View Full Version : Gunman 'arrested' outside Tony Blair's home
A suspected Albanian gangster carrying a loaded pistol and silencer has been arrested outside the home of former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The man (56) was stopped in his car as he drove in Connaught Street, central London, on Monday at 11.15pm.
Officers on patrol became suspicious and arrested him for several traffic and documentation offences. About 25 minutes later a passer-by approached a uniformed officer on guard outside Mr Blair's £3.5m Connaught Square townhouse. He handed the officer a black pistol, loaded with several bullets and fitted with a silencer, saying he found it in the gutter.
The officer notified members of the Diplomatic Protection Group, who are responsible for Mr Blair's safety.
Investigators linked the gun with the arrest of the Albanian and he was re-arrested on suspicion of holding a prohibited weapon.
Source:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/gunman-arrested-outside-tony-blairs-home-14591813.html
gilly
10-12-2009, 10:17 AM
Unless they can irrefutably link the gun to the arrested chap via phorensics, they're out of order calling him a 'gunman' (even if it does appear cut & dried).
They know this - the media aren't ignorant of the law.
It makes me think that whatever's gone on, this person's going to go down for it, guilty or not.
dreamweaver
10-12-2009, 10:22 AM
Unless they can irrefutably link the gun to the arrested chap via phorensics, they're out of order calling him a 'gunman' (even if it does appear cut & dried).
They know this - the medi aren't ignorant of the law.
It makes me think that whatever's gone on, this person's going to go down for it, guilty or not.
No, there's no breach of the contempt laws there, gilly, as the man has not been named and hasn't been charged yet. Once he's charged, then they have to say "alleged gunman".
gilly
10-12-2009, 10:28 AM
No, there's no breach of the contempt laws there, gilly, as the man has not been named and hasn't been charged yet. Once he's charged, then they have to say "alleged gunman".
Smartarse! :D
So it's alright to label him a gunman now, then later name the man they've already labelled? The law's an ass! :mad:
(I'm going to find Yozhik, in case you're wrong :p - I know you've been journalist though, so I don't hold out much hope) :D
rydeon
10-12-2009, 11:23 AM
Reminds me of the ex-soldier who is up on firearms charges for handing in a shotgun.
This passer-by wasn't arrested for handing in a firearm, why then was the ex-soldier??
rhydra
10-12-2009, 11:45 AM
I am always hoping for the news to say that Blair has been given the justice that the international court of justice never will.
bobbydiva
10-12-2009, 11:49 AM
Maybe the ptb put a hit out on him, that they could then blame on middle-easterns.
dreamweaver
10-12-2009, 12:28 PM
I am always hoping for the news to say that Blair has been given the justice that the international court of justice never will.
The news pictures I want to see are Bush, Blair and Cheney in handcuffs in the dock in The Hague, standing trial for war crimes.
sturbl
10-12-2009, 12:35 PM
Just a pity that 'justice' would be applied after the event, rather than the event being prevented.
icarus
10-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Reminds me of the ex-soldier who is up on firearms charges for handing in a shotgun.
This passer-by wasn't arrested for handing in a firearm, why then was the ex-soldier??
that was my first thought
smells like the usual suspects up to their tricks, possilly trying to ramp up the perceived threat to people ike blair
it doesn't sound right to me
oioioi
10-12-2009, 02:24 PM
Somebody was on the street (in a car) where Blair lives sometimes, but not on this day in question, someone else handed in a gun. This is then reported as though it were a possible 'hit'?
Mhmm.
Ian2day
10-12-2009, 02:43 PM
Reminds me of the ex-soldier who is up on firearms charges for handing in a shotgun.
This passer-by wasn't arrested for handing in a firearm, why then was the ex-soldier??
Unless you personally know this ex soldier, it never happened.
yozhik
10-12-2009, 03:34 PM
No, there's no breach of the contempt laws there, gilly, as the man has not been named and hasn't been charged yet. Once he's charged, then they have to say "alleged gunman".
The reporter is definitely guilty.
Guilty of fucking terrible journalism and sensationalism.
It could be argued it would be difficult for the man to now have a fair trial.
Regardless of whether he was named or not, the moment he enters a courtroom and identified as Albanian who was outside Tony Blair's house, thse who were exposed to the article will already know him - whether charged or not - as a gunman and gangster.
Sign of the times ... the story wasn't 'big' enough without the emotive headline grabbing 'gunman'.
Ian2day
10-12-2009, 03:39 PM
This is not the first time that someone has been arrested outside Blairs. Could even be the same story recycled from a few years back.
cpfc12
10-12-2009, 05:24 PM
Wouldn't be a suprise not far from where i live in south london there are all albanian gangs and all that, some rumours fly around that they deal with guns but wouldn't surpise me
dantesinferno
10-12-2009, 05:42 PM
in that area probably waiting for a hooker to come out from a client.
dreamweaver
10-12-2009, 05:45 PM
The reporter is definitely guilty.
There is no breach of the Contempt of Court Act. I should know, it was my job as a sub-editor to know for the past 17 years.
What we have here is a report of "a man" being arrested on suspicion of these things. The suspect has not been named. The one quibble I would have with it is that it would have been better to have "gunman" in quotes rather than "arrested".
The test is whether there is "a substantial risk of prejudicing a fair trial". You're entitled to your view that there is indeed such a risk in this case. But that report looks legally safe to me and there isn't a cat in hell's chance of getting anyone connected with that report prosecuted for contempt.
godgoo
10-12-2009, 05:48 PM
He should have kept the gun, and kept his mouth shut.
pureheart
10-12-2009, 06:07 PM
He should have kept the gun, and kept his mouth shut.
Unless of course it had already been used to shoot BLiar and then he could have ended up in prison for the rest of his life. :p
meksar
10-12-2009, 10:50 PM
If this was legitimate (and i doubt it was) the guy would have gone down as a martyr in my book, but of course there are bigger fish to fry and Blair is just a frontman.
This article made me very curious when i read it a while ago, maybe this was a polite warning to Blair.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/blair-bodyguard-left-gun-in-starbucks-toilet-918494.html
haukipesukone
11-12-2009, 12:14 AM
This thread got my hopes up, but no-one shot Blair.
rashhead
11-12-2009, 04:21 AM
There are loads of people in London running about with guns, these retards think they want to be in the USA
Does 'Tony' deserve shooting, not really, he wants bringing to justice properly (like Stalin / Hitler / Saddam). He should be 'tried' in the country he interloped (as in his religion) this would be equal :eek:
Does Cherie deserve shooting (of course) she is a facially retarded religious MILS (Mother I would Love Shoot spunk on - for the sake of it despite being unwilling). Would I do this to her? only if she paid someone to get me excited enough :eek:
Bottom line is they are a pair of cunts (in my opinion) :confused:
Long may they not live for all the suffering they have caused to humanity
yozhik
11-12-2009, 07:27 PM
There is no breach of the Contempt of Court Act. I should know, it was my job as a sub-editor to know for the past 17 years.
What we have here is a report of "a man" being arrested on suspicion of these things. The suspect has not been named. The one quibble I would have with it is that it would have been better to have "gunman" in quotes rather than "arrested".
The test is whether there is "a substantial risk of prejudicing a fair trial". You're entitled to your view that there is indeed such a risk in this case. But that report looks legally safe to me and there isn't a cat in hell's chance of getting anyone connected with that report prosecuted for contempt.
Then as a sub editor of 17 years, you should know better than to misquote me. ;)
The reporter is definitely guilty.
Guilty of fucking terrible journalism and sensationalism.
If we cut through our egos [myself included], I sense we have similar views.
No provable contempt ... shoddy, sensationalist journalism [I hesitate to call it journalism] ... possible tainting of trial.
dreamweaver
11-12-2009, 07:37 PM
Then as a sub editor of 17 years, you should know better than to misquote me. ;)
If we cut through our egos [myself included], I sense we have similar views.
No provable contempt ... shoddy, sensationalist journalism [I hesitate to call it journalism] ... possible tainting of trial.
I didn't misquote you. I know you said the reporter was "guilty...of sensationalism [etc]". ;) What I'm saying to you is that there was nothing out of the ordinary in the way that incident was reported. If you think the way such matters are reported in the UK is bad (and I might agree with you on that), it's far, far worse in the US where it's basically open season on the defendant.