ForumGarden

I was shocked by the other thread. And I'm shocked by this one. By the people involved too. I thought better of some of you. Slagging off at whole countries - US, UK - for the reprehensible and evil deeds of a few. And someone in here has even tossed into the ring maybe now slagging off the French. What's that about??? Australia next, maybe??? I thought racism was unacceptable in Forum Garden.

as politics makes for strange bedfellows, i herein quote from spot's signature as my mea culpa.



Boy, did I make an ass of myself!

I've now read both threads....both state facts as reported by the media. Most of the facts are most probably true. One can only hope and trust in the legal system to punish the perpetrators of crime including those carried out by soldiers of all countries.



I'm not surprised at this, anastrophes 'counter' thread but a little disappointed. I guess most 'Brits' are more reserved in what they say in public ....we are passionately patriotic but not so outspoken as folks from other countries.



As for a 'hatred of Americans', I have not experienced this feeling myself, only disdain for the 'Leadership', but this applies to other countries too...China, some African countries ...the list is long.



Other people have expressed their feelings and opinions far better than me and are far more qualified to do so.



The world's in a mess....too much tit for tat, power struggles, wars, conflicts, crime, dis-respect...



This is our 'universal', 'multi-national' garden...let's enjoy it please.

anastrophe wrote: my god, he went on and on about how he was going to make it his life's work to destroy the careers of those involved in the deception regarding the circumstances of american soldier pat tillman's death.Fortunately the thread you refer to still exists unedited in its entirety on ForumGarden. I have looked, I find that your memory is at fault, there isn't the least hint of my life's work anywhere and I call solely for the dismissal of a single member of the US armed forces, Central Command's General John Abazaid, on the grounds that he deliberately and knowingly lied by omission within days of the friendly fire incident. The bulk of that thread consists of me laying out facts, a succession of people calling me a liar, and my eventually posting substantiation as and when a grudging military released more and more information to the public. No life's work, no destruction of careers plural. I did invite the "failed Holywood script writer" who spuriously invented the citation text and press releases out of thin air to identify himself and explain why he did it, too.

There's another thread, to be fair, where I followed the same route with regard to Major General James Mattis and the example he provided to his men. You'll remember that they're all, every man-jack of them, undergoing compulsory re-education in the ethics of warfare this year, or awaiting courts-martial, or both. Still no life's work, still no multiple dismissals called for.

The thread entitled "Terrorism = America" was, as you say, raised by an American. I eventually made 16 posts in it, less than half of your 38 posts. Other than a brief and context-relevant mention of Norad's failed response at interceptions, I put a 67-word question to LilacDragon which you challenged repeatedly and in increasingly taunting tones until I finally felt obliged to provide a chapter-and-verse response. Nothing was present in any of those subsequent posts which was not implicit in the original 67 words and I would happily have foregone the effort of writing them had I been allowed to by you. Do please go back and remind yourself of the gloating terms you used at http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=108 to goad me into writing. That was on post 108, when my previous contribution was on post 43.

I make that around seven lines of my text instigated by my own desire to participate in someone else's thread. All the rest is you pushing onto me your unsubstantiated opinion of how the matter "feels" to you while eventually compelling me to go digging up more ammunition for you to shoot at me with. If you feel that's one-sided then I'd agree with you entirely.

As far as this thread goes I have a single question for you. Given that US and UK foreign policy have gone hand in hand for two decades now, where do you think that policy originates - within the UK's Foreign Office, or within the White House? Which is the dog and which is the wagging tail? Who is dreaming up these schemes of international intervention, the Brits or the Yanks? Is this equal-handed teamwork, or is there a natural leader and a born camp-follower relationship?

I'm quite sure that if you and I posted in a co-operative fashion we'd both gain more from the experience than we do with this appearance of antagonism. I would much prefer that we did, and have done throughout my time here. The site has a couple of posters I suspect of provocateur-posing and whom I consequently feel extremely reluctant to speak near, but you've never been in that category.

While the creation of this thread was an exercise in futility from the beginning, I can certainly understand anastrophe's motivation in doing so. Being relatively new to FG, I can't speak to the history of anti-American threads being posted here but I do visit several other boards and they do appear with recurring frequency. I know this is not germane to FG and the people here, but I could site thread after thread from British, Canadian, and Bush-hating American posters on other boards that revel in posting the most innane subject matter as proof of the stupidity, duplicity, and evilness of America. Since I experience this phenomenon in abundance elsewhere, it is easy for me to transfer that experience to threads or posts found at FG. I don't know that the same goes for anastrophe, I don't know him, but it wouldn't be surprising if he did the same.

The "American=Terrorism" thread began with an American posting the insane ramblings of a professor who suggests the American government either had prior knowledge or direct responsibility for 9/11. The ideas put forth by this professor were being roundly debated and debunked until spot pours fuel on the fire by appearing to give credence to the theory that the American government may have been complicit in 9/11. The thread deteriorated from there. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any poster from outside America take spot to task for his provocation. Instead the reaction seems to be that anastrophe is hypersensitive and perceiving anti-American sentiment where it doesn't exist. In frustration, anastrophe posts this topic in response; obviously an attempt to put the shoe on the other foot. The condemnation of his "anti-British" sentiment has been swift and sure.

I don't know where I am going with this other than to say that anastrophe has a valid point. That he has to engage in the tactics of this thread to make a point may be, just may be, indicative of the failure of others to give proper consideration to his concerns and a tendency to reject his observations of anti-Americanism out of hand. But trust me. When anastrophe says that there are constant, and I mean seemingly constant, potshots taken at America he ain't just whistling Dixie. Everyone is entitled to express his/her opinion but it does get quite tiring to hear that American hegemony is the root cause of all evil in the world.

Adam Zapple wrote: The ideas put forth by this professor were being roundly debated and debunked until spot pours fuel on the fire by appearing to give credence to the theory that the American government may have been complicit in 9/11. The thread deteriorated from there. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see any poster from outside America take spot to task for his provocation.Have a brief think about the imbalance implied in this, Adam. If I gameplay this it comes out like:

Red (initial post)

Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue ... (roundly debated and debunked, until)

Red (spot pours fuel)

Deterioration of thread, no un-Americans taking spot to task.

Presumably, Red Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue end-of-thread is a desirable thread? I think not. I do remember why I put that Red in, it was that I like having Lennox's posts around and his thread was getting trashed.

Anastrophe would feel happier if I post a few Red-threads about the UK, and so would I, and so I will. The spot-post under consideration here was minimal, mild, friendly and well-intentioned. Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue is as bland as Red Red Red Red Red would be. Should we aim for position-segregated boards, in your opinion?

Your sig has got me chuckling away there, Spot. Hehehe.

OpenMind wrote: Your sig has got me chuckling away there, Spot. Hehehe.I blinked twice when I saw that description. Extreme, I thought? Surely not, I thought. I edit inadvertent aggression out before I post, it has no place on a thread. I only feel even remotely satisfied with a thread if it finds a middle ground.

It's possible that some people here didn't see the letter in the London Times at the beginning of this week relating to the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service that the only charge to be brought against police in connection with the London Tube shooting of an innocent Londoner last year would be for "failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare" of the man they killed. The letter is so much better worded than I could manage that I'll post it rather than summarize. Anastrophe can count this toward my remedial rebalancing act.The Times, July 19, 2006, from Tom Welsh, Basingstoke, Hants:

Sir, The Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to prosecute any individuals over the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes (reports, July 15, 17 and 18) may look reasonable from a bureaucratic point of view. But it leads to the grotesque implication that, in 21st-century Britain, an innocent civilian going about his lawful business may be killed without any crime having been committed.

Surely a civilised society must reject such a conclusion.

The problem appears to be formulating charges against individuals; the CPS has decided there is insufficient evidence to proceed against any of the policemen.

Does this mean that a person may be killed with impunity if the responsibility is spread around thinly enough? Does the buck stop nowhere in the Metropolitan Police?

The suggested alternative of a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 sounds like the work of a deranged satirist. Presumably the CPS can make a case that firing seven bullets into an innocent man's head at point-blank range breaches health and safety guidelines.

It may seem harsh to prosecute police officers who were doing their job to the best of their ability, trying to protect the rest of us. It would be even worse, however, to give the police carte blanche to kill members of the public by mistake. We have already seen the same syndrome in the killing of Harry Stanley, who was shot dead after a table leg he was carrying was mistaken for a shotgun in Hackney, East London, in September 1999. How many more innocent people must die before the police are brought within the control of the law?

Diuretic wrote: Now to charge someone with murder there needs to be intent to kill, a deliberate intent to kill.
Sorry, but that is just not true. No intent was ever proven or indeed, even ASKED to be proven by the prosecution in my husband's case. They still gave him 17 years.

Unless you are referring to law somewhere else, in which case I can't speak with any authority on that.

Diuretic wrote: In English law and in Australian law BR there are no degrees of murder such as in various US jurisdictions so it's a bit difficult to compare the two. I don't know what the charge was - its wording I mean - against your husband so I can't make a valid comparison and I'm certainly not competent to comment.



On the issue of intention - the time-honoured phrase in English law is "malice aforethought" which is meant to distinguish a "deliberate" killing from a negligent or accidental killing (ie manslaughter). In a couple of Australian jurisdictions the term "wilful murder" is used. Again it means the same thing - deliberate killing.

The general defences to murder seek to attack intention and deny it - eg by virtue of insanity or automatism or in this case self-defence, so that acquittal is the only option for a jury.
The charge was second degree murder, which is intentional murder, but with no fore-thought, or "planning". What the hell is the word I'm looking for there??? It's late and I've not been sleeping good, the brain's not up to snuff right now.

Diuretic wrote: Michigan right?



First degree is quite specific as to circumstances and it's a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.



Second degree is anything falling outside the circumstances in murder in the first degree and there is no mandatory sentence but the maximum is life.



http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(lq2mpj2i ... t=homicide
I have to look at that link when I can focus better because according to our lawyer, there WAS a mandatory term, the minimum being 12 years. WTF!?!?!?!!?!?!



So, I looked now, and it's pretty damn plain...it says there is no minimum requirement for a person to be sentenced to when convicted of 2nd dgree murder....what the hell happened??? I am seriously confused now. I have to get this to my attorney. Someone phucked up. Wow. I am flabbergasted.

Spot.

I blinked twice when I saw that description. Extreme, I thought? I didn't intend it to mean aggression, but rather the way you can marshall facts. You are subjective, as we have to be when using facts, but not emotive. Having met you, I couldn't think of a more mild-mannered man and non-accusative person.



Your London Times article is interesting and I had to laugh. Health and Safety indeed. Tom Welsh put it rather succinctly I think - The suggested alternative of a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 sounds like the work of a deranged satirist. Presumably the CPS can make a case that firing seven bullets into an innocent man's head at point-blank range breaches health and safety guidelines.

.

Personally, I think the real problem lies with police training and protocol. But then, what should they do when, after telling him to halt, he runs off into the crowd, being so soon after the 7th July bombings, too.

The questions that arose in my mind at the time was, if this guy couldn't speak English, why was he by himself? Should the police, particularly when armed, be multi-lingual? Was there a danger of bystanders being shot? And, I'm not sure if this is valid and it depends on whether there were uniformed police officers involved - why did the guy bolt? I can understand him bolting if they were in plain clothes.

Diuretic wrote: Murder has some defences, some absolute defences which will not just lead to a finding of manslaughter but will deny the offend entirely. Self-defence (including defence of others) is one of those defences. Depending on how the law of self-defence is written in English law (I only know my own jurisdiction's definition so I'm surmising on similarity) it may well be that the law sees the deliberate killing of this man as being self-defence or defence of others.Of course there are legal killings which are consequently not murder. Of course once you have armed police next to a suspected suicide bomber in the presence of other members of the public he will be killed by them, and legally so. "Once the suspected suicide bomber has already aroused suspicion, both he and the police may already have reached a point of no return, because even if he puts his hands in the air, it might still be thought that he may self-detonate by making another body movement. There may be nothing he can do to persuade the police that he poses no imminent threat. (Indeed, according to R v Browne [1973] NI 96, the suspect must submit to being shot in such circumstances: even if innocent, he has no liberty to defend himself)". - New Law Journal, 2 September 2005, Dr Jonathan Rogers, lecturer in law at University College London.

The police in this case desperately and repeatedly lied to try to demonstrate that this man had aroused suspicion. They lied in saying he was wearing a heavy bulky jacket capable of concealing an explosives belt (in fact it was simple denim), they lied in saying he jumped over the ticket barrier at the Tube station having been called upon to halt (neither of which happened). Someone in the police allowed the suspect apartment block to be staked out instead of raided. Someone in the police decided to allow their suspect to leave the apartment and travel through London for fifteen minutes as far as being on a Tube station before confronting him, at a moment when his death was guaranteed instead of optional. You don't need to pull the trigger yourself to murder somebody. The individuals among the police who should be in a dock are those who set this operation up knowing the consequences of letting the man near the public and then arranging for just that to occur.

This isn't the first time that suspects have been followed or lured to a place where danger to the public became imminent, thereby putting the shooters in a position where shooting was the only and standard option left to them. It was a technique employed against the IRA many times. "In the McCann case, it was held that the IRA suspects should have been arrested before they entered Gibraltar (which they could have been). By contrast, sending the SAS to arrest them in Gibraltar, with the information that the suspects might try to detonate a bomb immediately, considerably raised the likelihood of a fatal confrontation (based upon a mistaken belief that the suspects were able to detonate explosives)".

You think I'm writing in confrontational terms about this? You should see Mark Steel in action in the Independent this week. Mark Steel's another of my idols:

You would think a body called the Health and Safety Executive would take a dim view of shooting innocent people through the head. At the very least I imagine there's a film they show office workers, that goes:

To ensure a safe working environment, always remember the three Fs.

1: Flex. Loose wires must be tucked away where no one can trip over them.

2: Furniture. Chairs left in the middle of the room were responsible for over 150 office injuries in Britain last year alone!

3: Firing a series of bullets at point-blank range into the temple of someone you've targeted as a result of staggering incompetence. This can be dangerous, requiring the victim to spend a lengthy spell off work, resulting in more stress all round for everyone!!

The reason this case is down to Health and Safety is that the Crown Prosecution Service has decided there is insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone in the police force. And you can see how it would be a challenge even for Inspector Morse to find any leads in this case. He'd grumble, "I'm baffled by this one, Lewis. Only 30 or 40 witnesses saw the police shoot him, and no weapon was in evidence except a series of police guns, fired by the police, who then issued a pack of lies to cover up their mistake, through police statements and police spokesmen. My hunch is the culprit is the Milk Marketing Board."

The police defence revolves around the assertion that they believed De Menezes was going to blow up the Tube station, so they had no choice but to shoot him. But don't they bother checking? The bloke was a Brazilian electrician, as far removed from al-Qa'ida as possible. They'd have been nearer if they'd shot Sir Stanley Matthews.

And they can't have been certain he was a suicide bomber at first, because they watched him get on a bus and go to Stockwell. So they only became convinced he was a terrorist when he got on the Underground. Their thinking seems to have been "Terrorists blow themselves up on the Underground, and he's got on the Underground. Well that's too much of a coincidence, he must be a bomber."

Or maybe, like in Forest Gate, they were acting on a tip-off. In which case this is the future of murder. No longer do prospective murderers have to spend months preparing alibis and faking documents like in an episode of Columbo. Now you just ring up the police and say, "There's a bloke called Dave with long blond hair who works in the off licence and he's planning to blow up Tower Bridge," and by night time he'll be wasted, or at least someone will, probably a bald woman in the pet shop who they thought was Dave by mistake.

After the announcement, a spokesman for the police was on London News, saying the officers responded to the news they wouldn't be charged "with dignity but without jubilation". Naively I assumed he meant this was because they were deeply sorry about the event, but instead he said it was because they would have to live with the fact they were accused at all "for the rest of their lives", and this "would affect their home life".

Isn't that always the bugger when you shoot someone through the head? And for the police in this case it's even worse than normal, because as well as having to live with shooting someone, they've also got to live with having made up stories about De Menezes wearing a big jacket and vaulting over the barriers as well. And as if that isn't enough, now they've got to live with having got away with it. Their home life will be in tatters.

OpenMind wrote: But then, what should they do when, after telling him to halt, he runs off into the crowd, being so soon after the 7th July bombings, too.The idea that people still believe the initial exculpatory lies the police put out, a year after they backtracked and said they'd mis-spoken, is amazing. Here's the current agreed events of the day - no bulky jacket, no eyeball identification that came close to matching the suspect, and especially no vault over barriers, no running, no "called upon to halt" rubbish:

The Evening Standard, July 17, 2006: Countdown to a killing

On 21 July, two weeks after four suicide bombers had killed 52 people on London's public transport system, the capital was under attack again.

Four people allegedly tried to blow themselves up on three Tube trains and a bus, but fled when their devices failed to explode.

With police hunting four suspected suicide bombers, up to 18 anti-terror operations were running across London on the morning of 22 July. In Scotland Yard's control room, Commander Cressida Dick was the senior designated officer. She was accompanied by Commander John McDowell and a small team of firearms tactical advisers.

One key lead in the hunt for the alleged bombers was a gym membership card in the name of Hussain Osman, found in an the unexploded rucksack in Shepherd's Bush. It provided the address of a block of flats in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill. Osman lived in flat 21 but was not there that day. Jean Charles de Menezes lived in flat 17.

22 July

04:30

A surveillance team, each carrying a grainy CCTV picture of Osman, arrives at the block. One of them is a team leader, in communication with commanders at Scotland Yard .

An undercover soldier with callsign Tango 10, on secondment from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, is the lead watch, known as the "eyeball".

He watches the flats and videos all those who leave.

09:33

Believing everyone in the flat is accounted for, the soldier relieves himself behind a tree. As he does so Mr de Menezes, an electrician, leaves the block of flats on the way to a job. He is wearing a light denim jacket.

The soldier can only report that he has seen an unidentified "IC1" male, which means he has white or light-coloured skin. Osman is officially an "IC3", with dark skin.

He tells his commanders that the man is "worth a look". Another surveillance officer is deployed to get closer to him and follows him to a bus stop. He cannot confirm that this is Osman, but says the suspect has "Mongolian eyes".

09:38

Mr de Menezes boards the No 2 bus to Brixton station - A surveillance officer gets on after him and watches him go to the top deck, look around then return downstairs.

09:47

Mr de Menezes gets off the bus at Brixton to catch the Tube, but finds it still closed after the bomb scare the day before.

He makes a call to his colleague, Gesio D'Avila, to say he will be late for the job. He gets on another No 2 heading for Stockwell. Surveillance officers consider this suspicious.

There is debate as to whether it is definitely Osman - one officer says it definitely is not, but is overruled.

The team leader fails to tell commanders at Scotland Yard of the great uncertainty and in the next few minutes Commander Dick becomes convinced they are dealing with Osman. She calls in a threeman firearms team, which is being held several miles away.

But they are called very late and there is confusion over Commander Dick's orders. She is reported to have said: "Stop him getting on the Tube at all costs," but firearms officers challenge Commander Dick, asking if she realises the significance of what she was saying - in other words, is she confirming the Operation Kratos shoot-to-kill policy - They claim she replied "yes" but Commander Dick says she did not give the seven-letter codeword to confirm the order.

10:00

Mr de Menezes walks into Stockwell station. He uses his Oyster card to go through the gates, picks up a Metro newspaper and walks down the escalator.

The surveillance officer codenamed Hotel 3 follows him on to the train and sits two seats away, with members of the public in between. He may have realised by now that this is not Osman, but on the Underground his radio does not work and he cannot relay messages back to the control room.

Armed police are caught in traffic and are late arriving. They get there to find three No 2 buses; they have to check all of them before realising the suspect has entered the station. The officers, in plain clothes, vault the barriers and run down to the platforms. This leads witnesses to believe they have seen the victim trying to run from police.

10:06

When Hotel 3 sees the firearms officers arriving he stands up, puts a foot against the carriage doors and shouts: "He's here," indicating Mr de Menezes with his right hand. Two firearms officers enter the carriage. Mr de Menezes stands up and moves towards them.

Hotel 3 grabs him, pinning his arms to his side then pushing him back into his seat.

Hotel 3 later says there was suddenly a gunshot very close to his ear and he was dragged out of the way.

Eleven shots are fired. Mr de Menezes is struck seven times in the back of the head and once in the shoulder.

12:00

Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair writes to the Home Office and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) telling them to delay their inquiry into the shooting.

16:00

At an official press conference, Sir Ian says: "I can say as part of operations linked to yesterday's incidents, Met police officers have shot a man The information I have available is that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding antiterrorist operation.Any death is deeply regrettable. I understand the man was challenged and refused to obey."

16:45

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Alan Given meets the two firearms officers at Leman Street police station. He says later: "There was no rejoicing but the mood was buoyant. They were convinced they had just shot someone who was a terrorist."

17:00

Scotland Yard briefs that the man is not one of the four suspected bombers, but was a terror suspect.

18:48

Scotland Yard says the man is still subject to formal identification-"The man who was shot was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was itself under observation because it was linked to the investigation of yesterday's incidents," said a spokesman."His clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions."

20:30

Four Special Branch surveillance officers attend debrief, where they are alleged to have made a "blatant and clumsy" attempt to alter their logbooks to shift the blame to the commanders.

23 July

09:40

Sir Ian says in a TV interview: "I actually believe the Metropolitan police is playing out of its socks. I think it's a fantastic investigation and a fantastic response."

10:30

Sir Ian is told Mr de Menezes was innocent.

16:53

Scotland Yard confirms the dead man was innocent but continues to claim "his clothing and behaviour" aroused suspicion.

21:45

Scotland Yard names the victim as Jean Charles de Menezes.

Diuretic wrote: If you were on the jury spot could you say you hadn't already made up your mind?

Their chances of a fair trial would be very slim.I promise, if I get picked for jury service and a copper comes up into the dock on this or any other charge, I'll excuse myself - just as I will if pigs start to fly.

spot wrote: Anastrophe would feel happier if I post a few Red-threads about the UK, and so would I, and so I will. The spot-post under consideration here was minimal, mild, friendly and well-intentioned. Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue is as bland as Red Red Red Red Red would be. Should we aim for position-segregated boards, in your opinion?


Of course not, how dull that would be. Whether your intention in the "American=Terrorism" thread was to poke and probe at the underpinnings of the original conspiracy theory in a search for possible truths, or to play devil's advocate for the purpose of fruitful discussion, or saying what you really believe, the result was an insulting slap at the American government and the people that elected them. You are certainly free to make such claims; I don't support the censorship of any ideas. But anastrophe was correct in his response. I'm saying that in general anonymous posters on message boards take insulting potshots at America and Americans with impunity and when called on it deny they did so. anastrophe is not seeing ghosts. He is one of a number of Americans who visit boards like this one who are tired of hearing how evil America is and how every ill in the world can be traced back to the Great Satan and the great neo-con fascist, terrorist Bush. If you want to make those claims fine, but have the courage of your convictions and don't deny an anti-American bias when challenged.

As an example, a Canadian on another board started two threads this past 4th of July. One described, in his words, how "lazy and stupid" Americans were for not knowing the words to their own national anthem (why anyone outside the U.S. would care, I can't imagine). Attached was an obscure article that showed the percentage of Americans that didn't know all of the words to the anthem. He didn't bother to compare that with the number of Canadians that don't know all the words to their anthem. The next thread was a "Happy Fireworks Day" thread in which he simply posted images of a run down trailer, a one-toothed redneck holding a shotgun with the American flag in the background, and a picture of a woman with a machine gun with the caption "Charlton Heston is my president". These are just two of a host of America-bashing threads he starts. Of course, he also denies any anti-American bias.

Look, all I'm saying is that it is out there. How prevailant it is at FG I can't tell yet but it's out there in general. Perhaps it is just more obvious to some Americans like me. Don't hate on anastrophe because he dares shine a light on this dirty little secret.

Adam Zapple wrote: anastrophe was correct in his response. I'm saying that in general anonymous posters on message boards take insulting potshots at America and Americans with impunity and when called on it deny they did so.You were, I think, explicitly addressing me with your post.

Anastrophe (always assuming he filed it adequately) has my name, my address, my phone number and (if he reads thoroughly) my shoe size and preference in beer, just as I have his.

Only two days ago I wrote the following paragraph here. I believe it to be true. I think most people here believe me when I say that I like Americans. If I put up a poll and ask for a general consensus, we could even find out if I carry any conviction in that regard. Would you like me to? I absolutely do not have an anti-American bias, I merely detest your current administration's policies. I like Americans. Which ones here do I not get on with?

I have no issue with the American people (as I have said before). I have issues with your current administration, which I regard as a collective criminal enterprise of some magnitude. The American people in general have my sympathy, they are paying a price for being hijacked by the opportunistic liars from PNAC who seem now to form the core of Republicanism in the USA. I can remember a time when Republicanism wasn't even identified (in contrast with the Democratic Party) with Conservatism - a sense which only became settled with Barry Goldwater, frozen permanently into place with Ronald Reagan and perverted into the current foolishness under the Bushes. Other nations have had transparent and honest right-wing government. What America now suffers under is an antidemocratic right-wing White House administration which (in my opinion) long ago crossed the Rubicon of criminal adventurism. I'm aware that much of what's been done may have been "legalized" by closed Presidential executive orders and I'm aware that bringing Cabinet-level politicians to justice rarely happens. I hope matters pass the stage where those issues stand in the way of a thorough Augean cleansing of the US body politic.

Scrat wrote: No. It is a function of being lower than an animal.It seems, looking at trends, to be a function of Occupation Forces everywhere at any time. When the locals don't like you, you beat them to hell and back for entertainment. It goes with the job. I don't like comparing people with animals when discussing morality, it's misleading.

Our brief, if I remember, is to slag off Britain's Finest, isn't it? To try to impose a measure of international balance on the ForumGarden outlook?

This is almost kittenish compared to the other tales, but it did raise eyebrows a month ago. I take my quotes from the Times of June 24th.

Armed police responding to a call about a person pointing a rifle through the window of a London home stormed into the property, only to find that the weapon in question was a harmless replica. Olly Trimbos, 15, and a friend were playing with the toy at his family home in Belsize Park after returning from school on Monday. Three hours later he found himself handcuffed by armed officers after they forced their way into his home.

His father, John, a training consultant, was in his bedroom reading when he heard the front door being battered down. Thinking it was a robbery, he hurried into the corridor where officers commanded him to raise his arms and handcuffed him. "It was like a Bruce Willis film," Mr Trimbos, 42, told The Times. "I thought it was some lunatic who had broken in but instead there were around six armed officers pointing guns at me, barking and shouting. They handcuffed me and Olly and took us all to the landing. My wife had to tell them who we were. She was absolutely terrified and my seven-year-old, Felix, was trembling. They searched the house and found Olly's replica gun. Apparently someone from the hotel across the road had looked into the flat and seen a gun being used, which was obviously just Olly messing around. [...] Olly got mugged recently, so the police have my details," he said. "I gave them my mobile number so they could have called, or checked with our neighbours, which would have revealed that we are a pretty boring family who have lived here for six years, not armed terrorists. Afterwards, my youngest son broke down and cried his eyes out and my wife no longer feels happy living here," he added.

A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said: "We were called to an address in NW3, to reports of youths seen at a window of the flat with a firearm. One of the youths was seen to point the gun out of the window. Armed police attended the address and forced entry to the premises. Those inside were called out and the flat was searched. A replica rifle was found and no further action was taken. We apologised to the family for any distress caused at the time who seemed supportive of the action taken," she said. She added that the call had to be taken seriously.I so love that "seemed supportive of the action taken" - it's the reaction you might expect to get from people you've put in fear of their lives.

"Barking", incidentally, is something they're trained in. It adds to the terror.

flopstock wrote: I agree that you've gotten much better this time around. Or perhaps, it's just that I don't bother reading anything political that you post into anymore. It had gotten to the point that if a disscussion were being held on a sports team, you would attempt to turn it into a discussion of americans in uniform...:p The difference between last time round and this time round is very strange, floppy, and I have discussed it with others recently. To an extent I am more experienced in interacting with people on a bulletin board. To an extent the company is different. To an extent I started first time round on a footing which left me behaving very defensively. To an extent (and I wouldn't want to push this but I believe it's noticeable by more people than just me) times have changed.flopstock wrote: I like this kinder gentler spot much better. :DI'd rather have had you say that than get a dozen votes of confidence from elsewhere. By all means slap me if I step too far beyond the limits of what you find reasonable, and I shall pay attention. (I used that line in a bar once, and promptly got slapped).

spot wrote: It seems, looking at trends, to be a function of Occupation Forces everywhere at any time. When the locals don't like you, you beat them to hell and back for entertainment. It goes with the job. I don't like comparing people with animals when discussing morality, it's misleading.



Our brief, if I remember, is to slag off Britain's Finest, isn't it? To try to impose a measure of international balance on the ForumGarden outlook?



This is almost kittenish compared to the other tales, but it did raise eyebrows a month ago. I take my quotes from the Times of June 24th.

Armed police responding to a call about a person pointing a rifle through the window of a London home stormed into the property, only to find that the weapon in question was a harmless replica. Olly Trimbos, 15, and a friend were playing with the toy at his family home in Belsize Park after returning from school on Monday. Three hours later he found himself handcuffed by armed officers after they forced their way into his home.



His father, John, a training consultant, was in his bedroom reading when he heard the front door being battered down. Thinking it was a robbery, he hurried into the corridor where officers commanded him to raise his arms and handcuffed him. "It was like a Bruce Willis film," Mr Trimbos, 42, told The Times. "I thought it was some lunatic who had broken in but instead there were around six armed officers pointing guns at me, barking and shouting. They handcuffed me and Olly and took us all to the landing. My wife had to tell them who we were. She was absolutely terrified and my seven-year-old, Felix, was trembling. They searched the house and found Olly's replica gun. Apparently someone from the hotel across the road had looked into the flat and seen a gun being used, which was obviously just Olly messing around. [...] Olly got mugged recently, so the police have my details," he said. "I gave them my mobile number so they could have called, or checked with our neighbours, which would have revealed that we are a pretty boring family who have lived here for six years, not armed terrorists. Afterwards, my youngest son broke down and cried his eyes out and my wife no longer feels happy living here," he added.



A spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said: "We were called to an address in NW3, to reports of youths seen at a window of the flat with a firearm. One of the youths was seen to point the gun out of the window. Armed police attended the address and forced entry to the premises. Those inside were called out and the flat was searched. A replica rifle was found and no further action was taken. We apologised to the family for any distress caused at the time who seemed supportive of the action taken," she said. She added that the call had to be taken seriously.

I so love that "seemed supportive of the action taken" - it's the reaction you might expect to get from people you've put in fear of their lives.



"Barking", incidentally, is something they're trained in. It adds to the terror.


gee, i guess i get to defend the actions of the british police here.



someone sees a rifle being aimed out a window. replicas are just that 'reproductions designed to appear as if they were the real thing'. from any distance greater than a couple of yards, few would be capable of distinguishing a replica from the real thing. a rifle pointed out a window is an immediate threat to the public welfare and safety. you don't look through your directory and ring up the address, "i say, we've heard a report that someone's pointing a rifle out the window. could you confirm?". if it were a real rifle, and the person pointing it had real intent, one would surely not expect them to respond in the affirmative. you don't take a chance with an imminent threat to public safety.



would i be even remotely pleased if the police battered down my door and stormed in? certainly not. however, i also would not point a gun, real or replica, out the window of my home.

anastrophe wrote: would i be even remotely pleased if the police battered down my door and stormed in? certainly not. however, i also would not point a gun, real or replica, out the window of my home.We did not behave like this in the days of my youth. Back then a constable of the law would promptly arrive, probably in a car, possibly leave his accompanying partner in the background, and courteously knock on the door to make enquiries. If you'd like to pretend that was less safe for him than the current operational procedure, I'd invite you to show me an instance where it wasn't.

Meanwhile, I'll show you the consequence of enacting this heavy-handed tomfoolery.

Press Association, June 29.

Officers hunting for a chemical bomb raided two properties in Lansdown Road and arrested two brothers Mohammed Abdul Kahar, 23, and Abul Koyair, 20. Mr Kahar was shot in the shoulder during the raid. However, police found nothing in the house and the two brothers were later released without charge after a week of questioning.

Assistant commissioner Andy Hayman today presented a report on the raid "Operation Volga", to the MPA. The report said: "All possible steps," were taken to confirm or deny the veracity of the intelligence before the raid was launched. It said that by the time officers apply for a search warrant "all immediate steps to test the information had been exhausted". "Further delay was not believed to be acceptable given the threat to public safety and the fear that if the intelligence is correct there was no guarantee the device would remain at the location leading to a loss of control," the report said. "In short not to have interdicted would have been a dereliction of duty."

The Forest Gate raid was believed to be the first operation in the country which involved firearms officers wearing CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) protection suits, the report said. The police took advice from the Health Protection Agency (HPA) and had contingency plans to evacuate more than 600 houses within 200 metres. The report emphasised that there were no more than 35 officers inside the property during the raid. Claims that 250 officers had entered the house were "completely inaccurate".So, what was that all about? Britain's Finest were set up with a false lead, 250 of them clambered into full BioHaz Winterwear, 35 of them managed to fit into a small terrace house without asking the occupants to open the door first, and a somewhat startled and blatantly unarmed Muslim was carted off to hospital with a hole blown through his shoulder. Both occupants have (of course) been released without charge.

The Mirror tried to save face for the Metropolitan Police by saying it was a fake lead from a Muslim Terrorist (see "Man with an IQ of just 69 is believed to be the trigger behind the bungled terror raid in Forest Gate, East London.") but that went down with all the credibility of a lead balloon at a children's party. By all means ask me who I think dropped them into this particular mess and I'll try to write it up. My point, however, is not who - it's that this Keystone Kops approach is utter folly in attracting either support or even sympathy for the Boys in Blue from those who could help them most. The day was when a Commissioner would resign after one such farrago under his watch, much less two - so, perhaps, might a Home Secretary from the Cabinet - since (as we've seen) the guilty are beyond prosecution in this country. As it is, we just sit back and despondently await further debacles.

anastrophe wrote: gee, i guess i get to defend the actions of the british police here.



someone sees a rifle being aimed out a window. replicas are just that 'reproductions designed to appear as if they were the real thing'. from any distance greater than a couple of yards, few would be capable of distinguishing a replica from the real thing. a rifle pointed out a window is an immediate threat to the public welfare and safety. you don't look through your directory and ring up the address, "i say, we've heard a report that someone's pointing a rifle out the window. could you confirm?". if it were a real rifle, and the person pointing it had real intent, one would surely not expect them to respond in the affirmative. you don't take a chance with an imminent threat to public safety.



would i be even remotely pleased if the police battered down my door and stormed in? certainly not. however, i also would not point a gun, real or replica, out the window of my home.


They can certainly send the troops out at first call, Anastrophe. But there are enough trained clerks to do the checking while the troops are on their way. With that information, it would have been sufficient to knock and inform the parents of the misdemeanour along with a stern police lecture to the boys.

spot wrote: We did not behave like this in the days of my youth. Back then a constable of the law would promptly arrive, probably in a car, possibly leave his accompanying partner in the background, and courteously knock on the door to make enquiries. If you'd like to pretend that was less safe for him than the current operational procedure, I'd invite you to show me an instance where it wasn't.




so your complaint is less pertaining to malfeasance, and more to do with the fact that times have changed since your youth. i concur. times have changed, dramatically, since my youth as well.



protecting the commonweal is far different task today than it was fifty years ago. now, i certainly acknowledge that britain has suffered orders of magnitude more in the realm of direct terrorist attacks in the past decades than we here in the states have. i remember bombings and even a rocket (or perhaps it was mortar) attack in the heyday of IRA attacks..



nevertheless - times have changed, regrettably.





Meanwhile, I'll show you the consequence of enacting this heavy-handed tomfoolery.


yes, certainly a bungled operation. but if you have mispercieved that i excuse all police actions on the basis of protecting the commonweal, then perhaps i can remedy that. my comments were specific to the incident cited previously. the tactics may indeed have been heavy-handed, but i think the response is appropriate when a rifle is pointed out a window. that wasn't a matter of failed intelligence, it was a matter of a report from a citizen of a clear and present threat to public safety. that the gun was a replica is utterly immaterial.

Anastrophe wrote: yes, certainly a bungled operation. but if you have mispercieved that i excuse all police actions on the basis of protecting the commonweal, then perhaps i can remedy that. my comments were specific to the incident cited previously. the tactics may indeed have been heavy-handed, but i think the response is appropriate when a rifle is pointed out a window. that wasn't a matter of failed intelligence, it was a matter of a report from a citizen of a clear and present threat to public safety. that the gun was a replica is utterly immaterial.


And then we have the case of the Irish feller, happily walking home from the pub carrying a wooden table leg in a bag shot to death by an armed police oficer. Simply because someone called the police and said that he looked like he was carrying a rifle.

anastrophe wrote: so your complaint is less pertaining to malfeasance, and more to do with the fact that times have changed since your youth. i concur. times have changed, dramatically, since my youth as well. You deliberately misquote me, thereby making your statement appear reasonable when it isn't. I said that "We [meaning those in authority, the Royal We] did not behave like this in the days of my youth", not that times have changed since my youth. What has changed is not the state of the world, but the new arrogance of our governors and the consequent lack of accountability of their uniformed goon squads, both of which malfease with seeming impunity.

OpenMind wrote: And then we have the case of the Irish feller, happily walking home from the pub carrying a wooden table leg in a bag shot to death by an armed police oficer. Simply because someone called the police and said that he looked like he was carrying a rifle.


indeed, a terrible occurance. but not the one i was talking about, and not relevant to my comments.

spot wrote: You deliberately misquote me, thereby making your statement appear reasonable when it isn't. I said that "We [meaning those in authority, the Royal We] did not behave like this in the days of my youth", not that times have changed since my youth. What has changed is not the state of the world, but the new arrogance of our governors and the consequent lack of accountability of their uniformed goon squads, both of which malfease with seeming impunity.


i was not intending to deliberately misquote you.



nevertheless, i *do* maintain that the state of the world has changed, dramatically, and that is why the response is different now. in my youth, a teenager could walk down the street with a rifle over his shoulder, and it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow, as he was certainly off either to the range, or to marksmanship class at the local high school, or to shoot varmints, or some other innocuous activity.

Then I repeat, what has changed is not the state of the world, what has changed is the reaction of those in authority to the way we live our lives, coupled with their ambition to take greater control. This is authoritarianism looking for every excuse to tighten their day to day oversight and restriction of the citizen. The propagandist excuse that "the world is less safe" is their reason for doing so. In behaving as they do they generate events which bring their analysis closer to reality. They need to be stopped while it is possible to stop them. We could be talking of policing inner cities or of Western Imperialism at this point, the problem is the same in each case, as is the solution - a refusal to allow these mistaken policies to continue, and a demand for a full public account of their acts.

anastrophe wrote: indeed, a terrible occurance. but not the one i was talking about, and not relevant to my comments.


I cannot agree. The case is relevant because the same official police mechanism brought about his death.

I do note, anastrophe, that you're desperately restricting discussion to the one story I described as kittenish by comparison.

Scrat wrote: This is where I get the major parts of my bad attitude towards America. I cannot believe that people actually think we are free, the concept of freedom in America is distorted and that distortion is getting worse.



America is not a free democracy. It is an oligarchical/aristocratic republic that is corrupt and dysfunctional and bordering on authoritarianizm. "We the people" has no meaning here.



I guess you have to see and live in other places to truly understand what I am saying.


your perception borders on the paranoic, in my opinion. the liberties available in the united states are extraordinary. you're free to succeed or fail on your own terms, for the most part. typically, the failures like to find someone to blame other than themselves.



of course, your definition has long been that there's no such thing as freedom, until you're dead, so we're dealing with a foundation that has no support in rational thought.



sorry for my bluntness.

spot wrote: I do note, anastrophe, that you're desperately restricting discussion to the one story I described as kittenish by comparison.


so what? i happen to disagree with your analysis of that particular case. are you taking my silence on the others as meaning something specifically? i condemn all police brutality and corruption.



would that you would be so tender as i am being in discussion of malfeasance in your land.

freedom can only exist within the context of the intentionality of living beings. so the suggestion that there is only total freedom at death is a definition plucked from thin air, and completely irrelevant to the very definition of freedom.



in fact, the suggestion that only when you are dead you are free, is absurd, since only the dead could know, and once you are dead, by definition, you cease to know. unless you have been dead and come back to life, you can't make any statement of what freedom means upon dying.



and of course, if you die and come back to life, you weren't really dead in the first place.



freedom and liberty are a continuum, not absolute states. that is by definition. i am as free as i have ever been. i have not been locked up for my political views - and no, that's not a function of the fact that i am not dissident of those currently in political power. i read and see people saying things completely contrary to the politics of those in power every day, and they are not being locked up, or supressed, in any way. the prattling on that they are being supressed is just that - prattle - because if that totalitarian state existed, i would not be able to read those prattlings in the first place. have some freedoms been lost? certainly. have other freedoms been gained? huge crashing waves of freedoms have been gained in the last decade, for people all over the world.



i refer you to a little thing called "The Internet". if you can't see what's plainly in front of your nose, and the extraordinary power it has given to those who seek peace and freedom, then i do say there's nothing i can do to illuminate it further for you.

i havent read the whole thread nor have i watched the videos, all i can say is there are horrible people throughout the world, here in britain, over there in america & everywhere else

i understand you being upset when people slag off your country, i get upset when people slag off mine

america cant be blamed for everything, neither can the uk, i guess people just look for a scapegoat

buttercup wrote: america cant be blamed for everything, neither can the uk, i guess people just look for a scapegoatI think we could all agree with that, buttercup.

Pinky wrote: Some of you really need to pull your heads out of your own backsides for five minutes and think about what you are saying.I do apologize, Pinky. Anastrophe asked me to tell him some stories. I stopped a while ago. Actually I'm just peeved that nobody played with my spreadsheet.

I can't get over having written a boring spreadsheet, for all that. It's a lifetime first for me.