So how are you Londoners not terrified of the Met yet?

[Gooble]

You guys are aware that he didnt die of a heart attack...an independent (i.e. non-police appointed) post mortem showed he died of internal bleeding.

Citation?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6113960.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5173387/G20-Ian-Tomlinson-post--mortem-finds-internal-bleeding.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/18/cause-death-ian-tomlinson

(Multiple links to show it wasn't just one site saying it)

 

[Private Custard]

B) He means the guy that was shot in the back of the head because he ran and jumped the barrier, on the same day that police had intel that a bomber WAS coming, after people were still feeling aftershocks from the underground bombings.

Just because I'm feeling picky

1) He didn't jump the barrier or run anywhere
2) The police didn't identify themselves by shouting "ARMED POLICE"
3) They shot him in the head seven times.........yep, SEVEN.........after they'd pinned him to the floor so he posed no risk.

Huge and unforgivable failings in communication, protocol and common sense, combined with the fact Jean Charles was an illegal and basically unknown to anyone was what led to his death.

The fact that the Jury at the inquest were BARRED from reaching a verdict of unlawful killing was the cherry on top of the massive slice of whitewash pie.

 

[Danny Ocean]

You guys are aware that he didnt die of a heart attack...an independent (i.e. non-police appointed) post mortem showed he died of internal bleeding.

Citation?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6113960.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5173387/G20-Ian-Tomlinson-post--mortem-finds-internal-bleeding.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/18/cause-death-ian-tomlinson

(Multiple links to show it wasn't just one site saying it)

Wow. I guess people can die by falling over, it doesn't just happen in cartoons.

 

[NeedAUserName]

i thought they were going to be equipeed with big guns...

Na just tasers.

 

[JenXXXJen]

The police are right bastards at protests, you're right. I'd certainly never like to go on one.

Unless it's a Muslim protest about something or other, then they just dance around 'em with pink fairy gloves. Yes, I said it, it might be steriotypical but it's true.

 

[iain62a]

C) He's afraid of the titty-helmet. This point is wrong, we are all afraid of the titty-helmet

I broke somebody's nose with one of those titty-helmets once, they're deadly weapons.

I love how they haven't scrapped the law that a pregnant woman is allowed to ask a policeman wearing a titty-helmet to give her his helmet to pee in. I hope he doesn't have to wear it immediately afterwards :/

I think that's just an urban myth.

It's harmless though, if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

This is the excuse neo-conservatives use constantly in the states to justify the possibility of phonetapping and any other surveillance made on our people. I don't buy it here and I wouldn't buy it in London, either. Surveillance doesn't prevent crime, it only proves that it happened, and when it comes to violent crime (the crime that really matters) there is always a victim, a witness, and evidence that will all sufficiently prove the crime, assuming it actually happened.

And all of you are forgetting about that serial rapist who went unhalted by the Met for years, sexually assaulting/raping dozens of womens in the process, and was only just arrested, what, last month?

Of course it's to prove that it happened, so we can bring more criminals to justice.

And are you honestly telling me that in every single violent crime there's always a witness and enough evidence to discern the offender?

And to be fair it's pretty hard to catch a serial date-rapist on cctv.

There's a big difference between tapping peoples phones- invading their privacy- and monitoring public places for crime.

I have no problem with surveillance of public places - as long as it doesn't intrude on our privacy.

 

[Sparrow]

Because we're not hollowed minded fuckwits. They screwed up once, so now we should just dump em'? Nope.

You should watch Life On Mars and Ashes To Ashes. It was accecptable in the 80's.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I enjoyed the week I spent in London back in September, didn't have any problems... and I'm a Canadian, the sheer SIZE of London terrifies me.

 

[Ironic]

Just because I'm feeling picky

1) He didn't jump the barrier or run anywhere
2) The police didn't identify themselves by shouting "ARMED POLICE"
3) They shot him in the head seven times.........yep, SEVEN.........after they'd pinned him to the floor so he posed no risk.

Huge and unforgivable failings in communication, protocol and common sense, combined with the fact Jean Charles was an illegal and basically unknown to anyone was what led to his death.

The fact that the Jury at the inquest were BARRED from reaching a verdict of unlawful killing was the cherry on top of the massive slice of whitewash pie.

Yes, there was a terrible breakdown of communication and common sense, but the testimony that the officers in question gave, was that they were given the order to move in and shoot to kill. These bombers only need a couple of seconds to detonate, and so those officers were convinced it was either him or them/the passengers. I'm not condoning what they did, and im agreeing on the whole poor communication/sense, but just put yourself in THEIR shoes, as police. The protocol for a suicide bomber, is to shoot the head, because if you pin them as they did with the brazillian guy, they may still be able to detonate. It was a tradgedy we should learn from, but i believe that the police themselves acted accordingly to the situation, and so shouldn't be prosecuted for a mistake that ultimately, was the intelligence gatherers/HQ's fault.

EDIT: Remember the whole shit-your-pants factor of post-bombed London too. That must've played a part.

 

[ffxfriek]

i thought they were going to be equipeed with big guns...

Na just tasers.

the police here in the states have tasers and pistols.

OP big whoop.

 

[xChevelle24]

Just because I'm feeling picky

1) He didn't jump the barrier or run anywhere
2) The police didn't identify themselves by shouting "ARMED POLICE"
3) They shot him in the head seven times.........yep, SEVEN.........after they'd pinned him to the floor so he posed no risk.

Huge and unforgivable failings in communication, protocol and common sense, combined with the fact Jean Charles was an illegal and basically unknown to anyone was what led to his death.

The fact that the Jury at the inquest were BARRED from reaching a verdict of unlawful killing was the cherry on top of the massive slice of whitewash pie.

Yes, there was a terrible breakdown of communication and common sense, but the testimony that the officers in question gave, was that they were given the order to move in and shoot to kill. These bombers only need a couple of seconds to detonate, and so those officers were convinced it was either him or them/the passengers. I'm not condoning what they did, and im agreeing on the whole poor communication/sense, but just put yourself in THEIR shoes, as police. The protocol for a suicide bomber, is to shoot the head, because if you pin them as they did with the brazillian guy, they may still be able to detonate. It was a tradgedy we should learn from, but i believe that the police themselves acted accordingly to the situation, and so shouldn't be prosecuted for a mistake that ultimately, was the intelligence gatherers/HQ's fault.

That's the problem with most people, they look to criticise before thinking about the other side of the story. Either those officers kill one man, or possibly that one man kills hundreds, if not thousands. I think that their actions were justified because they had orders to shoot to kill.

C) He's afraid of the titty-helmet. This point is wrong, we are all afraid of the titty-helmet

I broke somebody's nose with one of those titty-helmets once, they're deadly weapons.

I love how they haven't scrapped the law that a pregnant woman is allowed to ask a policeman wearing a titty-helmet to give her his helmet to pee in. I hope he doesn't have to wear it immediately afterwards :/

I think that's just an urban myth.

It's harmless though, if you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

This is the excuse neo-conservatives use constantly in the states to justify the possibility of phonetapping and any other surveillance made on our people. I don't buy it here and I wouldn't buy it in London, either. Surveillance doesn't prevent crime, it only proves that it happened, and when it comes to violent crime (the crime that really matters) there is always a victim, a witness, and evidence that will all sufficiently prove the crime, assuming it actually happened.

And all of you are forgetting about that serial rapist who went unhalted by the Met for years, sexually assaulting/raping dozens of womens in the process, and was only just arrested, what, last month?

Of course it's to prove that it happened, so we can bring more criminals to justice.

And are you honestly telling me that in every single violent crime there's always a witness and enough evidence to discern the offender?

And to be fair it's pretty hard to catch a serial date-rapist on cctv.

There's a big difference between tapping peoples phones- invading their privacy- and monitoring public places for crime.

I have no problem with surveillance of public places - as long as it doesn't intrude on our privacy.

Of course there is! If someone kills someone in the middle of the forest, there will always be a third-party standing around observing the crime happening, and the killer will always make a mistake and leave some evidence behind for police officers to pick up.

/sarcasm.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Did the G20 Summit riots lead you to believe this?

If it was then we must NEVER show him footage of the Miners' Strike riots in the 80's. My dad was in them and laughed at G20.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

Uh, true. yeah.

 

[branalvere]

OMG One person dies during G20 proresting and suddenly it's a Police state!

Let me reassure you that unless you are attending something like a G20 protest you could live your whole flipping life in London and never see a bloody policeman.

And lest you forget, they don't even have guns here....

 

[Fingerprint]

Hey, our cops can ask questions without pointing guns at people, it's more than yours can.

 

[dekkarax]

The police just do their jobs, no ones perfect.

 

[The Shade]

INGSOC would be double plus proud.

Ha ha! I get it!

Is funny because is joke.

 

[Petemilkshakes]

I, as a Londoner, feel perfectly safe with our police force. My experience with the MET is helpful and understanding. There always a couple of bad ones I guess, but that always true in all authoritarian organization.

 

[LockHeart]

I'm terrified of the Met, and I moved away from London, but I still visit regularly.

This country has already become a soft police state.