Police shoot man in forest gate
- Thread starter Rollem
- Start date
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
I need to know why Richard from Big Brother is there:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1223529,00.html
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1223529,00.html
Bigdavalad
New Member
GarfieldLeChat said:
No idea, I know very little about CAA rules. I was trying to make a half educated guess about why they'd have a no fly zone.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I've just seen where Zark's getting his nonsense from.
Step forward .................... Prison Planet
!!!!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/020606cowboypolice.htm
Step forward .................... Prison Planet
!!!!http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/020606cowboypolice.htm
Was that the one that escaped a few years ago, from just south of the bridge itself ??GarfieldLeChat said:
It used to be used for passenger trips.And yes, no flight below 1500ft or the minimum glide clear altitude, whichever is the higher, when over a congested area. Exceptions are for Police/EMS ops and normal take-off and landings into a licensed airfield.
I think there's multi engine exemptions for choppers and the Thames is a designated transit/emergency landing area too which gells with the glide clear regs, but I'm not 100% sure.
My flying experience doesn't actually include engines. They just complicate things, cutting out at the worst possible moment
I assume Dibble just didn't want an audience, Forest Gate isn't a place civil aircraft would be overflying at low altitude anyhow, it would be just journos in choppers.
What is it with you wankers?zArk said:
Not common, but not unheard of.TAE said:
If you think about it, it is highly unlikely to be because there is a threat of a plane being taken down if they haven't even evacuated neighbouring houses and cleared the scaffolders away from the front of the house ...
With your right hand perhaps ... (in this case, at least)editor said:
Spymaster said:I've just seen where Zark's getting his nonsense from.
Step forward .................... Prison Planet
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/020606cowboypolice.htm
maybe i can refer you here
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
FFS. Get a fucking life you fucking insane conspiraloon fuckwit.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Go fuck yourself.
Dealing with terrorism for the hard of thinking:zArk said:
1. Information comes in - from police enquiries, phone calls, neighbours, informants or whatever.
2. Police research it as best they can - looking at all available databases. Contrary to what the conspiraloons believe, there are significant gaps in the data kept on citizens of the UK - you do not simply tap in a name or an address and get immediate access to everything.
3. If the original information appears to be verified to any significant extent, proactive surveillance is launched. That might be technical or conventional.
4. If sufficient evidence is found to corroborate the original information, to the extent that "reasonable grounds" can be found to apply for a search warrant or to make an arrest on suspicion, that is considered.
5. The timing of any intervention is decided - too soon and you risk alerting unknown associates which may endanger the public in some unknown and uncontrolled way and you risk finding insufficient evidence to substantiate charges, too late and you risk them commiting an offence before you intervene. (In some criminal cases you may take that risk, in terrorist cases you would probably not, prefering to have to maintain surveillance on a suspect you have insufficient evidence to charge for the foreseeable future than to pick up the pieces of dozens or hundreds of dead and injured members of the public.
6. You plan the operation, having sufficient resources available to immediately deal with the worst possible scenario - here it seems they feared some form of chemical weapon. If they had found one, or if one had been activated, they may have had to evacuate and cordon a large area, hence the numbers involved and the protective equipment.
7. Having carried out the intervention you look at what further information you now have - confirmed identities, evidence from computers, phones, searches, etc. The evidence may lead you to arrest others and carry out more searches.
8. You interview the arrested suspects.
9. You assess what evidence you have. As you acted on suspicion you know you may actually find that your original suspicions were wrong. In which case you release the suspects without charge and with an explanation and an apology. You may have sufficient evidence to lay charges, in which case you refer the matter to the CPS, and if they agree there is sufficient evidence, it is put before a Court. If it cannot be proven either way - or if there is enough for charges but no conviction follows, you may have to maintain monitoring and surveillance for the foreseeable future.
What you don't do is mount an operation in which suspects, officers and the public may get hurt or killed, simply as a publicity stunt.
Nor do you "assume" that the evidence is either (a) correct or (b) false.
Does that help?
I am a former Detective Chief Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Service.zArk said:
As I have previously been involved in numerous operations aimed at crime and terrorism over more than 20 years, I try to explain how and why certain things are done.
Care to explain how you are "relevant"?
Ahh DB = Detective-boy
Now DB, i was previously saying that this event seems to be similar to the ricin plot in which a copper was stabbed to death.
1) the evidence was gained from torture
2) porten down concluded that there was no ricin and no evidence of ricin making equipment
3) the claimed terrorists were not-guilty of any of the charges - court case concluded
4) a copper was stabbed to death due to false evidence
5) the ricin plot was used as an reason to goto war by Blair and Powell.
6) the house of commons were specifically aware through a guy called Captain ‘Haroune’ that algeria were involved in dirty jobs and gaining evidence that intelligence services use through torture
So, like the Ricin Plot and Jean Charles de Menezes lets hope this is 3rd time lucky eh?
Now DB, i was previously saying that this event seems to be similar to the ricin plot in which a copper was stabbed to death.
1) the evidence was gained from torture
2) porten down concluded that there was no ricin and no evidence of ricin making equipment
3) the claimed terrorists were not-guilty of any of the charges - court case concluded
4) a copper was stabbed to death due to false evidence
5) the ricin plot was used as an reason to goto war by Blair and Powell.
6) the house of commons were specifically aware through a guy called Captain ‘Haroune’ that algeria were involved in dirty jobs and gaining evidence that intelligence services use through torture
So, like the Ricin Plot and Jean Charles de Menezes lets hope this is 3rd time lucky eh?
Bigdavalad
New Member
zArk said:
Who did we go to war with because of the ricin plot?
editor said:
ermm everything to do with what chief supa dupa has stated.
It highlights how intelligence sources can mislead the police and do in fact place people in extreme danger, regardless of the best intentions of the police. Futhermore these intelligence sources are questionable and seem to be being used time after time even after they are proved to be 'dodgey'.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Bloody idiotic if you ask me.zArk said:
Similar threads
- Poll
