• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Does getting shot in the head 7x contravine health & safety?"

Collapse

  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100 View Post
    Naturally, our government has just expressed full confidence in the Met police chief...
    Part of the expression of confidence that I heard this week was that if there hadn't been any London bombs, then Menezes wouldn't have been shot.

    Of course, if there hadn't been any armed police messing it up that day, he wouldn't have been shot either.

    But let's try and spin the blame onto the Jihadis instead...

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100 View Post
    As I understand it, the information initially given out by the police, that the suspect was wearing a bulky coat which could possibly have concealed a bomb, was a lie.

    In which case why did they not stop and search the suspect? The Israelis seem to manage it a hundred times a day without killing suspects.

    Secondly, why was no-one in the police later censured for giving false evidence? Another lie - the police had also initially said that they challenged the suspect, who then ran away and vaulted the barriers to get into the underground station. They confiscated CCTV tapes from the underground station, including those on the platform where the shooting took place, but they forgot one - the one which showed De Menezes walking normally through the barriers. And yet another lie - they doctored photographs of De Menezes and the true terror suspect to make them look more similar in court.

    Making mistakes in a difficult situation is bad enough. Lying and treating the rest of us like idiots is another. Why don't we:

    1. Discipline and retraining for whoever was responsible for the 19 mistakes that the courts proved they made
    2. Sack whoever was responsible for the lies afterwards
    3. Sack whoever decided to plead not guilty to all 19 charges, which showed arrogance and a complete lack of judgement

    Naturally, our government has just expressed full confidence in the Met police chief...
    Gets more like a South American banana republic every day.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Originally posted by Mailman View Post
    Would you have stopped and searched him if you believed he was a jihadi bent on receiving his packet of raisins in valhaala?

    Mailman
    As I understand it, the information initially given out by the police, that the suspect was wearing a bulky coat which could possibly have concealed a bomb, was a lie.

    In which case why did they not stop and search the suspect? The Israelis seem to manage it a hundred times a day without killing suspects.

    Secondly, why was no-one in the police later censured for giving false evidence? Another lie - the police had also initially said that they challenged the suspect, who then ran away and vaulted the barriers to get into the underground station. They confiscated CCTV tapes from the underground station, including those on the platform where the shooting took place, but they forgot one - the one which showed De Menezes walking normally through the barriers. And yet another lie - they doctored photographs of De Menezes and the true terror suspect to make them look more similar in court.

    Making mistakes in a difficult situation is bad enough. Lying and treating the rest of us like idiots is another. Why don't we:

    1. Discipline and retraining for whoever was responsible for the 19 mistakes that the courts proved they made
    2. Sack whoever was responsible for the lies afterwards
    3. Sack whoever decided to plead not guilty to all 19 charges, which showed arrogance and a complete lack of judgement

    Naturally, our government has just expressed full confidence in the Met police chief...

    Leave a comment:


  • KentPhilip
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    Maybe Sir Ian Blair has got more in common with the other Blair than it was previously thought.
    Well you never see them together do you?

    Blair. A fat Tony Blair.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Originally posted by Mailman View Post
    Would you have stopped and searched him if you believed he was a jihadi bent on receiving his packet of raisins in valhaala?

    Mailman
    What do have Police for then? To consume vast quanitities of tea in OAP's home's?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lambros
    replied
    Does anyone know what happened to the guy the police were supposed to be following when they mistakenly identified de Menezes as him?

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    no next...

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Considering the amount of lies that came out in the press with the help of the police no one knows what the police believed.

    As far was we are aware they just saw a brown face, weren't sure who he was so followed him for ages and panicked when he got on the tube so shot him. Luckily for them the guy was Brazilian otherwise they would have been dealing with a riot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mailman
    replied
    Would you have stopped and searched him if you believed he was a jihadi bent on receiving his packet of raisins in valhaala?

    Mailman

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    Odd that they didn't stop-and-search him.

    Ms. Dick at fault?

    Leave a comment:


  • Churchill
    replied
    Originally posted by Dante View Post
    They'll have been wearing electronic ear defenders.
    Yes, that'd block out the shouts of "Don't shoot!!! I'm innocent" in a Brazillian Portuguese stylee.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dante
    replied
    Originally posted by madhippy View Post
    just think of the damage to the officers ears from all that noise ... course it's a health and safety issue.
    They'll have been wearing electronic ear defenders.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by lilelvis2000 View Post
    What's ridiculous is that Mr. Menezes was blamed by the defence because he was allegedly in the country illegally and lived in the same apartment block as one of the failed bombers.

    The Police needed to find a scapegoat for their incompetance and they found one, a young single brazilian. He wasn't confronted - until 2 seconds before his death, he wasn't searched to determine he HAD a bomb - until after he was shot. Seems like "shoot first ask questions later". The licence to kill exists.
    Well the government have been tough on one immigrant and rather lax on the other 999,999.

    Leave a comment:


  • lilelvis2000
    replied
    What's ridiculous is that Mr. Menezes was blamed by the defence because he was allegedly in the country illegally and lived in the same apartment block as one of the failed bombers.

    The Police needed to find a scapegoat for their incompetance and they found one, a young single brazilian. He wasn't confronted - until 2 seconds before his death, he wasn't searched to determine he HAD a bomb - until after he was shot. Seems like "shoot first ask questions later". The licence to kill exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • KathyWoolfe
    replied
    Originally posted by Lambros View Post
    Blimey! I just can't get over the idea that some people, whoever they are, can pump an innocent man's head full of bullets and get done for a breach of 'Health and Safety'.

    Somebody here should be prosecuted for murdering a man.
    Perhaps the prosecution was brought because the officer(s) who fired the gun(s) were putting the other police officers at risk of injury

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X