plainclothed UK police have orders to kill for "refusing to co-operate"?

Received this email tonight. Any Brits hear this report?

I live in the UK and a few hours ago I listend to an ex-policeman admit on British tv that we presently have non-uniformed policemen operating a 'shoot to kill' policy on anyone they deem to be 'refusing to co-operate'.

This is an appalling and terrible admission that needs to be outed. I didn't video it, but I can tell you it was around midday on Sky News (I think). Can you appeal through your blog for anyone who may have taped this interview? The policeman's name was O'Connor.

It's SO important. This is a basic admission that we are already living in a police state

"refusing to co-operate" could be almost anything.

"connected to al-queda"

Its a difficult problem in policing when your "perps" are wearing bombs
that can kill potentially thousands or millions of people.

If they are dead, than any secret switches are not triggered.

In the UK, police are so damn polite and pleasant, that i don't mind
even this draconian ideal. I've never met a nasty UK policeperson.
I've never had them pull guns out on me... and i trust them... really,
that if a UK police person is talking to me, then that person is my
friend, and i offer them my best whiskey.

Its too bad about terrorism, but suicide bombing is suicide.. and
policing it that way is the same as shooting down hyjakked aircraft stateside.

You don't give blanket permission to them to kill anyone they think isn't doing what they want.

Power corrupts.

And i thought to meself, "gosh, the police fired "5 shots" in to a man
they had pinned down on the ground. It sounds a lot like summary
execution." And then to be honest, i thought "Boy am i glad i'm not
living in london." :-)

Yet, i have to speak as if i were a met police officer in london
charged with preventing suicide bombings. Here i'm chasing a suspect
that i positively identify from CCTV photos from days-back's attacks
intended to mass murder many persons. This suspect failed to kill
may persons at "the oval" tube station due to a failed bomb they were
carrying.

So now, i'm a police officer standing over this person who's bomb failed
days back, and he's struggling. What if he's wearing a bomb and he's
struggling for a swtich to kill me and my fellow citizens... *BANG*
*BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* No f***ing way you gonna kill me with
your bloody suicide bomb motherf***er.

Call it police abuse if you will, or call it military expediency.

I'd give that police officer a medal.

I don't know the full story yet. I'll let it filter through before I come back.

I think this is incredibly dangerous water. Executive powers for extraordinary situations tend to hang around and then creeps find ways into the system and start abusing them.

Police have had their powers reduced and curtailed over many centuries,
with increasing civil rights over that same time. As a long term
trend, trust in the government and goodwill with the police has been
the british way... and only since adopting the american war on drugs
and american policies of aggressive policing has there become a problem.

I do agree that erosions are a problem, and find that much more
a problem with the european laws on extradition between states. These
were designed for "terrorists" but end up being used for the drugs
war.

I realize that american police shoot people for being black, or living
in a poor neighborhood, or having drugs... and the british have nothing
to learn from such abuse... But in a sucide bombing problem, its a
hard question to deal with... and the officer is right to protect his
own life.

I still trust british police. :-) They are the good guys.

The brit plods are fine, fine chaps and chapesses, a most trustworthy and honorable bunch! The problems with corruption in other places just don't seem to happen here...

The US is soooo corrupt, that british corrption does not seem so bad.

As it seems, the police are shooting tourists in london,
and i'm wrong to trust police. Def indeed.

What can be done, but proportional representation in parliament so that
the people's voice is heard over the din of warmongers.

What other reason could there be to kill someone?

As an electronics person, if i built a suicide bomb belt, i'd have a
hand-trigger with a spring button. Then, if i ever let my hand relax
and the button came up, the bomb would go off. This way, no matter
if the police shoot me, it will still go off when my dead hand lets go
of the trigger.

Another sort would be a button on the sleeve, or on the explosive
itself that when pushed would instantly detonate.

If the person WAS a terrorist, and the belt was like the former, it would
go off when the police man shot him, killing everyone.

If the person was a terrorist, and the belt was the latter, it would not
go off, and everyone's life would be saved.

If the person was not a terrorist, and his belt was a water bottle, it
would not go off, and everyone's life would be saved except that
persons.

What is the value of a life and a mistake. Do you take the risk in a
split second decision?

I wonder if they killed him because he was not white? There is always
that problem as well... a problem that has had historic roots in the
british police forces.

nt

Today the NYPD began spot checking back packs and other bags of personal property..NYPD claims NO PROFILING,just precautionary measures,and if you dont comply with the searc inside the subway you cant board the train,bet if you decide to go to another stastion the NYPD will follow you and eventually search you and your personal property...POLICE STATE definitely..

Just heard that explained on MSNBC's "Countdown".

Financial Times:



It's not that it's for "anyone refusing to co-operate"; it's for anyone they think is a bomber, and who isn't co-operating.

When you gave up your right to possess firearms, you gave the government the right to do as they please.
That being said, what do you expect the authorities to do? A post already on here sums it up. When they say "STOP!" the BEST THING to do is STOP. I deplore a police state,but allowing a terrorist to (possibly) detonate a bomb and kill innocent people out weighs other considerations.
And I don't really consider this to be a "police state" situation.Your cops on the street carry no weapons. This appears to be a case where a policeman yells STOP at someone and they run like hell. Wrong move. Stop, get checked out and go on with your life. This is a life and death situation, and better the deaths be the killers of the innocent.
Enough Rant. my .02 worth

Also, I hear on the news this morning that the guy who was shot down and killed had NOTHING to do with any bombings. If you give people guns, they will use them. Period. Guns don't kill people; PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people. At a certain point in civilization, it's time to put away the toys for the sake of society.

From his point-of-view, a bunch of men were following him and he didn't know why.

No reports of them showing badges, that I've seen.

Better co-operate, or I might have to kill ya. Line of duty, and all that.

Now hand over your wallet.

A person that refuses won't be allowed on the subway is what I heard. Guess this will discourage people from carrying anything that they can be arrested for in the bps. Or can one not be arrested if one has something in their bp that is illegal, aside from weapons?

of violence -- blowing up trains full of human beings, etc -- the brutality that the world has witnessed in this one incident should cause us to pause and ponder what our societies are becoming.

I will say, at risk of offending some, that the terrible policies that are defining the Bush and Blair administrations are not new. The British have been doing vicious and evil things to the Irish for centuries. None of the tortures in the prisons are new. Shooting a man like he was a dog mad with the rabies is not new, either.

Bernard McGuigan after he had been shot
Photographer: Eamon Melaugh
Date Photograph Taken: 30 January 1972 ('Bloody Sunday')
Location of Photograph: Rossville Street, Derry







Treaty gives CIA powers over Irish citizens

US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week.

Suspects will also have to give testimony and allow property to be searched and seized even if what the suspect is accused of is not a crime in Ireland.

Under 'instruments of agreement' signed last week by Justice Minister Michael McDowell, Ireland and the US pledged mutual co-operation in the investigation of criminal activity. It is primarily designed to assist America's so-called 'war on terror' in the wake of the September 11 atrocities.

The deal was condemned yesterday by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) as "an appalling signal of how the rights of Irish citizens are considered by the minister when engaging in international relations". The ICCL said it appeared to go far beyond even what has been agreed between EU countries.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Full_Story/did-sg46g7Ks0cvBEsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

or against us." What an idiot.

The BBC did a story on the guy who was chased into the train. They described the situation and interviewed a first witness. Up to that point in the story, the event sounded like it was an overreaction by the police: they chased a Pakistani guy, subdued him, outnumbered him three or four to one, and shot him five times while he was already restrained.

Then they interviewed a second guy who said it looked like the guy was strapped with a bomb and trying to set it off even after he was down.

If you didn't hear that second witness, the story sounds outrageous. If you hear the second witness it sounds like the guy was doing everything he could to blow up himself, the cops and the train and the police reacted the only way they could.

This email sounds like a concoction to manipulate the sentiments of people who would have had the same reaction to this story that I would have had, had I not heard the second witness on the BBC story yesterday.

The police could have shot this guy the first second he tried to run. They didn't. They shot him when he was ON THE TRAIN, WITH INNOCENT CITIZENS VIEWING THE WHOLE THING, WITH SEVERAL COPS ON TOP OF HIM, WHILE HE WAS STILL TRYING TO DETONATE A BOMB THAT WAS STRAPPED TO HIS BODY. Do you think the police were too hasty, or did they wait until the last possible second and used deadly force only as a last resort when it was clear that lives were in jeopardy with a suspect who had a bomb on him and could have still detonated it?

nt

Here's the BBC News version, if you prefer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm

I'm not going to make apologies for that. Maybe the guy had some electrical stuff for work, but that's a long shot. I guess it just goes to show you, if 20 cops are chasing you at a time when everyone's afraid of subway bombers, don't run on to the subway.

Police say he was directly linked to the bombings, if that is the case then given the surrounding circumstances I think it was a justified response, so long as they had proof of his connection to the bombings and provide that proof. Suspicion and resisting arrest alone can't justify it, no matter what's going off, but I'm afraid it is starting to sound just like that. According to this, he was being followed because he left an address forensically linked to the failed bombs, and they called armed police in because he was headed to a tube station. Shared address? If that's all they have it's a bad, bad precedent, it's unacceptable. Of course they'll know more than they're currently letting on, but it better amount to more than guilt by association.

I've a bad feeling about it, not helped by reading these tactics are based on Israeli advice. If the people running our "war on terror" think shooting down the odd innocent Muslim or Asian is a price worth paying, that it can help overall, then they aren't competent to hold their positions. They are the ones who should be held accountable if this person was innocent.

Hmm, and just as I'm previewing this post it emerges he was innocent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

OOPS!!! SO SORRY, MATE!

it's been reported that the man was under survelliance when he left a house and they followed him all the way to the train station before thinking about detaining him. If there was that much suspicion about this guy, you'd think they would stop him while he wasn't near so many people, long before he got to the station. For some reason it SEEMS (no, we dont know) but it seems they let him attempt to get on a train. If he had gone to a grocery store, would they have let him get away? Just pondering what seems like a mysterious event. :dilemma:

having followed him because he'd left an address linked to the failed bombs. Turns out it wasn't even a single address, he'd came from a block of flats(!) they had under surveillance. Sounds like that's all they had on him, but going near a tube station was still enough to provoke the armed response.

wear translucent clothing, no coat regardless of weather, walk along slowly with your hands in the air, and don't go near tube stations.

that's my understanding too. It would help to know how long it took to get to the tube station from the block of flats. I guess I just don't understand why they didn't do a pre-emptive approach on this guy, to force his hand before he got to the station. To me, this makes a difference, rather than if they had suddenly picked up on a suspicious character AT the station--which would have made a panic reaction seem more justified. Obviously these cops are brave guys to even be in this dangerous business, but this needs to be thoroughly questioned.

And even if they had nothing more on him than the address, I can understand the precaution of pulling him aside for a check if he's getting on the tube. Makes sense. Unfortunately he panicked and paid the price of a shoot to kill policy.

I agree, the police are brave and I don't envy them their task and responsibilities. I don't think they should be held responsible for this either. They were following guidelines which authorise shooting even suspected suicide bombers dead, the people who set up those guidelines (Operation Kratos) should be held accountable.

Under Operation Kratos a senior officer is on standby 24 hours a day to authorise the deployment of special armed squads, who will track and if needs be, shoot dead suspected suicide bombers.

One of the most senior officers involved in protecting London confirmed there were special teams of armed officers ready to be deployed.

A senior Metropolitan police source with knowledge of firearms procedures said of the shooting at Stockwell: "This was an intelligence led operation, within the parameters of Kratos." Officially the Met will not talk about Kratos, but the tactics have been in place for a year and were developed after British officers learnt from their Israeli counterparts how best to tackle suicide bombers.

A spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers insisted that there had been no change in the law or in firearms policy. The relevant law is section three of the 1967 criminal law act, which reads: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534753,00.html