Student Protests!

I have no idea. If the need to launch arises then the deterrent effect has failed and we're all f**ked anyway.
I was correcting the factual inaccuracy of someone who posted earlier that Trident could not be launched without US agreement.

Ah, it was you

All depends on your interpretation of the article Lambeth. It quite clearly states his "leave to remain" as a student expired some 2 years before his shooting. No one can say with any certainty what his movements were in the intervening period (he was widely reported as working as an electrician) apart from one passport stamp entering Ireland from France.

Had the previous government not abolished departure controls from the UK (and taken such a lax attitude towards arrival as well) then this tragedy MAY possibly not have happened (total speculation (about the may bit) on my part of course).

It's not a red herring it is a fact and the question needed only a one word answer which is yes unless viewed as a rhetorical question where no reply was necessary. It's your 'records' Lambeth that are a red herring.

Your reference to Menezes not being the only person of swarthy complexion in the Stockwell area in a previous post is of course correct but also another red herring on your part. There is no record of the police running amok and gunning down other people of swarthy complexion on that day.

That was an exceptional time with London experiencing multiple bomb attacks twice in three weeks (the failure of the second wave of bomb attacks being down to luck) and Menezes was an unfortunate casualty of those exceptional times.

The fact stated in my post that had Menezes complied with the law of this country he would not have been there remains true and there is absolutely no evidence as you seem to imply that somebody else would have been shot in his place.

Whether it's a 'fact' or not is irrelevant.

If I kill a person as a result of a criminal or negligent act on my part, I can expect be held accountable for my actions. It doesn't matter if the person I kill is a Brazillian who entered via Ireland, an Afghan who entered via the eurostar or a Nigerian who entered via the cargo port at Felixtowe.

Menezes was killed through police incompetence and intelligence failures. THAT is the relevant point in a thread in which the actions of the Police are being discussed - rather than the life and travels of Menezes.

Read it again Lambeth.

The Immigration official was directly quoted in the 1st/2nd paragraph. He was NOT quoted in the 3rd paragraph.

He specifically did NOT state there was further leave to remain as there was nothing to indicate that would have been the case (he would have been briefed prior to his appearance to ensure that only facts were presented as evidence, not conclusions). The point was brought up by the legal team as a hypothesis (if I remember rightly).

They say you often remember just what you were doing when something big and terrible happens. On the morning of the London bombings I was driving my van when the radio switched over to the traffic updates. The report just said there were problems on a number of the tube lines in London, believed to be electrical.

The later updates contained the news of what really had happened and I don’t care where you live in England, if felt like an attack on our country. The only good thing at the time was to see the wonderful people of London getting on with life and not letting the events stop them from doing so. Their actions in someway gave everyone in the UK strength and respect is all I could feel for London people and contempt for those who can kill innocent people and ruin so many lives.

I don’t think it matters if Jean Charles de Menezes should or should not have been in our country at the time, the only thing to never forget is an innocent man lost his life.

I listened to so many debates on the J.Vine show at the time, trying to gather all the information I could, as I tried to understand just what happened. I knew I had to decide in the end if it was all a tragic mistake than happened due to so many cock-up’s, or if it was something else.

The part I had a real problem was the fact they let him get on the train and I was never really satisfied with the reasons given for letting that happen. In the end the choice was to believe it really was a tragic mistake, or believe he was just killed and if I believed that, then I knew I would be very afraid of the sort of country I was now living in.

I think Stefano hit the nail on the head, when he posted

“it was an exceptional time with London experiencing multiple bomb attacks twice in three weeks (the failure of the second wave of bomb attacks being down to luck) and Menezes was an unfortunate casualty of those exceptional times”.

That the conclusion I came too in the end, despite there still being unanswered questions in my mind that I don’t think will ever get answered.

Going back on topic again, I see the Home Secretary has today given permission for water cannons to be used when demonstrations etc get out of order. Yes it was discussed on the J.Vine show today and one person who had plenty to say was Billy Bragg.

I actually felt much of what he had to say made perfect sense and as someone who has been on many demonstrations, he certainly knew what it felt like to be on the other side so to speak.

One man who spoke was a former water cannon commander, yes they have them believe it or not and their job is not to be on the water cannon, but on the ground giving directions to the water cannon crew.

We don’t have any water cannons in the UK and they might bring over from Ireland the two that are there and were used as we know many years ago in the troubles in that country.

After listening to what the water cannon commander had to say, I’m not so sure they are the answer really as they are not discriminate and will knock down and possibly injury peaceful protesters not involved with any trouble.

I was surprised to learn just how powerful they are and the fact they can break bones, but I think the biggest danger is someone being knocked off their feet and landing badly on the ground.

Rubber bullets can also be dangerous to use, but at least they would only be fired (one would hope) at those causing the trouble and damage etc, would that not be better than risk harming the innocent protesters?

Billy Bragg certainly believed the police should only be targeting and dealing with those actually causing trouble and doing damage etc. I do agree with him on that point and the other points he made about the effects of charging protesters with horses and also kettling them.

One question that was asked was just how legal it was to kettle people as they are basically being held against their will. I certainly agreed with the views it can often lead to others who may well have been peaceful to begin with, getting very frustrated and then getting involved with things they would not have, if they had been allowed to go on their way.

I don’t agree with the view that it can be OK to use violence to try and get ones way or to try and force change. One thing that has been said on this thread is how lucky we are to be policed the way we are and not run the risk of just being shot etc.

Excessive violence from protesters could changed all that in my view, the force necessary to contain or bring such violence to an end, would have to move to an all new level and I would not rule out the government ordering such tactics that are seen in other countries, if it felt it was the only way to regain law and order.