Zero Tolerance

Seems or police have been given their orders for the Royal Wedding and that is of zero tolerance and shoot to kill.Yes I know there are groups out there who want to disturb the wedding for their own selfish ends and gains, Anjem Choudhary’s (Muslims against crusades) mob being but one of them, though I think someone needs to have a word with him about when the crusades ended and who exactly holds the Holy Land these days and that it isn’t us.

Still shoot to kill seems very over the top, it certainly wasn’t mentioned as far as I’m aware during any previous Royal wedding, though I’m sure there were armed guards around along with various household regiments. Yet these days it seems that we have to overreact to everything, I mean why announce to the world that you’re going to shoot to kill? Can anyone else see the possibility of another Jean Charles de Menezes incident happening with the wrong guy being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or how about the case of Henry “Harry” Stanley, who was shot 100 yards from his front door while carrying a wooden table leg in the street? Mistakes happen, we know this, but the police seem to have declared open season on anyone they think might be a tad suspicious.

We used to be quite free in this land of ours, free to roam the streets as kids, free to assemble, free to drink or smoke even free to protest without someone deciding we’re a danger to the state and the royals and shooting us down.

I wonder what historians will make of this period in time when we moved from a relatively free society to one bound down by the shackles of security legislation and deadly force being announced against those the state deem dangerous?

Assuming that of course anyone gets to write a real history of this time and place, now that’s the real worry, what if we can’t turn back the clock?

11 comments for “Zero Tolerance

  1. April 26, 2011 at 7:12 am

    “Still shoot to kill seems very over the top, it certainly wasn’t mentioned as far as I’m aware during any previous Royal wedding, though I’m sure there were armed guards around along with various household regiments.”

    Well, those were the days before every single decision had to be enunciated and explained to people, before ‘open government’. I’m pretty sure the IRA were a known threat for Charles and Diana’s wedding, and I doubt they would have been all that ‘hands off’ in tackling them if the worst had occurred.

    On the other hand, of the few known public instances – the nutter firing blanks at the Queen’s horse, the idiot who tried to run up onto the stage in front of Charles in Australia – the situation was resolved by the guards with little fuss.

  2. twopennerth
    April 26, 2011 at 7:17 am

    more than a bit of an overreaction this isn’t it? i didnt notice any press release from police saying they would shoot someone for looking a tad suspicious? exaggeration somewhat here?
    last time i noticed all but a few elite officers were unarmed. We still have the right to assembly and you can openly complain about the police, government and royals. Perhaps you should try living in a land of true dictatorship. This is hyperbole and forced hysteria.
    The last time it kicked off in London i noticed the police getting the worse end of the stick.

    This relates to threats to life of the public, and if i am one of those people whose life is threatened during the royal wedding, i bloody well hope they do shoot to kill.

    • April 26, 2011 at 7:52 am

      It’s not what they do – it’s the power they have in reserve and in a different situation, with that power, a trigger happy young officer gets all zealous. Brazilian electrician.

      It ‘s the encroachment of powers, as Julia says, which is the insidious thing here, particularly as those powers are entirely unnecessary.

    • April 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm

      Well as I don’t tend to make things up you can have a look at the Daily Express article I took it from.
      ARMED police officers are on a “shoot to kill” footing for the wedding, it emerged last night. In a secret briefing more than 550 members of Scotland Yard’s elite CO19 specialist firearms unit were told to “take a firm stand” against trouble.

      Measures include watching out for anyone who looks like he is about to pull out a weapon.

      A “zero tolerance approach” towards unruliness will see any members of the public who cause trouble or appear intoxicated removed from the crowds.

      Mistakes happen and it seems the ante has been upped from previous royal engagements.

  3. William
    April 26, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Its just more scare stories folks. Notice how the ‘Oirish issue’ is raising its head in the MSM again. Probably because the Alky Ada threat and those ‘Mumbai style attacks’ that MI5 warned us all about a few months back, but never happened, don’t scare the people of Britain any more.

    TPTB are hoping that the Irish will restore the fear level to what they need to prevent people seeing the false flags for what they are. Scary stories.

  4. Morningstar
    April 26, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Strange that they do not have a zero tolerance policy for little old ladies withdrawing their pensions !

    Strange that they have Zero tolerance and shoot to kill policies but will not restore capital punishment (when at least the suspect gets a fair trial before being killed !)

    And of course under Clarks new guidelines – we are to have more of these ‘potential targets’ amongst us plebs – no suggestion of shooting and killing them when they go out and attack the ordinary oiks !

  5. April 27, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    Scenario 1;
    Man puts hand in pocket as royal(sic) carriage approaches…
    “Stop!” the warning is lost in the hubub of the crowd and BAM!, an innocent ma is gunned down for reaching for his camera.
    Scenario 2;
    Man puts hand in pocket etc…
    BAM!gets shot in the head for reaching for his asthma inhaler.
    Scenario 3;
    Woman bends momentarily to talk to child, stands up with baby bottle in her hand, BAM! shot for safety in case it was a petrol bomb!
    The list is endless…do I trust the police marksmen….I will not be there, not only because the legitimacy of the royal family(slavemasters) is seriously in question but also because ANY such incident is likely to cause a stampede in which hundreds if not thousands could be hurt…
    I hope the day passes off peacefully for all concerned, but if those present are stupid enough to wish to go there then that is their look out!, that the police are on ‘shoot to kill’ orders should make any ‘thinking’ person stay well away!

  6. SimonF
    April 27, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    I hate the phrase shoot to kill because whenever the armed forces or armed police open fire they always shoot to kill. If they mean fire without warning our on sight of a known terrorist when don’t they just say so.

    More lazy churnalism.

  7. twopennerth
    April 30, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    so 1 million people went to London. Only 55 arrests and no killings. Are you prepared to admit that the above article is over sensationalised, unrepresentative of the truth, and also out and out exaggeration?

    • May 1, 2011 at 8:22 am

      No, because I know that there were several pre-emptive arrests, plus Muslims Against Crusades were turned back at 2 stations on the tube along with another contingent of Islamics from Wimbledon.
      Zero tolerance extended to not letting anyone in to cause trouble and a lot of what went on you didn’t see or hear about.
      Had any of those groups made it do you honestly think there wouldn’t have been more trouble.
      Your problem is that you limit your thinking to what you read in the press, not what actually happened.

      • twopennerth
        May 4, 2011 at 9:33 am

        More likely you limit your thinking to what The Guardian comments section tells you to think.
        The article above implied that the Met Police were looking to “shoot to kill” trouble makers. Not one was killed out of 1 million people. Therefore it is an exaggeration. The Met were not looking to kill people.
        Were they looking to pre empt disorder and put a stop to it, i should think so. It is their job after all.
        And do i think if groups like; Muslims against the crusades had made it to the venues there would be more trouble….? is that rhetorical?

Comments are closed.