Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

More Police Join Fire Arms Protest


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 02 November 2004 - 03:41 PM

More than 120 firearms officers in London are refusing to carry guns after two colleagues were suspended over a shooting, police representatives claim.  

Harry Stanley, 46, was shot dead in 1999 after police mistook a table leg he was carrying for a shotgun.

An inquest on Friday returned a verdict of unlawful killing and Pc Kevin Fagan and Insp Neil Sharman were suspended.

Mr Stanley's widow, Irene, says other officers should go back to work as the verdict "has nothing to do" with them.

She told BBC News: "They weren't there. It was to do with the two officers who got off with the killing."


'Difficult circumstances'

Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has taken personal control of negotiations in the dispute.

He said he had great "sympathy" for the protesting officers, but "they must come back to work".

On Monday, at least 20 of the Met's 400-strong SO19 specialist firearms unit handed in their cards authorising them to carry weapons.
            
                                 The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF), which represents officers, said that by Tuesday over 120 firearms officers had handed back their authorisation to carry weapons.

The body also said there were no specialist firearms officers on duty in London on Tuesday.

Scotland Yard would not confirm the numbers involved in the protest but said the level of armed cover in London was "unaffected".

After the inquest - the second into Mr Stanley's death - the Crown Prosecution Service, which had previously ruled out bringing charges, said it would review the case.

Glen Smyth, chairman of the MPF, said the case had thrown into doubt all training and guidance given to firearms officers.

He told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The officers are very concerned that the tactics they are trained in, as a consequence of the verdict, are now in doubt.

"They want some clarity around what they are expected to do."

Chair leg

The Stanley family's solicitor Daniel Machover told Today the jury "did not believe the officers when they said they felt under imminent threat".

And he later accused the protesting officers of "misunderstanding what the inquest was about".

He said the jury's decision was not a "broad attack" on the tactics of firearms police, just that they did not accept that the two officers had acted in self-defence.

Mr Smyth said he would consider mounting a legal challenge to the inquest's verdict.  

Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said she was not surprised by the officers' reaction.  

She said: "With the benefit of hindsight we can all say what we may have done but these two officers were required to make a split-second assessment and decision."

Mr Stanley, a father-of-three, was shot as he left a pub in Hackney, east London, carrying a table leg which had just been repaired by his brother.

The two officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr Stanley - a Scottish painter and decorator who lived in London - was an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun.  

  The Stanley family, originally from Lanarkshire, won a ruling in the High Court in April this year to have an open verdict from his first inquest quashed.  

In a statement on Friday the Met said the death of Mr Stanley was regrettable and offered sympathy to his family.  

      

                                       Source


#2    vimjams

vimjams

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2004
  • Location:ENGLAND

  • it Itches

Posted 02 November 2004 - 04:01 PM

These police officers ought to have been a bit more careful before shooting somebody dead. If they're that highly trained then the poor guy carrying a table leg would still be alive.
As for the others protesting...Well, what a bunch of hypocrites. Aren't they always spouting off about the law. They should abide by it and uphold it themselves.
Poor Tony Martin went to prison for defending his property...Where were the police protests at that ?

Sack them all...We pay their bloody wages.

Vimjams
ph34r.gif

Posted Image

#3    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 02 November 2004 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE
These police officers ought to have been a bit more careful before shooting somebody dead. If they're that highly trained then the poor guy carrying a table leg would still be alive.


i disagree with that, the officer has to make a decision in that split second, its just one of those things, what if was a shotgun? you get what i mean? Being highly trained i'm going to assume you mean like, shooting the guy in the arm or something, allot harder than it looks:) although the circumstances in which the poor fellow was shot does seem rather fishy, seems like a case of stupidity on the behalf of the officers.

QUOTE
As for the others protesting...Well, what a bunch of hypocrites. Aren't they always spouting off about the law. They should abide by it and uphold it themselves.
Poor Tony Martin went to prison for defending his property...Where were the police protests at that ?


I do agree with this however, yay a first!

QUOTE
Sack them all...We pay their bloody wages.


heh they are well within the rights to strike...you sound like a coldblooded capitalist to me:)

Edited by bathory, 02 November 2004 - 04:34 PM.


#4    Celumnaz

Celumnaz

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,039 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I don't know what I don't know.

Posted 02 November 2004 - 04:33 PM

QUOTE(Lottie @ Nov 2 2004, 11:41 AM)
The two officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr Stanley - a Scottish painter and decorator who lived in London - was an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun.


Who informed them?  If some panikky pansy socialist hadn't ran up to them and said "the drunk irishman has a sawed off shotgun!" they might not have been so apprehensive over a table leg and not shot him.  It's the nosey-rosey goody-two-shoes that made a situation worse.  If I read that right.  Coppers got bad intel?


#5    vimjams

vimjams

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2004
  • Location:ENGLAND

  • it Itches

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:01 PM


QUOTE
Who informed them? If some panikky pansy socialist hadn't ran up to them and said "the drunk irishman has a sawed off shotgun!" they might not have been so apprehensive over a table leg and not shot him. It's the nosey-rosey goody-two-shoes that made a situation worse. If I read that right. Coppers got bad intel?


Celumnaz...Your not a teacher by any chance are you?  With a grasp of the facts that you possess...I hope the F%$£ not!

QUOTE
i disagree with that, the officer has to make a decision in that split second, its just one of those things, what if was a shotgun? you get what i mean? Being highly trained i'm going to assume you mean like, shooting the guy in the arm or something, allot harder than it looks:) although the circumstances in which the poor fellow was shot does seem rather fishy, seems like a case of stupidity on the behalf of the officers.


No...I mean, part of their defence is the fact that they are highly trained. If I was in their position and I thought he was about to produce a gun then I too would have shot first. But, as you said. The circustances are fishy and 'stupidity' contradicts 'highly trained' This case is not just that simple.

QUOTE
heh they are well within the rights to strike...you sound like a coldblooded capitalist to me:)


Police officers in the UK do not have a right to strike. I'm not a 'coldblooded capitalist' nor am I a 'pansy Socialist'....I'm a down trodden tax payer and English Nationalist who has to accept (twice a year) the leaflet coming through my letter box outling the money spent on the police and their overtime and their benefits.
And when I want to go and protest my support for the English Countryside Alliance and hunting...I somehow get annoyed to have this whinging copper crack my skull because of it.

Vimjams
ph34r.gif





Posted Image

#6    twpdyp

twpdyp

    GOP for Life

  • Member
  • 2,448 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dawsonville Ga, USA

  • The first step in any self improvement program is to admit there is room for improvement.

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:06 PM

QUOTE
Celumnaz...Your not a teacher by any chance are you? With a grasp of the facts that you possess...I hope the F%$£ not!

Kind of in a bad mood vimjams? Wow you can offer all kinds of criticism of American topics but when an American offers his view on British topics you blow up, why is that?

As we go through this life reaching, striving, and straining for life's brass ring, has any of us ever stopped to wonder just who is running the Merry-Go-Round?
You must play the hand that life deals you, if you dealt the hand to yourself you must play that hand silently .

#7    vimjams

vimjams

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2004
  • Location:ENGLAND

  • it Itches

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:14 PM


QUOTE
Kind of in a bad mood vimjams? Wow you can offer all kinds of criticism of American topics but when an American offers his view on British topics you blow up, why is that?


Bad mood or not a bad mood..."Kind of" means zilch.

"American topics"...What...Where?  "Blow up" Jeez you Americans have a 'bombing' fixation.

And as for Celumnaz's comments...Nothing to do with national identity at all...It just sounded completely daft to me ok.

Vimjams
ph34r.gif

Posted Image

#8    Celumnaz

Celumnaz

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,039 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I don't know what I don't know.

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:53 PM

I'm not a teacher. original.gif
You can thank God under your breath now.

Anyway my "grasp of the facts" is that I read in the first post they were Informed he had a shotgun.  Of course, assuming the report is reliable, I would interpret that facts as... "The two officers fired the shots after mistakenly being informed that Mr Stanley - a Scottish painter and decorator who lived in London - was an Irishman with a sawn-off shotgun."  That they were misinformed, so I wondered at the consequence, and type of person that triggered it.

you could ignore me y'know.


#9    vimjams

vimjams

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2004
  • Location:ENGLAND

  • it Itches

Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:58 PM


QUOTE
you could ignore me y'know.


My failing in life is to jump in at the deep end regardless of whether or not I can swim

Vimjams
ph34r.gif



Posted Image

#10    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 03 November 2004 - 06:33 PM

Armed police in London who downed weapons in a dispute over two suspended colleagues have agreed to return to work.      

The row was sparked by the suspension of two officers who shot dead a man they thought was carrying a gun - it turned out to be a table leg.       

    

Met Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens persuaded the officers, totalling 125, to go back to work after listening to their concerns.        

He also revealed he is sending a report to the Home Secretary "concerning a number of issues" regarding the law and protecting officers from murder charges if they make mistakes.        

The armed officers' dispute meant the capital had little protection and there were fears the dispute could spread to other forces.        

The officers, Chief Inspector Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan,  were taken off duty after an inquest last week ruled that they "unlawfully" killed painter and decorator Harry Stanley, 46, in 1999.         

Sir John said that all the officers had agreed to go back to work because they believed "protecting Londoners was more important than their concerns".        

He said that since September 11, officers had faced increased pressures and the law, which permits charges of murder to be brought against officers who shoot and kill suspects, needed to be looked at.         

"We are not saying officers should be beyond the law. But officers using guns need to be protected within the law and I am sending a report to the Home Office to highlight the issues we have been dealing with." 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users