• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
M62 Police Shooting
<<
<
27 of 36
>>
>
Jellied Eel
Yesterday, 17:43
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“The guy in court today has it listed as one of the of the charges so one assumes it does.”

Think I've found it-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/57

57 Interpretation.

(1)In this Act, the expression “firearm” means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged and includes—

(a)any prohibited weapon, whether it is such a lethal weapon as aforesaid or not; and

(b)any component part of such a lethal or prohibited weapon; and

(c)any accessory to any such weapon designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon;

and so much of section 1 of this Act as excludes any description of firearm from the category of firearms to which that section applies shall be construed as also excluding component parts of, and accessories to, firearms of that description.


Although having read it a few times, not entirely sure the explanaition explains it to this ordinary man. But (c) looks like it's treated as a seperate 'firearm' and offence. Also probably explains why we had some debate as to whether adding a compensator to a pistol would have involved extra paperwork. Then the '97 Act came along and it became rather redundant..
GusGus
Yesterday, 17:53
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Well you keep saying the Duggan case got to me, when I keep saying it didn't, because it resulted in the correct verdict according to the law. Duggan set nothing back, apart from in the minds of those intent on trouble, and police blaming.

You're the one with the problem over that, and you want to make comparisons here, based on your view of Duggan, and the fact we dont know what happened here. it seems clear who you are trying to blame, and it isn't just me that has pointed that out.

The things you are after are unrealistic, such as shooting to wound, and now you want recording equipment, never mind the fact it doesn't meet the requirements for proper police evidential recording.”


The firearms officers involved in the killing of Mark Duggan disgraced themselves and the service by their attitude and refusal to co-operate with the inquiry. They stated that if forced they would all resign, they should have been dealt with
EvieJ
Yesterday, 17:55
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Well you keep saying the Duggan case got to me, when I keep saying it didn't, because it resulted in the correct verdict according to the law. Duggan set nothing back, apart from in the minds of those intent on trouble, and police blaming.

You're the one with the problem over that, and you want to make comparisons here, based on your view of Duggan, and the fact we dont know what happened here. it seems clear who you are trying to blame, and it isn't just me that has pointed that out.

The things you are after are unrealistic, such as shooting to wound, and now you want recording equipment, never mind the fact it doesn't meet the requirements for proper police evidential recording.”

You keep bringing it up DP. But yes I would say it definitely set back the trust in more than a small minority Even the IPCC are unable to defend some of the 'inaccuracies'. Interesting though that you have such a one dimensional approach to it, the jury verdict was right but the findings of the enquiry and the recommendations which were made following it seem to be irrelevant to you.

Recording equipment was one of the directions made years ago and is available to some forces, I and others don't accept the excuses that are being given for them not being used. Why are you trying to portray that as unreasonable or unrealistic when its neither.

BIB, Your first post was to remind us of the riots and you are happily allowing unproven allegations and lynch mob posts. I haven't blamed anyone but your motives are quite plain to see.
Dr. Claw
Yesterday, 18:01
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“Not everyone does...
Also, banking under sharia law means you don't receive any interest, nor would would you pay any if you took out a loan. Not sure how that equates with dodgy dealings.”

islamic banking gives you an expected profit rate which is basically the same as interest and is often more interest than you would get from a non islamic bank
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:02
Originally Posted by Dr. Claw:
“islamic banking gives you an expected profit rate which is basically the same as interest and is often more interest than you would get from a non islamic bank”

Really?
Would have to disagree going by experience.
skp20040
Yesterday, 18:04
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“Really?
Would have to disagree going by experience.”


https://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/savi...ings-accounts/


Profit rate, not interest


Islamic savings accounts offer an anticipated or expected profit rate, not an interest rate. Although in practice this profit rate is usually achieved, crucially, it may not be. If it looks like your savings will not be on course to achieve the anticipated profit rate, the bank may write to inform you. Any profit you earn is taxed in the same way as interest earned on a non-Islamic savings account.
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:04
Originally Posted by wear thefoxhat:
“Yeah, a successful business buoyed up with drug money, maybe it's a laundry business and I don't mean washing.”

Awwww, bless.
You keep telling yourself that. Those pesky immigrants doing well for themselves.
Obviously breaking the law...
TeeGee
Yesterday, 18:06
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“Really?
Would have to disagree going by experience.”

Perhaps you could elaborate on these experiences?
skp20040
Yesterday, 18:06
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“Awwww, bless.
You keep telling yourself that. Those pesky immigrants doing well for themselves.
Obviously breaking the law... ”


One does of course assume that as the father has said he is taking out a private prosecution against the officer who shot his son that he will also take out prosecutions against those quoted in the media who are stating about guns, drug dealing and money laundering, some of those quoted have been named so it wont be hard for him to take action. Nothing to do with where someone is from when it comes to whether it is the truth or not.
Inspiration
Yesterday, 18:08
Originally Posted by egghead1:
“Inquest heard today firearm was recovered from passenger footwell.”

Any detail given as to where the shots were fired from? If the suspect was in the passenger seat then that would suggest a car to car shooting.

Edit: BBC just clarified he was the passenger. In that case I am now certain the police shot from inside the police car via their passenger side window. That would question how they could issue a warning prior to shots being fired.
Dr. Claw
Yesterday, 18:09
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“Really?
Would have to disagree going by experience.”

last year when i was looking around various banks to get a good interest back on my money i noticed some of the better known islamic banking sites were giving returns of 2.7% on your money compared to less than 1.4% with the well known non islamic ones. they state it's 'expected' and might not return what you expect but i could look at their past history and they never failed to give back what was expected.
EvieJ
Yesterday, 18:11
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“One does of course assume that as the father has said he is taking out a private prosecution against the officer who shot his son that he will also take out prosecutions against those quoted in the media who are stating about guns, drug dealing and money laundering, some of those quoted have been named so it wont be hard for him to take action. Nothing to do with where someone is from when it comes to whether it is the truth or not.”

No worries about libel here, law enforcement will tackle it.
Jellied Eel
Yesterday, 18:27
Originally Posted by Inspiration:
“Edit: BBC just clarified he was the passenger. In that case I am now certain the police shot from inside the police car via their passenger side window. That would question how they could issue a warning prior to shots being fired.”

I don't think so. The Mercedes and other cars boxing in the Audi were on the driver's side weren't they? I'd still suggest from front/drivers side as that angle would explain the grouping on the window and be safest given strays would go through passenger side into the embankment.

Also found this comment in the Grauniad-

Mohammed Akram, imam at the Jamia Bilal mosque, accused police of acting like “vigilantes”.

“They are there to protect us and these actions were like a vigilante-style operation and there is bad feeling in the community because of what they did.
It is the kind of thing you see in the movies and you don’t expect it on your doorstep. It is quite a shock the way the police have acted,” he said.


I'd suggest people driving around with loaded, supressed pistols is the kind of thing best kept to the movies, not on UK roads.. And as the victim was 'going equipped', I suspect the operation did protect someone else from being shot by the victim.
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:28
Originally Posted by wear thefoxhat:
“Yeah, a successful business buoyed up with drug money, maybe it's a laundry business and I don't mean washing.”



Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Don't know about some but I would certainly not be jealous of any of their businesses(past and present) based on the declared accounts”

I'm not claiming all Asian businesses are thoroughly honest, however to suggest that they're all successful due to dodgy dealings is not doing much to hide your seething anger at their success. It takes money, hard work, and an awful amount of your time and effort to make a business successful. To suggest otherwise due the colour of someone's skin is racism.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 18:32
Originally Posted by GusGus:
“The firearms officers involved in the killing of Mark Duggan disgraced themselves and the service by their attitude and refusal to co-operate with the inquiry. They stated that if forced they would all resign, they should have been dealt with”

Did they really?

They all made statements, and they all gave evidence. How is that not co operating?
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:34
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“One does of course assume that as the father has said he is taking out a private prosecution against the officer who shot his son that he will also take out prosecutions against those quoted in the media who are stating about guns, drug dealing and money laundering, some of those quoted have been named so it wont be hard for him to take action. Nothing to do with where someone is from when it comes to whether it is the truth or not.”

I'm not talking about the father or his business. I have absolutely no idea what his dealings are. Nor do I care....If what is claimed about his son is true, he needs to ask himself how he brought up such a spoilt waste of space of a son. I presume, being an only son in an Asian household...he was thouroughly spoilt.
I was answering someone who clearly stated all Asian businesses were dodgy.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 18:34
Originally Posted by EvieJ:
“You keep bringing it up DP. But yes I would say it definitely set back the trust in more than a small minority Even the IPCC are unable to defend some of the 'inaccuracies'. Interesting though that you have such a one dimensional approach to it, the jury verdict was right but the findings of the enquiry and the recommendations which were made following it seem to be irrelevant to you.

Recording equipment was one of the directions made years ago and is available to some forces, I and others don't accept the excuses that are being given for them not being used. Why are you trying to portray that as unreasonable or unrealistic when its neither.

BIB, Your first post was to remind us of the riots and you are happily allowing unproven allegations and lynch mob posts. I haven't blamed anyone but your motives are quite plain to see.”

I mentioned riots in general terms, as I have explained. You keep coming back to Duggan. I have suggested it is nothing to do with this, and that there are threads on that topic.

You are refusing to listen to anything that contradicts your faulty comments.
Inspiration
Yesterday, 18:34
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“I don't think so. The Mercedes and other cars boxing in the Audi were on the driver's side weren't they? I'd still suggest from front/drivers side as that angle would explain the grouping on the window and be safest given strays would go through passenger side into the embankment.”

In this photo:

http://i4.manchestereveningnews.co.u...e-shooting.jpg

Draw an imaginary line from the passenger seat of the Mercedes, through the windscreen, to the passenger seat of the Audi. Surely that lines up perfectly with the holes for the bullets to reach the passenger seat.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 18:35
Originally Posted by Inspiration:
“Any detail given as to where the shots were fired from? If the suspect was in the passenger seat then that would suggest a car to car shooting.

Edit: BBC just clarified he was the passenger. In that case I am now certain the police shot from inside the police car via their passenger side window. That would question how they could issue a warning prior to shots being fired.”

A warning is not essential. I suggest we leave the forensics to the experts, rather than rely on one photo.
jaycee331
Yesterday, 18:36
Originally Posted by Bagshot85:
“however to suggest that they're all successful due to dodgy dealings”

Yet neither comment you quoted in your reply said that.
They were speculating about this specific case.
Deep Purple
Yesterday, 18:36
Originally Posted by Jellied Eel:
“I don't think so. The Mercedes and other cars boxing in the Audi were on the driver's side weren't they? I'd still suggest from front/drivers side as that angle would explain the grouping on the window and be safest given strays would go through passenger side into the embankment.

Also found this comment in the Grauniad-

Mohammed Akram, imam at the Jamia Bilal mosque, accused police of acting like “vigilantes”.

“They are there to protect us and these actions were like a vigilante-style operation and there is bad feeling in the community because of what they did.
It is the kind of thing you see in the movies and you don’t expect it on your doorstep. It is quite a shock the way the police have acted,” he said.


I'd suggest people driving around with loaded, supressed pistols is the kind of thing best kept to the movies, not on UK roads.. And as the victim was 'going equipped', I suspect the operation did protect someone else from being shot by the victim.”

It seems none of them want to question why these people were driving around with a gun.
Dr. Claw
Yesterday, 18:39
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“It seems none of them want to question why these people were driving around with a gun.”

sadly the media rarely seems to do their job and challenge them on these things they say. in effect they then become a mouthpiece for them to air their strange views
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:40
Originally Posted by Dr. Claw:
“last year when i was looking around various banks to get a good interest back on my money i noticed some of the better known islamic banking sites were giving returns of 2.7% on your money compared to less than 1.4% with the well known non islamic ones. they state it's 'expected' and might not return what you expect but i could look at their past history and they never failed to give back what was expected. ”

Personally, I have never had a Sharia account, I just have one with no interest coming in.
My mother did until recently, and I've never noticed or heard her say anything on returns.
Thst would surprise me, as essentially it's the same as interest. She didn't know she could have just asked for a no interest account, and was jollied into opening a Sharia account by the "friendly lady at the bank".
Bagshot85
Yesterday, 18:42
Originally Posted by jaycee331:
“Yet neither comment you quoted in your reply said that.
They were speculating about this specific case.”

Actually, both answered my comment I made to the person who was suggesting all Asian businesses were dodgy.
Perhaps instead of jumping on the bandwagon, you could go back and read the comments.
RasFas
Yesterday, 18:58
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“Well you keep saying the Duggan case got to me, when I keep saying it didn't, because it resulted in the correct verdict according to the law. Duggan set nothing back, apart from in the minds of those intent on trouble, and police blaming.

You're the one with the problem over that, and you want to make comparisons here, based on your view of Duggan, and the fact we dont know what happened here. it seems clear who you are trying to blame, and it isn't just me that has pointed that out.

The things you are after are unrealistic, such as shooting to wound, and now you want recording equipment, never mind the fact it doesn't meet the requirements for proper police evidential recording.”

Really? You spent 4 years on the Duggan thread blustering in vain trying to defend the police and it didn't get to you? Ok...

We don't know what happened here but familiar patterns are emerging. We already have a full account of the victim's criminal history, factual or otherwise. We know a gun was found where he was sitting when shot, tactically drip fed over a period of days. Also, like with Duggan, no recording equipment was used. There seems to be some objection to body worn cameras now which I don't understand, but what was wrong with dashcams, apart from the fact it nearly ruined the shooter in the Azelle Rodney case?
<<
<
27 of 36
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map