yes they did
IIRC the reason that they followed him was because he came out of a property
that they were watching because a know target was resident there.
But it was a shared property and the person that they followed had no
connection at all with the person that they were watching, possibly not even
knowing his name. (I'm sure that we have all lived in such properties at
some point in our lives - I certainly have) . They should have challenged
him in a safe open location to establish who he was and whether he had a
instead of which they assumed, on no evidence at all, that he was connected,
assumed that his backpack contained as bomb and let him go so that they
could "catch" some of his (as it happens, non existent) accomplices.
and then panicked when he went into a packed tube station.
so I repeat
Yes they did follow a random individual and assume that he WAS a terrorist
It really could be you next time
On Friday, 24 February 2017 12:45:49 UTC, tim... wrote:
no they didn;t they didnlt follow me or anyone else it seems.
So they must have know who the target was and most likely couldnlt find out who he was.
No there;ds a suprise next yuo'll be telling me that pepole that hire cars don;t use them for commiting crimes or they use their own car.
Me too, and that made me look more suspicous than those registared to be there.
That's how it works isn't it.
Maybe that's why they can't count the number of illegal immigrants because they don;t know who they are so can be considered not to exist.
>They should have challenged
Easy to say now. So why didn't they do that with those that caused 7/7 or 9/11
...and this is why I argue for having some method of IDing people.
It is not only to do with catching terrorists - although it is often
suggested that the lack of any reliable mean of determining an illegal
resident ID in this country is a real incentive for many undesirables to
be based here. These people are always attracted to "soft spots" where
they can operate undisturbed.
I personally have nothing to hide, and have no problem carrying a card
proving who I am and producing it if/when asked to do so.
On Wednesday, 1 March 2017 17:48:32 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
seems strange these are sold then doesn't it.
why would people pay money for these ?
Just because some spiv and con man claims he can flog
you one of our photo drivers licenses doesn’t mean that
he can get your data into the database so that when
someone checks if it’s a fake license or not, the system
says its not fake. The database includes your photo,
and there is no way that someone like you can get
someone elses photo in there replacing the original.
Because they are as stupid and as pig ignorant as you.
On Thursday, 2 March 2017 17:10:52 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
you don't need to.
Drivers licenses can be used to prove other things other than you can drive
I can use a drivers license to proive I'm old enough to buy alcohol in supe
rmarkets, I can use it at the post office to prove who I am so I can have m
y parcels. The only peole likely to check whether or not yuor license in fa
ke or not are the police and maybe at car hire centres if renting you a car
Donlt need to few if anyone bothers to check that.
Corse you do, that’s the first thing anyone who matters
does when you present them with a drivers license, check
the database to check if it’s a valid license and see if the
photo on the license matches the one on the database.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.