08 Nov 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaAn "isolated incident" cost the life of an innocent. According to you, nobody is responsible in the slightest possible way.
At no stage have I stated it as justifiable...the closest I've come is to say that when mistakes are made, it is tragic, and that remains the case.
I've supported my reasoning for retaining the asset of a successful commander, but I haven't seen a good reason for him to stand down for an isolated event occurring in increasingly panicked circumstances afte ...[text shortened]... e day".
I cannot answer your "what else" question, since it would be pure speculation.
Note that I'm not defending that Ian Blair is tried for murder or manslaughter. I do think that he is indirectly responsible as a commander.
His job is to find those who made such a serious surveillance mistake and appoint responsibilities. If he's unable or unwilling to do so, then he is definitely unfit for the job. His job entails a major responsibility towards the civil society and not just towards his own police force.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst line : You are puttuing words in my mouth again.
An "isolated incident" cost the life of an innocent. According to you, nobody is responsible in the slightest possible way.
Note that I'm not defending that Ian Blair is tried for murder or manslaughter. I do think that he is indirectly responsible as a commander.
His job is to find those who made such a serious surveillance mistake and appoint respon ...[text shortened]... a major responsibility towards the civil society and not just towards his own police force.
Responsibility rests with those who pulled the trigger and their immediate supervisor, a Mr Dick....
Second half I largely agree with, though the investigation is down to the IPCC, not Blair.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaThe problem is that the IPCC said Blair tried to block this investigation. In my opinion, this is in complete contradiction with his responsibilities towards the general public.
First line : You are puttuing words in my mouth again.
Responsibility rests with those who pulled the trigger and their immediate supervisor, a Mr Dick....
Second half I largely agree with, though the investigation is down to the IPCC, not Blair.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaThat may be so...my memory of the events at the time was that it was a good two ot three days before anything like a clear picture as to just what happened came to light....was information witheld from Blair? ...I think so, but I don't know for certain, obviously.
The problem is that the IPCC said Blair tried to block this investigation. In my opinion, this is in complete contradiction with his responsibilities towards the general public.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaThe police should be accountable and justify their actions. Unfortunately, the police believe they are above the law. We only have to see today's report to once emphasise what many have known for many, many years what really goes on. The report once again states that the practice of the police making repprts TOGETHER should stop.
First line : You are puttuing words in my mouth again.
Responsibility rests with those who pulled the trigger and their immediate supervisor, a Mr Dick....
Second half I largely agree with, though the investigation is down to the IPCC, not Blair.
It is utterly amazing that the 6 police officers all testified that the word 'armed police' were shouted and yet 17 witnesses, who DID NOT MAKE A JOINT REPORT (i.e. free of prejudice) all claimed no such words were uttered.
If the police failed to utter these words, they might well have acted acted criminally. If they claim the words were uttered, but in fact they were not, then they have committed perjury - a serious crime. 17 witenesses claimed they did not say these words. 6 police officers claim they were said - surprise, surprise.
It is quite obvious to me who are lying.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by znshoI agree...in part.
The police should be accountable and justify their actions. Unfortunately, the police believe they are above the law. We only have to see today's report to once emphasise what many have known for many, many years what really goes on. The report once again states that the practice of the police making repprts TOGETHER should stop.
It is utterly amazing that ficers claim they were said - surprise, surprise.
It is quite obvious to me who are lying.
The actions were justified by their conviction that he was a bomber, and that he might have detonated at any moment....that this conviction was right or wrong, that this conviction was borne of a catalogue of errors on the day, is largely academic, since that conviction was overwhelmingly held by each in those important last moments...for the SO team, right there and then, the justification was undeniable.
Accountable, yes...but if anyone is accountable, it must be the SO members who participated, including, of course, those who discharged their weapons.
It has already been ruled that these individuals will face no charges.
Like you, I do not understand why, when a Sudden Death occurs in consequence of SO actions, a collective debrief is permitted.
Each officer should have gone into isolation under IPCC routines for individual debrief.
As it is, the cry of "perjury" is inevitable.
And so, again I ask, why and how is the Man At The Top responsible for their actions?
Why should the Met, London, and the country, be made bereft of a formidable, and proven leader, as a result of the errors made that day, when those that did discharge their weapons are immune (for whatever reason)?
Mr Blair has taken steps of his own, as a good leader should, to ensure that under such events, the same mistakes are not made (the same or in similar ways) again.
Those steps were taken before the IPCC and other recommendations saw light of day, and serve to demonstrate that Mr Blair is actively doing his job....
Personally, I am entirely in agreement with The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who at the time said: "The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public....This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility."
I don't agree with Mr Livingstone's politics, but I certainly agree with his sentiment here.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by kmax87what the hell, kmax? you're actually making sense today ...
If every good leader,Ceo,commander et al were to resign for every stuff up occasioning unjust death on their watch, you would very soon have a system where every potentially good leader would simply not bother to put their hat in the ring for promotion and you would soon have every major branch being staffed by a cadre of incompetents whose only skill would lie in blame shifting.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Quote:
'The actions were justified by their conviction that he was a bomber, '
I see. So, as a responsible member of the public, I club your son / daughter to death, because I genuinely believed they were about to bomb innocents. Only, I was wrong. A schizophrenic kills another because they genuinely believed that ............ Thus, genuine beleief makes a person innocent.
I do not believe that those officers 'GENUINELY BELIEVED'. They acted in doubt but did not care because they KNEW they would get away with it. After all, he is back on armed duty, isn't he? DISGUSTING INSULT TO THE FAMILY OF JEAN CHARLES. Disgusting.
A policeman gets away with such a pathetic defense. A member of other professions does not.
Any police person can kill another member of the public and simply say 'well, I believed........'. Get real, man. As long as the police have this disgraceful defense to protect them, innocent members of the public will be shot dead.
PS: don't carry a toy gun - the police might kill you because they 'genuinely believed.....'
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by znshoFirst, that's just that's too many assumptions and wild analogies to qualify the "get real" comment; second, your typing suggest your reaction is emotional rather than objective.
Quote:
'The actions were justified by their conviction that he was a bomber, '
I see. So, as a responsible member of the public, I club your son / daughter to death, because I genuinely believed they were about to bomb innocents. Only, I was wrong. A schizophrenic kills another because they genuinely believed that ............ Thus, genuine beleief makes n't carry a toy gun - the police might kill you because they 'genuinely believed.....'
Again. Mistakes were made.
As a result, an innocent man lost his life....which IS absolutely tragic, do not confuse my argument with belittling that fact.
Someone should be responsible, yes.
Those that perhaps should be, are deemed "not responsible".
The pursuit of Blair's discharge, I say, is a political knee-jerk to seek a scape-goat, purely for the placation of ...others, be they known or unknown.
There can be no positive outcome to Blair ceasing to continue the tremendous contribution he personally has brought to reducing domestic crime, and responding to the "international threat" brought to, presented, and sought to be prosecuted, in the United Kingdom.
Read kmax's post again.
That really is the future, if this modern top-down witch-hunt mentality continues.
EDIT: Your spelling / grammar corrections that negate my "emotional" observation are noted.. 🙂
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by ZadadkaYou should read my comments more carefully. I have never called for the witchhunt of Ian Blair. I have said all along, it was those officers who shot him who should be held to blame. I reiterate my position. They acted as they did because, in previous cases, the police have always been absolved of all blame. That is why the police behave in the way they do. They get away with criminal acts. Thus, they continue performing criminal acts.
First, that's just that's too many assumptions and wild analogies to qualify the "get real" comment; second, your typing suggest your reaction is emotional rather than objective.
Again. Mistakes were made.
As a result, an innocent man lost his life....which IS absolutely tragic, do not confuse my argument with belittling that fact.
Someone should be res ...[text shortened]... spelling / grammar corrections that negate my "emotional" observation are noted.. 🙂
You have failed to address my perfectly valid point that it appears the police lied concerning the alleged shouting of the warning 'armed police'. Why? Face facts. The police tell lies. They commit perjury.
In addition, why has this murderous police officer been reinstated on armed duty? Do you not believe that this action is a gross insult to the family of Jean Charles? Does this person not have a sense of responsibility? Is his view 'well, killed an innocent, so what? I'd do the same again?'
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by znshoApologies for the "pigeon-hole" I placed you in.
You should read my comments more carefully. I have never called for the witchhunt of Ian Blair. I have said all along, it was those officers who shot him who should be held to blame. I reiterate my position. They acted as they did because, in previous cases, the police have always been absolved of all blame. That is why the police behave in the way they do. T ...[text shortened]... of responsibility? Is his view 'well, killed an innocent, so what? I'd do the same again?'
Conversely, of course, I too have stated that the SO team are / should be accountable.
I have also already acknowledged the inevitable cry of "foul" regarding the perjury aspect.
I'd disagree with your view regarding the "police perpetually commit criminal acts" aspect.
As already mentioned, you have to go back almost three decades to find a half-dozen deaths "at the hands of the police" in this country.
I wonder if you might not be promulgating many other frustrations into this statement?
For perspective, compare that number with just under 40 police officers, and over 3500 civilians unlawfully killed in the same period.*
(* includes IRA and similar, 7/7, Stephen Lawrence, Damilola Taylor and every other Murder....etc etc, and every other sad etc)
For my part, I want someone who knows HOW to watch my back as best he can.....
....rather than a Yes Man who is utterly clueless and would sooner blame his breakfast cereal being stale over accepting responsibility.
08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ZadadkaYou have still not answered my point. The police have, apparently, lied and committed perjury. Do you defend this or not?
Apologies for the "pigeon-hole" I placed you in.
Conversely, of course, I too have stated that the SO team are / should be accountable.
I have also already acknowledged the inevitable cry of "foul" regarding the perjury aspect.
I'd disagree with your view regarding the "police perpetually commit criminal acts" aspect.
As already mentioned, you have t and would sooner blame his breakfast cereal being stale over accepting responsibility.
08 Nov 07
'As already mentioned, you have to go back almost three decades to find a half-dozen deaths "at the hands of the police" in this country.'
Since 1985, nearly 60 innocent members of the public have been shot dead by the police in the UK. Three decades? You seem to forget the 5-year old boy shot dead by the British police.
Tell you what. You go up to the mother of that 5-year old and tell her 'sorry, but only doing my duty'.
Why not go up to Jean Charle's parents as well. Simply say 'sorry about that, but, you know, colleateral damage'.
These deaths would not have occurred if the police were prosecuted according to the true law of this country. But they are not. They get away with it.