News1 min ago
Effective Firing Squad?
Rather inflammatory and irresponsible IMO.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by EdmundD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Edmund - // ITV have now amended the news item to remove "effective firing squad" and say instead "a group of armed officers". //
Are you saying that the use of the words 'effective firing squad' are what you found inflammatory and irresponsible?
Because you didn;t mention that in your OP.
You used the term, and linked it to the report, which is neither inflammatory of irresponsible, as I and everyone else who referred to it has pointed out.
Had you mentioned that the thrust of your point was the use of language by the news time, my, and I suspect everyone else's response referring to the report, would have been completely different.
If you make it clear what you are talking about, you will get responses that refer to the point you are making.
If you don't mention the source of your observation - but imply that it the report itself, then you lead everyone down the wrong path.
On the basis that you are asking if the use of the words 'effective firing squad' by a news outlet - although i haven't seen it, so I am guessing this is what you mean - then I would disagree once again, but for an entirely different reason.
The only people who may feel that the phrase was 'inflammatory and irresponsible' would be those who sympathise with the terrorist and the death he suffered at the hands of the security forces.
I don;t think anyone would suggest that their opinion matters for a nanosecond - far less that news outlet language should be tailored around their perceived sensibilities.
Are you saying that the use of the words 'effective firing squad' are what you found inflammatory and irresponsible?
Because you didn;t mention that in your OP.
You used the term, and linked it to the report, which is neither inflammatory of irresponsible, as I and everyone else who referred to it has pointed out.
Had you mentioned that the thrust of your point was the use of language by the news time, my, and I suspect everyone else's response referring to the report, would have been completely different.
If you make it clear what you are talking about, you will get responses that refer to the point you are making.
If you don't mention the source of your observation - but imply that it the report itself, then you lead everyone down the wrong path.
On the basis that you are asking if the use of the words 'effective firing squad' by a news outlet - although i haven't seen it, so I am guessing this is what you mean - then I would disagree once again, but for an entirely different reason.
The only people who may feel that the phrase was 'inflammatory and irresponsible' would be those who sympathise with the terrorist and the death he suffered at the hands of the security forces.
I don;t think anyone would suggest that their opinion matters for a nanosecond - far less that news outlet language should be tailored around their perceived sensibilities.
Mamyalynne
You disagree with the Inquest jury's findings Stickybottle?
I certainly do
Officers were deployed to a terrorist incident tasked with protecting life or limb
Given that the terrorist had already killed 2 people and had in effect a suicide vest strapped to himself I fail to see how he was unlawfully killed
I would have said lawfully exterminated with extreme prejudice and rightly so in those circumstances
You disagree with the Inquest jury's findings Stickybottle?
I certainly do
Officers were deployed to a terrorist incident tasked with protecting life or limb
Given that the terrorist had already killed 2 people and had in effect a suicide vest strapped to himself I fail to see how he was unlawfully killed
I would have said lawfully exterminated with extreme prejudice and rightly so in those circumstances
"ITV have now amended the news item to remove "effective firing squad" and say instead "a group of armed officers"." - I'd be amazed if any news channel ever used that line in response to the verdict of an inquest for a terrorist. if you have an ounce of thrasos Edmund which I seriously doubt you'll tell us what you are really on about.
naomi - // AH, the wording is what I assumed Edmund meant and that’s what I responded to. I couldn’t care less how it’s worded and I wouldn’t have cared if he had gone before a firing squad. No more than he deserved. //
I assumed so as well - but i am interested to see if Edmund actually sent us down the wrong path - I understand your opinion of the death of the terrorist, and its manner, remains unchanged.
I assumed so as well - but i am interested to see if Edmund actually sent us down the wrong path - I understand your opinion of the death of the terrorist, and its manner, remains unchanged.
TTT - // "ITV have now amended the news item to remove "effective firing squad" and say instead "a group of armed officers"." - I'd be amazed if any news channel ever used that line in response to the verdict of an inquest for a terrorist. //
I am very much inclined to agree.
Come on Edmund - let's have some clarity - if you don't post with some background, this thread will simply whither and die.
I am very much inclined to agree.
Come on Edmund - let's have some clarity - if you don't post with some background, this thread will simply whither and die.
// the officers would fire at the head rather than at the bomb jacket.//
hi atheist again ! or foo atheist you notice everything. The reports of the testimoney have been - er improved and doctored - one paid guard commented " I am not going out there it is far too dangerous"
and THAT was why the two civilians went out....
and someone has a bomb vest - but never lets it off. and then apparently says he is waiting for someone to kill.
and when the armed police arrived - they were really afraid he would let it off THEN !
and why did they shoot him 20 times - because they ran out of bullets ( thx to Private Eye).
A similar white washy cleaning tecnic is being used for the Arena inquiry in Manchester.
The first draft of the police report of London 2005 - began
All in all the day went quite well.....
It was scrapped and completely rewritten.
These are hugely expensive exercises that dont achieve much.
At the Gibraltar inquests - the IRA lawyer safeguarding the interests of the dead IRA gunmen- complained - "all you are saying is that the five of them are dead, but we already know this"
hi atheist again ! or foo atheist you notice everything. The reports of the testimoney have been - er improved and doctored - one paid guard commented " I am not going out there it is far too dangerous"
and THAT was why the two civilians went out....
and someone has a bomb vest - but never lets it off. and then apparently says he is waiting for someone to kill.
and when the armed police arrived - they were really afraid he would let it off THEN !
and why did they shoot him 20 times - because they ran out of bullets ( thx to Private Eye).
A similar white washy cleaning tecnic is being used for the Arena inquiry in Manchester.
The first draft of the police report of London 2005 - began
All in all the day went quite well.....
It was scrapped and completely rewritten.
These are hugely expensive exercises that dont achieve much.
At the Gibraltar inquests - the IRA lawyer safeguarding the interests of the dead IRA gunmen- complained - "all you are saying is that the five of them are dead, but we already know this"
My objection was to the use of the term "effective firing squad". British armed police are not firing squads and I thought use of the term was irresponsible and potentially inflammatory (IMO) as (IMO) it conveyed a misleading impression of how the armed police approach a situation.
The Police Federation of England and Wales lodged a formal complaint about the wording with ITV News today who then subsequently amended the wording but with no apology.
The Police Federation of England and Wales lodged a formal complaint about the wording with ITV News today who then subsequently amended the wording but with no apology.
// words 'effective firing squad' are//
er rather ineffective arent they - they took eight minutes to arrive
History is being rewritten in front of our very eyes again - gentlemen,
2005 Tavistock Sq - the Brit transport police locked down and refused to come out (of their building wh faced Tavistock Sq) and sat on their bottoms doing diddly squat. We are now assured 2020 they opened their canteen and pulled their weight as zero first aid responders. They didnt. - see Hallett Inquiry which is a damn long read I agree.
and THAT is why we were repeatedly assured at the Manchester Arena they were there in 45s. (They were) - they had some reputational ground to make up.
er rather ineffective arent they - they took eight minutes to arrive
History is being rewritten in front of our very eyes again - gentlemen,
2005 Tavistock Sq - the Brit transport police locked down and refused to come out (of their building wh faced Tavistock Sq) and sat on their bottoms doing diddly squat. We are now assured 2020 they opened their canteen and pulled their weight as zero first aid responders. They didnt. - see Hallett Inquiry which is a damn long read I agree.
and THAT is why we were repeatedly assured at the Manchester Arena they were there in 45s. (They were) - they had some reputational ground to make up.
Edmund, fortunately the British police do not see themselves as authorised to try, condemn and execute people on the spot. If they do kill someone they are scrutinised and that has to be right. In this instance they were found not to have been wrong. The people here who sound off about 'the b***d deserved to die' are in the wrong, because they are calling for summary execution without trial. The police do a very difficult job and do it well most of the time.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.