Time to be worried...

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
>> How is it a dead giveaway?
>
> If the plates read "I am a crook, catch me". However if they're
> copies taken from an identical make/model of car in the same colour,
> not quite so much of a giveaway.
>
My thoughts exactly.


 
On or around Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:10:07 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-12-24, SimonJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How is it a dead giveaway?
>
>If the plates read "I am a crook, catch me". However if they're
>copies taken from an identical make/model of car in the same colour,
>not quite so much of a giveaway.

better yet, use the number of the local chief of police.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall."
Robert Frost (1874-1963)
 
On 2005-12-25, SimonJ <[email protected]> wrote:

> My thoughts exactly.

Of course if the same car is auto-recognised in two distant places at
the same time, far away enough from each other but close enough in
time to make it impossible or unlikely that they're the same car, then
it does become more of a giveaway. Then you're back to the situation
of one innocent person having to prove that they're not a crook
though. Provided that it's easy to spot the fake car then it
shouldn't be a problem, but you'd still end up in the hands of the law
for a short period of time and in my limited experience that's never
any fun at all even when innocent.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:
>Then you're back to the situation
> of one innocent person having to prove that they're not a crook
> though. Provided that it's easy to spot the fake car then it
> shouldn't be a problem, but you'd still end up in the hands of the law
> for a short period of time and in my limited experience that's never
> any fun at all even when innocent.
>

The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
they have received - and the Police complaints authority launches its
usual white-wash.

Steve
 

>
> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
> they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
> they have received - and the Police complaints authority launches its
> usual white-wash.
>
> Steve

That is the dumbest thing I have see written in a long time.

Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.

Try having a pop at those"bastards" that want to infringe on your liberties
by making it unsafe to go out by blowing themselfs up because they dont
agree with your way of life, religion or politics.



 
On or around Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:49:43 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-12-25, SimonJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My thoughts exactly.
>
>Of course if the same car is auto-recognised in two distant places at
>the same time, far away enough from each other but close enough in
>time to make it impossible or unlikely that they're the same car, then
>it does become more of a giveaway. Then you're back to the situation
>of one innocent person having to prove that they're not a crook
>though. Provided that it's easy to spot the fake car then it
>shouldn't be a problem, but you'd still end up in the hands of the law
>for a short period of time and in my limited experience that's never
>any fun at all even when innocent.

yeah, but if I were planning a heist, I'd hunt say a white mondeo, then put
different plates on it to confuse the plot more, but which bleong to a
differetn white mondeo..
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
On or around Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:59:58 -0000, "Rory Manton"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>>
>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
>> they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
>> they have received - and the Police complaints authority launches its
>> usual white-wash.
>>
>> Steve
>
>That is the dumbest thing I have see written in a long time.
>
>Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
>liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.
>
>Try having a pop at those"bastards" that want to infringe on your liberties
>by making it unsafe to go out by blowing themselfs up because they dont
>agree with your way of life, religion or politics.

which is better, being blown up by terrrrists or shot by the police? you're
just as dead.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
Steve came up with the following;:
> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>> Then you're back to the situation
>> of one innocent person having to prove that they're not a crook
>> though. Provided that it's easy to spot the fake car then it
>> shouldn't be a problem, but you'd still end up in the hands of the law
>> for a short period of time and in my limited experience that's never
>> any fun at all even when innocent.
>>
>
> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
> they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
> they have received

Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, doesn't it? Get real.

Personally, I don't mind a 'pull' if I look or act suspiciously, in the end
the Police are looking out for all our best interests.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 
Ian Rawlings wrote:
> but you'd still end up in the hands of the law
> for a short period of time and in my limited experience that's never
> any fun at all even when innocent.

I was pulled once as the suspect on a nasty murder. (1970s)

The thing I remember was how totally helpless I felt. I couldn't
account for my movements on the day in question accurately,
it was just an ordinary day. However two detectives took my
woolly descriptions, zoomed round talking to people and filled
my time in minute by minute.
The moment when they popped the big knife from my car tool box
under my nose and asked what was the last thing I did with it
was a bit of a tummy inverter. I sat in the interview room and
had to explain how that was the first time I really realised what
was going on. They had a real person really dead. That only
happened on the TV in my little life.

That evening, as they put me in my car and sent me home they
said "We knew you didn't do it as soon as we spoke to you but
we had to prove it before we could let you go." It's a good thing
I'm a total and obvious wimp.

nigelH


 

"Rory Manton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise they
>> have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence they have
>> received - and the Police complaints authority launches its usual white-wash.
>>
>> Steve
>
> That is the dumbest thing I have see written in a long time.
>
> Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
> liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.


Agreed, but unfortunately they have demonstrated they are incapable of doing so in
an acceptable manner.
One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to hear a
plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested suspect 9 times
in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it was a mistake', mostly it
has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
When we hear such an explanation I will consider wether they should continue to be
entrusted with the powers they currently enjoy let alone any extras such as
imprisonment without trial for suspects. eg those detected by ANPR.



--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!


 
On 2005-12-25, Nigel Hewitt <[email protected]> wrote:

> The thing I remember was how totally helpless I felt. I couldn't
> account for my movements on the day in question accurately,
> it was just an ordinary day. However two detectives took my
> woolly descriptions, zoomed round talking to people and filled
> my time in minute by minute.

I work from home and don't socialise much so for the vast majority of
my days, no-one can confirm my whereabouts at all. I also have an
absolutely woeful memory so I'd be in the **** in a similar situation!

So far my experiences with the police have been limited to being
accused of minor offences that I didn't do, e.g. getting prosecuted
for doing 25MPH in a 30 limit (copper told me my exhaust was too loud
for his liking when I was 17 so did me for "speeding") or being pulled
for driving on the hard shoulder (which I hadn't done). Never
actually spent any time in the cells, but then I don't see any police
at all any more as I live out in the sticks and don't drive much any
more.

The difficulty is that because you are so totally helpless, it really
leaves an extremely bad taste in your mouth afterwards. While the
police do an essential job, cock-ups and small instances of dishonesty
seem to make an impact far out of proportion to the real harm caused,
due to the helpless feeling of being caught in a machine that assumes
you're a bastard. Similar cock-ups by businesses or even the local
council just don't have that kind of impact, presumably because you
have the option of telling them to shove it and walking away.

> That evening, as they put me in my car and sent me home they
> said "We knew you didn't do it as soon as we spoke to you but
> we had to prove it before we could let you go." It's a good thing
> I'm a total and obvious wimp.

I think I'd be suffering from paranoia for a few months after an event
like that!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
On 2005-12-25, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> yeah, but if I were planning a heist, I'd hunt say a white mondeo,
> then put different plates on it to confuse the plot more, but which
> bleong to a differetn white mondeo..

Not quite sure what you mean, but I'd copy the plates off another car
and then knacker it somehow to make sure it wouldn't be driven, then
drive around in an identical car with non-stolen legitimate status
registered to someone other than me. Then try not to do anything
suspicious to attract attention, such as rob a bank or something like
that!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Paul - xxx wrote:
>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
>> they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
>> they have received
>
> Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, doesn't it? Get real.
>

So, on how many days will you permit it, and what happens if its you or
yours next time ? Carrying a bag of suspicious looking ----table legs ?

> Personally, I don't mind a 'pull' if I look or act suspiciously, in the
> end the Police are looking out for all our best interests.
>

Get real, to coin a phrase. The "Police" as a service no longer act in
our best interests. They are increasingly acting as a para-military
government enforcement agency. Legitimate protest near OUR parliament
anyone ? Protest against the visit of the leader of one of the most
repressive regimes in the world ? All supressed by the Police service.
There are still lots of good people in the service, just not in the
senior ranks. And everyone obeys orders.

Steve
 
Rory Manton wrote:

> That is the dumbest thing I have see written in a long time.
>
> Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
> liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.

That is the dumbest thing I've seen written in a long time.

My liberties being protected ? Like the girl arrested nd charged for
reading out the names of our Iraqi war dead in a public place I assume,
or the correspondent on the radio who was questioned and cautioned by
the police for positing that she didn't thing that homosexual couples
provided the best environment to raise children. Oh yes they are really
protecting my liberties.

Wake up. The years of Dixon of Dock Green are long passed. The ACPO act
as if they are a lawmaking body not a body of public servants.

What would you call a gang that rampaged down the street and shot dead a
unarmed innocent man with dum-dum ammo ? Don't come back with the
argument that he might have been a suicide bomber, and what would I
expect to happen then - any designer worth their salt would put a
dead-man timer on the thing.


Steve
 

"JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to
> hear a plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested
> suspect 9 times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it
> was a mistake', mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'


>


You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
deaths you call it.


I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
understand a police challenge, he had been here for some time) the Police on
the ground did the right thing . Questions raised by the shooting should be
directed at the government who let so many civil liberties of the majority
go to pot by pandering to minorities with in the country who wish to flout
the law.
>


 
Rory Manton wrote:

>
> "JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to
>> hear a plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested
>> suspect 9 times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it
>> was a mistake', mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
>
>
>>
>
>
> You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
> messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
> or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
> deaths you call it.
>
>
> I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
> Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
> challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
> understand a police challenge, he had been here for some time) the Police
> on the ground did the right thing . Questions raised by the shooting
> should be directed at the government who let so many civil liberties of
> the majority go to pot by pandering to minorities with in the country who
> wish to flout the law.
>>

I think the police ballsed up - go and check the records - Stockwell police
have a track record of being trigger happy - they have a higher rate of
police shooting innocent suspects than any other group in the country.

At the point where the army trainers who train the police in the use of
weapons state that they are uncomfortable with the personality types ("Gung
ho morons who are more interested in looking cool to girls at the pub than
firearms safety" was one sentiment that I heard more than once) then we
need to *seriously* worry about the armed officers.

And shooting a suspect in the head is just nuts - it's trivial to design a
device with a deadmans switch that goes off of the carrier ends up dying -
shooting them in the head will simply set the device off.

I honestly believe (albeit on the basis of what has escaped into the public
domain) that the officers in question were probably under orders but the
orders were based on **** poor intelligence.

Yes, bombs on busses and trains are nasty. No, nobody wants more of them,
however all that happens by assassinating suspects is that you up the game
- terrorists will simply come up with newer, faster ways to hit that are
less likely to be intercepted. It's an arms race, and it's one that the
police can never win as long as there is any pretence at the rule of law.
At the point where the rule of law is gone then there is *nothing* to
preserve - catch 22 guys.

P.
 
Rory Manton wrote:

> You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
> messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
> or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
> deaths you call it.

It does NOT stop the bomb going off. They use a dead-man switch. And
this guy was totally innocent, murdered by people "protecting his
liberty". Sure, he'd exceeded his visa, but I didn't think that was a
capital offence.

>the fact that the person ran when
> challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
> understand a police challenge,

Did he ? Who challenged him, and where ? A uniformed officer, or just a
menacing looking couple of blokes ? With the lies, sorry,
dis-information spread by Sir Ian Blair immediately after, what does
anyone actually know ?

Steve
 
On 2005-12-25, Paul S. Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> And shooting a suspect in the head is just nuts - it's trivial to
> design a device with a deadmans switch that goes off of the carrier
> ends up dying - shooting them in the head will simply set the device
> off.

The policy was taken on advise from Israeli police, who have a fair
old record of dealing with such things, which is why they listen to
them and not us. I suspect the idea is that you need to make sure
they're really, totally, not messing about dead so that they can't
trigger their bomb as they croak. The deadman's switch relies on the
person pressing it before they're dead, and the best way to make sure
of that is to pounce on them and kill them as fast as possible, hence
the policy. Not foolproof but the Israeli police seem to have found
that it's the best thing to do in a bad situation.

Unfortunately it doesn't leave much room for error, as was seen.

> I honestly believe (albeit on the basis of what has escaped into the
> public domain) that the officers in question were probably under
> orders but the orders were based on **** poor intelligence.

Seems to be the case!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:

> The deadman's switch relies on the
> person pressing it before they're dead, and the best way to make sure
> of that is to pounce on them and kill them as fast as possible, hence
> the policy. Not foolproof but the Israeli police seem to have found
> that it's the best thing to do in a bad situation.

No, A deadman's switch relies on some one NOT pressing it, can be set to
go off on RELEASE, or go off if its not pressed once a minute, so you
can actually show the nice policeman you've got clean hands, or if you
don't push the key in the right rhythm , or released by someone else
calling a mobile. Or put it in his shoes, so if there is no pressure on
the soles for 60 seconds it goes off.....

So, to be honest, dropping anyone really carrying a bomb is likely to be
highly counterproductive.

And the Israelis have a worse record than even the Met. - can't even see
guys in fluorescent green jackets waving white flags apparently.

Steve
 


--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

"Rory Manton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to hear a
>> plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested suspect 9
>> times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it was a mistake',
>> mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
>
>
>>
>
>
> You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
> messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
> or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
> deaths you call it.

I agree with your analysis, my main difficulty is that the gentleman had already
been restrained ie arrested. He was therefore shot whilst in custody. I regret I
am unable to reconcile that.
I don't care, I do not allow the police force in my country to kill innocent
people, for that is what they are, for whatever reason. Come to that Neither do I
allow them to kill guilty people!!
End of discussion!!



> I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
> Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
> challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
> understand a police challenge, he had been here for some time) the Police on
> the ground did the right thing . Questions raised by the shooting should be
> directed at the government who let so many civil liberties of the majority
> go to pot by pandering to minorities with in the country who wish to flout
> the law.
>>
>
>


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BTD1
Decision time - go all in, or sell?
Replies
11
Views
460
Luke2025
L
wills
P38A Range Rover [SOLD] - 1998 (R reg) - P38a - 2.5DSE - Range Rover for sale...
Replies
2
Views
774
wills
wills
M
P38A Finally have time to be back on forums again
Replies
4
Views
846
brianp38dse
brianp38dse
J
Dateless registrations
Replies
17
Views
3K
Stanleysteamer
Stanleysteamer
The Mad Hat Man
Guilt by association and section 59 tickets
2 3
Replies
41
Views
16K
Hicap phill
H
Back
Top