• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

London Bombings: Conspiracies

This is the standardised email being sent out by Peter Power in repsonse to queries about the "training scenarios":

Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario – but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.

Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).

Peter Power
Visor Consultants Limited
Click to expand...
 
And this on the server and claims for AQ responsibility (its not new but if it has been posted I missed it sorry):

UK-based dissident denies link to website that carried al-Qaida claim

David Pallister
Saturday July 9, 2005
The Guardian

The claim of responsibility for the London attacks was first posted on one of the dozens of Islamic websites that are routinely monitored by western intelligence services.

The statement, under the name of the Secret Organisation of the al-Qaida Jihad in Europe, said: "The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern and western quarters."

It was posted on an Arabic website, al-qal3ah.com, which is registered by Qalaah Qalaah in Abu Dhabi and hosted by a server in Houston, Texas.

But two Israeli groups devoted to exposing the network of jihadist sites claim that it is connected to the London-based Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih. Mr Faqih, who is based in Willesden, north-west London, and runs the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (Mira), was designated by the US treasury last December as a supporter of al-Qaida. The UK Treasury followed suit by freezing Mr Faqih's assets.

Speaking in December 2004 before the assets were frozen, Mr Faqih ridiculed any idea that "millions of dollars" would be frozen. "I have no assets in the US and all I have in the UK is a current account with a few hundred pounds."

The US claimed that Mr Faqih was an associate of Khaled al-Fawwaz, who was arrested in Britain on a US extradition warrant for his alleged involvement in the 1998 east African embassy bombings.

The US said that "extremists utilise a website controlled by al-Faqih and Mira on messageboards to post al-Qaida-related statements and images. While Mira has issued disclaimers warning users to not attribute postings on Mira message boards to al-Qaida, information available to the US and UK governments shows that the messages are intended to provide ideological and financial support to al-Qaida affiliated networks and potential recruits."

Mr Faqih has always vigorously denied being involved with terrorism. Yesterday he was indignant about being linked to the website.

"It does not belong to me at all," he told the Guardian. "It is a Zionist smear."

He had seen the message on Thursday morning and doubted its authenticity. "It was only there for a few minutes, and they misquoted the Qur'an." He also said the website - or more accurately a bulletin board - could be used by anyone.

The server in Houston has intriguing connections. Everyone's Internet was founded by brothers Robert and Roy Marsh in 1998 and by 2002 had an income of more than $30m (now about £17m).

Renowned for his charitable work, Roy Marsh counts among his friends President George Bush's former sister-in-law, Sharon Bush, and the president's navy secretary.

Everyone's Internet, which also hosts a number of pornographic sites, states: "We support the uncensored flow of information and ideas over the internet and do not actively monitor subscriber activity under normal circumstances."

However, the company has responded to requests to take down objectionable material and insists it cooperates with US law enforcement agencies.
Click to expand...

www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story ... %2c00.html
 
This is Matthew parris in the Times, this is a view that doesn't get enough coverage - like the Power of Nightmares programme.

July 23, 2005

I name the four powers who are behind the al-Qaeda conspiracy
Matthew Parris





AT TIMES of national emergency, the habit of the news media to drop a story or a lead in mid-air when it seems to be going nowhere unsettles the public. The media betray a sort of sheepish wish to “move on” from an erroneous report, hoping that their audience will not notice. Rather than acknowledge this, they publish a new report, leaving us to compare it with what had previously been said — and draw our own conclusions. Or they start barking up a different tree, the inference being that the last tree may have been the wrong tree.

The habit is more disliked by listeners and readers than I think editors appreciate. Perhaps the first item on each day’s news agenda should be “matters arising from yesterday’s news”. News editors would then do us the courtesy of explaining where some of those stories went.

Immediately after July 7 it was prominently reported that the explosions “bore all the hallmarks” of the use of a type of high-grade military explosive whose presence would indicate a sophisticated international dimension to the bombings. We were alerted to a likely al-Qaeda link.

Then the news went silent. Then it was announced that tests showed the explosive to be of a home-made (or home-makeable) kind that al-Qaeda were known to know about from the internet. Then that story, too, seemed to fizzle out.

I have seen no explanation of how the initial assessment of the type of explosive could have been the reverse of the truth, and no acknowledgement of error from those who made it. Nor has the al-Qaeda/internet angle been followed up. The most recent assessments (Kevin Toolis in The Times yesterday) have suggested that there was nothing special or “hallmarked” about the explosive at all.

Immediately after the first bombing, a report was splashed that two people had been arrested trying to leave Heathrow. The later report that they had been released without charge appeared as little more than a footnote.

A few days after that, much was made of the arrest in Egypt of a British Muslim whom the less-scrupulous news reports called a “chemist” (he is a biochemist). There was talk of British agents attending (or joining) his interrogation in Cairo. A statement from the Egyptian authorities denying that they had linked him to the bombing or that he was on their list of al-Qaeda suspects, did receive momentary attention — and then the story seemed to die. I do not know what has happened to it, or him.

Then there were some big headlines about an alleged “al-Qaeda operative” who had “slipped” into Britain, and slipped out — just before the bombings. But it transpired that he was low on our counter-terrorist services’ lists of security threats — and that story, too, has disappeared.

Then there was an arrest in Pakistan of an alleged “al-Qaeda mastermind”, about which reports have become increasingly confused, dropping from their early position as leading news items. I do not know where we are now on these reports. If I understood them correctly, what helped to trace this mastermind were records of calls made to him by all, or some, of the four July 7 bombers from their mobile phones.

If anyone has asked (or answered) a question that surely occurred to millions of us, then I have yet to hear of it: why did the bombers not take the elementary precaution of phoning the mastermind from a telephone box? Just how master was this mind? Is it not a curious way of operating a terrorist network, if the terrorists are to call their mastermind on their mobile phones, then take the phones with them on their bombing spree?

This is only a small sample of the deadends (or possible deadends) in the July 7 and July 21 stories. You will have noticed many others. You will notice, too, that every one tends in the same direction. Each report, when first we read it, accentuated the impression that we face a formidable, capable, extensive and well-organised terrorist movement, with important links abroad, and that is almost certainly being masterminded from abroad.

And indeed we may. Nothing — I repeat, nothing — I write here is meant to exclude that possibility. Some of the scares that grip our headlines and imaginations do later turn out to have been every bit the threat we thought they were. I have not the least idea what may be the size, shape and competence of al-Qaeda and would not dream of suggesting (and do not believe) that they are uninvolved.

Nor do I mean to downplay the horrors that have hit London: death and destruction are death and destruction, whoever causes them.

Nor do I want to imply doubt about the scale of the horrors that may lie ahead. Home-grown or foreign-born, at whatever level of competence, and whether a concerted campaign or demented craze, this kind of thing is deadly and difficult to combat.

My purpose is more limited. To alert you to the enormous, insidious and mostly unconscious pressure that exists to talk up, rather than talk down, the efficacy of al-Qaeda. When all the pressures are to talk up a lethal characterisation of the forces at work, we need to be supercool in the way we look at these reports.

You have read much about the threat of one particular conspiracy. Here is another. There is an unwitting conspiracy between four separate powers to represent the worldwide al-Qaeda network as fiendishly clever, powerfully effective and deeply involved in the London bombings.

First, the news media. Al-Qaeda is a “narrative” and a gripping one. Everybody loves a mystery story. Everybody loves a thriller. Everybody needs a plot. All journalists have an in-built tendency to make links between things and find unifying forces at work. A series of random and unrelated facts makes for a shapeless account. Report without implicit explanation is baffling and finally boring. No British journalist I know would invent or consciously distort a report in order to exaggerate the involvement of al-Qaeda; but most of us are drawn to explanations that, well, explain.

Secondly, the Government. I would not be so rude or stupid as to suggest that ministers take any sort of satisfaction from terrorist atrocities. But leadership is made easier if there is a visible, tangible threat; and easier still if it can be represented as completely alien. Us v Them is the narrative a politician is most at home with. The BBC’s The Power of Nightmares made an important point: fear silences opposition, and governments walk tallest when an external threat can be identified and they can lead us against it. “Evil” is a more convenient opponent than stupidity, inadequacy and human dysfunction. We hold our leaders’ hands a little more tightly in the dark.

Thirdly, the security services. The police, British Intelligence, and our counter-terrorism apparatus, are all flattered in their work by headlines that suggest that the enemy is formidable, incredibly sophisticated and hard to catch. Any failure on the part of our security services to detect in advance or prevent a terrorist outrage, or to catch the terrorists afterwards, is easily explained if the terrorist movement is widely agreed to be fiendishly clever and well organised. It is not flattering to a counter-terrorism chief to suggest that his quarry is a muppet. The tale of a police mastermind calls for a criminal mastermind, too.

Finally, of course, the terrorist himself. A reputation for fearsomeness and sophistication is nothing but a boon not only to his self-esteem, but also to his efforts to recruit others to his cause. Never think that speeches about the wickedness and cruelty of al-Qaeda do other than burnish the legend.

From a certain point of view, the journalist, the politician, the police chief and the terrorist can be seen as locked in a macabre waltz of the mind, no less distorting for being unconscious. We should not to join that dance.
Click to expand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 66,00.html
 
He ran when told to stop. He made a concerted attempt to get on a tube (perhaps this time to escape rather than to kill.) While he remains, honestly, innocent until proven..., his actions at such a hightened sense of alarm is suspect regardless of his carrying a suicide-belt etc.

I do not approve of an instant "Shoot to Kill" policy; however, when you suspect the target might, with reasonable judgement, kill many others, then the actions may be understandable.

It's easy for armchair lawyers to discuss the terrible loss of life, but they're not the ones to made a split-second decision; sometimes which can be wrong.
 
The "reasonable judgement " bit is what we need to know.After all if it turns out his only "crime" was to be asian and muslim, then that won't make the mulsim and asian community feel especially safe to think they've been scapegoated so totally that they're only seen as terrorists who need to be stopped.
 
And how many "Asian and Muslim" young men would leap over a ticket barrier after "fair warning"?

While I'm horrified by the possibility of an innocent person (of any religion or race) being killed in an arbitrary or 'cold' way, ANYONE who is innocent would not run down into the tube, try to jump onto a wating train.

That they seem to have been executed for doing "the wrong thing" is not proof of their involvement. But it sure as heck doesn't prove that they were innocent bystanders.
 
The Muslim Council of Britain expressed concern yesterday that there appeared to be a “shoot-to-kill” policy that needed explaining – and its calls for a full investigation will be backed up by today’s news that the man shot in Stockwell had nothing to do with Thursday’s terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 21,00.html

add another innocent person to the terrorists victims.

I agree it must be hard to make a snap decision in the heat of the moment but 5 shots to the head from close range with a hand gun seem overkill.

I hope this can be calmed down a bit for everyones sake in the capital.
 
Techybloke said:
I agree it must be hard to make a snap decision in the heat of the moment but 5 shots to the head from close range with a hand gun seem overkill.

I hope this can be calmed down a bit for everyones sake in the capital.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it from the cops point of view
  • Man in baggy clothing
    Running from police when challenged
    Runs towards commuter train which is ideal place for a suicide bomber

I think killing him was the only way to Guarantee a bodycount of no more than 1.

He is dead because he ran not because the police were too harsh. Lets hope people do not run in future. We saw how well the police delt with the bloke in downing street.

:imo: Good Call Met :yeay:
 
Stormkhan said:
And how many "Asian and Muslim" young men would leap over a ticket barrier after "fair warning"?
Click to expand...

Deaf ones, disturbed ones, ones who didn't speak any English, ones with a pocket full of whacky baccy, etc.

Hypothetically if I was in a foreign country and I didn't speak the language wel and three guys in street clothes started shouting at me and pos. waving a shooter I might panic and think my best bet is diving into a crowd and pos. jumping on a bus/train and getting out of Dodge. Substitute other scenarios if you were schizophrenic, etc. - also if you had some weed on you you might not thinking giving it toes would meet with a lethal response. Hell imagine if you were hear on Asylum and all you'd know was random police rutaility in your home country!!

I suppose we need to find out the facts as he may still be connected (although the chief connection seems to be he was leaving a set of flats they were watching and was dressed suspiciously) and the police were in a nearly impossible situation - I'd have probably done the same thing.

On the other hand there have been a number of questionable police shootings (most famously the guy with the leg of a chair in a bag walking home from the pub) so it may be worth seeing it in that light - whichever way we want to take that (one could argue that the occasioan shooting of innocent victims is an acceptable price for having some armed officers available when circumstances warrant it).
 
The main problem is that someone, somewhere, gave the police authority to shoot someone dead if they deemed it necessary. But this hasn't been divulged to the public.

Let's not forget that.

Hopefully we'll find out who gave such an order.
 
Not sure which of the 3 threads this is best on, but it slots in nicely with the current discussion here:

Shooting watershed for UK security
By Jon Silverman
Legal affairs analyst

The shooting of a man at Stockwell by armed officers marks a watershed in the security of London.

Stockwell
A man was shot dead at Stockwell station

A police confrontation with a suspected suicide attacker has been anticipated since 11 September and discussions have taken place at senior levels of Scotland Yard to determine the appropriate tactics.

Concern has also been expressed by the present commissioner and his immediate predecessor that the legal position regarding use of police firearms needs to be urgently reviewed in the light of the suicide threat.

The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005.

It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.

The manual says that that procedure "should be considered" but recognises that the key aim of an operation is to "identify, locate, contain and neutralise" the threat posed.

In many situations, this would require the suspect to stop moving and put his hands in view.

'Central body mass'

That would not necessarily apply when the police are faced with a suspected suicide bomber.

The aim of opening fire is to stop an imminent threat to life. The most effective means of incapacitating a suspect is to shoot at the central body mass which contains the central nervous system.

This is what the police mean by "shooting to stop".


Armed police patrol London's streets

Shoot to kill worries Muslims

A head shot against a possibly moving target is more difficult to achieve.

However, the police have taken advice from officers in countries such as Israel and Sri Lanka which have long experience of suicide attacks.

Their advice is that if a suspect clearly has no intention of surrendering, the armed officer should attempt to aim for the head or lower limbs to prevent a suicide belt being detonated.

Lethal force

A former Home Office adviser, Dr Sally Lievesley, points out that suicide bombers represent the nightmare scenario for the police.

"A suicide bomber can kill four or five times more people than a conventional bomb because they can get so close to their targets, so different precautions and tactics are needed," she said.

The appropriateness of the tactics deployed at Stockwell and the intelligence on which they were based will now be considered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Its inquiry may well redefine the ground rules for the use of lethal force to protect Britain against the threat from suicide terrorism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708373.stm
 
Techybloke said:
Add another innocent person to the terrorists victims.
Click to expand...

Nice to know that you're not pre-judging the event according to your particular mindset 8)
 
The shooting of the innocent Brazilian man is tragic, but to be honest in the circumstances I don't think the police had a great deal of choice in the matter. They had to make a split second decision and I think, given everything we know so far, most of us would have made the same one.

To return to the "conspiracy" or at least "something doesn't add up" angle... the CCTV images of three of the four suspected bombers are very clear. There is no question that if you knew one of those individuals you would recognise them from the photos.

So, why do they still appear to be on the run? And, given the clarity of the pictures and the 500+ calls receiced, I'm quite sure the police must now also have a good idea of the names of the suspects.

Why not release these?

At least two newspapers this morning identified one of the arrested men as the attempted bus bomber. There is now a suggestion that neither of the men arrested were amongst the four in the CCTV pictures.

Just what the hell is going on? :confused:
 
Quake said:
To return to the "conspiracy" or at least "something doesn't add up" angle... the CCTV images of three of the four suspected bombers are very clear. There is no question that if you knew one of those individuals you would recognise them from the photos.
Click to expand...
Not neccesarily - see my post here:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... 299#562299

(Incidentally, it now occurs to me that I know both someone who has met Saddam, and someone else who looks like Saddam! :shock: )
 
Quake said:
To return to the "conspiracy" or at least "something doesn't add up" angle... the CCTV images of three of the four suspected bombers are very clear. There is no question that if you knew one of those individuals you would recognise them from the photos.

So, why do they still appear to be on the run? And, given the clarity of the pictures and the 500+ calls receiced, I'm quite sure the police must now also have a good idea of the names of the suspects.

Why not release these?

At least two newspapers this morning identified one of the arrested men as the attempted bus bomber. There is now a suggestion that neither of the men arrested were amongst the four in the CCTV pictures.

Just what the hell is going on? :confused:
Click to expand...

i wouldnt be surprised if most of those phone calls came from bnp members/supporters
 
JerryB said:
The main problem is that someone, somewhere, gave the police authority to shoot someone dead if they deemed it necessary. But this hasn't been divulged to the public.

Let's not forget that.

Hopefully we'll find out who gave such an order.
Click to expand...

The police have always been allowed to shoot you dead if they deem it necessary. A guy I know is an armed response policemen and he has been involved in incidents where they killed a guy (the story is that eight of them shot at the same time but the autopsy revelaed only one bullet - a farmer report a dead cow in a nearby field).

They are allowed to take measures up to lethal force depending on the level of perceived threat.

However, it is incidents like this, the guy with the chair leg and the Gibraltar executions (the last being far more worrying than this) that do give one cause for concern.
 
Emperor said:
The police have always been allowed to shoot you dead if they deem it necessary. They are allowed to take measures up to lethal force depending on the level of perceived threat.
.....
However, it is incidents like this .... that do give one cause for concern.
Click to expand...
Incidents like this give rise to far too much hot air, and another excuse for the chattering classes to exercise their voice boxes.

It's really a very simple tragedy - (real) threat of suicide bombers, bloke behaves suspiciously, armed police think (correctly) one death better than many, kill suspect (who was not, as it later turns out, rigged as a human bomb). End of story.

Or it should be. But with at least two enquiries into this incident underway, no doubt we'll be flagellating ourselves over this for years to come. I for one will be very angry if any of the police involved are censured or punished over this incident. As far as I'm concerned, this is a 'fog of war' situation, and 'friendly fire' casualties can happen.
 
i wouldnt be surprised if most of those phone calls came from bnp members/supporters
Click to expand...

Do you have any particular reason to think this?

I'm really quite confused about what is happening now. Friday was all about urgency - find these men now! This seems to have stopped and, although the police are telling Londoners to be vigilant, the "another attack is highly likely" rhetoric seems to have ceased.

All very curious
 
Incidents like this give rise to far too much hot air, and another excuse for the chattering classes to exercise their voice boxes.

It's really a very simple tragedy - (real) threat of suicide bombers, bloke behaves suspiciously, armed police think (correctly) one death better than many, kill suspect (who was not, as it later turns out, rigged as a human bomb). End of story.

Or it should be. But with at least two enquiries into this incident underway, no doubt we'll be flagellating ourselves over this for years to come. I for one will be very angry if any of the police involved are censured or punished over this incident. As far as I'm concerned, this is a 'fog of war' situation, and 'friendly fire' casualties can happen.
Click to expand...

I quite agree Rynner these are trying times for the police, If it had turned out the other way and he had been a bomber they would all be up for a medal now.

Tradegy yes understandable yes too.
 
Nice to know that you're not pre-judging the event according to your particular mindset
Click to expand...

why thank you Arthur :D

I may appear very pro conspiracy at times but I am open to suggestions from the other camp too.

I think talking to the nice folk on here has opened my eyes a little to things in general.


These last few weeks have been particularily harrowing to say the least.
 
Although it is a tragedy it must also be noted that the inncocent man was being watched as he had come from a house linked to the terrorists. I would be more horrified if it had just been a man spotted acting suspiciously in the streets. I would hate to have had to make a judgement like that.

unfortunately I suppose it will only be speculation as to why he ran from the Police.
 
unfortunately I suppose it will only be speculation as to why he ran from the Police
Click to expand...

It may be he didnt speak English and didnt understand them !
 
unfortunately I suppose it will only be speculation as to why he ran from the Police


It may be he didnt speak English and didnt understand them !
Click to expand...

The dead man's relatives are on record as saying he did understand English. He had lived in the UK for three years.

The BBC are saying that he spent some of his formative years in Sao Paulo, a city with a lot of violence both from police and criminals, and that as a result his natural reaction may have been to run.

I guess we'll never know... :(
 
If the police are going to shoot people for running away, you may have a serious problem.

As pointed out above, a lot of people from countries where the police are not as well-behaved as in our liberal democracies are frightened of the police and their instinct is to run.

But even in our own populations there are many people who would run from the police because they panic, because they have small amounts of drugs on them, because they haven't paid their child support or alimony, etc.

It's a wonder the police didn't shoot one seventh of the population of London. I hope this never happens in, say, Texas, or the Bronx, New York, where the percentage of the population who have a good or bad reason to run from the police is likely to be closer to half.

It all boils down to the question of how many innocent people you are willing to wrong in order to capture a wrong-doer. At the liberal end of the political spectrum, it is deemed better to let the quilty escape than to kill the innocent (except in cases of extreme violence) while at the Law and Order end of the spectrum, the thought of anybody getting away with anything whatsoever is so painful that a few human sacrifices are no big deal. They probably had unpaid parking tickets any way, shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out!

But from a simple mathematical point of view (I wish I were handier with Bayle's Theorem) the number of runners who are guilty versus innocent is a moot point.

Usually there is only one guilty party--there can be thousands of innocent parties who look very much like the guilty party (especially if the guilty party is black).

It is a wonder the London police only killed one, slightly brown, Brazilian, leaving their score 1 to 55 in favour of the terrorists.

The British police are rightly regarded as some of the most honest in the world and the virtual ban on handguns certainly keeps the three-way fire casualties down (police against "suspects" against bystanders) below what they would be in Philadelphia. This must explain why they didn't start a race riot in Brixton that might have killed more people than the terrorists.

Here's a Baylsian thought experiment: a woman is raped. The semen of the rapist is found to contain a rare mutation only found in one man in a billion. A suspect is arrested and found to have this mutation. He is identified as the rapist by the victim of the assault. What are the odds that he is the rapist without further evidence?

Answer: One in six.

Explanation: The rare mutation is found in six men: the rapist, his three brothers, his father and an uncle. In fact, if the rare gene were distributed randomly, there would still be six possible suspects, if six men carried it.

Most women have a hard time identifying an rapist who is unknown to them. They get it wrong more than half the time. After all, the rapist is not going out of his way to introduce himself. He may be disguised or the woman may be merely traumatized and confused. The man arrested bore a striking similarity to the rapist because he was, in fact, related, but I know from personal experience that is hard to describe something which happens quickly, unexpectedly and in a period of intense emotion, such as an assault.

I won't finger one of the accused's relations. In the real world, it is unlikely that anybody would ever know unless the perpetrator confessed.
 
I have no idea why the Brazilian was really shot (five times at point blank range while he was lying on the floor).

One thing I am sure of though.

Conspiracies aside - this whole event has been mishandled and misreported from beginning to end.
 
It all boils down to the question of how many innocent people you are willing to wrong in order to capture a wrong-doer. At the liberal end of the political spectrum, it is deemed better to let the quilty escape than to kill the innocent (except in cases of extreme violence) while at the Law and Order end of the spectrum, the thought of anybody getting away with anything whatsoever is so painful that a few human sacrifices are no big deal. They probably had unpaid parking tickets any way, shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out!
Click to expand...

But the dilemma the police *thought* was facing them was not whether to risk letting a guilty person escape to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent. It was whether to risk letting a guilty person detonate a bomb on a packed Tube train to avoid the possibility of killing an innocent.

The officers on the ground had to make a split second decision. In this case, they made the wrong one, but there was no way they could have known this at the time. Had the shot man turned out to be a suicide bomber, his killers would have been feted as heroes.

As I've said on another thread, the only lesson to come out of this is that, when armed police yell at you to stop, you stop. You do not vault a ticket barrier and try to throw yourself onto a Tube train, especially the day after 4 failed terrorist attacks on transport.

I travel on the Tube every day. One of my colleagues was on one of the bombed trains on 7 July (thankfully, she was unhurt). It's a hideous thing to say, but I hope that in the event a suspected bomber runs from police and tries to jump onto a train I'm travelling on, someone has the guts to take the decision the officers did on Friday. The alternative is just too horrible to think of.

As Ken Livingstone said earlier today, the death of the innocent Brazilian was a tragedy; but blame the terrorists for creating this situation, not the police, who were faced with an impossible decision.
 
Either way I think it much less likely that people will flee from police in future. If they do and they get shot then I would put that down to natural selection.

My big fear is that the police will now think twice before they open fire. Such a delay could be costly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top