Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Luke P
|
British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on publicI just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible.
The inference is that the public are being provoked by gross mismanagement and asset-stripping into civil unrest, the likes of which would require the enforcement of regulations tantamount to martial law, which would permit some rather radical and fundamental changes in our society to take place. Asking whether soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public does seem rather like a last-case contingency - but not an exercise in public safety around military barracks.
There are many precedents of soldiers taking action against civilians in history - notably the Germans under the Nazis, who showed how brutal and merciless Joe Public can be when he is 'under orders'. The US military operations post-Katrina showed a stark disregard for unarmed civilians. Having known a few squaddies I have no reason to think the British army would be any different, although I don't know the results of the survey.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.c...g/_archives/2009/3/2/4109792.html
|
magister ludi
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Luke P wrote: | | I just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible. |
In what way?
|
Luke P
|
I just find the idea of a nation's military being used against the populace rather disturbing. Don't know why. As for the plausibility of this - 30 years ago we didn't have: riot police, armed police, stop and search policies, CCTV cameras, internet snooping, suspension of habeas corpus, suspension of trial by jury, tazer-bearing police etc. etc. They were unthinkable developments. That's why I am not surprised when the unthinkable becomes real these days, particularly where it relates to state control of the people.
|
Aventinian
|
| Luke P wrote: | | 30 years ago we didn't have: riot police, armed police, stop and search policies |
Yes we did. Indeed, we've had that for centuries.
Moreover, we've had the army performing a policing role since the very idea of the state was created.
| Quote: | | suspension of habeas corpus |
Habeas Corpus is not of any real consequence in the modern age. Indeed, the last time it was actually suspended was in the 19th century. Modern detentions are entirely legal and would be perfectly examinable by habeas corpus.
| Quote: | | suspension of trial by jury |
That certainly happened 30 years ago, but all the same it has never been an absolute 'right' - and particularly not in Scotland.
|
landg
|
does it not depend on what the 'public' are doing?
|
Luke P
|
| landg wrote: | | does it not depend on what the 'public' are doing? |
No. Absolutely not. The army is a force to protect the nation from exterior threats/invade foreign countries. We have police to fight crime.
|
landg
|
it does'nt bother me whether it's the army or police, if the public are doing something that is reckless or endangers others, say in an emergency situation, that shoots them.
|
Holebender
|
So... if your child sticks his fingers in an electrical socket shooting is a suitable sanction?
If an adult drinks and drives, or uses a mobile phone while driving, is shooting acceptable?
|
landg
|
| Luke P wrote: | | landg wrote: | | does it not depend on what the 'public' are doing? |
No. Absolutely not. The army is a force to protect the nation from exterior threats/invade foreign countries. We have police to fight crime. |
you mean like when the firemen are on strike?
see those pesky invading firemen going on strike.
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | So... if your child sticks his fingers in an electrical socket shooting is a suitable sanction?
If an adult drinks and drives, or uses a mobile phone while driving, is shooting acceptable? |
oh yes. shotting should also be used when someone posts absurd analogies on the internet as well.holebender is in the sights of the sas right now.
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes.
|
Alasdair
|
| Holebender wrote: | So... if your child sticks his fingers in an electrical socket shooting is a suitable sanction?
If an adult drinks and drives, or uses a mobile phone while driving, is shooting acceptable? |
In the first case, shooting shouldn't be necessary ... what's the point in wasting a bullet on a corpse!
And in the second instance, I'd definitely sanction shooting, especially for mobile phone users who are also smoking, negotiating a busy roundabout and furiously using their horn to clear the way ...
|
Holebender
|
| landg wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | So... if your child sticks his fingers in an electrical socket shooting is a suitable sanction?
If an adult drinks and drives, or uses a mobile phone while driving, is shooting acceptable? |
oh yes. shotting should also be used when someone posts absurd analogies on the internet as well.holebender is in the sights of the sas right now.
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes. |
Ah... so if a bunch of nasty protesters try to break out of a police "kettling" cordon it's open season?
|
Shagpile
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Luke P wrote: | I just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible.
The inference is that the public are being provoked by gross mismanagement and asset-stripping into civil unrest, the likes of which would require the enforcement of regulations tantamount to martial law, which would permit some rather radical and fundamental changes in our society to take place. Asking whether soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public does seem rather like a last-case contingency - but not an exercise in public safety around military barracks.
There are many precedents of soldiers taking action against civilians in history - notably the Germans under the Nazis, who showed how brutal and merciless Joe Public can be when he is 'under orders'. The US military operations post-Katrina showed a stark disregard for unarmed civilians. Having known a few squaddies I have no reason to think the British army would be any different, although I don't know the results of the survey.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.c...g/_archives/2009/3/2/4109792.html |
Bloody Sunday springs to mind..........
|
landg
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Shagpile wrote: | | Luke P wrote: | I just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible.
The inference is that the public are being provoked by gross mismanagement and asset-stripping into civil unrest, the likes of which would require the enforcement of regulations tantamount to martial law, which would permit some rather radical and fundamental changes in our society to take place. Asking whether soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public does seem rather like a last-case contingency - but not an exercise in public safety around military barracks.
There are many precedents of soldiers taking action against civilians in history - notably the Germans under the Nazis, who showed how brutal and merciless Joe Public can be when he is 'under orders'. The US military operations post-Katrina showed a stark disregard for unarmed civilians. Having known a few squaddies I have no reason to think the British army would be any different, although I don't know the results of the survey.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.c...g/_archives/2009/3/2/4109792.html |
Bloody Sunday springs to mind.......... |
aye, those innocent protesters and those, ehm, eh,ayyy,ehhmmmm ,GUNS they started shooting.oh aye.
|
Shagpile
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | landg wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | Luke P wrote: | I just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible.
..........Asking whether soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public does seem rather like a last-case contingency - but not an exercise in public safety around military barracks.
..........Having known a few squaddies I have no reason to think the British army would be any different, although I don't know the results of the survey. |
Bloody Sunday springs to mind.......... |
aye, those innocent protesters and those, ehm, eh,ayyy,ehhmmmm ,GUNS they started shooting.oh aye. |
Remind me how many soldiers were killed that day, remember troops are trained to respond only to effective enemy fire. Unless given fire orders.
How many guns were recovered from those terrorist casualties? What pyrotechnic residues were recovered from those corpses?
What were the rules for engagement as per their Green Card NI.
I feel "Luke P", simply forgot or overlooked recent British history. Simply, our troops have already demonstrated..... "soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public".
And like him, I believe they would.
IMHO, they'd do it again.
|
landg
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | Luke P wrote: | I just discovered this on the net. It seems extemely draconian and scarily plausible.
..........Asking whether soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public does seem rather like a last-case contingency - but not an exercise in public safety around military barracks.
..........Having known a few squaddies I have no reason to think the British army would be any different, although I don't know the results of the survey. |
Bloody Sunday springs to mind.......... |
aye, those innocent protesters and those, ehm, eh,ayyy,ehhmmmm ,GUNS they started shooting.oh aye. |
Remind me how many soldiers were killed that day, remember troops are trained to respond only to effective enemy fire. Unless given fire orders.
How many guns were recovered from those terrorist casualties? What pyrotechnic residues were recovered from those corpses?
What were the rules for engagement as per their Green Card NI.
I feel "Luke P", simply forgot or overlooked recent British history. Simply, our troops have already demonstrated..... "soldiers would be prepared to open fire on the public".
And like him, I believe they would.
IMHO, they'd do it again. |
of course they should open fire again in similar circumstances. as for less soldiers and more 'protesters' being killed that day? soldiers can shoot better than the scummy 'protesters'.probably had better guns as well.
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on puRegarding the "Bloody Sunday" events in Derry, | Shagpile wrote: | | troops are trained to respond only to effective enemy fire. Unless given fire orders. |
There most certainly wasn't any "effective enemy fire" on that day, and it is questionable whether any actual "open fire" order was given before the troops started shooting. However, while there probably wasn't an actual command, there was a culture of contempt towards anybody protesting against the established order, for whatever reason. For example, this sort of mindless attitude: | landg wrote: | | scummy 'protesters' |
A very large crowd of unarmed civilians, including children, women, and men, would be another way of putting it. By opening fire indiscriminately on unarmed protesters, those troops contributed hugely to the later recruitment and bombing campaigns of the IRA.
|
Stevie
|
Oh dear... Northern Ireland... must we?
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | scummy 'protesters' |
I wrote | Quote: | | A very large crowd of unarmed civilians, including children, women, and men, would be another way of putting it. |
| Bravehand wrote: | | Oh dear... Northern Ireland... must we? |
Personally, I'd rather not touch the bloody place with a bargepole. Either England or the Republic of Ireland can have it, and either of them is welcome to it. But when "landg" described a crowd of unarmed men, women and children as "scum", that couldn't be left unanswered.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | scummy 'protesters' |
I wrote | Quote: | | A very large crowd of unarmed civilians, including children, women, and men, would be another way of putting it. |
| Bravehand wrote: | | Oh dear... Northern Ireland... must we? |
Personally, I'd rather not touch the bloody place with a bargepole. Either England or the Republic of Ireland can have it, and either of them is welcome to it. But when "landg" described a crowd of unarmed men, women and children as "scum", that couldn't be left unanswered. |
you are living in a PC world of fairies and goblins if you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' i stress brits because it's not englands or eire's problem but BRITAINS, you BRITAIN england, scotland,wales and ulster. for someone so knowledgeable you should know that.
in summary, some of thoose on that 'peaceful' march were armed scum.
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | landg wrote: | | you are living in a PC world of fairies and goblins if you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' |
I suggest you try reading again what I actually wrote. | Quote: | | There most certainly wasn't any "effective enemy fire" on that day, and it is questionable whether any actual "open fire" order was given before the troops started shooting. However, while there probably wasn't an actual command, there was a culture of contempt towards anybody protesting against the established order, for whatever reason. |
Where do you see the words "nasty Brits" in what I wrote? Nowhere. It's all in your own head. I was a member of the British armed forces for five years. I know how easy it is to get caught up in a culture of contempt. I even, once, got told off by an officer for being a bit too enthusiastic about putting the boot in (in South Yemen, not Northern Ireland). Do I blame individual soldiers for what happened on "Bloody Sunday"? Not really. I blame the system, I blame the government, I blame those higher up the chain of command, more than I blame the ordinary soldiers. Nevertheless, the fact is, | Quote: | | By opening fire indiscriminately on unarmed protesters, those troops contributed hugely to the later recruitment and bombing campaigns of the IRA. |
| landg wrote: | | it's not englands or eire's problem but BRITAINS |
Scotland is going to be independent in the fairly near future. Neither the SNP, nor any of the other political organisations which favour an independent Scotland, make any claims whatsoever outside the present boundaries of Scotland. When Scotland becomes independent, it will be independent of Northern Ireland, as well as independent of England. An independent Scotland will want to be on friendly terms with the neighbours, while not interfering in their business. What the people of Northern Ireland decide to do after Scotland becomes independent will be up to them, at least to some extent. I say "at least to some extent" because, of course, while they can continue to be United with England, and while they can choose closer relations with the Republic of Ireland, and while they can choose some form of quasi-independence, and while they could even choose some sort of condominium status, the one thing which would not be "up to them" would be joining Scotland. The reason that wouldn't be up to them is obvious - it would be up to us, and the people of Scotland would emphatically reject any such suggestion.
|
landg
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Dave Coull wrote: | | landg wrote: | | you are living in a PC world of fairies and goblins if you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' |
I suggest you try reading again what I actually wrote. | Quote: | | There most certainly wasn't any "effective enemy fire" on that day, and it is questionable whether any actual "open fire" order was given before the troops started shooting. However, while there probably wasn't an actual command, there was a culture of contempt towards anybody protesting against the established order, for whatever reason. |
Where do you see the words "nasty Brits" in what I wrote? Nowhere. It's all in your own head. I was a member of the British armed forces for five years. I know how easy it is to get caught up in a culture of contempt. I even, once, got told off by an officer for being a bit too enthusiastic about putting the boot in (in South Yemen, not Northern Ireland). Do I blame individual soldiers for what happened on "Bloody Sunday"? Not really. I blame the system, I blame the government, I blame those higher up the chain of command, more than I blame the ordinary soldiers. Nevertheless, the fact is, | Quote: | | By opening fire indiscriminately on unarmed protesters, those troops contributed hugely to the later recruitment and bombing campaigns of the IRA. |
| landg wrote: | | it's not englands or eire's problem but BRITAINS |
Scotland is going to be independent in the fairly near future. Neither the SNP, nor any of the other political organisations which favour an independent Scotland, make any claims whatsoever outside the present boundaries of Scotland. When Scotland becomes independent, it will be independent of Northern Ireland, as well as independent of England. An independent Scotland will want to be on friendly terms with the neighbours, while not interfering in their business. What the people of Northern Ireland decide to do after Scotland becomes independent will be up to them, at least to some extent. I say "at least to some extent" because, of course, while they can continue to be United with England, and while they can choose closer relations with the Republic of Ireland, and while they can choose some form of quasi-independence, and while they could even choose some sort of condominium status, the one thing which would not be "up to them" would be joining Scotland. The reason that wouldn't be up to them is obvious - it would be up to us, and the people of Scotland would emphatically reject any such suggestion. |
you said brits or was it brit, no matter, those are regarded as derogatory terms for british (scottish, english, welsh,ulster) from people of a certain 'mindset'. it gives me an insight into your slant on things.
|
landg
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu[quote="Dave CoullScotland is going to be independent in the fairly near future. Neither the SNP, nor any of the other political organisations which favour an independent Scotland, make any claims whatsoever outside the present boundaries of Scotland. When Scotland becomes independent, it will be independent of Northern Ireland, as well as independent of England. An independent Scotland will want to be on friendly terms with the neighbours, while not interfering in their business. What the people of Northern Ireland decide to do after Scotland becomes independent will be up to them, at least to some extent. I say "at least to some extent" because, of course, while they can continue to be United with England, and while they can choose closer relations with the Republic of Ireland, and while they can choose some form of quasi-independence, and while they could even choose some sort of condominium status, the one thing which would not be "up to them" would be joining Scotland. The reason that wouldn't be up to them is obvious - it would be up to us, and the people of Scotland would emphatically reject any such suggestion.[/quote]
nothing more than idle speculation and not relevant. until such times we are not dealing with Gt. britain as a whole, as it stands, your view is damp confetti after a rainy wedding.
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | landg wrote: | | you are living in a PC world of fairies and goblins if you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' |
I wrote | Quote: | | Where do you see the words "nasty Brits" in what I wrote? Nowhere. It's all in your own head. |
| landg wrote: | | you said brits |
Have you considered seeing a doctor about these delusions you're suffering from? | landg wrote: | | or was it brit |
Neither. I don't use the expression. This is easily proved. Look up at the top of this page. You will see that this "Our Scotland" forum has a "Search" facility. Even a slow learner like you might be able to figure out how to use it. You hit the "Search" button; then, in the "Search for keywords" box that comes up, type the word you are looking for; in the "Search for Author" box, type "Dave Coull"; against the "display results as" sign, click "posts"; then hit "search". If you do that, just a few posts of mine will come up. If you click on any one of these, you will find that, in every case, the word "Brit" in it was not in fact said by me, but was being QUOTED by me from something that SOMEBODY ELSE had said. (By the way, now that I have just quoted you using this word, this post will, of course, appear in any such search.)
|
Dave Coull
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on puI wrote | Quote: | | Scotland is going to be independent in the fairly near future. Neither the SNP, nor any of the other political organisations which favour an independent Scotland, make any claims whatsoever outside the present boundaries of Scotland. When Scotland becomes independent, it will be independent of Northern Ireland, as well as independent of England. An independent Scotland will want to be on friendly terms with the neighbours, while not interfering in their business. What the people of Northern Ireland decide to do after Scotland becomes independent will be up to them, at least to some extent. I say "at least to some extent" because, of course, while they can continue to be United with England, and while they can choose closer relations with the Republic of Ireland, and while they can choose some form of quasi-independence, and while they could even choose some sort of condominium status, the one thing which would not be "up to them" would be joining Scotland. The reason that wouldn't be up to them is obvious - it would be up to us, and the people of Scotland would emphatically reject any such suggestion. |
| landg wrote: | | nothing more than idle speculation |
No, it's already more than just "idle speculation". For example, folk in the top ranks of the Civil Service in Scotland, folk who are paid by all of us to serve society, are already making contingency plans based on the likelihood that Scotland will become independent in the fairly near future. While some folk in Northern Ireland may be a bit slower at getting their heads around this, it would be quite surprising if some of the more intelligent folk in Northern Ireland had not already begun to think about the effect on their province when Scotland becomes independent.
|
landg
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | Dave Coull wrote: | I wrote | Quote: | | Scotland is going to be independent in the fairly near future. Neither the SNP, nor any of the other political organisations which favour an independent Scotland, make any claims whatsoever outside the present boundaries of Scotland. When Scotland becomes independent, it will be independent of Northern Ireland, as well as independent of England. An independent Scotland will want to be on friendly terms with the neighbours, while not interfering in their business. What the people of Northern Ireland decide to do after Scotland becomes independent will be up to them, at least to some extent. I say "at least to some extent" because, of course, while they can continue to be United with England, and while they can choose closer relations with the Republic of Ireland, and while they can choose some form of quasi-independence, and while they could even choose some sort of condominium status, the one thing which would not be "up to them" would be joining Scotland. The reason that wouldn't be up to them is obvious - it would be up to us, and the people of Scotland would emphatically reject any such suggestion. |
| landg wrote: | | nothing more than idle speculation |
No, it's already more than just "idle speculation". For example, folk in the top ranks of the Civil Service in Scotland, folk who are paid by all of us to serve society, are already making contingency plans based on the likelihood that Scotland will become independent in the fairly near future. While some folk in Northern Ireland may be a bit slower at getting their heads around this, it would be quite surprising if some of the more intelligent folk in Northern Ireland had not already begun to think about the effect on their province when Scotland becomes independent. |
'contingency' plan, something that may happen, in other words, specualtion. it remains unlikely particularly when swinney is making big,bad budget cuts just now.people remeber. now it's clearer why oppostion parties did not want to ruffle too many feathers over mckasskil, best just to let the minority snp 'government' stay in power for a year or two and let them make all the horrible decsions on raising council tax, scrapping rail links, reducing health and teaching budgets.people remember.
|
Holebender
|
Any intelligent observer will know that Scotland's government only gets to spend the pocket money it gets from the people who really control us. Any anger at budget cuts will ultimately be directed at the people who control the money pot, not the people tasked with spending their allocation. People are far more likely to demand more control over Scotland's revenue (i.e. more independence) than to blame supporters of independence for the situation we find ourselves in.
|
Dave Coull
|
I was a member of the British armed forces for five years. I know how easy it is to get caught up in a culture of contempt towards the local population. I was even (in Southern Yemen, not Northern Ireland), on one occasion, reprimanded for being a bit too enthusiastic about putting the boot in. As far as the events of "Bloody Sunday" in Derry are concerned, I'm inclined to blame the system, the government, and those higher up the chain of command, more than the ordinary soldiers. Nevertheless, "landg", that poor victim of a fevered imagination and an inability to read properly, wrote | Quote: | | you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' |
I asked | Quote: | | Where do you see the words "nasty Brits" in what I wrote? Nowhere. It's all in your own head. |
| landg wrote: | | you said brits |
I have provided clear evidence that in fact I said no such thing, as anybody can check using the "Search" facility so helpfully provided by this forum. So, before we go on to discuss anything else, "landg", admit you have been proved wrong about that. It won't hurt too much.
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Any intelligent observer will know that Scotland's government only gets to spend the pocket money it gets from the people who really control us. Any anger at budget cuts will ultimately be directed at the people who control the money pot, not the people tasked with spending their allocation. People are far more likely to demand more control over Scotland's revenue (i.e. more independence) than to blame supporters of independence for the situation we find ourselves in. |
you think highly of the average scottish voter, too highly, what was it churchil said about democracy, spend 5 mins with a voter.
labour will be voted out at the next election because of the credit crunch etc. etc. etc. the voter will automatically just vote for someone other than the party in power who is f***ing it up. you think scottish voters are cleverer than that?
the snp will be out, mark my words. and they are a minority govt., they do not have anything like the majority of the govt. westminster.
bye bye alex.
|
landg
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | I was a member of the British armed forces for five years. I know how easy it is to get caught up in a culture of contempt towards the local population. I was even (in Southern Yemen, not Northern Ireland), on one occasion, reprimanded for being a bit too enthusiastic about putting the boot in. As far as the events of "Bloody Sunday" in Derry are concerned, I'm inclined to blame the system, the government, and those higher up the chain of command, more than the ordinary soldiers. Nevertheless, "landg", that poor victim of a fevered imagination and an inability to read properly, wrote | Quote: | | you believe that all of those innocent bystanding protesters were just being picked on by nasty 'brits' |
I asked | Quote: | | Where do you see the words "nasty Brits" in what I wrote? Nowhere. It's all in your own head. |
| landg wrote: | | you said brits |
I have provided clear evidence that in fact I said no such thing, as anybody can check using the "Search" facility so helpfully provided by this forum. So, before we go on to discuss anything else, "landg", admit you have been proved wrong about that. It won't hurt too much. |
i'll be like my chums on oor-scotland.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | you said brits |
I wrote | Quote: | | I have provided clear evidence that in fact I said no such thing, as anybody can check using the "Search" facility so helpfully provided by this forum. So, before we go on to discuss anything else, "landg", admit you have been proved wrong about that. It won't hurt too much. |
| landg wrote: | | i'll be like my chums on oor-scotland. |
No.
You won't.
Sure, there are plenty of us who won't change our opinions, but this isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. You have been proved wrong on a matter of fact. Most folk would be prepared to admit it.
|
Shagpile
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | landg wrote: | | of course they should open fire again in similar circumstances. as for less soldiers and more 'protesters' being killed that day? soldiers can shoot better than the scummy 'protesters'.probably had better guns as well. |
Well that's one answer "Luke P".  
|
babykitten
|
| landg wrote: |
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes. |
What, like having a table leg under your arm, or looking a bit swarthy and living in the same building as a suspected terrorist?
|
babykitten
|
Re: British soldiers asked whether they will open fire on pu | landg wrote: | | people remember. |
If there's one thing people don't do, it's remember. Sadly.
|
landg
|
| babykitten wrote: | | landg wrote: |
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes. |
What, like having a table leg under your arm, or looking a bit swarthy and living in the same building as a suspected terrorist? |
and refusing to put the table leg down when asked by armed cops or running away when asked to top by police.
their only guilt was utter stupidity.
armed cop says put down the table leg, I f***ing DO IT.
|
babykitten
|
| landg wrote: | | babykitten wrote: | | landg wrote: |
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes. |
What, like having a table leg under your arm, or looking a bit swarthy and living in the same building as a suspected terrorist? |
and refusing to put the table leg down when asked by armed cops or running away when asked to top by police.
their only guilt was utter stupidity.
armed cop says put down the table leg, I f***ing DO IT. |
Please provide proof that Harry Stanley refused to put the table leg down. The word of the officers is not good enough. We all know the police lie. They are only human beings after all and humans lie.
We know for a fact that the police have lied repeatedly over Jean Charles de Menezes. He was not running away from the police and was only engaged by the police once on the train.
Your assertion that he ran away after being asked to stop is nonsense.
We also have ample evidence of police lies in the death of the G20 newspaper seller, whose name escapes me at the moment.
It really is incredibly foolish to believe that authorities will only use deadly force as a last resort.
I've never really managed to grasp why people are so confident of the infallibility of authority. The belief that the police/army/teachers/government can never make mistakes and will never break laws or rules in order to make their life easier. It really is the sign of an intellectual lightweight if you have such naive views.
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | and refusing to put the table leg down when asked by armed cops or running away when asked to top by police.
their only guilt was utter stupidity.
armed cop says put down the table leg, I f***ing DO IT. |
Well the judge said that both policemen were lying....... and they still got off with it.
Lesson..... lie like hell. If you're a copper........ you'll simply get away with murder. So you wont need to wory about receiving a compassionate release, nor rotting in jail either; if it comes to that.
|
Shagpile
|
| babykitten wrote: | | We know for a fact that the police have lied repeatedly over Jean Charles de Menezes. He was not running away from the police and was only engaged by the police once on the train. |
He was actually surrounded, by two armed police and shot by the one who entered the train who passed another armed colleague covering that door. Opposite him was another armed officer, covering that door. Five armed police all in all.
How could their intelligence be so 'flawed', how could all the officers concerned mistake his identity?
Of course they all knew he was in violation of his visa.
This stinks so much.
|
Alasdair
|
| Shagpile wrote: | Of course they all knew he was in violation of his visa.
This stinks so much. |
Are you suggesting the boy was shot because of his visa violation?!!
|
The Lithgae Jambo
|
| landg wrote: | | babykitten wrote: | | landg wrote: |
for the police to open fire it would have to be very serious circumstances, national emergency, food or water rationing due to shortage or terrorism. maybe something like trying to keep many people in one place for their own safety, natural disaister, weather extremes. |
What, like having a table leg under your arm, or looking a bit swarthy and living in the same building as a suspected terrorist? |
and refusing to put the table leg down when asked by armed cops or running away when asked to top by police.
their only guilt was utter stupidity.
armed cop says put down the table leg, I f***ing DO IT. |
Not so easy to f***ing do it when you're deaf or hard of hearing as I understand Harry Stanley was.
|
landg
|
it was a bad policeman who did it and ran away, it wisnae the illegal immigrant or the man with a history of violence who refused to follow police orders, wisna e their fault, no way.
|
babykitten
|
| landg wrote: | | it was a bad policeman who did it and ran away, it wisnae the illegal immigrant or the man with a history of violence who refused to follow police orders, wisna e their fault, no way. |
In other words: "No I can't provide evidence that Harry Stanley refused to comply with orders, nor am I aware that the police have been proven to be lying on several occasions with respect to Jean Charles de Menezes.".
|
Shagpile
|
| Alasdair wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | Of course they all knew he was in violation of his visa.
This stinks so much. |
Are you suggesting the boy was shot because of his visa violation?!! |
Forgive me, that was a cheap shot.
One of the excuses trotted out at the time was that he was an illegal.
Not tonight, but maybe tomorrow I'll get back with some links......
Got to look for them again, sorry.
|
Shagpile
|
But it does provide justification to the feeble minded..... see above.
|
Shagpile
|
His signature is "Scottish mentality"!
Must be a Labour voter. 
|
landg
|
| babykitten wrote: | | landg wrote: | | it was a bad policeman who did it and ran away, it wisnae the illegal immigrant or the man with a history of violence who refused to follow police orders, wisna e their fault, no way. |
In other words: "No I can't provide evidence that Harry Stanley refused to comply with orders, nor am I aware that the police have been proven to be lying on several occasions with respect to Jean Charles de Menezes.". |
the stupid man with the big stick and a well documented history of violnce was repeatedly told to to put down what was thought to be a gun.he did'nt. he paid the price for his stupidity.
the illeagal immigrant ran away from the police. he was asked to stop.he did'nt. he paid the price for his stupidity.
it's not the polices fault people do stupid things.
|
Holebender
|
Do you get all your information from the tabloids?
There has been a full official enquiry into the Jean Charles de Menezes case and the official findings were that he did not run from the police and he was not challenged at any time before entering the train. Your version is nothing but a lie.
He wasn't wearing a bulky jacket either, btw.
I have never heard of Harry Stanley having a history of violence, nor can I find any reference to such a history, so please justify your statement. Even if the man did have a history of violence, when did that become a capital offence?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | Do you get all your information from the tabloids?
There has been a full official enquiry into the Jean Charles de Menezes case and the official findings were that he did not run from the police and he was not challenged at any time before entering the train. Your version is nothing but a lie.
He wasn't wearing a bulky jacket either, btw.
I have never heard of Harry Stanley having a history of violence, nor can I find any reference to such a history, so please justify your statement. Even if the man did have a history of violence, when did that become a capital offence? |
if you read the reports on menezes it remains unclear if warning were or were not shouted, and it is clear that the illeagal immigrant did run along the platform. i really feel for the police officers in this situation, they have to live with their action for the rest of teir lives. i hope the shoot to kill policy remains in place and this unfortunately has to be to the head so as not to set off any device.
as for armed robber mr. stanley, he was just an idiot.
|
Holebender
|
You are the idiot. Produce references for your defamatory comments about Harry Stanley, or withdraw them and apologise.
There was absolutely no ambiguity about the de Menezes case and you must have received a different copy of the enquiry report from everyone else. Again, produce citations or withdraw your lies. The only ambiguity is in the police's perjured evidence, as not one non-police eye witness corroborated the police version. He only ran to catch the train, not to evade anyone. Is running for a train now punishable by death? Better hope you're never late for a train!
And why do you persist with the illegal immigrant slur? The man had a valid visa and, even if he didn't, has that become a capital offence?
|
landg
|
http://news.scotsman.com/harrysta...quest-hears-of-victims.2337094.jp
i'm sorry the illeagal immigrant was killed in such a tragic way, i feel for his family and really feel for the cops involved. there is ambiguity, your choosing not to see it.
facts are not slurs.
|
Shagpile
|
And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
I do not believe your psudo concern re Mr De Menzes cold blooded murder either. The gung-ho pillock almost shot dead one of the observation coppers too........ had that happend, I believe you would have been truely remorsefull.
|
landg
|
| Shagpile wrote: |
And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
|
probably. he was not executed, thats just left wing sabre-rattling.
bent coppers, execution. it's the kinda stuff you would read in a colin fox novel.very poor show indeed.
again, the cops did the right thing on both occassions. y thoughts are with those who pulled the trigger, they have to live with the thought they had kill, for public safety, in the line of duty for the rest of their lives. brave men and not paid enough.
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | | probably. he was not executed, thats just left wing sabre-rattling. |
Coppers who lie under oath are bent IMHO. You say they "probably" new of his record....... did they even know his name then? The member of the public as far as I'm aware did not identify Mr Stanley by name.
|
landg
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | probably. he was not executed, thats just left wing sabre-rattling. |
Coppers who lie under oath are bent IMHO. You say they "probably" new of his record....... did they even know his name then? The member of the public as far as I'm aware did not identify Mr Stanley by name. |
aye.good. and i was asked to wothdraw my comments about the idiot with the chair leg being an armed robber.
|
Holebender
|
| Shagpile wrote: | And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
|
So, you're saying they probably knew his identity, i.e. that he was a Brazillian citizen and not an Islamic terrorist? Why did they kill him, in that case?
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
|
So, you're saying they probably knew his identity, i.e. that he was a Brazillian citizen and not an Islamic terrorist? Why did they kill him, in that case? |
'probably' was in reference to the silly chair leg man. do keep up. of the poor coppers did not know the identity of of the brazilian immigrant, if they did they would not have shot him but i'm sure you know that. i hope........
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | probably. he was not executed, thats just left wing sabre-rattling. |
Coppers who lie under oath are bent IMHO. You say they "probably" new of his record....... did they even know his name then? The member of the public as far as I'm aware did not identify Mr Stanley by name. |
aye.good. and i was asked to wothdraw my comments about the idiot with the chair leg being an armed robber. |
Being an idiot is a capital offence now then?
Take care my friend....... stay away..... far, far away from coppers then.....especially if they've got guns! 
|
Holebender
|
I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence that the "silly chair leg man" had any sort of criminal record, let alone a history of violence.
|
landg
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | probably. he was not executed, thats just left wing sabre-rattling. |
Coppers who lie under oath are bent IMHO. You say they "probably" new of his record....... did they even know his name then? The member of the public as far as I'm aware did not identify Mr Stanley by name. |
aye.good. and i was asked to wothdraw my comments about the idiot with the chair leg being an armed robber. |
Being an idiot is a capital offence now then?
Take care my friend....... stay away..... far, far away from coppers then.....especially if they've got guns! |
you may think i'm an idiot, hey, i think your an idiot. we are in good and extended company here. who is the bigger idiot though, the idiot who does what armed police tell him or the idiot who does not. then there are the idiots who defend the idiot (and armed robber) who through his own own idiocy got shot.
now, off you go back to the village, the locals are worried about you. they may mock you but they don't like you being out after dark. you could fall over or mistake a kerb for your tea.
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
|
So, you're saying they probably knew his identity, i.e. that he was a Brazillian citizen and not an Islamic terrorist? Why did they kill him, in that case? |
'probably' was in reference to the silly chair leg man. do keep up. of the poor coppers did not know the identity of of the brazilian immigrant, if they did they would not have shot him but i'm sure you know that. i hope........ |
They also didn't have good pictures of their actual target. They were not sure what he looked like. When asked by their commander how sure were they.... 80-90%? Their response was disbelief!
Why oh why did they have to shoot dead an innocent man after being so uncertain they had followed their correct target? An innocent man who was surrounded by police?
The inquest jury was not impressed. They had all the facts. You don't...... yet YOU claim they did the right thing and were justified.
Do you think they were being truthful when they claim they had identified themselves as armed police and issued a challenge?
Not ONE witness heard ANY challenge.
|
landg
|
| Holebender wrote: | | I am still waiting for you to provide any evidence that the "silly chair leg man" had any sort of criminal record, let alone a history of violence. |
might i suggest you read this page of the thread properly.
|
Alasdair
|
| landg wrote: | | This post is awaiting approval by a mod/admin before it will be shown to other users. |
This is kind of bugging me, do his comments really require approval? Admin/Mods? Anyone?
|
landg
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Shagpile wrote: | And the bent coppers knew of his criminal record when they summilarily executed him?
|
So, you're saying they probably knew his identity, i.e. that he was a Brazillian citizen and not an Islamic terrorist? Why did they kill him, in that case? |
'probably' was in reference to the silly chair leg man. do keep up. of the poor coppers did not know the identity of of the brazilian immigrant, if they did they would not have shot him but i'm sure you know that. i hope........ |
They also didn't have good pictures of their actual target. They were not sure what he looked like. When asked by their commander how sure were they.... 80-90%? Their response was disbelief!
Why oh why did they have to shoot dead an innocent man after being so uncertain they had followed their correct target? An innocent man who was surrounded by police?
The inquest jury was not impressed. They had all the facts. You don't...... yet YOU claim they did the right thing and were justified.
Do you think they were being truthful when they claim they had identified themselves as armed police and issued a challenge?
Not ONE witness heard ANY challenge. |
to whom are you refering?
the silly chair man or the illegal immigrant?
you quoted me when i had made refernce to both.
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | to whom are you refering?
the silly chair man or the illegal immigrant?
you quoted me when i had made refernce to both. |
OK, cut to the quick, bearing in mind your "cencor" problems at this time.
In the case of the "illegal immigrant". I firmly believe absolutely NO warnings were issued at the time. The offecers which heard the warnings were definately lying.
When the news broke..... I immagine WHY?! THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED..... WHY 7 times?
Why, seven times?
Simply because ....... people wanted to know....... "Why seven times"?
The news at that time reported, he had been shot seven times in the head.
Journalists.... anticiptating the public WHY? Reported that is how Israelis delt with "Suicide Bombers", and that the "British Police" learned from their training.
That is why I believe no warning was given....... To immediately neutralise a threat by providing a warning is, well...... stupid!
|
landg
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | landg wrote: | to whom are you refering?
the silly chair man or the illegal immigrant?
you quoted me when i had made refernce to both. |
OK, cut to the quick, bearing in mind your "cencor" problems at this time.
In the case of the "illegal immigrant". I firmly believe absolutely NO warnings were issued at the time. The offecers which heard the warnings were definately lying.
When the news broke..... I immagine WHY?! THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED..... WHY 7 times?
Why, seven times?
Simply because ....... people wanted to know....... "Why seven times"?
The news at that time reported, he had been shot seven times in the head.
Journalists.... anticiptating the public WHY? Reported that is how Israelis delt with "Suicide Bombers", and that the "British Police" learned from their training.
That is why I believe no warning was given....... To immediately neutralise a threat by providing a warning is, well...... stupid! |
i do not think the officers were lying.
and even if they did not shout a warning it is obvious why, they suspected a train was to be blown up, you have to neutralise that and not give the suspect the chance to become a murder bomber.
7 bullets? obvious - end the threat.completely.
these brave cops followed what they thought was a walking bomb into a confined and underground space and got up close. it's bloody medals they deserve, not vicious handwringing.
|
Dave Coull
|
| landg wrote: | | it's bloody medals they deserve |
Fortunately, the number of people who would agree with you about giving medals for pumping seven bullets into a completely innocent citizen of Brazil is probably about the same as the number of people who signed your petition for the resignation of Kenneth MacAskill.
|
Shagpile
|
| landg wrote: | | i do not think |
True.
| Quote: | | the officers were lying. |
Also true.
| Quote: | | and even if they did not shout a warning it is obvious why |
I know.
| Quote: | | they suspected a train was to be blown up |
Why? He would have done it already if that was his single goal.
| Quote: | | you have to neutralise that and not give the suspect the chance to become a murder bomber. |
Fair point...... I UNDERSTAND THAT, where was the ....... clue, evedence to back up their decision....... THEY WERE NOT EVEN SURE OF THE IDENTITY OF THE TARGET THEY WERE TRACKING! Open season on everyone then...... hope you're next, given YOU approve and stuff like that, in a friendly kind of way of course.
| Quote: | | 7 bullets? obvious - end the threat.completely. |
Really? No other consquences to consider? What about the leveling of abuse? Think about it........ now a Brit knows what it's like to be a Palestinian..... OR....... a Christian knows what it's like to be treated like a Mouslem.
BTW, it should have been 8. If you have ever been trained to discharge a semi-automatic wepon, you're trained to fire in 2 round bursts.
AND to do it twice!
One of them missed once! Evidence he was not even a good shot! Never mind good on judgement.
Fully automatic weapons are in bursts of 5, but that's an aside.
| Quote: | | these brave cops followed what they thought was a walking bomb into a confined and underground space and got up close. it's bloody medals they deserve, not vicious handwringing. |
Wrong, they boarded a train, at a station to shoot someone who had to be identified to them by someone who was not sure. Autorised by a Commander, who was at all times, seeking to validate all times her commands, failing (posibly deliberately) to grasp what the situation truely was.
|
|
|
|