Young woman shot by Police in terrror op.

[DS240]

Chlorothalonil said:

CS isn't a gas, and PAVA is used these days...

It would be CS in the way it was applied here.

[DS240]

Cold said:

davidball said:

That would seem to imply that the police have not arrested her because they feel they do not need to. Another possibility is that they do not have sufficient evidence or cause to arrest her.

The clock starts ticking once the arrest is made. Pointless triggering that if she's not in a position to answer any questions yet.

This.

[Hainey]

TonyToniTone said:

Hainey said:

The country is under a threat level that the IRA would have given anything to achieve 30 years ago

Hainey said:

Thats your opinion presented as I have presented mine, but nonsense it is not.

I think your first statement is nonsense as it contradicts reality, the IRA have had the country at our highest threat level, higher than it is currently

Hainey said:

I would also say the lack of mass IRA level carnage proves my point about the effective Police work, and does not bolster the view of what you see as a league table of terrorist ability.

Whilst I agree it would be much worse without the services, do you really think there was a lack of mass attacks, also not so sure about you 80/20 either..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_in...

If there was a UK table I think the IRA would be a few place higher than ISIS.

A few things briefly as I'm off out.

First is that the intel is MUCH more sofisticated and site specific accurate now compared to 30 years ago, it's literally a world apart, and hence why the higgest alert state was instigated as best practice back then to cater for worst case scenario should the intel be correct but it certainly isn't necessary now due to individual containment and compartmentalised tracking.

The second is time and resources. The IRA never went away after the easter uprising, the Thompson guns simply were put in the thatch for times that many knew may come. When they did, there were old hands at the ready with kniwledge to show them the game and new ones ready to learn and eager to fight to avenge their grievance. Soon after came an influx of money from the diaspora in the USA and then arms from the east via a customs network that would be lucky to stop an elephant in a crate back in those days. Sadly, the rest is tragic if not fascinating history.

In comparison, the ISIS threat or whoever they are allied to or whatever nomenclature they give themselves is just getting off the blocks from a fractured ideological start and worldwide spread of top down doctrine so it's more than a little early yet to start drawing up a league table I would say.

[Boring_Chris]

Ayahuasca said:

You're an absolute cretin.

[baldy1926]

Cold said:

davidball said:

That would seem to imply that the police have not arrested her because they feel they do not need to. Another possibility is that they do not have sufficient evidence or cause to arrest her.

The clock starts ticking once the arrest is made. Pointless triggering that if she's not in a position to answer any questions yet.

Its suspended when in hospital

[anonymous-user]

baldy1926 said:

Cold said:

davidball said:

That would seem to imply that the police have not arrested her because they feel they do not need to. Another possibility is that they do not have sufficient evidence or cause to arrest her.

The clock starts ticking once the arrest is made. Pointless triggering that if she's not in a position to answer any questions yet.

Its suspended when in hospital

I am 99% sure it isn't under terrorism legislation. Perhaps it's because under terrorism legislation the clock is from the time of arrest as opposed to time arriving at custody.

[RedTrident]

If she was really a terrorist I doubt they would let her have visitors etc.

I'm sure some version of the truth will emerge and I'm sure regardless of whether she was a terrorist, whether she lived in the same house as a terrorist or whether the closest she'd ever come to a terrorist was watching a Hollywood movie, that no police officer will be charged, that lesson would be learned and of course what do we expect living under such challenging times...

Of course the flip side is that if she genuinely had nothing to do with any terrorist activity then the story will be used to recruit more would be jihadists. Nothing like stories of a protected police/armed forces person shooting/killing a innocent Muslim to get the outrage to the required levels.

[Bigends]

greygoose said:

davidball said:

The victim, who is seriously wounded and under armed guard, is not under arrest. Perhaps someone can explain:

Who is she being protected from?
If she is suspected of being part of a terror plot why is she not under arrest?

Why start the PACE clock when she is not going anywhere?

So if shes walking wounded theres nothing stopping her from discharging herself then and leaving - she'd only have to get out of bed and the Cop present would have to arrest her to stop her leaving wouldnt they?
Police also wont be able to seize any property from her or take prints or DNA whilst not under arrest. I would have thought theyd have wanted these pronto in order to positively I.D her and link her with any other incidents

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 29th April 19:12

[Derek Smith]

RedTrident said:

I'm sure some version of the truth will emerge and I'm sure regardless of whether she was a terrorist, whether she lived in the same house as a terrorist or whether the closest she'd ever come to a terrorist was watching a Hollywood movie, that no police officer will be charged, that lesson would be learned and of course what do we expect living under such challenging times...

So, in short, the IPCC will investigate and come to a conclusion that you already know is wrong, corrupt and biased.

Would you prefer it is lessons are not learned from all operations? There are debriefs, often at multiple levels, in all major operations, sometimes held in public. Reports are submitted in order that in future such incidents officers can learn from experience of others rather than have to go in with just their own experience. They learn from operations that went without problems as well. However, at debriefs those involved will often come up with ideas and suggestions on how things could be made better inf future.

What do you expect from the police and security services? Perfection? in which case you will be disappointed. Good performance? If you compare the performance of the British police to those of other countries, you will understand why other countries send their officers to the UK in the hope of improving their performance, or rather to learn lessons.

[RedTrident]

Sorry Derek. We've been here a number of times before so you'll have to excuse my cynicism.

[anonymous-user]

Being wrong or being cynically wrong still = wrong.

I've seen the depths of IPCC / police internal investigations from both sides of the table so know the level they'll go into.

[RedTrident]

My opinion rightly or wrongly changed after the Brazilian lad was shot dead. Making a mistake is completely understandable, trying to cover up the mistake wasn't imo.

I'm sure more facts will emerge. If there is a cover up then the pattern is well established. If there isn't one then great, arrest her and put her on trial for whatever she was involved in.

[anonymous-user]

There was no evidence of a 'cover-up' regarding Menezes so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[RedTrident]

In your opinion. I remember it differently. Did he jump the barrier? Did he make a move towards the police? Did the police shout 'armed police'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093190/De...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i...

And then didn't the Police get it wrong when they shot one of those 2 brothers?

Which got me thinking. Have the police ever shot someone in the UK who actually was a terrorist?

[-Pete-]

MrBrightSi said:

shinning

?

[greygoose]

RedTrident said:

Which got me thinking. Have the police ever shot someone in the UK who actually was a terrorist?

The killers of Lee Rigby were both shot iirc and the recent attacker at the Houses of Parliament, perhaps you think they shouldn't have though.

[anonymous-user]

RedTrident said:

In your opinion. I remember it differently.

My opinion supported by the second IPCC investigation that specially looked at information releases:

IPCC said:

Following the shooting of Mr de Menezes, inaccurate information was released by the MPS on the 22 and 23 July during a press conference given by the Commissioner and in a number of media releases.

There is no evidence that the Commissioner or any other member of the MPS knowingly released the incorrect information to the media and public that Mr de Menezes had been challenged and that his clothing had added to their suspicions. Whilst they did release this information it was believed by them to have been correct at the time.

Also supported by the first investigation and every legal appeal process they went through.

Yours is supported by a DM article that mentions 'cover-up' as it misrepresents the inquest conclusions.

RedTrident said:

Which got me thinking. Have the police ever shot someone in the UK who actually was a terrorist?

Is this a serious question given what happened just over a month ago?

[Derek Smith]

RedTrident said:

Sorry Derek. We've been here a number of times before so you'll have to excuse my cynicism.

Impossible to excuse as it is a self indulgence. If you mean it is understandable then in many cases it can be as we all are prone to take the easy way out.

In this case the officer aimed a gun and fired, hitting the target so risking their life. If the action was wrong in some way then he/she should be dealt with according to their culpability.

Whether that single action was right or wrong, what we can say is that the officer went into work each day knowing that his/her function included risking their own life. He/she went on that particular action no doubt briefed that the persons they were going to challenge were possibly terrorists and therefore not open to reason. I think that entitles them to our support until a reason is produced to show there is reason not to.

A few good men (including women) might have been the only thing between terrorism and the death of innocents.

Shall we give the person the benefit of the doubt?

[KingNothing]

Sylvaforever said:

So the police operate with amunition outwith the stipulations of the Geneva Convention... Interesting indeed...

Geneva Convention is to do with the standards and international law for humanitarian treatment in warfare.

It has nothing to do with the type of ammunition a civilian police force use.

[bitchstewie]

RedTrident said:

In your opinion. I remember it differently. Did he jump the barrier? Did he make a move towards the police? Did the police shout 'armed police'?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093190/De...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-i...

And then didn't the Police get it wrong when they shot one of those 2 brothers?

Which got me thinking. Have the police ever shot someone in the UK who actually was a terrorist?

You mean other than the Adebowale, Adebolajo and Khalid Masood?

It's unfortunate and I think most people will agree that the way the "PR" side of the Police handled Stockwell wasn't good, though cock-up or conspiracy I'm not sure of.

They will get it wrong from time to time.

The thing it it's easy to sit on the sidelines sniping at those who put themselves in harms way.

What would you do differently?