London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

by **HMKGrey** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:02 pm

<a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1789965,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...65,00.html</a> Angry families threaten legal action against police over anti-terror raid The Muslim man shot by officers protests his innocence and accuses them of failing to give a warning Mark Townsend, Anushka Asthana, Antony Barnett and David Smith Sunday June 4, 2006 The Observer A young Muslim man shot by police on suspicion of involvement in a terrorist chemical plot last night protested his innocence and alleged that police failed to give warning before opening fire. Solicitors for Mohammed Abdul Kahar and his brother Abul Koyair, who was also seized in a dawn raid on Friday involving 250 police officers, said they denied any wrongdoing. A family who live next door to the brothers alleged that they were also arrested and assaulted, leaving one man with a head injury and needing hospital treatment. They are considering legal action against the police. Kahar was shot in the shoulder during the raid in east London as police reportedly searched for a 'suicide vest' that would pump out poison gas - a claim questioned by MI5 yesterday. As he remained under armed guard in hospital, his solicitor, Kate Roxburgh, described her client's account of the shooting: 'He was woken up about four in the morning by screams from downstairs, got out of bed in his pyjamas obviously unarmed, nothing in his hands and hurrying down the stairs. As he came toward a bend in the stairway, not knowing what was going on downstairs, the police turned the bend up towards him and shot him - and that was without any warning.' She added: 'He wasn't asked to freeze, given any warning and didn't know the people in his house were police officers until after he was shot. He is lucky still to be alive.' Julian Young, solicitor for Koyair, said: 'My client denies any involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist offences and has maintained that position from the start.' Speaking after a closed court hearing in central London, Young said Koyair was due to be interviewed by officers again this morning. He added that Kahar was expected to be released from hospital around lunchtime today and to be taken to Paddington Green high security police station in west London. He added: 'The situation is that the district judge has authorised a further period of detention up to Wednesday. If the police have not completed their inquiries by then they must either charge, release on bail, take no further action or apply for a further warrant.' Kahar was shot as armed officers descended on a family terraced house on Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, in the early hours of Friday. He was later arrested under the Terrorism Act after being treated for the gunshot wound in the Royal London Hospital. Koyair was also held in the raid, which involved police officers, MI5 and biochemical experts. Yesterday a family detained by police during the raid also denied any involvement in terrorism activity and said it was considering legal action. In a statement, the family, who lived in the terrace adjoining the brothers' house, said they 'would like to make it clear that we are completely innocent and in no way involved in any terrorist activity'. The family, reportedly four adults and an eight-month-old child, said that police had questioned them for 12 hours before releasing them without charge on Friday afternoon. They added in a statement: 'We would like to express our deep shock and anger at the operation that took place. My family members and I were physically assaulted. I received serious head injuries that required hospital treatment. We are liaising with our legal team on the course of action to take.' A group representing the family of Jean Charles de Menezes - the innocent Brazilian shot dead by police in the wake of the 7 July terror bombings - waded into the row. Asad Rehman, chairman of the Newham Monitoring Project, an anti-racism organisation, is acting as spokesman for the family, who wish to remain anonymous. Rehman, who also acts as political adviser to the Respect MP George Galloway and is a vocal critic of the Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair - said that the family was considering legal action on the grounds of 'unlawful entry and assault' and had enlisted the help of Gareth Peirce, the prominent human rights lawyer who has also worked on the de Menezes case. A source connected to the de Menezes campaign alleged: 'The family were assaulted with facial injuries against a woman, and an eight-month-old boy was dragged out into the street.' Neighbours also registered their anger towards the police, describing how a younger brother in the family was arrested and 'dragged down the road, put down on the pavement and then plastic sheets were put on him and he was into white overalls'. Others claimed that even the grandmother of the family was led from the home in handcuffs. A spokesman for Scotland Yard confirmed that, in addition to the suspect who was shot, 'Two other people went to hospital. One was a woman suffering shock. The other, a man with a head injury.' He declined to comment further. As details began to emerge, it seems certain that it began with an original tip-off local informant known to security services as 'an asset' suggesting that the brothers, who were under surveillance, were planning an imminent, biological attack on the British mainland. Intelligence had suggested it was a potentially fatal device that could produce casualty figures in double or even triple figures. The Independent Police Complaints Commission immediately launched an investigation into the shooting, which will be overseen by Deborah Glass, the IPCC Commissioner for London and the South East. =============== Can you say booga-booga?

by **Sepka** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Muslim man shot by officers protests his innocence and accuses them of failing to give a warning<hr></blockquote> Because if he were guilty, he'd admit it... -Sepka the SPace Weasel

by **StarmanSkye** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:38 pm

"Because if he were guilty, he'd admit it... " Is THAT how you think it works? SO, if he confessed, he'd really be innocent? How about all the times the UK police were guilty of abuses but didn't admit it? How about considering it THIS way -- Giving everyone the benefit-of-doubt until they are discovered to be non-credible? In which case, consider: This is the accused's first public statement. Giving him the benefit of doubt, and according to the law, he's innocent until proven guilty. His credibility so far is unblemished. Public statements by family members, neighbors, associates all confirm the man's lack of connection to terrorism. The British Police, on the other hand, have made repeated false, misleading, and incorrect statements concerning past arrests, raids, and shootings. Their credibility is seriously, but seriously, flawed and tarnished. Who has the history of making false statements? FYI, THAT'S what logic looks like. Does it 'prove' innocent or guilt? Of COURSE not, that's not the issue here. The issue is an alleged crime and proper police procedure to affect an arrest while serving the public interest, re: their obligation to not abuse the public trust. The raid went very, very badly, including an unwarranted use of deadly force and the seizure with bodily injury and extended interrogation of a neighbor family who the police had no cause to suspect of wrongdoing. The impropriety here is clearly weighted against the police for extremely deficient performance, all based on a very questionable anonymous source. The public evidence so far indicts the police's credibility. No doubt, this story is developing... Starman

by **HMKGrey** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:11 pm

Yes, I'd say that public feeling in the UK is very much on the side of wanting justice for the accused right now. There's little faith in the police post last July. This latest shooting only served to give fodder to the stand-ups and comedy talk shows again. There's a growing sense of being deliberately fear-mongered by the state. You hear a lot of: "Christ almighty! We lived through the IRA without changing everything we did... so why change it all now?" That IRA comparison is, of course, something we don't have here in the US, sadly. It seems to make a lot of difference in peoples' minds.

by **Sepka** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>SO, if he confessed, he'd really be innocent?<hr></blockquote> No,, if he confessed, that would surely be incontrovertible evidence that he was a victim of mind control, perpetrated as part of a false-flag terror operation. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>How about considering it THIS way -- Giving everyone the benefit-of-doubt until they are discovered to be non-credible?<hr></blockquote> Except the police, of course. They're always guilty of misconduct, even when proven otherwise by an inquiry. -Sepka the Space Weasel

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:42 am

"Except the police, of course. They're always guilty of misconduct, even when proven otherwise by an inquiry." NOW you're getting it -- although I think you missed your target by slightly exaggerating for ironic contrarian effect here. The intended sarcasm is so diluted by the long history of cover-up and fraud that the point becomes a proof-by-example -- official inquiries are likely as not to obstruct justice than uncover endemic, institutionalized abuses. (Or are you suggesting UK ministries are beyond reproach?) Like the Menezes 'inquiry' -- "Justifiable use of force." HA! Considering the layers of deeply vested special interests and powerful career political reputations at stake, was there REALLY any chance for a different finding? (Perhaps after 10-20 years ...) The total lack of cause had nothing to do with eliminating the basis for what was a legal execution, even after the 'suspect' had been physically restrained, essentially incapable of further self-willed action. -- Hard to avoid the conclusion that this was anything but a very public demonstration by the UK Police that they had the unquestioned authority and right to murder citizens with complete impunity. Recall the outright lies, ommissions, falsifications and deliberate misstatements that official Police spokespersons and top officials made, including Blair (who claimed he had 'no information') in the days and week after the shooting. Recall the incredible ineptness of the police 'training', which never even considered or planned for contingencies when a surveillance turned into an actual terrorist 'incident'. If a plumber, electrician or truckdriver was so reckless and ill-trained, and which carelessness contributed to an 'accidental' death, they'd be charged with manslaughter at the very least. WHY, HOW, can civil servents entrusted with the use of deadly weapons, be held to a far LESSER standard of care than a plumber, electrician or truckdriver? It's absurd. It's also an unmistakeable, tragic sign of a thoroughly corrupted state with an autocratic paramilitary-enforced bureaucracy of extra-legal privelege, in which violence and terror has become institutionalized, by which to manipulate public opinion and control dissent -- in order to preserve and protect the criminal consolidation of wealth and illegitimate power. Its entirely reasonable to assume the public disclosures of a history of police state abuses and false-flag IRA terrorism only uncovered a fraction of police and intelligence offenses in the UK, as has also noteably occurred in Italy and France, and to a lesser extent in Germany. Consider the hue and cry by the PTB if these kind of uber-police-state excess as the Menezes shooting or the recent sloppy late-night 'raid', or kidnapping-renditions and undeterminate imprisonment in apalling pro-torture secret prisons were to occur in Venezuala or Bolivia or Cuba. What a field day the press would have in denouncing such egregious abuses. Blatant hypocrisy and double standards are always a sign of something utterly foul and abhorent among a nation's ruling class institutions of power. Starman

by **blanc** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:44 am

person or persons are feeding police in front line misleading information surely? so either a terrorist cell wishing to distract or create discord, or a politically motivated group within govt wishing to create panic as a route to repressive measures. the comparison with ira attacks is pertinent. anti libertarian measures were not taken. there were frequent false bomb alerts. there were miscarriages of justice through overenthusiasm to make quick arrests. actually, 'terrorism' in western states hardly exists does it? i don't mean to downplay the pain of survivors or grieving families, but the numbers are small compared to the victims of other crime.

by **friend catcher** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:57 am

The national newspapers are now referring to "doubts raised" faulty intelligence etc which is a fairly sure sign this is at best a cock up. Murdock tabloids are attemting a smear job to garner sympathy by releasing details of the arrestee's conviction for a petty offence, plus loads of speculative bullshit. Releasing details of an arrestee's criminal past means that any future trial will be compromised and therefore not take place. Allows the cops to walk away blaming the press. But as always there are more questions now than answers. Lots of speculation of a turf war between Mi5 and police, plus many in the police are against the top cop Ian Blair as he's viewed as incompetent and a liability.

by **HMKGrey** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:39 pm

This follows on neatly from last week's wrangles over the arrest of the London peace demonstrator Brian Haw. The 56-year old Mr Haw was snatched up from his deck chair outside parliament by special police teams in an operation involving around 80 officers. He'd been demonstrating peacefully for nearly 5 years. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4513500.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...513500.stm</a> Later, it became known that the police themselves were uncomfortable with their actions: The manpower involved in reducing Mr Haw's permitted protesting space to a 10ft "cube" outside Parliament is almost four times the 20 suggested after the raid in the early hours on Tuesday. However, Scotland Yard said 24 of the 78 officers were "kept in reserve". Sir Ian defended the scale of the operation after fierce criticism by some members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), which oversees his force. The Met was accused of "overkill" and of creating the impression around the world that police were being used to suppress anti-war dissent. But Sir Ian said Scotland Yard had "no discretion" over someone who allegedly ignored the law - in this case section 132 of the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which outlaws protests around Parliament that have not been sanctioned by police. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/26/nhaw26.xml">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...nhaw26.xml</a> <hr /> Good to see some Brits with some spine on both sides of the fence.

by **Byrne** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:56 pm

Brian Haw used to ring a bell when Tony Blair drove past on his way to the House of Commons, to draw attention to his protest. Further info on the Brian Haw Story is <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340346.html" target="top">here</a> & <a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/05/tony_blair_its.asp" target="top">here</a>. Here's a pic of the police trying to remove Brian Haw's bell : <img src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/images/police_brian_haw.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **StarmanSkye** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:37 pm

Thanks for the heads-up and links on Brian Haw's longstanding protest, Byrne; Somehow, this man's brave, devoted vigil completely bypassed my radar. The story is truly Amazing -- his five-year anti-warcrime protest-vigil outside the UK Houses of Parliament, and the outright hostile, pernicious Police State persecution he's resolutely endured. The enormous state expense of the annual 'monitoring' of Brian's demonstration and the recent raid that impounded his display reveals the insidious face of modern fascism, in which no-expense is spared by the state to pervert, undermine, and subvert political protest that calls the state on its egregious warcrimes. The 'battle of the bell' is a perfect metaphor for the bizarre farce of the state 'managing' dissent that embarrasses it -- in the process making an utter mockery of justice and human/civil rights. My Hatz off to Brian and his co-protesters! What a brilliant inspiration for an engaged, courageous citizenry standing up for essential principles. <a href="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340346.html">www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2...40346.html</a> --quote-- when asked by jenny jones of the greater london authority how much the police operation to remove brian had cost, sir ian blair came up with the figure of £7,500 yesterday. today, he is reported as having lied. the actual figure was an astonishing £28,000 and involved 78 officers over six hours. *** according to sunday newpaper reports, a lib dem mp has raised the question of the cost of policing and surveilling brian haw's demonstration. the reply admitted that the estimated cost was around £150,000 per year. --unquote-- in-fucking-credible. Starman

by **Byrne** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:49 am

Starman, <a href="http://www.backingblair.co.uk/2006/04/coordinated-disinformation.html" target="top">Check out</a> (copied below)the way that Tony Blair was using Brian Haw's presence as a protestor in an attempt to show how 'liberal' he is & how the opportunities for protest exist, whilst all the while his government were pushing through Laws to outlaw protest within the square mile or so of the UK Parliamant buildings. Brian Haw was only allowed to saty because the law that was passed did not apply retrospectively!! This desperate last-minute gambit was recorded in a UK Guardian article where Blair sought to silence his critics on civil liberties just over a week before UK local elections: Henry Porter<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759344,00.html" target="top">(source)</a><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> In Parliament Square we now see people parading with blank placards to make the point that they are not allowed to demonstrate within one kilometre of the Square under the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). Tony Blair<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759344,00.html" target="top">(source)</a><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> You say people can only have blank placards outside Parliament and can't protest. Go and look at the placards of those camped outside Parliament - they are most certainly not blank and usually contain words not entirely favourable to your correspondent. Outside Downing Street, virtually every day there are protests of one sort or another.  Henry Porter<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759344,00.html" target="top">(source)</a><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/mad.gif ALT=">:"> The only reason you see placards in Parliament Square today is because the anti-war protester Brian Haw's demonstration preceded the introduction of the act, which is not retrospective. His presence in the square is still being challenged by government lawyers. Tony Blair not only misrepresented Henry Porter's claim in his answer, he sought to use a man who was unsuccessfully targeted by this illiberal legislation as an example of how liberal the legislation is! He also assures us that; "Outside Downing Street, virtually every day there are protests of one sort or another"... but does not make clear how many of those are of the authorised variety.

by **dugoboy** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:07 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1791111,00.html" target="top">Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say</a> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> LET THE REVISIONISM BEGIN!! ___________________________________________ "BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." -Me "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:02 pm

"If the intelligence was right there was a serious risk to the public. We did not know if it was right or not until we went in." Another official added: "Intelligence is patchy. Even if it suggests a 5% likelihood of something nasty, we can't take that risk". *** That's what comes from allowing a society to be influenced by and under the 'management' of an intelligence/military industry -- it leads to petrified thinking, an absence of alternative, creative ideas and perspective. The Police claim the early-morning cowboy-raid in London was essential, the ONLY appropriate response to the information they had, and for which the top official refuses to apologize. What stiff-necked, insufferable conceit. Is the public so dumbed-down they can't imagine how a society might better and more effectively respond to the issue of terrorism and related risks? Instead, they are being programmed to accept terror as a common threat risk that can only be addressed by their police and intelligence professionals, and ignoring the root-factors, political and economic and social, that encourage and provoke and allow terrorism to exist in the world. Like in the US, there doesn't seem to be any real ongoing public debate about how the US and UK foreign policy contribute to terrorism. It STILL astonishes me that people are apparently so gullible, naive and compliant, easily decieved by their illegitimate, corrupt and criminal 'leaders' to accept the premises of a world order that institionalizes injustice, violence and desperation. Starman

London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

Re: London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

Re: London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

Re: London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

Re: London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

Re: London Police Go "Ooops!" Again

police

Re: police

Re: police

Re: police

Re: police

Re: police

Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say

Re: Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say

Who is online