PDA

View Full Version : Police Raid in Forest Gate



IdleRich
07-06-2006, 10:29 AM
Surprised no-one has mentioned this yet. I know all of the details haven't been fully released but at the moment it seems as though 250 police have stormed a household and shot someone (again) for absolutely no reason. Once again they are acting on so-called intelligence that we have no access to but we are assured is vital for our protection. Sources have said that because terrorism (or this type of terrorism) is a new type of crime they have to act whenever they think that there is a risk to the public without waiting for confirmation, is this reasonable?
Just want to know what everyone thinks about this really.

matt b
07-06-2006, 10:46 AM
Surprised no-one has mentioned this yet. I know all of the details haven't been fully released but at the moment it seems as though 250 police have stormed a household and shot someone (again) for absolutely no reason.

total lack of suprise as the police do want they want.

our tony is "101%" behind them: "You can only imagine if they fail to take action and something terrible happened what outcry would be then, so they are in an impossible situation."

roll on totalitarianism.


amazingly the outcome is that people are more scared of terrorism than debt, job security and flags,
according to the metro (i made the last example up).

we were in a hotel when this story broke, so sky news was the only english channel. what a nice objective source of news that is.


oh, and the shooting was now an accident because the police officer had thick gloves on. at least its a better excuse than saying the suspects did it

Omaar
07-06-2006, 11:32 AM
Very little information seems to have been released at all so far, which makes things seem very suspicious.

The logic being used to justify these events is disturbing; if the police have any suspicion of someone engaging in terrorist activities they are obliged to act immediately without regard for the truth of the information, because if it were true then the consequences would be so horrific as to justify any response to prevent them from occuring. The problem seems to be that if you look middle eastern /muslim then you immediately cross the probabilistic threshold for being a terrorist, thus justifying any action against you, such as being shot repreatedly in the head. For the police, there is 'no choice'.

Supposedly the evidence needs to be 'specific' and 'credible'. It seems that the latter condition is often true by default, and very little information is required to fulfill the former.


oh, and the shooting was now an accident because the police officer had thick gloves on. at least its a better excuse than saying the suspects did it

That's hilarious. I'd heard that they didn't know if it was the police or one of the suspects who had fired.

matt b
07-06-2006, 11:58 AM
The logic being used to justify these events is disturbing

to say the least: http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790443,00.html

Security and intelligence officials yesterday defended the decision to raid the house: "We have a duty of care to the general public, we can't do [police anti-terrorist] operations by halves," said one official.

A senior police source explained the police's dilemma: "In other crime you can take a risk to firm up the intelligence. The trouble with this new world of terrorism is you don't have the time, you can't firm up the intelligence to the point you like.

"The public may have to get used to this sort of incident, with the police having to be safe rather than sorry."


the police have seemed to forgetten that

a) the family whose house was raided are members of the public, so the police have a duty of care to them. broadly that means not trying to shoot them.

b) the phrase "be safe rather than sorry." in this context is meaningless- they weren't playing safe when they raided a house using 200 trigger happy officers.

c) using "this new world of terrorism" is not a reasonable justification for the police doing whatever they like.

IdleRich
07-06-2006, 12:00 PM
I think it's strange that it's already dropped off the front pages. The fact that it happened was big news but the fact that it (appears to be) another cock-up doesn't seem to matter so much - why is that?
It's pretty scary that the police can just act how they like, always in response to a "new type of threat". Just the type of reasoning the US use to justify torture.

henrymiller
07-06-2006, 01:47 PM
The problem seems to be that if you look middle eastern /muslim then you immediately cross the probabilistic threshold for being a terrorist, thus justifying any action against you, such as being shot repreatedly in the head.

This is an insane overstatement.

Omaar
07-06-2006, 02:01 PM
This is an insane overstatement.

It probably is an overstatement to some extent. In the next next sentence I tried to qualify this by introducing the concepts of 'specific' and 'credible'. It seems that the latter criteria is all too easily fulfilled, what remains to be seen in this particular case is whether in this case the former is too.

johneffay
07-06-2006, 05:00 PM
A senior police source explained the police's dilemma: "In other crime you can take a risk to firm up the intelligence. The trouble with this new world of terrorism is you don't have the time, you can't firm up the intelligence to the point you like.

"The public may have to get used to this sort of incident, with the police having to be safe rather than sorry."

This would be slightly more credible if the police looked like they were in control of themselves. Channel 4 news ran an interview the other evening with the couple next door: The guy's head had been split open, and the wife had been hauled off and seperated from her baby for several hours. They were then released without charge. There wasn't even the excuse of 'intelligence' against these people. If I was a cynic, I might suspect that their ethnic background counted against them. See if you can guess what it is...

IdleRich
07-06-2006, 05:14 PM
"If I was a cynic, I might suspect that their ethnic background counted against them. See if you can guess what it is..."
Brazilian?

qwerty south
07-06-2006, 06:34 PM
many uk newspaper headlines the day after were "FIND THE BOMB".

Bacon Slicer
07-06-2006, 10:26 PM
This is an insane overstatement.

I agree. The police are between a rock and hard place. Imagine the furore if they had used only 5 officers and a large amount of dangerous home cooked unstable explosive had been found which meant an area of several hundred yards radius had to be cleared quickly.
I am to be honest getting pissed off about comments about multiple shots to the head.
If the perception is that a person is wearing a waistcoat bomb with a hand detonator, in a crowded area there is only one course of action available. Multiple shots to the head to make sure they are dead and cannot trigger an explosion.
The key word is perception.

johneffay
07-06-2006, 11:12 PM
If the perception is that a person is wearing a waistcoat bomb with a hand detonator, in a crowded area there is only one course of action available. Multiple shots to the head to make sure they are dead and cannot trigger an explosion.
If you are so poorly trained that you cannot tell the difference between a guy in a lightweight denim jacket and a guy with a waistcoat bomb under a jacket, whilst under pressure, then you should not be let loose on the London Underground with a firearm.



The key word is perception.
If we are to believe his account, Peter Sutcliffe murdered and mutilated women because he perceived voices telling him to do so. Does that excuse him? If not, why should police officers' mistaken perception (if we believe their account) of Jean Charles de Menezes excuse their actions?

These people are supposed to be highly trained professionals. I, for one, expect better of them.

matt b
08-06-2006, 02:07 PM
I agree. The police are between a rock and hard place.

i disagree :)

they are supposed to be professionals. they are public servants. they do not serve the public at present with their current mode of operations.

if you still have faith in the police, i suggest getting a subscription for private eye for a year, then come back to me.

IdleRich
08-06-2006, 02:10 PM
The police are in a difficult situation and they are dealing with it badly.

matt b
08-06-2006, 02:30 PM
fuck the police

Bacon Slicer
08-06-2006, 05:46 PM
if you still have faith in the police, i suggest getting a subscription for private eye for a year, then come back to me.

The police have very shit leadership, and are also being expected to do things that in reality need to be done by the army.

matt b
08-06-2006, 09:18 PM
The police have very shit leadership, and are also being expected to do things that in reality need to be done by the army.

well, fuck them too.

what domestic tasks do you suggest the army undertake?

matt b
13-06-2006, 07:58 PM
The police have apologised for the "hurt" they caused two brothers after they released them without charge on suspicion of terrorism involvement. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5077198.stm)

the word hurt really shouldn't be in speech marks should it?

apparantly one of the brothers recently applied to be a "community support officer", which really should be in speech marks.

Omaar
14-06-2006, 09:33 AM
the word hurt really shouldn't be in speech marks should it?

I'm always quite surprised by what newspapers decide should be placed in so called "speech marks", and what shouldn't.

I just checked and the scotland yard press release does say:

"I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused."

With his right arm in a sling Mr Kahar said that he had not been able to sleep properly since the incident which he described in detail. "I heard screams that I have never heard before from my younger brother.

"I opened my door and it was all dark. I assumed a robbery was happening. As I took the first step down the stairs and turned to look lower down as soon as I turned round I saw an orange spark and a big bang." He said the shot came from about two feet away.

"At that time I flew on to the wall and I slipped down. I looked at the right of my chest and saw blood was coming down and I saw a hole in my chest. I knew I had been shot.

"I was thinking ‘Was it an armed robbery?’ I put my hand over my wound. I saw two of them walking towards me and objects were flying about my face. I put my hand up I didn’t know what it was but I now know it was a gun that hit my face.

"I said ‘Please, I can’t breathe’ and they just kicked me in the face and kept saying ‘Shut the f*** up’. I thought they were going to shoot me again or my brother. I feel ashamed for asking them to spare my life.

"I sat there and heard them saying ‘secure the room’. I still didn’t know they were police.

"One of the officers grabbed my left foot and dragged me down the stairs, my head was banging on the stairs."



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2224879,00.html

Of course it makes more sense to assume based on unconfirmed and flimsy evidence that 2 brothers were producing a chemical weapon, than to assume that being shot, kicked in the face and dragged downstairs might actually hurt.

Although apparently if you dare say anything negative about the behaviour of the police you're "undermining the War on Terror" (Tony Blair).

Rambler
14-06-2006, 05:14 PM
I'm always quite surprised by what newspapers decide should be placed in so called "speech marks", and what shouldn't.

Speech marks here are simply because the word "hurt" is a quotation from the statement.

bassnation
15-06-2006, 02:53 AM
well, fuck them too.

what domestic tasks do you suggest the army undertake?

maybe its only a matter of time... for our safety, of course.

Omaar
15-06-2006, 12:28 PM
Speech marks here are simply because the word "hurt" is a quotation from the statement.

oh yeah, that's why i included the text from the statement below ""I apologise for the hurt that we may have caused."; sorry if I wasn't very clear. i was just thinking in general quotation marks are often used in a really silly way, in order to allow papers to print a sensational headline when they want to say something controversial without getting into trouble. And often they are left out when they should be included. So you might get a headline saying something ridiculous like "All Germans are 'Nazi sympathizers'", and someone will have said this, but the statement itself funtions in effect as 2 statements: one saying that an unidentified (in the headline istelf) person has claimed that all germans are nazi sympathizers, and another that effectively just states that 'all germans are nazi sympathizers'. Actually I suppose someone could quote me as saying that now.

Bacon Slicer
16-06-2006, 11:00 PM
well, fuck them too.

what domestic tasks do you suggest the army undertake?


Closing off and house to house searching an area where fully automatic firearms have been used or been seen in civilian hands.

Edward
17-06-2006, 12:03 AM
The police have very shit leadership, and are also being expected to do things that in reality need to be done by the army.


what domestic tasks do you suggest the army undertake?


Closing off and house to house searching an area where fully automatic firearms have been used or been seen in civilian hands.

This was not the case in Forest Gate, no weapons had been seen or used.

bassnation
17-06-2006, 10:52 AM
Closing off and house to house searching an area where fully automatic firearms have been used or been seen in civilian hands.

this is not routine for the army at all. just because they do it in iraq i don't wish for it to happen here.

bassnation
17-06-2006, 10:58 AM
all germans are nazi sympathizers

do you really believe that??




(sorry, couldn't resist)

Melmoth
22-06-2006, 01:06 PM
this is not routine for the army at all. just because they do it in iraq i don't wish for it to happen here.

You've obviously never been to Northern Ireland.