TUBE PASSENGERS FLEE AS NEW ALERT HITS CAPITAL By PA Reporters Terrified Tube passengers were evacuated from trains today as police dealt with "incidents" at three different London Underground stations. Emergency services were also called to a bus in east London amid reports there was a device on board. Passengers evacuated from Warren Street Tube station reported seeing smoke in the carriages before the evacuation. There were also unconfirmed reports of an explosion but no early reports of any casualties at any of "incidents". It is two weeks to the day since the London bombings, when three suicide bombers detonated bombs on Tube trains in the capital and a fourth blew himself up on a bus. Sosiane Mohellavi, 35, was travelling from Oxford Circus to Walthamstow when she was evacuated from a train at Warren Street. "I was sitting in the carriage reading a book and I smelt something burning, like wiring or tyres, and it just got more intense. "Suddenly people panicked and started screaming and were walking on each other's backs trying to get the hell out of there. "I couldn't move, I didn't know what to do, whether to run or not. "People ran and left their shoes and belongings when they smelt the burning," Mr Mohellavi said. A British Transport Police spokeswoman said Warren Street, Shepherds Bush and Oval stations had all been evacuated. She said the incidents were "ongoing". Underground services were suspended as the alert spread. Services on the Victoria and Northern lines were suspended. London fire brigade said there were reports of smoke coming from Oval station, which crews were investigating. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "Emergency services personnel are responding to reports of incidents at three locations on the Underground - the Oval, Warren Street and Shepherd's Bush." An Underground spokeswoman said: "We are responding to reports of incidents at Warren Street and the Oval. There are no reports of any casualties at this stage. "We have suspended three lines, the Hammersmith & City, Victoria and Northern." Victoria Line passenger Ivan McCracken claimed a traveller's rucksack had exploded on the Tube outside Warren Street station. He told Sky News: "I was in a middle carriage and the train was not far short of Warren Street station when suddenly the door between my carriage and the next one burst open and dozens of people started rushing through. Some were falling, there was mass panic. "It was difficult to get the story from any of them what had happened but when I got to ground level there was an Italian young man comforting an Italian girl who told me he had seen what had happened. "He said that a man was carrying a rucksack and the rucksack suddenly exploded. It was a minor explosion but enough to blow open the rucksack. "The man then made an exclamation as if something had gone wrong. At that point everyone rushed from the carriage." Mr McCracken said he smelled smoke but did not see any injured passengers. A London Ambulance spokesman said: "We are currently responding with other emergency services to incidents at Warren Street, Shepherd's Bush and Oval. "We were called to Oval at 12.38pm and sent three ambulance vehicles. "We were called to Warren Street at 12.45pm and sent five vehicles. "We will shortly confirm details of the incident at Shepherd's Bush. "At this time there are no reports of casualties at any of the scenes." Prime Minister Tony Blair cancelled a visit to east London this afternoon as events unfolded. London Mayor Ken Livingstone also cancelled a visit this afternoon to the Family Assistance Centre set up to help victims of the July 7 blasts in light of the current Tube incidents, a spokeswoman from Westminster Council confirmed.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Apparently UCH has been closed off and armed police have entered. No word why, although BBC News 24 is reporting one casualty, probably the person who detonated one of the things (apparently just the detonator components of bombs).
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I hope whoever's doing this didn't injure themselves badly enough to keep them from being sent to prison for a long stretch of time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So far, everyone's more concerned with the cricket. Despite dismissing Australia for 190 all out, England is now running at about 25 for 5! Pathetic and paltry doesn't even begin to describe it! It's a disaster!
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, it was pretty inevitable. Every time the pundits start saying 'England have a real chance this time', they lose.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Stiff upper-lipness in action.
I haven't got a job at the moment, which is annoying, but I do get to watch the cricket, which is good. Swings and roundabouts.
As for the tube thing, I'm waiting for more news.
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
Update: Looks like the same types of bombs as last time, except main explosive appears to have gone past it's best before date, and didn't go off. One suspect was seen with wires sticking out of hos back running into a hospital, however they didn't find him. Another bomb was found over the weekend, but didn't go off. 3 people have been arrested, but are not the bombers.
Unfortunatly, there's been abit of an accident. The police are operating a shoot to kill policy, aiming for the head as disabling shots would leave a suicide bomber a chance to set something off, and body shots could trigger any explosives around the body. On friday, plain clothes armed police from SO19 (we don't normaly arm the police, but when we do, we don't mess about. SO19 carry automatics, machine guns and shotguns) chased a man wearing a larger jacket on a warm day into a underground station. He jumped the barriers, and they chased him onto the platford and shot him dead when he got on a train. However it's turned out he was a legal worker in this country from brazil.
I think we should add to the usual underground warning messages "mind the gap", "keep all luggage with you" and "mind the doors", the warning "If someone yells 'stop, armed police', stop."
I am truly sorry for this guy and his family, and I do agree that this should be fully investigated, but with what is going on at the moment, I can't blame the police's actions.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And yet- he ran. Why? Not that it's his fault he died, but panicking when the cops are involved never helps...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I guess we will never know now, will we?
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
The BBC have just announced that his visa had just expired. Which might explain why he ran (although in brazil, judging by the police death squads in Rio, running from armed police is probably a good idea). But why onto the tube, what was he thinking? Poor sod.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
More to the point, why did they let him take a bus journey but only intervene when he was about to get on the tube?
No, this is an outrage which I'm sure will end in murder charges somewhere down the line. Despite what they're saying, there is some question about the sort of jacket he was wearing and its actual bulkiness. And as to whether or not he actually jumped the barriers. Being an illegal and coming from a culture that tolerates the existence of police death-squads may explain his actions but no way does it excuse the police theirs.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I don't think we need to evoke fear of Brazilian police death squads in this case. After all, the people who were chasing the suspect were not "police" in a readily apparent way, but rather "armed men in civilian clothing", shouting a lot.
Whether the poor suspect recognized them for cops or not, his reaction seems universally understandable: in most countries of the world, running probably is the right thing to do when facing firearm-carrying people... (If they want you dead, you're dead no matter what you do. If they want something else, they won't get it if you run, and shooting won't help them in getting it then, either.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"If someone yells 'stop, armed police', stop."
According to the Washington Post article that was repeated in the local paper here, witnesses didn't hear the police claim to be police. Basically, it seems that, as far as the guy knew, he was being chased by a bunch of random guys with guns. Of course he ran.
And the mayor of London said, "This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility." What a dick.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I really don't see why everyone's so surprised, this was bound to happen sooner or later with the tension and everything. How many times haven't kids gotten shot in LA for looking like a liquor store robber (being black)? If anything, this will set a precedent that will make the police (or SO-19) look over their procedures slightly, if only to catch less flak in the future.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Eight times. They shot him in the head eight times. With a semi-automatic pistol. Somebody aimed their weapon at the head of a restrained man and pulled the trigger eight times. I just wish Kate hadn't said while watching the news last night: "That poor guy. What do you think went through his head?" This shouldn't be a topic that makes you crack up. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Then you should not post comments like "What do you think went through his head?".
I mean really, it's all I can do to refrain from making a mean-spirited joke at the victim's expense......so....difficult....
A few random thoughts-
This incident will make their ongoing investigation much more difficult....and cut dwn on sales of bulky jackets, of course.
London's mayor blaming this death on the terrorists is a spin even the White House would be shamefaced to use. mabye, anyway.
I dont thik any capital charges will rise from this shooting- dismissals for certain, but not jailtime. Someone will find a memo saying that suspects were waering that kind of jacket or hiding explosives in their hair or something to make the shooting seem a tad less...outrageous.
Police wil be sure to announce themselves with a loudspeaker in the future. Here in the States, a few police raids have led to fatalaties on both sides from this (though usually in a raid on a house).
Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
Is this the same guy I heard about earlier? Because I read that they hit him in the chest.
EDIT: Nevermind, found some more information myself.
Posted by tricky (Member # 1402) on :
We don't normally operate a shoot to kill policy in this country, but from the sounds of it making sure there's no central nervous system left to trigger a bomb which you are right next to seems like the only thing you dare do. If you we standing that close to someone you were sure was in posession of a bomb, how many shots would you take? And that the risk of a shoot to kill policy, you can't ask questions later. What of the non leathal restraint weapons in use or in development that we have heard of would stop a suspect pressing a button or not possibly cause the detination of the bomb the suspect maybe carrying. What if the bombers start carrying some sort of dead mans switch? Christ, what do we do then?
What the police somehow have to do is to appear under cover, but be able to blow that cover and make sure the suspect they are following knows that they are Police. How, I have no idea. Most loudspeakers I know of aren't easy to conceal.
As far as prosecution of the Police officers, is this much diffenent than a soldier acting on orders to shoot the enemy? The Police do have to operate where things are less clear cut, but a senoir officer would have given the orders to act, either directly, or by giving general orders about when to act. Deciding who was resposible for the death will be difficult, but justice must be seen to be done.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I really don't see why everyone's so surprised..."
Surprised? No. Enraged? Yes. Because this is exactly the kind of thing that civil liberties are there to prevent, and what happens when those rights are traded in for "security".
"If you we standing that close to someone you were sure was in posession of a bomb, how many shots would you take?"
Except, in this case, the police weren't sure, or they would have stopped him long before he ever reached the Tube station. Which then raises the question of how you would stop someone whom you suspect to be in possession of a bomb and is going to detonate it in a public place. I don't know the answer to that one, but I would think you don't wait until he gets there.
[ July 26, 2005, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think it's so much the tactics that cause shock as the overkill (no pun intended here). Unless the officers all fired at the same time, someone was just shooting a fatally injured suspect....in the head.
Still, we were not there and the officers may have been under orders to aim for the head if explosives were suspected- if (for instance) the guy stopped and turned suddenly or looked to be intentionally running for a crowd of people (to blow up from the cop's perspectives) there would have been cause for firing on him.
Who would want to be the cop that hesitated with a suspect and got a crowd of peditrians killed?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Then you should not post comments like "What do you think went through his head?".
I mean really, it's all I can do to refrain from making a mean-spirited joke at the victim's expense......so....difficult....
You misunderstand me. That is what someone - my wife - said to me in all innocence. Maybe I've got a fundamentally twisted mind but as outraged by I am by this scandal, I still couldn't help but have a certain thought (albeit one in very bad taste) occur to me. But this is a horrible, horrible thing that's happened.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah.
I think your thought was only natural...besides, it's only human to find humor in the most dire of situations.
Still, you were wise to conceal your smirk from her....she does not know the power of the Darkside and all that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"As far as prosecution of the Police officers, is this much diffenent than a soldier acting on orders to shoot the enemy?"
Yes, it is. One of them is someone whose job it is to go into a war zone, and shoot at people clearly demarcated as "the other side". The other is someone blowing the head off a guy whom it's his job to protect.
If a soldier was walking down the street one day, saw someone he thought looked suspicious, then stalked the guy and shot him eight times in the head, and the guy turned out to be an innocent civilian, I'd say prosecute the crap out of the soldier.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think there's such a thing as "overkill" in this situation.
That is, if your intention is to kill someone before they can kill others, then it doesn't matter particularly, from an ethical standpoint, whether you shoot them once, or a hundred times. The choice is whether or not to shoot in the first place.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh, sure, but you preferably don't make that choice at the last moment, when your shots have to be lethal.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And I'd say that anyone who is expected to be put in the kind of situation where such a decision is likely to be made should be capable of implementing it with some degree of precision.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They were pretty precise though- their shots found their target and I've not heard of any stray shots or unintended casualties.
The real issue is weither the police were gung-ho to kill a terrorist or were they acting professionally and in a grim situation with tragic consequences.
Speaking of "prosecute the crap out of the soldier", two US soldiers are going on trial for having a cute contest as to which could use their attack dogs to scare the most prisoners into urinating/deficating themselves.
Two of the (reported) prisoners in-terror-gated were children, ages 10 and 14.
Looks like it'll be the ol' "My commanders knew/approved of this" line of crap.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I wouldn't be surprised if their commanders did know/approve of it. Which means they should both be prosecuted the crap out of.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree, but it's no defense for the soldiers. The official rules are that attack dogs can be used in interrogations (to scare prisoners) but have to have their muzzles on at all times. This trial revolves around two instances where a prisoner (not the two kids I mentioned) were bitten by attack dogs during questioning.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Okay then, but precision should imply the knowledge on the part of the shooter that he's already put one bullet in his target's brain, and that adding seven more would really be gilding the lily a little bit. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well it may have been eight shooters or four shooters double-tapping or Roland of Geliad could have been there...
Or they just shot him a bunch of extra times.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
If you mean to kill someone, then you had better make sure you've done the job. I presume in this particular instance the goal was to kill the man before he could set off his bomb, in such a way that wouldn't leave him even the few moments required to squeeze a trigger.
I don't mean to come off sounding like Ender here; it's just that it seems to me that the problem here is gunning down innocents, the acceptability of which doesn't grow the more politely its done.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: They were pretty precise though- their shots found their target and I've not heard of any stray shots or unintended casualties.
Considering that they had the guy restrained and were sitting on top of him, then I'd have been even more appalled if they'd actually missed him.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's something I've only heard recently- some of the news reports said the victim was shot standing up and one said he was running.
That was a week ago though- I'm lowtech just now and am getting my news from local papers (your most shocking headlines page 13 over here- if at all)
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: If you mean to kill someone, then you had better make sure you've done the job. I presume in this particular instance the goal was to kill the man before he could set off his bomb, in such a way that wouldn't leave him even the few moments required to squeeze a trigger.
But if he was being restrained, would that not have placed the officers in imminent danger of being blown up? Why restrain the suspect at all if your intent is to kill them?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Why restrain the suspect at all if your intent is to kill them?"
Well, I don't have even an interested amateur's knowledge of the specifics, but perhaps to prevent the activation of a dead man's switch?
Regardless of how these tactics are designed to work, I think it's clear that they were horribly misapplied, and perhaps need to be reconsidered. On the other hand, as you say, there's still no consensus about what actually happened.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So it turns out that, rightness or wrongness of shooting people who may be about to blow up other people aside, this guy wasn't actually doing any of the things originally reported.
quote:and after the 7 July attacks tube boses could have been expected to make extra efforts to see that all their cameras were in action
Why, is that a media scapegoat I see on the horizon?
I think we may be seeing the name of mr. "Tube Boss" (a gayer title is tough to imagine, BTW) in a old-fashioned government witchhunt.
...er...I meant "inquiry", of course.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, we only have the police's word for it that none of the cameras were working. If the cameras show (as they probably do) members of the Army's Special Reconnaisance Regiment (the uber-SAS they've set up) gleefully 'slotting' someone who doesn't even look of potentially-Muslim ethnicity, then you can be damned sure the official line is those cameras weren't working.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The inquiry comes as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, announced an expansion of his firearms unit to cope with the new terrorist threat.
(...)
Blair believes there will be no shortage of volunteers for firearms duty, insisting the officers feel 'very well supported' by the force.
Hiring more gung-ho officers to quell unrest and FIHGT TEH TEROSITS in a city that's practically an armed timebomb at this point. For great strategy.
He insists the shoot-to-kill policy is the 'least worst' way of tackling suicide bombers and refuses to rule out other innocent people being shot in similar circumstances. 'I am not certain the tactic we have is the right tactic, but it is the best we have found so far.'
"So far". Two innocent people were brutally killed because of a policy that's been in place for less than two months, but still it's the best "so far". I don't think Jean Charles would quite see the logic in that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, mabye Blair is the "least worst" person to be making such decisions.
Could be worse though- you could have Bush in charge.