iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

Bombs in Oval and Shepards Bush, the news is all a bit confused at the moment...

Not necessarily bombs. It's Warren Street as well though.

And something about a bus in Hackney...

Flintoff got Gilchrist caught behind though.

Rar!

My building just announced explosions on all three stations and the bus. Happy days eh, wonder if I can go home and watch the Ashes.

apparently nobody is hurt
and it is a grand day for cricket

Dummy explosions, apparently - just the detonators, not the explosives.

all the underground is now closed

Hahahaha, an 'eye witness' on the BBC news just said 'fucking' live on air =]

not on bbc international, how un fun

How goes it all down there folks?

Heard some maniac was running around with wires sticking out his jumper as his bomb didnt go off but the detonator did?!?!?!?

Who cares? Tomorrow we'll find that it was a copycat action by an extremist vegan group protesting that vegetarians are sellouts responsible for the slaughter of millions of luvverly wubbly otherwise useless animals.

In the meantime, we still suck at cricket.

Although TBH, today is the first time in my life I have been outraged by a screening of The Simpsons.

I think this kind of shit is going to keep happening until it actually effects us.
America has been scarred by 9/11, the bombings in Madrid had a huge impact, but with the London thing, people are just kind of like "yeah, whatever, won't let it get to us" (apart from those injured and the faimlies of those killed, obv.... i'm not beind in-sensitive here).

It seems to me that the "terrorists" want to make a point, and will keep going until they do so, until they really fuck us over.
Which sucks.

Am i making any sense?

i am waiting for the wearenotafraid.com site to be replaced by the thisisgettingtedious.com site

America may have been scarred, but not enough to change their foreign policy.

Err, what?

WH is rightly pointing out that these attacks are obviously aimed at americans. all attacks are. unless you're muslim instead of american, in which case all attacks are aimed at the islamic faith.

police have just shot a man at stockwell station
eeep

serves him right. it's a terrible place, all dirty and noisy and stuff. he had it coming.

I was commenting on Perci's "I think this kind of shit is going to keep happening until it actually effects us. America has been scarred by 9/11...." note. My point being that although they may have been affected by 9/11 their foreign policy hasn't changed, or if it has, not sufficiently for them to pull their forces out of Afghanistan or Iraq.

If they did pull out, the killing wouldn't stop, it'd just turn into a civil war, the good point about that being that UK and US service people would be out of it.

Sometimes, words just aren't sufficient to express my contempt.

"The Muslim Council of Britain calls for the police to explain why the man at Stockwell Station - described as Asian in appearance - was shot dead.

A spokesman says Muslims are concerned police may have a "shoot to kill" policy in force."

I really hope he was one of yesterday's bombers, or that they were sure he was carrying one today.

I certainly hope we do have a 'shoot to kill' policy in force for suicide bombers, it's not like 'Stop, put your hands up' is going to do much good.

Totally agree.

I rather think that if, as the Beeb is reporting, three plain clothes officers jumped on him before one of them shot him, they were pretty sure that he was carrying a bomb and didn't want him to have the opportunity to detonate it.

yeah, my first reaction was: you stupid over-reacting wannabes. seen sydney cops do the same: oh wow, at last a chance to use my gun, OMIGODHEMOVED-FIRE!!
but then thought... suicide bomber... shit, he'd think nothing of triggering it once he'd actually made it on board his target: the tube train. which he had.

Jesus H. Christ on a bike.
What IS going on???
Seems we have an excrement - extraction decive combination situation.

An "excrement - extraction decive combination situation." Dude, WTF is that?

Think about it.

poo connecting with a football supporter

OK, I thought about it......

...... an "excrement - extraction decive combination situation." Dude, WTF is that?

In both cases it is
shit, hitting the fan.

Silly me. I thought 'decive' was supposed to be 'deceive.' No wonder I couldn't make sense of it.

That's weird. I read it as device every time although you are right, it's clearly wrong.

So the nice Brazillian they shot was completely innocent.
Why the fuck didn't he do what they told him?

It seems safe to say that he won't do that again.

Illegal immigrant, probably.

Running away from armed police the day after a failed terrorist attack, and a week after a successful one is enough to deserve getting shot, I reckon. Particularly when running onto the thing that was attacked twice in two weeks...

I completely agree.
No sympathy, I'm afraid.

I could be an entry for the darwin awards:

"A completly innocent man was being chased by armed police who were screaming something like 'Lay the fuck down or we will shot you!' the day after terrorists attacked the London underground system.
The completly innocent man decided to escape by jumping an underground ticket barrier, and running onto a train.
Guess what happened next?"

The Beeb are reporting "Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, may have run from police because of his visa situation, BBC correspondents say. The electrician had come to the UK on a student visa, which allows people to work for a small number of hours. "

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713...

Justification!

• careful plindoe- hindsight is wonderful but not fair to the poor bastards who actually have to make fast decisions with less than perfect information. put yourself in the position of the policemen: guy comes out of a house under bomber surveillance, ludicrously bulkily dressed for the heat, who bolts when bailed up, and rather than trying to run AWAY, runs INTO the underground, then runs ONTO the train. in context, the policeman has to make the most probable ex-ante deduction (which is NOT the same as the actual ex-post reality). and i think most people would agree, the most probable outcome given this chain of events/behaviour is: the guy is a bomber trying to get to the train and detonate before he is caught.

conversely, if the policemen decided no really he's a brazilian electrician (in drug-comedown paranoia?) who's worried about visa, but then the train goes bang and lots of people die, everyone's happy with that, right?
...

(
• UK police have been under formal involuntary no-discretion orders to shoot the head of any suicide bomber, for over 2 years now

• a mate mentioned last night that he hangs out with a lot of brazilians and they all do a LOT of pills -- pill-comedown paranoia, anyone?
)

and the moral of that story is - don't do drugs kiddies or police oficers will shoot the crap out of you

Why did he run??! 3 armed men chasing you with guns, what would you do? Stop to find out their names? ask if they really are trying to kill you, or were you just being paranoid?? This guy was from a bad part of Brazil where people(and police for that matter) don't need a good reason to shoot you, so if you see someone running at you with a gun you get the fuck out of there as fast as you can. Going to a public place(ie a tube station), is a good plan, as they're less likely to follow you, as there would be more witnesses.
In no way can you blame the guy for running, or for wearing a coat(he's from Brazil, but living in a UK summer -ofcourse he'd be wearing a bloody coat! And wearing a coat isn't punishable by death anyway!)
You possibly can't even blame the people who actually shot him, as they had been told that this guy was a serious suspect, connected with previous bombers, then they see him running at the tube station, wearing a bulky jacket in mid summer... it doesn't take a genius to see what will happen next. Going on the info they'd been given(assuming the guy was a bomber): They can't shoot him in the leg, as he could still set off a bomb. They can't shoot him in the body as it could detonate a bomb. Shooting in the arms would be very dificult, and still very risky, so the head is the only option.... *except* if you've already got him pinned down, and therefore he's not going to set off anything that he hasn't already. Only time will tell if they had a choice there or not.
The real fuck up in this tragic tale in the police watching the block of flats that the guy lived in. They were watching for 3 men, none of which were this guy, infact none of which were even Brazilian, yet they still told the plain clothes assasins that he was a suspected bomber.

Erm, and has it actually been reported that this guy had taken any drugs? Or are you just going on the fact that someones mate said they know some Brazilians who do a lot of drugs and therefore you deduct that he must've been in comedown paranoia to run from armed men? I heard of a European guy who cut off and ate another mans penis, but for some reason I don't assume every European man has followed suit.
Country of origin does not predetermine a drug habit(or penis eating tendencies -!) in any way

I don't blame any of them. I blame you, Wylde. What the hell were you thinking?



And I think you'll find it's 'Drug Hobbit'.

No, no, no, I don't blame Wylde, I blame Lord Brett Sinclair.

wylde, you have the essence of it: just bloody bad luck for both sides of the shooting.

you make a couple of mistakes:
• anyone coming out of a house known to be frequented by suspects is a suspect. this is not police incompetence, this is police professionalism.
• i didn't say ALL brazilians, i said all my mate's Brazilian mates.
• you seem to conflate me saying "(drug-comedown?)" with pure evil, implying i'm suggesting that that is some sort of excuse for treating any such person any way you like. i have only really come across this sort of automatic-guilt-by-"drugs!"namecalling in america. outside america, people are a bit less black&white about things. drugs are an established part of party life and street life in many countries in the world. and london, along with most of europe, is rife with drugs. they're not a big deal. they're just something to be aware of.
having said that, i think it's not very important or definite, i just mentioned a possibility it was higher probability than for the average londoner.

much more likely the "guys with guns = death" reaction from his brazilian favela (i've heard) background

Saltation

- I could be mistaken, but from what I read he didn't come out of the same house at all, he came out of the same block of flats. Seeing as there are hundreds or thousands of people being watched by police all over London(for different reasons), and a great many of them in blocks of flats, it would mean more than half of London are suspects due to having lived at one time or another in the same block as a real suspect. It sounds to me like they just couldn't tell the difference between the men, and thats very, very worrying to every darker skinned Londoner, who wears a padded coat before October. I mean if they're not going by actual photos and faces, and just by what people wear then that's a whole lot on Londoners that are going to be leaving all bulky looking clothing at home from now on... on pain of death.

- I didn't see any relation between you knowing-someone-who-knows-some-people-who-do-drugs-and-are-Brazilian, and a Brazillian guy choosing to run from armed men who then shot him 8 times. Unfortunately it's not just in the US that people have an automatic guilt-by-drugs mentality, so I don't think it was helping anyone to put the posibility of it into the picture, as it's pure speculation, based on... well a friend's friend from the same country who's most likely never met the deceased in question. So like I said "Country of origin does not pre-determine a drug habit"
Many, many comments I've read are along the lines of "well he ran, so he must be guilty of something", like that justifies his murder? And I can see a lot of these such half-wits shrieking "Oh, he was a drug-user! That explains why he ran!! Well thank goodnes, thats one more junkie off our streets" ...etc. Because to them Drugs = Criminal = sub-human group, to which each member is entirely responsible for every human atrocity in the world today(ie: a petty thief is as bad as an axe murder, etc) = Kill them all. Have them hung, drawn and quartered. They're all scum.

I disagree that the chances that his decisions were drug affected are a "higher probability than for the average londoner". I don't know enough Brazillians to make that statement. Drugs could be a possibility, but I just don't think it's really worth mentioning when it's only going to be used as a ridiculous justification(not by you, but by many) for the killing of an innocent man.

It's a tragic, tragic loss, and there needs to be serious investigation to ensure that it's not likely to happen again, and on the flip-side to ensure that those with the guns are confident enough so that when they face a real suicide bomber they won't have to hesitate wondering if it's another intelligence cock-up. Because who knows, next time it could be the difference between hundreds dead, and one dead, and we wouldn't want them to fuck that up either, would we?

Ah, the old numbers are popping up in your last paragraph.

Say the police shoot twenty innocent people and one suicide bomber who would have killed fifty.

What's the feeling then?

I still say that if the guy had done as he was told, he'd be fine.

I don't know any Brazillian, but if a load of guys were shouting at me and pointing guns, I'd be hitting the deck with my hands above my head pretty sharpish.

those twenty people are going to be a little upset.

Unlikely. They may be a little dead, but probably not upset. 8 shots to the head is pretty much going to preclude 'upset' even to the most indignant corpse, I reckon.

hear hear.

and, if they really were INERSANT, they'd be in heaven and very happy.

the police should kill us all and let god sort us out.

"Say the police shoot twenty innocent people and one suicide bomber who would have killed fifty."


I'm not really sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me here. The police are meant to be protecting the innocent, right? Except.. errr.. they shot one 8 times!! In your example: Yes there are 30 saved, but the 20 they killed were needlessly slaughtered because the police should have there shit together enough to at least know the baddies from the goodies. Surely thats pretty basic stuff.

Are the police meant to be protecting the innocent? Or is that just one of Robocop's Prime Directives?

The police are trying to eliminate terrorist threats, if they've been told to shoot to kill, they will.
Problem is, these guys are probably going to loose their jobs just because they were doing them =[

I'm well aware that the whole situation sucks, the police should not have to be shooting anyone in the first place (although I'm not going to do a Ken Livingstone and say that the terrorists have one more man's blood on their hands, I mean, for fucks sake).
But, as I've said before, if you're mad enough to run, you're guilty of something (at the very least, it's being fucking stupid).

"Are the police meant to be protecting the innocent?"

yes. Rather than shooting them in the head

To be honest, If they're shooting for the head, does it really matter how many times they get shot?

"if you're mad enough to run, you're guilty of something" ..and being guilty of something makes his murder justifyable? ...so if some 6 year old girl is stealing lollipops from tesco's and got pumped full of lead upon exiting the store we'd go "well she ran!". Okay not many tesco's stores have armed guards, but this whole 'Guilt of anything = okay to kill him', thing is ridiculous. You've never had a bunch of men chasing you with guns, so you don't know what you'd do; and don't forget these were just a bunch of men, no uniforms to identify them. Even if they did manage to shout "Police" why should you stop to check if they're right when you're still within firing range. If they were police why have they been folowing you all this way? ...and after you've seen a few guns being pointed at you are you really hearing anything anyway? Most likely your whole being is taken over with one thought "GET AWAY TO SAFETY-NOW!". He's hardly got the time to mull through: 'I have dark skin, I'm wearing a fleece jacket in what they think is summer, I may have wires on me as I'm an electritian = I could look like a terrorist bomber, so maybe the crazies with guns are actually police, they've just made a massive mistake, and they're after me. If I stop we can sort this out'. Theres not time for such things, primary thought is just get the hell out of there, so thats why he tried to do.

"Say the police shoot twenty innocent people and one suicide bomber who would have killed fifty."
I know we're meant to just go with the math and go "well 30 otherwise corpses are still breathing -Hurrah!", which if there was someway of knowing for sure that they would've otherwise died, then yeah it is great, EXCEPT 20 have been murdered by the police that are meant to be protecting them. 1 is too many. Like I said before, they need to sort their stuff out so that there are no more mistakes, and so the ones with guns are confident that when they're chasing another guy onto a train they don't second guess it while a tube station full of people gets blown up

You need to sort their stuff out so there are no more mistakes?

True story: a friend of mine who wears a turban(he's Sikh) has not been on a train since 9/11(he did a couple of times in emergencies, but he got loads of shit from some idiot passengers). He was saying how when he did get the train he usually ended up running for it.. with his rucksack on ofcourse. Now that's pretty standard for many people using the London tubes at rush hour(to have a rucksack on, and be running), it's not a death penalty offence though.

Talking about this last night, someone gave me his opinion, it was:
"We've got to kill everyone who did it, then we've got to kill everyone who helped with it, then we've got to kill everyone who's happy about it".

What say you to that, Wylde?

haha! Well I can see his thinking there. Straight forward killing isn't going to help much in catching everyone responsible though is it? A little interrogation may help before letting the mush they call brains escape from their heads.

Killing everyone is going to just breed more terrorists, because for every one that is killed there are friends, family members, etc, etc that won't feel the killing was justified and so they'll sign up to the wipe-out-the-infidels campaign too.

Wow, do you even read other peoples posts or are you just cutting and pasting from the Guardian website?

haha, I'll take that as a compliment I guess, perhaps I should go off to the guardian website and see if they've got a forum I can rant to.

"We've got to kill everyone who did it, then we've got to kill everyone who helped with it, then we've got to kill everyone who's happy about it".

Well, as you're not happy with my response to it Victor, please enlighten us as to what you thought of that statement?

response.

yeah.. do you have one?

He wasn't shot because he ran, for fucks sake.

He was shot because he entered an area in the middle of the highest Terrorist alert this country has ever seen, whilst under suspicion, that had been the scene of an attempted bombing the day before, and promptly ran from armed police when they shouted "Stop, or we'll shoot" at him.

Not fucking rocket science, is it?

Police "Stop or we will shoot".

Idiot "I'm not going to stop. Well, fuck me, I just got shot."

Did they say "Stop, or we'll shoot"? Aparently they didn't, and they have no need to.
Heres some real Guardian quotes for you: "Police have been given permission to shoot dead suspected suicide bombers without any verbal warning ... A police source has told the Guardian that there is no need for officers to verbally warn a suspect before opening fire.

The source said: "If the firearms team are reasonably certain the person is a suicide bomber then there is no need to issue any warning."

..so he may just have been running for a train.

P.S. "do you even read other peoples posts?" ..You haven't managed a response to the "kill everyone" quote you gave.. you've moved off the topic nicely, or perhaps just didn't read the question to begin with?

What question?

Ahhh.. I didn't notice Brock had joined in the conversation, I just thought you had moved topics. I asked you a question an hour ago. A response...?

nah, i don't think you asked nice enough

What if I said "Police! Answer the question or we'll shoot!", if he really does follow every order that's shouted at him starting with "Police", and ending with "or we'll shoot", then we should get an answer sharpish.

Any opinions on MJ, Wylde?

Answering a question with a completely different question. Nice one Victor. Do you have any opinion on the quote you gave or not?

Sod it, I don't think I really care what your answer is now anyway. Maybe I'll check out the guardian as you suggested.

Bye

I was saying he shouldnt have run, stupid fool, although if two plain clothes people said stop police or I will shoot I am not too sure what I would do apart from shit my keks!

Hurray, I win.

Now watch as I tempt him back to the one-sided argument using nothing but MY MIND!

My mate Suki wears a turban and he goes on the tube every day.

Maybe Wylde's friend is ugly too, or something.

Maybe he walks around with his cock hanging out of his trousers?!?!?

Good advice:

Like I said before, they need to sort their stuff out so that there are no more mistakes,

first and foremost, we must upgrade all police officers to 100% perfect 20:20 hindsight of everything, rather than merely only having to make best guesses from their available information and observed events. also, we must eliminate all time pressure from them, so they can stop and think and debate with all members of the public for as long as they need in order to make the 100% perfect decision for all possible people and all possible views.


the catchcry of wonks' self-righteousness: "somebody should do something!!"

Perfect police? They're only human mate. However getting the correct information to them would give them a definite advantage in not fucking things up again. There should not be much left to guess work.

Good job they weren't wearing military uniforms, otherwise we'd be sending them to the Hague.

NO crime deserves an EU posting

Jesus, what a rant!
Maybe someone should ask wylde what he thinks he would do if he were in the same situation as the police.
One of my good friends is in the met, and she said that the poor guy jumped over the ticket barrier, was warned many times, yet continued to run, then just decided to hop onto a train!
I find it's better to get these facts from the source rather than relying on speculation and the press, even if it is the Grauniad.
I totally agree, that guy needs a Darwin award right now.

Does anyone actually read what others have posted on here, before posting a reply? Wylde was sticking up for the police earlier, saying they have to have a shoot to kill policy, just that their information needs to be drasticly improved so that they shoot to kill the right people.
And was this 'good friend in the met' actually there when the guy was shot? I don't think so. So she's going on rumour, spread from the people who have the most to gain from making it look like the killing was a totally unpreventable mistake, and the guy deserved it all... hmmm seems perclissigi's friend is the most unreliable source I'd say!
If it was so unpreventable the met would've had no problem confirming to the press what really happened and whether they actually identified themselves as police or not - but yet they haven't. They have instead confirmed that their policy is NOT to alert a suspect that they're police, as experience shows a bomber will try to detonate immediately. Good plan for the police, not so good for the average man running for his life because some lunatics are chasing him with guns.

If you're looking for more quotes from the met try this one, from a 'senior Met insider': "When the truth comes out it is going to be horrific." Well, you've heard it straight from the source now mate.

Hey, I was only stating an opinion based on what I believe to be the most reliable source of information available to me.
No need to get personal really, is there?



Cuntbag.

Grotty Pink Cunt, maybe?

And I'm stating an opinion on what I believe is the most unreliable source of information. I didn't "get personal", or I would've said that you're a twatface, and your friends a.. 'grotty pink cunt' perhaps. But I didn't, did I.




Twatface

Fuckball.

(I'm not involved, I just like insulting people)

And wearing a coat isn't punishable by death anyway!

You all know what I think. What the hell are the police doing shooting someone who turned out to be inercant? Why did they trail this suspect all the way across town before finally shooting him 5-8 times only when he got on the Underground? Were they looking for the most crowded place to shoot him? Oh and vegetarianism is great and all you folks who eat meat are just animal-murderers.

death to vegetables!!

I find it's better to get these facts from the source rather than relying on speculation and the press, even if it is the Grauniad.

actually, the guardian is the LAST place you would rely on for genuine information. the guardian is britain's biggest tabloid. "biggest" in terms of size but more importantly of the degree to which it voluntarily distorts fact and occasionally just outright lies in order to feed its own preferred preconceptions and stances. it's an organ of self-righteousness, not a newspaper.

Despite the seriousness of the topic, this thread makes me smile.

Depends on what type of coat

I'm not sure that the coat was making him smile.

Did anyone say "burger"? That would've done it.

Not sure if that was a vegetable reference or a vic-being-fat reference. Although I'm pretty sure it was the latter.

Now if there was a device to measure if Brock is as bald as Vic is fat, now, that would be a device.

So, who wants a big tasty slice of Joel Pie?

Oh, sorry. I mean, bombs. Shooting. Yes.

Vic aint fat, it is an optical illusion, it is your eyes that have the problem

I must admit, that I accuse him of being fat mainly because he was in one picture I saw a year or more ago. I may be prepared to concede the point if shown evidence to the contrary.

He is also, however, a cunt. And you really have your work cut out to shift that one.

If it was so unpreventable the met office would've had no problem confirming to the press what really happened and whether they actually identified themselves as police or not ....

I don't think the met office are interested - they deal with the weather.

Brock thinks I'm fat too, and I can't figure out why...

His shiny head acts like a distorting mirror, altering the perception of what he sees.

www.expatica.com/source/sit...

The revelations stem from recent terrorism
warning issued by a councilor with the Antwerp social security office OCMW, Marco Laenens.

The councilor discovered that dozens of Pakistani social security recipients frequently travel back to their country of origin.

The travels occur despite the fact the refugees — who have been granted asylum in Belgium — claim their safety is at threat in Pakistan.

i love fox news, asking some lady from notting hill if from the explosions she heard can she tell if they are stun grenades, bullets or cs gas

mind you this woman is standing outside on a veranda above some guy the police are yelling at.

Friday, 29 July, 2005, 13:02 GMT 14:02 UK

"Two more of the failed London bombing suspects are believed to have been arrested as police carry out a number of armed operations in London ..... In Dalgarno Gardens officers were continually shouting at someone in a flat to come out. They were addressing him as "Muhammad." .... The police asked him: "What is the problem? Why can't you come out? ....Take your clothes off. Exit the building. Do you understand?"

"It is very scary when something like this can happen on your doorstep"
Randy Wolff, Ladbroke Rovers, Ladbroke Grove, London.

apparently they got fed up and shouted "if you don't come out, we'll have to send the dogs in" and they all came out straight away.

i've never understood humans' fear of dogs.

hang on. "randy wolff"?

I kid you not.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking...

i've never understood humans' fear of dogs.

You've seen the way police dogs take people down, right?

I saw an ace video of that the other day. And I completely understand the fear.

Salti, it is quite conceivable that an Alsation, Doberman or the like could do you serious damage, or even kill you. Understand it now? How many animals do people have in their homes that can kill them if they go berserk?

Not including Ninja Turtles, obviously.

I'm definitely afraid of doberman's. My friend has one and the dog plays a little too rough for me. The damn dog always jumps around and scratchs me with its nails.

I warned my friend that if he attacks me the dog is dead if I survive the attack. If I don't survive the attack I am sure that my dad would definitely put it out of its misery! very slowly too.

"My dad's bigger than your dog".

So I was wondering if anyone here had ever had any good fights with owls? Don't get me wrong, I'm no owl hater, but occasionally you are sneaking aroud in the barn late at night, and an owl will come plunging at you with it's claws out right in front of you, and fighting the owl is the only real option. The last time I was sneaking around, a proper big barn owl launched itself at me, obviously believing I was a large mouse or another type of prey. I put up a good fight, and beat the owl against a large wooden pillar that no doubt was integral to the structure of the barn, but this didn't prevent the owl's claws sinking yet deeper into the skin of my arms. Much as I beat this owl against the pillar, it would not let go. I would not stop the frenzied thrashing of a man impaled. It would not the instinctive sinking of claws into agressor. It seemed like a no-win situation. Eventually I threw myself on the ground, yelping like a sick meercat. The owl seeming to sense victory, relaxed its claws for a moment. I leapt up, grabbing the owl with both hands, and bashed it into the pillar one last time. Whilst it lay dazed, I ran for cover, refusing to leave my farmhouse for two days. Within a matter of hours, the owl had retained all normal functions, and is now housed in my barn. Everything is back to the way it used to be. Has anyone else here had a similar fight with an owl? I would love to hear from you.

I was bitten by a squirrel a few weeks ago, if that's any good to you. But it wasn't a fight. I was giving it a monkey nut and the little shit bit me instead of taking the nut.

Were you after a golden acorn?

Or the silver peanut?

I just wanted to personally give the little varmint a nut, but I just leave them out for him/her now.

tish.

dogs' primary weapon vs humans is Aggression. 99% of humans automatically freeze in the presence of someone/thing more aggressive than them. that lets the dog get close enough to have a shot at biting the person. but without that Freeze, the human can hit the dog 2-3 feet earlier than the dog can. and can do so without pinning the body in any one position relative to the dog whereas the opposite is not the case.

and there are only a few dangerous dog breeds, and most of them need HEAPS of early indoctrination to make them dangerous. rottweilers, e.g., are absolute pussies, ditto dobermans: lovely animals. trouble is, they're thick as pigshit, so if they're trained nasty, you have to damn near disable them before they'll stop attacking. and in the case of rottweilers, they've got skulls like iron so would take a lot of damage. alsations train up nasty much more easily because they're brighter, but for the same reason run off when injured much more quickly.

and yes, brock, i've been attacked by a guard dog (alsation) mistakenly let out into a yard at night. from the sound of it, i broke its jaw; hard to tell as it then hid under the shed. simple front kick. if i could play soccer i'd probably have done a much better job- more circular style kicking.

>How many animals do people have in their homes that can kill them if they go berserk?

and i discovered a month ago that i DO have an animal in my house which could kill me. somehow, god knows where it came from, there's a black widow spider on my lounge room window.

i'll see your gnawing, and raise you fiery neurological damage.


no owls, but

Stupidity++

community.citytv.com/cgi-bi...

pit bull vs porcupine

poor doggie, horrible pics

Fuck the doggie, it's its own fault - poor porcupine!

"Fuck the doggie"

Hasn't it suffered enough?

(:

hmm do we thing the porcupine survived ?
is it nekkid ?

I'd imagine the porcupine is almost inside out.

:(

How did the bombs thread become an "animal injury thread"?

this from tangent boy

oooh, good point.

Damn, that's nasty.

What? Calling the Doc 'tangent Boy'?

No, Victor's pun.

Well, if indeed it was a pun, it was purely unintentional.

Well, actually, i was talking about the dog.

Ah, now I see. how droll I am.

I assumed it was because of the people being afraid of attack dogs

A lot of people make that mistake.

a Pomeranian is a dog and in a basket!

...owling

is a baby owl

is actually wot you do when your 'urting.

ur ting, the famous chinese general from ming times

When people were ugly.

absolutely uglying

So
Turns out (according to the leaked official report on channel 4 news tonight) the guy DIDNT jump the barriers, he used his train ticket pass thing. He even picked up a copy of a free newspaper (the metro?) and then only ran to try and get on a train. Apparently far from them shouting him to stop, he wasnt even made aware that he was being persued.

Till they shot him in the head.

One of the survilence team was taking a leak and so wasnt actually watching the cameras, and so didnt even identify the guy properly.


So, far from being a paranoid stupid drug user who didn't even stop when armed police chased him, turns out he was a man who happened to live in the same flats asone of the bombers, and just wanted to catch the tube somewhere.

but well done everyone for coming up with opinions on what happened based solely on rumour and hearsay without having any of the facts from anyone involved.

another iamcal triumph.

(note to self, on appearing in court ensure that no iamcal member is every on the jury)

It all sounds a bit strange to me still. I would have expected some eyewitness accounts to come out contradicting the original story almost immediately. I think maybe its a case of the media doing a Michael Moore and swinging to the "the authorities are stoopid" extreme that seems to be so en-vogue at the mo. Maybe it'd be wise to not berate people for forming opinions on what knowledge they have been given until the full story actually comes out and a clear account of exactly what happened is published. i.e. the CCTV footage (if it exist, not too sure on Stockwell's security arrangements). Until then I think bounding around wild opinion should be encouraged.

I for one cant wait for the CCTV footage as I'm working on a conspiracy theory. Back and the to the left-esque.

I'm with you there Sul.
It's not really fair, and sarcasm probably wasn't necessary, especially calling it a triumph.
This is just a place for people to chat about their opinions, nothing concrete, you know?
We were just forming opinions on the facts available to us at the time.
But hey, what do I know?

CCTV footage didnt occur according to the news.
and they are going by the official report (although I accept that that report was leaked rather than published)

"We were just forming opinions on the facts available to us at the time."

Yeah, sorry for being sarky but I was including myself in said sarcasm, probably didn't make that clear.

however, iamcal does have a very long and checkered (chequered?) history on the "jumping to conclusions" front.

When you consider that:

1) Sir Ian Blair actually voiced those details in a press conference on the day of the shooting

2) At least one eye witness reported that the guy was challenged and didn't respond

it's not surprising that people here voiced the opinions that they did. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is for the police not to make announcements until the full report is published. However, there is the question of whether they would ever have revealed the information that's been leaked today, or whether they'd have stuck to the original story.

NO IT DOESN'T.

Oh. Sorry. Jumped to a conclusion.

Hadn't thought about that last point about revealing or not revealing. Good point.

Yup, we were pretty wrong there, huh?

Who's going to be the first to resign? Ian Blair? Tony? We can only hope...

/re-reads some of the thread...

Sorry, it looks like you were all pretty wrong there.

But I agreed with you at the time (;

What the fuck has it got to do with them?

I hate this "Something went wrong, so someone should resign" instant knee jerk. How the hell are people supposed to learn from mistakes? It just breeds a "Only do what is 100% likely to succed" inactivity culture.

For fucks sake. Although 'not shooting him' probably would have been a good bit of inactivity here, admittedly.

Alfie, you know the famous saying 'Better a thousand innocent men are punished than one guilty man go free'.

hahaha

What has it got to do with them?
They stood up and lied to us, man.

That pisses me (for one) right off.

Ah, but did they lie, or were they misinformed at the time?

'Better a thousand innocent men are punished than one guilty man go free'.

That is the Rule of Law in North Korea, isn't it?

The other question is 'Why the fuck did the witnesses not say anything?'....

Hmmm, let us speculate about this ......

* the fuzz got to them and told them what to say (or else)

* the 'real' eye witnesses were all killed as part of the cover up and the supposed eye witnesses are plants

* they said what they thought they saw, and we all know how unreliable people can be

* they did, but no one listens

..... (someone else carry on)

* some sort of ancient Brazilian voodoo-mind-control was unleashed by the family to protect the innocence of their little visa dodger.

* everyone forgot

speaking of conspiracy theories, i just finished reading this: Terror Firma by Matthew Thomas (copy in Barbican library if you're cheap)

brilliant little pisstake

I wouldn't say you were brilliant.

meowww