Hi all

We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his property.
All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted etc.
But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new building
works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general building
line.
This certainly detracts from the "street scene".
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

TIA

P

On 21 Oct, 14:30, "TheScullster" wrote:
Hi all

We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his property.
All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted etc.
But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new building
works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general building
line.
This certainly detracts from the "street scene".
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

TIA

P

Yes. I set up a Yahoo mail account (something like
) and mailed in when a neighbour did something.

The planners responded that they would prefer a non-anonymised request
so that they could talk to me about it. However, they did investigate
and they then responded to me. As it turned out the development
didn't need permission, but I did feel justified in asking them to
look at it, and I was impressed that they acted swiftly and
competently.

Matt

wrote:
On 21 Oct, 14:30, "TheScullster" wrote:
Hi all

We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property. All the building works are in accordance with plans
submitted etc.
But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new building
works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line.
This certainly detracts from the "street scene".
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

TIA

P

Yes. I set up a Yahoo mail account (something like
) and mailed in when a neighbour did something.

The planners responded that they would prefer a non-anonymised request
so that they could talk to me about it. However, they did investigate
and they then responded to me. As it turned out the development
didn't need permission, but I did feel justified in asking them to
look at it, and I was impressed that they acted swiftly and
competently.

Matt

Bear in mind though that you can be traced by the IP number of your ISP
embedded in the e-mail headers from Yahoo - in my case [XX.XXX.90.86],
which correctly traced my ISP within the last few minutes.

As a matter of interest, under the current legislation (RIPA I believe) any
'authorised' persons within your local authority can apply to the ISP to
obtain your name and address - so this method of reporting is *NOT*
anonymous.

As a matter of interest, most councils *will* *not* give the name and
address of someone reporting a possible breaking of the rules - but if you
object to a legal planning application, they will give the objectors name
and address to the planning applicant.


Tanner-'op

TheScullster wrote:
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

Talk to your local councillor. They'll be able to put in a query
themselves, under their name, leaving you out of it.

--
JGH

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TheScullster"
saying something like:

Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

They'll look at complaints from any gutless ******.

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:
We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property. All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted
etc. But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new
building works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line. This certainly detracts from the "street scene". Do
planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

Do sheds come under planning?

--
*I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his property.
All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted etc.
But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new building
works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general building
line.
This certainly detracts from the "street scene".
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

TIA

P


I dont think a shed needs any permission if its a temporary structure

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

In message , Tanner-'op
writes
wrote:
Bear in mind though that you can be traced by the IP number of your ISP
embedded in the e-mail headers from Yahoo - in my case [XX.XXX.90.86],
which correctly traced my ISP within the last few minutes.
Which is an excellent reason to use Gmail.

As a matter of interest, under the current legislation (RIPA I believe) any
'authorised' persons within your local authority can apply to the ISP to
obtain your name and address - so this method of reporting is *NOT*
anonymous.
A highly abused act that is being used for all sorts of reasons, none of
which were originally intended (unless you're really paranoid)

Tanner-'op



--
Clint Sharp

Kevin wrote:
TheScullster wrote:
Hi all

We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property.
All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted etc.
But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new building
works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line.
This certainly detracts from the "street scene".
Do planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

TIA

P

I dont think a shed needs any permission if its a temporary structure

Can do if its large, near a boundary, or in a conservation area, or if
there are any special restrictions on the land.

They'll look at complaints from any gutless ******.

Possibly TheScullster's near neighbour?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:02:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:
We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property. All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted
etc. But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new
building works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line. This certainly detracts from the "street scene". Do
planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

Do sheds come under planning?

No, all sorts of garden "features" don't such as tree houses, summer
houses, gazebos, shelters, usw, usw.

Looky here ...

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.legal/2005-11/msg00767.html

http://snipurl.com/prcotson2bitbuilder [newsgroups_derkeiler_com]

The council won't divulge your identity unless you make a formal
objection. It then becomes a matter of public record. In the case
outlined above the putative builder did indeed approach objectors and
make "Menaces" :-((( .

Derek

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:08:36 +0100, Margaret Geldard
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:02:08 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
TheScullster wrote:
We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property. All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted
etc. But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new
building works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line. This certainly detracts from the "street scene". Do
planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

Do sheds come under planning?

No, all sorts of garden "features" don't such as tree houses, summer
houses, gazebos, shelters, usw, usw.

A pal of mine almost completed a sun-lounge in his back garden and was
'caught' by the planners, who are insisting on a full application for
it.

It's shown on their enforcement papers as a "large shed".

--
Frank Erskine

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , Tanner-'op
writes
wrote:
Bear in mind though that you can be traced by the IP number of your
ISP embedded in the e-mail headers from Yahoo - in my case
[XX.XXX.90.86], which correctly traced my ISP within the last few
minutes.
Which is an excellent reason to use Gmail.

Not quite true Clint. Son uses Googlemail via Sky Broadband and a look at
the embeded headers from e-mails that he has sent to me show Sky's ISP as
90.2xx.148.135 well and truly placed there.

As a matter of interest, under the current legislation (RIPA I
believe) any 'authorised' persons within your local authority can
apply to the ISP to obtain your name and address - so this method of
reporting is *NOT* anonymous.
A highly abused act that is being used for all sorts of reasons, none
of which were originally intended (unless you're really paranoid)

Couldn't agree with you more - and I have personally (face-to-face) bitched
to my MP about - it and he replied "he didn't know anything about RIPA".

He must have found out though because he sent me a copy of the Act a few
days later with a nice covering note.

And it's going to get a lot worse!


Tanner-'op

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:02:08 +0100 Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
We have a neighbour nearby who has just had extensions done to his
property. All the building works are in accordance with plans submitted
etc. But he has also put a ghastly orange shed up next to the new
building works - the front doors to the shed are level with the general
building line. This certainly detracts from the "street scene". Do
planners investigate anonymous complaints so I can avoid personal
involvement?

Do sheds come under planning?

Most don't but in principle the planners could take action if the structure
was held to be detrimental to the surrounding area - s.215 Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, Land Adversely Affecting Amenity of Neighbourhood. Our
LPA tried to use it when someone painted their house shocking pink, but
backed down when I suggested that if they were so keen on using these
provisions they might serve a notice on the owner of the derelict
Twickenham riverside site (said owner being the Council!).

See http://hippogfx.com/tcpss/papers/pdfs/2001PP02.htm

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram Software 'Software to build on' www.superbeam.co.uk

In message , Tanner-'op
writes

Not quite true Clint. Son uses Googlemail via Sky Broadband and a look at
the embeded headers from e-mails that he has sent to me show Sky's ISP as
90.2xx.148.135 well and truly placed there.
Only if you send via their SMTP servers (exactly as it should be), if
you compose and send using their web GUI then you only get the Google IP
that originated the mail, try it...


Couldn't agree with you more - and I have personally (face-to-face) bitched
to my MP about - it and he replied "he didn't know anything about RIPA".
Makes you wonder what exactly MPs do, I suspect the vote buddying system
they use makes it far too easy for them to skive off and gain little
knowledge of what actually happens in parliament.

He must have found out though because he sent me a copy of the Act a few
days later with a nice covering note.
Did the note contain anything of any value though? I emailed my local MP
about RIPA and was told that he wasn't prepared to comment unless I
wrote to him on paper with a full postal address 'proving' that I was a
constituent.
Seems he gets the right to privacy but doesn't like it when his
constituents are a little anonymous, of course a little effort would
have told him or his office that the address I included is the one I'm
registered to vote from.

And it's going to get a lot worse!
Frankly, I have little to no faith in the parliamentary system or anyone
in it anymore unless I actually want them to hoover up more of my hard
earned or erode my rights further.

RIPA makes a mockery of the argument 'if you have nothing to hide you
have nothing to fear'. Theoretically, you could be subjected to
extraordinary rendition for a nice little break to Gitmo if you forget
the password to your encrypted bank details.


Tanner-'op




--
Clint Sharp

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:35:50 +0100 someone who may be Clint Sharp
wrote this:-

I emailed my local MP
about RIPA and was told that he wasn't prepared to comment unless I
wrote to him on paper with a full postal address 'proving' that I was a
constituent.
Seems he gets the right to privacy but doesn't like it when his
constituents are a little anonymous,

Go along to his surgery, details of which should be in local
newspapers and on his web site and discuss that face to face with
him.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 22 Oct, 09:35, Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , Tanner-'op
writes


Well someone complained about my workshop, planners came to look and
cleared it (I had already checked the rules of course) but most
definitely would not tell us who complained.

A.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:35:50 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

In message , Tanner-'op
writes

Not quite true Clint. Son uses Googlemail via Sky Broadband and a look at
the embeded headers from e-mails that he has sent to me show Sky's ISP as
90.2xx.148.135 well and truly placed there.
Only if you send via their SMTP servers (exactly as it should be), if
you compose and send using their web GUI then you only get the Google IP
that originated the mail, try it...


Couldn't agree with you more - and I have personally (face-to-face) bitched
to my MP about - it and he replied "he didn't know anything about RIPA".
Makes you wonder what exactly MPs do, I suspect the vote buddying system
they use makes it far too easy for them to skive off and gain little
knowledge of what actually happens in parliament.

He must have found out though because he sent me a copy of the Act a few
days later with a nice covering note.
Did the note contain anything of any value though? I emailed my local MP
about RIPA and was told that he wasn't prepared to comment unless I
wrote to him on paper with a full postal address 'proving' that I was a
constituent.
Seems he gets the right to privacy but doesn't like it when his
constituents are a little anonymous, of course a little effort would
have told him or his office that the address I included is the one I'm
registered to vote from.

And it's going to get a lot worse!
Frankly, I have little to no faith in the parliamentary system or anyone
in it anymore unless I actually want them to hoover up more of my hard
earned or erode my rights further.

RIPA makes a mockery of the argument 'if you have nothing to hide you
have nothing to fear'. Theoretically, you could be subjected to
extraordinary rendition for a nice little break to Gitmo if you forget
the password to your encrypted bank details.

The argument "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is
fundamentally flawed. I can't believe that anyone is still using
this.



--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

In message , Mark
writes
RIPA makes a mockery of the argument 'if you have nothing to hide you
have nothing to fear'. Theoretically, you could be subjected to
extraordinary rendition for a nice little break to Gitmo if you forget
the password to your encrypted bank details.

The argument "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is
fundamentally flawed. I can't believe that anyone is still using
this.
Of course it is, I'm just amazed at the idiots who support 42 days, CCTV
everywhere, ID cards etc. and still seem to believe it.

The problem is that none of the 'security' precautions they want will
make a damn of difference to the real terrorists but will punish
everyone who has to pay for them and live with them day by day.

They all remind me of a sign I saw at the security lodge of a nuclear
power station, it politely requested that anyone carrying a bladed
weapon or firearm was to hand it over to the guard. You can imagine a
determined attack force being stopped in their tracks.




--
Clint Sharp, Waiting for the cattle truck to internment for his seditious
views.

wrote:
On 22 Oct, 09:35, Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , Tanner-'op
writes


Well someone complained about my workshop, planners came to look and
cleared it (I had already checked the rules of course) but most
definitely would not tell us who complained.

A.

Complained about the workshop after it was built or *objected* to the plans
at the application stage?

There is a difference.

Tanner-'op

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , Tanner-'op
writes

Not quite true Clint. Son uses Googlemail via Sky Broadband and a
look at the embeded headers from e-mails that he has sent to me show
Sky's ISP as 90.2xx.148.135 well and truly placed there.
Only if you send via their SMTP servers (exactly as it should be), if
you compose and send using their web GUI then you only get the Google
IP that originated the mail, try it...

Sent via SMTP - but anonymous remailers will hide the IP number as well - as
aioe.org is hiding yours.

Couldn't agree with you more - and I have personally (face-to-face)
bitched to my MP about - it and he replied "he didn't know anything
about RIPA".

Makes you wonder what exactly MPs do, I suspect the vote buddying
system they use makes it far too easy for them to skive off and gain
little knowledge of what actually happens in parliament.

Nah! It's the 'whip' system and the 'carrot' of a nice ministerial job with
all the perks that make most MPs follow like a load of sheep.

He must have found out though because he sent me a copy of the Act
a few days later with a nice covering note.

Did the note contain anything of any value though? I emailed my local
MP about RIPA and was told that he wasn't prepared to comment unless I
wrote to him on paper with a full postal address 'proving' that I was
a constituent.
Seems he gets the right to privacy but doesn't like it when his
constituents are a little anonymous, of course a little effort would
have told him or his office that the address I included is the one I'm
registered to vote from.

When I e-mail my MP, I always give my name and address - and to be honest,
since I found out that my e-mails were ending up at his constituency office,
about a mile from where I live, I simply pop in there now and have a bitch
in person.

As for "anything of vale", it contained a copy of the act as supplied by the
Home Secretary.
And it's going to get a lot worse!

Frankly, I have little to no faith in the parliamentary system or
anyone in it anymore unless I actually want them to hoover up more of
my hard earned or erode my rights further.

A little cynical - but that's exactly my feelings (except that I don't want
any more of my earnings or rights eroded by them).

RIPA makes a mockery of the argument 'if you have nothing to hide you
have nothing to fear'. Theoretically, you could be subjected to
extraordinary rendition for a nice little break to Gitmo if you forget
the password to your encrypted bank details.

There is adult in this country who can honestly say "they have nothing to
hide" - although the "Gitmo" trip would be a little drastic for "forgetting"
a password - although anything is possible since the so "one-way extradition
treaty" between us and the US.

Tanner-'op

In message , Tanner-'op
writes
Sent via SMTP - but anonymous remailers will hide the IP number as well - as
aioe.org is hiding yours.
Not by choice though, Demon's news is borked at the moment so needs
must.

Nah! It's the 'whip' system and the 'carrot' of a nice ministerial job with
all the perks that make most MPs follow like a load of sheep.
I'd say the promise of unpaid directorships and consultancy work turning
into paid work more so but you're probably right.
When I e-mail my MP, I always give my name and address -
So did I.

As for "anything of vale", it contained a copy of the act as supplied by the
Home Secretary.
No comments on his position then?
A little cynical - but that's exactly my feelings (except that I don't want
any more of my earnings or rights eroded by them).
Getting more cynical the more attention I pay to politics and I don't
want any more of my money going to them either.

There is adult in this country who can honestly say "they have nothing to
hide" - although the "Gitmo" trip would be a little drastic for "forgetting"
a password - although anything is possible since the so "one-way extradition
treaty" between us and the US.
Getting shot seven times for being Brazilian in the vicinity of a tube
station is a little extreme too.

I suspect I stand more chance of being gang raped by a coach load of
playboy bunnies and then getting five numbers and the bonus ball on the
lottery than getting injured in a terrorist incident.

Although I'm fairly sure I'd prefer the first, I'm pretty sure I can
walk the streets safe in the knowledge that both are highly unlikely.

Tanner-'op






--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , Tanner-'op
writes

Sent via SMTP - but anonymous remailers will hide the IP number as
well - as aioe.org is hiding yours.

Not by choice though, Demon's news is borked at the moment so needs
must.

Nah! It's the 'whip' system and the 'carrot' of a nice ministerial
job with all the perks that make most MPs follow like a load of
sheep.

I'd say the promise of unpaid directorships and consultancy work
turning into paid work more so but you're probably right.

When I e-mail my MP, I always give my name and address -
So did I.

As for "anything of vale", it contained a copy of the act as
supplied by the Home Secretary.

No comments on his position then?

Not from my MP no, and the Home Secretaries was obvious!

A little cynical - but that's exactly my feelings (except that I
don't want any more of my earnings or rights eroded by them).

Getting more cynical the more attention I pay to politics and I don't
want any more of my money going to them either.

There is adult in this country who can honestly say "they have
nothing to hide" - although the "Gitmo" trip would be a little
drastic for "forgetting" a password - although anything is possible
since the so "one-way extradition treaty" between us and the US.

Getting shot seven times for being Brazilian in the vicinity of a tube
station is a little extreme too.

We're of a differing opinion here. My view was at the time, and still is,
that they (the police) were in between the proverbial rock and a hard place
here with Jean Charles de Menezes.

In view of the situation at the time (and we weren't there) they could not
take any chances and allow a *suspected* terrorist to create carnage again
within a few days - damned if they did and damned if they didn't - and I
certainly wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes to make that
decision.

I suspect I stand more chance of being gang raped by a coach load of
playboy bunnies and then getting five numbers and the bonus ball on
the lottery than getting injured in a terrorist incident.

Although I'm fairly sure I'd prefer the first, I'm pretty sure I can
walk the streets safe in the knowledge that both are highly unlikely.

I agree, but I must admit that at my age, I'd rather take my chances with a
terrorists bomb than being "gang raped by the Playboy bunnies" - I'd have
more chance of surviving. LOL

Tanner-'op

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote


They'll look at complaints from any gutless ******.

Thank you for volunteering

In message , Tanner-'op
writes
We're of a differing opinion here. My view was at the time, and still is,
that they (the police) were in between the proverbial rock and a hard place
here with Jean Charles de Menezes.
I don't think they were in the wrong, we are of the same general opinion
but it was still an extreme measure taken in extreme times. Very simply,
you don't ignore an armed police officer if you value your life, he had
the choice of being deported in an economy class seat or a box in the
hold and made a bad choice.

In view of the situation at the time (and we weren't there) they could not
take any chances and allow a *suspected* terrorist to create carnage again
within a few days - damned if they did and damned if they didn't - and I
certainly wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes to make that
decision.
I know several police officers, friends and family, and there are a
couple of firearms officers in the mix, I know they don't take the
decision to even draw their weapon lightly so to actually shoot someone
must have meant that they had very good reasons to do so.

I agree, but I must admit that at my age, I'd rather take my chances with a
terrorists bomb than being "gang raped by the Playboy bunnies" - I'd have
more chance of surviving. LOL
Ahh, I'm still of an age where I look hopefully at passing coaches.

Tanner-'op



--
Clint Sharp

On 22 Oct 2008 15:25:47 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2008-10-22, Mark wrote:

The argument "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is
fundamentally flawed. I can't believe that anyone is still using
this.

Just look in the Daily Mail.

No thanks. I prefer non-fiction.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:17:45 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

In message , Mark
writes
RIPA makes a mockery of the argument 'if you have nothing to hide you
have nothing to fear'. Theoretically, you could be subjected to
extraordinary rendition for a nice little break to Gitmo if you forget
the password to your encrypted bank details.

The argument "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is
fundamentally flawed. I can't believe that anyone is still using
this.
Of course it is, I'm just amazed at the idiots who support 42 days, CCTV
everywhere, ID cards etc. and still seem to believe it.

And when CCTV and other token "security" proves not to work, what do
they do? Not abandon it and do something sensible but to heap more
and more of their failed "security" measures on us.

The problem is that none of the 'security' precautions they want will
make a damn of difference to the real terrorists but will punish
everyone who has to pay for them and live with them day by day.

Absolutely true.

They all remind me of a sign I saw at the security lodge of a nuclear
power station, it politely requested that anyone carrying a bladed
weapon or firearm was to hand it over to the guard. You can imagine a
determined attack force being stopped in their tracks.

Of course, criminals would never think to hide their knives. ;-)

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TheScullster"
saying something like:


"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote


They'll look at complaints from any gutless ******.

Thank you for volunteering

So, you don't have the common decency to simply talk to the bloke about
the garish colour and how it clashes with everything? Maybe he's colour
blind or just a tasteless git, but might appreciate a bit of input.
You'd rather sneak around behind his back dobbing him into the Council
for an orange shed? I think you've just blown any cred you had, and
revealed the type of bloke you really are - along with the arseholes who
were showing you how.

Fwiw, any monkey can figure out how to use a re-mailer.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp
saying something like:

In message , Tanner-'op
writes
We're of a differing opinion here. My view was at the time, and still is,
that they (the police) were in between the proverbial rock and a hard place
here with Jean Charles de Menezes.
I don't think they were in the wrong, we are of the same general opinion
but it was still an extreme measure taken in extreme times. Very simply,
you don't ignore an armed police officer if you value your life, he had
the choice of being deported in an economy class seat or a box in the
hold and made a bad choice.

Really? How very flippant of you.
If he knew it was a copper, do you not think he'd have stopped with his
hands up? FFS, he knew all he was guilty of was being an illegal and
that was nothing to get shot over. All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels, and the
circumstances of the actual shooting lead me to think it turned into an
execution as soon as he sat down and the arsehole with the gun got
within three feet of him.

In view of the situation at the time (and we weren't there) they could not
take any chances and allow a *suspected* terrorist to create carnage again
within a few days - damned if they did and damned if they didn't - and I
certainly wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes to make that
decision.
I know several police officers, friends and family, and there are a
couple of firearms officers in the mix, I know they don't take the
decision to even draw their weapon lightly so to actually shoot someone
must have meant that they had very good reasons to do so.

Perhaps the couple of firearms officers you happen to know aren't
idiots, but the various police firearms units contain some fools here
and there.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:14:14 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp
saying something like:

In message , Tanner-'op
writes
We're of a differing opinion here. My view was at the time, and still is,
that they (the police) were in between the proverbial rock and a hard place
here with Jean Charles de Menezes.
I don't think they were in the wrong, we are of the same general opinion
but it was still an extreme measure taken in extreme times. Very simply,
you don't ignore an armed police officer if you value your life, he had
the choice of being deported in an economy class seat or a box in the
hold and made a bad choice.

Really? How very flippant of you.
If he knew it was a copper, do you not think he'd have stopped with his
hands up? FFS, he knew all he was guilty of was being an illegal and
that was nothing to get shot over. All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels, and the
circumstances of the actual shooting lead me to think it turned into an
execution as soon as he sat down and the arsehole with the gun got
within three feet of him.

In view of the situation at the time (and we weren't there) they could not
take any chances and allow a *suspected* terrorist to create carnage again
within a few days - damned if they did and damned if they didn't - and I
certainly wouldn't have liked to have been in their shoes to make that
decision.
I know several police officers, friends and family, and there are a
couple of firearms officers in the mix, I know they don't take the
decision to even draw their weapon lightly so to actually shoot someone
must have meant that they had very good reasons to do so.

Perhaps the couple of firearms officers you happen to know aren't
idiots, but the various police firearms units contain some fools here
and there.

Maybe lots of them
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle567961.ece

At least 120 according to this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3973261.stm

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon
writes

Really? How very flippant of you.
Fact is, flippant or not, it's right, although chances are he'd never
even have been deported if he was stopped.
If he knew it was a copper, do you not think he'd have stopped with his
hands up?
I have no idea, people run from the police for the most stupid of
reasons.
FFS, he knew all he was guilty of was being an illegal and
that was nothing to get shot over.
Agreed, I think I may have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that it
was an extreme act brought on by extreme times. I still don't think the
police were wrong to shoot, what I think of the complete balls up made
of the situation afterwards is a completely different matter.

All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels,
Are you suggesting that the police should warn potential suicide bombers
that they are armed police?

You might find a high percentage would decide to run away and go bang
immediately on realising that there were three armed coppers following
them.

It's a difficult decision to have to make (one that I'd never want to
make) and that time it went badly wrong. You never hear of the tens of
thousands of times it goes right because (rightly) they aren't
newsworthy.
--
Clint Sharp

wrote:
On 23 Oct,
"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I agree, but I must admit that at my age, I'd rather take my chances
with a terrorists bomb than being "gang raped by the Playboy
bunnies" - I'd have more chance of surviving. LOL

But which would be the better way to go?

At my age, that's a no-brainer - the bomb would be quicker. ;-)

Tanner-'op

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp
saying something like:


All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels,
Are you suggesting that the police should warn potential suicide bombers
that they are armed police?

Don't be an arse.

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon
writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp
saying something like:


All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels,
Are you suggesting that the police should warn potential suicide bombers
that they are armed police?

Don't be an arse.

You say he wasn't adequately warned that the men following him were
armed police but you call me an arse for suggesting that you think the
police on the spot should have identified themselves to a person they
saw as a potential suicide bomber?

Plonk.
--
Clint Sharp

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:58:32 +0100, Clint Sharp
wrote:

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon
writes

Really? How very flippant of you.
Fact is, flippant or not, it's right, although chances are he'd never
even have been deported if he was stopped.
If he knew it was a copper, do you not think he'd have stopped with his
hands up?
I have no idea, people run from the police for the most stupid of
reasons.
FFS, he knew all he was guilty of was being an illegal and
that was nothing to get shot over.
Agreed, I think I may have mentioned in one of my earlier posts that it
was an extreme act brought on by extreme times. I still don't think the
police were wrong to shoot, what I think of the complete balls up made
of the situation afterwards is a completely different matter.

IMHO it was an extreme act brought on by extreme panic and paranoia.
If we have a shoot to kill policy then we better be sure that the
security services are infallible, otherwise such a policy is
unreasonable.

All that poor ******* saw was a
bloke with a gun chasing him; I don't believe he was given adequate
warning of the fact of it being armed police on his heels,
Are you suggesting that the police should warn potential suicide bombers
that they are armed police?

You might find a high percentage would decide to run away and go bang
immediately on realising that there were three armed coppers following
them.

You've got to consider the probability is the subject /is/ actually a
terrorist versus the impact of killing an innocent man.

It's a difficult decision to have to make (one that I'd never want to
make) and that time it went badly wrong. You never hear of the tens of
thousands of times it goes right because (rightly) they aren't
newsworthy.

How many real suicide bombers have been shot dead by UK police,
thereby preventing a bombing? Zero, IIRC.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Clint Sharp
saying something like:

Don't be an arse.

You say he wasn't adequately warned that the men following him were
armed police but you call me an arse for suggesting that you think the
police on the spot should have identified themselves to a person they
saw as a potential suicide bomber?

Plonk.

You tosser.