Im not a Police hater by any means, but.....

Jonny Ingbar said:
Being blunt equates to being entirely simplistic.

If it's so apparently obvious what should have been done differently I'm bound to ask, what? They acted on the intelligence they had at that material time; its entirely different, not to mention easier, to make decisions with absolute hindsight, armed with facts that weren't known at the time. They believed he was an active terrorist, intent on murdering scores of people. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision to shoot, or not, because either option carries massive risks and potentially career ending scrutiny, even criminal prosecution. How often does you job carry these risks I wonder?

The influence terrorism has is to create the situation in the first place - the 7/7 attacks were only a matter of days earlier and, in terms if the police and army activities, still on-going.

The reason why the the MPS were against the IPCC investigating this is because they are (and to a lesser degree now), inept. The operation involved army intelligence, in addition to police intelligence and having that shared with the IPCC, together with the tactics used was, they felt, an unacceptable risk.

And in terms of the 'hollow point' bullets point, and the suggestion he could have been 'restrained', then I can only say, with respect, that is an incredibly naive comment - once the decision is taken, given the circumstances, restraint isn't an option. Even the IPCC acknowledged this.
Click to expand...
There is no need to personalise this and ask me questions about my job, as it implies that only those in these direct situations are permitted to comment. Which, in a country with a civilian police force, is not how it should work.

Also, if the IPCC are inept, how do the police face robust investigation? You've contradicted your own point.

As Stu above says - the police lied about it, smeared a dead man and led his family on a gruelling legal odyssey to gain justice. You mention that it's easy with hindsight - why didn't the police use and recognise they had made an enormous and grave error in this operation, rather than lie to cover for themselves?

They killed an innocent man and you're effectively putting it down to 'one of those things'.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
There is no need to personalise this and ask me questions about my job, as it implies that only those in these direct situations are permitted to comment. Which, in a country with a civilian police force, is not how it should work.

Also, if the IPCC are inept, how do the police face robust investigation? You've contradicted your own point.

As Stu above says - the police lied about it, smeared a dead man and led his family on a gruelling legal odyssey to gain justice. You mention that it's easy with hindsight - why didn't the police use and recognise they had made an enormous and grave error in this operation, rather than lie to cover for themselves?

They killed an innocent man and you're effectively putting it down to 'one of those things'.
Click to expand...
No I'm not, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've posted - it's obviously a very emotive issue for you.

It was a tragedy and shouldn't have happened, obviously, an innocent man lost his life, but I don't agree that there was personal culpability on the part of those involved. One doesn't have to automatically follow the other.

To suggest I've written it off as one of those things is extremely insulting - I'm not sure why you have reduced the debate to insults?

You obviously have a very entrenched view on this, but its one that was found, after detailed scrutiny, to be wrong and that was my fundamental point and one I stand by.

I'm not defending the MPS either, I actually think the organisation acted very poorly in some instances, after this incident. As it has on many other occasions.

The IPCC were replaced by the IOPC, because they were so inept. And it is a fact that the police are far more efficient at bringing themselves to account, than the IOPC.
 
SuperStu said:
They could have not lied about it afterwards. All that stuff in the papers at the time that he'd been running down the platform, jumping the barriers, with a smoking backpack on came from someone.
Click to expand...
They definitely tried to play it down, but it's a fact that a witness said they had seen him jump the barrier, which in time was later identified as one of the police officers.

Another witness says he was wearing a large jacket with wires underneath - he clearly wasn't, but it illustrates how difficult it can be to make decisions in such a fast moving and dynamic scenarios, where someone's life it to be taken.
 
Same_as_before said:
Why didn't he just say I am Peter I live at 23 Pear Street and move on.

Both sides appear daft to me.
Click to expand...
I suspect if the policeman had got out of the car and said "excuse me, do you have a minute. We are just checking that people are not out and about needlessly. Woudl you mind confirming who you are and where you are going please?" He would have got a completely different response. Its the officers fault, there is no 2 ways about it. Had a policeman spoken to me like that I would have walked off and ignored him.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
No I'm not, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've posted - it's obviously a very emotive issue for you.

It was a tragedy and shouldn't have happened, obviously, an innocent man lost his life, but I don't agree that there was personal culpability on the part of those involved. One doesn't have to automatically follow the other.

To suggest I've written it off as one of those things is extremely insulting - I'm not sure why you have reduced the debate to insults?

You obviously have a very entrenched view on this, but its one that was found, after detailed scrutiny, to be wrong and that was my fundamental point and one I stand by.

I'm not defending the MPS either, I actually think the organisation acted very poorly in some instances, after this incident. As it has on many other occasions.

The IPCC were replaced by the IOPC, because they were so inept. And it is a fact that the police are far more efficient at bringing themselves to account, than the IOPC.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to insult you, so apologies if I did. That is genuinely how it read to me.

We're unlikely to fully agree on this, so I'll leave it here.
 
I'm obviously missing something. Under the Corona Virus legislation the copper had every right to ask for the lads details.
Just do your bit and co-operate FFS.
 
zzzzz said:
I'm obviously missing something. Under the Corona Virus legislation the copper had every right to ask for the lads details.
Just do your bit and co-operate FFS.
Click to expand...
He can ask, the lad has no legal duty to tell the copper. He shouldn't be spoken to in that manner and I wouldn't have co-operated either. The bobby was a d*ck. There is really no defending his behaviour. There was 2 ways to approach the fella on the street and the policeman did it the wrong way.
 
zzzzz said:
I'm obviously missing something. Under the Corona Virus legislation the copper had every right to ask for the lads details.
Just do your bit and co-operate FFS.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that’s 100 percent correct unless the officer had reason to suspect him.

I can see both sides - like you say isn’t it just easier to give your details and get on with your day. That’s probably easier said for white working class males.

imagine you are not and you are sick of being profiled and stopped then you may not want to co-operate if you feel you are constantly being unfairly targeted.
 
There is always two sides to every story, and the policeman will no doubt reflect on how he allowed the situation to deteriorate after receiving a dressing down by his bosses. He asked a reasonable question initially but clearly didn't like the answer and it went downhill rapidly from there.
The lad could of just as easily answered the question asked of him initially and it probably would have been done and dusted but he appeared to me as being a little uncooperative.
People sometimes need to reflect on what the police do for us in society, they are the ones in the firing line dealing with all the s**t we don't want to deal with or turn our backs on. There are far too many back street lawyers continually banging on about their rights, when forgetting all the good things they do for us.
We are not a perfect society and no body is right all the time, we have to be more understanding and tolerant.
I think the law makers are letting us down and think the police should have the right to ask of you or me at anytime , where you live and where are you going to in the course of doing their job. I don't consider it harassment to be asked and I don't particularly care to know the reason for being stopped, but I would probably ask afterwards anyway out of curiosity.
 
tripleheader said:
There is always two sides to every story, and the policeman will no doubt reflect on how he allowed the situation to deteriorate after receiving a dressing down by his bosses. He asked a reasonable question initially but clearly didn't like the answer and it went downhill rapidly from there.
The lad could of just as easily answered the question asked of him initially and it probably would have been done and dusted but he appeared to me as being a little uncooperative.
People sometimes need to reflect on what the police do for us in society, they are the ones in the firing line dealing with all the s**t we don't want to deal with or turn our backs on. There are far too many back street lawyers continually banging on about their rights, when forgetting all the good things they do for us.
We are not a perfect society and no body is right all the time, we have to be more understanding and tolerant.
I think the law makers are letting us down and think the police should have the right to ask of you or me at anytime , where you live and where are you going to in the course of doing their job. I don't consider it harassment to be asked and I don't particularly care to know the reason for being stopped, but I would probably ask afterwards anyway out of curiosity.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more with the end of that opinion tripleheader. One would assume you want to end the right not to incriminate yourself too, because that is what you are saying.
 
We live in a country that polices by consent and that allows the cop to ask the lad his name etc.

That might make some people uncomfortable I suppose, but that's the way it is.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
We live in a country that polices by consent and that allows the cop to ask the lad his name etc.

That might make some people uncomfortable I suppose, but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...
And in policing by consent we should ensure the lad is able to get on with his life and not to have to account for himself when he isn't breaking any law.

He had every right not to give his details and the reaction from the officer was, at best unprofessional and intimidating. Certainly not policing by consent.
 
I was brought up to respect Authority. That has gone now almost completely, just another refection in the breakdown in common decency in society in my opinion.
In this case if the lad had nothing to hide why not just give his details?
What's the point in trying to police Covid travel restrictions if everyone just gets their phone out to record it and refuses to give their details?
Any policeman or woman watching that and the grovelling apology might well think what's the fkin point in trying.
 
zzzzz said:
I was brought up to respect Authority. That has gone now almost completely, just another refection in the breakdown in common decency in society in my opinion.
In this case if the lad had nothing to hide why not just give his details?
What's the point in trying to police Covid travel restrictions if everyone just gets their phone out to record it and refuses to give their details?
Any policeman or woman watching that and the grovelling apology might well think what's the fkin point in trying.
Click to expand...
A small part of the reason why I decided to walk away from the service.
 
Emmersons_BrazillianDong said:
And in policing by consent we should ensure the lad is able to get on with his life and not to have to account for himself when he isn't breaking any law.

He had every right not to give his details and the reaction from the officer was, at best unprofessional and intimidating. Certainly not policing by consent.
Click to expand...
I agree, but whether we like it or not the cooperation of the public, when the police are doing their job, is a fundamental principle of british policing and this maybe makes this country unique. That's not my opinion, but a long recognised fact.

Poor attitudes aside, I'd suggest any police officer doing their job will immediately be suspicious of why someone who is lawfully going about their day, would decline to provide their name and address?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top