About me
Archive
About me

The Stockwell leaks

close

Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

Yesterday, I blogged an Observer piece highlighting some of the unanswered questions surrounding the Stockwell shooting. Today, I’m blogging a Guardian report highlighting new leaks from the report into the shooting – leaks which appear to raise yet more questions about the shooting.

Following the police murder, I claimed that

basic story is that a man under surveillance following the attacks refused to follow police orders, and so was shot five times at close range.

It now emerges that the man was not under formal surveillance, as no-one had bothered to identify him properly. He didn’t refuse to follow police orders, because he wasn’t given any. And he wasn’t shot five times at close range, he was pinned down and shot seven times at point-blank range.

And whilst I still think

We can’t go killing every Asian man in a big coat who doesn’t do as police ask.

It turns out he wasn’t even wearing a big coat, but a rather light and fetching denim number.

One of my many theories is beginning to look frighteningly close to the truth:

To my mind, it sounds like a policeman rather lost it, and shot the man five times in some kind of rage.

Steps must be taken to ensure that such a mistake is never, ever, made again – and if that means laws must change to make it harder for police to kill, then change they must. Someone somewhere once said that every time the police wrongly arrest someone, we lose a little piece of our freedom. How much, then, did we lose on 22nd July 2005?

This 705th post was filed under: News and Comment.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 7th May 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 3rd April 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 4th March 2017)

Chicago (published 7th March 2005)

Sky News jumping the gun again (published 5th April 2008)

Photo-a-day 238: Rooftops of Newcastle (published 25th August 2012)

Adults better Web surfers than teens (published 2nd February 2005)


Comments and responses

Comment from Emmanuel Goldstein


by Emmanuel Goldstein

Comment posted at 22:53 on 19th August 2005.

“if that means laws must change to make it harder for police to kill”

So which law does give the police the right to kill people?


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 19:06 on 26th August 2005.

That’s an excellent question, and one which urgently needs addressing. I assume it’s part of some of the recently passed terror legislation, but I really don’t know.


Comment from Andrew Milner


by Andrew Milner

Comment posted at 09:15 on 29th August 2005.

Sounds like those trigger-happy cops always wanted to kill someone, and this was their big chance. “I shot him because I thought he was a threat to the other passengers.” “’course you did, son.” A civilian would be sent to Broadmoor, but a cop goes on an all-expenses-paid holiday. “Kill a Brazilian, win a holiday” competition.” Open to Metropolitan Police Service only. Some reports are talking of 11 shots. That’s sounds like two shooters to me. Any apologies forthcoming? Like from the tabloid newspapers that headlined, “One down, three to go”, and “Police kill bomber mastermind after Subway chase”. Absolutely disgraceful, but check the media whore’s code and you’ll see they were following it to the letter.


Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.