Whenever an innocent person dies (and an expired visa plus panic is reason enough to run whatever the ‘hawks’ say), someone must be held accountable, but I don’t believe in this case that it’s the firearms officers.

The decision to use ”Shoot to kill to protect” rules of engagement must have been Tony Blair’s. Let’s hope he takes responsibility for his decision.

I want to be mummified, put in a sarcophagus and have a pyramid built in my honour 🙂

The Met are the only people capable of defending us? Don’t make me laugh!

What do you suggest then? the Army? human rights monitors?

Andrewm, he was a suspect – he could just as easily have been a suspected bus-bomber as tube-bomber…

He was under surveillance, the Police might not have had people in position to stop him getting on the bus.

It is heartening to see we have so many members who believe it’s alright to execute somebody because they look a bit dodgy, or because ‘there is a chance the named person was involved in some petty crime’. Wasn’t aware petty crime carried the death sentence in the UK.

And it’s heartening to see such a well thought out condemnation of the only people who are capable of defending us from the terrorists who will sentence us to death for going about our daily lives.

The Police admit they made a mistake, but that man’s actions caused them to make it.

One interesting point the BBC website made was that this man had previously spent much of his life in rather undesirable areas of I think it was Sao Paulo, where the murder rate is frighteningly high. This poor fellows natural instinct after seeing a gang of men in plain clothes pulling guns on him would surely have been to run?

And the anti-terrorist Police officers natural instinct after seeing a man running away from them is that he is a terrorist.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN, WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES 🙁

Steve, the militarys job is to defend the nation its interests and its people, it should do whatever is neccesay to do this even if it means fundamental change.
Anyway I wasnt suggesting that the Army be used for dealing with terrorist in the UK, I just felt that your reply needed an answer, my suggestion was that the money ED wants to spend on a third CVF could be better spent dealing with terrorism (ie funding the security services, or removing the reasons people resort to terror)

Terrorism is a criminal act, not really a military threat. Terrorists can only murder, maim and disrupt, if they took control of a area in a riot they would be surrounded and eventually defeated. They can only win if we let them.

Terrorism or no terrorism, the UK still needs aircraft carriers if it wants to continue to have a world wide influence. I think that the CVF design is the wrong choice for the UK, it’s too big, too expensive and 2 is not enough. But we still need carriers.

People forget that the Police force is the only thing that keeps this country from descending into anarchy.