Suella! Braverman!

I really don’t think she has the capacity for that level of forward planning.

This is more like the security services (who don’t want the inconvenience of having their backdoors patched) telling the Home Office to jump, and the Home Office enquiring ‘how high?’

It’s just more pie-in-the-sky nonsense from people who’ve never had a proper job in their lives and have no concept of how the real world functions

And like all their ridiculous proposals it won’t survive first contact with reality

How do they think you can operate an economy when the platforms on which all business is done decide that dealing with you is more trouble than it’s worth?

This will go the same way as the new ‘British Standard’ for products. Millions spent on it, then quietly shelved

This is more like the security services (who don’t want the inconvenience of having their backdoors patched) telling the Home Office to jump, and the Home Office enquiring ‘how high?’

I remember an interview with Ken Clarke when he was saying that when he was Home Secretary any time anything happened, the police and security services would turn up at his door demanding additional, draconian new powers.

He’d listen to their daft proposals, nod in all the right places, tell them he’d look into it, then ignore them until next time they came back to repeat the exercise

Clearly Cruella hasn’t got the brains for that

It would destroy british businesses, some of our contracts have monthly patching schedules server side, Urgent patches are deployed on an ASAP basis, maybe in with less than 48hrs notice.. The whole thing is a smooth, well oiled BAU process, it has to be due to the frequency of these acivities.

Imagine trying to get the home office to sign off all that? What would be the process and acceptance ctitereia for that?

It’s almost as if they have no idea what they are talking about.

More on the prison hulk.  FBU have started legal processes as has the local mayor

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/27/braverman-plan-to-house-uk-asylum-seekers-on-bibby-stockholm-barge-faces-legal-hurdle

He’d listen to their daft proposals, nod in all the right places, tell them he’d look into it, then ignore them until next time they came back to repeat the exercise

It’s like the current lot have never even watched ‘Yes, Minister’.

They’ve clearly never watched The Thick Of It either, as we appear to have been living in a 13 year long episode of it

Cruella has just been on the news with her exciting new initiative to get the police investigating ‘low level’ crimes

The example she gave was that if there is a smell of cannabis then the police should be investigating

I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but Greater Manchester Police won’t have time for anything else 😂

We are living in one long episode of The Thick Of It, aren’t we?

Quick stone cold contempt of court for our resident ‘How the Hell did she become a KC?’.

We depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us from the most dangerous & violent in society. In the interest of public safety they have to make split-second decisions under extraordinary pressures. 1/3https://t.co/kYQlxffXdH

— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) September 24, 2023

dozens of armed officers handed in their weapons following the decision to charge one of their colleagues with murder….

Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.

I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.

Nothing to see here.

Quick stone cold contempt of court for our resident ‘How the Hell did she become a KC?’.

she automatically became KC when appointed attorney general by Boris, not for her legal competence.

Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.

I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.

My feelings too.

Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.

I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.

Nice – you’ve judged some people you know nothing about with no evidence to back up your POV on their reaction to an incident you know the square root of SFA about. Quality.

no evidence to back up your POV

Well unless the news reporting is false they have “handed in their weapons following the decision to charge one of their colleagues with murder”.

There is my evidence for my point of view.

You are absolutely right that I know nothing about the incident in question but I do know that there is apparently sufficient evidence for a murder charge.

Are you suggesting that police officers should have no confidence in the legal process?

There is my evidence for my point of view.

That’s not evidence – not even close.

You are absolutely right that I know nothing about the incident in question but I do know that there is apparently sufficient evidence for a murder charge.

Yes you do – but that’s all you know. But it’s not enough to judge anyone’s guilt on or the competence of others.

(apologies for the edit. I needed to read again what you said – misunderstood it initially.)

But it’s not enough to judge anyone’s guilt on or the competence of others.

No it isn’t, the courts will decide that.

So what is the problem…..why are they handing in their weapons?

There has to be sufficient evidence for a conviction. If the evidence isn’t there he won’t be convicted.

Edit: What genuinely surprises me is that he hasn’t been charged with manslaughter. Presumably it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to suggest deliberate action? Whatever the evidence I expect the courts to decide.

..why are they handing in their weapons?

Maybe it’s a reality check to a lot of them that the possible consequences of carrying a firearm in stressful dynamic situations aren’t worth the minimal extra money. Who knows there’s little in depth reporting from the practitioner p.o.v

How is it a reality check? Has it not always been the case that killing someone has to justified for it to be lawful?

How is it a reality check?

Because CPS believe something has gone very wrong on a fairly routine deployment and that is going to reinforce to armed officers the risks involved in taking part in such deployments – the thin margins between safety and fubar’ed, I.e a reality check. Really wasn’t that hard to work that one out unless one’s being deliberately obtuse.

Really wasn’t that hard to work that one out unless one’s being deliberately obtuse.

And we’re off…

What genuinely surprises me is that he hasn’t been charged with manslaughter. Presumably it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to suggest deliberate action? Whatever the evidence I expect the courts to decide.

Indeed. This is probably why the strong reaction – murder requires intent & there is, I believe, a case to be made for the lawful killing of someone if they present an imminent & serious threat to the officer or their colleagues or the general public (don’t quote me on it!). There’s so much going on here that to draw any conclusion is rather futile at this stage. Remember it’s taken over a year to get to this point & I, like you, hope for the correct outcome. If this officer has committed murder then justice must be done.

This is worth a read for previous judgements on lawful killings.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/16/trevor-smith-police-shooting-was-lawful-killing-jury-finds

… I think the point of the original post was about how the Home Secretary shouldn’t be commenting on a live criminal prosecution as it is likely to prejudice the case and as a minimum make it more difficult for the case to proceed.  The discussion above is already indication of how sensitive an issue this is going to be without the Home Secretary wading in. In particular her second tweet in the thread is problematic, and announcing a review before the trial is just plain wrong

It’s just meaningless noise from Suella, she can’t change the criminal justice system, the burden of proof, or introduce waivers for armed officers (although they seemed to manage to introduce back-dated ones in the north of Ireland) and everyone in law enforcement knows she can’t – more so as they seem to be in the last phase of their rule. Headlines for the mail and telegraph readers.

Quite right to call out the Home Secretary for jumping into an ongoing case – knee jerk reactions rarely produce good results.

Whether (s)he’s convicted or not, impartial justice needs to be done. Something very unusual has happened for this to be a murder charge. No one has any knowledge of the circumstances at this time.

We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements, and if we as a society want them to carry on doing that, we have to find an appropriate way of dealing with a situation when they make a genuine but fatal error.

If we can’t find a way to do that, we have to be prepared for a Police officer to be unable to stop someone killing us, or our family or friends because they don’t want that responsibility.

The chances of that are incredibly small, but it is the ultimate whataboutery test of what we want to happen.

murder requires intent & there is, I believe, a case to be made for the lawful killing of someone if they present an imminent & serious threat to the officer or their colleagues or the general public

This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don’t need to be able to prove or show that.

.

In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the ‘I believed’ defence is going to be no defence at all.

We expect armed officers to keep us safe by making split second judgements,

Absolutely. But define split second in this case. He was shot through a windscreen. How(Speaking rhetorically)  are you expected to see exactly what is going on inside a car through the windscreen. The glass itself is reflective, so you arent getting a clear picture.

I think this officer brought the gun to bear, and accidentally popped off a round. As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.

So its one of two scenarios. Accidentally, or deliberate.  He brought his gun up and I would hope accidentally pulled the trigger, as I don’t want to believe the armed response team as akin to the death squads of South American dictatorships.

This unfortunately is the get out of jail free card. It is very easy to claim they believed so and so was about to do such and such and they don’t need to be able to prove or show that.

.

In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail. And the ‘I believed’ defence is going to be no defence at all.

that’s not how the law works for either police officers or people in their own homes using force to defend themselves or others.  There is a burden of proof, to show it was reasonable in the circumstances – that burden is lower than that required for the prosecution (who must show their facts beyond reasonable doubt).  It will be for a jury to decide having heard all the evidence.

In a situation for example of someone breaking into your house late and night and you stab them to death with a big butchers knife, you are probably and more likely going to jail.

Absolutely wrong – quite a notorious case a few years back where a pensioner stabbed a burglar and wasn’t charged. Tony Martin was only charged and convicted because the burglars were running away when he killed one.

You have the right to defend yourself if you, at that time, had reasonable belief that you were in imminent danger, and you use a level of force that you, at that moment, believed was reasonable, even if it was fatal. It’s the self defence defence.

Anyway, the people who get the best details of the actual facts of the case to make a judgement are the jury, and those in court throughout the trial. All the rest of us are second guessing and wasting time

It would appear we have a Home Secretary who either fails to understand the most rudimentary basics of our legal system or is deliberately trying to sabotage a prosecution

Neither is good, both are however highly likely with that dimwit

Well that’s a relief….. if they believe that police officers should be permitted to kill people with impunity then they are the last people that should be allowed to carry guns.

I hope that the “dozens” involved are never allowed access to firearms again.

Nice – you’ve judged some people you know nothing about with no evidence to back up your POV on their reaction to an incident you know the square root of SFA about. Quality.

Armed police officers literally have the ability to take a life lawfully. Throwing a fit of the vapours because there is sufficient evidence for a murder charge and acting in a precipitative manner is not something that engenders confidence in their “split second” decision making abilities. Due process still has to be undertaken and at that point a decision on whether to continue as armed response would have been more reasonable.

Carte blanche is not offered to armed officers though this is what those that have acted hastily seem to believe they should have. Some officers don’t realise that they can be wrong on some issues and how they resolve their interactions with the rest of us citizens. Some humility and introspection would be a good idea.

Then let us hope it actually goes to court where a jury can decide.

To be fair there are apparently over 6 thousand firearms authorized officers in England and Wales, it is claimed that about a 100 have handed in their weapons, so they are only a small minority.

And imo they have done the right thing if they have issues with accountability and the heavy responsibility which comes with the authority to use deadly weapons.

I think we just need to wait to see the exact circumstances..

The vehicle was allegedly involved in a firearms offence, so was presumably stopped and the occupant(s) refused to get out…you’d struggle to headshot someone in a moving vehicle with only one round, and it wouldn’t be a crazy leap to assume the occupant or occupants are armed and dangerous.

EDIT,

From the other side of the coin, for a murder charge…rather than manslaughter or something ‘else’, it does suggest there is strong evidence of some big wrong doing, refusal to follow protocol etc…

Time will tell I guess, presumably all armed oficers have body cams and there will be radio evidence etc.

I see she’s got a new way to appeal to the nutters:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416

Not just appealing to right wing nutjobs in the UK, now she’s gone international!

Post-Brexit she must have really have had to think to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.

She’s managed it well though

As there was no warning as you would expect and the law would demand.

“Unless to do so would further endanger life”.

There are even exceptions to your ‘rule’. Please stop with your Google Fu.

And you do not know if another officer had already identified themselves or had issued verbal commands.

I’m sure it will all come out in time. But as so many are fixed in their opinion the whataboutery will no doubt be staggering as is the STW way.

to come up with a way to make this country even more of an international pariah.

Really? I would have thought that Braverman’s claims that what constitutes a refugee should be redefined will chime extremely well with many current European governments.

I actually expect her to get quite a bit of international support for her stance. I can see countries such as Poland, Hungary, and Italy, cheering her on.

She’s expanding her remit then?

Previously, with her proposal to pull out of the ECHR, we were only aligning ourselves with Russia and Belarus, so its nice to see we’re now including other nutjob regimes

They truly are the party of aspiration

Whilst I hate this woman with every bone in my body, I console myself with the fact she’ll soon be out of government and spouting her hate on GB news to an audience of about 50 irrelevant old coffin dodgers..

Its worth reminding ourselves, because its easy with her deluge of increasingly extreme nonsense to forget, that by her own proposed rules her parents would have been classed as economic migrants and sent to Rwanda after 2 years sat on a barge waiting for their claims to be processed.

It always amazes me that journalists don’t remind her of this at every possible opportunity