Innocent shooting

[DanB]

However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.

Have you seen Team America: World Police?

[Rat Faced]

Dan, shhhhh

dont let 'em know thats how the world actually see 'em

[manker]

manker

That seems much more likely, thanks for that.

"However, commentators on the News reported that the MET could have done more to dispell these rumours which originated from (unreliable) eyewitnesses - instead they chose to stay silent."

The staying silent is what I would have expected. To release a quick, short statement soon after the event to give the bare facts. To then wait until they have made their own enquiries before making a more comprehensive one.

I think the newspapers are deflecting here, it was them who misled the public and they are now saying "Ah, but the Met should have told the public we were printing nonsense". It seems it was their reporting which was at most fault.

As an aside, one doesn't report what the Met (or anyone else) should have done, one opines it. One reports what they did do.

I agree with that.

The commentator that made the remarks I mentioned probably had his colleagues in mind. It wasn't only the newpapers who went with the duffle-coat/up and over the barrier story.

Much more ostentatious a story, that.

Btw, the fact that the MET did release that inaccurate statement could invoke a corporate manslaughter/murder charge. It seems they would have been much better advised to follow with convention and say nothing until their internal reports were completed.

[manker]

However, I definitely believe inexcusable errors were made at a higher, intelligence, level.

Have you seen Team America: World Police?

I downloaded it, but my HD<--->brain osmosis experiment still hasn't worked.

You know what I'm like with films

[JPaul]

It seems they would have been much better advised to follow with convention and say nothing until their internal reports were completed.

I think it was possibly the very special circumstances which led to that.

There would have been public outcry if they had made no statement, given the recent attacks on London.

That wasn't enough for the press, so they embelished it with "eye witness" accounts. Which keeps them in the clear, they report what they are told. However I would be interested to read the questions which illicited the answers, which led to the version reported.

[whypikonme]

That's a matter for you, however I am more likely to listen to the highly trained, experienced, professional witnesses.

l can see you've never had a run-in with the Met. They have a reputation for fitting people up, and lying, and corruption, and even planning and executing robberies and break-ins.

As someone said earlier, the only time anyone has mentioned the word 'police' was the cop who was restraining him, and he was unsure, "I heard shouting which included the word 'police' and turned to face the male in the denim jacket."

l think it's very unlikely they warned him, because, if this were a bomber, it could have made him trigger the bomb.

[whypikonme]

It now seems there were two groups of police, a surveillance team, who thought he was no threat, and a firearms team. The surveillance team allowed him on the train because they felt he was not acting suspiciously, nor was he carrying a bomb. The firearms team didn't appear until he was on the train, (this could be the jumping over the barrier bit, as they were late arriving), and were told of his whereabouts by the surveillance team. A surveillance officer then grabbed him as he stood up, and two members of the firearms team opened fire.

The surveillance team are said to be furious with the firearms team, and look like they will break ranks and not support them in any enquiry.

[JPaul]

It now seems there were two groups of police, a surveillance team, who thought he was no threat, and a firearms team. The surveillance team allowed him on the train because they felt he was not acting suspiciously, nor was he carrying a bomb. The firearms team didn't appear until he was on the train, (this could be the jumping over the barrier bit, as they were late arriving), and were told of his whereabouts by the surveillance team. A surveillance officer then grabbed him as he stood up, and two members of the firearms team opened fire.

The surveillance team are said to be furious with the firearms team, and look like they will break ranks and not support them in any enquiry.

That's interesting, could you tell me where you heard / read / saw it.

[whypikonme]

Source