You may have noticed that I did not comment on the Forest Gate shooting. I simply posted a movie quote. This is because I have been around long enough to know that nothing is ever what it seems at first glance.
So……. we see today in the National press that the innocent person shot in that house is now to be charged with sex offences. This after forensic officers found numerous sexually explicit images of young children on his computer. The images are described as graded “serious” and “very serious”. Also, police are still investigating the £30,000 in cash found in his bedroom, which he cannot account for. We in the police all know of the strong “rumours” that his brother caused the firearm to discharge whilst struggling to get control of the weapon from a firearms officer. This has not been proved either way yet, but it seems the truth will out.
Interestingly, this story only gets a paragraph on the inside pages. When the original incident happened, I seem to remember a frenzy of TV, radio, newspaper etc coverage. Funny that.
Fine, lets now, in hindsight shoot the man, dead, for sex offences.
He cannot account for £30,000 because he is dead!!
Err,, He’s not dead. You’re thinking of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot at Stockwell tube station, not during the Forest Gate Raids. But the point still stands, this revelation has no bearing on the original reason the police conducted the raid. Sure, had they not conducted the raid then they may never found the images but thats besides the point.
The reason many practising muslims have large ammounts of money at home, or buy properties and become landlords, is that the earning of interest on savings is not allowed by sharia law. Personallly not in agreement with many aspects of sharia and don’t know if same applies to debt. Assuming the HSE stay out of this one, despite it coming ‘from the horses mouth’ will wait for enquiry results, Met police officers seemingly incapable these days of giving accurate reports to the media.
Here’s why it’s not covered:
Anyone who isn’t criminally stupid can work out that the Police screwed up big time and have since then been involved in a desperate trawl to get *anything* to stick on these people to ‘justify’ and deflect from the initial cock up.
After the Police spin over DeMenezes the view that the Met is a “bunch of f*cking liars” is hardly an unreasonable one to take.
After the fabulous success of the laughably corrupt fraud that is Operation Ore I tend to think that the supposed ‘young children’ are produced using the vaguest definition of ‘Child Porn’ the Police can use.
Viz ; anyone who vaguely looks like they might possibly be under 18.
I suspect if you look hard enough you’lll find somthing amiss in anybodys house! There are also many viri and trojians which could easily be responsable for images on peoples computers, you should also take into consideration that these things are not always whate they seem: http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=14102
I don’t see anything remotely suspious about the money – plenty of people keep large amounts of money in their houses, it’s not against the law.
Overall it still feels like a desperate attempt on behalf of the Met to justify a raid involving 250 officers, based on what appears to be poorly coroborated information. Other than self promotion I can’t see any reason why you would need that many people – the Met (or Ian Blair) desperately needed a very public win and I think they hoped this was it. How wrong they were.
It was on the front page of the News of the Screws in 72 point screamers! I’d bet a pound to a pinch of shit there will never be a prosecution.
If memory server when the police went into the house the said it was because of inteligence recieved.
I don’t belive they ever said it was a terrorist threat – everyone just assumed it was terrorist related because they were muslims.
Maybe the police went in like that becasue the people in the house were known to be violent child molesters? or perhaps had been sheltering a known violent chil molester who had since moved on.
We, the public, are not in possesion of all the facts, and neither are the journalists who write the articles.
So that’s a justification is it? The police went in looking for an explosive belt, but consider themselves justified if they – completely accidentally – find something (anything) else?
That’s dangerously close to the approach of people like Stalin, you know.
While we’re justifying ourselves, I think if someone came smashing in to my house with a gun (allegedly not declaring themselves to be police) I might well try to take it off them. That wouldn’t make me the bad guy.
(Rob – yes it was supposedly a terrorist threat, with explosives)
The police have a difficult job. Stopping terrorist attacks versus barging into peoples houses hoping that their intelligence is correct. Intelligence is just that and not hard fact. What would you prefer terrorist attacks on the country or the odd time when the intelligence goes wrong? We don’t see front page headlines every time the police successfully raid a house and arrest someone for terrorist related offences because they (the police) don’t want to prejudice any forthcoming trial. The current and previous commissioners have already told us that they have foiled numerous terrorist attempts. There are loads on wingers out there who clearly don’t understand how difficult the job they do is – what do they want hundreds of dead people following an attack or police conducting intelligence based raids. I know what I would choose.
I’ve looked at the News of the World article:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml
Note that he hasn’t yet been arrested or charged. All that’s happened yet is that an anonymous Police source has said “he may not be a terrorist bue he’s a dirty paedo, honest guv.”
It could be that there’s no truth behind it at all, and it’s just an attempt by the police (or some policeman) to smear him and make his life a little bit worse.
Nothing’s been said officially, so there wouldn’t be any adverse consequences for the police if it was an outright lie.
If the police want to raid my house and shoot me, fine. They’ll have to face the enquiry and lawsuit afterwards. That is what the law is for, it works both ways. It allows them to get a warrant and it allows me to sue when they get it badly wrong. But if this chap wants to sue he’ll have to show that the police were grossly negligent, not a little bit careless but grossly so.
So, a challenge to the critics out there. How would you have done it better?
“The police have a difficult job”
Fine, but so do lots of other people, teachers for example, and the Police will go after them on virtually no evidence, so why the hell should the Police be a special case !
And how does this justify the endless spin and lies ?
So we have two different stories, one from someone who happily breaks the law on child porn and has £30,000 he doesn’t want to explain, and one from police officers hand-picked for a high-profile case. And which one do people believe?
Fortunately the commenters on this blog are not an unbiassed sample.
Waiting to see how this thing ends.
As the penalty fo rsex offences does not involve being shot by th epolice I do not see that that has any relevence at all. Of course if the gun was fired as a result of a struggle with someone else that would probably excuse the officers concerned from any blame and I assume that is one thing the investigation is supposed to determine.
I am quite willing to believe that the vast majority of cases where the police shoot someone are fully justified by the circumstances but am still glad that all such instances are fully investigated.
As far as the media being willing to jump on their favourite interpretation and then scream about it with total disregard to the facts or lack of them, I cannot disagree with you.
Oh, what a surprise. The IPCC report on the Forest Gate shooting is out this week. I’m sure it’s totally unrelated ; just like Maxine Carr being arrested at the exact same time the Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire was in the witness box at the enquiry.
Reading some of these responses makes me question, do we/are we living in a self appreciating society only capable of serving ones self and not our neighbours or ellow citizens.
Pinch to a pound of shit one of these would moan and crib had their world been imploded by an imoral / illegal act, yet seem to be happy not to support the protectors, for which we all take for granted.
This country has lost its closeness towards each other and has become selfish, hiding behind retoric, political correctness and nimby’ism.
Let the police break into houses and have raids, statiscally these number in the low 0.001% of cockups; report the good things and then check & balance the bad. Compare & contrast the Health service ‘mistakes’ and perspective will be seen.
I agree with Emma. Paul without proof surely your intrepretation of events is also spin, without any hard evidence? Maybe we will see the person concerned up before a court on Child Porn Charges, only one thing is for sure… Time will tell.
Jjjk said:
“Someone who happily breaks the law on child porn” – and on what evidence have you condemned this man? I have pictures of my 5 year old daughter on my pc, I’m sure if the Met were looking for any reason to do me then these pictures of my family would become “child porn” and Jjjk would have me hung drawn and quartered because the police were investigating me. And yes I do work for the police and yes I’m just as cynical as the next man but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Dave, possibly you are right. It is a bit dubious, though, to say the least, that what is basically a *smear* comes out right at the same time as the IPCC are due to report.
It beggars belief that anyone, Police Officer or not, whatever the crimes these blokes may or may not have committed, could be so naive as to think anything other than the Police have spent hours and hours since the raid (which they *probably* knew after half an hour was a cock up) desperately trying to find something, anything, to justify it.
I don’t know whether he’s used/made child porn or not ; I do know that the Police abuse ‘child porn’ laws quite blatantly. For a start, it’s frequently nothing to do with children, and secondly it’s frequently nothing to do with “porn”. Things have not improved since Julia Somerville.
I’m not a police officer. I am not an expert at law or terrorism. I have however worked with abused children for a number of years and the idea that another sick pervert could be taken off the streets REGARDLESS how they were discovered can only ever be a positive in my eyes. There must have been viable evidence or the police would not have attained a warrant to conduct a raid. It’s not like the police sit there in the morning having a cuppa in the rec room saying “it’s quiet today, what should we do to entertain ourselves?” “I know! Let’s have a raid on a member of the muslim community (as it’s not like the police get enough stick about racism) and start a media frenzy” “YEAH!!! Sounds like a FANTASTIC plan!!!” I just can’t see it myself. Also with the fact that the police are always subject to public slur and PC awareness, the use of the term Child Porn would only be used in the situation that images of children in a sexual nature were discovered in that house.
If this is the case, then they deserve everything they get. The prison sentences for offenses against children are nowhere near as harsh as they should be, if i had my way they would all be blindfolded and herded into an enclosed area where parents and other child protectors were waiting to rip them to shreds. They are scum and deserved to be treated accordingly. And as people have commented already, the public are only privy to the information that is released or sumised by journalists (as they are ALWAYS right eh? yeah right) and, therefore, until the facts are released by people who actually know all the facts, this should not be declared a success or a failure. If they are involved in child porn then I would happily stand up and applaud the police for ridding the streets of this vermin.
I posted a link to this above, but i’ll quote the full text here as it’s especially relevant. My point is mainly that moderation is good in all things, because of the nature of the crimes committed by pedophiles and child pornographers and a lack of understanding of how the internet really operates we and the police are in serious danger of having a crusade rather than a proper, measured response.
I’ve stopped using the Usenet (Newsgroups) beause even in non porn related NG’s (comp.graphics.packages.3dstudio) child porn photographs are freqently sent to the group as SPAM and therefore end up on your computer if you have software which automatically downloads the latest posts to your machine (which many newsreaders do). There are hundreds of perfectly innocent ways this sort of material can end up on your computer in caches and directories that you’ve never even heard of especially since forensic investigators can undelete files from your hard drive.
The real question is what consitutes a pedophile or child pornographer? One image? Ten, hundreds?. Is a picture of my three year old goddaughter naked in a paddleing pool in the forground of a photo of my best mate and her husband porn? This level of nuance rarly gets reported in the press or discussed in the ‘popular’ press, much less a courtroom.
Anyway on to the case I posted a while back:
AN AMERICAN porn star is to give evidence on behalf of a British Army major who has been charged in Belfast with possession of child pornography.
The officer, who is serving in Northern Ireland, is accused of having a picture of the rape of an underage girl stored on his laptop computer.
Melissa Bertsch from Los Angeles, whose stage name is Melissa Ashley, has given statements to the officer’s solicitor certifying that the image is of her and that she was over 20 years of age when it was taken. Bertsch, whose film credits include Babysitter Training and Extreme Schoolgirls, is now 26 but still looks like a young girl, a fact her agent puts down to “good genetics”. She made a career in the porn industry after her 20th birthday and frequently poses in school uniforms.
The image was discovered in a raid on the major’s Northern Ireland home by military police last year. Three computers were seized but the only suspicious image located was of Bertsch.
If found guilty the major faces up to five years in jail under the terms of Britain’s Protection of Children Act 1978. He is charged with possessing a “level four” image, the second highest on the scale.
Lewis Cherry, his solicitor, is hopeful the case will be dropped once Bertsch’s evidence is put to the court.
Cherry says his client was caught up in Operation Ore, a police operation against child pornography. It was launched in April 2002 after the US Postal Inspection Service handed over credit-card details of 6,500 British citizens who had paid for access to a web portal, Landslide, which gave them access to about 300 internet sites, some of which allegedly carried images of child abuse.
Cherry believes he has uncovered a flaw in police methodology. “Already her (Bertsch’s) image has come up in another case where I am representing an RAF officer,” he said. “The site from which these images were downloaded does not purport to offer child pornography; it states that it is entirely legal.
“This raises the question whether, in other cases, people have been sent to jail and had their lives ruined for having pictures of this woman or another adult actress.”
The American porn industry is tightly regulated and actors must prove their age to a custodian of record whose details are available on internet sites.
Bertsch has already given proof of her age in five American prosecutions. “One time I did go to court; I flew to Hawaii and testified in front of a jury and a judge,” she said. “They dropped all the charges after I testified. In the other cases they dropped everything once I made a statement and provided proof of my ID.”
There are also other cases involving a performer know as ‘little miss kitty’
Ask Julia Somerville. Or Matthew Kelly. Or Robert DelNaja. Or read the story above. The Police, when it is PC, will go on almost anything at all.
Or, if you want a tale of how laughably desperate they can get, google for Pamela Mitchelhill.
Notwithstanding Operation Ore, in itself a fraud based on an obvious lie.
Legislation is required to protect children, mistakes do happen, and 99 times out of 100 the police are on the frontline of those mistakes, it’s the nature of the job they do. I have no problem with the police carrying guns nor any problem with a shoot to kill policy – providing there are sufficient protections in place for it’s use.
Unfortunately the Forest Gate and Jean Charles cases reveal that those systems are astonishingly flawed. In the Jean Charles case mistakes were made at every single level of the command chain and resulted in the words ‘he’s worth a look’ becoming a death sentence – something which is absolutely unacceptable.
The Forest Gate case seems to be an unfortunate reaction on the Met’s part to evidence it admitted on the day of the raid to ‘having doubts’ about, and reportedly came from only one source with no corroboration. My feeling is that surveillance was warranted but an armed raid certainly not.
It should also be staggeringly embarrassing to the Met that they attempted to lesson the impact on the report by charging the guy on the same day it came out – blatant media management!
It seems to me our law and order services have given up simple common sense in an attempt to counteract media hyperbole.
I think it’s important to differentiate.
The “coppers” – who do not have control of what the Police do, don’t do this sort of nonsense ; it is done by the people who run the Police, the nitwits in ACPO, the media managers.
These people aren’t really Police Officers at all ; they behave like any other quango/bureaucracy.
Their sole interests are : hitting government targets, cover your a**e, personal promotion, budgets, media management.
“Effective Policing” comes nowhere on the list, except in as much as it might help their interests, and even then it’s usually the regularly announced ‘crackdowns’, which are throwing a few visible cops out there when the cameras are around, then stopping when they’ve gone away.
Where I live the Police had something they called Operation Harrier (complete with Eagle logo and talk of cordons of steel, the whole thing has a Nazi feel to it ….).
Once a month they would go out and arrest a few of the usual suspects ; they always started by doing some arrests of people who had warrants to get the numbers, then they’d just stomp around a bit, arrest a few drug users, and then stop. It’s quite comical (and insulting) how this useless prancing around is written up as if it they’ve solved the crime of the century.
Too many people are ready to critisize the Police at every turn, it’s almost what some people do for pleasure. Why don’t they put on the uniform themselves and see if they can do a better job. And I bet they are on the telephone at the first sign of billy burglar jumping over their garden wall.
And if the like of these people were to be successful in blowing up hundreds of inocent members of the public, they would be screaming “WHAT WERE THE POLICE DOING ABOUT IT”.
I am looking for inforamtion on an up and coming court case involving a Met Police Inspector, gave his name to me as Masood Khan, accused of Misfeasance, this hit local papers allegedly 2006, if anyone has info for a book I am compiling please email me asap.
cheers
he was first accused of rape, then sexual intercourse whilst on duty .
bmw dealer
ha-rd-po-rn-fu-ck 4411622 home | bmw dealer | contacts
girl make out
Info about girl make out.
baume mercier classima executive
ka-ka-sh-ka 4411622 baume mercier classima executive info
idaho fly fishing
Actual articles about idaho fly fishing and more.
nude asian breasts free
ka-ka-sh-ka 4411622 Research about nude asian breasts free.
teen anus
ka-ka-sh-ka 4411622 Relevant information about teen anus.