Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:18:07 +0100
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:26:14 +0100, "Uno-Hoo!"
<Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote:
"PeteM" <Otcbn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LNWmiXAxHL1EFwTa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Uno-Hoo! <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom.?> posted
This operation was planned and organised by the Met in conjunction with
MI5.
I am not privy to the intelligence they were relying on and have not had
the
training in relation to organising anti-terrorist operations (which indeed
you haven't either). The people who organised this operation will have had
this training and clearly believed that this was the correct way to
conduct
the operation. Of course, had there been no accidental discharge, and had
a
chemical bomb been found, then none of this conversation would be taking
place, despite the fact that the operation would have been conducted in
exactly the same manner. In fact, had it turned out to be a resounding
success, it would have been completely ignored on this NG.
But there was an accidental discharge, and a bomb wasn't found, and the
operation wasn't a resounding success.
You seem to be claiming that, just because the Met and MI5 say it was
done right, then it must have been done right, however disastrous the
outcome.
Sounds like a cowboy builder ... "Well course guv, if I'd put in an RSJ
before knocking through that there wall, and if I'd reinforced the
joists before putting in that there loft conversion, and if I'd used
bricks instead of them there breeze blocks, then the bleedin 'ouse
wouldn't have fallen down would it, and we wouldn't be avin' this
conversation at all would we? It's a bit 'ard to criticise me with the
benefit of 'indsight now innit?"
That's all very well - but a builder should *know* that an RSJ was required
before starting work. In the case of intelligence it is often impossible to
verify its accuracy 100% before you act. AIUI the argument is: "The
intelligence was deemed to be good. We could not verify it prior to taking
action but the information was so serious that we would have been failing in
our duty to the public if we did not act on it. The consequences of acting
and finding the information to be false was less serious than not acting (or
not acting quickly enough) and then finding that it *was* accurate.
But there is almost always a choice of ways to act.
There were almost certainly ways to act that would have significantly
reduced the risk to third parties (whether "innocent" or not), without
significantly increasing the risk to the police officers, or the risk
of a chemical device being triggered.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Microsoft gives you Windows... OS/2 gives you the whole house.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- References:
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Cynic
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Cynic
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: PeteM
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- From: Uno-Hoo!
- Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Prev by Date: Re: Hezbollah
- Next by Date: Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Previous by thread: Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Next by thread: Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting 'accidental'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading