Police examining terrorist raid photographs.....eep

Ooh... big words being brought out to play now eh?

They may be big words for you , however for my it is daily ‘vocabulary’ ( using words to construct sentences)

Saying that a woman deserve a 'slap' because she is ‘mouthy’ is not acceptable on any public forum. I hope most educated people would be as horrified as I was when reading the strap line of that particular post.
 
Well, the officer's been suspended, pending an enquir ... everything calming down again, when he'll be told off and reinstated (is my guess).

But the fuzz are in schtuck now - first de Menezes, then Tomlinson, now this. It's not looking good for anyone.

well, back to reality. de menezes was at the time when people were running towards a train with what they thought was suicide bomber on it ready to try and stop them. with hindsight he was innocent and a review shows human error was the only fault. Yes it is a tragedy but should peolpe go to jail for an honest mistake? Anyway if you honestly think that was police officers pulling the trigger then you really don't know what you are talking about! Nobody ran on the tube and thought i'm just about to shoot an innocent man! You don't really think that surely?
Tomlinson died of a heart attack. If an expert cardiologist says it was the push that did it then that cop will go to jail, simple as that. The buffoon who hit the woman, well he was bang out of order and he may get sacked, given the hysteria surrounding it, maybe without it he might have been demoted ?
 
They may be big words for you , however for my it is daily ‘vocabulary’ ( using words to construct sentences)

Saying that a woman deserve a 'slap' because she is ‘mouthy’ is not acceptable on any public forum. I hope most educated people would be as horrified as I was when reading the strap line of that particular post.

I hope most people would have seen it as humour. I had already said that she didn't deserve that to happen to her but you obviously overlooked that part and hung on to the 'humour bit' even if you think it was in bad taste. I know you can construct sentences but maybe if you payed attention and took the text in its totality then you wouldn't feel so horrified.

But you quote me as saying she deseved it. Well I didn't so wow you educated person you. twisting words to get your point and misquoting others - you are eitehr a politician a journalist or wait a minute ........ a misogynist:thumbs:

Addnedum - 'Thats all I got to say about that' Forest Gump 1994
 
well, back to reality. de menezes was at the time when people were running towards a train with what they thought was suicide bomber on it ready to try and stop them. with hindsight he was innocent and a review shows human error was the only fault. Yes it is a tragedy but should peolpe go to jail for an honest mistake? Anyway if you honestly think that was police officers pulling the trigger then you really don't know what you are talking about! Nobody ran on the tube and thought i'm just about to shoot an innocent man! You don't really think that surely?
Tomlinson died of a heart attack. If an expert cardiologist says it was the push that did it then that cop will go to jail, simple as that. The buffoon who hit the woman, well he was bang out of order and he may get sacked, given the hysteria surrounding it, maybe without it he might have been demoted ?


Erm ... the officers "just pulling the trigger" and thus exhibiting "human error" made that "human error" "just pulling the trigger" seven (count them) times.
 
Point taken.

But what I meant was abuse of police power, which we see all too often.

Its not a new thing, but the police have asked for and been given so many new powers in recent years, including powers which directly affect photographers (to bring it back on topic....)

You know the rules - "bad news is good news". "Dog bites man" is not news, "Man bites dog" is news.

"Bad copper found guiltty and sent to jail" - not news. "Bad copper guilty and let off" - news.
 
They may be big words for you , however for my it is daily ‘vocabulary’ ( using words to construct sentences)

I read the above as "They may be big words, however for me it is my daily 'vocabulary' (using words to construct sentences to misquote, mislead, and generally try to make myself look clever or the other person stupid)".

Saying that a woman deserve a 'slap' because she is ‘mouthy’ is not acceptable on any public forum. I hope most educated people would be as horrified as I was when reading the strap line of that particular post.

I was more horrified at your choice of word - misogynist. Perhaps you would explain just what of what the OP wrote you found to express a particular hatred or contempt of women? Iirc the OP started out by defending the woman and I took that last part of his post to be nothing more than a bit of tongue in cheek humour.

I hope most people would have seen it as humour. I had already said that she didn't deserve that to happen to her

Quite!

But you quote me as saying she deseved it. Well I didn't so wow you educated person you. twisting words to get your point and misquoting others - you are eitehr a politician a journalist or wait a minute ........ a misogynist:thumbs:

:thumbs: Education isn't always a sign of intelligence! :lol:

Addnedum - 'Thats all I got to say about that' Forest Gump 1994
 
And shouting warnings so loudly and so many times that nobody else in the carriage heard them!

I must say - the de Menezes thing is terrible. I hope it will go down in history.

I don't believe in deep conspiracies, but the current climate in the UK is increasingly worrying.

Viz had an excellent take last month - CCTV shot of a high street, with the tag "Tax Evasion, MOT lapse, Terrorism - we know you're all up to something. HM Government - we won't stop until everyone's behind bars. www.wedonttrustyouasfaraswecanf ** kingthrowyou.gov"
 
Wasn't CCTV brought in on a wave of "it will reduce crime"? I'll stand to be corrected, but today the criminals just seem more blatent and don't give a fig if they're on CCTV or not!
 
I must say - the de Menezes thing is terrible. I hope it will go down in history.

I don't believe in deep conspiracies, but the current climate in the UK is increasingly worrying.

Viz had an excellent take last month - CCTV shot of a high street, with the tag "Tax Evasion, MOT lapse, Terrorism - we know you're all up to something. HM Government - we won't stop until everyone's behind bars. www.wedonttrustyouasfaraswecanf ** kingthrowyou.gov"

Good points, even before the cries of conspiracy theorum, is there anyone out there who actually does trust, hand on heart, solemnly swear, without a shadow of a doubt what they're being told 110%?
 
I hope most people would have seen it as humour.

Made me chuckle mate! Worry not about Holden, see my previous posts; he has no sense of humour and prefers righteous indignation to constructive conversation.

Cheesy
 
Good points, even before the cries of conspiracy theorum, is there anyone out there who actually does trust, hand on heart, solemnly swear, without a shadow of a doubt what they're being told 110%?

Well, no (apart from it being impossible to trust anything more than 100% ;)). However I am at a loss to say whether that is due to my distrust of the source of the information or the medium through which it is reported.

I lose confidence in any regime that feels the need to report speeches before they are made. Why make them? They are inevitably non-events as a result of the "trailing". This now seems normal practice.

I am also disturbed by the proliferation of "talk radio" and "talk TV" on which it appears to be reasonable to give credence to the most ridiculous notions in order to fill the time.

Generally I would say that you should decide what to trust by weighing the evidence. The trouble is that precious little evidence is on show. These days opinion and speculation are the norm (although are not portrayed as such).

Take this thread, the images are compelling and the inappropriate actions of the key protagonists are not in dispute, but how much do we know about the preceeding minutes? What is going on out of camera shot that may have a bearing on the events? In these days of prolific information it is even more important to ensure that your source is not being selective in order to direct your reasoning.
 
From today's Grauniad:

Like most visitors to London, Klaus Matzka and his teenage son Loris took several photographs of some of the city's sights, including the famous red double-decker buses. More unusually perhaps, they also took pictures of the Vauxhall bus station, which Matzka regards as "modern sculpture".
But the tourists have said they had to return home to Vienna without their holiday pictures after two policemen forced them to delete the photographs from their cameras in the name of preventing terrorism.
Matkza, a 69-year-old retired television cameraman with a taste for modern architecture, was told that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden". The policemen also recorded the pair's details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.
In a letter in today's Guardian, Matzka wrote: "I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?"
The Metropolitan police said it was investigating the allegations.
In a telephone interview from his home in Vienna, Matka said: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries."
He described his horror as he and his 15-year-old son were forced to delete all transport-related pictures on their cameras, including images of Vauxhall underground station.
"Google Street View is allowed to show any details of our cities on the world wide web," he said. "But a father and his son are not allowed to take pictures of famous London landmarks."
He said he would not return to London again after the incident, which took place last week in central Walthamstow, in north-east London. He said he and his son liked to travel to the unfashionable suburbs.
"We typically crisscross cities from the end of railway terminals, we like to go to places not visited by other tourists. You get to know a city by going to places like this, not central squares. Buckingham Palace is also necessary, but you need to go elsewhere to get to know the city," he said.
He said the "nasty incident" had "killed interest in any further trips to the city".
Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a Green party member of the London assembly, said she would raise the incident with the Met chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, as part of discussions on the policing of the G20 protests.
"This is another example of the police completely overreaching the anti-terrorism powers," she said. "They are using it in a totally inappropriate way.
"I will be raising it with the commissioner. I have already written to him about the police taking away cameras and stopping people taking photographs and made the point that if it was not for people taking photos, we would not know about the death of Ian Tomlinson or the woman who was hit by a police officer."
A spokeswoman for Metropolitan police said: "It is not the police's intention to prevent tourists from taking photographs and we are looking to the allegations made." The force said it had no knowledge of any ban on photographing public transport in the capital.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos
 
Walthamstow's where the Heathrow bomb plotters were found.

As a Mordorian, I don't understand how they managed to take pictures of Vauxhall Underground station while in Walthamstow.

Sounds like they're making it up.
 
Walthamstow's where the Heathrow bomb plotters were found.

As a Mordorian, I don't understand how they managed to take pictures of Vauxhall Underground station while in Walthamstow.

Sounds like they're making it up.

But you can delete pictures of Vauxhall while in Walthamstow.
 
Well, no (apart from it being impossible to trust anything more than 100% ;)). However I am at a loss to say whether that is due to my distrust of the source of the information or the medium through which it is reported.

I lose confidence in any regime that feels the need to report speeches before they are made. Why make them? They are inevitably non-events as a result of the "trailing". This now seems normal practice.

I am also disturbed by the proliferation of "talk radio" and "talk TV" on which it appears to be reasonable to give credence to the most ridiculous notions in order to fill the time.

Generally I would say that you should decide what to trust by weighing the evidence. The trouble is that precious little evidence is on show. These days opinion and speculation are the norm (although are not portrayed as such).

Aye, it's quite the toughie really, a lot of events have not made much sense to me at all, somethings just not right and I try to dig a little deeper and weigh things up in a balanced effort.
The most sensical opinions and explanations since I began to doubt what I saw in newspapers and saw on TV has been the work of Peter Joseph, creator of the Zeitgeist trilogy.

Take this thread, the images are compelling and the inappropriate actions of the key protagonists are not in dispute, but how much do we know about the preceeding minutes? What is going on out of camera shot that may have a bearing on the events? In these days of prolific information it is even more important to ensure that your source is not being selective in order to direct your reasoning.

Good post overall mate :clap: In particular I really like the bit that I emboldened as I agree completely and this stance is often what seems to provoke the conspiracy theory remarks.
 
I'm sure you can, but what had he done in Walthamstow to get him picked up in the first place?

Took pictures of double decker buses.

During a recent visit to London I had a nasty incident, which killed interest in any further trips to this city. As I was taking pictures of double-decker buses with my son, we were approached by two policemen. First, we were told that it is forbidden to take pictures of anything in conjunction with transport. Then our names, passport numbers and London hotel address were noted. After that we were forced to delete all pictures that included any transport - even pictures of the new underground station in Vauxhall, which is a modern sculpture! These deletions were not only enforced destruction of private property, but an infringement of our privacy.

I understand the need for some sensitivity in an era of terrorism, but isn't it naive to think terrorism can be prevented by terrorising tourists?
Klaus Matzka
Vienna, Austria
 
Took pictures of double decker buses.

Yes indeed - but you see my point. Maybe he was taking pics of the underside of the 'buses. Maybe he was taking close-up pictures of the driver's cab.

I am with you - this is where the law not only needs to be sharpened by absolutely clarified and bolted down, but I'm distrustful of any one press source in isolation as it will have an agenda.
 
Innocent until proven guilty, what they police might have on their hands is eleven tourists holiday pictures :thinking:

I bet no convictions will come fron these arrests they seldom do .... It just fuels collective paranoia which is what the people in charge want :suspect:

I agreed with every well written word of your last sentence until your conspiracy cloak let slip with your last 4 words. :D
 
Erm ... the officers "just pulling the trigger" and thus exhibiting "human error" made that "human error" "just pulling the trigger" seven (count them) times.

Well if you believe everything you see on the telly and think one bullet will kill someone immediately then dream on!


Thats right coz at that time they thought he was going to blow everyone up. Not withstanding the monumentl cock up made by others, including other government organisations who said they would get photos when they went back to work to pass on to the police but they wouldn't come in at the weekend to get them!

So those cops(;)) running to the tube thought he was a suicide bomber.
Should they A: treat him as a suicide bomber and shoot him
b) scratch their heads and ask him nicely to not blow everyone up
c) Use their hindsight potion and just walk away knowing he was innocent.
Pardon the cruel pun but its no good shooting the messenger, so to speak. They did what they thought was right at the time with the info they had been given.
Systematic tradegy is what stockwell was. Murder by the poor guys who pulled the trigger. No way.

Put it this way. your wife comes up stairs in the pitch black, says there is a burglar stealing your camera gear. You pick up something heavy and run into your office, whack, and it turns out to be you kid putting a 'love you' note in your camera bag. Do you deserve to go to jail, or has your wife just cocked up big style? poor example but relevant nonetheless.
 
Well if you believe everything you see on the telly and think one bullet will kill someone immediately then dream on!


Thats right coz at that time they thought he was going to blow everyone up. Not withstanding the monumentl cock up made by others, including other government organisations who said they would get photos when they went back to work to pass on to the police but they wouldn't come in at the weekend to get them!

So those cops(;)) running to the tube thought he was a suicide bomber.
Should they A: treat him as a suicide bomber and shoot him
b) scratch their heads and ask him nicely to not blow everyone up
c) Use their hindsight potion and just walk away knowing he was innocent.
Pardon the cruel pun but its no good shooting the messenger, so to speak. They did what they thought was right at the time with the info they had been given.
Systematic tradegy is what stockwell was. Murder by the poor guys who pulled the trigger. No way.

Put it this way. your wife comes up stairs in the pitch black, says there is a burglar stealing your camera gear. You pick up something heavy and run into your office, whack, and it turns out to be you kid putting a 'love you' note in your camera bag. Do you deserve to go to jail, or has your wife just cocked up big style? poor example but relevant nonetheless.

No I completely agree with you.

An innocent man has been shot dead - shot seven times, but it was an accident sorry about that these things happen nevermind live goes on get over it no one's to blame.

The de Menezes family should stop whinging and accept that his visa had run out anyway - making him a criminal - and they're lucky his corpse wasn't paraded around town being publically humiliated as a result.
 
Yes indeed - but you see my point. Maybe he was taking pics of the underside of the 'buses. Maybe he was taking close-up pictures of the driver's cab.

But there is nothing wrong with doing that (although I wouldn't do it personally!).



Steve.
 
But there is nothing wrong with doing that (although I wouldn't do it personally!).



Steve.

There's "nothing wrong" with exhibiting an awful lot of behaviour, but that doesn't mean it won't make people suspicious.

For example, staring into someone's windows, lingering around a house looking at it from various different angles and taking down notes - that's legal, but I bet if someone did it 'round your gaff you'd see them off.
 
I agreed with every well written word of your last sentence until your conspiracy cloak let slip with your last 4 words. :D

I used the word ‘paranoia’ because successive governments have used the law to frighten and intimidate people in to doing as they are told and have diluted or withdrawn hard won freedoms to accomplish their goals.

The current ‘war against terror’ has seen some of the most draconian laws introduced , an example being a minister in the conservative government being told by a police officer who searched his office without a warrant that he could face ‘ life in prison ‘ for effectively doing his job of exposing the current governments short comings.

This I the sort of behaviour I would sadly expect to see in Zimbabwe, not the UK .
 
I used the word ‘paranoia’ because successive governments have used the law to frighten and intimidate people in to doing as they are told and have diluted or withdrawn hard won freedoms to accomplish their goals.

The current ‘war against terror’ has seen some of the most draconian laws introduced , an example being a minister in the conservative government being told by a police officer who searched his office without a warrant that he could face ‘ life in prison ‘ for effectively doing his job of exposing the current governments short comings.

This I the sort of behaviour I would sadly expect to see in Zimbabwe, not the UK .

I don't disagree with your first paragraph.

The fact that an officer relayed a factual bit of info, 'The maximum sentence is LIFE for breaching OSA. It used to be DEATH!' So what. The cop was only doing his job. How is that draconian? But I see you side with the Tory MP and not the Cop? Yet he was doing his job as well. It was not the cops who started this investigation, they probably took it on knowing they were on to a loser. MP's break any and every rule and then with skin as thick as elephant hide, pretend it hasn't happened and move on, still ripping off the expenses.

In Zimbabwe, the MP would have been beaten to a pulp. That is what happened to the opposition leader and now he is the P.M.!

I wish you wouldn't exagerate. It does tend to reinforce bias and deflect from the passion you have in this topic.

I now work for any Government who wishes to rip off my taxes and have rent payed on a second home they don't need but have installed a full paying lodger anyway.(MP's that is not me):D

They are all thieving scumbags who play the system and adopt a pious attitude of invincibility and all you do is tar every cop the same and wrap it all up in government conspiracy. Like I say that is when you lose me. I'm sure you don't lose any sleep though:D

My personal slant on this current Governement is that they have allowed a drastic erosion of standards, got rid of corporal punsihment, turned offenders into vitims who have rights, taken rights from victims and allowed bad behaviour to be rewarded, 'oh you are a drug taking burglar?' You need a holiday, expensive treatment and you don't have to work so please have a rent free flat. But if you are a parent who works and struggles to educate your kids, bring them up properly and maybe take a holiday. Well fine but they screw you in taxes, penalise you for working and if you ever get ill, then screw you again, join a list and wait. Dole scrounging scum bag. Well help yourself!

Do you think the otherside will do anything different, except screw the expenses and maybe the odd animal, they are tories after all:lol:

You keep on bashing coppers mate! You will wake up one day:wave:
 
You keep on bashing coppers mate! You will wake up one day

Makes a change from them ' bashing' members of the public , who will sadly will never wake up:(
 
Makes a change from them ' bashing' members of the public , who will sadly will never wake up:(

another selective. Unfortunately some people deserve a bashing . its the miniscule few that don't seem to get the disproportionate headlines, oh well...ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


You probably will watch Ashes to Ashes and thinks its not funny and I bet coppers are like that now. I know I do:D

Its on on Monday - Lets have an editorial:naughty:
 
Please. please tell me you are not a serving police officer.

I Knew you were a school teacher before I looked.:D

I suppose you suffer from the prejudice of hating coppers like most people think teachers get too many holidays as in reality they only work part time, taking into consideration working hours over the year. Compared to NHS or Police or any normal job that doesn't have holidays every 3 months.:wave:
 
All twelve reased without charge, another huge waste of tax payers money and evidence that the powers that be have now crimialised us all.

This country is in so much trouble ....
 
Well if you believe everything you see on the telly and think one bullet will kill someone immediately then dream on!


Thats right coz at that time they thought he was going to blow everyone up. Not withstanding the monumentl cock up made by others, including other government organisations who said they would get photos when they went back to work to pass on to the police but they wouldn't come in at the weekend to get them!

So those cops(;)) running to the tube thought he was a suicide bomber.
Should they A: treat him as a suicide bomber and shoot him
b) scratch their heads and ask him nicely to not blow everyone up
c) Use their hindsight potion and just walk away knowing he was innocent.
Pardon the cruel pun but its no good shooting the messenger, so to speak. They did what they thought was right at the time with the info they had been given.
Systematic tradegy is what stockwell was. Murder by the poor guys who pulled the trigger. No way.

Put it this way. your wife comes up stairs in the pitch black, says there is a burglar stealing your camera gear. You pick up something heavy and run into your office, whack, and it turns out to be you kid putting a 'love you' note in your camera bag. Do you deserve to go to jail, or has your wife just cocked up big style? poor example but relevant nonetheless.

Or D shoot a totally innocent person on his way to work?
They are over reacting, we never had this with all the IRA bombs going off all over the place. One "other" terrorist attack and they are s******g themselves every time somebody produces a camera.
Lets get real, you don't need photos of a bus to strap a couple of pounds of explosive to yourself and blow one up, doesn't matter how much you actually need to totally destroy the thing, any explosion will do the job within reason. The stuff they used was home made anyway so they couldn't do the maths properly like you could with commercial stuff.
Wayne
 
All twelve reased without charge, another huge waste of tax payers money and evidence that the powers that be have now crimialised us all.


Have done what now? 'Criminalised us all'? Really? In what way?

You might be making some valid points throughout your various posts but, as has been helpfully pointed out, you tend to undermine yourself by making bizarre, sweeping and outlandish statements too.

You're playing right into their hands there you know! If you don't watch your tendency to sensationalise each issue you will lose the sympathy of your audience. That's just what they want.
 
when i first heard that amongst the evidence was pictures of the arndale centre - i didnt know if i should burst out laughin or shake my fist!!
 
just remebered few months back i was in a shop which had these massive air ballons...used for air conditioning. there was this chinese man taking pictures of it...you think i should have reported him??
 
Back
Top