Now Raoul Moat is dead, attention has shifted to how the blame can be put on the Police.
As I travelled to cathedral this morn, I was fresh off the back of watching BBC News24 (all very spiritual I know), in which they were bleating on about Raoul Moat.
I was particularly struck by the fact that their main preoccupation seemed to focus upon the police activities during the period of the six hour stand-off, with a special glee over the use of the taser gun.
I was heartily sickened to hear them majoring on the enquiries (Independent Police Complaints Commission) that will now be conducted, analysing police behaviour in relation to this incident.
Let’s just remember for a second that this chap had already murdered one, shot another, and then perpetrated a vicious attack on a lone policeman.
Moat was avowedly targeting the police and yet they attempted to negotiate with him for some SIX hours, gun in hand, and all the media want to do is focus on the police use of a taser gun.
Anyway, afore I get too hot under the collar, I was relieved to see Neil D over at Harry’s Place, pick up on this exact point:
The UK media have abruptly turned tack, after following the Raoul Moat saga as entertainment for the past few days. The Guardian ran a live blog. Nice. The BBC ran countless interviews with psychologists giving pisspoor insight into the mind of Raoul Moat, and spent lots of time trying to provoke Rothbury residents to emote on the phone. Thankfully, they didn’t in general.
Now Moat is dead, attention has shifted to how the blame can be put on the Police. Let’s be clear, Moat is dead. No other member of the public was harmed. No Policeman died in the operation. This is a successful outcome, with the regrettable loss of Moat’s life. Moat, it should be remembered, was the one who had killed a man, and injured others. He was holding a gun to his own head, and continued to be a threat to others. The Police spent hours trying to defuse the situation.
At the end, the Police used tasers, before Moat took his own life. We do not know what happened. Perhaps Moat was on the verge of taking his life and the Police fired the tasers in a desperate last chance to avoid Moat’s death? We don’t know though yet, and such speculation is just that ill-informed speculation. Not that that is stopping the media from making it clear something fishy has happened. The Sunday Mirror says it was “Death by Taser“, The Guardian tells us that the focus of the Raoul Moat investigation turns on police. The Guardian article while focusing on the Police, does remind us of another area that needs looking at:
Bishop Nick Baines has commented:
……I was in the BBC Radio 4 studio yesterday for the Today programme. We (Ben Summerskill and I) were in the studio with Professor David Wilson, the criminologist. He was talking about the Raoul Moat saga and rejected the sympathy that some people were expressing because of Moat’s cry that he didn’t have a dad. Professor Wilson said that Moat’s behaviour was typical of a ‘paranoid narcissist’ (I wrote it down) who saw everything in terms of power and control. Violent to his girlfriend and child, he was now trying to push the police to kill him in order to compound his own denial of responsibility and push the guilt onto other people. Sounded clear enough to me.
Do go on and read Nick’s whole blog post, as he rather intriguingly weaves this into a reflection on the church and current Synod:
…..Then he used a phrase which I thought might get picked up in the ensuing conversation about the Church of England: ‘future foreshortening’. I assume this is a term used in forensic psychology or criminology. It describes someone like Moat blaming other people for taking away the future, making death inevitable, ending the possibility of a new/different future.
Important note: I am NOT equating church responses with paranoid narcissistic criminological psychology – just using the language as a jumping off point!
July 11th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
For me there’s only one question: how did the police deal with the warning from Durham prison that Raoul Moat presented a serious danger to his ex-girlfriend?
Had this woman’s home been protected Raoul Moat could have been arrested and re-incarcerated when he turned up with a firearm. All that happened from that point on might have been avoided.
There have been other cases where warnings from informed third parties have been ignored with fatal results. I will be interested to see how the police responded in this case.
July 11th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Ah OK Sophie, that is a fair point, however, hindsight is a wonderful thing….
July 11th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
THE SYSTEM IS TO BLAME
July 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
You miserable hypocrite git. Not once did it enter your rotten psyche that Christ loved this man enough to die for him, instead you get your jollies walking over his grave.
The taser did kill Raoul Moat and there has to be an enquiry.
Do you recall incidentally that Moses was in the exact same position as Moat one time? Only he escaped and served his time in another region. There is one sort of soul the Lord takes pleasure in least and that’s the hypocrite.
If you do not feel distress about a lost soul then the love of God is not in you.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Jenny:
“The taser did kill Raoul Moat and there has to be an enquiry.”
Sounds like you’ve made up your mind already? How do you know the taser killed him, exactly?
“If you do not feel distress about a lost soul then the love of God is not in you”.
This thread is not about “getting jollies”, as you so crudely put it, over a lost soul – it is about concern for those still alive doing a difficult job.
It’s obvious that if Moat hadn’t been stopped by now, there’d be as much moaning saying that the police weren’t doing their job.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
…get my jollies walking over his grave
Hmm, it strikes me that this has gone way over your head. This is about outrageous, hypocritical and despicable media coverage.
The taser did kill Raoul Moat and there has to be an enquiry.
Well that settles it then, thanks for letting us all know, in fact I’ll let the IPCC know that in truth there is no longer a need for an enquiry, because Jenny says…..
Moat compared with Moses….uh huh, yep, you got me there, I must admit I’m speechless at that one.
Oh, and before you berate me for a lack of compassion for Moat, let’s hope you spare a thought for the poor guy he blew away last week….at least Moat got to make some choices, unlike his victim.
In fact, I wonder if you’d know the dead man’s family name if you were asked on the spot….somehow I suspect not, because who gives a damn about him eh?
I tell you what, I’ll do you a deal. You can carry on about your way, sobbing over Moat, and I’ll carry on about mine and offer up some prayers for those left behind, whose lives are devasted and obliterated because of the actions of this man.
OK.
July 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Two murders and one non-fatal London shooting linked
Why did this incident not attract the same media circus?
With criminals and the police running around with guns and in the case of the police with the full backup of the State and little or no accountability a set of circumstances now exist that can ony be balanced by given the British people the right to bear arms.
@Sophie,
The police are not constituted to protect the individual citizen their duty is to protect the State.
July 11th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
@Webmaster, the BBC are now touting “family anger” at the treatment of Moat. Shame they didn’t appear to care much about him before this tragedy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/10590754.stm
July 11th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
At least they had the decency to feature this comment from the father of Chris Brown.
Angus Moat’s comments came on the same day the father of Mr Brown praised Northumbria Police for their efforts in tracking down the fugitive gunman.
His father Geoffrey said: “On behalf of our family we would like to thank Northumbria Police and all the other forces involved in trying to bring the hunt for Raoul Moat to a peaceful conclusion.
“As we mourn our son and brother, we are aware that the cowardly act of Moat will affect others, including Moat’s family who will have to live with his actions for the rest of their lives.”
July 11th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Goy, get your facts straight. The police have a duty to save life and limb, protect property, prevent offences and lastly to uphold the queens peace. They have no duty to the state. Moat engineered a situation that brought on everything that followed and put everyine at risk, the police put their own lives at risk to bring the situation to a peaceful conclusion but sadly that did not happen. Now everyone can sit in their armchairs second guessing the officer on the front line. When you have finished that you may want to check the role of honour for officers killed saving life and limb and protecting your property. Moat was responsible but dozens will pay.
July 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
@Bob,
No police basher here, nothing but respect for those brave police men and woman who have lost their lifes but I do have reservations concerning such attitudes as Michael Winner’s National Police Memorial as it maybe misconstrued as a war memorial, the police are not at war with the civilian population the danger is that as a civilian force with such conentations starts to consider itself as a paramilitary force that would be the deathwish of civil policing in the UK.
July 12th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Just Journalism:
Media faces stong criticism from within over Raoul Moat coverage
July 12th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The most nauseating journalistic piece was the BBC TV reporter standing on the spot where Raoul Moat killed himself pointing out the blood stains on the ground.
July 12th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
@Goy. Unbelievable and pathetic.
I’ve been told that there is now a Facebook page set up in memory of him entitled: RIP RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND, which now has over 8000 memebers.
Weird, messed up world eh….
July 12th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I had thought that sanctity of life was a major Christian theme. Of course, we are dealing with a murderer. But our country has a justice system in which people are tried for this crime by a jury which must consider all aspects of the case. In the event of severe mitigating circumstances, such as a nervous breakdown, the sentence is reduced to match the crime and the responsibility level. Psychiatrists give evidence and an appropriate outcome is decided by jury and judge.
For this reason, it has to be regretted that Raoul Moat was not detained alive to face a just trial. No trial would result in a death sentence, of course. If Christians are on the side of justice, they should support saving the life of an offender so that a trial may take place.
The question arises as to whether this was achievable. Certainly if Raoul Moat had pulled the trigger with no provocation, this would have been impossible. But a question remains whether the firing of a taser had provoked, or even caused, the pulling of the trigger. Police are trained and must certainly know the implication of such an action. If lives were in immediate danger, decisive action would be justified – possibly even shooting to prevent harm. But the police appeared to have a very strong upper hand over a trapped criminal, having surrounded him on every side with weapons. In the past, British police, in contrast with their American counterparts, have a good history of waiting patiently and getting a successful outcome. But on this occasion, a taser was used for reasons which need to be established and justified. Moat was depressed and said ‘I’ve got no father, nobody who cares’. Would the presence of a trusted uncle – who had offered to help police – not have been a constructive way forward at that time. Christian ministers have a history of supporting people in all circumstances, even when they are most awfully in the wrong, there is still a ministry which the church has offered. Has this now been withdrawn?
Furthermore, whilst police are not responsible for the acts of criminals, we do expect them to act wisely to prvent incidents. They were notified that a defenceless woman was at risk and chose to take no action. Perhaps if Moat had been give counselling regarding the upsetting circumstance and warning from police to stay clear, accompnied by increase police surveillance of this woman, it might have turned out better. Was this too much effort? No as much effort as a nationwide manhunt and less lasting, irrervsible impacts.
There are lessons to be learned here and I would look to the church to promote these.
July 12th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
When Raoul Moat cried out “no-one cares about me at all…” it is a great pity that there was no Christian with bottle there who could have taken him through the meaning of the forgiveness won for him by Christ (if he would accept Christ as His Saviour), and show him that no mater what he did God would still care from him. Of course, we should remember that God cares for him even now, despite our presumption that he will not be with the Lord now.
Having said that, our prayers now should be with the police officers who risked their lives for several hours, and who have only the memory of the sight of Raoul Moat blowing his brains out to show for it.
July 13th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Sorry excuses for people who call themselves Christians, except for Dominic.
Only mentionning the other victims of this tragedy to get your hypocrite jollies showing off for all to see, like the pharisees. You never mentioned them before now.
It is apparent that those hanging about on this blog, the blog owner particularly, are desperate to ingratiate themselves with the authorities to compensate for their feelings of inferiority. They feel the need to be armchair police Constables, and manage to make themselves both sententious and absurd at once.
This blog is about self appointed spiritual authority and swanking, and has nothing to do with the love of Jesus.
July 13th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
@ Jenny: Whereas your posts, in their grace, their understanding and their charity, tell us you’re inspired by…
…Well, Jesus isn’t the first (or even one) of the names that comes to mind.
July 14th, 2010 at 12:14 am
@Jenny,
It is apparent that those hanging about on this blog, the blog owner particularly, are desperate to ingratiate themselves with the authorities to compensate for their feelings of inferiority.
So what revolutionary act are you calling for and for which cause?
July 14th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
@Jenny
“This blog is about self appointed spiritual authority and swanking”,
….she said swankily out of a sense of her self-appointed spiritual authority.
July 15th, 2010 at 9:40 am
You can argue till you’re blue in the face about whether the taser caused his death. That is NOT the major indictment of the police handling.
What you CANNOT deny is that Raoul ONLY wanted to speak with Anthony, Anthony was there being briefed to talk Raoul down. The police acknowledged that they were positive about the outcome.
Yet, just BEFORE Anthony was about to talk to him, the police decided to rush him.
Let us remember that Raoul was outranged, isolated and posed no threat, at this point, to anyone but himself. Therefore, concern should have been primarily for his life. The argument “Yes but he had a gun” does not apply when isolated, outranged and no threat to police or public.
So why DID they rush him before exploring all other options ? Well, that question is easy in my opinion. The order came from the home office to end this now. He was costing money, votes and bad publicity. They knew the longer this went on, the more cult status he would achieve and the harder time they would have in enquiry.
So, pressure was brought to bear and they rushed a suicidal man with a gun to his head WITHOUT waiting for the outcome of a negotiation strategy with a high chance of a positive outcome.
In THIS respect the police killed Raoul Moat. You can argue about Tasers in the wet as much as you like, deliberately turning this into a technical argument… but that completely avoids the primary issue.
Why were the available peaceful options not fully explored before rushing a suicidal man from behind.
The answer, my friend, is economics and politics. And when those take priority over life (any life) then we are guilty, as a society, for that death. Not only did it go against moral and ethical handling, it even goes against set police procedure.
Raoul Moat was killed by police handling.
-GaryC
July 15th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
@Gary Chapman
“So why DID they rush him before exploring all other options ? Well, that question is easy in my opinion. The order came from the home office to end this now. He was costing money, votes and bad publicity. They knew the longer this went on, the more cult status he would achieve and the harder time they would have in enquiry.”
So you’re saying that in order to avoid a complex enquiry they just shot him dead without negotiation? How does that work, exactly?
Also, got any proof?
July 15th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Dr Sigman told Channel 4 News: “There’s also an element of the police being seen as the state, the establishment ‘snuffing out’ one of ‘the people’.
“So there’s an anti-police undertone, which is probably based on class and something people won’t want to think about. They feel uncomfortable talking about it, because it’s an ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitude – the local people mentality or ‘little people’ versus the ‘state’. Moat is then the ‘people’s hero’.
As the background story to this incident is made public it looks like there is an element of “working class dispossession”.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Unbelievably pompous clowns who like to pompously prat on about the first thing that comes their way.
You know nothing about it, you total idiots.
The system and the media killed this mentally ill man.
Go and write a blog on ‘Vicar’s Gardening Hour’ or something you can actually advise on.
July 16th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
P.S. Well said GARY. The rest of you are self satisfied idiots.
July 16th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
@Jenny
Very constructive. Well done you, what delightful use of the english language. Perhaps there is an adult education close to you, I’m sure they could help you in some way. Obviously, that could only happen if you could wrench yourself away from your crack pipe for long enough!
@Goy we really shouldn’t insult the working classes. Perhaps interbred under class dispossession is more appropriate in this instance.
July 16th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
b
July 16th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
When or if due to the economic conditions the wannabe consumer class and pseudo middle class fall back into their working class/underclass origins there is the possibility of civil strife across the UK on a level that has not been witnessed in living memory.
July 17th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I can’t understand what all the fuss is about. Presumably the inquest or a subsequent enquiry will establish if mistakes were made. However it seemed Raoul Moat was determined to commit “suicide by police” all along, and although no one can be pleased the man’s dead, he appears to have been little loss.
He seems to have been bonkers, but he was also a sadist and a bully, a wife-beater, a child-abuser. You get nice drunks and nasty drunks, and it’s a bit like that with mental illness. Mental illness doesn’t excuse him being consistently vile to his partners and children. How badly must he have terrified the mother of two of his children to make her relieved at his death? None of the women and children who passed through his life now mourn him and that is the measure of the man.
I’m with the New Statesman on this. They call him:
“A man filled with self-loathing who blamed his former partner for leaving him when he turned into a pathetic, self-pitying and ultimately threatening boyfriend, and who failed to see beyond his own emotional needs to the needs of his children: he was a cliché. How very fitting that the abusive macho-turned-baby figure of Paul “Gazza” Gascoigne should turn up at a crucial moment in Moat’s childish drama, offering a dressing gown, chicken and a beer.”
July 19th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
@New Statesman
Obviously, the fact that he was seeking psychiatric help for 18 months (and not getting it) and had quit his job as a nightclub bouncer (because he did not like all the associated trouble) and had instead started his own business as a tree surgeon instead…
That his ex raised charges of physical abuse, dropped the charges and was later threatened with court for slander and defamation.
… well, none of it matters.
How about the fact that a guy released from HMP Durham weeks before Raoul said that the wardens were ‘pushing his buttons’ and saying that they were ‘all sh*ggin his bird’ doesn’t figure in any of this.
The fact that some brutal assaults are completely impossible to confirm. As they, for some reason, never resulted in any hospital treatment or police involvement… the alleged victim of which was seen in gatesheads Metrocentre just weeks after supposedly being ‘set about the face with a baseball bat’ by Raoul … and looking absolutely fine.
The only incident I do know of I heard from Raoul himself. Some ‘of the guys’ had beaten someone badly and Raoul came in shaken and upset. Said he couldn’t take part and instead stood outside, but the noise was horrible.
I honestly believe that’s why he quit working the doors. But none of that matters.
That the police demonstrably rushed him before they were out of plausible safe options doesn’t matter.
No, all that matters is that hes a monster, thus deserves everything he gets. Screw rationality or facts, all we need is a mob, the newspapers polarising hype and some burning torches.
The fact that the general public are MORE angry about this than most of the people actually involved is testimony to the medias uncanny ability to rouse up an armchair lynch mob with a sprinkling of facts and a bucketful of opinion. After all, if they can’t make you feel something extreme then they won’t sell newspapers…
… some of you people feel hate, well done you!
Reminds me of the guy that was beaten to death by an angry group in a bar, who had overheard him openly discussing his work as a paedeotrician. Paedo! And once again the public’s ability to restrain their anger fails catastrophically.
Raoul Moat, he wasn’t an angel, none of us are. He was trying his hardest though, trying to get help, trying to remove the negative influences in his life, desperate to open a dialogue with professionals. He did everything someone in his position should.
The b*stard.
-GaryC
July 19th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
OK Gary C, so we just forget about cold blooded murder, attempted murder and maiming (potentially blinding) an innocent police man. That’s all fine then, because he’d had a rough ride.
You simply play the “blame game” card. It’s all the prfessionals fault, Moat is without responsibility for his own actions in your mind.
Nobody called Moat a “moster” or “bastard” or have said he got what he deserved, but remember two things, firstly his victims and their families and secondly be careful not to accuse others of “hating” as we very often identify faults in others that exist in us also.
July 19th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Gary wrote – “Reminds me of the guy that was beaten to death by an angry group in a bar, who had overheard him openly discussing his work as a paedeotrician. Paedo! And once again the public’s ability to restrain their anger fails catastrophically.”
1. This never happened, it is pure invention so why have you said it?
2. Peadiatrician
July 19th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
@Dominic
Actually, no, it happened in NJ. It was in the local papers and I have no reason to disbelieve it. You obviously do, yay you… I wish I were omniscient too.
And regarding the spelling, I was born here but have spent almost all of my formative life between the Canaries and Bulgaria, I consider Spanish my first language and I often struggle words I should really know let alone spell. But then, I presume you’re as flawless in Spanish or Bulgarian as you expect me to be in English.
If not, here’s some latin for you: Ad Hominem ?
@Susan
> so we just forget about cold blooded murder, attempted
> murder and maiming (potentially blinding) an innocent
> police man. That’s all fine then, because he’d had a
> rough ride.
No, I’m saying that he was suicidal, seeking help for terrible mood swings and had acknowledged some 18 months prior that he really needed a psychiatrist. He had done everything a man in his position should up to this point, seek help, change your situation, dump the negative external influences, throw yourself into something more constructive.
No help was forthcoming, and a certain police officer with links to Sam used to follow him around town and often sat outside of his house for 30 mins to an hour after work trying to bait him into a fight – presumeably just so that Sam and him could stop him seeing his kids. Hence the cameras Raoul fitted both inside and outside.
> You simply play the “blame game” card. It’s all the
> prfessionals fault
No, not at all. Raoul had some pretty serious problems. Mostly founded in self image and self worth. His mother tried to sell him as a baby and, when that was unsuccessful, palmed him off to his grandmother. He was fat, tall and with a low self esteem… body building gave him self esteem but robbed him of so much more. But he was a really nice, intelligent and kind hearted guy. When he started working the doors he got a ‘new family’ and a whole set of negative influences.
He broke free of all that, something I congratulate him for. He sought help, something else I congratulate him for. But he is not blameless, and neither are the professionals who have CLEARLY failed in their duty of care towards both Raoul, and his victims. This is inarguable – so please stop setting up straw men and acknowledge the fact.
Even Sams mother says it would not have happened if he’d gotten the help he sought. Amazing that SHE can have such insight when the rest of you armchair critics cannot. Same with Sams half-sis, the blinded officer and many of chris’s friends.
… all have more understanding for Raoul than those who were not affected in any other way than having their TV viewing interrupted occassionally.
I find that a telling statement about the state of our ‘reality tv’ society.
> Moat is without responsibility for his own actions in
> your mind.
Straw man, I never said such a thing. I am simply addressing the imbalance of comments on this page.
> Nobody called Moat a “moster” or “bastard” or have said
> he got what he deserved.
You don’t get around much do you. Many don’t even believe the family have a right to grieve publicly or remember the best in him. Hence my anger… and, as someone who actually KNEW people in this case, I do have a right to my emotions. I didn’t my interest in this case from a news-stand.
> but remember two things, firstly his victims and their
> families and secondly be careful not to accuse others of
> “hating” as we very often identify faults in others that
> exist in us also.
First to admit it. I hate the media coverage dripping drama of each syllable of every superlative, selling you all on the drama. I hate Mary Shelley’s monster too… the same as Victor Hugo’s … But, I wonder, do you even know which monster they wrote about ? You should, it existed then and still does.
I hate that I have to put up with so called ‘good people’ telling me that Raoul will ‘rot in hell’ for what he’s done. Defacing and destroying now 3 seperate memorial pages full of verse and remembrance in a wave of public outrage.
Oh, yes, I am quite angry… but I know WHY I am angry.
The question is, why are the general throng so angry and polarised (against either Sam or Raoul). Hmm? When those ACTUALLY INVOVED are typically not. Why are THEY so polarised ?
Because it sells newspapers my little puppets. This and nothing more. Welcome to homi-tainment.
Raoul was a good man. You can stress ‘was’ however you like. The newspapers have dredged up every scrap of rumour and allegation and dressed it up as fact for your entertainment. If half of these things were brought as formal allegations they wouldn’t even amount to providing a case to answer.
But I never said he was an angel, and I certainly didn’t say he was a hero… but he wasn’t a monster either. He was a man.
A man who will be missed, and mourned, like any other. Even by many mourning Chris and praying for Sam.
Just bear that in mind, while you cast your stones at his corpse, that this is just a man, a man who tried to change his life for the better and cried for help many times.
No angel, but no devil either,
Just, as are we all, a man.
-GaryC
July 19th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
@GaryC
That was the most sensible thing i have read in a long time.
And the only post i find on here which was actually worth reading.
July 20th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
@ GaryC: If you can describe Raoul Moat as “a good man” I can only wonder what he would have had to do before you called him a bad one.
I appreciate you knew him, but does being mates with someone totally blind you to their violence?
July 20th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
“God alone is good…”
Now, I wonder who said that!
July 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
@ Dominic: Has anyone told the Vatican?
July 20th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I think they’ve missed that one Sophie!