Words fail me.

[pat]

It emerged yesterday that the Met's guidelines for confronting bombers allow armed police, in some cases, to fire a 'critical headshot' without even challenging the individual to stop, if it is feared an explosion is imminent. Until now, it has been assumed that suspects would be given a chance to surrender.

Thanks to griffen for the link.

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

The leopards of England don't change their spots.

Seriously, I know this seems shocking from a place that gave us Gladstone and his essays on English law, but I'm not in the least surprised. At bottom the English are a ruthlessly pragmatic lot. Over the centuries they've demonstrated a willingness to embrace seemingly outrageous policies in times of perceived national crises.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

Some of the actions they took in response to IRA violence in the 1970s are examples.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

I do try to separate the emotions of my youth, where I grew up surrounded by the strong Irish nationalism of my grandmother and her sisters, from the more considered and rational opinions of adulthood. (Also, given the large number of my English ancestors, I can't condemn them utterly.) But you're right.

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

When I read "the Met", it either means the opera company or the museum. Imagine my surprise when I read in your post that they had such strict guidelines for confronting bombers.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

And this is different how from a policy of shooting down airliners hijacked by possible suicide hijackers, which the US would appear to now have? At least you only risk killing one innocent person at a time rather than a whole plane load...

Not that I support either policy, but there's nothing specially english about this. Indeed, this policy was apparently based on practice in Israel and Chechnya where they have a lot of suicide bombers (another aspect of the policy that is worrying).