This de Menezes case

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board ARCHIVE' started by EastStander, Nov 2, 2007.

Page 1 of 2
  1. EastStander

    EastStander Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    29,883
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Upper tier, Gangway 11
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Putting aside the rights and wrongs of the case - it's a bloody joke that the charge is under the Health and Safety act! So what now if the police need to pursue terrorists? "Sorry, you can't go into there with a gun, it's against Health and Safety regulations"!
     
    EastStander, Nov 2, 2007
    #1
  2. Gue

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #2
  3. Andy Mac

    Andy Mac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,882
    Likes Received:
    13,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    IT
    Location:
    Sweet Home Bingley.
    Style:
    Barnsley Dark
    Exactly !

    And if they are governed now by H&S laws, then they should be made to sit down at footie matches.
     
    Andy Mac, Nov 2, 2007
    #3
  4. bright red

    bright red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,017
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    The point was that they failed in their duty to protect the public (it wasn't really to do with shooting an innocent bloke).

    If he had been a bomber and had succeeded then there would have been rightful massive public condemnation.

    Incompetence. Cover-up. Smears. Disgrace.
     
    bright red, Nov 2, 2007
    #4
  5. *Windy

    *Windy Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,416
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    We're not allowed to carry guns.

    </p>

    So we can be prosecuted under the firearms act. The police are so they can't.</p>

    They obviously didn't set out to murder somebody that day so they can't be tried for that. Manslaughter wouldn't work either. The ****-ups that led to the shooting can only really fall under failure to ensure public safety. It's still pretty serious.</p>
     
    *Windy, Nov 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    34,609
    Likes Received:
    24,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    This particular case is starting to annoy me

    It is tragic that an innocent person has been killed accidentally by the police and I do feel truly sorry for his friends and family but we seem to have lost all sense of proportion

    It was a tragic accident - they happen
    It is right that there is a full investigation and the causes of this are understood and steps taken to prevent a repetition but if we are not careful we will put the police in a position where they cant act in the best interests of the public. What happens if there is a real bomber but the police cant take action until he has detonated the bomb and killed many more innocent civilians.

    Anyone would think we were the only country who's police had shot the wrong guy - it happens much more often in many places.

    Also I am sure this really was an accident yet it has had much more publicity air time etc than cases where people have died in police custody with a little help from our boys in blue.

    Once we move to a society where always taking the route of no action in any circumstances rather than risk being wrong for doing what is almost certainly the right thing its a very bad situation.
     
    Farnham_Red, Nov 2, 2007
    #6
  7. Gue

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Gue

    Guest Guest

    F'ck it

    Vital Tyke did me. Still, they've done a good one on Heather Mills and Carol Vordermannnnnns tits.
     
    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #8
  9. bright red

    bright red Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    3,017
    Likes Received:
    729
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    RE: This particular case is starting to annoy me

    Have you actually seen what happened? Obviously the guy was shot because the armed officers (acting in an incredibly brave and very stressful situation) didn't know that he wasn't a suicide bomber. However it wasn't accidental that the situation arose in the first place. The intelligence was pointing to another active bombing unit in London and this guy's flat was a focus of intense surveillance. Despite that and given several opportunities to intercept him he was allowed (contrary to plans in place) to get on a tube train.

    Anyone coming out of the flat was supposed to have been apprehended on that day. Survelliance officers were on a break when he left!!! Competent?
     
    bright red, Nov 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Gue

    Guest Guest

    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Jay

    Jay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    43,885
    Likes Received:
    32,932
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    On Sofa
    Style:
    Barnsley
    accidentally?

    What were they trying to do, arrange some flowers?
     
    Jay, Nov 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Ack

    Acky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    RE: This particular case is starting to annoy me

    </p>

    Sadly that makes little sense when you look at the actions of the police. It seems fairly obvious to me that had he really been a genuine suicide bomber he had ample time to blow himself up and kill many people. Yet even though the policethought he was a suicide bomber they followed him as he left his flat, allowed him to get on and off two buses before walking throughpart of Londonto enter the underground where he got on a tube. How much chance do they need to deal with someone who they thought was a suicide bomber?</p>

    Clearly he should have been stopped from leaving his flat or as he got outside it. The case isnt just about the shooting of JC Menenez its also about the very thing you are worried about, stopping a suicide bomber before he can kill lots of innocent people.</p>

    </p>

    </p>

    </p>

    </p>
     
    Acky, Nov 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Ack

    Acky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Sounds like.........

    some other people were lucky too, including one of their own officers.</p>

    </p>

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,2203982,00.html</p>
     
    Acky, Nov 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Gue

    Guest Guest

    RE: This particular case is starting to annoy me

    at last someone who speaks sense.
     
    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #14
  15. EastStander

    EastStander Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    29,883
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Upper tier, Gangway 11
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    What?

    that the police shouldn't be being charged under Health and Safety regulations? Yes, I still do agree.
    It's set a very dangerous precedence.
     
    EastStander, Nov 2, 2007
    #15
  16. Ack

    Acky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    RE: What?

    why?</p>
     
    Acky, Nov 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Isl

    Isle of Wight Tyke Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    5,832
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    very dangerous precedence

    George Bush Jnr & Snr

    I'm playing with words now look, that's how bored I am.
     
    Isle of Wight Tyke, Nov 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Gue

    Guest Guest

    RE: very dangerous precedence

    That could be 'Presaredence'</p>

    Possibly.</p>
     
    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #18
  19. D/T

    D/T New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    9,585
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Peg 3
    Home Page:
    Pork pIE
     
    D/T, Nov 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Gue

    Guest Guest

    RE: very dangerous precedence

    Why the hell is it is it a precedent, The Health and Safety at Work Act has been in force 33 years, the Met breached it, the CPS thought they should face charges, the jury found them guilty.

    Your post whilst being factually incorrect is deliberately missing the point.
     
    Guest, Nov 2, 2007
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page