Are Now A Bigger Threat Than The Terrorists
I am appalled, horrified and terrified that a majority of
Britons apparently support the new `shoot to kill' policy arbitrarily adopted by
the police. This is an even scarier development than the bombing of
Here are some questions nobody seems to want to ask (and which, I
suspect, no one in authority will want to answer). You won't see or hear these
issues discussed on television or in your newspaper.
1. If policemen
shout and tell you to stop then will it not, in future, be logical to run away
as quickly as you can? When the police caught their innocent Brazilian `suspect'
they shot him to death even though they had caught him. They shot him so many
times that I doubt if his family were able to recognise him afterwards. They
argued that if they hadn't shot him he might have set off a bomb. But this
policy hardly encourages suspects to give themselves up. Why give yourself up to
the police if they're going to shoot you eight times anyway? When armed
policemen are allowed to dress in jeans how are people supposed to know that
they really are policemen? I'm English, white, middle aged and a member of the
MCC. I speak English and understand it reasonably well (unless it is spoken by
Americans). If a group of rather scruffy men in jeans, carrying large guns,
yelled at me to stop I too would run away from them. (How many visitors to
London don't even speak English?)
2. Why did the anonymous policeman
shoot the prisoner seven times in the head and once in the shoulder? Seven times
in the head? How many bullets in the head does it take to kill someone? Is there
just the teeniest chance that the policeman who did the shooting panicked?
Wasn't this perhaps a teeny bit of overkill? Were more than one policeman
involved? Am I not right in thinking that if a murderer shoots his victim
repeatedly he is usually regarded to have done so in anger?
3. The Home
Secretary (Charles Clarke) has congratulated the police for the shooting. Everyone in the establishment seems more concerned about
the mental welfare of the gunman than the fate of the innocent man who was
murdered. When is someone going to arrest the murdering policeman? The policeman
who executed an innocent citizen should be tried. If found guilty of murder (and
I find it difficult to see how he could not be) then he should be sentenced to
life imprisonment. The senior officer who gave the order to shoot should also be
arrested and tried. (In reality, I suspect that everyone concerned will be given
huge amounts of compensation and pensioned off.)
4. Why have we not been
given the name of the policeman who shot and killed? The police are always quick
enough to release the names of suspects - even if they are innocent. (Ask TV
presenter Matthew Kelly.) The policeman who killed the innocent Brazilian is a
murderer. Why haven't we been given his details? And why don't we know who gave
the order to kill? Don't these people work for us?
5. We are told that we
have to carry on as `normal' if we are to defy the terrorists. Changing our
society or way of life will, we are warned, mean that the terrorists have won.
So, it is now presumably going to be `normal' for the police to shoot innocent
people and get away with it.
6. How many of those who voted in support of
the `shoot to kill' policy have really thought about what it means. How many
would support a policy of `shoot to kill them' or `shoot to kill their friends
7. How come the police are so incompetent that they took
days to find the names of any of the four men whose pictures have been plastered
over every newspaper in the country? (Maybe if policemen still had legs - and
didn't spend all their time sitting in patrol cars on motorway bridges - they
would have been able to do a little knocking on doors, to find someone who knew
one of the alleged suspects. To say that the police have not come well out of
the tragic events in London is something of an understatement.)
role of the media has been a disgrace. The worst paper of all has been The
Sun. I am thoroughly ashamed to have been a Sun columnist for seven
years. (Though I was not, I am pleased to say, a columnist under the present
editor.) The day after the shooting of the Brazilian innocent The Sun ran
the headline `One down - three to go'. They ran this even though they must have
known that the man who had been shot was not a terrorist. Someone at the paper
presumably liked the headline. The editor (a woman called Wade I believe)
clearly has the morals of a Blair.
The really scary thing about this development is
that once the police have power, they never give it up. They're like the
Government. A power gained is a power retained. The police in England now have
the power to shoot to kill. And they will keep that power.
abate (it will probably never end completely). But we are now stuck with a
police force who can shoot and kill innocent people and get away with it. Is
this really our country? One of the reasons we don't have capital punishment in
this country is because of the risk of the State killing an innocent man. The
police have now given themselves powers which make them a more serious,
long-term threat to our freedom and safety than the terrorists.
What the hell happened?
I'll tell you
exactly what happened.
Tony Blair happened.
The London bombing
happened because our lying Prime Minister is a war criminal who took us into an
illegal war. In the first six months or so of the illegal invasion of Iraq,
British and American troops killed in excess of 100,000 innocent Iraqi women and
children. Does anyone seriously doubt that the illegal war is not the cause of
the terrorist attacks on London?
So, why did Blair take us into an
I believe he did so because he is a vain and greedy
Blair is now enormously popular in the USA. Whenever he goes there
people cheer him. He doesn't get cheered much in England. He likes being
cheered. So he sucks up to the Americans.
And Blair has bought a large
house in London which is well beyond his present means.
I suspect that
the only way he will be able to pay off the mortgage will be to get good jobs
with his American pals. His autobiography won't pay the mortgage. It probably
won't even pay for Cherie's frocks. Blair will, I strongly suspect, end up a
director of the Carlyle Group (along with John Major).
So is that why we
went to war?
Did Blair just want to suck up to Bush and his pals so that
he could guarantee himself a wealthy future?
Did our nation get embroiled
in an illegal war so that Blair could get rich?
Were Londoners bombed
because of Blair's need to pay off his mortgage?
And now the police in
England have adopted a shoot to kill (innocent or not) policy. Our freedom, our
liberty, our traditional culture have all disappeared in days.
to me that it is all because we have a Prime Minister who wants a house he can't
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005