may be Sue McNaughton
> wrote this:-
>
>>There is an interesting article in the September issue of History Today
>>about bomb attacks on the Underground.
>>
>>In 1883.
>
>And around that time Scotland Yard was blown up by terrorists. IIRC
>this was the first New Scotland Yard, there having been several
>since.

In 1883 the Metropolitan Police were still at *Scotland* Yard, this 
being the narrow road adjacent to their offices (officially at 4 
Whitehall).

In 1890 they moved to new offices (designed by Norman Shaw) on the 
Embankment.   They took the name with them, the new building becoming 
*New* Scotland Yard.

In 1967/8 they moved again, this time to Victoria Street, the name New 
Scotland Yard travelling with them.   (I suppose the concept of calling 
it New New Scotland Yard would have been a bit much.)
-- 
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On 23 Aug 2005 03:09:08 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.
>From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals


If you are referring to the article in the Daily Mirror that I
quoted it is worth reading what I quoted:

"Plainclothes officers pounced on Daniel Morton without warning,
snatched his rucksack, then forced him at gunpoint to kneel down on
a platform.

"The group of up to five men, who did not initially reveal they were
police, hurled him to the ground and searched him before letting him
go."

Is that the way you want the police to behave, like police officers
in a banana republic?

I note that is not the way the police have behaved when the mass
media are filming 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.

kajr@mwfree.net writes

>
>> Perhaps he had personal or family problems, and was very worried about
>> folks at home. Or possibly he suddenly realised he was in a carriage
>> full of white paranoid racist bigots, and was thinking 'any minute now
>> I'm going to be reported, and possibly shot in the head '.
>And you would have gone up to him and said is everything ok an hoped
>and prayed that you didn't get knifed or he exploded a bomb.
>So now getting off a train for fear of the irrational behaviour is
>classed as racism.
>Was the guy who got off the bus before it was blown up a racist because
>he saw that the bomber was agitated.
>If getting off a train in the presence of somebody who happens to be
>Asian who is acting irrationally is racism then I don't have a problem
>being accused of that if the alternative is sitting next to some nut
>case just to show that I am not a bigot or racist.
>And as to feeling irrational because he is a carriage full of bigots,
>well read the message and try to understand it, he was in the carriage
>before me acting irrationally, I was there minding my own business. Of
>couse if he has a problem being in the same carriage as white people I
>would guess that would make him a racist.
>Doesn't alter the fact that post 7/7 and 21/7 anybody acting
>suspiciously can't really complain if they are asked to be searched.


 I was going to respond in a similar vein to the above poster.
 Some people whatever their colour of skin BEFORE  and AFTER
the events of the other month act in a way that seems a bit odd.
 I would say that there is a rather fine dividing line between what some
consider rational and irrational behaviour (not to put too fine a point
on it mental instability)

"Brazil's ambassador to Britain said on Tuesday he saw no evidence to
suggest British police had staged a cover-up over the killing of an
innocent Brazilian whom they mistook for a would-be suicide bomber.

Ambassador Mancel Gomes Pereira said that, at present, he and Brazilian

investigators believed police who shot 27-year-old Jean Charles de
Menezes on an underground train a month ago had acted in good faith."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/23082005/325/sign-cover-london-shooting-braz...


Oh gosh, even the Brazilians are helping to mix your whitewash now.
Still I bet that you expected this too, didn't you?

In message , 
kajr@mwfree.net writes

>Very difficult to provide an example of somebody not doing something.
>On all previous incidents there has not been the level of messages that
>there has been on this subject also considering that the whole Harry
>Stanley business has been news recently.
>I certainly can't recall any campaigns to get the Commissioner of
>Police to resign or call the ploice muderers and assasins but somebody
>can prove me wrong if they wish.
>
>Kevin
>


I think you'll find there was such an outcry, but not as large or as 
widespread, for the very simple fact that previous incidents of this 
sort received nothing like the air time and coverage of this shooting.
-- 
Regards,

James Christie

"Luck is my middle name," he said, indistinctly.
"Mind you, my first name is Bad."

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:


> I don't understand what you have said. Is it not entirely surprising
> that people are acting like idiots or that people are more observent
> since all the publicity. Is it not reasonable to assume that with all
> the publicity people modify their idiotic behaviour although why
> anybody would want to check-in at an airport and say they have a bomb
> does escape me even before the 7 July.


What I meant was, if a policeman pointed a gun at me today,
I'd be more worried than if a policeman had pointed
a gun at me a few weeks ago.

I was certainly not excusing people behaving
like idiots. Looks like I missed your point. Apologies.

Charlie

crazy_horse_12...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> kajr@mwfree.net wrote:
> > I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.
> > >From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals we have gone to
> > the police spaying bullets indiscriminately.
> > I am gobsmacked at some of the the idiots that I have seen since the 7
> > July  who would no doubt scream about their human rights if searched at
> > gun point. This happened on a train I was on last week.
> > Got on the train and an Asian guy with a bag already on the train moves
> > from one bay to sit in the bay opposite me. He is highly agitated and
> > talking to himself.
>
> <snip>
>
> Of course, there was never any chance you would ask him if everything
> was ok?
>
> Oh no, because he was Asian, so you couldn't possibly communicate with
> him - and he had a rucksack, so must be a bomber.
>
> Perhaps he had personal or family problems, and was very worried about
> folks at home. Or possibly he suddenly realised he was in a carriage
> full of white paranoid racist bigots, and was thinking 'any minute now
> I'm going to be reported, and possibly shot in the head '.

And you would have gone up to him and said is everything ok an hoped
and prayed that you didn't get knifed or he exploded a bomb.
So now getting off a train for fear of the irrational behaviour is
classed as racism.
Was the guy who got off the bus before it was blown up a racist because
he saw that the bomber was agitated.
If getting off a train in the presence of somebody who happens to be
Asian who is acting irrationally is racism then I don't have a problem
being accused of that if the alternative is sitting next to some nut
case just to show that I am not a bigot or racist.
And as to feeling irrational because he is a carriage full of bigots,
well read the message and try to understand it, he was in the carriage
before me acting irrationally, I was there minding my own business. Of
couse if he has a problem being in the same carriage as white people I
would guess that would make him a racist.
Doesn't alter the fact that post 7/7 and 21/7 anybody acting
suspiciously can't really complain if they are asked to be searched.

Kevin

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> Chris Tolley wrote:
>> (while the police were checking me out, I asked if I could carry on
>> taking pictures of the trains, and they didn't mind)

> But since the 22 July I bet you wouldn't continue photographing trains
> while the police checked you out.


Assuming I hadn't been shot, if the same situation were to arise again,
then in all probability, I would ask the same question. (And why not?)
On that day, my plan had been to take a ride out to Lewisham to see the
DLR extension. Being detained took that time off me, and I didn't see
why my afternoon should end up completely fruitless. FYI, the picture in
the sig below is one of those I took while in the Police's company.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p16321342.html
(319 377 at London Blackfriars, 2 Sep 2004)

>I am still at a loss
>to understand whay this particular incident has got everybodies backs
>up and the same people couldn't give a damn about previous incidents.



I think you'll be hard-pushed to find anyone who doesn't give a damn
about those incidents.  Can you provide an example?  People saying they
intend to get on with their lives, or that something else may be yet
more worrying, doesn't correspond to not giving a damn.

Chris Tolley wrote:

> kajr@mwfree.net wrote:
> > I certainly have little sympathy for any person acting like an idiot
> > under the present climate
> But the key issue is not whether person X is acting in any particular
> way at all, but rather the manner in which person Y perceives them to be
> acting. And the fact that person Z, carrying a gun, might get involved.
>
> Last year, while I was photographing trains at Blackfriars, I was
> temporarily detained under the provisions of the Terrorist Act because
> someone perceived my actions to be suspicious. I wasn't remotely worried
> about that because (a) I *knew* I wasn't doing anything suspicious
> (while the police were checking me out, I asked if I could carry on
> taking pictures of the trains, and they didn't mind) and (b) while the
> officers were wearing anti-stab jackets, they were not armed. It seems
> that on or after 22 July such confidence might be misplaced.
> --
> http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/ps9632766.html
> (A slideshow of British diesel locomotives, starting with class 12)

But since the 22 July I bet you wouldn't continue photographing trains
while the police checked you out.
Kevin

The terrorists must be laughing their socks off, in the space of 6
weeks we have gone from being terrified of suspicious looking Asians
with backpacks to being scared of any policeman. Exactly how should a
policeman approach a suspect suicide murderer. Keep gun holstered,
don't wont to scare them, ask them very politely, excuse me my good
fellow, do you have any objection to me searching your bag, oh you do,
that's all right then, go about your lawfull business of murdering the
public then we don't want to impinge on your human rights.


>From the article in the Mirror :

 Daniel's solicitor Carolynn Gallwey said she wanted to know what
grounds officers had for holding him at gunpoint.


She added: "They will need to demonstrate that they held reasonable
suspicion that he was involved in an offence for which he could be
detained. They should know this judgment must never be based on race,
appearance or stereotypes."


As unpleasent as it is I would prefer the scenario of Daniel Morton
rather than the police failing to stop a suicide murderer and murdering
52 people.

Kevin

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> The terrorists must be laughing their socks off, in the space of 6
> weeks we have gone from being terrified of suspicious looking Asians
> with backpacks to being scared of any policeman. Exactly how should a
> policeman approach a suspect suicide murderer. Keep gun holstered,
> don't wont to scare them, ask them very politely, excuse me my good
> fellow, do you have any objection to me searching your bag, oh you do,
> that's all right then, go about your lawfull business of murdering the
> public then we don't want to impinge on your human rights.
>
> >From the article in the Mirror :
>  Daniel's solicitor Carolynn Gallwey said she wanted to know what
> grounds officers had for holding him at gunpoint.
>
>
> She added: "They will need to demonstrate that they held reasonable
> suspicion that he was involved in an offence for which he could be
> detained. They should know this judgment must never be based on race,
> appearance or stereotypes."
>
>
> As unpleasent as it is I would prefer the scenario of Daniel Morton
> rather than the police failing to stop a suicide murderer and murdering
> 52 people.



If you're scared you're scared, and if you're dead you're dead.  As far
as that goes, it makes no difference whether the cause is terrorists or
the police.

But you seem to think that one kind of being scared/killed is something
that we should be grateful for, while the other is something that we
should resent.  Many people (like my mother) seem to share your view.

I resent all of the fear and death and I look to the politicians who
have created the situation and steadfastly refuse to face up to their
responsibilities.

I also concur with the feeing that it's worse when the cause of fear
and death is your own authorities who, unlike convicted criminals, you
have no comeback against (despite the odd enquiry and press story, they
are not going to be touched).

The ultimate logic of your position is that it would be fine if the
police just sprayed bullets into every crowd, because that would
guarantee that no one they killed would carry out any terrorist attacks
afterwards.

The terrorists are indeed laughing, because after their initial
bombings they can sit back in safety while people like you continue
their work for them.

I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.

>From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals we have gone to

the police spaying bullets indiscriminately.
I am gobsmacked at some of the the idiots that I have seen since the 7
July  who would no doubt scream about their human rights if searched at
gun point. This happened on a train I was on last week.
Got on the train and an Asian guy with a bag already on the train moves
from one bay to sit in the bay opposite me. He is highly agitated and
talking to himself. At the next station he gets up to leave but sits in
another bay. At the next station he again gets up to leave but returns
to sit in the bay opposite me. He then gets up, leaves his bag where it
is and sits in the next bay. Then he gets up and goes into the next
carriage but then come back again. At this point I think that this is
it. The woman behind me takes her child and moves into the next
carriage. I got off at the next station, had there been police or any
railway people on the platform I would have reported him.
The train departed but nobody else had the gumption to get off. Would I
have abused his rights if I had reported him and he had been searched
at gunpoint or was I irresponsible by not reporting him?
If somebody wants to act suspiciouly drawing attention to themselves
and get searched they can't really complain and I certainly have little
sympathy for any person acting like an idiot under the present climate
who gets that treatment.

Kevin

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:


> I am gobsmacked at some of the the idiots that I have seen since the 7
> July  who would no doubt scream about their human rights if searched at
> gun point. 


Not entirely suprising is it, given the publicity given to the
recent deliberate killing by police of someone who turned out
to be an innocent bystander?

(Did I really read in one newspaper that they claimed he was
wearing a 'bomber jacket'?)

Charlie

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> I certainly have little sympathy for any person acting like an idiot
> under the present climate

But the key issue is not whether person X is acting in any particular
way at all, but rather the manner in which person Y perceives them to be
acting. And the fact that person Z, carrying a gun, might get involved.

Last year, while I was photographing trains at Blackfriars, I was
temporarily detained under the provisions of the Terrorist Act because
someone perceived my actions to be suspicious. I wasn't remotely worried
about that because (a) I *knew* I wasn't doing anything suspicious
(while the police were checking me out, I asked if I could carry on
taking pictures of the trains, and they didn't mind) and (b) while the
officers were wearing anti-stab jackets, they were not armed. It seems
that on or after 22 July such confidence might be misplaced.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/ps9632766.html
(A slideshow of British diesel locomotives, starting with class 12)

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> kajr@mwfree.net wrote:
>
> > I am gobsmacked at some of the the idiots that I have seen since the 7
> > July  who would no doubt scream about their human rights if searched at
> > gun point.
>
> Not entirely suprising is it, given the publicity given to the
> recent deliberate killing by police of someone who turned out
> to be an innocent bystander?
>
> (Did I really read in one newspaper that they claimed he was
> wearing a 'bomber jacket'?)
>
> Charlie

I don't understand what you have said. Is it not entirely surprising
that people are acting like idiots or that people are more observent
since all the publicity. Is it not reasonable to assume that with all
the publicity people modify their idiotic behaviour although why
anybody would want to check-in at an airport and say they have a bomb
does escape me even before the 7 July.
Kevin

On 23 Aug 2005 02:42:37 -0700 someone who may be "MIG"
 wrote this:-


>If you're scared you're scared, and if you're dead you're dead.  As far
>as that goes, it makes no difference whether the cause is terrorists or
>the police.


Why do you make this distinction? ISTM that shooting at someone
eleven times, including shooting them seven times in the head, is
terrorism. It is certainly not the action of any police force that I
wish to see in the UK, though it is possibly the action of a police
force in some banana republic.


>But you seem to think that one kind of being scared/killed is something
>that we should be grateful for, while the other is something that we
>should resent.


That does indeed seem to be what many people think. They should be
forced to ponder on Thomas Jefferson's oft quoted words on the
subject.


>The terrorists are indeed laughing, because after their initial
>bombings they can sit back in safety while people like you continue
>their work for them.


I wouldn't personalise it so much. It is people like the police and
party politicians who are doing the terrorist's work for 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.

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.
> From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals we have gone to
> the police spaying bullets indiscriminately.




I was just pointing out the direction in which I see the logic going.
The logic being that some kinds of fear and killing are OK because they
prevent the other kind of fear and killing.

To me it's all the same problem. I think that a prerequisite to
preventing anything is not to do it yourself.

Incidentally, shooting at somebody eleven times at close range in a
crowded train, and still managing to miss three times, seems pretty
much like indiscrimite spraying of bullets into a crowd to me.

David Hansen wrote:

> On 23 Aug 2005 02:42:37 -0700 someone who may be "MIG"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >If you're scared you're scared, and if you're dead you're dead.  As far
> >as that goes, it makes no difference whether the cause is terrorists or
> >the police.
>
> Why do you make this distinction? ISTM that shooting at someone
> eleven times, including shooting them seven times in the head, is
> terrorism. It is certainly not the action of any police force that I
> wish to see in the UK, though it is possibly the action of a police
> force in some banana republic.




Fair enough, if one is peculiar enough to think that carrying out acts
of violence and killing in order to coerce a population through fear is
terrorism.  I certainly feel that the authorities are scaring me into
behaving differently by pointing guns at me when I move around London,
knowing that they've been prepared to use them.

But sensible people know that terrorism is any acts carried out by
foreign people we disagree with, while it is sometimes tragically
necessary for us to slaughter innocent people in the name of justice.

Oops, it seems that my Oxford Dictionary concurs with the former.

MIG wrote:

> kajr@mwfree.net wrote:
> > I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.
> > From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals we have gone to
> > the police spaying bullets indiscriminately.
>
>
>
> I was just pointing out the direction in which I see the logic going.
> The logic being that some kinds of fear and killing are OK because they
> prevent the other kind of fear and killing.
>
> To me it's all the same problem. I think that a prerequisite to
> preventing anything is not to do it yourself.
>
> Incidentally, shooting at somebody eleven times at close range in a
> crowded train, and still managing to miss three times, seems pretty
> much like indiscrimite spraying of bullets into a crowd to me.


Rather interesting I found this

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384

So all the flak about this shooting being different because of the
number of shots fired isn't so unique after all. I am still at a loss
to understand whay this particular incident has got everybodies backs
up and the same people couldn't give a damn about previous incidents.

Kevin

Very difficult to provide an example of somebody not doing something.
On all previous incidents there has not been the level of messages that
there has been on this subject also considering that the whole Harry
Stanley business has been news recently.
I certainly can't recall any campaigns to get the Commissioner of
Police to resign or call the ploice muderers and assasins but somebody
can prove me wrong if they wish.

Kevin

kajr@mwfree.net wrote

>Rather interesting I found this
>
>http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384
>
>So all the flak about this shooting being different because of the
>number of shots fired isn't so unique after all. I am still at a loss
>to understand whay this particular incident has got everybodies backs
>up and the same people couldn't give a damn about previous incidents.


  I might not be at the front line of the picket line re previous 
'incidents'
where 'suspects' have met a rather brutal end due to establishment
balls ups . BUT the incident at Stockwell was plain legal murder
however one defines it.
  As soon as the story hit the headlines the affair left a sour taste in 
my mouth and the more that seems to come to light the more cynical one 
becomes: especially as one set of plods investigate another (this is 
usual practice in these affairs)
  All i can see is smoke and varying non attributable statements made to 
shed another gloss on the varying episodes.

  Ok the person pulling the trigger is human so i am led to believe but 
this case (Stockwell incident) has a LOT to answer to and the public 
have a
reasonable right to know the sequence of events

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:47:54 GMT someone who may be Chris Tolley
 wrote this:-


>I wasn't remotely worried
>about that because (a) I *knew* I wasn't doing anything suspicious
>(while the police were checking me out, I asked if I could carry on
>taking pictures of the trains, and they didn't mind) and (b) while the
>officers were wearing anti-stab jackets, they were not armed. It seems
>that on or after 22 July such confidence might be misplaced.


A letter in the Scotsman for today may be illuminating. I await the
comments of handgun enthusiasts regarding the third point with
interest.

Because of the crap web site I reproduce the letter in full below.

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

Below the headline, "Get used to officers with guns", in your 20
August issue, is a photograph of two armed police officers at
Waverley Station. 

I'm sorry, but I don't think I want to get used to it; first,
because I am not convinced that it has actually been of any help in
the last six weeks; secondly, because one incident involving armed
police during that period has done immense damage to the reputation
of the police in Britain; and, thirdly because of what I can see in
the photograph of the two officers at Waverley Station. 

The officer on the left of the photograph is carrying the inevitable
Heckler & Koch MP5, which is almost acceptable. It is an accurate
and reliable model, with a sub-sonic round, widely used in an urban
law enforcement environment. 

However, the officer on the right of the photograph is carrying a
H&K G36C, which is not acceptable. The G36 is an assault rifle
firing a high-velocity round at around three times the speed of
sound. 

What does a police officer need this for in Waverley Station? 

JAMES FRASER 
Holm Park 
Inverness 

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

The article and photograph which the letter refers to is presumably
at http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1812442005





-- 
 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 23 Aug 2005 04:56:27 -0700 someone who may be kajr@mwfree.net
wrote this:-


>I am still at a loss
>to understand whay this particular incident has got everybodies backs
>up and the same people couldn't give a damn about previous incidents.


Ah, another mind reader. Excellent.

Precisely how do you *know* that "people" couldn't give a damn about
previous incidents?

There are these things called search engines. If you use them with
terms like "Harry Stanley" and "Gibraltar" you may discover
something.


-- 
 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 Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:18:51 +0100 someone who may be superted
 wrote this:-


> BUT the incident at Stockwell was plain legal murder
>however one defines it.


Whether this was "legal" remains to be seen. That it was murder now
seems to be beyond any reasonable doubt.

The "Independent" Police Complaints Authority have not exactly shown
themselves to be different from their Uncle Tom predecessors yet.
The police seem to have been their usual obstructive selves. I
gather that a few days ago the killers had not even been
interviewed, which demonstrates just how far outside the "real
world" they are and the kid glove treatment they have been given.

I can hear the sound of the whitewash being mixed. Look out for a
Hutton being appointed to apply it with a broad brush.


-- 
 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.

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> I do wish people on newgroups wouldn't draw inappropriate conclusions.
> >From carrying out searches of suspicious individuals we have gone to
> the police spaying bullets indiscriminately.
> I am gobsmacked at some of the the idiots that I have seen since the 7
> July  who would no doubt scream about their human rights if searched at
> gun point. This happened on a train I was on last week.
> Got on the train and an Asian guy with a bag already on the train moves
> from one bay to sit in the bay opposite me. He is highly agitated and
> talking to himself.


<snip>

Of course, there was never any chance you would ask him if everything
was ok?

Oh no, because he was Asian, so you couldn't possibly communicate with
him - and he had a rucksack, so must be a bomber.

Perhaps he had personal or family problems, and was very worried about
folks at home. Or possibly he suddenly realised he was in a carriage
full of white paranoid racist bigots, and was thinking 'any minute now
I'm going to be reported, and possibly shot in the head '.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:58:17 +0100, Charlie Hulme
 wrote:


>What I meant was, if a policeman pointed a gun at me today,
>I'd be more worried than if a policeman had pointed
>a gun at me a few weeks ago.


I agree 100%.  Mind you, the sight of armed police has always scared
me, not because I was afraid of being shot, but because there is
obviously something afoot to justify it, as it is such a rare sight in
most places.

Now, I find myself very wary of the policemen themselves as well.

That said, the thing I find worse is the spin and lies which it would
seem have come out of this incident.  For that, and not for the policy
alone per-se, nor for the mistake which was made, I call for the
resignation of Sir Ian Blair, and anyone else found to be involved in
the cover-up and lies.

Errors happen, sometimes tragically, in situations like this.  Lies
and cover-ups of this kind can never be justified.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.