UK victim of police brutality: Press Conference

[segovius]

Listening to it now live on BBC Five Live.

Truly harrowing. The victim is describing being shot and kicked repeatedly in the face whilst bleeding from a chest wound.

He is finding it hard to speak and keeps breaking down. He didn't realize it was the Police at first - first thing he knows is he is shot then dragged down the stairs while the Police scream obscenities and kick him.

His head is banging against the stairs and the women are screaming - he still assumes it is a robbery or attack - they throw him onto the street and kick him some more. Screaming obscenities all the time....

Chilling listening...he's had to stop talking now and his brother is giving his account.....

[segovius]

Forgot Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/)

I guess 'innocent till proven guilty' has been updated to 'shoot you and beat your head in we prove you guilty'

[segovius]

Now he's relating how they started interrogating him about the Ku Klux Klan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and asking if he was a member :wow:

The guy is Asian!!!!

Apparently this was because he had a rap album that had a song titled KKK or something and they saw the album cover.

Unbelievable. For that you get shot.

Now the moronic press pack are asking him about jihad but he is sorting them out and telling it like it is. They won't listen though.

It's getting worse now: after his moving testimony about being shot and his family brutalized all they can talk about is his 'Muslim beliefs' and whether he supports terrorism.

The victim says the officer actually looked him in the eyes and pulled the trigger. He saw it all face to face.

Britain is dead now. Utterly without hope. It's over.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
Forgot Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/)

I guess 'innocent till proven guilty' has been updated to 'shoot you and beat your head in we prove you guilty'

Have the police been to trial and found guilty?

[Harald]

Oh for fuck's sake.

Edit:

Moe, the police shot -- SHOT -- an innocent man.

An innocent man with no gun on him.

Dude, maybe you're comfortable with this shit, which goes against everything we are supposed to stand for, and which belongs to the worst societies that 'we' have ever fought against. Conservatives are always in favour of the status quo (like slavery, or apartheid or no-vote-for-women, or cutting the hands off thieves) I suppose.

But this is what facist countries do.

You comfortable with that?

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by Harald
Oh for fuck's sake.

Edit:

Moe, the police shot -- SHOT -- an innocent man.

An innocent man with no gun on him.

Dude, maybe you're comfortable with this shit, which goes against everything we are supposed to stand for, and which belongs to the worst societies that 'we' have ever fought against. Conservatives are always in favour of the status quo (like slavery, or apartheid or no-vote-for-women, or cutting the hands off thieves) I suppose.

But this is what facist countries do.

You comfortable with that?

Why are you running on about apartheid and cutting off people's hands Harold? I can't judge the cops or the alleged victim without more information. There is too often a rush to assume that people are guilty if they are police or members of the military. Perhaps you should watch yesterday's HotAir. http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/06/12/ilario-pantano-warlord/

[Chris Cuilla]

Let me see if I have this right...we have an article detailing one side of this event. And an investigation into the police actions is underway.

OK.

So we don't have a full set of information to make any judgements at this point.

Perhaps we ought to be guided by this (from the article):

The director of campaign group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said questions remained about the "appropriateness of [police] action".

She did not want to prejudge any official scrutiny of the raid, but added: "We also have to be concerned about the shot and why that was necessary."

[Vargas]

Last year the police proved they can get away with shooting a man just for running to catch a train, now this.

This shocks me but doesn't suprise me.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Vargas
Last year the police proved they can get away with shooting a man just for running to catch a train, now this.

This shocks me but doesn't suprise me.

The main point though is surely the lies. The government has proved they are prepared to lie on many, many occasions.

Mistakes occur, sure, and this could have been one - but it isn't the mistake that is the issue. Check these lies that are now conveniently swept under the rug:

1) That the victim was shot by his brother

2) That the gun went off in a struggle

3) That MI5 had been surveilling for 6 months

4) That chemicals had been found

And probably many more.

The UK has a government that kills. And a government that lies. The argument that the police need to do their job is no longer applicable: we have a dictatorship on our hands here folks.

[Vargas]

It does appear to be that the current climate of fear is providing an outlet for all the racism and xenophobia in the police (despite the claims that it is "screened out" in the process of hiring new officers it is still rife).

There are lies abound, true, but also now scapegoats and convenient excuses for murder and brutality.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Let me see if I have this right...we have an article detailing one side of this event. And an investigation into the police actions is underway.

OK.

So we don't have a full set of information to make any judgements at this point.

Perhaps we ought to be guided by this (from the article):
The police just issued an apology. Any more comments, Chris?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Vargas
This shocks me but doesn't suprise me.

Shock and surprise are synonyms.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The police just issued an apology. Any more comments, Chris?

So now we have it.

Leave it to you to take my comment out of the context of the time I made it to try and make some point.

:rolleyes:

P.S. Link?

[segovius]

Here's a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5079696.stm)

Apparently Blair is 101% behind the Police.

In a sickening statement that implicitly promises more raids, more incompetence and more harassment and/or killing of the British public, with no sympathy whatsoever for the latest victims of his Gestapo storm-troopers, Blair shockingly stated the following:

"We can only imagine what would happen if they received intelligence, did not act on it, and then something terrible occurred.

"So although I entirely endorse everything that Andy [Hayman] has very properly said, I stand 101% behind the police and the security services in the difficult work they do.

"And I do not want them to be inhibited in doing that work. They have to do what is necessary to protect the public and they do it in a very fine and outstanding way."

Great, he does not want his Stasi inhibited - they never do. And he is 101% behind the Police.

The victim today asked: "is he 101% behind the bullet that went into my chest?"

The answer is obviously a resounding "yes". What about you Chris - what percentage are you?

[Vargas]

It's already known that both Tony and Ian Blair have lied to the public.

This apology fromm the police doesn't mean a thing, they're acknowledging that they were in the wrong, but only in this one instance, and they don't acknowledge the fact that they have lied about their motives for attacking suspects.

It seems that the police will be continuing to attack based on very flimsy reasoning and the most the public can expect if (and unfortunately when) they make another mistake is an apology, which won't bring back people like Jean Charles de Menezes.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
What about you Chris - what percentage are you?

How is this about me?

[Vargas]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How is this about me?

To be fair you were only stating that articles can be one sided, to a degree. It's unfair to paint someone as a supporter of an action or event based on such a remark.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
How is this about me?

Because as your President said: you are with us or against us.

As far as I'm concerned you support the liars, extremists and murderers (ie Bush, Blair and Christian/Islamic maniacs) or you support freedom.

No middle ground.

The day is fast coming when we will need to take sides - to take action. The lunatics will need to be removed somehow when they go too far - and they will - and when that day comes we need to know who's who.

I actually know which side you are on but it amuses me to try to get you to admit it although I know you lack the moral courage.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Vargas
To be fair you were only stating that articles can be one sided, to a degree. It's unfair to paint someone as a supporter of an action or event based on such a remark.

I simply pointed out that the (original) article told us one side (the victim's) of the story, that an investigation was underway, and that we ought ot heed the (reasonable) position of one of the people mentioned in the article to not pre-judge (meaning not to judge before we have all or at least more of the information). Perhaps now we have more (maybe not all).

[segovius]

Originally posted by Vargas
To be fair you were only stating that articles can be one sided, to a degree. It's unfair to paint someone as a supporter of an action or event based on such a remark.

That's why people constantly ask for clarification - when it is consistently not forthcoming they draw conclusions as to why that might be.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I simply pointed out that the (original) article told us one side (the victim's) of the story, that an investigation was underway, and that we ought ot heed the (reasonable) position of one of the people mentioned in the article to not pre-judge (meaning not to judge before we have all or at least more of the information). Perhaps now we have more (maybe not all).

The guy was shot in the chest and everyone admits he was innocent after the Police told a barrage of lies and conflicting stories.

But sure - let's wait for an enquiry. It's ok -there always done by the Police themselves anyway.

:rolleyes:

It goes deep, real deep. One thing for the forces of evil: they're damn good.

:no:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Because as your President said: you are with us or against us.

As far as I'm concerned you support the liars, extremists and murderers (ie Bush, Blair and Christian/Islamic maniacs) or you support freedom.

No middle ground.

I see. So you subscribe to the same sort of philosophical bent as W: "you are with us or against us". Except, of course, your position/side is more righteous. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by segovius
The day is fast coming when we will need to take sides - to take action.

OK. :err:

Originally posted by segovius
The lunatics will need to be removed somehow when they go too far - and they will - and when that day comes we need to know who's who.

Quite.

Originally posted by segovius
I actually know which side you are on but it amuses me to try to get you to admit it although I know you lack the moral courage.

And what do you know exactly? This ought to be amusing.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
The guy was shot in the chest and everyone admits he was innocent after the Police told a barrage of lies and conflicting stories.

But the article you linked to (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5075352.stm) didn't say any of that. The article you linked to simply told one side of the whole story.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But the article you linked to didn't say any of that. The article you linked to simply told one side of the whole story.

I wouldn't know. I just link to articles so as the people who constantly try to bluster and derail - your own good self for example - are denied that option and have to think of some other obfuscating tactic.

In reality I never read them and don't get my news from such sources - besides I have this quaint quirk where I expect people interested enough to comment to do their own research. Hopelessly eccentric I know but hey, I went to an English public school.

In any event, I am way past needing an article or any other form of information to tell me the waft of fascism is blustering though all open windows and seeping under doors.

It's gone way beyond that. As I said - we are now in the endgame: those who are supporting fascism know full well what they are doing, they just haven't got the balls to call it that in case someone hits them with it.

[Vargas]

Originally posted by segovius

It goes deep, real deep. One thing for the forces of evil: they're damn good.

That does sound an awful lot like the sort of thing Bush says, "axis of evil" et al.

I believe that the powers that be are very self serving and not above lies, murder and scapegoating to serve their purposes, but life isn't so two dimensional as "good and evil", and there is such a thing as middle ground.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
I wouldn't know. I just link to articles...In reality I never read them and don't get my news from such sources

So...you throw out some assertion. Link to an article (which you haven't actually read) supposedly supporting said assertion, then bitch when someone actually does read the article and says..."Hey, the article doesn't say anything like what you are claiming."?

Brilliant. I should have figured.

Originally posted by segovius
I have this quaint quirk where I expect people interested enough to comment to do their own research.

But you are the one making the friggin' claims! Genius. Pure Genius.

1. Make claim.
2. Post article that doesn't actually support claim.
3. Expect anyone who thinks you might be BS-ing to do the research to prove you wrong.
4. Rinse, repeat.

Originally posted by segovius
I am way past needing an article or any other form of information to tell me the waft of fascism is blustering though all open windows and seeping under doors.

Of course you are...you seem to be well past letting any facts get in the way of your conclusions and rush to judgement.

Originally posted by segovius
As I said - we are now in the endgame:

So you've said.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Vargas
That does sound an awful lot like the sort of thing Bush says, "axis of evil" et al.

Yes, but when W or Blair do it...it is the "politics of fear".

:lol:

This place just cracks me up.

[Harald]

Yes well.

History is a good guide -- sadly.

And what we know from history is that at some point, when societies go bad, some people say, "This is wrong" and some people just get on board.

This is wrong.

In the UK we've had bomb plots on football stadia that didn't exist. We've had ricin plots that didn't exist. We've had chemical bombs that were never there.

EVERY TIME we have had people taken down to Paddington Green police station where they wait a week and then get let go. EVERY TIME the press releases co-ordinated lies about them, which never get denied when the truth comes out.

A man was shot in the head on the tube by the police for being brown in a public space. Another man was shot in the arm and now can't sleep.

And the UK leader says that he doesn't want inhibition in the police.

This is wrong. This is facism.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Harald
Yes well.

History is a good guide -- sadly.

Yes and no. We need to deal with the here and now and the facts as the exist. If we allow the past to drive our fears an concerns over present reality, then things only get worse. Using history as a guide to learn from is not a problem. When it becomes a replacement for present facts and reality it is a problem.

Originally posted by Harald
In the UK we've had bomb plots on football stadia that didn't exist. We've had ricin plots that didn't exist. We've had chemical bombs that were never there.

EVERY TIME we have had people taken down to Paddington Green police station where they wait a week and then get let go. EVERY TIME the press releases co-ordinated lies about them, which never get denied when the truth comes out.

A man was shot in the head on the tube by the police for being brown in a public space. Another man was shot in the arm and now can't sleep.

And the UK leader says that he doesn't want inhibition in the police.

This is wrong.

These things are indeed wrong. But the antidote against these things is not emotional conjecture about every event, but instead rational dissection and reasoned response.

In many cases those opposed to the current "regimes" (as often used in pejorative sense around here) in the U.S. and U.K. often fall into the trap of using the same kinds of tactics of fear (hype, hysteria, conjecture, misrepresentation, emotionalism) to "wake people up". This helps the "cause" very little, and, in fact, hurts because it reduces credibility.

To oppose and put down tyranny in all of its forms requires rational, well-reasoned thought and response. Emotionalism is the tool of tyrants of every form, shape, size and level.

[709]

Originally posted by segovius
One thing for the forces of evil: they're damn good.
"Now you see that evil will always triumph...because good is dumb."

- Dark Helmet : Spaceballs