Police faked tube shooting log ???

[ddraig]

The north korea thing was directed at one poster too stupid to come up with an argument without an open lie. You returning to it shows a weakness in your own points.

I have read a pile of ideas from all sorts of people. Most have few facts to work on so they argue their politically motivated ideas on what they consider to be true regardless on what in fact happened that day.

I am happy to say that there are many questions to answer but I refuse to support or condemn the police until I have the truth.

Are you saying that the police killed the guy knowing that he was nothing to do with the bombing.
If so, what are the facts you base this on and what are the reasons they did it ?

well they weren't fucking sure were they shot 7 or was it more? times in the back of the head

 

[big footed fred]

well they weren't fucking sure were they shot 7 or was it more? times in the back of the head

Same question to you:

Are you saying that the police killed the guy knowing that he was nothing to do with the bombing.
If so, what are the facts you base this on and what are the reasons they did it ?

Answers with supporting facts please.

 

[laptop]

Answers with supporting facts please.

Anyone who was on these boards as events unfolded and read the threads critically is likely yo be as well-informed as anyone outside the IPCC investigation or the Met internal investigation.

No, we're not going to summarise hundreds of thousands of words for you.

You have to read them yourself.

And apply some critical faculties.

 

[big footed fred]

Anyone who was on these boards as events unfolded and read the threads critically is likely yo be as well-informed as anyone outside the IPCC investigation or the Met internal investigation.
.

But not as well informed as those with the facts in front of them.

All others are deciding on a part of the truth and what is politically handy to them. Both sides are adding their own spin to what little we know.
I say again, we can't judge until we know all the details.
I am not supporting the police or government but I refuse to condemn them until I know what happened and why it happened.
I am sure that if you were in court and not guilty of the crime you would want the jury to have he full facts in front of them. Or maybe some guy saying he didn't think you looked right is plenty to convict you.

 

[ddraig]

bff
1 question - have you read any of any of the threads i searched out to help you understand urban75's place in the whole thing?
i really think you should, it will help, i promise.

unless you are simply a right wing troll.
i hope not and thought you were getting a bit better.

edit - i really really suggest you don't argue with laptop on this.

But not as well informed as those with the facts in front of them.

All others are deciding on a part of the truth and what is politically handy to them. Both sides are adding their own spin to what little we know.
I say again, we can't judge until we know all the details.
I am not supporting the police or government but I refuse to condemn them until I know what happened and why it happened.
I am sure that if you were in court and not guilty of the crime you would want the jury to have he full facts in front of them. Or maybe some guy saying he didn't think you looked right is plenty to convict you.

 

[big footed fred]

bff
1 question - have you read any of any of the threads i searched out to help you understand urban75's place in the whole thing?
i really think you should, it will help, i promise.

unless you are simply a right wing troll.
i hope not and thought you were getting a bit better.

edit - i really really suggest you don't argue with laptop on this.

1) yes, but still fails to change my opinion that I am unable to condemn without full facts.
2) I am making no judgement and have no politics on this issue - right or left wing.
3) if laptop has any facts to offer I am keen to know them as I wish to have the info. This will allow me to form an idea based on the truth.

No political agenda
no idea if the police are guilty of anything or not
no wish to argue that someone is guilty or not until I have information to support that position.

I will say one more time. I know that there are many questions to answer but we don't have the full details of when happened and until we do it is unfair to say that someone is guilty of a crime.

I see lots of ideas but few facts. Was anyone here on that tube or has the info that the IPCC has available to it.
If you have the details that prove these people are guilty them lets see it. If you do not then lets wait until we do.
I still agree there are questions but I still find it hard to accept that a man could shoot another in the head several times knowing he had nothing to do with the bombings.

 

[ddraig]

1) yes, but still fails to change my opinion that I am unable to condemn without full facts.
2) I am making no judgement and have no politics on this issue - right or left wing.
3) if laptop has any facts to offer I am keen to know them as I wish to have the info. This will allow me to form an idea based on the truth.

No political agenda
no idea if the police are guilty of anything or not
no wish to argue that someone is guilty or not until I have information to support that position.

I will say one more time. I know that there are many questions to answer but we don't have the full details of when happened and until we do it is unfair to say that someone is guilty of a crime.

I see lots of ideas but few facts. Was anyone here on that tube or has the info that the IPCC has available to it.
If you have the details that prove these people are guilty them lets see it. If you do not then lets wait until we do.
I still agree there are questions but I still find it hard to accept that a man could shoot another in the head several times knowing he had nothing to do with the bombings.

well if you'd read them you'd know that yes, someone was allegedly on the tube/platform.
are you related?

 

[laptop]

Anyone who was on these boards as events unfolded and read the threads critically is likely yo be as well-informed as anyone outside the IPCC investigation or the Met internal investigation.

But not as well informed as those with the facts in front of them.

Who would those be, then?

How could they tell?

You have no conception of any of the meanings of the word "fact", do you?

 

[fela fan]

We just happen to live in country where we can say what we wish about our government without a risk of torture or disappearing one day.
Our record on human rights is not too bad, in fact I consider that we are quite kind to others and even scum like Abu Hamza get a trial.
There are many countries that would just kill him off after a torture session to find out who his mates are.

No, that's not true. Maybe we can say more than in other countries, yes.

However, what i want to say would land me in rather hot water, but that's in the realms of hypothesis coz i wouldn't be able to get the platform in the first place.

Our record on human rights within our country is of course relatively good, but when it comes to our actions outside of our country i can only think of the US who are worse violators than ourselves.

And after all, people are people, wherever they live or are born.

 

[Epicurus]

big footed fred: Why don’t you follow your own advice and keep your mouth shut?

The police have confirm the Jean Charles did not run; they say he pick up a free news paper and then used his ticket to open the ticket barrier, he was wearing a light weight jacket, those are FACTS confirmer by the police.

As a Brazilian I find your comments offensive, ill informed and mainly irrelevant and maybe you should follow your own advice and not post up ill-informed and baseless rubbish.

 

[Epicurus]

Same question to you:

Are you saying that the police killed the guy knowing that he was nothing to do with the bombing.
If so, what are the facts you base this on and what are the reasons they did it ?

Answers with supporting facts please.

But that isn’t the question you should be asking, the question should be, surely “Were the police in the position of having all the correct facts before they shot and killed someone”, it is the police that took the action not Jean Charles, so it is the police that should have had all the facts before they opened fire.

 

[CPCG]

IPCC Chair Nick Hardwick in Lambeth

Nick Hardwick will be speaking at the next meeting of CPCG for Lambeth and taking questions. For all the reasons given in this thread, it's pretty much certain that he won't be giving any details of the investigations findings, but he will set out the process and what happens next. Details here

He spoke last, in Lambeth, in September and most people valued his approach and candour (minutes here

 

[big footed fred]

But that isn’t the question you should be asking, the question should be, surely “Were the police in the position of having all the correct facts before they shot and killed someone”, it is the police that took the action not Jean Charles, so it is the police that should have had all the facts before they opened fire.

Put yourself in the position of the police at the time.
There were four bombings on the 7th, four more attempts on day before they have to make a judgement on what to do.

I can see why they did it but that is not a reason to say they are guilty or not.
We are unable to decide that until we know what happened.

Some here are willing to convict the police with no idea of what happened that day. All I am asking is that we wait until the details come out into the public domain.

Not too much to ask considering the serious nature of these events

There are many conflicting reports. One says he came from an address that had links to the latter four bombers.
One says he had a resemblance to a known terrorist.

Given the state of alert the police have to work on best guess. No use in times where there is no direct threat of death but in the context of the events of the previous couple of weeks.
If you were those coppers I wonder what you would have done.

The officer that fired must have thought he was a bomber or he would never have pulled the trigger. In this position would you have asked the suspect nicely if he had a bomb or would you have blown his brains out.

So easy for people to sit in front of their screens and rant on about our killer police and not so easy to do the job that protects us from the real killers. The crackpot terrorists that are willing to blow up themselves to kill as many people as they can with no interest in who it is.

There are questions to answer but we can't condemn the police until we know what happened.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Unfortunately your postings all fail to take into account any of the evidence uncovered in the last six months about the errors and blunders committed by te police. That is what people are thinking about. It's scarecely a rush to judgement.

 

[ddraig]

serioulsy fred
this is all old ground, there were a few posters coming from where you are on the threads i dug out for you.

 

[big footed fred]

Unfortunately your postings all fail to take into account any of the evidence uncovered in the last six months about the errors and blunders committed by te police. That is what people are thinking about. It's scarecely a rush to judgement.

There are questions to answer but we can't condemn the police until we know what happened.

Wonder if I need to say it a couple more times just so fucking twats like you will read it.
You know the same as me and it's just bits and bobs. If you know the truth please tell us all so we can decide for ourselves.
If not, please fuck off and wait before deciding they are guilty.

 

[laptop]

BFF is either being incredibly stupid, or trolling.

There are a number of well-rehearsed admitted cock-ups by the organisations responsible for the killing of Jean Charles.

To argue that these organisations cannot be condemned for these because we do not "know all the facts" - whatever that might mean philosophically - is daft, nay mind-bendingly stupid.

No-one has condemned any individual for murder, not least because (as far as I am aware) no-one knows who the individuals in the frame are.

 

[ddraig]

i think bff is a 'deep cover' one

 

[vimto]

Is big footed fred deranged or what?

Stop spewing shit and wake up you sad twat!

 

[vimto]

Reminds me of a certain 'Canadian' poster who would argue the toss no matter how many times they were proved to be wrong. Bit sad really...

 

[ddraig]

i think bff is a 'deep cover' one

maybe it's got the message that it has been rumbled

 

[Epicurus]

Put yourself in the position of the police at the time.
There were four bombings on the 7th, four more attempts on day before they have to make a judgement on what to do.

I can see why they did it but that is not a reason to say they are guilty or not.
We are unable to decide that until we know what happened.

Some here are willing to convict the police with no idea of what happened that day. All I am asking is that we wait until the details come out into the public domain.

Not too much to ask considering the serious nature of these events

There are many conflicting reports. One says he came from an address that had links to the latter four bombers.
One says he had a resemblance to a known terrorist.

Given the state of alert the police have to work on best guess. No use in times where there is no direct threat of death but in the context of the events of the previous couple of weeks.
If you were those coppers I wonder what you would have done.

The officer that fired must have thought he was a bomber or he would never have pulled the trigger. In this position would you have asked the suspect nicely if he had a bomb or would you have blown his brains out.

So easy for people to sit in front of their screens and rant on about our killer police and not so easy to do the job that protects us from the real killers. The crackpot terrorists that are willing to blow up themselves to kill as many people as they can with no interest in who it is.

There are questions to answer but we can't condemn the police until we know what happened.

Your above post shows you have little knowledge of events is would seem.

Maybe you’ll explain to me why the only person who has been injured in this investigation is an innocent man?

We know from the police themselves there were many mistakes made on the day and all these mistakes need to be explained and so far no explanation has been offered, we know that the CCTV was fixed 3 days prior to the shooting yet the police have said “there was no CCTV covering the platform” that has been contradicted by station staff at Stockwell station who claim to have been watching the CCTV earlier that morning and it was working.

Have you looked at the pictures of Jean Charles that have been published they look nothing like Husan Osman (sp) can you not see that? Can you provide any pictures of both people that look even closely like eachother?

You say above “Given the state of alert the police have to work on best guess” this is just so wrong in so many respects, just think about what you have written here, would you let members of your family wander around a city where the police can shot you if they “guess” you’re a terrorist, it is utter nonsense.

If I were one of the coppers I hope I would make sure before I shot someone, it is their duty and it is the rules they have to work under.

You make a lot of assumption in your above post that are not justifiable, you assume that Jean Charles had been positively identified, how do you know that? The Commander in charge of the operation has stated publicly that she never gave an order to shot Jean Charles, why didn’t she? Could it be because he hadn’t been properly identified?

I think the only thing you have posted that I agree with is that no-one on this thread has all the facts, but some have more facts than you, I have posted on Jean Charles thread since day 1, I have also posted on those thread information that wasn’t in the public domain at the time but was shown to be true with-in a few days, I also PM a number of people explaining Jean Charles’s immigration situation which also turned out to be correct.

I have met with member of his family and legal team and have been given first hand information that I’ve posted here and later it was confirmed in the press, so not everyone is uninformed.

People have a right to be worried and concerned if the police that are here to maintain law and order start shooting innocent people, and that is the crux of the matter Jean Charles was a innocent young man going about his lawful business and ended up shot dead at the hands of the police, someone needs to be held to account for this, we can not live in a society where the police use their best guess before killing someone.

 

[detective-boy]

If I were one of the coppers I hope I would make sure before I shot someone, it is their duty and it is the rules they have to work under.My emphasis

No it isn't, as I have explained numerous times.

I appreciate that you have a personal interest in this case but persistent, knowing mistatement of the law does your argument no good at all.

 

[Epicurus]

No it isn't, as I have explained numerous times.

I appreciate that you have a personal interest in this case but persistent, knowing mistatement of the law does your argument no good at all.

So the policeman with the gun didn’t have to be sure there was a threat?

The point you highlighted is in response to the other poster saying “Given the state of alert the police have to work on best guess”, the police can’t make a guess and shot someone.

 

[detective-boy]

So the policeman with the gun didn’t have to be sure there was a threat?

The officer had to have an "honestly-held belief" that they, or someone else, was in imminent danger of assault and that the use of a firearm, in the way it was used, was the minimum reasonably necessary to stop that happening.

That is NOT the same as being "sure". Beiing "sure", without the benefit of hindsight, is impossible.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The officer had to have an "honestly-held belief" that they, or someone else, was in imminent danger of assault and that the use of a firearm, in the way it was used, was the minimum reasonably necessary to stop that happening.

That is NOT the same as being "sure". Beiing "sure", without the benefit of hindsight, is impossible.

I agree. However, my feeling on this is not remotely that they thought de Menezes was innocent and shot him anyway, but neither do I think that they thought he was a likely terrorist. I think;

1. that they just couldn't be sure that he wasn't a terrorist ;

2. that this was in part due to incompetence and errors on their part ;

3. that this is not remotely an adequate legal justification for what happened ;

4. that nevertheless, there will be no convictions even if there are prosecutions, because in practice, the only standard that will ever lead to a police officer being convicted is if it can be shown they knew for sure they were shooting an innocent individual (or ordering them shot).

You see the distinction, my resaons for making it and - I hope - the reasons for my conclusion.

 

[Epicurus]

The officer had to have an "honestly-held belief" that they, or someone else, was in imminent danger of assault and that the use of a firearm, in the way it was used, was the minimum reasonably necessary to stop that happening.

That is NOT the same as being "sure". Beiing "sure", without the benefit of hindsight, is impossible.

Hey come on db, your being very picky there I think, you know what I mean, the guy said “Given the state of alert the police have to work on best guess”, I said they can’t guess they need to be sure, most people would except that means "honestly-held belief" “reasonably sure” I’m not saying and never have they should be 100% sure; that would mean they could only shot after the event.

 

[Epicurus]

I also don’t believe anyone will end up doing time for this, I think if you look at all the leaks and misinformation around this; they all point to bad communications and have highlighted problems in the command structure of the police.

These will be used as reasons for reasonable doubt and the CPS will say it isn’t in the public interest to charge anyone over the shooting.

But that still leaves the altered log, if they can find out who did it, if it was done in order to cover something up etc. then that will take more explaining.

 

[big footed fred]

1. that they just couldn't be sure that he wasn't a terrorist ;

And if he was and had exploded a bomb you would be calling the police for allowing it to happen..

These poor sods have to make an on the spot call.
Fucking easy to sit down in comfy chair and rant on about it.
Try considering the copper who has a duty to protect and now has to live with killing a man.

While our police are not beyond the law as a rule we need to support them. These are the guys that stop the terrorists at great risk to themselves.
These are the guys that put themselves in the firing line so you can type your lefty bollocks and have a go at them.
Try showing some thanks for what thet do and try to understand their side of this.
If you don't support the police try having a go yourself if you ever come into contact with armed robbers or the next bastard with a bomb.
No, I suspect you will call 999 and want their help.
Wonder what you would post if they told you to fuck off and risk getting shot yourself.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, once again you're posting without any attempt to think about what anybody has said.

I made an effort - wasted on you - to explain in considered fashion what I think had happened and why I thought it might well be outside the law. All you can do is rant. It is, as you might put it, very easy for you yo do that from the comfrot of your armchair.

I think that having police officers shoot people just in case is probably a very bad idea. I do not think the public want it, however much they quite reasonably wish to be protected, and I doubt that police officers would wish to have their powers extend that far either. You cannot, therefore, suggest that shooting somebody because he might have had a bomb - not that it was likely, let alone probably, but that they didn't know for certain that he didn't - is acceptable. After all, any of us might be shot at any time for the same reason on the same argument, is that not so?

Moreover, either they are within the law or they are not. Therefore by your own account it must be acceptable for me to argue that where the law has potentially been breached then action against those who may have breached it must be considered.

Now I wonder if you'd do me the courtesy of actually dealing with what has been written, rather than screaming about "lefty" this and "bollocks" that.