Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Untouchables have killed again!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 5:52:48 AM10/28/01
to

Well here's a surprise… plod retires out from under it AGAIN!

They shoot people don't they? Not here it seems. They only shoot people and kill them and get away with it by retiring early through ill-health but we must not confuse this with murder. No crime was committed. Why, well because it was the police. They were doing their duty.

They're good at killing people... particularly unarmed and defenceless people... whether in their custody or out on the streets. They're even better at getting away with it. In the coming months I'm sure we'll all be interested to see how they fare against targets who are armed with more than a chair leg or an old airgun. I wonder how they'd get on against a few Mujahadeen. An AK47 is a reasonable, if somewhat dated, counter to their Heckler and Koch.

I'm sure we can all imagine the outcry from all interested parties if THEY start getting killed by the folks they now kill with such impunity. Can't retire on your fat pensions from that can you? No wonder the people here are not allowed even the most basic defences that our continental cousins have. On the continent they can have CS Gas, and they can have Tasers at least. We can't even have them. No, because we might be tempted to use them in our own defence. Can't have plods getting gassed with what they use on us, or zapped before they can shoot us.

Good old police COMPLIANTs authority. Got them off again! Well done!

Now, not only are the pair who killed Harry Stanley free to go out and do it again and again, but they have official sanction as well. No charges will be brought because no charges can survive the rigours of the police COMPLIANTs authority and the determination of those officers in charge of these investigations to find themselves NOT GUILTY.

No action on family's police shooting claim

By Daniel Foggo

(Filed: 28/10/2001)

 

THE family of an unarmed man who was shot dead by police by mistake have been told that no action can be taken on their complaint about the "insensitive" handling of the case by the senior investigating detective because he has retired.

Relatives of Harry Stanley made their complaint in January 2000, four months after he was killed by police marksmen in an east London street within 100 yards of his home in September 1999.

Mr Stanley, 46, a painter and decorator, was walking home in Hackney with a newly-mended table leg in a plastic bag when police challenged and shot him twice. They believed that the table leg was a sawn-off shotgun.

Officers from Surrey police were appointed by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) to investigate the death. Mr Stanley's widow Irene and their children were upset, however, by the "insensitive" attitude of officers in the inquiry and lodged a complaint.

They said detectives had waited for 18 hours before notifying them of Mr Stanley's death despite having his name and address, and that the family had then been subjected to lengthy and unjustified questioning.

A third force, Suffolk police, was appointed to investigate the family's allegations. The PCA has still not announced any conclusions.

Now the retirement of the senior Surrey detective involved, Det Supt Bryan Craddock, has made much of the family's complaint irrelevant as he can no longer be subject to disciplinary action should the PCA report recommend it.

It is understood that Mr Craddock retired three months ago on the advice of his doctor who was concerned about his heart. A police source said that while on sick leave he had agreed to be interviewed by Suffolk police over the complaint because he was "keen to co-operate fully".

Jason Stanley, Mr Stanley's son, said: "I would have liked to see everyone involved stand up and be held to account for what they did."

He added: "There were so many things they did which I would never wish on another family. They claimed that they did not know to inform us of my father's death, but he had his door key in his hand and his address in his passport."

Nogah Ofer, the solicitor representing the Stanley family, said: "The way the police treated the family was incredibly insensitive. They treated it as any other investigation into a killing, questioning the family as if they did not know who was responsible."

Scott Leckey

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 12:50:01 PM10/28/01
to
Dear Doc,
 
A question: Do you actually read what you snip?
 
Points to ponder:
 
1) The shooting was in September 1999.
 
2) The investigating officer (not the officer/s who fired the rounds) retired due to heart trouble in (probably) July 2001, having - according to your post - agreed to be interviewed both while on duty and on sick leave. I make that 22 months of availability to the Independent Police Complaints Authority.
 
3) This complaint was regarding the alleged insensitivity of the investigation, not the shooting itself. Hardly the gravest of charges in relation to an incident like this.
 
4) Why did it take the family 4 months to decide that the officer/s they were dealing with on a daily basis were - allegedly - insensitive?
 
Best wishes and keep posting!
 
                                                                                                              Scott Leckey
 

Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 2:37:18 PM10/28/01
to
Hi Scott,
 
I will keep posting.
 
If you had been posting for a bit longer and done the research into this case... which we all posted about when it broke, you'd know a bit more about it.
 
We were all NOT amazed to learn that the two plods were getting off with it at the time.
 
The Stanley family expected something more from the actual incident itself and the alleged professionalism of the force... which speaks for itself. The force was not with them, but with the shooters and their families as you are. They thought that something might be done about it, someone might actually pay for the crime. If it had been anyone else then they probably would have... but not the police. Oh no. They are allowed to do that. When they kill us its a mistake, when someone else kills us then its murder.
 
Plod gets a call from a pub and hears an irish accent and immediately over-reacts. You'll find a telling piece in the Telegraph and (I think) the Grauniad as well about it. One of them suggests, quite rightly we all thought, that "if you want to commit suicide, call a policeman." Another advises the local mobs to save themselves the price of a hitman, just call the police.
 
Suicide by police is something which they try to keep quiet about in the US as well. The police there hate the idea that they might be doing something by inclination that the "perp" might actually want them to as well.
 
The cases are mounting up, sooner or later something has to be done. Even the maggots are beginning to notice and get questions in their constituency surgeries. They don't like apologising for something they didn't do equally as much as they hate the idea for the things they do.
 
Warmest Regards
 
Dr John The Night Tripper
 

Rab Small

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 3:08:52 PM10/28/01
to
What I have wondered about this case is why the 2 fucking morons that called
in the Police don't get any flack aimed at them, in my mind they should
share a bit of the blame (a big bit) the armed officers would not have been
there if they had not called and informed the Police that there was a man
threating people with a sawed off shotgun!!!

PS. Doc you aware you are posting in HTML?

"Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper" <quinbus_...@privacyx.com> wrote in message

news:Z7ZC7.20662$a14.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Hi Scott,

I will keep posting.

Warmest Regards

Points to ponder:


Scott Leckey

Well here's a surprise. plod retires out from under it AGAIN!

Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 8:25:25 PM10/28/01
to
Hi Rab,

Its good to see you are on the ball still.

Sorry about the HTML. Like Scott... I've had some problems with this old PC.
Also I think I was so caught up in replies that it slipped my mind about the
html. If we can get more people like Scott to at least take a look and try
to separate the pith from the policy it can't hurt can it?

Dr John


Rab Small <r...@waylander.neet> wrote in message
news:1004299580.18717....@news.demon.co.uk...

Rab Small

unread,
Oct 28, 2001, 8:56:51 PM10/28/01
to
"Dr_John_The_Night_Tripper" <quinbus_...@privacyx.com> wrote in message
news:Pg2D7.26831$a14.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

> Hi Rab,
>
> Its good to see you are on the ball still.
>
> Sorry about the HTML.

Hehehe I am a Techie m8 HTML posting newsgroups is bad thing ;-))

Like Scott... I've had some problems with this old PC.
> Also I think I was so caught up in replies that it slipped my mind about
the
> html. If we can get more people like Scott to at least take a look and try
> to separate the pith from the policy it can't hurt can it?

Not in this group but in others...it don't bare thinking about...

0 new messages