About me

Get new posts by email.

About me

The Stockwell leaks

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 post was filed under: News and Comment.

Recently published posts

Weeknotes 2022.25 / 26 June 2022

Weeknotes 2022.24 / 19 June 2022

Weeknotes 2022.23 / 12 June 2022

Weeknotes 2022.22 / 05 June 2022

31 things I learned in May 2021 / 31 May 2022

Weeknotes 2022.21 / 29 May 2022

Random posts from the archive

Comments and responses

Comment from Emmanuel Goldstein

    22.53, 19/08/2005

“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)

    19.06, 26/08/2005

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

    09.15, 29/08/2005

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

I'm not taking comments on my blog any more, so I'm afraid the opportunity to add to this discussion has passed.

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. Information about cookies and the handling of emails submitted for the 'new posts by email' service can be found in the privacy policy. This site uses affiliate links: if you buy something via a link on this site, I might get a small percentage in commission. Here's hoping.