did he ?
Yes. You don’t think he did? Really? Just some unlucky random people who happened to be obviously Jewish?
If the armed police arrived first he would have been shot and killed! Perfectly reasonable use of force in the given situation.
Yes. You don’t think he did? Really? Just some unlucky random people who happened to be obviously Jewish?
If you’re in Golders Green the chance of random people being Jewish is higher than average. But neither of us know for sure. And neither does Keir Starmer.
Go on, be more explicit. What "going on in the world
Well let's assume it was driven by anti semitism. I imagine the murder by the Israeli state of thousands of kids is probably more of a driver than a group of peaceful protesters carrying placards that says 'Israel bad'
Just to be clear, I don't think for a second Jewish folks are responsible for the Israeli government's actions. But if you are that way inclined in your thinking, it's not the protests that should be the issue here.
Yes. You don’t think he did? Really? Just some unlucky random people who happened to be obviously Jewish?
If you’re in Golders Green the chance of random people being Jewish is higher than average.
And of aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall the neighbourhoods in London, this geezer from Elephant & Castle who's previously been tagged as an extremist just happened to end up in Golders Green, and of all the random people he could have stabbed, it just happens to be two visibly Jewish men? All randomly at a time of a tidal wave of antisemitism?
Some people's minds are so open they've let their brains fall out...
And a Muslim.
We are all obviously prejudging a lot of this based on what has been in the Press. The known facts as I understand it:
The attacker was recently released from a psychiatric hospital
He had previously been referred to Prevent
He attacked a non-Jewish person he knew
He went on to attack two Jewish people.
The government are talking of further restrictions on protest on the back of this.
My own opinions, fwiw:
As Southport and the Nottingham attacks have shown, the public, and the mentally ill people themselves, do not seem to be properly protected by the system. Maybe lack of resources and funding, maybe preventable gaps in the legislation around it, maybe the tragic price for living in a country that doesn't lock up "wrong uns". Most likely a combination.
No idea what caused him to attack the first victim, maybe a mental health episode
The subsequent attacks on two obviously Jewish people, together with the referral to Prevent, suggest to me that those attacks were anti-semetic.
I agree that some chants at the Palestinian protests that appear to support the removal of the state of Israel could be classed as incitement and maybe need to be addressed.
But legitimate protest against the genocide and land grabs by the Israeli government must be allowed to continue.
Politicians and the media need to be much clearer in separating Jewish people from the actions of the Israeli government. Had the government condemned the abuse of the October 7th attack to justify the Israeli regimes actions, maybe we wouldn't be in this position.
Members of the Jewish community in the UK who condone and support the genocide and other actions of the Israeli givernment need to understand that this is increasing the risk of retaliation against the whole Jewish community. Anti-semitic rhetoric and attacks are wrong, regardless, but so is anti-Muslim/Palestinian rhetoric. They can't have it both ways.
Turns out he has mental health issues but the police wouldn't have known that at the time and even if they had whilst he was still a threat neutralising the threat is the priority.
Can’t we take it as given that to go around stabbing random people needs a degree of mental health issues in the first place. It’s not much of an excuse
Can’t we take it as given that to go around stabbing random people needs a degree of mental health issues in the first place. It’s not much of an excuse
The law would suggest that it is a defence, if not an excuse
Was the force used proportionate? Probably. Was it towards the upper limit of what most people would find acceptable? Definitely.
The attitude of "thou must not criticise the police" is what gave us Wayne Couzens, and I think the open letter sent by the Chief Constable was incredibly short-sighted and unprofessional.
At least Polanski didn't bottle an appearance witj Kuensberg this morning.
Was the force used proportionate? Probably. Was it towards the upper limit of what most people would find acceptable? Definitely.
The attitude of "thou must not criticise the police" is what gave us Wayne Couzens, and I think the open letter sent by the Chief Constable was incredibly short-sighted and unprofessional.
Two entirely separate issues.
If they suspected a suicide bomb then my understanding is that you stop the connection between brain and hands. He's lucky that they weren't armed with guns.
Couzens was missed by two vetting opportunities. Had they done their job at that stage then he wouldn't have been a police officer.
Of course the police can not and should not be above criticism. But likewise how politicians act in the moment should not be above criticism. When Reform and other far right politicians and others use social media to rile up their followers against responsive police action as soon as or while it is occurring, they are widely criticised as being reckless for doing so. Same here.
We’re all far too distant to make that call… an attacker in a Jewish area stabbing people wearing a bulky coat and rucksack on a hot day resisting arrest… anything could be happening… not a call any of us here will ever have to make.
not a call any of us here will ever have to make.
Brown man in a coat. I’d be happy to decide not to take a life on the basis of that evidence.
The police didn’t take a life.
If they suspected a suicide bomb then my understanding is that you stop the connection between brain and hands. He's lucky that they weren't armed with guns.
That’s a big “if”. The suicide bomb thing is a massive red herring.
That's easy to say now. At the time, wearing a quilted jacket and rucksack, less so
We’re all far too distant to make that call… an attacker in a Jewish area stabbing people wearing a bulky coat and rucksack on a hot day resisting arrest… anything could be happening… not a call any of us here will ever have to make.
Why is the area of relevance?
Why is the area of relevance?
Unbelievable. You know why.
The police didn’t take a life
For heavens sake - I was referring to the comment about armed police showing up
That's easy to say now. At the time, wearing a quilted jacket and rucksack, less so
Not really. Carrying a backpack is not that unusual whatever the weather and a Somali man might have a different idea about what constitutes a hot day from you or me.
For heavens sake - I was referring to the comment about armed police showing up
Armed police have more choices than shoot to kill. Taser and disarm with force when resisting with a weapon is still a “luckier” outcome than any bullet used to disable him.
a Somali man might have a different idea about what constitutes a hot day from you or me.
Of course. But this is someone stabbing people, not someone just out for stroll. Oh, what’s the point…
Armed police have more choices than shoot to kill. Taser and disarm with force when resisting with a weapon is still a “luckier” outcome than any bullet used to disable him.
That makes no sense if you’re convinced he has a suicide belt. Exhibit A - Jean Charles de Menezes.
Jean Charles de Menezes.
Yup, the wrong decision. Not least because he hadn’t attacked anyone.
Yup, the wrong decision. Not least because he hadn’t attacked anyone.
Yeah but that’s not the point. The point is that police procedure appears to be to shoot to kill if they think there’s a suicide bomb, so if armed police had shown up and shared your idea about an African in an overcoat, they wouldn’t be trying to wing him.
20 years ago.
And you can stop your “African in an overcoat” insinuations about me. Thanks.
if armed police had shown up and shared your idea about an African in an overcoat, they wouldn’t be trying to wing him.
"If."
This whole conversation is a truly bizarre hill you've chosen to die on. Is it probable that he had a "suicide vest" or some other weapon squirreled about his person? Perhaps not. But is it possible? Sure, and for that reason the police had to act as though he had both for their own safety - remember, this isn't an armed response unit - and for the safety of those around him. If he did turn out to have a gun in his back pocket or something and started firing indiscriminately into the crowd (or at officers) then the narrative today would instead be "why didn't the police stop him?"
You might have a point if they were arresting him for shoplifting Gaviscon from Tesco, rather than for stabbing two people one of whom was a pensioner and is (I think?) still in hospital.
Incidentally,
The narrative over the last few pages describes the incident as though the police went full-on Romper Stomper. That's not what I saw in the BBC video, at all. Have I missed something?
The point is that police procedure appears to be to shoot to kill if they think there’s a suicide bomb
Exhibit A - Jean Charles de Menezes.
Taking note though that Mr Menezes wasnt dressed in a heavyweight overcoat, or even anything that could conceal such a thing(at least going from all the examples we've seen on TV etc). He was dressed in a simple and light denim jacket, which was open and he didnt have a bag.
So whoever was looking directly at him wasnt seeing what was in front of their eyes and the entire driving force there, much like the blind man tasered, was to shoot first. No 'Hey wait, this guy clearly isnt wearing anything that looks like a suicide vest' So theres the distinct possibility that he could be bare chested and wearing shorts and they still would have killed him.
The blind man tasered, there wasn't a 'Hey, this guy is blind, he even has a white stick'. None of that, the officer just pulled the trigger.
At that it doesnt appear to be any 'might have a bomb' but use your eyes. it was most definitely a case of 'he might have a bomb' so kill him no matter what.
And you can stop your “African in an overcoat” insinuations about me. Thanks.
Just a minute - aren’t you the guy who claimed I think antisemitic attacks are “a laugh”.
For clarity, I’m not insinuating anything racist about you. I’m saying that your deduction from seeing a man wearing an overcoat on a day that you consider hot is probably wrong since the wearer was likely accustomed to warmer weather than you are.
This whole conversation is a truly bizarre hill you've chosen to die on.
Thanks for the concern but I’m not planning to die here or anywhere else. What seems odd to me is how suicide vests or whatever have suddenly become a key consideration bearing in mind that they have only been used twice in the history of UK terrorism. Not exactly a probable scenario. Tony Blair would be proud.
Well I for one have seen BBC coverage of the arrest and am happy as a non law enforcement professional to have a politician stand up and ask if it was proportionate or not, maybe it was maybe it wasn't, I'm no expert but the questions should be asked in a free and democratic society.
What seems odd to me is how suicide vests or whatever have suddenly become a key consideration bearing in mind that they have only been used twice in the history of UK terrorism.
I meant generally on the topic, not this specific minutiae.
In any case; who said it was a "key consideration"? You've got a big bloke waving a blade around in a public area who has already shived two people unprovoked and is continuing to escalate the situation when confronted by the police. He was advancing towards them before being tasered and was still fighting afterwards, and prior to being tasered he was pepper-sprayed and he didn't break stride. It baffles me why you cannot (or will not) refuse to accept that this is an atypical situation. He had to be stopped and he had to be stopped rapidly.
Sure, being rigged with explosives is unusual. But the fact that it has happened at all is sufficient evidence to my mind to proceed as though it's a possibility. Because it is. How many bombs going off in London would you consider to be an acceptable number, would you say that the police going "well, it's only happened twice before so we discounted the threat" to be an acceptable defence if he had gone boom?
Bizarre.
Brown man in a coat. I’d be happy to decide not to take a life on the basis of that evidence.
Ignoring the fact the police didn't kill anyone, you appear to be determined to try to ignore the context of the whole situation to try to justify your agenda.
are there any places in the world where they would be a *better* outcome for a bloke waving a blade at the police having just stabbed two other people?
Sorry to interrupt, but how far back do I need to go to be able to understand what this has to do with Polanski? Thanks.
In any case; who said it was a "key consideration"?
It seems to have suddenly popped up on this thread as a justification for booting the guy in the head, and - in the even that armed cops show up - shooting him.
Ignoring the fact the police didn't kill anyone, you appear to be determined to try to ignore the context of the whole situation to try to justify your agenda.
Nobody said they killed anyone, but it was suggested that if armed police had shown up they might have done, apparently based on the natural assumption that a man in a coat was concealing a suicide vest.
Sorry to interrupt, but how far back do I need to go to be able to understand what this has to do with Polanski? Thanks.
1948 probably 😂
apparently based on the natural assumption that a man in a coat who had just stabbed 2 jewish folks and was approaching the police carrying a knife was potentially concealing a suicide vest.
Ftfy..
And regardless whether he had a suicide vest or not, the guy was a proven danger and even when on the ground was holding a knife
I'd happily have done the same to disarm him if it meant reducing the risk to myself
