The driver apologised and explained that there was a signal problem further down the line.
The train sat there for about fifteen minutes and steadily filled up with people.
And then a couple of London Transport police and one of the station staff started peering into the carriage, checking all the passengers out. The station guard then came into the carriage and said
‘Excuse me ladies and gentlemen, this may sound a little strange but have any of you noticed someone with a rucksack getting on the train between here and Bounds Green who’s been acting in a silly way?’
Silly?
A couple of my fellow passengers began to stare at me - probably something to do with the fact that I had this sitting on my knee…
For the briefest of moments, the temptation to call out ‘Mwuhaahaahahaa!!’ and wave my hands in the air was almost irresistible
But it wouldn’t have been that funny and, besides, someone might have shot me in the face – lots
Not that you have to behave in an unusual way or carry something that could be a bomb to have someone shoot you in the face these days
And, as it turns out from testimony given at the JCdM court case this week, you don’t even have to be mistaken for a wanted terrorist suspect to get shot in the face these days...
- NOT behaving suspiciously – TICK
- NOT carrying anything that could have been a bomb (unless you swallow this horse shit) – TICK
Well, that narrows the number of people who could have been shot in the face by the security forces in London that day down to only a few million people
And top marks to the BBC for reporting the fact that ‘special bullets' were used to kill JCdM
‘Special’ being a carefully selected euphemism for hollow points aka dum dums aka ‘manstoppers’
First developed by the British military in the 19th century for putting down fanatical ‘savages’, they were subsequently prohibited from military use by international agreement but have been retained for certain specialised law-enforcement purposes i.e. putting down fanatical savages
Hollow points are exactly the kind of weapon that would be described as disgraceful and sadistically wicked if the 'Bad Guys' are caught using them but as a necessary and effective tool when the Good Guys use them. Kind of like studding explosives with ball bearings or dropping flaming thickened petrol on people.
No doubt there are plenty of people who have no problem with the thought that an undetermined number of itchy-fingered security personal are roaming the streets of London carrying pistols loaded with assassins’ ammunition.
I wouldn’t even try arguing with anyone who believes that this kind of thing is necessary. Partly because they would have a point. If you draw a gun on someone with the intention of killing them what sense is there in not carrying the most lethal ammunition possible?
What I would like to know, especially with the lethality of the bullets used in mind, is why the people who shot JCdM put 7/ 8/ 9 of the fucking things into his head? After about the first two or three was there really any point? And if there was a point why stop at 7/8/9 rounds? Why not 50?
As discussed with a couple of commentators on my last post about the JCdM shooting I’m wary of theorising about things. However, to fire that many ‘manstopping’ rounds into a person’s head suggests that either a deliberate statement was being made or that at least one of the 'highly trained' operatives wandering around London with dum dum bullets that day didn't (doesn’t) know when to stop
…which might explain why the driver of the train was chased down a tunnel and had a gun (presumably loaded with hollow points) held to his head
Maybe there are other explanations. Maybe the guy(s) who shot JCdM could give an account of their tactics and actions which doesn’t sound like a frenzied slaughter. The only problem being, of course, that the IPCC investigation into the shooting has not been published and we’ve already been told that the person(s) who fired the lethal shots won’t be appearing in the current court case
So, whether you are personally comfortable with the events of 22 July 2005 and their implications simply boils down to whether you trust the people who are telling you what happened
I don’t
-
And whilst on the subject of who is or isn't making testimony during the current court hearing I'm just gagging to find out if star witness, of 'he was wearing a thickish coat ... sort of out of place for this time of year' fame, Mark Whitby is going to take the stand...
'Everything I'm about to tell you is fucking bollocks. Bollocks which is, coincidentally, exactly the same as the bollocks the police are going to come out with'.
26 comments:
I don't think it can be referred to as the JCdM case anymore, it seems to be about delicately skirting around that distasteful incident.
The Metropolitan Police denies a single charge of exposing the public to risk.
They deny exposing the public to risk when a member of the public was murdered by them. That shows either astonishing cognitive suppleness, or a very hard neck.
If the Unified Theory of Ruling Class Overt Covert Steganographic Communications is worth anything at all, your idea of 'a deliberate statement' is right on the money. And, while much numerology consists of intriguing but largely pointless mathematical contortions, seven in the head on a day that just happened to be three lots of seven days after the events of what has come to be known as 7/7 could quite easily be construed as 'a deliberate statement'.
The French are well ahead in the UTRCOCS game but have shown their hand a little early:
France’s new model of media control
France has produced a new model of media control, somewhere between Berlusconi and Putin. Sarkozy does not need to emulate Berlusconi in actually owning the titles: his friends will do that for him.
The figures are well known. Two thirds of all French newspapers and magazines are owned by Dassault and Lagardère, France’s leading arms’ manufacturers. Lagardère’s affiliate, Hachette, also owns the majority of French publishing houses, as well as controlling a large part of the book and magazine distribution network.
More on media control:
Philip D. Zelikow was the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. He wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking; in his own words, "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."
Here are some more of Zelikow's 1998 words:
Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy [nonaggression] is lack of imagination. An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.
Did you get the number of the train?
Did you get the number of the train?
unfortunately not, the train was held up for about twenty minutes at Manor House last night between 7.30 and 8.00pm
the police did haul someone off another carriage and, as we resumed our journey, the driver started to explain what was going on over the loudspeaker system.
Unfortunately, because it's the Piccadilly Line we're talking about I could barely hear a word over the noise of train - the line 'in connection with an earlier incident' did feature though
Testimony from constable soppynuts:
When Mr Thwaites asked him how he felt about being a prosecution witness, the officer, who was giving evidence behind a screen, choked with emotion and was passed a box of tissues by the court usher.
Trial judge Mr Justice Henriques said: "I think the response speaks for itself."
Ralph said: "Despite the outcome, I was very proud of them."
Ralph described how the fact that a suspect was not wearing a rucksack would not rule them out as being a possible suicide bomber.
They could also be fitted with a "body belt" worn under the jacket or a devices in their shoes, he told the court.
jesus wept
@anon
Someone should kick me for never having read that Zelikow piece before
I won't pretend to be surprised by its content but... fucking hell...
Ralph described how the fact that a suspect was not wearing a rucksack would not rule them out as being a possible suicide bomber.
interesting that it's only taken two years to start trying to plug that teensy weensy hole in the official narrative
None of the mainstream media have seriously raised the issue of JCdM not carrying a bag and not wearing clothing that could have concealed a bomb belt so presumably someone in authority has figured out how to make their internet connection work...
and that's some seriously explosive shit them terrorists have got their hands on
...not bad for something made at home out of pancake mix and hair gel
from Reuters today...
The head of the police team that fatally shot an innocent Brazilian after mistaking him for a suicide bomber, broke down in court on Tuesday as he defended his squad's actions.
The senior officer, named "Ralph" to protect his identity, told the Old Bailey he was "very proud" of his team despite shooting Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head.
The 27-year-old was gunned down as he boarded an underground train in south London on July 22, 2005, by officers who had wrongly identified him as one of four men who tried to attack the London transport system the day before.
The botched suicide bombings -- just two weeks after four young British Islamists killed themselves and 52 people on three underground trains and a bus in the capital's worst peacetime attack -- had sparked a frantic manhunt.
De Menezes, an electrician, coincidently lived in the same block of flats as Hussein Osman, one of four men jailed earlier this year for plotting the unsuccessful July 21 attacks.
So, not much need for a court case then really. The cement is almost dry and everyone already 'knows' what happened...
... just like everyone 'knew' what happened immediately after the shooting
Well these 'trials' and the usual reports and inquiry have the conclusions set in advance - all the rest of just a bit of theatre for the plebs to give the illusion of genuine investigation. It's all so depressiungly predictable isn't it?
It gets better...
Traces of cocaine were found in Jean Charles de Menezes which may have made him act unusually before he was shot dead by firearms officers, a court heard today.
www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7000406,00.html
which isn't quite the same thing as demonstrating that he actually did act unusually before the police shot him in the face
... All coke-fueled, visa-dodging, mongolian-looking, darkie rapists MUST DIE!!!!
absolutely fucking disgraceful
I thought the 'asking for it' defence had gone the way of the dodo
Cocaine eh? I know they keep saying they're going to get tough on drugs but this is ridiculous.
think about all the pain these endless speculations about what are obviously tragic accidents cause to the grieving families of the victims
and if the grieving families are taking part in speculating themselves well, fuck 'em...
I thought the 'asking for it' defence had gone the way of the dodo
I think the correct technical legal terminology is 'gagging' for it
Have they checked The Renault McCann for traces of 'snort' yet?
fzzzzzt...BOOM!
http://tinyurl.com/293bg8
BZ
Stef,
It is my sad duty to report, yet another conspiraloon.
This one reckons that the Lockerbie trial was rigged.
That evidence was planted.
The usual stuff:-
http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm
see also
Do You Know the Truth about Lockerbie?
by that well-known, Internet-hating non-Conspiraloon Robert Fisk...
http://tinyurl.com/2vqdgp
"After writing about the "ravers" who regularly turn up at lectures to claim that President Bush/the CIA/the Pentagon/Mossad etc perpetrated the crimes against humanity of 11 September, I received a letter this week from Marion Irvine, who feared that members of her family run the risk of being just such "ravers" and "voices heard in the wilderness". Far from it.
For Mrs Irvine was writing about Lockerbie, and, like her, I believe there are many dark and sinister corners to this atrocity. I'm not at all certain that the CIA did not have a scam drugs heist on board and I am not at all sure that the diminutive Libyan agent Megrahi – ultimately convicted on the evidence of the memory of a Maltese tailor – really arranged to plant the bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988..."
"...I urge all those who may know of any such lies to write to me (snail mail or hand-delivered) at The Independent. They can address their letters to Mrs Irvine in an envelope with my name on it. In other words, this is an appeal for honest whistle-blowers to tell the truth..."
hmmm, gatekeeper-licious
what a twat
A quick note about the HSE trial of the shooting of JCdM ... Anyone notice how the death squad members were given good old English sounding pseudonyms, eg Ralph. Instead of say, Menachem, or some other Mossad members name.
Didn't someone around here say, "it's only subliminal if you don't notice it".
@bz
fzzzzzt...BOOM!
http://tinyurl.com/293bg8
Hmmm, someone mentioned Mr Tarpley's visit to me the other day and asked me for his opinion on the bloke
and whilst I've got nothing hard (pnarr pnarr) to hold against him, he's one those guys who gives me a feeling that his role in life may be to point 'truth seekers' in the wrong direction
he also has a show on the US RBN network which is rarely a good sign
still, a fiver for a night's entertainment ain't bad though sadly I won't be able to attend myself
It'd be nuts not to consider there were some fakers out there, but I cant imagine widget (WGT) being one of them. But really who knows. - lw
even the fakers put out worthwhile information and, besides, even if someone isn't a faker they could be putting out duff material purely in error
the people I am most wary of are those who claim to have definitive answers to questions but who, at the same time, are unwilling to document where those supposed answers come from... (celestial visions don't count)
though, personally, I think listening to a self-professed Blacks Ops expert and 'Terrorologist' who hasn't admitted to pulling off any Black Terror Ops of his own is a bit like receiving sex education from a Catholic priest
and I should know - I've tried both
Post a Comment