TOP 100 ENGLAND SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Mark Saunders shooting: timeline of the fatal police siege The events leading to the death of the barrister, who was drunk and brandishing a shotgun as police tried to calm him down6 May 200816.40 Saunders fires first shot through his closed kitchen window while talking on the phone to a barrister friend, Michael Bradley. Shot hits empty bedroom at 1 Bywater Street, the flat opposite his three-floor maisonette.17.04 He fires another shot after CO19 firearms officer AZ 15 arrives in a bedroom of the adjacent house. AZ 15 fires back three times while Saunders fires another shot. No one is injured.18.57 Police negotiator Superintendent John Sutherland calls Saunders's mobile. It is engaged as the lawyer makes a four-minute silent call to Bradley, who can only hear breathing. Negotiators discuss needing "some control" over Elizabeth Saunders, Mark's wife. Both she and Bradley are asked to turn off their phones.19.10 Police phone contact made. Saunders says he's scared, can see snipers outside and is worried about being shot. He is very drunk. A helicopter beams live footage to officers.19.15 He is heard being violently sick.19.30 Police see a shotgun in his hand. Sutherland urges: "No, don't load the shotgun Mark. Listen to me very carefully. Do not load the shotgun."19.31 With closed shotgun in hand, Saunders says he has "no ill-intent", he asks to speak to his wife. Says he doesn't know what happened and he's "terrible with booze".19.37 Saunders says of his wife "she's been duped". Problems develop with phones. Saunders says his landline is broken and he can't hear on the mobile. He says he's "been upset for a long time".19.44 Sutherland hands over to negotiator Inspector Sonia Davis. Saunders talks about not being able to hear. Police constantly try his landline but it goes to voicemail.19.52 He complains it's noisy outside – probably from the helicopter. He stops talking to negotiators as they shout down the open mobile line.19.58 He is seen shouting at CO19 firearms officers outside and holding up a note which police think reads "mum".19.59 Police phones go dead.20.00 Senior officers hold tactical meeting.20.06 Saunders is seen putting his gun down and holding a phone. Negotiators discuss between them his condition. He is "very drunk, and still drinking". He keeps telling them "I'm not a threat to anyone but myself", "who's going to employ me as a barrister now?" and "I don't want anyone to shoot me". They discuss possibly using Bradley as a TPI – third party intermediary. They arrange to send two negotiators onto a nearby flat's roof to communicate with him.20.24 Another note. Police can only make out words "kill myself". He moves around the flat with the shotgun in hand. He keeps "closing it and putting rounds in and out". Sutherland says he doesn't think, "he's intentionally going to harm anyone".20.32 Saunders dials 999 and tells operators he is "guy, guy from Markham Square" and wants to speak to a "hostage negotiator".20.33 Sutherland gets him back on the phone and constantly reassures him. "Listen Mark I don't want you to die. You're not going to die today, Mark."20.42 Saunders warns police he's going to smash his window and "finish this thing".20.46 He says he's going to blow out the window frame. Sutherland urges: "Put the gun down Mark. Put the safety catch back on. Don't blow out the window."20.49 Sutherland says he will swear on oath "nobody is going to shoot you". Saunders asks to speak to his wife. Says he has "played a game" regarding his drinking.20.59 He speaks of his "therapist" as Sutherland ask him to turn off music by The Doors playing in background. The lawyer falls down his stairs. Speaks again of shooting out the window.21.08 Sutherland tells him: "You're not resigned to killing yourself, Mark." Adds: "How could it possibly be painless if you were to shoot yourself?" He will cause his wife "agony", the negotiator says.21.09 Saunders shoots through his window. CO19 officer AZ 6, in bedroom at 1 Bywater Street, fires back twice. Saunders does not speak again to negotiators by phone.21.15 He shouts out the window he wants to speak to Bradley and his wife. Negotiators discuss using the wife "as bait", but drop the plan when they realise he wants to say goodbye.21.20 Saunders opens his smashed kitchen window and leans out. He sits on the ledge with his back to the police snipers. He can be heard "groaning". He's shouting to negotiators on the roof but they can't hear him because of the helicopter.21.25 He's shouting "shut up" and has phones in his hands which he keeps picking up and putting down.21.26 He is seen swaying.21.29 Powerful halogen lights are turned on to floodlight his premises.21.31 He's still shouting "I can't hear".21.32 He begins waving his gun with barrel pointing up. An officer shouts: "put the gun down" through a loudhailer. He lowers the barrel once, then raises it again. He lowers it a second time.Negotiators, still shouting down the open mobile line, hear shots. "That's it … that was about eight shots we just fired," says a marksman.Gun crimeCaroline Daviesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Of fairness and foreigners It's often said immigrants are drawn to Britain for its benefits and the English language. But is there also an ideological attraction? bbc.co.uk |
CSR: millions will have to work longer before claiming pension Millions of workers will have to delay their retirement after the state pension age was put back to 66. telegraph.co.uk |
The LSE and the fanciful freedoms suggested by the word 'private' | Mary Evans That the London School of Economics has been considering privatisation raises questions about higher education policyThe comment by Howard Davies that he had seen "no arguments" suggesting positive reasons for the privatisation of the London School of Economics is to be warmly welcomed. Yet the mere public appearance of this possibility, about various elite institutions of higher education quite as much as the LSE, raises all kinds of questions about the limitations of present government policy towards higher education.First and foremost, there is a lack of clarity about exactly what privatisation would mean. In the present complex mix of sources of funding, in many universities there already exists a measure of "privatisation", evident in funding for named posts and research institutes, as well as those thousands of students supported by the taxed income of their parents. For the 94% of students who have not attended private schools, provision for higher education now involves costs equivalent to public school fees – the replication in the ostensibly "public" sector of considerable private provision.A second point that seems not to have occurred to this government in its policy of the prioritisation of science subjects over the humanities and the social sciences is that many (although not all) universities find it difficult to attract well-qualified students to study the natural sciences. Examples of the most popular subjects across the sector are both non-vocational subjects such as English and history as well as the more vocational subjects of law, psychology and economics. Many of these subjects, the government may care to remember, are taught in schools and provide the curricular basis for those people who are later to teach, and even, the government may note, run the financial and service sector.But these pragmatic arguments about privatisation and prioritisation are perhaps only as important as those other arguments about equality of access to higher education, the endless disruption of universities and the fanciful freedoms suggested by the word "private".To take this last point first: the fact that privatisation in higher education can even be considered suggests those very individuals who are most in love with the idea of the market as the basis for the organisation of higher education (or anything else) have somehow forgotten both that all private sectors of any society exclude, and that those providing the money for those "private" universities probably have agendas distinct from those of academics. Over the past 30 years, various British governments have tried to push the relationship of universities to the market economy into that of functionary and paymaster. It is difficult to see how (or why) private universities, reliant as they would be not just on high fee income but on income derived from the private sector, would significantly alter this relationship.It remains to return to those other two points about the equality of access to higher education and the potential likely disruption of universities in the present government's policies. Truly open access to higher education, access that attempts to redress real inequalities of class, race and gender, provides little immediate profit. But in the long-term, in terms of the social balance sheet, the rewards are considerable. Those rewards are considerably enabled by academic staff whose day-to-day lives can continue in the reasonable expectation that teaching and research are not going to be diverted to that "private" space, where the furtherance and communication of knowledge takes on new meanings of belonging and exclusion.London School of Economics and Political ScienceHigher educationUniversity fundingEducation policyMary Evansguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
UK recovery is on track - Osborne George Osborne says the UK's economic recovery is "on track", following the upgrading of this year's official growth forecast. bbc.co.uk |