# police shoot terrorist on tube



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

as above sky news


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

Good


----------



## jiggyjaggy (May 27, 2004)

When was this?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

POLICE SHOOT SUSPECTED SUICIDE BOMBER

Police have shot a suspected suicide bomber near a tube station in south London.

Marksmen opened fire near Stockwell Tube station as passengers were evacuated.

Passenger Briony Coetsee said: "We were on the Tube and then we suddenly heard someone say `get out, get out' and then we heard gunshots."

Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said: "There is no word on whether he has been killed or simply injured."

If the suspect is confirmed to be a suicide bomber, it would mark the fifth attempted terrorist attack on London in less than a day.

The is thought to have been either stepping on to the train or was on the platform.

Brunt said: "He was probably shot in the head. There is no confirmation of that."

Police have been given orders to shoot to kill if they believe someone is about to detonate a bomb.


----------



## FooK (May 15, 2003)

BBC News:

A man has been shot at Stockwell Tube station by armed police officers, police confirm.

Passengers were evacuated from a Tube train on the Northern Line station in south London after the incident.

Passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen an Asian man shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

Services on the Victoria and Northern lines have been suspended following a request by the police, London Underground said.

Police are hunting four would-be bombers after Thursday's London blasts.

The bombers fled after detonators went off, causing small blasts, but failed to detonate the bombs themselves.

Mr Whitby, told BBC News: "I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers.

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

Passenger Briony Coetsee said: "We were on the Tube and then we suddenly heard someone say, 'Get out, get out' and then we heard gunshots."

------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

L7 said:


> Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:


very true......

Who is terrorising who ?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

At last we show we are not prepared to f**k about.

It is very unlikely the person was innocent, (Sky are saying he was a suicide bomber) and was prepared to kill others.


----------



## silkman (Jul 29, 2004)

mighTy Tee said:


> At last we show we are not prepared to f**k about.


Seconded :evil:


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Oh i totally agree if he was a bomber and carrying explosives then sure pump the mo fo full of lead and then let the familys damaged by the last lot have their go :evil:


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

L7 said:


> Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:


Either way, tourist trade is going to be f***ed for the next few years anyway.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

L7 said:


> Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:


 A price worth paying [smiley=rifle.gif]


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

he was one of the bombers from yesterday they are saying, also heard a mosque has been surrounded in London by armed police although not comfirmed.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

east london mosque now clear.

police have just confirmed the man who took 5 shots to the back of the head...... is dead... :roll:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I'm not sure if the mosque thing is becasue of retalliation attacks or not. They've just reported that there was an attempeted arson attack on the home of one of the bombers in Ayelsbury.


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

Kell said:


> I'm not sure if the mosque thing is becasue of retalliation attacks or not. They've just reported that there was an attempeted arson attack on the home of one of the bombers in Ayelsbury.


Yep - Lots of police and a fire engine parked outside that house this morning and the road cordoned off again. Sounds like a revenge attack - really sensible :? Try to destroy any phorensic evidence there may be left :roll: Then again - perhaps that _was_ the reason for trying :? Who knows?.......


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

i'm all up for taking out the suicide bombers but i must say it strikes me as odd to shoot a guy when theres 3 of you and 1 of him especially when they could give the police alot of useful information, also wouln't the bullets/shots been enough to trigger a potential live bomb??? maybe i'm just being thick?


----------



## steveh (Jan 14, 2004)

zedman said:


> i'm all up for taking out the suicide bombers but i must say it strikes me as odd to shoot a guy when theres 3 of you and 1 of him especially when they could give the police alot of useful information, also wouln't the bullets/shots been enough to trigger a potential live bomb??? maybe i'm just being thick?


If I was sitting on a bloke who could possibly reach a switch to set off a bomb on his back then I think I would make sure there was no chance he could move a finger let alone his hand. Five bullets in the back of his head would probably do the job.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

zedman said:


> i'm all up for taking out the suicide bombers but i must say it strikes me as odd to shoot a guy when theres 3 of you and 1 of him especially when they could give the police alot of useful information, also wouln't the bullets/shots been enough to trigger a potential live bomb??? maybe i'm just being thick?


makes you wonder - but apparently the quickest way to kill the message from the brain to the hands if any device was to be triggered.....

as for info - they no nothing - all 'cells' are independant of each other


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

stephengreen said:


> L7 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:
> ...


Oh ok so if i was in the firearms squad and i saw you mr green and thought fook me it's a bomber and shot you five times in the back of the head you'd be alright about that yeah :?: well obviously if you were a bomber you would have had it coming


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> L7 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:
> ...


Unless it was a completely innocent relative/friend of yours?

I seriously hope that they were _certain_ the guy was a terrorist. I don't want to live in a country where adrenalin-charged police can run around shooting who they like.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Carlos said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > L7 said:
> ...


We were talking about this at work and couldn't figure out why they would go straight for a kill shot - unless they were certain.

I guess we'll never know the truth - if they find explosives, then there could be claims that they were planted after the fact.

And if they don't, I'd like to see how they're going to prove his intent.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

If you'd been identified as a suspect from a terrorist attack yesterday, armed police challenged you and you ran off onto a tube train, wearing a heavy coat on a warm day, what would you expect to happen to you?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Carlos said:


> I don't want to live in a country where adrenalin-charged police can run around shooting who they like.


Like the USA


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

Kell said:


> I guess we'll never know the truth - if they find explosives, then there could be claims that they were planted after the fact.


... and of course we'd obviously believe that the police happened to be carrying some explosives with them :?

Moley


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

I'm guessing some of you guys are at work and don't have the benefit (?!) if TV access at the moment. The story seems to be that having identified this guy as one of the bombers from yesterday via CCTV, the police had him under watch in the hope he would lead them to other suspects. When it became apparent he was heading onto the tube they challenged him, he failed to respond / stop and made a run for the tube train. He was wearing a heavy coat that could have been hiding explosives. All this talk of him potentially being some random individual above seems poorly informed to me....

What do you think the police should have done - he failed to stop when challenged by armed officers. He had been identified as a bomber. There was the potential he was trying to carry out another attack. Let him get on the tube and then be ready at the next station to drag the bodies out, or take firm action to ensure that he was zero risk?


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

clived said:


> If you'd been identified as a suspect from a terrorist attack yesterday, armed police challenged you and you ran off onto a tube train, wearing a heavy coat on a warm day, what would you expect to happen to you?


Some one will claim that shooting him 5 times is wrong and the cop will no doubt be put on charges for using excessive force if he did infact shoot the guy 5 times.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

genocidalduck said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > If you'd been identified as a suspect from a terrorist attack yesterday, armed police challenged you and you ran off onto a tube train, wearing a heavy coat on a warm day, what would you expect to happen to you?
> ...


Well _perhaps_ it was, but we will have to wait for the full facts to emerge. This was a tube full of people


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

I don't really think for a minute that it will turn out to be an innocent individual Clive, i was merely implying "what if" and of course i suspect that plain clothed shooters have been on the tube system since the first attacks.

Like you say i should think that they had identified him from yesterday and were watching his every move since spotting him, and yes if innocent and approached then one would stop instantly as he ran straight for the tube i say shoot the fucker in the head. In these times theres no room for hesitation.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

clived said:


> I'm guessing some of you guys are at work and don't have the benefit (?!) if TV access at the moment. The story seems to be that having identified this guy as one of the bombers from yesterday via CCTV, the police had him under watch in the hope he would lead them to other suspects. When it became apparent he was heading onto the tube they challenged him, he failed to respond / stop and made a run for the tube train. He was wearing a heavy coat that could have been hiding explosives. All this talk of him potentially being some random individual above seems poorly informed to me....
> 
> What do you think the police should have done - he failed to stop when challenged by armed officers. He had been identified as a bomber. There was the potential he was trying to carry out another attack. Let him get on the tube and then be ready at the next station to drag the bodies out, or take firm action to ensure that he was zero risk?


My worry, Clive, is that if he's found to have not been carrying any explosives today, that the backlash will be fierce. What I was saying when I said were they certain, was not were they certain it was him, but were they certain he planned to blow himself up?

From the sounds of the report currently on the BBC website they didn't pop him from a distance, but pinned him down and THEN shot him in the head.

If he was already pinned down, I fail to see the need to then shoot him.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

If you were pinned down Kell, do you think you could flex the right muscle / finger / whatever to activate a switch you'd planted for just such a situation? If you weren't planning anything, why fail to comply with an armed officers order to stop?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Or the alternative ending in the tabloid of your choice:

"Armed police pinned the terrorist down and told him to stop wriggling. He detonated the bomb and took them and a number of other innocent bystanders with him. Outraged relatives want to know why they didn't take affirmative action to prevent the explosion when they could have. They were, after all, dealing with a determined terrorist and had the means to prevent the tragedy."

Police in a no-win situation again :?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

BreTT said:


> Or the alternative ending in the tabloid of your choice:
> 
> "Armed police pinned the terrorist down and told him to stop wriggling. He detonated the bomb and took them and a number of other innocent bystanders with him. Outraged relatives want to know why they didn't take affirmative action to prevent the explosion when they could have. They were, after all, dealing with a determined terrorist and had the means to prevent the tragedy."
> 
> Police in a no-win situation again :?


AS opposed to this possible one:

"Relatives of the alleged suicide bomber want to know why Police used excessive force in this instance. The man was unarmed and had no explosives about his person, yet despite the fact that officers had him under control, they went on to shoot him in the head five times. In a related story, Al Quaieda (sp) have issued the following statement:

_'This is just another example of the tyranny that those in the West perpetrate against our people. But this is good. His death has brought us many more recruits, now more eager than ever to avenge these actions. No Londoner will be safe from now on'_

Police state that they're already witnessing increasing tensions with more and more Muslim Extremists inciting terror and spreading fear.

In a backlash, white supremacy groups are now starting to mobilse and are targetting anyone of obvious Muslim faith. Arson attacks are becoming increasingly common, and the body of one Muslim Teenager was discover recently with a St George's cross carved into the chest "

All I'm saying is that when they said they'd shot him, I was expecting to hear/read a report that said he said he was going t oblow himself up and the Police shot him from a distance. Not they had him pinned and then shot him.

It's true, it is a lose/lose situation.

However, given the option, I'd rather they took they action they did.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Shame the services don't have the ability to post on a forum like this and wait for a consensus isn't it. As it is they have virtually zero time to decide.

I back them in fully and pity them for having to make a horrible decision.


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

If they have the bloke bang to rights, Fooking well done the Met Police! 5x 25p a round is money well spent rather than life imprisonment with Sky Tv at our expense.

I feel for the officers who were involved and doubt if they will get much sleep tonight wether they acted correctly or not.


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

The reason for shooting suicide bombers in the head is simple, it KILLS the ar$e*oles. and stops them pressing any buttons as they could if they are just wounded.

Many suicide bombers in the past often have a 'watcher' who will detonate the person if they get cols feet, which is nice to know.

The bomb in Whitechapel High Street was a hoax, but who by??? Revenge attack? Extremists?

Frankly I'm really sick about hearing of lefty f**king liberals saying we should use other methods, why shoot someone with a belt bomb blah f**king blah. :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

We may never know for sure but I think it is likely that the "police" who shot this guy are perhaps more likely to have been SAS. The police have continually stated that they wish to have arrests and as has been noted , there was the possibility of detaining this man without lethal force which is what POLICE officers are trained to do. SOLDIERS however are going to go for the kill each time and the SAS will always make very sure that potential threats are very dead.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

Carlos said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > L7 said:
> ...


 If it was a completely innocent relative/friend of mine they would have complied with the instructions of the officers involved. This individual never, and quite rightly was immobilised with deadly force. The threat justified the action, period. After the deaths of more than fifty people at their hands i find it incredible that anyone could raise a dissenting voice. It's exactly these kind of responces that are seen as a sign of weakness by these madmen. They showed no mercy, nor should we. If by chance a mistake is made and an innocent dies then that life isnt worth more than the hundreds or possibly thousands of casualtys one terroist is capable of inflicting,even if it was a member of my family.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Er yeah but if that life was innocent then it wouldn't have been a threat to hundreds or even thousands in the first place now would it :roll:

Don't get me wrong if they had identified him as a terrorist and took the appropriate action then good on them i say blam blam it s all over quick as you like sorted.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

stephengreen said:


> Carlos said:
> 
> 
> > stephengreen said:
> ...


only 5 shots.... dont pistols hold more these days???! :roll:

I am glad they blew his head off! I hope he was the terrorist.... but I doubt he was one of the 4 they are still looking for... there wasnt 5 was there...?

BUT - what if... this guy was of Asian origin - perhaps an illegal imigrant, doesnt speak English - and ran because 3 burley skin headed (plain clothes) guys who looked like thugs were tailing him.....


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

L7 said:


> Er yeah but if that life was innocent then it wouldn't have been a threat to hundreds or even thousands in the first place now would it :roll


 Read the bit about "mistake" in my post :roll:


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

dee said:


> stephengreen said:
> 
> 
> > Carlos said:
> ...


 Ditto :roll:


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

I remember watching a documentary about the Iranian Embassy, and that the Iron Lady gave orders personally to the SAS, to make sure this is not a on going problem. Meaning make sure they are all dead! I wonder if Tony Bliar ( not a typo ) would give or has given the same orders.

BTW i know one of the terrorists from the Iranian Embassy is serving at her maj's pleasure. But apparently the guy managed to get outside the Embassy posing as a hostage but when recognised a SAS guy was about to shoot him when his CO stopped him because of the news cameras.


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

dee said:


> - perhaps an illegal imigrant, ...


Then we save on a plane ticket!

Here ere Stephengreen


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

The only way to stop a suicide bomber is to shoot in the head!!!!!!!!!!!

Chest = bang
Limbs = bang

SAS, I think not, police surveillence team more like


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I think you're missing my point. I'm not a liberal lefty and am all for the killing of terrorists, however, it just strikes me as odd if he was carrying explosives for the officers to pin him down.

If your arguments held up, and the police knew he was carrying explosives, then surely they would have shot him from a distance rather than let him get on a Tube Train full of people, then jump on him and then shoot him in the head. Five times.

I'm not saying they did the wrong thing by killing him, I'm just syaing they went about it an odd way. For me anyway.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

By pinning him down the made sure he wasn't able to activte the bomb and also give them a clean shot to elliminate him, can you imagine trying to shoot a guy clean dead while he's walking down a busy high street or through a tube station, it would be near impossible.

Jonah


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

Unfortunately this thread will now have to be re-titled "Police shoot innocent man on Tube"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Nice one eh!!?


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

> The statement confirmed the man was followed by police from a house in Tulse Hill that was under surveillance


 Police don't put surveillence squads on houses for nothing. If he was totally unconnected to terrorrism well someone is in the poo big time! But surley if he was Mr Innocent he would have stopped and not headed for the tube....................very tough call for the police, shoot and if he is innocent your at the Bailey for Murder, don't and he's packed with explosives................. :?


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

stephengreen said:


> dee said:
> 
> 
> > stephengreen said:
> ...


ditto what? - still "a price worth paying"...?

..and as your comment Hodgy - I hope that was in jest!


----------



## bazza (Jan 15, 2005)

i felt sick of what ppl comment here!!

one world sorry! for killing the wrong man!

same happen in very minute in iraq sorry for killing the wrong person! by the american army !

do you want to get picked by wrong reason?

same happen if i am in south africa and i can kill you and make up the story! yea? have u seen a bullet fly!? i got semi auto and 9mm in South africa waiting for your head

tt is a nice car to me but lot of tt owner are very lower class!!


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

> Police don't put surveillence squads on houses for nothing.


I look at evidence in prosecutions every day and police routinely do things for no reason whatsoever. 
In this case it appears that they were watching a block of flats and this Brazilian man left the building but not the specific flat they were watching and that his skin colour ( as well as the fact that when confronted by scruffily dressed men with guns in a beat up old Nissan , he ran away ) does seem to have thereafter determined their actions towards him.
I am in no way suggesting that the police should take risks when confronting terrorists but there does not appear to be anything about this case that suggests they had any reasonable grounds to suspect this man. London is too big a city, with too many people who have darker skins than white,who don't speak English as a first language (or at all),and who are themselves already scared, for police to act like this.

On a separate note I see some utter moron has been arrested for an arson attack on the home of one of the suspected 7/7 bombers. I hope they throw the book at this idiot - for both arson and an attempt to pervert the course of justice and aiding and abetting terrorism ( he has destroyed evidence which could be vital to catching the people behind this )


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

TuttiFrutti, if that really is the police's MO, then God help us of all.

If the police did have good reason to believe the suspect was carrying a bomb, then they did the right thing. Yes, 5 shots to the head seem very OTT, but put yourself in their shoes. As far as you know, the guy is about to trip the switch that will end your life and the lives of a several dozen other people around you. You'll therefore want to be damn sure you don't give him that opportunity.

If the police did not have good reason, then the heads of those directly involved should roll along with everyone up the line, including Sir Ian Blair and the Secretary of State Charles Clark, as the ones ultimately accountable for all that happens in the Met Police. Then there needs to be an independent inquiry into the way the police investigate crimes, their powers, and their responsibilites to the public in all situations. However, this is exactly what we don't need at this time!


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

When we have people like those that commented unashamedly as above in the community, and it is those same people that end up wearing the uniforms and holding the guns then what are we to expect.

Whilst I doubt there is anyone here on the forum that would have wanted to have risked the lives of the many on the tube by trying to reason with a suspected bomber, the blatant self righteousness shown here and on other threads by certain members makes me ashamed to be human, let alone British!

Yes it is sad an innocent man has been killed - read a few posts back - when I suggested exactly this. To certain people I would say this, I hope one day you suffer a similar loss - perhaps when you are on holiday a child of yours or a loved one - better still yourself, may be mistaken for a bomber because you run from a group of strangers and shot because its a "price worth paying"... or to those who think that there is such a thing as being wrong colour, I hope the sat nav in your all so 'white' fly drive holiday, directs you to the wrong neighborhood in one of those lovely American ghettos, and they return you to where you belong, in a body bag!

To others, with less blinkered vision, this thread has been interesting, and I'm glad we are not all as bigoted and self righteous as certain ar$eholes!


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

Whats the answer to it all then?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

dee said:


> To certain people I would say this, I hope one day you suffer a similar loss - perhaps when you are on holiday a child of yours or a loved one


Dee, I'm genuinely surprised to see you write this. Do you not think it lowers your position below anyone who has posted here?

Back on topic, it's clearly awful that an innocent man has been killed here. The only thing that runs through my mind is why, in the current climate, would you no obey the orders of an armed police officer and in the process make yourself look as suspicious as possible by vaulting the gates (high speed getaway) into a tube station (terrorist target)? I'm not suggesting this guy had anything to do with terrorism whatsoever, but in the circumsatances, I'd have considered it a good suicide policy.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

clived said:


> dee said:
> 
> 
> > To certain people I would say this, I hope one day you suffer a similar loss - perhaps when you are on holiday a child of yours or a loved one
> ...


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

dee said:


> To certain people I would say this, I hope one day you suffer a similar loss - perhaps when you are on holiday a child of yours or a loved one - I hope the sat nav in your all so 'white' fly drive holiday, directs you to the wrong neighborhood in one of those lovely American ghettos, and they return you to where you belong, in a body bag!
> 
> To others, with less blinkered vision, this thread has been interesting, and I'm glad we are not all as bigoted and self righteous as certain ar$eholes!


 This post show's how inhuman some people can be. To wish fellow forum members death or injury to themselves or their children whilst on holiday at the hands of muggers, is proberly the lowest post i have ever read. Any connection between this sick post and the mistake that was made by police officers trying to protect the rest of us is quite frankly beyond me.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

stephengreen said:


> dee said:
> 
> 
> > To certain people I would say this, I hope one day you suffer a similar loss - perhaps when you are on holiday a child of yours or a loved one - I hope the sat nav in your all so 'white' fly drive holiday, directs you to the wrong neighborhood in one of those lovely American ghettos, and they return you to where you belong, in a body bag!
> ...


you are patheic! oh no - a fellow forum member blah blah blah

but:



stephengreen said:


> L7 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:
> ...


if its not a fellow forum member.... sad!


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

He's been living in London for 3 years, so whatever his experience back in Brasil should not have been at the forthfront of this mind or his subconscious. Or is Stockwell that dodgy that it's second nature for men with hand guns to hunt someone down, no less in broad daylight?

I have my doubts about how clean living this guy supposedly was. After all, the families of the bombers have no idea what their son/sibling has been up to prior to the events. To run like that, either he was up to no good, or had got in with the wrong crowd who were after him and he instinctively thought these officers were them.

We need this properly investigate before a judgment can be made. However, the judgment should be based on what police knew at the time, and not what may be found subsequently to potentially vindicate their actions in hindsight.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

Karcsi said:


> He's been living in London for 3 years, so whatever his experience back in Brasil should not have been at the forthfront of this mind or his subconscious. Or is Stockwell that dodgy that it's second nature for men with hand guns to hunt someone down, no less in broad daylight?
> 
> I have my doubts about how clean living this guy supposedly was. After all, the families of the bombers have no idea what their son/sibling has been up to prior to the events. To run like that, either he was up to no good, or had got in with the wrong crowd who were after him and he instinctively thought these officers were them.
> 
> We need this properly investigate before a judgment can be made. However, the judgment should be based on what police knew at the time, and not what may be found subsequently to potentially vindicate their actions in hindsight.


Though i dont think all police officers are angels (they are only human like some of the rest of us) I very much doubt they would go round shooting people at random for want of nothing better to do. This guy gave cause for the police to take the decision that he was a threat (whatever that cause was, doesn't matter with hindsight, only at the time) and they quite rightly anulled that "threat" with deadly force. The fact that he turned out not to be the person they at first thought, was unfortunate to say the least. But under the circumstances prevalant at the time, an acceptable loss in the fight to protect us all. His wasn't a sensless killing at the hands of muggers. If it was, then it wouldnt be an acceptable loss. had the police hesitated and he was a terrorist as they belived, the outcome would have been as bad for many more family's, not just one.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

dee said:


> - perhaps you ought to re-read my post about the possibility of him not understanding what was being shouted to him by PLAIN CLOTHED men chasing him having followed him from his home...


Although that would rather be at odds with his family's claim that he spoke fluent English?

And I'd stand by my previous comment by the way, no matter who it was directed act. Wishing DEATH to anyone, as you have done in your post, doesn't seem justifiable to me. But if that's you, that's fine.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

bazza said:


> i felt sick of what ppl comment here!!
> 
> one world sorry! for killing the wrong man!
> 
> ...


Sorry for a start what is ppl supposed to mean? oh yeah People :roll:

secondly i think you'll find that i started the whole what if he's innocent thread and that if you actually READ through this thread properly then you would see that 99% of us were saying "what if" and that most of the "kill him" comments were made on the grounds that this poor guy was actually a terrorist and not innocent and that on finding out he is innocent most of us are appalled and saddend by what has happend.

But now your offering to shoot any of us in the head if we decide to come to south africa, you obviously feel very enpowered owning a gun and this then gives you the confidence to threaten people with it. Big man eh?

Are a white south african? do you live there or here or even elsewhere? what i would like to know is how you think you can make comments like this and still preach about the actions of those put in the most difficult postion possible?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I wasn't going to make any more posts on this thread as in some ways I had hoped that I'd be wrong and it was the right man as the alternative (to me) seemed much worse.

As to why he ran?

Here are some theories:

1) In his native country, the Police force is so corrupt that when they order you to stop, the last thing you would want to do is actually stop.

2) He thought the men were robbers/muggers

3) He was a criminal of some sort, but unconnected to the terrorist activities and thought they wanted him for something else.

4) He knew the terrorists, but didn't approve of their activities and was leaving to set up a new life away from them. He knew that the police would know he knew them and wanted to get away.

5) He was in cahoots with them, but there was (currently) no link between him and them and he didn't want there to be so was trying to get away.

6) He was in cahoots with them and was in fact controlling their cell or was the 'fifth' member they've mentioned.

That's just off the top of my head. So there are probably hundreds of other possible scenarios and I guess we'll never really know the truth.

FWIW, I don't think most of the comments about him being expendable or a worthwhile casualty are particularly helpful - but nor was the one about saying that "certain people should also suffer a loss."

Perhaps it would have been better had it been phrased "I Hope you NEVER have to suffer the loss..."

Not that it makes much difference to this but I've now become even closer to this a friend of my next door neighbours (whom I've met, but didn't 'know') was killed.

Just suddenly becomes ever more real when it was someone you've spoken to. I can only imagine what her family/friends are going through - as indeed those who knew the Brazilian guy.


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

well interesting thread guys just wanted to say RIP for the poor guy who was not an illegal immigrant, had a job and may well have just been spooked by people chasing him in plain clothes one of whom was carrying a gun, must say after reading witness reports etc it seems IMHO the guy just panicked - tragic consequences
I saw an interview with an SAS bloke who said a lot of these armed police are not trained enough to able to make these decisions and that a 'shoot to kill' policy needs the right people to carry it out, seemed like a fair point to me, hope they provide armed police with more education and i firmly believe (IMHO) the blame for this incident lies squarely with those in charge, too much responsibility given to people who maybe have not had all the possible training and experience to deal with it.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

clived said:


> Although that would rather be at odds with his family's claim that he spoke fluent English?  - Clive, not understanding, and being fluent in English are not connected as far as I am aware - particularly since there are conflicting reports as to whether or not the 'police' made the suspect aware of whom they were anyway! See Kellâ€™s post, Iâ€™m glad there are people viewing this a little more objectively / sympathetically.
> 
> And I'd stand by my previous comment by the way, no matter who it was directed act. Wishing DEATH to anyone, as you have done in your post, doesn't seem justifiable to me. But if that's you, that's fine. â€" Interesting that a _Vice Chairman_ of any committee cant see beyond what has been written on this one thread but chooses to vilify someone who objectively points out the error in applauding the death of even an innocent in the name of keeping the public safe (I agree in hindsight my words could have been better chosen, perhaps the word â€œdonâ€™tâ€ before â€œsufferâ€ - and apologise for this) but the fact that shaded racism and blatant disrespect over the loss of a foreigners life has escaped your comment must of course mean you wish the poor fellow dead too, so its ok to wish it â€" but not to express it so as to put it into context in an argument. I wonder what the outcry would have been if the dead man was a white British father of 4 children with photos of them crying over the tabloids this morning..


According to the various news sources this morning, witnesses say armed offices did not identify themselves. 
Much has been said about the need to kill him on the train to prevent any potential danger to lives, I agree with this, I always have done from my first post â€" but the fact that police allowed him to walk to and board a bus from Tulse Hill (apparently they didnâ€™t care about the potential loss of life here thenâ€¦), then walk to the tube station, only to kill him once he got down onto a platform is strange. They had ample opportunity to kill or even take him alive when he was not a threat to anyone.


----------



## DW225 (Jun 22, 2005)

It is undoubtedly tragic that the dead man now appears to be innocent.

IMHO a few valid points have been made on this thread....

1. Why run when ordered to stop by armed officers (if indeed they did make themselves known)? Maybe he didn't understand our language, maybe he didn't want to be stopped by the police for whatever reason. I doubt that this question will ever be answered.
2. Why 5 shots to the head? As someone has stated previously, given the events preceeding this incident, the armed officers were obviously of the opinion that he could be carrying explosives. In this case, a head shot is the only way to disable the person from detonating. Put yourself in their shoes with a split second to make that life or death decision.
3. It is not the armed officers at fault here........they have acted on intelligence information provided to them.
4. It is a sad thing to say but we are at war with terrorism. Innocent people die in wars, and that's a fact of life. And yes, before the retort to this statement arrives, I know it's easy to say when I've not been directly affected by this, but it is unfortunately a fact.

I really don't know where, or how, this is going to end......we live in a dangerous world.....everyone take care.....

Dave 8)


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

Terrorist's are of the opinion that it's ok for innocent people to die or be maimed in order to get their point of view across. Remind you of anyone on this forum :roll: Then for a forum member to further their argument with the attitude "is it cos im black" hijacks the race card as effectively as hijacking religion in the cause of these crimminal acts. It wouldnt have made any difference what colour a terrorist, suspected or otherwise, is or was, to this debate. The principal of protecting all of us, regardless of colour or faith is what is at issue here. On that point, despite the fact a mistake was made, the correct policy is in place.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

I haven't responded to this thread but IMO some of the comments on here have been shocking, clearly this is a complicated issue but it would now appear he was an illegal immigrant which is the reason he ran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

digimeisTTer said:


> I haven't responded to this thread but IMO some of the comments on here have been shocking, clearly this is a complicated issue but it would now appear he was an illegal immigrant which is the reason he ran.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm


Poor guy - all makes sense now 

Perhaps we ought to be kind and offer an amnesty to all those that have got themselves hemmed in on this thread :?


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

stephengreen said:


> Terrorist's are of the opinion that it's ok for innocent people to die or be maimed in order to get their point of view across. Remind you of anyone on this forum :roll:


Yes, you. you pathetic individual!



stephengreen said:


> L7 said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope he wasn't an innocent back packer :roll:
> ...


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

> It is not the armed officers at fault here........they have acted on intelligence information provided to them


Sorry - but where on earth do you get that from? There was NO intelligence information about this man. None.Nada.Zip. The police acted on an assumption, nothing more.


----------



## bazza (Jan 15, 2005)

five shoot on the head !?

either the police is inexperience or he don trust himself!
that;s why specialforce always said police force are dump

even i facing a car hijacker , just need one shoot the car hijacker is flat dead on the ground!

stupid british aimforce !

anyway, that is the point being a police officer in this country ,if not allow to carry guns when they are on duty!


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

dee said:


> - Clive, not understanding, and being fluent in English are not connected as far as I am aware - particularly since there are conflicting reports as to whether or not the 'police' made the suspect aware of whom they were anyway! See Kellâ€™s post, Iâ€™m glad there are people viewing this a little more objectively / sympathetically.
> 
> Interesting that a _Vice Chairman_ of any committee cant see beyond what has been written on this one thread but chooses to vilify someone who objectively points out the error in applauding the death of even an innocent in the name of keeping the public safe (I agree in hindsight my words could have been better chosen, perhaps the word â€œdonâ€™tâ€ before â€œsufferâ€ - and apologise for this) but the fact that shaded racism and blatant disrespect over the loss of a foreigners life has escaped your comment must of course mean you wish the poor fellow dead too, so its ok to wish it â€" but not to express it so as to put it into context in an argument. I wonder what the outcry would have been if the dead man was a white British father of 4 children with photos of them crying over the tabloids this morning..[/color]
> 
> ...


Dee - apologies - I'd missed that you'd responded to me as your text was buried within a "clived" quote window.

I think you've answered the question here - you feel your words could have been more carefully chosen, so do I. We agree  I wasn't vilifying you - I chose to comment only on your post as the wish of death, to another, from you, surprised me. I was perhaps less surprised by the posts of some others. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SUGGESTING I WISH THIS GUY DEAD - how dare you think you know what I feel on the subject? Given my abhorance of YOU wishing others dead here, you might have thought that perhaps my view would have been totally to the contrary. What makes you think that I'm the sort of person who would wish another dead? Please don't tar me with your brush.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

bazza said:


> five shoot on the head !?
> 
> either the police is inexperience or he don trust himself!
> that;s why specialforce always said police force are dump
> ...


Sorry to be rude Bazza but what the fuck are you on about, i've already questioned your previous thread which you have decided to ignore and then you post another one talking utter crap yet again :roll:


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

TuTTiFruTTi said:


> > It is not the armed officers at fault here........they have acted on intelligence information provided to them
> 
> 
> Sorry - but where on earth do you get that from? There was NO intelligence information about this man. None.Nada.Zip. The police acted on an assumption, nothing more.


And how much intellegence was there on the 4 from the 7th July? :?

Unfortunately there is a war going on, between decent individuals going about the daily life and a few radical idiots hiding behind their faith (before anyone takes any race views, the same applied to the Irish troubles from 1969 to recent times).

Whats worse is they are being taught by spineless turds who are too cowardly to show their faces.

This is a difficult one to call, the Police are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

If the Brazilian had been a bomber the copper would have been a hero. Now he is being branded a murderer, and is something he will have to live with for the rest of his life, just because he did his job.


----------



## bazza (Jan 15, 2005)

as my own comment which is non of your business :wink:

oopss!! sorry being rude too!


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

clived said:


> Dee - apologies - I'd missed that you'd responded to me as your text was buried within a "clived" quote window.
> 
> I think you've answered the question here - you feel your words could have been more carefully chosen, so do I. We agree  I wasn't vilifying you - I chose to comment only on your post as the wish of death, to another, from you, surprised me. I was perhaps less surprised by the posts of some others. THIS HOWEVER DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SUGGESTING I WISH THIS GUY DEAD - how dare you think you know what I feel on the subject? Given my abhorance of YOU wishing others dead here, you might have thought that perhaps my view would have been totally to the contrary. What makes you think that I'm the sort of person who would wish another dead? Please don't tar me with your brush.


Clive - I believe we are going around in circles here.....! :? I would not _tar you with the same brush_ however I can understand how you would read my post this way, - so plese forgive me, however to date unless I'm mistaken you have only looked upon the situation in a police perspective, your prerogative of course, but you have never asked (on forum unless I'm mistaken) "what if?". I have always taken the objective view, and the ensuing debate - the point of forums as a discussion community, has at times been interesting. I have never had a problem with your opinion, but when racism and disrespect/assumption that a single foreign human life is expendable (until of course its brought closer to home - my point which should have been conveyed somewhat better :? ) is brazenly cavorted then I will vehemently fight my view. My assumption (and theirs? ) that you were vilifying me, obviously fuelled the self righteous a$$es to spout further garbage. You say you were less surprised by the posts of some others â€" therein lies the misunderstanding between you and I â€" but I might suggest a IM would have taken care of that? Thank you for coming back though :wink:

yes itâ€™s awful, perhaps avoidable, but in this situation and current climate I would have expected nothing less from the police IF the situation had started when at the tube station... which it did not! The actions of senior officers allowed this man into a public place where the only option was a kill shot.

The news is now reporting that *Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian refused to curtail the controversial shoot-to-kill policy in which firearms officers are instructed to shoot suicide bomb suspects in the head, and he admitted "more people may die as a result.â€ *This is a slippery slope to a place where we really donâ€™t want to goâ€¦ Terrorism is here to stay in one form or another unfortunately.. are we are going to create a state a liken to that in Brazil where the officer is able to be judge an jury to a suspected criminal?! What is the answer â€" I donâ€™t know â€" a thought perhaps â€" not specifically open for argument as I donâ€™t have all the answers isâ€¦ airport style baggage checks through mass transport entrances? Permanent sniffer dogs? â€" Yes its manpower and cost- great fr employment perhaps... but which is preferable, innocent lives or tougher prevention measures :?:


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

mighTy Tee said:


> Whats worse is they are being taught by spineless turds who are too cowardly to show their faces.


This is what gets to me the most, you get these spineless twats hiding in caves telling weak individuals that it would be a good idea to go and blow themselves and other people up in the name of the cause and where are they while its all going on... hiding in a cave sipping tea and thinking up their next big idea :evil:

Terrorism will never achieve it's goal as the very way they try to make their point will never earn them any respect from anyone other than complete moron lunatics, sometimes they have a valid point but instead of being up front and trying to deal with it on the level they hide away getting others to do their dirty work ruining the lifes of every day innocent people. Would the Brazilian be dead now this very minute if those utter wankers hadn't done what they had 2 weeks ago....no i don't think so :evil:


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

bazza said:


> as my own comment which is non of your business :wink:
> 
> oopss!! sorry being rude too!


Sorry to go on bazza but if your comment is none of my business then don't post it on a public forum [smiley=freak.gif]


----------



## justtin (May 6, 2002)

From what I've read:

1. a person left a property being watched by the police

2. the following officers asked for instructions as to what to do

3. the suspect was wearing a heavy jacket on a hot day

4. he failed to stop when challenged (though this may be disputed)

5. he ran from the police

6. he was boarding a tube train

7. the officers had shoot to kill instructions.

The only part of this I question of why did e run? If he was challenged he should have stopped. I would, wouldn't you?

If he wasn't challenged, then unless absolutley certain, they should not shot to kill. However, if he had got on the tube and it went bang what would the press be saying then???? 'Police let suicide bomber get away' ?

The police need to be made acountable, but also have the ability to stop/attempt to stop crimes.

Where is the line drawn???

Justin


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

I've added my opinions to your post Justin - much of this is already been said above - and much of this is in the press



justtin said:


> From what I've read:
> 
> 1. a person left a property being watched by the police - a block of flats (unconfirmed)
> 
> ...


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

its a tough one but:
innocent people get sent to jail
innocent people get run over by nutters (hit and run)
innocent people die on operating tables
etc..
innocent people get shot by the police

Its going to happen and not much you can ever say will change it.

IMHO he shouldnt have 'acted suspect' after all what has been in the paper. He ran cos he was guilty of something and that wa he was officially an over stayer (and therefore possibly an illegal imigrant).


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

jonhaff said:


> its a tough one but:
> innocent people get sent to jail
> innocent people get run over by nutters (hit and run)
> innocent people die on operating tables
> ...


So to sum up it was a regrettable thing to have happened but not all together surprising given all the circumstances. I dont suppose it matters to our dead Brazilian friend if he was shot before or after he got on the bus. The fact still remains he ran when challenged and paid the price. Who knows if it would have altered his decision to run if the officers were in uniform or not. This is speculation that frankly makes no difference to the argument or the outcome of events. It also makes no difference how many times he was shot. What does it matter to him if it was five or eight bullets? My only worry is that if similar circumstances arise again, police may hesitate because of this case, and even more innocent people could die as a result. As a gesture of good faith perhaps the goverment could offer to pay for this guys funeral with the money they will save on deportation costs.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

What is so disappointing is that so many people are using this to justify their racist and bigoted views.



stephengreen said:


> jonhaff said:
> 
> 
> > its a tough one but:
> ...


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Sim said:


> What is so disappointing is that so many people are using this to justify their racist and bigoted views.


And the cause of this?

I bunch of radical extremist terrorists with racist bigoted views, scant regard for human life, who bombed London, Egypt, Turkey, Kenya, Madrid, New York, Bali (the list goes on) killing innocent people.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

mighTy Tee said:


> Sim said:
> 
> 
> > What is so disappointing is that so many people are using this to justify their racist and bigoted views.
> ...


 A good point. How about some post's regarding the scum who are inflicting this on civilised society? It's typical that some people will use the freedom our society grants to rubbish the actions of the people trying to uphold it for the rest of us. This is nothing to do with race, its to do with preserving our way of life from those who would deny us it. This is true regardless of the nationality of the individuals involved. And quite clearly the preservation of freedom for us all is more important than any individual life, mistake or not.


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

dee said:


> I've added *my* opinions to your post Justin -


we gather :roll:


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

And what you take the racist and bigoted lead from them?



mighTy Tee said:


> Sim said:
> 
> 
> > What is so disappointing is that so many people are using this to justify their racist and bigoted views.
> ...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Regrettable accident/incident. Equally sad whether a citizen or illegal immigrant. Poor intelligence (or poorly used/interpreted intelligence) appears to be at the cause, just as it was for the invasion of Iraq.

So who is ultimately responsible for the gathering, collating, interpretation and acting upon intelligence and any associated guidelines/policies ?

The Govt.

When will these people take some responsibility instead of just being predicatbly and suitably outraged and condemning of all these incidents that are inextricably linked to the Israeli problem, US foreign policy in the middle east, and oil?

Still, the IRA killed many many more people in their terror campaigns than has the Islamic extremists to date. And we never declared war on them did we. Or overthrew Gerry Adams...

War on terrorism is rubbish. Terrorism is a phenomena, you cant subdue and kill a phemonena. We should probably end up giving them political power just as we did the IRA. Of course one could identify the IRA and it is harder to identify a bunch of pervasive religious and disaffected nutters that span the globe.

Intelliegence and the Labour govt are obviously not comfy bedfellows.

Still ID cards should sort it. :roll:


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Sim said:


> And what you take the racist and bigoted lead from them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you are SO perfect?

FFS - get real!


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

Sim said:


> And what you take the racist and bigoted lead from them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sim - dont wory mate - enough has been said above and that hasnt been acknowledged by certain people as rational. Some people are simply too ignorant to reason with and some who comment as above are no better than the terrorists themselves. I have had many supportive messages to comfort me that not everyone on here is a member of the BNP but open forum argument is not for them either because they have known certain people for a long time and dont want to rock the boat... or they are simply disgusted by some of the opinions.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

dee said:


> Sim said:
> 
> 
> > And what you take the racist and bigoted lead from them?
> ...


It strikes me that the two of you can't seperate the difference between racism and criminal terrorists.


----------



## silkman (Jul 29, 2004)

dee said:


> Sim - dont wory mate - enough has been said above and that hasnt been acknowledged by certain people as rational. Some people are simply too ignorant to reason with and some who comment as above are no better than the terrorists themselves. I have had many supportive messages to comfort me that not everyone on here is a member of the BNP but open forum argument is not for them either because they have known certain people for a long time and dont want to rock the boat... or they are simply disgusted by some of the opinions.


I don't exactly see why when one is stating the obvious is then branded a member of the BNP. :x


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

If you READ my posts and others I said that it is a shame that this has been used to justify racist and bigoted opinions. I have NOT commented upon the acts of terror but the REACTION to them.

I am appalled by these actions as everyone else is.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> War on terrorism is rubbish. Terrorism is a phenomena, you cant subdue and kill a phemonena. We should probably end up giving them political power


 http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17193
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17254 
A couple of interesting articles that may give an insight as to what we are really up against and how not to fight it.


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

thing is people say the Brazilian dude dying (may he RIP) is the fault of the terrorists for creating this situation, I wouldnt dispute that. People say the terrorists wouldnt have bombed London had it not been for Britains foreign policy - something which as I recall was an item of fierce debate at the time. Then people say that Britain only went in on the war cos of 9/11. Then people say 9/11 only happened as a result of America's foriegn policy. So whilst everyones passing the buck, shall we blame the Brazilian guys death on Bush?


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

silkman said:


> I don't exactly see why when one is stating the obvious is then branded a member of the BNP. :x


come back once you have learnt to read then...

more views:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4715735.stm


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

Is this going around in circles or what? i'm only checking back to see if Bazza has anymore gems of wisdom to impart.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

L7 said:


> Is this going around in circles or what? i'm only checking back to see if Bazza has anymore gems of wisdom to impart.


 :lol: :? [smiley=furious3.gif] :lol:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

zedman said:


> thing is people say the Brazilian dude dying (may he RIP) is the fault of the terrorists for creating this situation, I wouldnt dispute that. People say the terrorists wouldnt have bombed London had it not been for Britains foreign policy - something which as I recall was an item of fierce debate at the time. Then people say that Britain only went in on the war cos of 9/11. Then people say 9/11 only happened as a result of America's foriegn policy. So whilst everyones passing the buck, shall we blame the Brazilian guys death on Bush?


Ulitmately yes. Blame Bush and his daddy, then Blair for being a Bush Bitch.

You may recall how much better things were under Clinton. before George W got in to finish the job his daddy started in 1990. things have got worse and worse since then. Expect the pattren to continue through this US administration and the current UK labour admins current tenure.

It's a horrible thought.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

A mate of mine (Asian) tells me he got on the tube a few days ago carrying a rucksack.

He fixes laptops and PCs and the like and there were one or two wires visible out hte top of his bag and people moved to the other end of the carraige.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

Kell said:


> A mate of mine (Asian) tells me he got on the tube a few days ago carrying a rucksack.
> 
> He fixes laptops and PCs and the like and there were one or two wires visible out hte top of his bag and people moved to the other end of the carraige.


they'll be safe there wont they.... :? :roll:

hopefully the new dress code on the tube. and the no running rule may also influence those with music blaring out of headphones - or they wont hear the "police - get down !" whisper, err I mean shout! :roll: Some of these people have it playing so loud its sounds to me (from the other side of the carriage) as loud as I would have music playing in the home.... what on earth does it sound like to the wearer 

there is an email going around at the moment about a "Service Information" board at a london underground station.... I suspect it airbrushed.. poor taste perhaps - but so is a klot of _humor_ - will post later when I get a chance to host it...


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> A mate of mine (Asian) tells me he got on the tube a few days ago carrying a rucksack.
> 
> He fixes laptops and PCs and the like and there were one or two wires visible out hte top of his bag and people moved to the other end of the carraige.


Seems a rather foolish thing that your friend did :?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

mike_bailey said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > A mate of mine (Asian) tells me he got on the tube a few days ago carrying a rucksack.
> ...


Well, yes and no really.

Yes, in light of current events, but no because that's the way he always carries around his stuff. I suspect he'll be more careful from now on though - especially with the shooting. :?

And on another, lighter note, our building was just evacuated due to a bomb scare. Though I was in the gym at the time. We're all back in now though.


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

Interesting to hear the family of the dead Brazilian saying on the radio news that the police have shown them the cctv from the Underground and A He used his Travelcard at the barrier and did not jump it
B He was not running at that point
C He was wearing a denim jacket - not a "heavy padded winter coat"
D He was not carrying anything

I also see Jack Straw has stated the man was not here illegally


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

TuTTiFruTTi said:


> Interesting to hear the family of the dead Brazilian saying on the radio news that the police have shown them the cctv from the Underground and
> 
> A He used his Travelcard at the barrier and did not jump it
> B He was not running at that point
> ...


I cant find any online news with this (A-D) info TuTTiFruTTi, but if this is the case - the whole incident couldnt have been more fcuked up... and the officer who is now on a holiday with his family paid for by us should be behind bars!


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

Dee - it was on BBC Radio 4's PM programme , 5-6pm, played at around 5.30ish and was rather glossed over given the fact that if correct , this information completely contradicts the initial police version of events.


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... 0Feed&ct=5

lets hear all the "they do a great job, and we should support them through thick and thin" rhetoric again shall we.... :x


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Interesting indeed!!

How many shots do you need to take someone down that is being restrained?

None - One - Two?

No seven in the head, one in the shoulder & three that missed 

Once the report is officially published I'm sure some of the explantations will make interesting listening.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Those that don't wish to view an image of the scene hosted by ITN please do not click - the article however does make interesting reading


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

at least the HERO police officer and his family (that never lie and always uphold the law) got a free holiday out of it.... :wink:

bet he didnt go to Brazil :lol:


----------



## donny (Sep 5, 2003)

dee said:


> at least the HERO police officer and his family (that never lie and always uphold the law) got a free holiday out of it.... :wink:
> 
> bet he didnt go to Brazil :lol:


I hope it was an expences paid holiday


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

I hope he gets paid too... :wink:


----------



## dee (Jun 3, 2005)

Finally seeing some common sense from readers letters in several newspapers in particular the free metro with regards this shooting....

fed up with hearing the crap about letting the police concentrate on 'the task at hand' such as that aired on the bbc news by a cousin of a victim... ignorant twat... when will people understand that a bigger threat to civilised society is a bent law enforcement system...

hopefully we will see more clarification on the missing tapes from the cctv... which were previously alledged to have not been working... and blank tapes returned to LU...


----------

