Top Met policemen Ian Blair and Assistant Commissioner Stephen House have been spinning the Operation Kratos 'shoot-to-kill' policy to their police authority. There are only a few news items appearing on this issue as yet.

It became clear recently that the Metropolitan Police Authority had not been consulted regarding the shoot-to-kill policy. Former Met Police commissioner John Stevens revealed in a Radio 4 interview with John Humphries that Tony Blair and David Blunkett were aware of the police.

 http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/uk_gov_knew_shoot_kill_policy_3_yrs_ago.htm

Mr Blair has previously said he could not remember whether he was officially made aware of the policy change.

[Transcript from  http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/]

JH: We did not know the policy had been changed. The politicians apparently did not know the policy had been changed, certainly some politicians did not know the poilicy had been changed.

JS: Well I think some did.

JH: Some did?

JS: Mmm

JH: But it was not discussed in Cabinet. It was not discussed with the MPA, as far as we know.

JS: No, it wasn't discussed with the MPA as it was a change of operational direction really, that's right.

JH: Is that right? Is that how it should have been?

JS: Maybe we should have discussed it, but I think at the end of the day we have to keep some things quiet(his strike) secret about because in fact if people know what we are doing then obviously they can take action to stop it.

JH: So who did...? Well, precisely, that's what democracy is all about - if people are concerned about something then they can do ...

JS: Indeed

John Humphries: Who did know? You knew it was your suggestion. Who did know?

John Stevens: Well there was a Working Party on this...

JH: The Home Sec?

JS: Oh, certain Senior politicians, of course they knew. Yes

JH: So the Home Sec knew, without any question. Tony Blair would have known then, without any question?

JS: Politicians, of course they know and they... these things are discussed because we have to find the right ways of ······dealing with them.

JH: But those specifically, the home sec and PM would have known?

JS: In terms of what the operational decisions, yes indeed.

xxxx

The police's line at the meeting is that there is not a shoot-to-kill policy. Oh come on now, pull the other one.

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1845443_2,00.html

"This is not a ‘shoot to kill’ policy. The tactics are wholly consistent with Section 3 Criminal Law Act, which says ‘A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large’.

"This is well articulated in the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms.

"It should be noted that there is no legal requirement for an officer to give a verbal challenge before firing and the Acpo Police Use of Firearms manual acknowledges that there are occasions when it is not appropriate or practical to do so."

Hmm, lets see now.

They say preventing crime OR effecting or assisting in a lawful arrest. So that why they don't want to cal it a shoot-to-kill policy. Because they have no defence for it.

And then there's our internal procedures permit it. Sounds like "we were just following instructions". Your internal procedures can still be illegal. Shouldn't it beparliament and the courts that decide the law rather than the police just checking that it's OK with Blunkett and Bliar?.