Police outside the Kalam house in Forest Gate
If police shoot an innocent man, why do they find it so hard to say sorry? Surely an apology has to be genuine and demonstrate remorse. It is such an important word, but it has to be conveyed with sincerity.
It took Scotland Yard 12 days to apologise for the “hurt” caused to the Kalam brothers after 250 armed police on an anti-terrorist mission stormed their home in the middle of the night and shot one of them in the chest. It was a truly terrifying experience. The brothers spelled out their “crime” at a press conference: being Asian and bearded.
Police should have learnt from their experience with the Stephen Lawrence and Charles de Menez family about the importance of saying sorry. I imagine their lawyers advise them about how they should deal with this. But the public demands the police to show true contrition in such exceptional circumstances, particularly when it has resulted in the tragic death of an innocent person.
Who should make the apology? Should it be Sir Ian, or the officer who pulled the trigger? Should they practise it in front of a mirror if it is so difficult?
I don’t think the police should apologise. Perhaps the Intelligence Services but most probably the Home Secretary. After all, it is the politicians who have declared the “war” which the polcie are now fighting. They have set the hares running and they have caused the anxiety experienced in many of our communities.
The police act on intelligence (which can be flawed) and presume to tackle the situation according to the likely risk it poses.
If you believe you are facing men in possession of chemical or biological agents, you use exceptional force and you prevent sudden or concealed movement with a bullet if necessary. The consequence of not doing so, COULD be unimaginable.
Considering what they thought they were walking into, the police have acted with exceptional control and flexibility.
This is the reality of the situation we face. Some casualties will be innocent, especially when the stated aim of your enemy is to conceal and blend itself into innocent civilian communities.
If the police don’t want the crap and the constant need to apologise, let the military deal with it.
I can;t say I necessarily agree with you on this one Ellee. Not that the police shouldn’t at least express regret at – possibily – making a mistake.
What strikes me as odd about this affair though is the presumption being made now that the police just shot this man without warning simply because he says it is so.
By holding the press conference they’ve effectively pre-empted the IPCC’s investigation and we’re gettinga trial by media of the police without really knowing the facts.
Don’t get me wrong, the two brothers may very well be innocent (although they may be guilty too), but we’ll probably never know either way now because the argument will forever be framed within the reference of a bullet wound to the shoulder rather than the wider concern about using intelligence.
Hi Richard, good to hear from you again. The dodgy Intelligence is a matter of great concern. Of course, the police wouldn’t have stormed the house in such a dramatic fashion if it did not feel there was a real security threat involved. They must have been 110% certain that their info was correct, I have no doubt of that, but the fact is it wasn’t.
Dizzy, the fact that the police apologised has indicated an element of wrong doing on their part. I appreciate that they were only doing their job, and they have to make tough decisions like this too. But the brothers were released from police custody after a week without charge. It will be interesting to hear the full facts from the investigation.
I wish there was an awful lot more information in the public domain on raids, arrests etc etc.
This clearly is not the first time that the plod have raided a property and then released arrestees without charge, but this particular tale has gone supernova.
Likewise, I’m not sure that the police should apologise. I don’t buy that they went in shooting first and asking questions later, although after Stockwell I suppose it’s possible.
But the reason it took them 12 days? Well surely they had to check and double-check that it really WAS a mistake. The only thing worse than apologising late would be apologising and then later having to retract it…
I agree the police needed to know it was a mistake before apologising. However, once it is clear that a mistake has been made, nothing can be gained from not apologising unreservedly. A frank apology makes the apologiser a bigger person in everyones eyes. A mealy-mouthed apology (or worse, no apology!) gets everyone’s hackles up…even those not remotely connected with the issue. This is something politicians and people in government don’t seem to ever grasp. No wonder we don’t trust them.
Unfortunately the police have a very difficult job to do in todays’ society, when most people see them as the enemy…whatever happened to the local bobby? But that makes the need to be honest and straight even more important…especially when mistakes are made
It’s all about the almighty dollar $$$$ = civil suit = $$$$
Surely they should apologise for shooting the man, but not for the raid.
In raiding the house they were doing the right thing in following up a specific terrorist threat. Its not their fault the intelligence was a load of rubbish. But I see no reason why they can’t appologise for the shooting.
Yes, as the song says, sorry seems to be the hardest word. I agree they should apologise for the shooting.
I maintain – no apology, not even for the shooting.
Put yourself in the position of the coppers. They are raiding a house with intelligence of chemical / biological agents in the hands of extremist religious fanatics with proven contentment for martyrdom. The coppers’ job is to protect the public.
Any non compliance or un-instructed movement COULD result in East London being wiped out.
If he appears to reach into a pocket or struggle to escape, I’m afraid he has to be disabled by the most immediate means to hand.
Under that sort of pressure and split second decision making, the policeman should be commended for effecting compliance without killing the man. If you have ever fired a weapon, you will know that that is seriously good shooting.