This would be ideal for long transcontinental plane trips. You could just check your wife or gf in with the luggage in the hold, thus saving money and having a natter-free flight while you drink G&T, look at some films and get some shuteye.
Naked, no finger prints on padlock, no DNA. No murder investigation???? Good reason to have faith in every thing the Met tells us.
Let's face it, if you're waiting for a full and honest investigation into the death of a spy, you're going to be waiting a long long time. This guy lived in a totally different universe to the one the Met patrol. They can't go further, cos they won't be allowed.
I hope she was well bathed before going in there and it wasnt 'that time of the month' as ones nose too close to ones arse crack aint nice
The moment MI5 or 6 are involved, your chances of getting the truth are approximately nil. In fact this is a very good rule of thumb for the answers to any questions to people in power. You have to ask yourself, would they want to give you the answer to that question? If you think that on balance, probably not, then you can't expect them to answer the question truthfully. If they had to, you could just ask them any question at all that interested you. Suppose you ask a company if they are working on a new product they haven't announced. What do you expect them to say? "Yes, but we were hoping to keep it secret. But now that you've asked us the question, we'll have to admit it." Viz to the Americans: "Are you spying on foreign heads of state?". "Yes, we are as a matter of fact. Inconvenient of you to ask the question, but now that you have…."
To be honest the whole thing is a non-story. The guy was a spy, no matter how desk-bound, which means even if the Met do crack the case, they won't be able to let on. I wonder how honest MI6 were with him about his chances of living a long life when they took him on. Cos to me he sounds like an online gamer who was suddenly thrown into a whole new life. And let's face it, gamers are not known for their nous...
A tragic affair for the family , I used to enjoy a pint and a chat with Gareths Grandfather who never lived to see this unfold!
You guys really believe it was the Police that came to this conclusion?? lol More likely the conclusion was made for them
That's a bit harsh don't you think? They didn't know he was an illegal, they thought he was one of the bombers. At the timei was doing a bit of work in Scotland Yard and I asked if they thought it was a police officer who executed the guy and they thought not. SAS. On top of that, living in London at that time was very different to the norm. There were police everywhere all the time. Many armed. To run from them was not bright and was only ever going to end in death I also think that had the intention was to send our the same message as the SAS at the Iranian Embassy seige. If you come here to try and kill people we will happily kill you first.
Which is fine unless you're the messenger!!! Remember the guy had no connection was going to work minding his own business. Given the screw ups it could have been just about anybody. All the witnesses state no warning given and then shot what was it 7 or 8 times. He never ran anywhere he was shot where he sat. I fully understand it was a really difficult situation and what do you do if you are in that situation thinking one twitch and the tube, you and everybody else adjacent are toast. I don't blame the guy who pulled the trigger he could have done little else but serious culpability IMHO lies in the laissez faire attitude of the guys who either were conducting or organized the observing and nobody as far as I know was brought to book for it. Just my take, I am really uncomfortable with the idea that one day I could be gunned down legally and my assassin walks free, probably with a large period of time off and counseling because the poor dear was so upset about having to murder me. John
John, I understand what you're saying. It's a tough one. If the security services operated in a manner whereby no innocent person could ever be killed in error, the terrorists would win every time. That said, I would expect that the services have improved their processes since that time. What Des says is correct. I was in London that week. The security guys were jumping at everything after the bombings. Plain clothes cars were flying about the streets with blues and twos on. They'd missed the bombers, people had been killed and maimed. More bombers were expected and they had no idea who was a terrorist and who wasn't. I've been told that is was a policeman who'd shot the guy on the tube, but the way it was done was more security services/army than civilian. The sad thing is that with a suspected bomber, there can be no warning or 'shoot to incapacitate'. The relevant training comes from the Israelis and their experience of bus bombers. Anything less than shoot to kill can result in the bomber setting off his/her charge.
Basically - the incident was conducted totally contrary to the rules of engagement and an innocent man was executed. The rules state that firearms must only be used as a last resort and then only if there is no other way of making an arrest. A clear warning must be given if at all possible... The fact that there was then a clumsy attempt at a cover-up further illustrates my point...
There is no such thing as shoot to 'incapacitate'. You neutralise the threat. In the case of a suspected suicide bomber you would never issue a warning, to do so would be stupid and it beggers belief that anyone would think otherwise. It's never a good day out when mistakes are made that result in the death or injury of an innocent person. But unless you've been in such a situation, or indeed know the facts in this case, speculation is a waste of time. If anyone would like a copy of the transcript of the Stockwell inquest PM me. Sorry for the drift off topic.
