Friday's morning headline in the 'Guardian':
The Yom Kippur killer was on bail for alleged rape before his synagogue attack, it emerged last night. Jihad Al-Shamie, 35, was under investigation by Greater Manchester Police over a sexual attack carried out this year and was due to appear in court.
Now, how is our taquiya-practicing new Muslim Home Sec going to get out of this one? She doresn't have many options, does she?Claim the police lied to her, in which case surely sackings must follow? Or say she only asked about terrorist knowledge, and not other crimes, which won't wash with anyone?
The killer had criminal convictions for lesser offences not related to terror, but was not known to counter-terror agencies.Two seconds on the Police National Computer would have shown these up, unless of course they misspelled his name, and really, is that not what you'd expect from a farce whose armed officers shoot two of the innocent people menaced by a terrorist, killing one?
6 comments:
First half I agree with you Julia-this HS will never criticise her own kind. She will never take responsibility for any lies she tells either-she'll do what every Labour minister does and bluff it out.
As for the snidey comment about the police shooting the innocent party. My information is that the bullet passed through the vermin and hit the other person. That really can't be foreseen. Fortunately the Jewish community are generally decent people so there won't be any riots. Had a black or muslim been the accidental victim then it's free TV's and trainers all round.
Jaded
"the bullet passed through the vermin and hit the other person. That really can't be foreseen"
In fact it can be and has been for at least eighty years; I have a reprint of a Home Guard training manual that addresses exactly this point. Discussing frisking prisoners while holding them at gunpoint it says "frisk the man from the side ... A .303-inch bullet will go through seven men and kill the eighth!". If "be sure of what is beyond your target" or some wording like that was not on the shooter's training curriculum then I will be shocked.
Having said that, I don't know the exact circumstances of these shootings, what pressures the firearms officer was under, etc.; just that "didn't know that would happen" is absolutely not an excuse.
The standard H&K G36 5.56mm round has much more penetration power than the old 9mm round used in the MP5 previously issued to police.
Ask yourself why the police needed to move to a more gucci assault rifle?
US police use hollow point bullets which break up and do not over-penetrate for exactly that reason, and US police have shot a lot more perps than UK police. There is a body of experience over there. Is it used here, or are hollowpoints forbidden? It's a policy decision. Firearms officers would know this.
I'm not an expert of firearms obviously but the police use the equipment they are given by the Home Office. From uniform, radios all the way up to guns and bullets.
Jaded
The Home Office that can't even secure the borders?
Post a Comment