Govt to monitor everyone's browsing!

Danny1969

CabbageCat said:

PC_Dave said:

Oh, sorry, I forgot the Internet knows better than actual people involved in actual things.

Rose West would tell you she didn't kill anyone but Wikipedia suggests that she did. She knows better than anyone what happened so should we believe her over Wikipedia?

I read Brian Masters book, She must have known. There isn't really any hard evidence she did kill anyone in Cromwell Street although Charmaine was killed when Fred was in Prison at their previous address so I'm not saying she's not a murdering nutter per se

Wilkipedia is not a totally reliable source though and many uni's won't allow citing from it for academic papers

ICBM

PC_Dave said:

Seriously, not everything that happens in the world is released to the public, especially when Firearms are involved. Reports are censored for various reasons. Surely the intelligent people on this forum know and understand that?

Yes, obviously. But none of the independent witnesses reported that he ran down the escalator, or jumped the ticket barrier - and in fact his Oyster card was used to get through… so he couldn't have, could he? Why the police said he did is thus a mystery.

PC_Dave

digitalscream said:

PC_Dave said:

digitalscream said:

So...you don't believe the reports from the investigation either?

Oh, sorry, I forgot the Internet knows better than actual people involved in actual things.

Seriously, not everything that happens in the world is released to the public, especially when Firearms are involved. Reports are censored for various reasons. Surely the intelligent people on this forum know and understand that?

It was a genuine question, so there's no need for the dickish sarcasm.

I'm not talking about details that weren't released. I'm talking about specifics that were in the official reports written from the investigation into the shooting.

No dickish sarcasm intended, apologies if that came across.

It just boils my piss when I read people commenting on things they simply do not know about. I know a lot of Police Officers, including Firearms Officers, and they are all amazing people. Their lives are destroyed if they have to take a life. They face suspension, sometimes without pay, until the inquest is resolved - that can take years. Some can never return to work because the situation they were in was so horrific, but they follow their orders and trust in their training.

I'm pretty passionate about the subject, so sorry if I am coming across as a dick.

digitalscream

PC_Dave said:

No dickish sarcasm intended, apologies if that came across.

It just boils my piss when I read people commenting on things they simply do not know about. I know a lot of Police Officers, including Firearms Officers, and they are all amazing people. Their lives are destroyed if they have to take a life. They face suspension, sometimes without pay, until the inquest is resolved - that can take years. Some can never return to work because the situation they were in was so horrific, but they follow their orders and trust in their training.

I'm pretty passionate about the subject, so sorry if I am coming across as a dick.

Here's the problem - you seem to be making some pretty broad assumptions:

1 - Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable, so that summary of the reports is 100% wrong.

2 - Police Officers are amazing people, therefore they're right.

It's one thing to support people you know, but to exclude every other possibility (especially when there's an awful lot of evidence to the contrary) goes way beyond that.

You didn't actually answer the question, though. Given that the Wikipedia article is a fairly accurate summary of the Stockwell inquest (as far as I can tell), which bits do you disagree with? The part about him not wearing "unseasonal clothing" (he was wearing a light denim jacket)? The part about him using his Oyster card (CCTV shows it was someone else entirely who jumped the gates, most likely a plain clothes policeman)?

I don't think anybody's criticising the officers on the ground. While they had earlier lapses in judgement (when he was initially being followed), the procedural failures and incompetence came from the ones giving the orders.

Of course, the fact that the Met released pictures of the victim distorted to make him look more terrorist-y doesn't exactly fill me with warm, fuzzy feelings about the whole thing.

PC_Dave

*Sigh* No, there's no "problem".

1) I was merely saying that it is quite difficult to stomach the content on Wikipedia, when any Tom, Dick or Harry can edit the content - yes, it contains parts of the report, but that's the report that they released to the public. Is that the whole report? Probably not, we will never know.

2) I didn't say that, you read that from what I said, which is fine, again your opinion. However please remember that they actually have to deal with the shite that's out in the real world, not criticise it from behind a keyboard.....

I do not have the time, energy or inclination to argue with someone I don't know about something when we both do not know all of the facts. That would be silly. Or like reading the Daily Mail.

Thank you, @digitalscream, good chats.

Emp_Fab

Citing secret insider knowledge to justify your position in a debate is like playing Scrabble with a row of blank tiles.  As for Officers' lives being destroyed...  I think using that word to describe the consequences to a policeman's career when it can only really be used to describe the young man with seven bullets in his head is bizarre.  You clearly believe JCdM was guilty of something because, you claim, he ran away from pursuing officers, and therefore must take some, if not all of the blame for the consequences.  You are trying to justify the public execution of an innocent man !!  

ICBM

PC_Dave said:

It just boils my piss when I read people commenting on things they simply do not know about. I know a lot of Police Officers, including Firearms Officers, and they are all amazing people. Their lives are destroyed if they have to take a life. They face suspension, sometimes without pay, until the inquest is resolved - that can take years. Some can never return to work because the situation they were in was so horrific, but they follow their orders and trust in their training. 

I'm pretty passionate about the subject, so sorry if I am coming across as a dick.

No, you aren't - you're defending some people you know who were involved in a terrible, tragic mistake and for whatever reason have given an account of what happened which differs from what other people at the scene reported. I don't know who is right either, but on the evidence in the reports, the police statements are at best not totally reliable. The inconsistencies could even be believed honestly, but that doesn't change that they are not true. Trying to blame de Menezes even partly is simply wrong.

The reason I raised this case is because it shows what can happen to an innocent person when the security forces make a mistake, hence the idea that increased security forces powers are nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong is dangerously naive.

digitalscream

PC_Dave said:

*Sigh* No, there's no "problem".

1) I was merely saying that it is quite difficult to stomach the content on Wikipedia, when any Tom, Dick or Harry can edit the content - yes, it contains parts of the report, but that's the report that they released to the public. Is that the whole report? Probably not, we will never know.

2) I didn't say that, you read that from what I said, which is fine, again your opinion. However please remember that they actually have to deal with the shite that's out in the real world, not criticise it from behind a keyboard.....

I do not have the time, energy or inclination to argue with someone I don't know about something when we both do not know all of the facts. That would be silly. Or like reading the Daily Mail.

Thank you, @digitalscream, good chats.

You're right, I was inferring #2 from your comments.

You keep referring to not knowing all of the facts - I read the IPCC's Stockwell 2 report when it was released to the public. Have you? If not, I'd suggest that I probably know a lot more of the facts than you do. I'm willing to concede that I could probably stand to do something more productive with my spare time.

It's here, in case you fancy a read In case you can't be bothered, or simply don't want to, I can tell you that there's nothing in the Wikipedia article that isn't backed up by the report.

PC_Dave

Wow, now who's going with the

digitalscream said:

  dickish sarcasm

I'm not disputing anything in any report, my original comments were in support of people doing a difficult job, and the constant barrage from people like you who clearly know more about everything than anyone else out there, even the people actually doing it.

I still stand by my previous apology if I came across rude or sarcastic - you don't seem capable of not doing that, so i'm going to leave it here.

ICBM said:

The reason I raised this case is because it shows what can happen to an innocent person when the security forces make a mistake, hence the idea that increased security forces powers are nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong is dangerously naive.

This is what I was getting at.

Anyway, I must pop off and do some work, so @digitalscream if you could give me some tips on how to do it properly, that would be greatly appreciate

digitalscream

@PC_Dave - there wasn't any sarcasm in that post at all. At least, I'm struggling to find any.

PC_Dave

digitalscream;958295" said:

@PC_Dave - there wasn't any sarcasm in that post at all. At least, I'm struggling to find any.

Cool, have a good day!

Chalky

So let's review the facts:
1 JCdM was entirely innocent and did nothing wrong. At all.
2 The Police evidently lied in several substantive areas in their account of what happened to try to conceal or justify their mistakes.
3 The incident is evidence that the Police and other authorities can and will act on data they have, without proper validation, draw uncorroborated conclusions, and take grave action against an innocent person.

These facts support @ICBM's point that "The reason I raised this case is because it shows what can happen to an innocent person when the security forces make a mistake, hence the idea that increased security forces powers are nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong is dangerously naive."

CabbageCat

Chalky said:

So let's review the facts:
1 JCdM was entirely innocent and did nothing wrong. At all.
2 The Police evidently lied in several substantive areas in their account of what happened to try to conceal or justify their mistakes.
3 The incident is evidence that the Police and other authorities can and will act on data they have, without proper validation, draw uncorroborated conclusions, and take grave action against an innocent person.

These facts support @ICBM's point that "The reason I raised this case is because it shows what can happen to an innocent person when the security forces make a mistake, hence the idea that increased security forces powers are nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong is dangerously naive."

...or they support the point that the police need more information so they make fewer mistakes.

I accept your points but the line drawn to your conclusion goes through a tunnel somewhere and goes a bit fuzzy.

Chalky

True @CabbageCat but I was using the facts to point back to the original purpose of the yhread re info gathered through government monitoring

digitalscream

CabbageCat said:

Chalky said:

So let's review the facts:
1 JCdM was entirely innocent and did nothing wrong. At all.
2 The Police evidently lied in several substantive areas in their account of what happened to try to conceal or justify their mistakes.
3 The incident is evidence that the Police and other authorities can and will act on data they have, without proper validation, draw uncorroborated conclusions, and take grave action against an innocent person.

These facts support @ICBM's point that "The reason I raised this case is because it shows what can happen to an innocent person when the security forces make a mistake, hence the idea that increased security forces powers are nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong is dangerously naive."

...or they support the point that the police need more information so they make fewer mistakes.

I accept your points but the line drawn to your conclusion goes through a tunnel somewhere and goes a bit fuzzy.

Not really. The information was there for them to draw the correct conclusion, they just didn't use it. There's no reason to think that a higher volume of data would've changed the outcome - as noted in the IPCC report (and the media reports about it) the cause of this incident wasn't a lack of information at all, it was the way they used the information they had.

57Deluxe

...bottom line - if the EU also decides we must have this AND curtail which sites we can legally view into the bargain, then we will be having it...

thomasross20

Awful idea

TheCount

How do they get away with this shit??? Taking away everyone's freedom in the name of safety/anti terrorism blah blah??

I'll answer my own question:

Because the internet is a real threat to our corrupt governments, globally.

And global governments

Sambostar

I'm happy for the  to pry and have access to our bank account data, but on one condition, we get the details of all their bank account transactions and their internet and phone usage printed publicly on a daily basis as well.  Sound fair to me.

nick_s

Some government bureaucrats will enjoy my collection of sports, straight razors, guitars and cars...with a bit of whisky thrown in for good measure.  Yup, I'm coming to get you all sozzled at high speed in my Porsche 911 and make you listen to my terrible guitar playing after watching me demo my new straight razor.

Terrorism by way of boredom and aural torture