Lion in Winter

Right, so let's cut to the chase and go and drink strong drinks at the nearest oasis.

ImHere

Arent we lucky we are citizens of a country that allows us to do just that? ....certainly wouldnt be if we allow the terrorists to have their way.

Theres a difference though to democratic process and security. Unfortunately democracy is its own worst enemy when it comes to security issues and whie I realise that we must have checks and balance sometimes it is neccesary to have faith in the people attempting to protect us rather than critically analyze their every move even in the face of apparent mistakes.

Lion in Winter

We aren't lucky. We made it that way over the centuries and people died for it.

I'm not prepared to undo that for a handful of murderous lunatics.

Who is suggesting allowing terrorists to have their way?

paddingtongreen

I think you must have attended the Karl Rove school of spin. NOBODY has proposed to let the terrorists have their way, your remark is just obfuscation, pure and simple.

ImHere

Thats absolutely correct. However in the process of making and protecting a democracy certain things that are difficult to accept but must be accepted...and one of those is that we on occaision must allow the police - who I may point out only have their power because the people allow it - to do what can be a very difficult job an accept that human mistakes - if that's what it was - will occur.

ImHere

No. Its fact. Pure and simple. The beleifs the terrorists stand for is to bring down the western democracies and install militant islamic regimes across the world. Jihad.

What I have read proposed is that the police were wrong to do what they did. The alternative is to NOT take action in any circumstances that are not 100% certain, and you should know that there are very few of those. There is always the fog of war and no intelligence can ever be 100% certain. If that is the case then the terrorists will be free to do whatever acts they chose.

Yes, the police can review what happened and maybe improve protocols or maybe not. But regardless they must still attempt o prevent terrorists - who do not play by the rules - from carrying out further acts. Either way it is not out place to say they were wrong or right to do what they did.

Lion in Winter

[QUOTE=ImHere] But this isn't one of them. Not from where I sit.


. I'm sorry, but I don't think "the people" have a clue what their secret forces are up to. As far as I know, the likes of you and I are not told. But we can most certainly react to what we see, instead of quietly acquiesing and doing as we are told without thought.





- .

If you check my posts you will see that it is clear that I accept that mistakes will occur. The points is, what should be done about them?

ImHere

And on that point we disagree

The police in the UK work by consent. That does not mean they have to make fully public every operation or protocol but it does mean they can only operate if the public as a body allow them to do so. That is British law.


What should be done about them is not yours or my desicion. We have neither the knowledge about what happened nor the insight into current operations to make any suggestions about how future operations should be conducted. And that is my point. What happened may have been a tragic shooting of an innocent man or it may not. We do not know. and we may never know. If anyone here honestly thinks that the information that is made public is all the information there is then they are naive.

Lion in Winter

It may well be, not that I've tried overthrowing the police lately. Never felt the need. I merely said that it's pretty hard to consent to something when you don't know what it is you're consenting to. If I see something I believe to be wrong, I will most certainly speak up.


Nonsense. We don't have the knowledge of their operations, I fully agree. But we can, and should, make a loud noise if it becomes clear that something does need to be done. Democratic countries have a long history of precisely this sort of noise. If you surrender this right, on an "authority knows best" platform - well, history tells us pretty clearly what that sort of thing leads to, doesn't it.

ImHere

Well thats good to know. And there was me thinking you were an anarchist and all. The consent is a general idea. Unlike other countries where the police have their powers by superior fire power. And speaking up is your right. My argument (and I didnt say you in particular were doing this by the way) is that blind criticism regardless is not neccessarily acceptable.

We can make as many noises as we like. However, due to the consent thing, the police themselves have regulatory and independent bodeis that will make sure that full independent investigations into what happened will be carried out. But, we may never know a) what happened and b) what the fixes were due to national security interests. That doesnt mean that they wont have been carriedd out though. This is what I mean by trust. Sometimes you got to beleive that our people are actually good guys.

snowbunny

My "theory" was based on what you had previously posted:

"1) Had he gone home when his visa ran out
2) Had terrorism not reared its head and bombed trains

There ya go 2 reasons that could have avoided his death."

And my response was similar: replace your 1) with any action that would have placed one of the bombing victims somewhere other than where they were when the terrorism reared its head, and s/he would still be alive. There seems to be hyperfocus on the fact that the man had overstayed his visa and that seems to cheapen the value of his life. If any of the victims had overstayed their visa it would be in horribly bad taste to keep mentioning it, because it doesn't justify their being killed or make it in any way more palatable.

doctor scrumpy

Again Snowbunny you are in error.

1) He chose to break the law by not going home when his visa ran out. He no doubt stayed because he could make more money & have a better standard of life in the UK than in Brazil.

2) The victims of the bombings were people going about their normal lives, and were murdered, maimed and injured by criminals.

What sickens is that people seem to think that the brazilian crook's family deserves any cash at all, and it appears that is the main motivation for them and the low life lawyers who represent them.

Yes I agree it was a tragic accident, one that could have been avoided, but why turn round and shout at a copper doing a job that not one of us would want to do in a million years.

GOBLIN

Yeah!!! Try saying that to the victim's family.
Putting their lives at risk is part of a police officer's duty, which they are fully aware of when the take up employment.
It is also part of their duty to protect innocent civilians, not blow their brains out based on suspicion.
The fact that the man was working illegally is no justification for him being shot 7 times in the head.
You can praise the cops when they shoot the f***ers who actually carried out the bombings!!!

Just my opinion, have a nice day!

jaytee

He's dead and buried. No amount of arguing or crying is going to bring him back. I doubt anything could prevent this type of mistake from happening again.

doctor scrumpy

He was not shot in the head because he was an illegal immigrant. He was shot in the head because he was a suspected suicide bomber.