Are you seriously trying to say that he was carrying a loaded gun in public for personal jollies not because of something gang related?
I note how many times you’ve tried to ignore posts by myself and others pointing out that petty criminals don’t carry guns, by the way. Or is this 29 year old one of the ‘victims’ who is too young to know any better?
You’ve dug your own hole with this one, picking up an innocuous phase and heading off on some nonsensical tangent.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I have no idea what he was doing with a gun. But many people pick up guns who aren't involved in organised criminality. Some do it because they are paid to do it. Some because they have a one-off score to settle. Some because they are threatened.
The presence of a gun itself does not indicate some kind of hardened organised long-term criminal. And constantly claiming it does; does not make it true.
But is interesting that we are supposed to accept what even the police admit has the quality of gossip about Duggan; yet disregard everything we know about how historically 'malleable' the police can be with the truth at inquiries and inquests.
Such as the shooter here. A man who got on a witness stand and delivered a story of which not a single material fact can be true. A story which cannot be backed up by a single one of his colleagues except one - who only 'remembered' a gun (which couldn't have been there) days later after conferring with the shooter.
The notion that he could be a liar who might have lied to cover a potential criminal act can't even be countenanced.
Despite the fact that we know this has happened time and time and time again historically.
The police cannot, for obvious reasons, sink significant resources into surveillance of petty criminals. There’s too many of them and it wouldn’t be an effective way to fight crime.
That you’re so utterly determined to come up with a view that opposes what was actually happening just highlights your complete irrationality on this whole issue.
What do you think Safe Neighbourhood Teams are?
I'll tell you. They are a 'significant resource'. Aimed primarily at petty crime.
But is interesting that we are supposed to accept what even the police admit has the quality of gossip about Duggan; yet disregard everything we know about how historically 'malleable' the police can be with the truth at inquiries and inquests.
Such as the shooter here. A man who got on a witness stand and delivered a story of which not a single material fact can be true. A story which cannot be backed up by a single one of his colleagues except one - who only 'remembered' a gun (which couldn't have been there) days later after conferring with the shooter.
The notion that he could be a liar who might have lied to cover a potential criminal act can't even be countenanced.
Despite the fact that we know this has happened time and time and time again historically.
With an attitude like that, it's incredibly disturbing to think you might have anything to do with counselling criminals.
So you are saying it is impossible the shooter lied?
And are you saying that police officers have never lied to inquiries and inquests?
If you are, I'd say your attitude is more incredible (or incredulous).
I'm saying that it seems incredible that somebody with such an obviously negative attitude toward the police and judiciary should be involved in providing counselling for criminals.
Aren't you worried that your bosses might read what you've written on DS?
I'm saying that it seems incredible that somebody with such an obviously negative attitude toward the police and judiciary should be involved in providing counselling for criminals.
Aren't you worried that your bosses might read what you've written on DS?
Firstly, I don't work in probation anymore.
Secondly, I work primarily in academic research now - within prisons and youth justice.
So no, I'm not worried.
Why do you think I have a negative attitude towards the judiciary? I generally don't.
I do have issues with trust in the police - and this isn't just from historical cases. It's from pretty day to day infractions that I've seen at police stations with regards to suspects.
By the way, a judge didn't think it impossible the shooter lied. The judicial review is going ahead simply because it is a possibility.
I'm not really sure why you're bothering to labour this point.
Even my spaniel is aware that V53's story was factually inaccurate.
Whether he flat-out lied in order to justify his actions or whether, as DP previously suggested, what he actually saw was Duggan disposing of the gun and his memory of those few seconds is faulty is anybody's guess.
As I've said before, if I was an armed cop I'd actually welcome the idea of wearing a helmet-cam because, if I thought I was doing a diligent job, it'd always prove my actions were justifiable.
And, if it turned out that I'd acted incompetently when given that level of authority and responsibility, I'd deserve any punishment I received.
Yes, resource for petty crime as a whole - not dedicated surveillance of the movements of one individual. It's amazing you can accuse others of being disingenuous then come out with nonsense like this.
You said something along the lines of claiming police couldn't divert resources to low level criminals. In fact most police resources are directed precisely in that area.
As for Trident, I'd become a little more up to speed on their methods and the criticisms of their surveillance targets.
Check out 'Mick Shephard' - another one of their highly sophisticated, organised gangsters with a long history of gun crime (according to intelligence).
Of course in court, this all descended into farce (bit like the 'intelligence-led' raid on Forest Gate) when it was left up to the defendant to explain the law to the Metropolitan Police who apparently seemed utterly unaware of it and spent huge resources tailing and watching a completely innocent individual who had done nothing wrong.
The claims that any of his guns were linked to gang murders were false. They were - in fact - lies.
"Det Ch Supt Kevin Davis, from Operation Trident, said: "I have never seen anything like it. There are guns everywhere. Some may be legal, some may not be legal.
"It is impossible to overestimate the misery and fear these weapons could have brought in the hands of criminals. This has potentially prevented serious injuries or even deaths on the streets of London.
Detectives believe the house was a known haunt for gangsters who knew they could turn up and drive off with a gun. Locals said gun dealer Michael Shepherd lived at the home with his wife."
Of course in court, this all descended into farce (bit like the 'intelligence-led' raid on Forest Gate) when it was left up to the defendant to explain the law to the Metropolitan Police who apparently seemed utterly unaware of it and spent huge resources tailing and watching a completely innocent individual who had done nothing wrong.
The claims that any of his guns were linked to gang murders were false. They were - in fact - lies.
(Mr Shepherd received substantial compensation).
FWIW, I think that, unfortunately, to some extent Shepherd created a rod for his own back and the extent of his "hobby" made it inevitable that any subsequent investigation was going to be a long-winded, high-profile affair.
The whole point of the exemption for firearms of obsolete calibres is that even though they are real weapons they're safe to own because it's impossible to buy ammunition for them.
Being a bit "eccentric" it seems that Shepherd was happy to chat with potential buyers about how an obsolete weapon could be fired using ammunition of a current design.
That sort of behaviour certainly is likely to draw the attention of the police, if they become aware of it, and once the police find themselves confronted with a guy who owns 1,000 guns and has talked about the ability to fire some of them using modern ammo' it becomes a major job to verify whether or not he was up to anything illegal.
Course, regardless of all that, no prosecution should have been brought until the police had provided the CPS with sufficient evidence to yield a prosecution.
What's more, it seems like the police claimed to have evidence of various things, which convinced the CPS to proceed, but then decided that, perhaps, that evidence wasn't so compelling after all.
As a rule, though, it's never wise for a firearm owner to go mouthing off about how they can do illegal things involving guns.
It's not just that. It's that we have (once again), the police moving into an operation (requiring significant resources), ballsing up; and then immediately seeking to control the flow of information to their advantage - using 'friendly' media to do so. The stuff they fed to the press about guns making their way to gangs and being used in several murders was rot. There was never any truth in it. And given a man was remanded for nine months on the basis of absolutely nothing but lies; compensation is simply not enough imo.
It was manifestly ridiculous. They raided a licensed firearms dealer and then went to the press saying, 'wow - this guy had loads of guns in his property - we are stunned. Could have found their way to serious criminals and been used in murders'. They might have as well have raided a hairdressers and feigned shock at the amount of curling tongs which could be used as offensive weapons and peroxide which could be used to make explosives.
But interesting that you've attempted to place blame on the innocent party....
It's not just that. It's that we have (once again), the police moving into an operation (requiring significant resources), ballsing up; and then immediately seeking to control the flow of information to their advantage - using 'friendly' media to do so. The stuff they fed to the press about guns making their way to gangs and being used in several murders was rot. There was never any truth in it. And given a man was remanded for nine months on the basis of absolutely nothing but lies; compensation is simply not enough imo.
It was manifestly ridiculous. They raided a licensed firearms dealer and then went to the press saying, 'wow - this guy had loads of guns in his property - we are stunned. Could have found their way to serious criminals and been used in murders'. They might have as well have raided a hairdressers and feigned shock at the amount of curling tongs which could be used as offensive weapons and peroxide which could be used to make explosives.
But interesting that you've attempted to place blame on the innocent party....
Y'see, I was with you at first but then you've just fallen back into the same routine.
You certainly do have to wonder who's responsible for the way these things get twisted around and the way they get presented in the media.
Is it the police (and, specifically, the Met') who try to make these insinuations as a way of justifying things like Operation Trident, or does the impetus to link cases to something larger come from the CPS or some political quarter?
Course, with regard to your analogy, if a hairdresser started telling people that they could supply products which could be mixed together to make bombs, I'm sure the police would take an interest in that too.
And they'd be perfectly justified in doing so.
The reason Shepherd came to the attention of the police was nothing to do with him being a registered firearms dealer who had a heap of guns.
It was because he was approached by a couple of undercover cops and was happy to discuss the possibility of selling them unlicensed, obsolete, guns which could be fired using currently available ammunition.
The reason Shepherd came to the attention of the police was nothing to do with him being a registered firearms dealer who had a heap of guns.
It was because he was approached by a couple of undercover cops and was happy to discuss the possibility of selling them unlicensed, obsolete, guns which could be fired using currently available ammunition.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely silly. I have kitchen knives and I could theoretically use them to kill people. That is a fact. If I say it and tell it to people, it remains a fact. I could use them to kill.
I believe the police initially went to Shepherd because of some 'intelligence' that he was selling guns to London criminals (this intelligence was pretty weak - hence the undercover work). This resulted in the dawn raid and the subsequent rubbish that they delivered to the waiting media about his guns possibly being responsible for several murders.
We then had the ludicrous situation at trial in which the police floundered when asked basic questions about the law on firearms. The outlandish claims which had been based on 'intelligence' had been ditched by that stage.
Knowingly lying at that stage is all risk and no reward. It can’t be precluded as a possibility, but it’s certainly not a very reasonable first assumption given that misinformation would be a far more likely explanation..
Except it happens too often for these things to be 'one off' mistakes.
It happened in the case of Mark Duggan.
It happened in the case of Ian Tomlinson.
It happened in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.
It happened at the Forest Gate raid (after the screw up, they tried to turn one of the victims of their behaviour into a paedophile - like they tried to turn De Menezes into a rapist).
It happened after Hillsborough.
It happened after Blair Peach.
Remember until very recently, the Met's press office was staffed by many many employees from the biggest media company in the UK with two tabloids willing to print only the police version of events.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely silly. I have kitchen knives and I could theoretically use them to kill people. That is a fact. If I say it and tell it to people, it remains a fact. I could use them to kill.
Goodness, for somebody with an academic stake in the subject, you grasp of it is incredibly poor.
If you're selling something to people while telling them how it can be turned into an illegal item or used for an illegal purpose, you DESERVE to come to the attention of the police.
Whether or not they find grounds to prosecute you for any offence is a different matter but the fact remains that your own actions have contributed to your current situation.
TBH, I suspect that Shepherd's actions were more the result of his eccentric nature than of any deliberate attempt to provide functional guns to people but, as I said, it's hardly surprising that his actions led to police intervention.
TBH, I suspect that Shepherd's actions were more the result of his eccentric nature than of any deliberate attempt to provide functional guns to people but, as I said, it's hardly surprising that his actions led to police intervention.
Actually, he came to the attention of the police initially because of 'intelligence'. The sting operation came after.
But if what you are saying is that the 'intelligence' may have merely been that the police were informed that some dealer in firearms was telling people that the guns could be used to kill people (!); then that 'intelligence' would come under the same grade of intelligence that most of the claims about Duggan would come under.
I brought up this case because another FM claimed that the police would not use huge resources in undercover/security/tailing operations for someone who wasn't a serious criminal.
This and the Forest Gate raid says different.
In each case, the police have defended their actions by using the word 'intelligence'.
Actually, he came to the attention of the police initially because of 'intelligence'. The sting operation came after.
But if what you are saying is that the 'intelligence' may have merely been that the police were informed that some dealer in firearms was telling people that the guns could be used to kill people (!); then that 'intelligence' would come under the same grade of intelligence that most of the claims about Duggan would come under.
I'm saying that chatting to a couple of undercover cops about the possibility of firing an obsolete gun with modern ammo' was probably just macho bullshit but, alas, it was also a foolishly unprofessional thing for a firearm dealer to do.
I mean, what if these two guys were criminals, looking for a working weapon?
He would have, "unknowingly", sold them a weapon they could use to kill somebody.
TBH, if I'd ever spoken to him and he'd started telling me about how some of the obsolete guns he had for sale could be fired with modern ammo' I think my next phone-call would be to the police, so it's hardly surprising the police had "intelligence" about him.
And I say that as a gun owner, because I don't want to see guns getting into the wrong hands and ruining my own sport.
I'm sorry but that's a copout. We've had situations where a dead person has been utterly smeared.
96 people were smeared 25 years ago.
De Menezes was called an illegal, a rapist. Andy Coulson more or less got the Met press office to write up his loathesome article in the NOTW after the killing with the headline 'Why Did He Run?'
Blair Peach had his reputation utterly besmirched.
I'm saying that chatting to a couple of undercover cops about the possibility of firing an obsolete gun with modern ammo' was probably just macho bullshit but, alas, it was also a foolishly unprofessional thing for a firearm dealer to do.
I mean, what if these two guys were criminals, looking for a working weapon?
He would have, "unknowingly", sold them a weapon they could use to kill somebody.
TBH, if I'd ever spoken to him and he'd started telling me about how some of the obsolete guns he had for sale could be fired with modern ammo' I think my next phone-call would be to the police, so it's hardly surprising the police had "intelligence" about him.
And I say that as a gun owner, because I don't want to see guns getting into the wrong hands and ruining my own sport.
The problem is, not any of this.
It is that the police made outlandish claims to the media that several of his guns has been linked to murders and to other gun crimes in London.
This was not true. There was never any basis for these claims. They were lies.
Comments
Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I have no idea what he was doing with a gun. But many people pick up guns who aren't involved in organised criminality. Some do it because they are paid to do it. Some because they have a one-off score to settle. Some because they are threatened.
The presence of a gun itself does not indicate some kind of hardened organised long-term criminal. And constantly claiming it does; does not make it true.
Such as the shooter here. A man who got on a witness stand and delivered a story of which not a single material fact can be true. A story which cannot be backed up by a single one of his colleagues except one - who only 'remembered' a gun (which couldn't have been there) days later after conferring with the shooter.
The notion that he could be a liar who might have lied to cover a potential criminal act can't even be countenanced.
Despite the fact that we know this has happened time and time and time again historically.
What do you think Safe Neighbourhood Teams are?
I'll tell you. They are a 'significant resource'. Aimed primarily at petty crime.
With an attitude like that, it's incredibly disturbing to think you might have anything to do with counselling criminals.
I actually find it incredibly hard to believe.
So you are saying it is impossible the shooter lied?
And are you saying that police officers have never lied to inquiries and inquests?
If you are, I'd say your attitude is more incredible (or incredulous).
I'm saying that it seems incredible that somebody with such an obviously negative attitude toward the police and judiciary should be involved in providing counselling for criminals.
Aren't you worried that your bosses might read what you've written on DS?
Firstly, I don't work in probation anymore.
Secondly, I work primarily in academic research now - within prisons and youth justice.
So no, I'm not worried.
Why do you think I have a negative attitude towards the judiciary? I generally don't.
I do have issues with trust in the police - and this isn't just from historical cases. It's from pretty day to day infractions that I've seen at police stations with regards to suspects.
I'm not really sure why you're bothering to labour this point.
Even my spaniel is aware that V53's story was factually inaccurate.
Whether he flat-out lied in order to justify his actions or whether, as DP previously suggested, what he actually saw was Duggan disposing of the gun and his memory of those few seconds is faulty is anybody's guess.
As I've said before, if I was an armed cop I'd actually welcome the idea of wearing a helmet-cam because, if I thought I was doing a diligent job, it'd always prove my actions were justifiable.
And, if it turned out that I'd acted incompetently when given that level of authority and responsibility, I'd deserve any punishment I received.
You said something along the lines of claiming police couldn't divert resources to low level criminals. In fact most police resources are directed precisely in that area.
As for Trident, I'd become a little more up to speed on their methods and the criticisms of their surveillance targets.
Check out 'Mick Shephard' - another one of their highly sophisticated, organised gangsters with a long history of gun crime (according to intelligence).
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1215/House-of-guns
Of course in court, this all descended into farce (bit like the 'intelligence-led' raid on Forest Gate) when it was left up to the defendant to explain the law to the Metropolitan Police who apparently seemed utterly unaware of it and spent huge resources tailing and watching a completely innocent individual who had done nothing wrong.
The claims that any of his guns were linked to gang murders were false. They were - in fact - lies.
(Mr Shepherd received substantial compensation).
"Det Ch Supt Kevin Davis, from Operation Trident, said: "I have never seen anything like it. There are guns everywhere. Some may be legal, some may not be legal.
"It is impossible to overestimate the misery and fear these weapons could have brought in the hands of criminals. This has potentially prevented serious injuries or even deaths on the streets of London.
Detectives believe the house was a known haunt for gangsters who knew they could turn up and drive off with a gun. Locals said gun dealer Michael Shepherd lived at the home with his wife."
Misinformation - bordering on outright lies.
FWIW, I think that, unfortunately, to some extent Shepherd created a rod for his own back and the extent of his "hobby" made it inevitable that any subsequent investigation was going to be a long-winded, high-profile affair.
The whole point of the exemption for firearms of obsolete calibres is that even though they are real weapons they're safe to own because it's impossible to buy ammunition for them.
Being a bit "eccentric" it seems that Shepherd was happy to chat with potential buyers about how an obsolete weapon could be fired using ammunition of a current design.
That sort of behaviour certainly is likely to draw the attention of the police, if they become aware of it, and once the police find themselves confronted with a guy who owns 1,000 guns and has talked about the ability to fire some of them using modern ammo' it becomes a major job to verify whether or not he was up to anything illegal.
Course, regardless of all that, no prosecution should have been brought until the police had provided the CPS with sufficient evidence to yield a prosecution.
What's more, it seems like the police claimed to have evidence of various things, which convinced the CPS to proceed, but then decided that, perhaps, that evidence wasn't so compelling after all.
As a rule, though, it's never wise for a firearm owner to go mouthing off about how they can do illegal things involving guns.
It was manifestly ridiculous. They raided a licensed firearms dealer and then went to the press saying, 'wow - this guy had loads of guns in his property - we are stunned. Could have found their way to serious criminals and been used in murders'. They might have as well have raided a hairdressers and feigned shock at the amount of curling tongs which could be used as offensive weapons and peroxide which could be used to make explosives.
But interesting that you've attempted to place blame on the innocent party....
Would you say that to defence lawyers/human rights lawyers who specialise in actions against the police?
Like this guy: http://iaingould.co.uk/
Y'see, I was with you at first but then you've just fallen back into the same routine.
You certainly do have to wonder who's responsible for the way these things get twisted around and the way they get presented in the media.
Is it the police (and, specifically, the Met') who try to make these insinuations as a way of justifying things like Operation Trident, or does the impetus to link cases to something larger come from the CPS or some political quarter?
Course, with regard to your analogy, if a hairdresser started telling people that they could supply products which could be mixed together to make bombs, I'm sure the police would take an interest in that too.
And they'd be perfectly justified in doing so.
The reason Shepherd came to the attention of the police was nothing to do with him being a registered firearms dealer who had a heap of guns.
It was because he was approached by a couple of undercover cops and was happy to discuss the possibility of selling them unlicensed, obsolete, guns which could be fired using currently available ammunition.
No.
Their job is to defend people in court rather than attempt to reintegrate criminals into society.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely silly. I have kitchen knives and I could theoretically use them to kill people. That is a fact. If I say it and tell it to people, it remains a fact. I could use them to kill.
I believe the police initially went to Shepherd because of some 'intelligence' that he was selling guns to London criminals (this intelligence was pretty weak - hence the undercover work). This resulted in the dawn raid and the subsequent rubbish that they delivered to the waiting media about his guns possibly being responsible for several murders.
We then had the ludicrous situation at trial in which the police floundered when asked basic questions about the law on firearms. The outlandish claims which had been based on 'intelligence' had been ditched by that stage.
Except it happens too often for these things to be 'one off' mistakes.
It happened in the case of Mark Duggan.
It happened in the case of Ian Tomlinson.
It happened in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes.
It happened at the Forest Gate raid (after the screw up, they tried to turn one of the victims of their behaviour into a paedophile - like they tried to turn De Menezes into a rapist).
It happened after Hillsborough.
It happened after Blair Peach.
Remember until very recently, the Met's press office was staffed by many many employees from the biggest media company in the UK with two tabloids willing to print only the police version of events.
Goodness, for somebody with an academic stake in the subject, you grasp of it is incredibly poor.
If you're selling something to people while telling them how it can be turned into an illegal item or used for an illegal purpose, you DESERVE to come to the attention of the police.
Whether or not they find grounds to prosecute you for any offence is a different matter but the fact remains that your own actions have contributed to your current situation.
TBH, I suspect that Shepherd's actions were more the result of his eccentric nature than of any deliberate attempt to provide functional guns to people but, as I said, it's hardly surprising that his actions led to police intervention.
Actually, he came to the attention of the police initially because of 'intelligence'. The sting operation came after.
But if what you are saying is that the 'intelligence' may have merely been that the police were informed that some dealer in firearms was telling people that the guns could be used to kill people (!); then that 'intelligence' would come under the same grade of intelligence that most of the claims about Duggan would come under.
I brought up this case because another FM claimed that the police would not use huge resources in undercover/security/tailing operations for someone who wasn't a serious criminal.
This and the Forest Gate raid says different.
In each case, the police have defended their actions by using the word 'intelligence'.
I'm saying that chatting to a couple of undercover cops about the possibility of firing an obsolete gun with modern ammo' was probably just macho bullshit but, alas, it was also a foolishly unprofessional thing for a firearm dealer to do.
I mean, what if these two guys were criminals, looking for a working weapon?
He would have, "unknowingly", sold them a weapon they could use to kill somebody.
TBH, if I'd ever spoken to him and he'd started telling me about how some of the obsolete guns he had for sale could be fired with modern ammo' I think my next phone-call would be to the police, so it's hardly surprising the police had "intelligence" about him.
And I say that as a gun owner, because I don't want to see guns getting into the wrong hands and ruining my own sport.
96 people were smeared 25 years ago.
De Menezes was called an illegal, a rapist. Andy Coulson more or less got the Met press office to write up his loathesome article in the NOTW after the killing with the headline 'Why Did He Run?'
Blair Peach had his reputation utterly besmirched.
The problem is, not any of this.
It is that the police made outlandish claims to the media that several of his guns has been linked to murders and to other gun crimes in London.
This was not true. There was never any basis for these claims. They were lies.