On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the
uniforms there.

And they'd be able to do precisely what?

I'm beginning to form the opinion that the problem here was that the
officers were not uniformed. I'd be supportive of a directive that
all armed police officers must be uniformed in future in this kind of
situation.

I am amazed that people seem to be ignoring this issue whilst speaking
in support of the police.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

(Neil Williams) writes:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:19:29 +0100, James Farrar
wrote:

If in doubt, when you get to the tube station, seek help from the
uniforms there.

And they'd be able to do precisely what?

I'm beginning to form the opinion that the problem here was that the
officers were not uniformed. I'd be supportive of a directive that
all armed police officers must be uniformed in future in this kind of
situation.


My thoughts exactly- If the dead man's perception was that the police
in England are unarmed, then it follows that his armed pursuers were
not police, in spite of what they said. And asking for help from a
uniformed, but umarmed, policeman was not likely to gain him any
safety, but just a policemen shot, too.

It works the other way, too. Locally we had an armed undercover
policeman killed by uniformed officers when they didn't believe what
he said.

I think his pursuers panicked when he went into the tube station.
A sad case.

Training and accountability is the only thing that will prevent this
in the future.

In article , Tony Polson
writes
Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On 24 Jul 2005 20:43:50 -0400 someone who may be Doug Faunt N6TQS
+1-510-655-8604 wrote this:-

I think his pursuers panicked when he went into the tube station.

Though it appears they were happy to let him travel on a bus.
Several things do not add up at the moment.

Training and accountability is the only thing that will prevent this
in the future.

It is a novel idea. However, as we have seen with previous cases
there is no accountability for armed police officers. No matter what
the circumstances they have always been let off in the past. I see
no likelihood this will change in the future.

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page328.htm outlines one example and
some the lessons the police would do well to learn.

uk.railway added back.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Feather" wrote this:-

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at
Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:01:57 GMT someone who may be "Richard J."
wrote this:-

News reports said that there were uniformed *police* at the station.

http://www.btp.police.uk/areas/under....htm#stockwell says that
there is a police station there. I presume that it is at the railway
station, like every BTP installation I have come across.

If they really did think there was a suicide bomber coming towards
the station then it should be a simple matter to have the gates shut
at street level. This happens with some regularity (though usually
in the centre) as a crowd control measure at underground stations.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:09:19 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
: Feather" wrote this:-
:
: Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
: light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.
:
: On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
: supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.
:
: If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at
: Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter.

It almost sounds as if you'd like that to happen. It'll take a hell of
a lot of plastic sheeting to wrap up Cumbria ...

Ian

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

In message net.com,
at 04:20:54 on Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Roger T.
remarked:
On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

I don't recall the towers falling over as a result of the impact. It was
the subsequent fire which toppled them (and even then, they fell mainly
downwards, rather than sideways).

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:20:54 -0700 someone who may be "Roger T."
wrote this:-

While I agree that there are sometimes overblown claims of safety
your examples are debatable.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

They did.

However, they did not survive the subsequent fire.

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?

That was a mass media or financier invention. I doubt if the
designers and builders said that. They may have said virtually
unsinkable, which is a different thing altogether. The ship was in
many ways rather more unsinkable than many current ships, especially
car ferries, but there is a limit to how many compartments can be
opened to the sea and a ship still float.


There are a whole host of things one could crash an aeroplane into,
as well as Windscale. Chemical works (an oil refinery for example)
and suspension bridges are two obvious things.

So-called security measures are not going to prevent disasters. Only
draining the swamp will work.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.