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?’
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
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...