Panorama Stockwell Tube Shooting

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Danny_Dravot, Mar 8, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Personally, thought it was very good objective documentary.

    I too was horrified to hear that the SB log had been altered. Just goes to show that arrse covering always ends in tears...

    any other thoughts?
  2. apologies...have seen this is already posted elsewhere...i am a goon!

    it wasn't when i started typing it BTW!!!
  3. Frankly I thought it was a programme with a single aim: to have a Met Officer state that they had a "shoot to kill" policy. Now, I'm a fully paid up museli eating, Grauniad reading, left wing pinko, but frankly I can only fully support the actions by Cdr Dick, the surveillance team and fire-arms Officers. Mistakes were made, and they were utterly regrettable, however at the end of the day if they had taken out a suicide bomber they would all be up for gongs (and the officer who placed the suspect in a bear hug, with an utter belief that he was a suicide bomber deserves the VC....)

    Any thoughts?!
  4. Alfred..........thats all well and good till some trigger happy copper slots your Grandad on his way to the pub because he had a heavy coat on to keep him warm and did not stop because he's slightly deaf...........bang bang.........whoops, we thought he was a suicide bomber !
  5. indeed, and I agree that it was a terrible incident. However, bearing in mind the pressure that the Met were under at that period, specifically the Senior Officers and Fire-arms Officers, I cannot find individual fault - the shooting was a result of a chain of events and decisions, made under high stress situations. I hope that there have been improvements to break this chain; this is the only thing that will stop future shootings, not disciplining individual Officers
  6. Or carring a sawn off table leg.. :roll:
  7. Cannot say I totally agree with you on that one either, and i'm not doing this purely for the usual Arrse reasons of argumentative the end of the day, ALL operationally armed persons have the right 'not' to open fire. The man on the ground is the man who is always allowed to make that final deciding choice and has to be professional enough to take that option.
  8. i thought the israeli general hit the nail on the head when he summed up by saying they would only engage legal force when they could be sure the suspect was carrying a suicide bomb eg., the example he cited
  9. Yes, thanks for that Whitehorse.........remind me not to take any of my table legs with me into London again !
  10. Have you ever been in a position to make that sort of decision? Or are you an armchair critic.
    Things went wrong, it happens. Unfortunately there is a real threat out there, and whether there is a shoot to kill policy or not, it is a split second decision to fire.
    If it had been me with the finger on the trigger and told to take the shot, it would be the head shot. If it is a suicide bomber you don’t give them the chance to initiate the device.

    It is very easy to sit back afterwards and second guess, the hard part is being the bloke with his nuts on the line and having the guts to follow through.

  11. Blame will not lie with any single person. There would appear to be far to many levels of command. The commander on the ground has to be trusted and allowed to make the final call. The top copper wants to make the decisions but is not on the ground. Poor comms is being aportioned some of the blame. Surely this would not be an issue should more responsability have been given to those on the ground. How can you refer up if a snap call has to be made? If the top brass want to make the calls then get them out of the air con'd office and on the ground.
  12. bowman-guru, it would be far to Walt-like to answer such a question truthfully and therefore I will take time out on this thread.......but, merely watch from a distance with my white arm band on.
  13. It might be an idea to consider the fact that the surveillance officers and the firearms officers all followed him into the underground, a place where they knew that if a device was detonated the effects would have been amplified. They could have said sod it, that's dangerous, but they still went, and yes, made sure they were as close as possible in order to ensure that civilians weren't hurt by accident.

    Things went wrong, but I hope you can imagine the stress they were all under at the time. In a perfect world everyone would have all the time they needed to make the right decision, but it's not going to happen any time soon. Until then the people who put themselves on the line to protect the public will be criticised and bebriefed by armchair critics with all the advantages of hindsight.

    Tradgic, but if it had gone wrong the other way there would have been just as much sh1t flying about not being able to protect the public.
  14. its a tired cliche, but...

    ...i'm sure had the fire arms officers been soldiers in NI/Iraq etc, heads would have rolled by now.

    i appreciate the pressures the rozzers were under, but it seems to be one rule for them, one for us....

    anyone old enough to remember Op FLAVIUS... must be!!!!?
  15. Why does Op FLAVIUS ring a bell? Can you give me a clue?