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

I rather enjoy meals I don't have to cook, self-ironing shirts and the various other benefits that bachelors miss out on.

You can't see the difference between someone safely in custody and someone who is believed to be presenting a real and genuine imminent danger to all those who surround him?

Naah, not a problem, I rarely cook and I do have an iron, but it gets used perhaps 6 times a year max. I don't miss the list of orders when I finish work, that's for sure.

Ian Rawlings wrote: ....and

It hadn't occurred to his killers that the guy had passed through two perfectly good targets on his way to a nearly empty underground train carriage.

Steve

If someone's suspected of having a plan to blow something up, if he's being followed and they're not sure what he's going to blow up then wandering past a few potential targets is hardly proof that he's not acting on a plan. As for the carriage being empty, that's a red herring as he ran onto it when being chased, and neither he nor the police could know it would be empty at that time. Plus of course it wasn't empty, there were people on it, including the officers who had been told he was a suicide bomber, would you want to tackle someone who you believed was going to explode if he was given the chance? And if so wouldn't you want to kill him before he had a chance to blow up you and all those surrounding you?

The situation appears to be that the police on the ground were acting in good faith on bad information and took the best course of action based on that duff information. The mistake was in the duff information, and some of the statements made after the killing.

Safely in custody? something of an oxymoron in this case? It calls into doubt ALL custodial arrangements. Don't worry about it you're safe in custody except of couse when you're not.

No but IMO it is proof that the system is flawed!

Excuse me, the evidence suggests he walked calmly onto the train and was later basically attacked by plain clothed agents!

Sorry, but if such people are being employed on my behalf, I want nothing to do with it.

The real world is flawed, so any "system" will be flawed, and we have to make the best of it.

Not much point continuing with your belief system.

Except that you espouse that it is alright to summarily execute somebody you don't like the look of.

Nope. The reason I don't want to continue is that you're an idiot.

Can you explain where Geoff is wrong in his analysis of your views ? Where can you draw a line and say something is "right" or "wrong" if you accept its alright for the Police to kill someone without due process ?

Steve

Well I thank you for your carefully considered opinion. May I remind you though that the last world war was fought largely to ensure you may hold and express it.

Especially when due process denies execution as an option.

You are one of those flip-flop types, you either see total right or total wrong. I don't agree with you so I must be happy to kill anyone I don't like. Where you dig that idea from is somewhere the sun doesn't shine.

I don't.

Sr de Menezes is still innocent and very dead.

I never said otherwise.

I don't think I have anything else constructive to say except that I don't think you've really come accross as you would want.

I've been quite plain, but the reason I'm not typing much any more is because you and steve don't seem to be able to read it! Doesn't seem much point in putting in any effort now given that you're both reading what you want and not what's there.