By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 14:48 - Jul 22 by sparks
My impression of this thread is that lots of people have laid into Hampstead, on assumptions about what he thinks or means, rather than based on things he has actually said. I struggle to see anything wrong with the idea of trying to understand the incredibly difficult job those people do, refraining from calling something "murder" when there was clearly no malicious intent (irrespective of the horrendous outcome). None of that is unreasonable. Importantly, neither does it mean that the outcome was not horrendous, or that when bad mistakes are made, they should not be fully explored and accounted for.
I vehemently disagree with a lot of what he says- but on this thread, he doesnt appear to have actually said what people seem to be reacting to...
It is more the line of attack that these people are immune from criticism because their job is difficult and that members of the public are not capable of rational thought because they don't have their finger on the trigger, compared to him whose argument gains credibility for being in the forces.
I dispute that because: a) the evidence shows that they shot (with the intention of killing, no other reason) an unarmed man based on bad intelligence which they doubled down on b) the police have a history of looking after their own in these situations and c) getting a job in the army isn't exactly difficult.
My standpoint remains the same (and I had this very same debate with you Bully on Mark Duggan years ago) - nobody is disputing how difficult a job it is for trained marksmen to decide whether to pull the trigger or not in life or death situations, but when the intelligence is wrong and a person who is unarmed (and therefore unlikely to cause harm to the police or the public) is killed then heads surely have to roll.
2
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 16:29 - Jul 22 with 2642 views
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 15:13 - Jul 22 by JakeITFC
It is more the line of attack that these people are immune from criticism because their job is difficult and that members of the public are not capable of rational thought because they don't have their finger on the trigger, compared to him whose argument gains credibility for being in the forces.
I dispute that because: a) the evidence shows that they shot (with the intention of killing, no other reason) an unarmed man based on bad intelligence which they doubled down on b) the police have a history of looking after their own in these situations and c) getting a job in the army isn't exactly difficult.
My standpoint remains the same (and I had this very same debate with you Bully on Mark Duggan years ago) - nobody is disputing how difficult a job it is for trained marksmen to decide whether to pull the trigger or not in life or death situations, but when the intelligence is wrong and a person who is unarmed (and therefore unlikely to cause harm to the police or the public) is killed then heads surely have to roll.
I just think that Hampstead is saying don't blame the gunman, which probably is fair in that if he was acting on orders then it's not his fault.
The blame needs to fall on those giving orders, who are in turn those ones who have closed ranks.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 16:33 - Jul 22 by JakeITFC
Nope, I think there has to be culpability for the marksman as well (sometimes more so) - their job isn't just to hunt down and kill people.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2020 16:49]
Think that's unfair. Sometimes hunting down and executing someone is exactly what their job is. A suicide bomber would likely kill dozens of innocent people.
Save your ire (which I share) for the balls up around the failed intelligence and the subsequent attempted cover up / lies.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 11:29 - Jul 22 by Swansea_Blue
And another cover up afterwards, wasn't it? I remember the Met coming in for lots of flack as they failed to cooperate and there were claims that those at the top had lied about what happened.
Did the family ever got the closure they deserve?
"Did the family ever get the closure they deserve"?
Not sure what would constitute the closure they deserve but the lady at the top is still in post 15 years later and they received £100K to stop their legal action. One journalist asked whether the employment-tribunal level of this was affected by the value of his life being lower because he was poor.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 12:03 - Jul 22 by RegencyBlue
Given that he was thought to have an explosive device on him at the time, which could have been detonated in a tube train, I would describe it as entirely appropriate.
Do you seriously think the police just decided to kill him for the fun of it, knowing all the stick they would get for it? The officers who did it thought he was a suicided bomber. The mis-identification was the problem but the subsequent action was exactly what I would want for a suicide bomber!
"but the subsequent action was exactly what I would want for a suicide bomber!"
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 15:13 - Jul 22 by JakeITFC
It is more the line of attack that these people are immune from criticism because their job is difficult and that members of the public are not capable of rational thought because they don't have their finger on the trigger, compared to him whose argument gains credibility for being in the forces.
I dispute that because: a) the evidence shows that they shot (with the intention of killing, no other reason) an unarmed man based on bad intelligence which they doubled down on b) the police have a history of looking after their own in these situations and c) getting a job in the army isn't exactly difficult.
My standpoint remains the same (and I had this very same debate with you Bully on Mark Duggan years ago) - nobody is disputing how difficult a job it is for trained marksmen to decide whether to pull the trigger or not in life or death situations, but when the intelligence is wrong and a person who is unarmed (and therefore unlikely to cause harm to the police or the public) is killed then heads surely have to roll.
Nowhere does he say they are immune from criticism.
The problem with these things, often, is that they are the result of large organisations, with many moving parts, subject to human and other inevitable flaws. I suspect its very difficult to put a finger on an individual who is responsible for what happened. That is not to say the issues should not be thoroughly investigated, and criticism (and appropriate consequences) laid where appropriate.
But Hampsteads main issue was the calling of people doing a very tough job "murderers" when by any fair definition, they are not.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 16:29 - Jul 22 by itfcjoe
I just think that Hampstead is saying don't blame the gunman, which probably is fair in that if he was acting on orders then it's not his fault.
The blame needs to fall on those giving orders, who are in turn those ones who have closed ranks.
If people behave badly on covering up (which is human instinct, and happens in teh vast majority of jobs, for what its worth...) then that should attract consequences.
The gunmen were seemingly faced with a bloke they feared might explode, taking out civilians and possibly them as well. Hell of a judgment to take either way.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 16:58 - Jul 22 by jeera
Absolutely and they were then complicit in the misinformation that was circulated.
Witness in the same carriage say there was no warning shout.
In fact one witness was struck by the silence before the shooting.
Another thought it was some prank.
De Menezes sat there bewildered as something that was amiss hadn't dawned on him it directly involved him.
He hadn't vaulted any barrier.
etc.
They didn't even have a photo of the man they were after, apparently.
He just looked a bit like they imagined him to be.
So no, I'm with you, 'mistakes' doesn't go anywhere close to covering what happened.
Innocent mistakes don't require lies afterwards to cover up.
The alternative to an innocent mistake (which could also be a negligent or even reckless mistake) - is a deliberate action. You are not saying, I assume, that these officers went in with intent to shoot dead an innocent man who they did not think posed a risk?
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:07 - Jul 22 by sparks
Nowhere does he say they are immune from criticism.
The problem with these things, often, is that they are the result of large organisations, with many moving parts, subject to human and other inevitable flaws. I suspect its very difficult to put a finger on an individual who is responsible for what happened. That is not to say the issues should not be thoroughly investigated, and criticism (and appropriate consequences) laid where appropriate.
But Hampsteads main issue was the calling of people doing a very tough job "murderers" when by any fair definition, they are not.
The problem with hampstead is his total lack of balance.
His first reaction is to go straight into 'hero' mode, knowing better than anyone else based solely on a job he once had over 20 years ago and it's a tiresome act. He thinks he's educating people on anything to do with policing, arms, the forces, in any way.
He doesn't listen, he doesn't learn, yet he believes himself to be smart. How can anyone be smart if they refuse to listen to anyone, ever?
The police there on the day were obviously not up to the job - that shouldn't be in question. Murder isn't the right word for me, but execution, incompetence, arrogance, disregard...plenty of other options to state those involved should have been prosecuted and had no right to go about assassinating members of the public.
They were edgy, shown by their actions leading up to the killing, and then the way they went about the killing itself. They couldn't have been less professional.
I'm disgusted by the way the very first thing that poster thought of doing was to leap to the defence of the armed perpetrators with no thought to the victim whatsoever.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:10 - Jul 22 by sparks
The alternative to an innocent mistake (which could also be a negligent or even reckless mistake) - is a deliberate action. You are not saying, I assume, that these officers went in with intent to shoot dead an innocent man who they did not think posed a risk?
I'm saying they were incompetent, arrogant and trigger happy.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:17 - Jul 22 by jeera
The problem with hampstead is his total lack of balance.
His first reaction is to go straight into 'hero' mode, knowing better than anyone else based solely on a job he once had over 20 years ago and it's a tiresome act. He thinks he's educating people on anything to do with policing, arms, the forces, in any way.
He doesn't listen, he doesn't learn, yet he believes himself to be smart. How can anyone be smart if they refuse to listen to anyone, ever?
The police there on the day were obviously not up to the job - that shouldn't be in question. Murder isn't the right word for me, but execution, incompetence, arrogance, disregard...plenty of other options to state those involved should have been prosecuted and had no right to go about assassinating members of the public.
They were edgy, shown by their actions leading up to the killing, and then the way they went about the killing itself. They couldn't have been less professional.
I'm disgusted by the way the very first thing that poster thought of doing was to leap to the defence of the armed perpetrators with no thought to the victim whatsoever.
I think anyone would be edgy in those times, with a fear that someone could be a suicide bomber.
I didnt see Hampstead leap to their defence- he objected, I think quite rightly, to the suggestion of "murder".
I understand what you say- but...
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:20 - Jul 22 by sparks
I think anyone would be edgy in those times, with a fear that someone could be a suicide bomber.
I didnt see Hampstead leap to their defence- he objected, I think quite rightly, to the suggestion of "murder".
I understand what you say- but...
Just because you know the exact definition of the word murder better than I, how many gunshots to the head of an unarmed man would lean into that category?
0
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:26 - Jul 22 with 2512 views
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:20 - Jul 22 by sparks
I think anyone would be edgy in those times, with a fear that someone could be a suicide bomber.
I didnt see Hampstead leap to their defence- he objected, I think quite rightly, to the suggestion of "murder".
I understand what you say- but...
It's fine. We disagree on this.
I don't think any less of you.
We're not going to agree on everything but there's pattern to his behaviour and you are seeing this in isolation which it isn't, it's an entrenched habit.
His first reaction to the killing of De Menezes on this thread is that it was a 'mistake'. It was far more than that.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:24 - Jul 22 by JakeITFC
Just because you know the exact definition of the word murder better than I, how many gunshots to the head of an unarmed man would lean into that category?
its not about the word- its about the assumptions it carries.
You presumably do not think they went in and knowingly / intentionally murdered a man who they knew not to be a threat? Its as simple as that. Assuming you agree with that- then we are ad idem, and you agree with what Hampstead was getting at.
Often, on here, I think people read too much into things- and assume positions or thoughts that a poster has not expressed.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 16:58 - Jul 22 by jeera
Absolutely and they were then complicit in the misinformation that was circulated.
Witness in the same carriage say there was no warning shout.
In fact one witness was struck by the silence before the shooting.
Another thought it was some prank.
De Menezes sat there bewildered as something that was amiss hadn't dawned on him it directly involved him.
He hadn't vaulted any barrier.
etc.
They didn't even have a photo of the man they were after, apparently.
He just looked a bit like they imagined him to be.
So no, I'm with you, 'mistakes' doesn't go anywhere close to covering what happened.
Innocent mistakes don't require lies afterwards to cover up.
Another point worth adding to the thread (I can't see that it's been mentioned already) is that for someone they suspected to be involved in the failed bombings the previous day, one of which occurred on a bus, it would seem foolish to allow him to get on a bus and ride on it for a while if they thought there was a chance he might have a bomb on him.
Incompetence doesn't seem strong enough a word for the actions of the police that day. They followed what they thought was a suspected terrorist around London until armed officers were called in who shot him 7 times in the head. 7 times.
The cover-up, lack of accountability and minimal compensation (relative to what had happened) afterwards was and still is a complete disgrace.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:38 - Jul 22 by sparks
its not about the word- its about the assumptions it carries.
You presumably do not think they went in and knowingly / intentionally murdered a man who they knew not to be a threat? Its as simple as that. Assuming you agree with that- then we are ad idem, and you agree with what Hampstead was getting at.
Often, on here, I think people read too much into things- and assume positions or thoughts that a poster has not expressed.
At some point negligence just isn't a strong enough word to explain what happens.
Given the subsequent misinformation campaign and effective cover-up, I think it's really difficult to start from the basis that everybody in the police force is working on a best endeavours approach in the actions they take.
0
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:50 - Jul 22 with 2436 views
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:47 - Jul 22 by JakeITFC
At some point negligence just isn't a strong enough word to explain what happens.
Given the subsequent misinformation campaign and effective cover-up, I think it's really difficult to start from the basis that everybody in the police force is working on a best endeavours approach in the actions they take.
I did add the word reckless too- though who, in the chain of events, we can pin that on is not something i am well enough informed to comment on.
What would be illogical (but easy to do) though, is to instinctively imbue the initial events with character that is based upon subsequent events.
I think we agree it wasnt deliberate- which I think is probably the heart of the dispute on this thread.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 14:44 - Jul 22 by SpruceMoose
Walk in someone else's shoes? How about you try that sometime? You can't even bring yourself to imagine being in Greta Thunberg's role, when it's the life of you and your family she's trying to preserve!
Instead all you provide is sneers and a complete dismissal what she's trying to do. You are being a hypocrite of the grandest order.
Day in day out you're on here lately hinting that you'd like to see harm come the way of those on the left and those you disagree with. I would suggest it is you who is currently devoid of compassion and empathy for anyone who isn't in line with your silly little world view.
I'm trying my hardest to cut you some slack because you mentioned you were recuperating from a health issue the other day, but you really need to have a word with yourself about your posting lately.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2020 14:50]
What?
I'm sticking up for professional police officers who some idiots are calling 'murders and executioners'. Greta has nothing to do with this.
You really need to take in the context given when people post. I've been clear in mine so am not sure why you want to ignore it and paint your own agenda over my words.
Assumption is to make an ass out of you and me.
Those who assume they know you, when they don't are just guessing.
Those who assume and insist they know are daft and in denial.
Those who assume, insist, and deny the truth are plain stupid.
Those who assume, insist, deny the truth and tell YOU they know you (when they don't) have an IQ in the range of 35-49.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 17:50 - Jul 22 by sparks
I did add the word reckless too- though who, in the chain of events, we can pin that on is not something i am well enough informed to comment on.
What would be illogical (but easy to do) though, is to instinctively imbue the initial events with character that is based upon subsequent events.
I think we agree it wasnt deliberate- which I think is probably the heart of the dispute on this thread.
Off on a tangent, but when I started taxi-driving I found myself working with an ex CID.
There were two occasions where he got completely the wrong end of the stick of things that had happened to me during working late night shifts.
One was an incident when I left some idiot who was too drunk to travel in a pub car park. I drove off and left him screaming abuse.
Turned out the chap lived in the same road as a regular customer and shared a first name. Ex-CID colleague then slagged me off to the office for leaving this 'regular' punter in some car park. It hadn't even occurred to him it might be someone else who just happened to share a [common] first name and rough location.
On a separate occasion I was set upon by some bloke sitting behind me in my car. He also lived in the same road as a regular customer and when ex-CID man got to hear of this incident he laid the blame for that on me too, saying he knew the customer, who was a decent sort, so it must have been me who caused the issue. Once again, he had made suppositions based on nothing other than some address and it hadn't occurred to him it may have been a completely different person, which it was. I'd been punched on the side of the head 3 times from behind by this monster of a bloke, whilst driving at 60mph, but matey's first reaction was it must have been my fault.
Some time down the line and an ex-colleague of his joined the firm. When I got to know him a bit, I told him about these situations and matey's reactions.
He told me in confidence that it was no secret there were innocent people in prison because of this bastard's approach to his job. Sloppy, arrogant, pig-headed even when he knew he'd got things wrong, pursuing someone with the sort of vindictiveness that had no place in law enforcement. Rather than admit a mistake he would become more obsessed with his target and say and do anything.
I'm just sharing an anecdote on one personal experience with an individual who made 'mistakes' whilst in a position of power. His attitude carried on well beyond his retirement from that job and he still thought he was right, doggedly. You have to wonder on what grounds some people get to the top of their game when so obviously not cut out for it.
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 18:11 - Jul 22 by hampstead_blue
What?
I'm sticking up for professional police officers who some idiots are calling 'murders and executioners'. Greta has nothing to do with this.
You really need to take in the context given when people post. I've been clear in mine so am not sure why you want to ignore it and paint your own agenda over my words.
You have no idea what context is. If you think that's your get out of jail free card for saying whatever you like it doesn't work that way.
Greta Thunberg has everything to do with it. I'm making the wider point that you've consistently displayed an inability to empathise with others, instead resorting to sneering at them and in some cases wishing physical harm on them. Considering that, it's absurd for you to now be wailing about other posters not putting themselves in the shoes of others.
It's pure hypocrisy.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
15 years ago today the Met Police murdered on 18:13 - Jul 22 by jeera
Off on a tangent, but when I started taxi-driving I found myself working with an ex CID.
There were two occasions where he got completely the wrong end of the stick of things that had happened to me during working late night shifts.
One was an incident when I left some idiot who was too drunk to travel in a pub car park. I drove off and left him screaming abuse.
Turned out the chap lived in the same road as a regular customer and shared a first name. Ex-CID colleague then slagged me off to the office for leaving this 'regular' punter in some car park. It hadn't even occurred to him it might be someone else who just happened to share a [common] first name and rough location.
On a separate occasion I was set upon by some bloke sitting behind me in my car. He also lived in the same road as a regular customer and when ex-CID man got to hear of this incident he laid the blame for that on me too, saying he knew the customer, who was a decent sort, so it must have been me who caused the issue. Once again, he had made suppositions based on nothing other than some address and it hadn't occurred to him it may have been a completely different person, which it was. I'd been punched on the side of the head 3 times from behind by this monster of a bloke, whilst driving at 60mph, but matey's first reaction was it must have been my fault.
Some time down the line and an ex-colleague of his joined the firm. When I got to know him a bit, I told him about these situations and matey's reactions.
He told me in confidence that it was no secret there were innocent people in prison because of this bastard's approach to his job. Sloppy, arrogant, pig-headed even when he knew he'd got things wrong, pursuing someone with the sort of vindictiveness that had no place in law enforcement. Rather than admit a mistake he would become more obsessed with his target and say and do anything.
I'm just sharing an anecdote on one personal experience with an individual who made 'mistakes' whilst in a position of power. His attitude carried on well beyond his retirement from that job and he still thought he was right, doggedly. You have to wonder on what grounds some people get to the top of their game when so obviously not cut out for it.
[Post edited 22 Jul 2020 18:14]
It is a well recognised phenomenon that law enforcement officers (1) instinctively see / look for evidence that confirms their suspicions- i.e. confirmation bias; and (2) once they have that evidence, can be very difficult to shift from their conclusions. Its human nature, and connected to being in a job where very often, those instincts prove right, and large proportions of the people you deal with lie through their teeth.
Its one of those things that gets covered on jurisprudence modules in law degrees- and I strongly suspect that officers are trained to be on the watch out for their own instincts leading them astray as well.
In the end, though, they are human- and some better at seeing and addressing their own biases than others.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
