Way wayyyy OT - guess the subject.....

On or around Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:44:18 +0000, Simon Isaacs enlightened us thusly:

see, there are advantages to being a bachelor.

I think the advantages to not being one are somewhat greater. ;-)

You probably even get regular sex ... ;)

I don't think it's for the shooting on Menezes that he should resign, but for the handling of it, the public statement he made shortly after the shooting while he hadn't actually bothered to check facts first (which embarassingly turned out to contradict him), the police attempts to smear the character of the dead chap as if it would help (traces of cocaine in his blood etc) and so on. Not the shooting, but the aftermath. It's hugely undignified for the police to have their top brass flailing around to try and justify the decisions made and just makes people think that mistakes can be prevented, which they can't. Sadly when the police make mistakes, nasty things happen, same as nuclear waste engineers or doctors, it's the nature of the task they have.

Being a bachelor means you don't have a wife and/or kids (at least not living with you), it doesn't mean your c*ck has shrivelled up and fallen off!

Advantages include being able to spend money on what you want, as the answer to any "It's me or the car!" demands is easily dealt with without having to worry about future complications ;-)

Hear, hear. The incident that triggered the investigation was a "damned if you, damned if you don't" and reading the published log extracts was handled as well as it could have been in the time scale and what was known at the time.

The attempted cover up (for want of a better expression) afterwards is what Ian Blair should go for, he was directly involved in that.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Austin Shackles wibbled :

My hangup with it is quit simple, the victim was 'in custody' ie restrained. Bomber or not is irrelevent, he was shot whilst in custody! Not something I can countenance nor support. What next? shot for talking out of line?

With a suspected suicide bomber, being restrained isn't enough due to triggering of worn explosives, this is the reason for the shots to the head, a procedure well proven by the Israelis who have had more than their fair share of taking down suicide bombers in crowded places. It's not some random thing thought up on the spot, and you don't need to worry about them doing this in cases where a suspect has a firearm for example, it's a procedure specifically introduced for use against suspected exploding loonies in crowded places, e.g. tube trains.

Assuming they were competent bombers, shooting the bomber would make c*ck all difference to the outcome - so many ways to make a bomb fail-dangerous....

Steve

On or around Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:02:44 +0000 (GMT), Paul Vigay enlightened us thusly:

Trouble is, will enough do so?

If (say) about a million people call their bluff, there's no way they could imprison everyone. But if it's only a few, then they'll just bung you inside and your life can go to hell. Much as I'd like to make such a stand, I rather doubt that I've got the nerve to burn my bridges quite so thoroughly, if it DID end up with being banged up.

On or around Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:18:42 +1300, EMB enlightened us thusly:

hmmm. well, maybe. It's not exactly a clear-cut thing though.

An awful lot of people objected to the poll tax, many still do and get sent inside. If a looked like a serious number were determined to take not having an ID card all the way they'd instruct the courts just to apply a fine and not jail offenders.

What I object to is having to pay for something that is a offence *not* to have(*). If "they" want us to have "they" can pay the full costs, charging for replacements (after say 1/year) is fair enough but not for the initial setup.

(*)Yes, you need insurance to drive and you pay for that but you do get a benefit in return, the insurance. MOT fee, you know that the basics of your car is safe, for you and other road users. The driving licence should be free.

So that makes it alright?

In news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, GbH wibbled :

Whatever else everyone is entitled to due process, the gentleman concerned was denied his. 'a shoot to kill policy' is specifically outlawed in the UK, ever since the RUC was suspected of employing it! It is I believe known by its proper name 'murder'.

On or around Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:58:03 -0000, "GbH" enlightened us thusly:

no, but then not to do so if they suspect that they *do* have a bomber could kill hundreds, and like I say, if they let that happen the s*it really would hit the fan, and there would be loud cries of police incompetence and why didn't they act sooner to shoot the bloke before he blew up, and subsequent cries from people demanding resignation of the bloke in charge...

Austin Shackles wrote: , and subsequent

The point is that the chief was not in charge of his brief on the day in question, and apparently lied about it in public. Plus he actively briefed against the poor bastard murdered by his firearms squad.

Steve

Killing one chap to save hundreds of others? Yes. That's the aim of the policy. This specific case was a mistake and that's bad but doesn't mean the policy is wrong, just poor intelligence in this case. It's the kind of reason hanging was abolished.

Meanwhile, in the *real* world...

Anything goes? I'm not sure I want to see just how far we can sink.