Posts by Mad Mike

Re: Suggestions...

The issue is not whether the raid worked, but whether the magnitude and methodology of the raid was appropriate. You could argue that a SAS team arresting a shoplifter worked, but most people would consider it a bit over the top.

Re: S.T.G raid

@Psyx

Somewhat different case. Firstly, the area around the Bin Laden compound was hostile ground. Secondly, the helicopters had been specially modified for low noise operation. Thirdly, there was only one way the operation was going to end. They weren't looking to arrest him and anybody in the way would have been (and was) killed. Totally and utterly different.

P.S.

They weren't a SEAL team. They used to be SEAL Team 6, but were removed from the SEALs and became DEVGRU. Totally different.

Re: S.T.G raid

@Psyx.

I agree that we need far more information and probably will never get it. The most damning piece of evidence is their failure to wear body armour. It simply isn't an issue these days. It doesn't get in the way to any meaningful extent and rapid entry (for drugs raids etc.) into very confined houses (rather than this rather more spacious one) is done regularly by the met, with full body armour.

If they really needed to get in there quick, they would have infultrated the perimiter first and even with modern security measures, this isn't really an issue. There are many police units that specialise in exactly that. The helicopter would have been used with an IR camera to identify the location of the occupants and if they started moving etc. So, if everyone is sleeping upstairs and nobody starts moving, you're OK!!

For information, when raiding a house, speed is everything. You do not go in slowly as this gives them time to ambush you. Specialist teams that do this all the time have known this for years and practice extensively for speed. Again, you only need to look at how long it took the SAS to get into and out of the Iranian embassy. Going slow will get you killed. Yes, some police would be outside establishing a perimiter, but there doesn't exactly seem to have been a shortage. And, if they'd used the helicopter appropriately instead of showboating with it, they would have known where everyone was, so a lot of issues go away. Finally, did they cut the power when entering? That's pretty standard as well. Those going in have night vision, leaving the defenders at a disadvantage when the lights suddenly go out. To my knowledge, they didn't cut the power, or the telephone etc. Again, at odds with their intended purpose in performing it the way they did.

You would also be very surprised at how low the SAS budget is. The NZ police budget is without doubt much bigger. Until very recently (2000ish), the SAS were very low budget indeed. It has improved a lot now, but suggesting they have more money than a whole police force is well wide of the mark.

Re: F*ck yeah! Team America strikes again!

@AC.

You don't get my point. If he could legally hire a serving police officer, that's fine. However, the police are trying to justify the operation partly on the basis they suspect there might be an attempt to stop them, including live fire. Are they seriously suggesting a serving officer would a) work for someone like that and b) not try to intervene if that happened. Bear in mind the officer would likely be INSIDE the house!! Also, I would have thought the ex police officer would be of the same thought. So, dotcom had used people for his security team that you would expect to side with the police during any attempt at entry.......Yeah. The work of a real bad boy there.

If the police really had any concern that they might come under fire, they would have worn armour. It isn't anywhere as bulky or cumbersome as that of the past and they wear it all the time whilst patrolling such hostile territory as residential neighbourhoods and just about anywhere. So, not wearing it on this raid shows beyond any reasonable doubt that they didn't expect anything. Anybody who believes otherwise is simply mad.

You are choosing to defend people who were clearly and obviously showboating, playing to the cameras and turning what should have been a perfectly normal raid into some sort of commando assault. Talk about lack of judgement. It's people like you defending them that simply encourages them to continue with this type of outrageous behaviour.

Re: There used to be a time

"If I were a police officer, entering the home of a known criminal who has a security TEAM, who has the means and motive to destroy evidence and who once drove a policeman off the road, I would put my own safety and those of my colleagues above the discomfort of getting the suspect out of bed rudely at 6am, yes.

I would not knock politely, and nor would the UK police, given the circumstances. Perhaps entering the homes of armed people is handled more casually in the States, but in the UK it tends to be taken a bit more seriously. NZ seems to have a similar outlook."

Errrr......known criminal? So, anyone who ever gets any criminal conviction is labelled one forever? Or, are you referring to the alleged copyright violation and therefore calling him a criminal before he's even been to trial let alone found guilty.

"Generally, yes; I agree. But again, he's not your average gun owner. The typical law-abiding gun owner does not pose for photos with assault weapons, drive other people off the road because they're in the way, nor have an on-site security team which includes a suspected gang member."

Not in the UK maybe, but its common in America and other parts of the world. Not everybody thinks of guns in the same way as we (the Brits) do and not everyone has a problem with them being in a photo. So, posing with guns is a pretty poor excuse of a reason to call him 'not the average gun owner'. Last time I heard, having an on-site security team wasn't a crime and plenty of American Hollywood stars have them and also pose with guns. Does that mean they're the same? A suspected gang member is just that...suspected. I could say I suspect you of being a gang member, but without evidence and a small detail of a trial, it's all unsubstantiated rumour.

"It's a balance of protection and mobility, and they made a choice. Maybe it was hot and they had a lot of ground to cover. Personally, I do find it mildly alarming that they didn't bother with it, too."

Fraid this simply doesn't wash. We're not talking about the 80s here. Armour today is pretty light and flexible (especially the type used by police rather than the army) and doesn't impede mobility to any great extent. If police choose to wear it all the time when patrolling perfectly normal streets, it pretty much means it isn't much of an issue, so the decision not to use it on this raid shows it was all show and absolutely nothing about risk at all. If the SAS assaulted the Iranian embassy in full 80s body armour given that they were abseiling, saying it was done because of reduced mobility is absolute rubbish.

"I don't think that we can so easily judge that. There was more than one person in the house, and Kim was hiding in a panic room (which aren't usually advertised with neon signs, and are normally hidden, correct?).

They may have prioritised securing evidence, or arresting the security staff. Who knows? We sure don't."

If securing him was a lower priority than securing the evidence, what does it matter how long it took to find him. However, it's the police themselves that are justifying the raid and its method by claiming this was important!! They can't have it both ways. Also, the panic room would have either been on the plans or been pretty obvious even though no labelled as such, due to the construction of such things.

All in all, the police are clutching at any straw to try and justify their Hollywood movie making antics. They are simply excuses and nothing to do with reality.

Re: There used to be a time

@AC.

Not sure how many times it has to be said........they had the plans, including the panic room.

Now, if I was entering a house of that size and wanted someone to start, where would I.......................maybe the panic room?

So, unless the walk was 15 minuts to the panic room, seems they were a little slow on the uptake. And to reiterate yet again, they were so concerned about the occupants that they chose not to wear body armour, so entering each room carefully and 'dynamically' doesn't seem to have been a worry to them. Anyway, a dynamic entry is about getting in quickly and clearing the building quickly. You absolutely don't take your time and give them an ooportunity to ambush you.

Re: Suggestions...

@Psyx.

Well, if their 'approach' was designed to render it impossible for him to destroy this data, they clearly failed, as it took them at least 15 minutes to find him!! So, if the idea was right (lets stretch the imagination a little here), the police and FBI were utterly incompetent at carrying it out and they failed miserably.

All this was simply staged for the cameras, hence them handing the police helicopter footage over to a local news channel. It was a load of wi**y waving of epic proportions. You dare to do anything and this is what will happen......

Re: S.T.G raid

@Psyx.

Yes, if you were wandering around slowly on your own. But, they had 15-20 minimum looking (supposedly) very hard. They also had plans of the house, including the location of the panic room. Wouldn't that be the first place you'd look?

Anyway, their dynamic approach was so aimed at surprise that they landed a helicopter on the front drive!! That'll only be detectable from a fair distance and give more than enough time to destroy/hide anything required. Their entry was anything but dynamic as evidenced by the fact they didn't know where he was (a dynamic attack to render the occupants hardless should start with knowing where they are) and had had enough time to get to a panic room. If the SAS had attacked the Iranian embassy in this manner, everyone inside would have been slaughtered. They would have landed in helicopters on the road in front, before sauntering up to the doors and windows and blowing them out, before casually strolling inside to find a hail of gunfire and loads of dead hostages.

Dynamic my a**e.

Speedy

"Saying that: Look at murder trials. Someone might have been charged for murder in a short period of time, but murder trials take YEARS. Hell: It took 9 months for the guy who burgled my house to finally even GET to court."

That was so he could commit many, many more. Then, he could ask for them to be taken into consideration and get let off lightly. At the same time, police cleanup figures shoot up. Result all round!!

Re: Hameric-uh!

Rather surprised the police didn't 'find him' swinging from a tree in the back yard. Crowd of cheering rednecks around him.

Police are out of control

I don't think you want to limit this to armed police. The 'Brazillian fellow' was from my point of view, a failure of intelligence and correct briefing. The person who actually killed him believed he was up against a suicide bomber and under those circumstances, you have few choices and no real chance to be nice and suggests a surrender. If they're willing to die anyway, they're not likely to come quietly. Killing them quickly is generally (and especially in an underground train) the only solution (just hope they don't have a dead man on the detonator). Duggan is a bit different, but again, the police seem to have been briefed wrongly and were under a false impression of what they were likely to meet.

A better example would be the chap shot dead whilst naked and in his bedroom in Hastings. A naked bloke coming at you with nothing in his hands is hardly likely to be a risk to life and limb. I've watched several documentaries on armed police and have never failed to be appalled by their lack of skills and apparent lack of sense. I've also spoken to a lot of ex-forces personnel who now work for the police and to a man, they consider the armed squads appalling in every way. Basically, there's a fair number of very gung ho people getting into them (and the police in general) and they are giving the police a very bad name.

Another example is the copper who killed Ian Tomlinson. How he got found not guilty I'll never know. He even admitted in court that he shouldn't have pushed/hit him!! Then, his past comes out. A list of complaints and abuse as long as your arm and yet he's still in the police!! You couldn't make it up.

Until someone starts getting the right people into the police and getting the wrong people out, this is going to continue. Unfortunately, there seems no interest in doing this and the various police federations/unions etc. all refuse to believe there is a single bad copper and will defend anyone.

I've got no problem with the police making mistakes, provided someone is held to account and the action of the individual was reasonable given what they knew and the circumstances etc. We're all human and make mistakes, it's just that some are potentially more terminal. However, between the courts and the police/IPCC themselves, we seem completely unwilling to hold anyone to account. The guy who killed Ian Tomlinson was guilty as sin. The guy who killed the Brazillian was probably not given the briefing and circumstances, but the person running the operation (Cressida Dick) and the intelligence people were guilty of incompetence. The intelligence forces didn't even properly identify the guy!!

Re: Shame on you too.

@Jimmy Page

Agree totally. All these crimes should work both ways round. Of course, until recently, there was no crime for a woman raping a man. It was not even considered possible. Forget whether we're talking about the 'Swedish' model of justice (where conditions are applied to consent), or the British version. Whilst the laws on sex crimes have generally been changed now to be gender neutral, it's society that has failed to change and still tends to view women as the victims and men the perps all the time.

Re: Told you so

As all the search warrants and seizures have been declared illegal, surely he must have his bank accounts back? In which case, surely he has a reasonable amount of money at the moment?

Re: Interesting ...

@JimmyPage.

My apologies if I offended, it was not my intent. I simply said that if you have a significant number of rooms you want to permanently keep at a lower temperature (through non-use), then maybe the house is too big. If you're using all your rooms, then this obviously does not apply, but then you wouldn't want to have some turned off would you? If you're not using all your rooms (whether house, bungalow or whatever), then surely my point applies. Given that bungalows are normally smaller (in terms of number of rooms) than houses, surely this is less likely to affect you?

I also don't see why a bungalow should be a 'very heat-inefficient house'. Yes, some losses are increased, but if well insulated, shouldn't make that much difference. Whilst a bungalow will have more roof area for a given number of rooms, it normally has less wall area, so there is a balance.

Re: Interesting ...

Only issue with not heating room is you can get condensation and other unwanted effects. Whilst the temperature can be turned down in some, I'd be careful how far. Seems like standard radiator stats are pretty good for this. I too have seen the ones that can be remotely controlled (by a controller in the house), but they are hugely expensive.

If you have a house that has more than a single room requiring less heat, I would have thought your house is too big. Maybe a move to a smaller house would be more appropriate.

Re: Good idea...

What everyone has to understand, is that as this is about politicians and other similar political animals, the stated reason is not normally connected with the real reason. Again, I'll cite smart metering as an example. For energy reduction, studies (by anyone independant) have shown they do nothing. So, why keep on with the project. I'll give you a clue, it's got nothing to do with reducing consumption and everything to do with cutting people off!!

Same with this. It's got nothing to do with your health, as politicians don't really care about that. (Otherwise they wouldn't send thousands to die in pointless foreign wars!!). It's got to do with scope creep and what else they can get it to do..........

Re: Costs

@AC. The unfortunate truth (whether we like it or not), is that a cost is attributable to a life. This will vary from person to person according to all sorts of attributes. Whilst everyone would like to think that their life is beyond value and any amount will be spent to keep them alive, simply looking at the NHS proves the lie to that. People are regularly denied treatment on the grounds it is not cost effective. Someone is taking a decision that £x is not worth an additional y months of life or the z chance of being cured. Lives have price tags assigned to them and whilst not a pleasant thought, anything else is fantasy.

Re: Normal prank in 10 years

I did think of this, but I assume they would expect the person hitting to make the call. Rather than depends though. Will these systems also detect a driver running someone over (rather than car v car action) and if so, give them the right to cancel and flee?

Re: Dodgy numbers confirmed.

Interesting reports these. I too can create number out of the ether without any reference to sources or logic or reasoning (as these reports do). Whether they are correct is another matter though. Given governments (and EU) history, accuracy isn't one of their strong points. Plucking random numbers out of the air and quoting them as fact, is though. Smart metering is a good case in point. All pilots have shown that it has almost no effect on consumption. Doesn't stop the government claiming 18% though!!

Re: Missing something obvious here

This is OK for a while at least. But, everything wears out in the end...........

Re: Yey another way for beaurocrats to justify their meaningless existence!!!

Yep. A hideously expensive and wasteful way of doing something you can already do much easier. For another example, look at smart energy meters and the £10-12billion rollout cost. People make the mistake of looking for the sense in these things before remembering they're from politicians!!

Re: Fuck this shit

An interesting conversation I had with a motorbike rider once.

He said that everyone learning or having passed their test in the last couple of years should be forced to ride huge, powerful motorbikes. That way, the safe riders survive and can then use something sensible or of their choice. The idiots and careless drivers will remove themselves from the gene pool rapidly by crashing and dying. Long term, this leads to a better standard of motorbike rider and fewer deaths!!

Re: Have it activate and call 999 on behalf of the driver

Mmmm. I think you're talking about a whole lot more integration into existing systems than they mean. Yes, it could activate signs in the area warning of the danger. Problem is, they'd probably continue showing the same message for the next 3 weeks till someone decides to turn them off. I've yet to really find these signs (such as on motorways etc.) of any use whatsoever as the messages are normally way out of date, often by days, let alone hours or minutes.

Re: Article Quality

The golden hour is a well known and proven medical concept. It's true for anyone injured and is current practice in Afghanistan and one of the reason why a chinook is used for injured soldiers. Get's the medics there quickly and then everyone back to the hospital. However, keeping people alive has a cost, just as much as people dying!!

Re: Costs

Yep. Quite right. This is actually standard military doctrine. Killing the enemy takes out one person. If you seriously injure them, you take out the person and others down the chain who have to retrieve, treat, look after him etc. Therefore, injured soldiers actually have a bigger effect on the enemy than killed ones, at least if they give a monkeys about them.

So, saving more people with horific injuries could well cost more. Not politically correct etc., but true. The situation is not as simple and black and white as they make out.

Re: Yey another way for beaurocrats to justify their meaningless existence!!!

@proto-robbie.

Guess you haven't been watching the news for years then. They want to have road charging. Price per km/mile depending on time of day etc.etc. Don't say whether this is in additional or replacement for fuel duty.

I don't disagree with you that fuel duty is perfectly sensible and actually green as the more you use the more you pay. But, the government wants road charging for whatever reason.

Re: Nanny state...

@Maxson.

Now, I'm pretty sure you haven't ever dealt with control systems......

Theory is easy here, it's the practical implementation that is an issue. You suggestion sounds good, but is very flawed. Firstly, people will get really fed up with it happening all the time. Secondly, you now have a mechanical switch that has to be crash proof (in the sense that it mustn't make the contact during crash. This is surprisingly hard!!). Thirdly, if you've ever had anything to do with anti-virus or firewall software, you will know this type of system doesn't really work well. Do you know how many people press continue when a red flashing warning comes up from an anti-virus or firewall product? Huge numbers. People will continue past all sorts of warnings. There was work done and people will even press buttons to cancel this sort of call when actually injured!! It's been shown. This is because they do it all the time (due to the false alarms) and therefore just do it automatically. I suppose you could have another switch for a manual alert as well, but things start getting complicated.

The truth is that practice and thoery are a world apart in this sort of thing.

Re: benefits

Mmmm. Evidence gathering. Suggests you're going well beyond just reporting the accident and location. Why not just jam one up my a**e and monitor if I fall over or walk into a wall etc. Same argument.