Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Last Of 6 Met Officers Found Not Guilty
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BobHarget



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Location: East Midlands

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

I do, but does Bob who wrote the original comment?


My sarcasm was obviously lost in the translation. Exclamation I know very well the difference between murder and state authorised execution but I have to wonder if the Police and the CPS do.

Murder: (source Collins English Dictionary)

Noun: the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another.
Verb: kill unlawfully and with premeditation.

Murder: the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes (IMO, premeditated as the officers were armed and had no intention of allowing him to get on a train).

Death Penalty: (source Collins English Dictionary)
Noun: punishment by execution.

Capital punishment: (source Collins English Dictionary)
Noun: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.

State execution: Peter Anthony Allen 8.00 a.m. on 13 August 1964, the last person officially killed by the state in the UK (crime Murder of John Alan West) Sad
_________________
Bob

The Pen - What is mightier that the sword; and considerably easier to write with (Marty Feldman)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Carrot Cruncher



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 751

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Allen was hanged concurrently with John Welby (aka Gwynne "Ginger" Evans), but separately in Strangeways and Walton. Welby/Evans actually gave the name of his mucker (Allen) when first arrested. Bastards both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
craggy_steve



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That may be because theirs money in Huntingdon etc?


Indeed. We all know that Labour was paid 1M for the hunting ban. Which I guess just about sums it all up - democracy bought and paid for, including the assistance of all the gov't agencies involved, esp. Defra and Police. Public representation?

Cheers,

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
craggy_steve



Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't see smokers causing problems in Parliament Square (yet Wink ).


Nope, be interesting to see how it goes. Smokers are not an organised unified body. Personally I will be voting with my wallet - no smoking = no custom, which will unfortunately hurt a few local hostelries, but such is life. Having said that my long-term plan (which is coming along nicely) is to spend much less time in the UK, colleagues seem to be thinking likewise, and with an escape plan in place I'm feeling much less stressed about it all than I was. Also be interesting to see how this does http://www.uk-fags.co.uk/ - I haven't seen any of the banners yet, but then I haven't been to Blackpool for yonks.

One thing is for certain, the next election will not improve things, whether we have return to Old Labour under Gordon, or Cameroons New New Labour, it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Cheers,

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobHarget wrote:
Quote:

I do, but does Bob who wrote the original comment?


My sarcasm was obviously lost in the translation. Exclamation I know very well the difference between murder and state authorised execution but I have to wonder if the Police and the CPS do.

Murder: (source Collins English Dictionary)

Noun: the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another.
Verb: kill unlawfully and with premeditation.

Murder: the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes (IMO, premeditated as the officers were armed and had no intention of allowing him to get on a train).

Death Penalty: (source Collins English Dictionary)
Noun: punishment by execution.

Capital punishment: (source Collins English Dictionary)
Noun: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.

State execution: Peter Anthony Allen 8.00 a.m. on 13 August 1964, the last person officially killed by the state in the UK (crime Murder of John Alan West) Sad

The problem is Mr. De Menezes was not killed unlawfully, at least not according to either the IPCC (note Independent), or the CPS (note, not a Police organisation). It's still down to the family to take out a private prosecution, but I see it was more important for their supporters to go on an 'anti-war' demo than remember his death.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

craggy_steve wrote:
Quote:
That may be because theirs money in Huntingdon etc?


Indeed. We all know that Labour was paid 1M for the hunting ban. Which I guess just about sums it all up - democracy bought and paid for, including the assistance of all the gov't agencies involved, esp. Defra and Police. Public representation?

Cheers,

Steve

What did Police say then? The only thing I've seen is that they don't have the resources to Police the ban. Then again, what have we done with the resources that went into policing hunts? Dunno. Probably swallowed up in some 'action team' or other.

Didn't realise they were paid money for the ban. Then again, is there any political party that hasn't accepted money for promoting or otherwise some subject or other, or for giving out gongs?
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

craggy_steve wrote:
Having said that my long-term plan (which is coming along nicely) is to spend much less time in the UK, colleagues seem to be thinking likewise, and with an escape plan in place I'm feeling much less stressed about it all than I was.

Cheers,

Steve

A jumping ship (or ocean going vessel! Wink ) then? See, the 'rats' are always the first! Laughing [Note: That's not say I think Craggy is in any way a rat, rodent or any other term]
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
simon



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit late but I'll stick my 2 pence worth in; The day I saw the footage of the police laying in to that crowd is that day that in general the police lost my "goodwill".

I know for a fact that had I as a young squaddie in 'Derry in the early 70's used that much force and violence on a crowd and it had been caught on camera and then tried to use the excuse that they were throwing stones, I'd have been doing time in the pokey so fast......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

simon wrote:
A bit late but I'll stick my 2 pence worth in; The day I saw the footage of the police laying in to that crowd is that day that in general the police lost my "goodwill".

I know for a fact that had I as a young squaddie in 'Derry in the early 70's used that much force and violence on a crowd and it had been caught on camera and then tried to use the excuse that they were throwing stones, I'd have been doing time in the pokey so fast......

So the judicial system got it wrong then?
Editted to add: Always thought 'Derry had a prefix?
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobHarget



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Location: East Midlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The problem is Mr. De Menezes was not killed unlawfully, at least not according to either the IPCC (note Independent), or the CPS (note, not a Police organisation).


Only a court can decide if he was killed unlawfully and a court should be given the oportunity to decide. As for being independant, who funds the IPCC?
If any part of their funding comes from HMG then it cannot be truly independant.
_________________
Bob

The Pen - What is mightier that the sword; and considerably easier to write with (Marty Feldman)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobHarget wrote:
Quote:
The problem is Mr. De Menezes was not killed unlawfully, at least not according to either the IPCC (note Independent), or the CPS (note, not a Police organisation).


Only a court can decide if he was killed unlawfully and a court should be given the oportunity to decide.

Why? Surely such esteemed bodies are quite capable of saying whether there is enough evidence to submit a case for prosecution, or should it be for every death that a Court of Law gets to see it, or (which is obviously the crux of the matter) it should only apply to Police shootings?

BobHarget wrote:
As for being independant, who funds the IPCC. If any part of their funding comes from HMG then it cannot be truly independant.

Err, you. From your taxes that go to the Govt and spread about as per our elected representatives wish to do with it. Who should fund it then? The UN? Where do they get their money from?
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobHarget



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Location: East Midlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why? Surely such esteemed bodies are quite capable of saying whether there is enough evidence to submit a case for prosecution, or should it be for every death that a Court of Law gets to see it, or (which is obviously the crux of the matter) it should only apply to Police shootings?

IMO when the police shoot an innocent person i.e. someone who has not been found guilty of a crime by a court then a Jury should decide if the shooting was lawfull. Our soldiers have to justify killing civillians of hostile nations so the police should justify the killing of civillians within our Country.
As for the CPS knowing about evidence, you know my views already.

Quote:
BobHarget wrote:
As for being independant, who funds the IPCC. If any part of their funding comes from HMG then it cannot be truly independant.

Err, you. From your taxes that go to the Govt and spread about as per our elected representatives wish to do with it. Who should fund it then? The UN? Where do they get their money from?


I don't know the answer to the funding problem but it currently does not make the IPCC independant. At least the Judges and Juries are independant of the excecutive. Confused

I think the main problem lies with the police firearms officers threatening to refuse to carry out their duty if they are going to be held responsible for their actions. The Government are frightened and will do anything to avoid such action. The miners' union was crushed because they threatened to hold the Country to ransom. I hope one day we will see a Prime Minister who is not afraid of ACPO and the Police Federation which are afterall only trade unions.
_________________
Bob

The Pen - What is mightier that the sword; and considerably easier to write with (Marty Feldman)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobHarget wrote:
Quote:
Why? Surely such esteemed bodies are quite capable of saying whether there is enough evidence to submit a case for prosecution, or should it be for every death that a Court of Law gets to see it, or (which is obviously the crux of the matter) it should only apply to Police shootings?

IMO when the police shoot an innocent person i.e. someone who has not been found guilty of a crime by a court then a Jury should decide if the shooting was lawfull. Our soldiers have to justify killing civillians of hostile nations so the police should justify the killing of civillians within our Country.
As for the CPS knowing about evidence, you know my views already.

But when soldiers (or even civilians) do kill, it's investigated. It doesn't always go before a Court of law. Obviously, you feel there should be one rule for the Police and one rule for others. I have personal knowledge of a 'lawful killing' not being tried and quite a few 'lawful shootings' as well.

BobHarget wrote:
[
Quote:
BobHarget wrote:
As for being independant, who funds the IPCC. If any part of their funding comes from HMG then it cannot be truly independant.

Err, you. From your taxes that go to the Govt and spread about as per our elected representatives wish to do with it. Who should fund it then? The UN? Where do they get their money from?


I don't know the answer to the funding problem but it currently does not make the IPCC independant. At least the Judges and Juries are independant of the excecutive. Confused

Are they? I thought the Govt paid their wages as well? I also thought the Govt (Lord Chancellor) appointed them? Why are they 'independent,' but the IPCC or CPS is not?

BobHarget wrote:
[I think the main problem lies with the police firearms officers threatening to refuse to carry out their duty if they are going to be held responsible for their actions. The Government are frightened and will do anything to avoid such action. The miners' union was crushed because they threatened to hold the Country to ransom. I hope one day we will see a Prime Minister who is not afraid of ACPO and the Police Federation which are afterall only trade unions.

They aren't trade unions, for a start the Police can't strike. It's nothing to do with the AFO's threatening to resign either. That was in the Harry Stanley case and the officers had been through about four different Court hearings over twice as many years. No AFO says they should not be investigated (although there's ways of dealing with them which could be better), and they understand the rules of evidence and law. The problem comes as per Stanley (and I assume in your case Mr De Menezes), that some people want their pound of flesh and until they've got that, will not let the matter lie.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BobHarget



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Location: East Midlands

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They aren't trade unions, for a start the Police can't strike. It's nothing to do with the AFO's threatening to resign either. That was in the Harry Stanley case and the officers had been through about four different Court hearings over twice as many years. No AFO says they should not be investigated (although there's ways of dealing with them which could be better), and they understand the rules of evidence and law. The problem comes as per Stanley (and I assume in your case Mr De Menezes), that some people want their pound of flesh and until they've got that, will not let the matter lie.


The Police Federation was formed to represent Police Officers in the same way as a Trade Union but without the power to call a strike. It replaced the illegal police trade union which had been crushed by the Government. It is a trade union in all but name and has the advantage of statutory backing. As for people not wanting to let things drop, I think they just want to see Justice. I may be wrong but I cannot remember the police objecting to the removal of double jeopardy. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Bob

The Pen - What is mightier that the sword; and considerably easier to write with (Marty Feldman)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick F
Certified Gun Nut


Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1650
Location: S X

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BobHarget wrote:
Quote:
They aren't trade unions, for a start the Police can't strike. It's nothing to do with the AFO's threatening to resign either. That was in the Harry Stanley case and the officers had been through about four different Court hearings over twice as many years. No AFO says they should not be investigated (although there's ways of dealing with them which could be better), and they understand the rules of evidence and law. The problem comes as per Stanley (and I assume in your case Mr De Menezes), that some people want their pound of flesh and until they've got that, will not let the matter lie.


The Police Federation was formed to represent Police Officers in the same way as a Trade Union but without the power to call a strike. It replaced the illegal police trade union which had been crushed by the Government. It is a trade union in all but name and has the advantage of statutory backing. As for people not wanting to let things drop, I think they just want to see Justice. I may be wrong but I cannot remember the police objecting to the removal of double jeopardy. Rolling Eyes

Crushed by the Govt? IIRC they got their pay, and they've got a widows pension and so on. No union I know is worth their salt if they have no power of strike, and they have a statutory power to represent their members. 1919 was a 'funny old time' with fear of Bolshevik revolution in Govt circles.

Everybody wants to see justice. No problem with that. What many don't want to see is trial by media or trial by none representation. By that I mean no officer is allowed to say what actually happened to the media, while everyone else can. The impression you give is that 'justice' will be served if the officer(s) are in prison without looking at either the facts or that the 'crime' has been investigated.

I think there's a few who have objected to 'double jeopardy. However, many see crims getting off on technicalities or even in some cases just found not guilty, but admitting to the crime later. I take it, you don't agree with double jeopardy? I'm sure the family of the pizza delivery girl are happy with it.
Cheers
Mick Fidgeon:-)
_________________
"He's more nervous than a very small nun on a penguin shoot."DCI Gene Hunt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Field Sports and Pest Control All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group