Originally Posted by doctor scrumpy

Just another reason to go tell Europe to go (bleep) themselves then. The idea of national security being decided by the clowns in Brussels is repugnant.

Originally Posted by krizzy

And there was I just getting use to admitting I'm part French......

Originally Posted by krizzy

You did if you look back...answer one of my posts.....so I took that to mean you were talking too me.....

I never give a hint that I believed you were talking about me.......
Maybe you need another coffee.......being a school teacher can be very stressful......we don't want you blowing a gasket or something.....

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

Doesn't look like it to me....

Originally Posted by krizzy

{Reason #1: it is not normal practice on UK mainland to shoot someone dead who fails to heed a police warning to stop, in fact it is a highly improbable result based on historical evidence which will show that police rarely, if ever, shoot someone dead for failing to stop.}

So if it becomes normal practice.......will people not be able to sue....or will they get less money....???

if the police have been able to shoot to kill for many years and not done so......then why does that not show this was an extreme case in difficult times......

I see your point well......but it seems that for the police to be in the right....they would have to have killed more often.....??

Sorry if that is in bad English......I get better as the day goes by.....LOL!
If I could still write in French and Spanish......I would do better.....but then again I'm sure someone would bring up the fact it was not in English....

Originally Posted by Leslie66

Yes well it wasn't you pointing it out was it? It was me.

I wasn't pointing out "bad English" I was pointing out the misspelling of a proper noun which happens to be the name of a rather large country.

I wasn't talking to you or about you (or putting you "right" so to speak) so let's move on shall we?

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

I don't know this for sure, so don't quote me on it - I saw it on a blog.

Apparently because some police commisioners have referred to it as "shoot to kill" and not the correct term "shoot to stop" the Brazilian family might have a case under European human rights laws because, apparently, making blanket judgements - in this case of suspected suicide bombers - is illegal under European human rights laws.

Originally Posted by Franklin

*nods* I just don't think it is going to go that far. If the Met Police admit liability (which they have more or less down already) and signal they will pay compensation to the family, there is not a lot of point in going to trial. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

Which part? As long as it's your nose and not your mouth you'll be fine

Originally Posted by Leslie66

Please be quiet. The adults are trying to talk

Originally Posted by Leslie66

Please be quiet. The adults are trying to talk

Originally Posted by Leslie66

There are major arteries in the leg.

They would have shoot then in the toe. Not the foot mind, but the toe.

Shooting the ear would also be ok, just not the head.

Originally Posted by Franklin

Just looking at it dispassionately through the eyes of plaintiff's counsel and the requirements to prove negligence under Tort law. I think sometimes people who read my posts think I am giving my opinion, I'm merely describing the middle road as objectively as I can. That's all. But I fully support the police, they are doing a difficult job in astonishingly difficult circumstances forced on them by criminal suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

On the BBC site there was an article this morning that said relatives of the bombings would get £5000 each, this includes relatives of the man police shot. The injured would get £3000 each.

Can't find the article now.

Originally Posted by krizzy

That seems very little....do they not take into account how badly someone was hurt.....or if they died........?