monkey104 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 The basic wage is the same, yes, but they have also been getting an additional allowance. You can read about it from public police sources, it's not secret or difficult to find out about. As for shootings, I was making a general point looking at examples in the UK and elsewhere. The examples I'm thinking of in the UK are particularly bad because the police have lied, withheld evidence, and failed to hold anyone to account. By "innocent" I don't mean innocent of anything at all. But since we don't have extrajudicial execution in this country, shooting people when there is no good reason to shoot them is or ought to be unacceptable, regardless of whether the individual was up to no good. I'm not against shooting people where it is necessary to do so. In the De Menezes case the particular officers were possibly doing what they thought they had to do, but it is still the case that someone made a catastrophic error is misidentifying the target. And then the police lied about events and so on. But all that happened was that the Police Commissioner was fined under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, of all things. That was it. That shouldn't fill anyone with confidence, either that "innocent have nothing to fear" or that if anything goes wrong due to avoidable mistakes anyone will be held to account or that lessons will be learned. I might cite the Azelle Rodney case. There were certainly weapons in the car he was in, but the inquiry into his death (there was never a proper inquest) concluded that the shooting officer's account of events was "not to be accepted", that he was not acting under the belief that Rodney had picked up a gun and was about to use it. Shooting him was therefore not a proportionate response to protecting people from unlawful violence. In which case, shooting him was on the face of it unlawful. I might cite the Harry Stanley case. He was shot because he was carrying a table leg in a carrier bag, and had been reported to the police as "an irishman carrying a gun". This could have happened to anyone. The police of course lied about events. I might cite the case of James Ashley. The Chief Constable of Sussex Police lied that James Ashley was wanted for murder. The subsequent inquiry was damning about police behaviour - finding collusion, concealment of evidence, to the extent that there was an arguable case for perverting the course of justice. Whitehouse resigned at Blunkett's suggestion when he was home secretary. The police only admitted to negligence. I might cite the case of David Ewin. I might even cite the case of Diarmuid O'Neill, an IRA member who was shot while trying to surrender - innocent? No. A threat at the moment he was shot? No. And of course again the police lied, claiming that there was violent resistance to their raid - a claim withdrawn when it was revealed that O'Neill wasn't carrying a weapon. He was in his underpants. Now, most people won't have much sympathy for O'Neill. But if police can raid a hotel room (possibly on bad intelligence or on a misidentification), shoot the half-naked occupants, and then lie about it, that surely puts us all at risk, particularly when there is zero prospect of anyone being held to account. As for the record of South Yorkshire police, how much do we trust the force that bungled crowd control at Hillsborough and then *lied* about it? Guess we had all best invest in ballistic vests then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny8977 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 The basic wage is the same, yes, but they have also been getting an additional allowance. You can read about it from public police sources, it's not secret or difficult to find out about. No they don't, not since Winsor - it's not difficult to find out about. And even then it was the same allowance that many other police officers got for a variety of reasons. As for the examples you give of the 'trigger happy' UK police - ignore the fact that opinions will vary greater as to the rights and wrongs, but remember no UK police firearms officer has been charged and convicted of an offence in relation to a shot they have made. As for SYP - apparently there are over 500 deployments of their firearms officers every year. But they have only every fired once (in 1992 as mentioned previously). So lets say from then, there have been 23 years of 500 deployments, so over 10000 times. And by deployment I mean an actual event requiring armed officers and presumably them in a state of readiness, not just walking around Meadowhall casually. But no-one has been shot. Doesn't exactly sound like they're dangerous people to be around does it? So, going back to one of your original questions "How do you know they're not incompetent and likely to shoot someone innocent unnecessarily?" Because they are clearly well trained professionals who history shows do not do such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyno Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 As for the examples you give of the 'trigger happy' UK police - ignore the fact that opinions will vary greater as to the rights and wrongs, but remember no UK police firearms officer has been charged and convicted of an offence in relation to a shot they have made. Opinions will certainly vary. But the *facts* about what happened and that the police lied etc are not disputed or were established by inquiries and investigations or ultimately admitted by the police. As I noted. The failure to prosecute is exactly what I'm complaining about. ---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 19:23 ---------- Because they are clearly well trained professionals who history shows do not do such things.[/b] Except when there's a catastrophic failure of intelligence, or when they lie about what happened. ---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 19:25 ---------- No they don't, not since Winsor - it's not difficult to find out about. And even then it was the same allowance that many other police officers got for a variety of reasons. "Not since Winsor" - so as I said, they got an allowance. A bit of googling reveals that interim payments pending a new system are still being made. It's not difficult to find out about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlc Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 They should have armed police on London rd to get on top of the rubbish that's happening week in week out in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 They should have armed police on London rd to get on top of the rubbish that's happening week in week out in the area. What a truly silly and foolish idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 What a truly silly and foolish idea. There's rubbish piling up everywhere around there Halibut. Perhaps gun presence might encourage more bin use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlc Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 What a truly silly and foolish idea. Why not ? Is there not more trouble around there than anywhere at the moment locally ? ---------- Post added 30-12-2015 at 21:35 ---------- There's rubbish piling up everywhere around there Halibut. Perhaps gun presence might encourage more bin use? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Please tell us about these many examples of armed police in the UK shooting 'innocent' people. And don't say De Menezies as whilst he was of course innocent the shooting of him was the corr ct course of action for the officers involved based in the information available to them at the time. No they aren't. They don't get 1p more than a 'regular' cop for being armed. Maybe more opportunity for overtime and such due to smaller numbers but basic wage is exactly the same. Firstly, De Menezes shouldnt have been shot as he did nothing wrong at all, and the information available didn't lead them to the conclusion he needed shooting either. But yes he was Brazilian and therefore a bit brown so like about a quarter of London he should just have been executed for that. Try Harry Stanley. Shot for the crime of sounding Irish and having a table leg. James Brady. Shot for having a torch. James Ashley. Shot for being naked. One wonders how threatening his tackle was... Stephen Waldorf. Shot and pistol whipped because he looked like someone else. Fortunatly survived. Abdul Kahar - shot because the police got the wrong address. Again he fortunatly survived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Firstly, De Menezes shouldnt have been shot as he did nothing wrong at all, and the information available didn't lead them to the conclusion he needed shooting either. But yes he was Brazilian and therefore a bit brown so like about a quarter of London he should just have been executed for that. Try Harry Stanley. Shot for the crime of sounding Irish and having a table leg. James Brady. Shot for having a torch. James Ashley. Shot for being naked. One wonders how threatening his tackle was... Stephen Waldorf. Shot and pistol whipped because he looked like someone else. Fortunatly survived. Abdul Kahar - shot because the police got the wrong address. Again he fortunatly survived. See post 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now