Whilst I always took the view (and still do) that summarily shooting dead someone who was reasonably thought to be a suicide bomber is an appropriate policy, even though it turned out to be a tragic mistake.
However the operative phrase is “was reasonably thought to be…”
The more facts that come out about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the harder it is to see how these policemen came to that dire decision. He ran from the police, we were told. He was wearing an unseasonable padded coat, we were told. He jumped the ticket barrier and ran onto the train, we were told. He was not restrained and so still posed a threat when he was shot dead, we were told. Well, given the context, like so many others I thought that although this was a terrible error, the guy clearly contributed to his own death by his behaviour.
And now it appears that all of it was just a pack of complete lies. He did not run, he did not jump the barrier (he used his tube pass!), he did not have on a padded coat and he was completely restrained when he was shot dead.
There had damn well better be a very heavy accounting for this with a lot of abruptly and dishonourably ended careers and jail sentences. For a start, just a start, the head of the Metropolitan Police should be out of a job by this time tomorrow.
I agree entirely. The powers of the police depend on the public’s trust in their ability to use them wisely. Such a blatant misuse of police powers cannot be accepted in a decent society.
I’m sure there will be those who will give the excuse that the circumstances were exceptional, following the bombings. Whilst I’m willing to give this argument some credence, no benefit of the doubt can be unlimited. At some point, there is a line which cannot be crossed and it would appear that the police crossed that line here.
I think there must be something very wrong with the training of these policemen. Did all sanity and logic flee their minds once the ‘kill’ order was given?
TWG
Perry,
I concur. It appears that this man was brutally murdered by incompetent and adrenalin-rushed thugs who high on their own ‘machismo’.
Absolutely agree. Some heads need to roll on this one.
I know it sounds terribly cliched to drone on about “waiting for the inquiry to report its findings”, but on this incident, the more I hear about the event – with every “fact” supporting the “reasonable belief” argument apparently evaporating – the more I’m thinking there must be more to it than we have been told so far. Even pure machismo surely can’t explain what happened. If, in the end, it does – then fine, rolling heads and slamming jail doors should follow.
The systemic problem here is that police have sovereign immunity. Cops almost never get charged with manslaughter. They typically get a reprimand, or perhaps fired. Whereas you or I would do hard time.
The essence of (classical) liberal government is that the government and its agents should be subject to the same law as everyone else. They should bear personal criminal and civil liability for their actions.
I said on the day it happened that this was passing odd, and I still think there is way more to this story.
They may have given out that he was wearing a heavy jacket and was running and jumped the turnstile to deflect attention and persuade everyone that it was a tragic, if understandable, error.
I thought then and think now even more strongly, that he was a vital clue and releasing the information would jeopardise something else going on. Mark my words.
As I said at the time,somebody at the top had given orders for their subordinates not to have another bombing on their watch and “get a result” senior officers will have been leant on by politicians and the pressure will have gone right down the line.
Now we know why Ian Blair was incensed by the use of a Tazer by another force in the capture of their suspect.makes the Mets decision look even worse.
It is often the case that when an armed response unit is called in the situation then becomes irredeemable
There is certainly something extremely fishy about the discrepancies between what we were initially told by the head Plod and what is now starting to emerge.
However, we do need to bear in mind that the Menezesm family seems to have retained the services of the sinister, hard-Left lawyer, Gareth Pierce, whose ablity to work with the media is renowned.
Heaven knows the source of some of the things we are being told – let alone how accurate they may be.
With that major caveat in mind, however, I agree with Mr. de Havilland.
Indeed, I’d go one step further. This may sound rather too British, but I have never found the sight of armed policeman particularly reassuring – particularly when bobbies are shown on TV, with their fingers inside the trigger guards of their H&Ks.
That alone makes me wonder about how well Plod is trained in using these weapons. Any soldier caught doing that would be on a charge, without fail.
A lot more intelligence and a lot less machismo wouldn’t go amiss, I suspect.
If the “leaked” documents are accurate, then heads ought to roll, and then get kicked around the streets for a while.
(Unless Verity is right, but there’s no way to tell at this point. A high-level inquiry will probably be necessary to sort it all out, I’d think.)
I think Bruce Rolston nailed the cause here:
“It should go without saying that the proximate cause here wasn’t anything Menezes did, or whatever his immediate reaction was to that armed gang in civilian clothes running at him on a subway platform. No, it was almost certainly the last-minute and short-notice switching of the police teams dealing with him, with the apprehension team going into the situation poorly briefed and without much opportunity for any handoff from the surveillance team, that was the real cause of death here. There was probably zero time for an exchange of info on rules of engagement or likely threat between the two teams, just a demand to the guys who’d just arrived to immediately apprehend a guy who could be connected with suicide bombers, before he got on that train. Like all “stop that man”-style handoffs, this one was almost guaranteed to be misinterpreted.”
Well whatever happens Constable Ian Blair should be OK. He appears to be doing everything by the book.
1. Lie.
2. When lies stop working, shut up and keep your head down.
And still to come as and when needed:
3. Hang the bastard out to dry who was ordered to do the dastardly deed.
4 Repeat step 3. as necessary, moving progressively higher up the chain of command until the angry media move on to some other topic.
I agree with Otis that we should wait for the results of the inquiry before engaging in even more speculation.
It seems that some people were more accurate in their original assessment than others. These same others now appear to have changed tune and are even coming out with further speculation to seemingly imply how perceptive they are! When I read certain comments on that page now it makes me cringe.
Such seeming conviction over what now could well turn out to be a great deal of fallacy.
While I would like to think it’s a “James Bond, License to Kill” sort of thing with good cause, truth will more likely be adrenaline, the pack effect, and poor training.
With our wide open spaces it seems like everything here (in the US) starts with a chase. We’ve discovered most of our cases of really bad judgement occur after a chase, often inthe presense of other officers.
The more highly disciplined departments take this into account and train for it. The “fingers in the trigger guard” observation is particularly disconcerting. In some of our better departments, officers are disciplined for even touching their holster or gun handle during civilian contact without good cause. I’ve been told that any drawing of a weapon in public involves filing paperwork afterward and answering a review.
A good friend of mine is an on call sniper from his regular job in the police department. He enjoys the challange but the qualification and training are rigorous.
I certainly hope this case is justified. Barring that, that it brings strengthening improvements to the system. When bad guys have guns, cops definately need them.
I certainly recognize the context in play here. London got hit hard and I don’t doubt there are individuals living in-country who’d hit just as hard (if not harder) if they had the opportunity and the means. When I was younger, I was suddenly and brusquely singled out of a crowded tent to be searched in front of that crowd by military police because I had an arm under my shirt (it was in a cast, in order to protect it from the rain). Someone had either been spotted with a weapon or had threatened to arrive with one. I fit the rough description of the guy. I didn’t fight back or run away then and if the same thing happened now, I’d comply just the same. I’m under no illusions as to what happens when you physically resist cops. My father is a deputy sheriff and I’ve seen more than enough episodes of COPS to get this.
However, the pragmatic consideration is one thing. In one of the prior threads I asked: Do you hold that we have a positive duty to obey the commands of law enforcement officers in all cases, in a few select instances, or that we do not have such an obligation?
Mr. de Havilland responded, as did fFreddy, but I’d like to hear the thoughts of others as well.
The point is Mr Menezes was apparently not resisting or even ,until the last, minute aware that he was being followed.The State is not your Friend Who do the police represent?
Perry, well said. I must say there was something a tad odd at the time about this guy’s death. Like most people presented with the initial “facts” I applauded the actions of the police but it is fair to admit that the subsequent version of events puts the police concerned in a very poor light.
Ian Blair should resign immediately. He plainly is not up to the job. Such a petty that London does not have a firm but fair copper like Bob Bratten, of New York’s finest, to head our force.
There must be a swift reaction otherwise the grievance mongering industry will kick into overdrive.
I did say at the time that it seemed that this operation went wrong from the time Mr Menezes left his apartment building, and was wrongly identified as having exited the flat being used by suspects. It now appears that at the vital moment the surveillance officer was taking a piss. Unbelievable. And rather bad luck for poor Mr Menezes. Everything that happened subsequently derived from that initial error. It really boggles the mind. Is everything in Britain completely half-baked or what?
It does also seem as if the Met worked fast to establish a public version of events by using background briefings, getting a picture in the public’s mind that would justify shooting a man who was not involved with the terrorists. They wanted to show that Mr Menezes brought his death on himself. That’s really reprehensible.
Finally, I find the absence of any CCTV footage from the platform of Stockwell Station rather worrying. Either TfL is so inept that in the middle of a terror bombing campaign against the tube network they did not bother to make sure the CCTV was working, or else the tapes have been disappeared. Neither possibility is particularly reassuring.
The whole episode was a shambles from beginning to end. An innocent man died; if he had been a bomber, the police let him get on a bus and then a tube. Nothing went right.
I notice that “Gold Commander” for this fiasco was Cressida Dick, whose last job was the Met’s Head of Diversity. I wonder what led anyone to think that was a good background for commanding a life and death operation?
I think Ms Dick was a high flier being groomed for the top. No doubt this position was felt to be a ticket she had to punch on her way up. I expect anyone who suggested that such a position might best go to someone with experience of armed operations rather than the Met’s diversity tsarina would not have had much of a career.
We must remember that Ian Bliar was described as the most politically correct Commissioner the Met has ever had. Cressida Dick was clearly his type of officer, and this disastrous operation is the logical outcome of his type of police work. In a decent society they would both have resigned by now, but in Year 8 of the NuLabor era that won’t happen. Whistleblowers might end up dead, brass hats whose fuck ups cost innocent lives usually get promoted. Let’s see what happens this time.
John K,
if you want to understand much of what has gone wrong with modern policing just look up the “Bramshill Strategic Command Course” run in partnership with the Cambridge Univeristy Department of Criminology.
A quote from IIRC Greg Wilkinson,
” The educational input there is very much focused on research skills and the wider area of criminology looking at things like social exclusion,racism”- ” like a company director,not messing about chasing criminals all day”
This is the course that all senior police officers have to attend.
Quite!!! Perhaps the only good to come out of this dreadful affair may be to reveal these people for what they are. Kind of a high price to pay, but then it usually is I suppose.
John K said -“or else the tapes have been disappeared. Neither possibility is particularly reassuring.”
I bet that dog can hunt. Any official statements about them yet?
I agree with almost everything John K says above, but I still have worries when I hear that ‘the family has called for the resignation of “Sir” Ian Blair’ (a useless piece of work, I agree).
I doubt the family has literally done this. I’d imagine that their every utterance is being very carefully filtered by their lawyers, publishing statements and issuing press briefings, which are snapped-up by compliant media.
A couple of questions: by what means does a newly bereaved family not just from Brasil but still in Brasil find a firm of lawyers within a few hours? And how does the law firm chosen, happen to be the one in question?
And, just while we’re at it, who is Asad Rehman, decribed by the BBC as: ‘ spokesman for the Justice4Jean Family Campaign’? What is this campaign? Who is organising, financing and promoting it?
Tragedy though this case undoubtedly was, I can’t help catching the odour of Trots, Marxists and other troublemakers busily taking advantage of the situation.
I’m sure there’s still more to this than we know. Nobody so far has commented on the report that Menezes was restrained in the carriage by a surveillance officer already in there, who pinned his arms and forced him back into the seat he had taken after he ran onto the train (as was reported today).
Two points:
1. Surveillance officers are supposed to stay hidden.
2. More importantly, how come a surveillance officer was in that particular carriage, on that particular underground train, when nobody knew what this guy was up to or where he was going?
Also, I recall an eyewitness account from the day it happened (not heard of since) that a man stood up within the carriage, went to the open doors after Menezes had entered, and called out to figures on the platform (police?) in a language that the eyewitness could not understand as English. Then the officers entered the train.
I don’t know what all that means, but I do believe that it’s unlikely a law enforcement operative would have been in that particular carriage by chance. If indeed he or she was.
In other words, we just don’t know.
All that may be true but that is not excuse no to hold a whole lot of people’s feet to the flames over this. The incident is deplorable but what makes it even worse is that they RAPIDLY concocted a complete pack of lies with great speed to cover their arses. The people responsible for that need to go to jail for “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.
Defending us from suicide bombers is a terrible task to ask of a police force but if we entrust them with the right to shoot people dead in our defence, they had better be sound, sober and dependable folks using those weapons. The fact a terrible error was made is bad enough, the fact the system immediatly went into overdrive to cover the facts up is utterly intolerable.
Time to import the USA’s layered, decentralized, elected justice system. Flatten the org chart to stop diffusion of responsibility, and put the guy at the top in the hot seat.
Tragedy though this case undoubtedly was, I can’t help catching the odour of Trots, Marxists and other troublemakers busily taking advantage of the situation.
Good point, and that’s part of the problem here. The manifest failure of this operation has given these people their chance, and they are not slow to take it. We should be grateful that Mr Menezes was not an Asian. If he had been, there would probably have been riots. Luckily, the Brazilian community in London behaved with a bit of dignity.
PdH: “The incident is deplorable but what makes it even worse is that they RAPIDLY concocted a complete pack of lies with great speed to cover their arses.”
Come on people, this is not the first time the british police have killed someone (who turns out to have been innocent) in cold blood then lied to cover up their cockup.
The fact is, never or hardly ever, has any police officer involved in such an affair been held accountable for his negligence, stupidity or mistake. This has just been a pretty gratuitous example.
This will ( and has IMO) lead in time to a laxidasical attitude that it doesn’t matter (no responsibility without accountability). The armed police are a law unto themselves and can do pretty much what they choose.
I think it was pretty obvious that recently they took industrial action and (by doing so) threatened to withdraw armed protection from prominent politicians and judiciary. Given how seriously our neurotic, (but glorious leader) takes his security, that must have put the willies right up him. No wonder he caved in and they went back to their chosen buisness…… We have just seen what that buisness is.
Once upon a time we recruited our police direct from the armed forces, that led to police officers who knew how to handle weapoons and could keep cool in a crisis.
I know one or two folks who have got into the Met – notorious even twenty years ago for having the lowest recruitment standards in the UK – but shouldn’t have.
That these same folk could then just apply to join one of the armed response units scares the bejesus out of me.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“All that may be true but that is not excuse not to hold a whole lot of people’s feet to the flames over this.”
Which wasn’t what I was suggesting. Indeed, I agree with you and would welcome the removal of Blair and his kind. Similarly, as I have posted earlier today, I doubt the majoity of the Met’s competence to handle firearm duties in the light of this case and others.
However, I am also reluctant to do the SWP’s work for it and I think we need to be mindful of the axe people like the hideous Gareth Pierce are grinding.
GCooper writes:
>This may sound rather too British, but I have never found
>the sight of armed policeman particularly reassuring –
>particularly when bobbies are shown on TV, with their
>fingers inside the trigger guards of their H&Ks.
I don’t watch that much TV news, but when in London recently I checked out any armed copper I passed and they all seemed to have their trigger fingers on the outside of the guard.
Too many armed coppers, though.
GCooper writes:
>This may sound rather too British, but I have never found
>the sight of armed policeman particularly reassuring –
>particularly when bobbies are shown on TV, with their
>fingers inside the trigger guards of their H&Ks.
I don’t watch that much TV news, but when in London recently I checked out any armed copper I passed and they all seemed to have their trigger fingers on the outside of the guard.
Too many armed coppers, though.
It was put about that Menezes clambered out of the slums of Sao Paulo to seek a new life in Britain (rather than the US or Portugal, for some reason). Yet now this “slum family” has a hotshot team of international grievance lawyers just like that!
I was also interested in Captain Coma’s post.
I share the unease expressed on this blog to some extent, especially given the world class self-righteous incompetence of “Sir” Ian Blair and, who John K has dubbed for all time the Diversity Tsarina. But I’m not certain how much they were in charge here.
I am reserving my condemnation at this point, although I’m not ruling it out.
Edward: “The systemic problem here is that police have sovereign immunity. Cops almost never get charged with manslaughter. They typically get a reprimand, or perhaps fired. Whereas you or I would do hard time.”
Indeed so. And they’ve become accustomed to think tjhat they can get away with anything, for example killing a man who was carrying a chair leg. So there isn’t a little voice in the back of their heads saying, “hang on here, I’d better be careful”
I agree with Perry, the lying bothers me greatly.
If they just immediately ‘fessed up to a mistake then I’d almost certainly shrug and say it was just bad luck – as, indeed, I did initially.
But to lie about it… that smacks of the SS.
And to lie about it when there are 50 witnesses and Gods own CCTV in there – that smacks of gross ineptitude. What idiot decided to push some lies in front of all those eyeballs?
It beggars belief.
TLT writes:
“And to lie about it when there are 50 witnesses and Gods own CCTV in there – that smacks of gross ineptitude. ”
What CCTV? Surely one of the most disturbing aspects of this case is that the ubiquitous all-seeing eye that Uncle Ken is so keen on, just happened not to be operating that day?
In passing, I see that tomorrow’s Daily Mirror (the leading Leftist tabloid, for our US readers) is claiming that Chief Superintendent Tinkerbelle (or whatever her name is) who “masterminded” this operation is claimed to have said ‘take him alive’.
As London’s finest would once have replied: ‘A likely story, darling. You’re nicked!’
Interesting to see the Met using the Mirror as a PR vehicle, though. Even more to see the debased Mirror letting them.
“I’m really sorry I bad mouthed Mr. de Menezes and said he deserved to be shot. I was deceived by the police, I believed their lies. Everyone from Sir Ian Blair down lied through their teeth, trying to salvage their job and reputation. I’ll never believe the police again.”
Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?”
Just thought I’d help out all those hard wired, “shoot first and ask questions later” knuckle draggers to save them the trouble of composing their own apology. But if you can’t bring yourselves to admit you were wrong, I say this: “Be ashamed, be very ashamed.”
“Take him alive Tinkerbelle” must be having somewhat of a “whoops” moment,after all eleven shots were fired,only three missed.
Looks like Tinkerbelle is the one to be chosen to fall on her truncheon,unless of course it can be pinned on overzealous officers beneath her. One can hear Sir Ian”No relation” Blair saying ,” Dick,one of us will have to resign,for the good of the Service you understand,there are plenty of jobs in Diversity”
BTW,anyone else find it alarming that the police waited to open fire until they were in a confined space with other passengers.
Andrew Milner writes:
” But if you can’t bring yourselves to admit you were wrong, I say this: “Be ashamed, be very ashamed.”1
And to which I respond: ‘learn to read’.
If you care to go back to the threads in question, you’ll find that quite a few of we “knuckle draggers” were rather cautious in our comments.
Not being fans of armed, repressive governments, you understand.
Unlike many on the Left.
GCooper,
Poor Mr Menezes was kiled by the socialists.
Little Andrew Milner always writes a little blog scriptitos for his opponents to say and then adds, “There. That wasn’t so difficult was it?”
What a needy guy! – although Andy – please! As G Gooper says, “learn to read!” That’s not so hard, is it? You can form the letters with your mouth as you follow them with your forefinger. Or in your case, knuckle.
That the Metropolitan Police is more interested in ‘diversity’ and redesigning its logo ‘so as not to discriminate against dyslexic Londoners’ (one of ‘Sir’ Ian Blair’s first decisions as Commissioner) than simple firearms safety and public accountability should come as no surprise to anyone who has noticed that the Metropolitan Police is no longer a police force but rather a police service.
‘Working together for a safer London’
The likes of Cressida Dick and ‘Sir’ Ian Blair would resign immediately over this matter – had they a shred of decency – and consider themselves lucky not to face charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
How is this utterly beyond belief? You want the state to have the power to kill, and rejoice when it’s used, and then you get upset when the state lies about it?
– Josh
Josh: “How is this utterly beyond belief? You want the state to have the power to kill, and rejoice when it’s used, and then you get upset when the state lies about it?”
Simple answer Josh, I am against extra judicial executions. Being an old fashoned fellow, I do think the death penalty has merit. Just that I wold like the formalities to be respected. You know the sort of thing, evidence, a court case, verdict by a jury of ones peers, sentence by an independent judge, who knows an appeal.
That sort of thing.
Actually I do think they are going to resign. Newsnight was talking about Blair’s career termination (the cop, not the one we all want to see go). Cressida Dick – now there’s a name the tabloids are going to enjoy – is certainly going to either resign or be sacked for showing such incredible incompetence. Now we hear that as a nasty bit of CYA she ordered her officers not to open fire at the very last minute, presumably once they had entered Stockwell station and were thus out of contact range with her.
As much as I do feel sorry for this Brazilian I feel even more sorry for the officers who were undoubtedly pressurised into carrying out some kneejerk-inspired execution to appease both politicans and the media. It can not be an easy thing to either shoot someone 8 times at pointblank range, nor to have been the poor sod who was holding the victim when the other officer did that.
The other thing we now need to know is was Jean Charles de Menezes actually legal or illegal, we have had reports that he was living on a forged visa in the UK.
The point is the Police force was intended to enforce the law,not so far bavk in time,a Police Commissioner would have not had armed response groups,trained by the SAS,on the streets.
What level of violence are these teams intended to counter in an unarmed country? How often do these teams,armed with military weapons ever meet anyone with this kind of firepower?
Lastly do you good people know that if someone reports you to the police as carrying a gun,it is an armed response group that will turn up.So if the old lady next door cannot tell the difference between a Browning Hi-Power and a mobile phone……
Verity, I was thinking of Ms Dick as the diversity tsarina, but maybe you’re right, it fits Ian Bliar quite nicely too. They deserve each other. Ian and Cressida, sitting in a tree, writing position papers about diversity.
It is reported in the Guardian (I know) that the surveillance officer who was taking a leak when Mr Menezes left his flat was actually from the Special Reconnaisance Regiment. You see, the operation was described officially as “police led”, which does not mean that only the police were involved. As ever with NuLabor NewSpeak, you have to read between the lines.
It seems a lot of people have very quickly jumped to the conclusion that this “leaked” document is legit. What do we really know about the provenance of this document?
I don’t hear howls of protest from New Scotland Yard claiming the leaked report is rubbish, so I am forced to conclude it is not rubbish.
John K,
In much the same way that the Daily Mail, Express, Sun and Mirror all clamour that “The SAS trained xx / The SAS carried out such-and-such an operation” ad nauseam, I would suggest that The Grauniad report about the SRR was yet another Dunky Campbell nocturnal emission, rather than based upon cold facts. Last I heard about the SRR was that some Warrant Officers from a certain UKSF regiment were lamenting how none of them, bar those transferred from IntCorps, could even do the minimum required number of pullups for Army entry.
I doubt that a regiment only founded on 6th April this year would normally have been ready by the time of the terrorist outrages but, given the political expediency that the police and armed forces dwell under as Sir Ian and Our Little Tony Blair’s personal protection plan, I daresay it could well have happened. There is a quite high level of emnity between the UKSF and the police, especially the Metropolitan Police, and I would imagine that Charles Clarke could bat rather heavily against that nasty little commie bastard Reid trying to use the events of 7th and 21st July to test out his new regiment.
At least the police have the decency to feel the need to lie. That means they are still capable of shame at their crime. It’s when they stop even feeling the need to lie that it’s really all over.
Last I heard about the SRR was that some Warrant Officers from a certain UKSF regiment were lamenting how none of them, bar those transferred from IntCorps, could even do the minimum required number of pullups for Army entry.
It seems to have been bladder control that was more the issue here. More pelvic floor exercises needed perhaps?
It is now reported that Ms Dick was not Gold Commander, instead she was in charge of the armed officers, Gold Commander was in charge of the surveillance operation. In true NuLabor style, there were more managers than workers (are we allowed to say more Chiefs than Indians any more?). Sounds like a recipe for chaos. Oh wait…
The report is that Ms Dick ordered her officers to arrest the suspect, but also to “stop” him getting on a tube. It’s a sort of “who will rid me of this turbulent priest” ambiguity which means she will possibly squirm her way out of responsibility. I feel she owed it to her men to give them clear orders. How did she think armed officers were going to “stop” a man they had been told was a suicide bomber? She’ll go far, no doubt about it.
It would be really interesting to see the legal opinions that the Metropolitan Police (or the Home Office) presumably obtained before adopting a “shoot to kill” policy in relation to suspected suicide bombers. Will these be leaked as well?
It would be really interesting to see the legal opinions that the Metropolitan Police (or the Home Office) presumably obtained before adopting a “shoot to kill” policy in relation to suspected suicide bombers. Will these be leaked as well?
It would be really interesting to see the legal opinions that the Metropolitan Police (or the Home Office) presumably obtained before adopting a “shoot to kill” policy in relation to suspected suicide bombers. Will these be leaked as well?
John K – no, no! I was was aware that it was Ms Cressida who was dubbed the Tsarina. To clarify, this was the same Ms Cressida who said the words “terrorist” and “Islamic” do not belong in the same sentence. She is a very sly and slimy operator. My bet: “Sir” Ian Blair will have to go, but the Tsarina will sail on.
Regarding the Brazilian, I still have a niggly feeling there was more to him than meets the eye.
Three days after he was shot, Jack Straw made an outraged and accusing announcement that the Brazilian was a legal immigrant, along the lines of “all you bigots leaping to conclusions”. This turns out to have probably been incorrect. So the Home Office is so successful at defending our borders that three days after an event, it isn’t really able to say whether someone was living and working in our country illegally, had a once-legal visa that had long expired or was on an expired visa or a forged visa. Every single thing NuLab touches falls to pieces in their hands.
In any event, I do not think we have heard the last about Mr Menezes.
What do you think we will hear about him?
DM – no idea. This whole episode, and the cover-up, are bizarre. It could be a one in 10m, but things like this, with all the surrounding circumstances, do not, as a rule, happen spontaneously. Obviously, I could be wrong. Like everyone else here, I am speculating.
Verity, you are getting your NuLabor pod people confused. It was Commander Brian Paddick who fatuously decreed that “Islamic” and “terrorism” should never be uttered together. Ms Dick has kept her mouth shut whilst she formulates her defence. She’s an operator, we’ve not seen the last of her. Between them, Blair, Paddick and Dick obviously represent the spearhead of the politically correct takeover of the Met, with the results we have seen.
Do not underestimate Jack Straw. He’s a player. When he got rid of his Himmler specs and started wearing contacts, it told me he sees himself in Number 10. When the Dear Leader goes to greatness, it is not inevitable that Gordon brown will become PM, especially if the economy has turned to shit by then. Every politico wants to be PM, and this will be Straw’s last chance as well as Brown’s. Should be interesting.
The whole debacle was simply a cockup driven by political imperatives,the “Little father of His People” had obviously stamped his foot and sent the word down that something should be seen to be done. His Myrmidons will have gone to any lengths to have their master smile on them again.
The whole thing willbe covered up ,simply because it was the political panic behind the events which resulted in hasty and erroneous action.It is however unmistakable from the shoot to kill policy that this was the Governments decision.
The whole debacle was simply a cockup driven by political imperatives,the “Little father of His People” had obviously stamped his foot and sent the word down that something should be seen to be done. His Myrmidons will have gone to any lengths to have their master smile on them again.
The whole thing willbe covered up ,simply because it was the political panic behind the events which resulted in hasty and erroneous action.It is however unmistakable from the shoot to kill policy that this was the Governments decision.
John K – I am not confused. It was Mistress Brian Paddick, aka Ms Dick, aka Cressida Dick, aka the Diversity Tsarina who said the words “terrorist” and “Islam” do not belong in the same sentence. I do agree, she’s an operator. I also recall her saying that she found “the word anarchy strangely appealing”. Amazing that the protection of the population of London is at the mercy of this madam.
Jack Straw’s a nasty, clingy little piece of work and I don’t doubt at all that he thinks he belongs in No 10. Given the current occupant, we can see they’re letting anyone in these days. Jack Straw’s a chippy, defensive chap, though. I remember seeing him, in a TV interview, say that his family were the only middle class family in the council estate where he was brought up. Both his parents were teachers.
Like Verity I have a niggling suspiscion that there is something else still to come out about the circumstances. My half-baked theory is that somebody deliberately fed false intelligence to the police hoping that it resulted in an innocent man getting shot.
As for Mr De Menezes’s immigration status I think that this is no longer really relevant to the shooting since it now seems that he did not run. The Home Office’s lack of information is worrying but certainly not news, it has been as bad as this for many years. Somebody with “permanent leave to remain” in the UK has that status marked by nothing more than an ink stamp in their passport, any central records kept of who has got these stamps are clearly not accurate. And the governemnt still think they can manage to run a national ID scheme!
Robert Alderson – I don’t think “someone” feeding false information to the police would be enough to get a man shot eight times. I just don’t believe it. Police round the world are aware that people are motivated to feed them false information in the hopes that they’ll act on it without investigation.
A poster above said there was a surveillance officer in the carriage that Mr Menezes was about to run into. How did a surveillance officer happen to be in that carriage, waiting? My personal theory – at the risk of sounding like someone who believes there was a rifle shot from the grassy knoll – is that this is something very important and it was choreographed to look like a regrettable accident.
I think more will come out about the mysterious Mr Menezes, who apparently crawled out of the slums of Sao Paulo and inexplicably came to England, where he spoke good English and worked, illegally, as an electrician. There is something about the history of Mr Menezes that does not hang together.
Has any word been heard from his employer, if any, which I doubt?
It may indeed have been a terrible, terrible mistake, but I am not yet convinced.
The public doesn’t know what the police procedures are, and somehow I get the feeling the police do not know their own procedures either!
Can somebody in that organization take responsibility and firming everything up? If they want to be thuggish nazis, at least be honest about it. If they want a soft approach, well then, make it clear too!
At this point, lack of communication at all levels is just making everybody argue round in circles.
TWG
Verity, why are you so obsessed with this “slum” comment? You mention it again and again continually questioning its authenticity? What relevance do you personally think it has, especially now as it seems he didn’t run from police? Where did this comment originate?
From here?
“The BBC’s correspondent in Brazil, Tom Gibb, said Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo”
What is it about the history of Jean Charles that doesn’t “hang together”?
at the risk of sounding like someone who believes there was a rifle shot from the grassy knoll
Don’t worry about it, there probably was.
GCooper wrote:
I thought the same thing…well, to be strictly honest, it was the “Justice4Jean Campaign” I thought artificial, having tried this same sort of publicity-seeking trick myself once or twice in my time (although never in such an exploitative fashion as to pick up on a killing). But what’s your underlying point, GCooper? If it is that an unwarranted police killing will draw all the Trots and other nutters out of the woodwork, “Well, duh!”.
Of course the SWP types will make hay out of this. So what? If when all is known it’s anything at all like what it appears right now then it’s a huge national scandal, or ought to be. I don’t care what some hard-left lawyer who’s managed to wheedle his way into the family has to say on the subject, I don’t need his opinion to know I’m outraged. I’m much more worried that they’ll announce a new season of Celebrity Big Brother and we’ll all forget about it.
Grant Gould had, IMO, the most striking comment in this thread:
Somehow, a silver-plate lining.
Mary Contrary writes:
“I thought the same thing…well, to be strictly honest, it was the “Justice4Jean Campaign” I thought artificial, having tried this same sort of publicity-seeking trick myself once or twice in my time (although never in such an exploitative fashion as to pick up on a killing). But what’s your underlying point, GCooper?”
There are many dynamics at work in a maelstrom. I’m probably as incensed as anyone at the thought of Plod gunning-down innocent people and I was one of those counselling caution when the initial response was some kind of jubilation at the thought of a suicide bomber receiving his just deserts at the hands of London’s finest.
It didn’t look that way to me then and it doesn’t look that way to me now.
But I’m deeply disturbed – sorry, I am just as deeply disturbed by the sudden glimpse afforded into the new establishment in this country as I am by the death of the apparently innocent victim of Plod’s stupidity.
For example, no one has yet answered my initial question. How does a family living thousands of miles away get itself hard-left legal representation within hours? Who made those contacts? How? Who pays for this? What is going on that we do not see?
I’m not as sanguine as you about the ramifications of this event. Not when I see the ultra-Left using this as a Gramscian tool to divide and destroy – these are the people, let’s not forget, who endorsed causes as divergent as the IRA and Islamism – they simply do not care which vipers they get into bed with as long as it helps destroy the status quo.
Then, we learn that in addition to the ludicrous roles in the Met occupied by PC clowns like Cressida Dick and Ian Blair, that the deputy head of the IPCC is someone called John Wadham. But don’t we know that name? Wasn’t he one of the leading lights of the grumpy-brigade ten years ago?
Where did this unelected elite appear from? Were we ever offered a vote?
I suppose what it boils down to is this. Yes, I am absolutely disgusted at what looks like the wanton slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes. But I am every bit as disgusted at the spectacle of ultra-Left creeps using this to advance their cause. I don’t like seeing how clowns like Blair and Dick take over the Met and I don’t like the ease with which sinister Marxist activists like Pierce et al are allowed to milk our criminal justice system to advance their own, mad, ends.
GCooper:
There are actually two very nasty groups involved in this: lets call them the successful and unsuccessful branches of the Movement.
The successful ones have more or less completed the Long March Through the Instititions. Thus,
the deputy head of the IPCC is someone called John Wadham. But don’t we know that name? Wasn’t he one of the leading lights of the grumpy-brigade ten years ago?
Wadham’s a bit of a lefty but one of the good guys. In fact he was the Director of Liberty until quite recently, and far too effective for the winner’s liking, which is why he got what they thought was backwater he couldn’t refuse when the IPCC was set up. Quite coincidentally there was an enormous struggle over the appointment of his replacement, and Shami Chakrabarti was installed (in my reading) as an innocuous compromise candidate. Strangely just at the time she’s beginning to look rather Liberty has found itself under attack from various activists of an older generation for neglecting the human rights of New Labour client groups.
As for the less successful ones, they are still finding transitional demands on every street corner. Thus,
For example, no one has yet answered my initial question. How does a family living thousands of miles away get itself hard-left legal representation within hours? Who made those contacts? How? Who pays for this? What is going on that we do not see?
Simple. Just as they did with the Lawrence family, they will have stepped forward at once to offer assistance. Maybe the police even gave “the family lawyer” the phone number. Their other clients, and freely given donations, subsidise it, because certain lawyers are not taxi-cabs but rally drivers–this is what they think lawyering is for.
I’m not as sanguine as you about the ramifications of this event. Not when I see the ultra-Left using this as a Gramscian tool to divide and destroy – these are the people, let’s not forget, who endorsed causes as divergent as the IRA and Islamism – they simply do not care which vipers they get into bed with as long as it helps destroy the status quo.
Nor am I all that sanguine. Though I don’t share your analysis. An SWP front springs up to “help” you whenever you do anything anti-establishment that might involve the general public. Not with the intention of dividing and destroying, but because they hope it might, just might, bring people on to the streets, let them see it is all the fault of capitalism, and unite and activate them for The Revolution.
It isn’t a Gramscian project. It’s not nearly so sophisticated and effective as that. Which is one of the reason it is so infuriating. They have no distinctions and will limpet on any cause, whether viperous, soft-hearted and woolily worthy, or of genuine value or importance, if it might give them a few more souls. There’s no strategy. Which is why it goes nowhere. But it is like bindweed round any number of grassroots political movements.
meanwhile the cos in Snotingaham are wearing green ribbons. this guy died due to multiculturalism and insane immigration. The bombers had no troubles getting in and out of the country they got citizenship when they were criminals. This guy who has european heritage was executed by an overzealous ex SAS type and had to pay 1200 pounds per year for the right to live and work in the EU on an extortionate student visa.
Given that it seems the police were intent on killing Mr Menezes. Does anyone think it would have made any difference if he had been carrying an ID card?
I agree with Verity there is something else to this story. It does look rather bad right now however.
What worries me is that it is an unwelcome distraction from the real concern which is further attacks.
A really big, bullet-proof ID card could have helped.
guy herbert writes:
“Simple. Just as they did with the Lawrence family, they will have stepped forward at once to offer assistance. Maybe the police even gave “the family lawyer” the phone number. Their other clients, and freely given donations, subsidise it, because certain lawyers are not taxi-cabs but rally drivers–this is what they think lawyering is for.”
I think what I was trying to express was more of a rhetorical question, and perhaps it should have read: ‘Why aren’t people being made aware of this?’
Within the yards of speculation and coverage (and even in the sensible newspapers) I have yet to see anything whatsoever about Gareth Pierce and her history, the professional SWP agitators and all the ragbag crew who are using this event, and others, to further their own ends and careers.
Regarding Wadham et al , I like your distinction between the successful and unsuccessful elements of this loose association. But again, it seems to me that this layer of lawyerly parasites exists as a well-fed, almost invisible caste (of only a few thousand) within British society, moving from well-paid quango to well-paid quango, to some degree actually running the show, without the public being aware it even exists.
As to whether there is a ‘Gramscian project’, well no, that isn’t what I think, in so far as the word ‘project’ suggests planning, co-operation and a tightly defined goal. In fact I’m not even sure that ‘Gramscian project’ isn’t an oxymoron. I think they are using Gramsci’s techniques and that these not only do not require cohesive attempts to undermine, they actually benefit from the looseness of the various components. It’s a project, only in so far as it has a more or less common purpose (the destruction of ‘bourgeois society’ ) and it is Gramscian, only in so far as it uses his methods.
Either way, I feel the British public is being spectacularly badly served by its media, which have failed in every respect to expose the burrowing beneath the surface of those trying to bring the whole thing down about its ears.
Andrew Ian Dodge – I’m glad I’m not the only one with a sense that much is hidden about this.
A mysterious stranger called Spodpaul has ridden onto the blog. He demanded, in typically leftist accusative tones, why I had harped several times (he had counted them) on Mr de Menzeses’ reported history in Sao Paolo slums. His insinuation was, I was obsessed with CLASS.
I was going to ignore it as too typical to bother with, but then you just posted above, so I’m going to address it as follows:
spodpaul – I am interested in the slum aspect because this was hugely put about when de Menezes was first shot. The tragedy of this poor man who had been brought up in a slum “gunned down” in London blah de blah-blah. I’ve never been in a slum in Sao Paulo, but from what we hear, they live barefoot in shanties and don’t have two reals to rub together.
Yet he came by the fare to come to England.
And England was an apparently strange choice. Portugal would not have been so exceptional, but Brazil has no historical ties with Britain. From my own experience, I know how little mental connection there is in Latin America with Europe. They’re not, by and large, interested in this side of the Atlantic.
I can see Brazilians coming to England on business, or being transferred by their companies, but England as the preferred destination of a Brazilian “slum dweller”?
And then this most unlikely immigrant does something else most unlikely: out of London’s daytime population of around 10m, he alone dies a violent death by the Metropolitan Police in a terrorist operation, possibly by accident, possibly not.
Were he not from a slum, why was this hammered about in the media, at first? Because it was thought the public would immediately slot him into their preconceptions about S America and forget it? Where did this instant misinformation come from with such despatch? Did editors email their correspondents in Sao Paolo saying , “Quick! Ever heard of a Charles Jean de Menezes?” and get the answer back, “The slum dweller?”
Or … they got this mysteriously detailed bio, on the very day of the shooting, .. from the Home Office … or the Met …
Somebody who was really born and brought up in a Sao Paolo slum is highly unlikely to have the means or ambition to come to London. I think that the original meme about the guy being from a slum was sloppy reporting based on hurried assumptions about Brazil. The guy had apparently been to university in Brazil and came to the UK to study further (this was the basis for his original visa.) His family live more than 100 miles from Sao Paolo. There are people in Brazil who are barefoot and penniless but this guy was not one of them.
I don’t think that the UK is a strange choice at all for a Brazilian, true there are no linguistic or cultural ties but it is a good place to learn English and thereby really get on in life.
I don’t buy it Robert Alderson. It wasn’t sloppy reporting. All the media carried the news about this individual being born in a slum in Sao Paulo. (If all the papers and broadcasters had coincidentally invented the same story, they would have chosen Rio, which people in Britain are more likely to have heard of.)
Came to study English, when the US is much easier to reach (he could have driven there) and where there are quarter of a million Brazilians in situ. I’m not saying it is impossible, but Latin Americans think of the Western Hemisphere first.
If you were going to improve your French, would you move to Ottawa? Where did he pursue this “further education” in Britain? Did he take a degree? And was working as an electrician? Did he have an employer, or was he a freelance electrician?
Either the Met or the Home Office put together a hasty story and sent it round the media, and it was immediate. He wore a padded jacket, he jumped a turnstile, he ran, he was shot, he was an electrician, he was from the slums of Sao Paolo. Instantly.
Verity, we both agree that there is something more to come out.
The story about the slums could well have been put out by the Met, if the media swallowed it uncritically then it was still sloppy reporting
Other than in purely airmiles terms I don’t think that the US is easier to reach. There’s probably not much difference in airfares and after 9/11 it has become much harder for students to get into the US. He could well have chosen England because it was easier to get a visa. I have heard nothing about whether he did a degree or not. It would not surprise me that he had come to “learn English” at one of the less than reputable English schools there are in London and had no real intention of doing anything other than working – and not just for the 12 hours per week his student visa would allow.
If I wanted to learn French I wouldn’t go to Ottawa, but I might give Montreal a try. Although the variety of English spoken in London is probably more intellegible to Americans than the variety of French spoken in Montreal is to Parisians.
At the moment it is not possible to drive from South America to North America; a section of the Pan-American highway between Panama and Colombia is unfinished (Darien gap) although there will very shortly be a highway completed from Brazil to Peru.
Verity. Bastantes! Um homem inocente foi assassinado. Admita seu erro. Weep e pray entao para a justica.
Well, Chris, I don’t speak Portugese, but you do sound a little hysterical.
We don’t know that this man was innocent. If he was, it was a tragedy, that goes without saying. But there seem to be many layers to this episode. I would like to know why it was immediately put about the media that this man was a slum dweller. Why? Not that I think we will know while this secretive, mendacious cabal’s running the country..
Verity
How ignorant u are! Loads of young people come here either to work or learn english from a variety of countries. Brazilians do not just go to the USA to learn english. Im an english teacher – have worked in japan and equal numbers of japanese go to australia, canada, usa and england. Its the same with other nationalities. Even if he had been from a poor family, it is quite common for families to help each other out eg use family savings or a cousin already in the country to loan the money. There are thousands in japan like that – yes from brazil its no great mystery. Loads of developing countries have a lot of their young people abroad-they work hard and send money home. A lot are from poorer areas of their country – even slums. U may b suprised that coming from slums does not always equate with ignorance about other countries and those people are very likely to be abroad. Sorry to state the obvious but just thought its quite weird u would think theres more too it for reasons like he didnt go to the USA -open yor eyes, get to know people and dont be so bloody narrow minded.
katie writes:
“Verity
How ignorant u are! Loads of young people come here either to work or learn english from a variety of countries. Brazilians do not just go to the USA to learn english. Im an english teacher – have worked in japan and equal numbers of japanese go to australia, canada, usa and england. Its the same with other nationalities.”
Jesus Christ ! You’re a teacher of what ?!?
If that was a sample of your expertise then heaven help the poor students you are defrauding!
Please help me! I feel a fisk coming on …
How ignorant u are!
Errr … OK.
Loads of young people come here either to work or learn english from a variety of countries.
Why would they want to “learn English from a variety of countries”?
Brazilians do not just go to the USA to learn english.
How many people from brazil have you taught english? I am certain there are educated, professional and upper middle class Brazilians who come to Britain, but they come already speaking very good English. You may want to get some of their phone numbers.
I have worked in japan and equal numbers of japanese go to australia, canada, usa and england
Doubtless after having encountered you in their classrooms in Japan.
Even if he had been from a poor family, it is quite common for families to help each other out eg use family savings or a cousin already in the country to loan the money. There are thousands in japan like that
From where? Tribal societies, like the Islamics. It’s primitive tribals who pool their resources to get one into the country to unlock the door for the rest of them. Not Brazilians. Do they all look alike to you?
Loads of developing countries have a lot of their young people abroad-they work hard and send money home. Apples and footballs, Kate! Workers, often illegal, send their money home, as in the Mexicans, but they are not in the host countries, very often illegally, to “learn English”. They are not attending your distinguished English classes at night school.
U may b suprised that coming from slums does not always equate with ignorance about other countries and those people are very likely to be abroad
I am indeed surprised. Normally, it’s agragrian tribes that send people abroad to get a foot in the door, not a melange of slum dwellers who don’t know one another. But I don’t want to look ignorant.
Sorry to state the obvious but just thought its quite weird u would think theres more too it for reasons like he didnt go to the USA -open yor eyes, get to know people and dont be so bloody narrow minded.
Don’t apologise. u r 2 rite, K8.
It is odd that the tapes were missing, anyone in security knows how important it is to have the CCTV loaded, particularly now. It is even odder when the police had sole access to it for three days after the murder. Face it the probability is they lost the tapes, the same way any guilty organistion will. I have known a hospital lose pages when they make a mistake.
There are armed terrorists on the streets of London and they work Ian Bliar.
Verity look at the facts. Everyone including the police aggree that this man was innocent. He was not a terrorist and did not deserve to be shot. I find your speculation on what he was doing in the country bizarre. I can only conclude that it is an attempt to deflect the from the bare facts. I am a natural conservative and would normally support the police in the difficult job they do. I support their right to question question anyone who fits the profile of a suspect. I think the recent practice of giving out leaflets explaining the right to complain when a suspect is stopped and searched is ridiculous. However I can not support the police in allowing a suspect to walk on to a tube and then empty 7 bullets into his brain. This man will never be able to complain about the police-unlike others stopped and searched. What surprises me is how mild the outcry has been.
Ian Blairs reaction when the mistake first came to like was shameful. He tried to blame the death on terrorism instead of taking proper accountablity for it. Shame on you too Verity for your offensive comments.
I have been following all the arguments and am, for the first time ever in my life, warming to the idea of a conspiracy. It goes something like this
After two successive rounds of bombs on the tube, the Met Police are under pressure to get a result. Particlary as evidence is mounting that second bombings were copycat affairs by amateurs. Police quickly find link to address of suspect in a block of flats (believe initially is is a house – as referred to by Sir Ian Blair on QuestionTime). Put “building” under surveillance, see de Menezes go home on 21/7 from Stockwell tube. Unable to identify him as resident (he is in fact illegal immigrant) and he is in late 20s and olive skiined so assume he is muslim and part of terror cell.
SO19 squad (maybe advised by Israeli advisors who have been training them – we know that) make pys-op plan – Plan A – to take out this unknown Moslem on tube next morning and claim have saved public from another tube bombing (hence he had to be on the tube at the time). Expected result – big smiles all round for the Met – bomber caught – Londoners save by brave police – and at same time message sent out to other would be bombers, look we shoot to kill. If relatives or friends claim victim was innocent police will man must have been radicalised unknown to family. Hence frame up complete. Must have seemed the perfect plan.
Friday 22/7 Plan A swings into action. House staked out. de Menezes emerges, No photos taken. Clearly he is not wearing any sort of explosive. Followed under cover to tube by police while armed response team is called. (Times today says a leaked story on 17 August said a policeman was actually told not to arrest him outside the tube.) At tube all CCTV disabled and murder squad waits at platform level. de Men descends underground (at this point “positive identification” is sent through according to the leaked accounts). de Men now boards train and one of surveillance team gets on behind him and holds door. Identifies him to waiting Murder squad who rush on and kill him.
Blair announces sucessful operation and shooting of man “directly linked” to bombers. Spins story to this effect. Then disaster, police discover shot man is not Asian Muslim at all but Brazilian roman catholic and completely unconnected to terrorists. (Around this time a defence expert tells press method of killing and weapons consistent with SAS methods of operating, not Met police. Police later reveal SAS involved in arrest of other 21/7 suspects).
Eye witness accounts of killing are confused. So to cover their tracks police hatch Plan B – spin story that de Men was wearing heavy coat typical of bombers, that he jumped barrier, failed to stop when challenged by police. Blair now delivers press statements to this effect. Also moves to delay IPCC investigation to their fury. IPCC inquiry delayed for several days while Plan B account circulates. Inquest report from police written, 5 days later, corroborates Plan B version of events.
IPPC furious and starts enquiry several days late, soon clear that police are spinning pack of lies. An IPCC staff member for reasons not yet clear, leaks to ITV News report transcripts and photos showing whta really happened. Emerges de Menezes was held down and shot. No challenge first, no bag, no heavy coat. Also emerges that Operation Kratos shoot to kill policy does not require challenge or identification of police to potential victim “in case bomber blows himself up”. Public and press outrage follows
Police fall back on Plan C – difficult time, need to protect public, mistakes happen. Not ideal for police as this suggest incompetence and danger for all men with dark skin on London streets aged 17-32 but is better than revealing Plan A – to shoot a “Muslim” in cold blood to score PR coup and send out warning to others.
Blair now briefs press with this line. Mayor and Home Secretary and Met Police Authority Chairman wheeled out to support him. IPCC still fuming. Briefs family lawyers who call it a chaotic mess.
Well it all hangs together.
Incidentally I don’t know about Justice4Jean team, it may simply be that they are as incensed as some of us are and wanted to help and that his family accepted because they do not speak much English and are unfamiliar with UK law.
I suspect involvement of human rights lawyer Gareth Pierce is a Bianca Jagger connection – you may remember she spoke at the memorial service for Jean Charles, as a fellow south american and as a human rights campaigner. I expect she got Gareth Pierce involved.
Blair is desperate to keep it underwraps for reasons outlined above and particularly if SAS or Israeli special forces were involved. Maybe even he did not know what was happening to start with, maybe he asked not to.
Comments anyone?
Mary – “Everyone including the police aggree that this man was innocent.”
And you believe everything the Met says, do you?
Had you managed to tamp down your politically correct outrage and followed the argument instead, you would have understood that this is my whole point. I do not believe them.
I find your preachy “shame on you” very provincial.
PS Mary – I’m interested in your remarking that my comments are “offensive” because I sense a thought Nazi here. Offensive to whom? You surely don’t imagine that Menezes’s relatives in Brazil are going to read them?
Offensive to you?
GCooper wrote:
The de Menezes family do not all live in Brazil, some of them demonstrated outside parliament and Scotland Yard on the Sunday after the shooting, which is where they met those people now helping them deal with the media – some of whom do have regrettable links with the SWP.
Pays for what? A hotmail account and a couple of press releases?
Jeff Parks – do they live in Britain, or were they bussed in?
This gets curiouser and curiouser.
Jean de Menezes was living in the flat in Stockwell with two cousins. He also worked with a Brazilian friend or maybe relative and there is a photo doing the rounds showing them all at a barbeque a week or so before he was killed. There are 100,00 Brazilians in London and many Brazilians live in the same area he did. I think he also attendd the Brazilian church here.
The young man we have seen interviewed this week with the Justice4Jean/SWP outriders is in fact a cousin over from Brazil to see for himself and report back to the family. I am sure the J4J team are working it as a cause to beat all the Blairs up with, but they appeared genuinely solicitous of the bewildered young cousin.
There is a huge row in Brazil over it and it may be the workers party who have been protesting about it paid for him to come. Plus the Met police have already paid for some expenses and I think Gareth Pierce may have done so as well. If she was hired via the Bianca Jagger connection that may be underwriting her fees but she is known to do pro bono work for causes she believes in.
de Menezes may have been born in a “slum” or lived in one in Brazil but his family are impoverished rural labourers now living in a remote rural area. He was a bright lad who became an electrician. He tried to go to the States but could not get in so came to the UK where he did an English course and stayed on, scratching a living as a part time electrician’s mate and also working as a kitchen porter.
Michael Portillo writing in the papers today says when he was Defence Secretary they spent ages deciding and approving rules of engagement for soldiers fighting overseas who could be and were prosecuted if they overstepped the mark and shot innocent people.
Yet here we now have completely unaccountable death police death squads running around London operating according to rules (Kratos) which have never been made public or debated.
Interesting there are also reports (in the Observor I think) that there were in fact soldiers attached to the armed response units and they did not get on with the police in the squads.
Early on the Professor of Defence Studies at Kings College said the weapon and style of killing had the hallmarks of the special forces.
So maybe it was special forces attached to the police who killed him which of course puts the police in a very difficult position because the special forces cannot be named and are I believe immune from prosecution. It might also explain why the CCTV cameras footage have gone missing. (My own theory is that he was killed by Israeli “trainers” who had been teaching the police gun teams how to tackle sucide bombers and gave a practical lesson in this case).
Incidentally I see that the “Tsarina” was previously Head of Diversity at the Met and got the job running the gun squad as she was being groomed for higher things and needed some “battle” experience. Makes you weep doesn’t it.
Sir Ian is so far up New Labours a—e that it seems unlikely he will resign – but maybe he will have to fall on his sword to hush things up.
We must have at the very least a public enquiry and an explanation of the rules under which Kratos operates
rockette
GCooper:
You’re a teacher of what ?!?
In my natural pessimism, I have for some time suspected that the English language used by those under, say, 25 is not mutually intelligible with the English language that 20th century speakers and readers. I find great difficulty making myself understood in chat-space or on the streets, and have severe lapses in comprehension.
Maybe katie’s pupils are better equipped.
Jeff Parks writes:
“Pays for what? A hotmail account and a couple of press releases?”
But it is rather more than that, isn’t it? Most of these professional agitators seem to be well-fed and clothed, presumably manage to pay their rents and telephone bills and otherwise survive in this profoundly expensive country.
The more information that comes out about this case, the less it seems we really know – both about the victim and the shadowy figures collaborating to exploit any and every opportunity for discontent.
guy herbert writes:
“In my natural pessimism, I have for some time suspected that the English language used by those under, say, 25 is not mutually intelligible with the English language that 20th century speakers and readers”
Perhaps it was ever thus in, like, squaresville, daddy-o?
rockette – ah yes, the Biana Jagger connection. She’s from Nicaragua, in the continent of Central America. She speaks Spanish. Brazil is on the continent of S America and they speak Portuguese. I may be wrong, but I think she is more concerned about rights of peasants in her own country, although she may have given up on that too and be living permanently on the Riviera by now. Who knows? But if she was interested in righting injustices visited on people by the police, I think she would have plenty to do right in her own country,never mind expanding down to Brazil and across 3000 miles of Atlantic to England.
I keep saying, no matter how it infuriates Guy Herbert, there is much, much more to this incident than we are supposed to know and I do not think it necessarily reflects badly on the Met. (I had to grit my teeth to write that sentence.)
Interesting who is heading up the instantly formed Justice4Jean campaign, what? George Galloway’s aide. He has a muslim first name.
I have not believed a word of this from the beginning, and I am still not convinced the police got the wrong man.
If one of Gorgeous George’s little helpers is part of the Justice4Jean campaign (I really cringe with that misuse of 4) is that any surprise? It’s a good stick with which to beat the Met. The point is the Met gave them that stick. The first time they used the Op Kratos doctrine it failed spectacularly. They killed an innocent man, and they cannot get away from the fact. Believe me, if they could, they would. Now various agitprop merchants have got a good way to seek to hobble the police. And frankly, if the likes of Cressida Dick now have the power of life and death over us, for once the Commies may have a point.
Don’t buy it, John. Galloway and Red Ken are major buds. He wouldn’t trash the Cheeky Chappy’s patch. Not out of newly found principles or anything, but they need each other.
Just to throw another bullet into the equation, as it were: say our Brazilian was already working for some branch of the Secret Service?
Inter-departmental jealousy perhaps, or fears he had “turned”, led to an order to eliminate him.
Maybe some intelligence said he was feeding information to known terrorist sympathisers. Or perhaps he posed a risk to blowing the cover of someone in a good position.
It could be he was an agent of some other foreign intelligence…
There is, as many have said, something not right about all this.
Verity – why can’t you just accept that Jean Charles de Menezes was an innocent man murdered by incompetent police officers? From day one you have not wanted to admit he was an innocent man. Your first post on this incident remarked
Seeing as those weren’t the correct facts as understood now why not accept he was innocent and leave it at that?
Also your quizzing why a Brazilian would want to come to England is quite ridiculous, maybe he liked fish and chips? We aren’t programmed by nationality on our choices.
JC – as always, a naive, smart alecky response to serious questions. As in: “Also your quizzing why a Brazilian would want to come to England is quite ridiculous, maybe he liked fish and chips?”
Maybe he did. In an international city of 18m people, I assure you, there will be fish and chip shops. You wouldn’t have to find a couple of thousand dollars to travel to England to find a chippie. London, a city half the size of Sao Paolo, will have restaurants serving Brazilian food.
I didn’t ask why wouldn’t “a Brazilian” have his heart set on moving to Britain? I asked why would a “Brazilian slum dweller” have such an aspiration . I realise you don’t get out of Britain much, but a Brazilian slum dweller would, in all likelihood, not have heard of Britain. Hard to believe, eh?
Something is wrong with this narrative, and they were counting on ignorance for acceptance of the first explanation. Then the second explanation …
You are correct when you note that I was uneasy from the start.
I would imagine Mr Menzes might have fancied coming to London to work because:
London is an international city with a large Brazilian community;
There is a building boom going on, and any decent electrician should have no problem finding work;
British immigration controls are a joke, so you can come on a student visa and stay as long as you like;
Compared to Brazilian conurbations London is a pretty safe city where you have less risk of being gunned down by a death squad. Which is the great irony here.
Is there anything to suggest that Mr Menezes wasn’t doing the same as so many people with a bit of get up and go, trying to better himself and make a few quid?
Verity:
“A mysterious stranger called Spodpaul has ridden onto the blog.”
Quite a flair for the dramatic! I can almost hear those horse hooves.
It just seemed to me that you had latched on to this fact and made out that it was in some way important (I came to this conclusion from the number of times you mentioned it but I’m afraid I can’t give you a definite total). Personally I took it as just one of many minor facts about his background that journalists were using to convey the human angle their readers like so much.
“Hugely put about” you say? It was barely mentioned in the first article (BBC) in which I saw it: “Mr Menezes had lived for a time in a slum district of Sao Paulo and that could explain why he had run from the police” – my emphasis.
“All the media carried the news about this individual being born in a slum in Sao Paulo” – see article listed in my post above and this one that contradict that statement.
You see something suspicous in a Brazilian man coming to live and work in London, most people see this as the normal ebb and flow of foreigners coming to one of the largest and most cosmopolitan cities in the world. The fact that he had family over here makes it even more understandable.
Simply put, the facts don’t bear out your interpretation.
“I have not believed a word of this from the beginning, and I am still not convinced the police got the wrong man.” I have to credit you for stating your assertion so baldly, at least you haven’t left it at insinuation and rumour. Time (by which I mean the IPCC investigation) will tell whether you were right to disregard Occam’s razor and see a conspiracy. However I get the feeling that regardless of what the inquiry finds you’ll carry on believing how suspicious it all is that someone born in the brazilian slums (not true) found his way to England (even though tens of thousands of brazilans do just that) and not to America (increasingly difficult to do, and if rockette is correct he had already tried and failed) to work as an electrican (in a city crying out for skilled tradesmen).
The horrible irony in all this is that many people initially implied it was partly Jean Charles’ fault he was killed because he ran from police when he was challenged. If what we currently know is true, he didn’t run, but if he had in fact ran when challenged he might still be alive today.
People make mistakes. That is a fact. Whilst the death of this lad is a tragedy, what can we do? prosecute the person(s) who did it, cripple morale in the only organisation trying to protect the people of London being the outcome. What do you all expect of the police? wait, check, check again then hope he dosent have a bomb. There is a wider issue here, I fully agree that they were wring to shoot in this case, but I want wouldnt want the police to be restained or hesitate when faced with a choice like this. This is so typical of the UK, we implode and turn on oursleves in times of crisis. I read here a lot of criticism, hang em all, prosecute, maniacs blah blah – ok, what would you do? what should we do? what should the police do? Again, I agree mistakes were made which ended in a preventable death. But anyone got any decent suggestions on the defence of London? On another note, soldiers in Iraq are being prosecuted due to pressure from human rights lawyers, where do the met stand?
Paul:
Yes people do make mistakes, its part of life. However we can make a distinction between a tragic mistake and criminal negligence – that is what the inquiry should attempt to ascertain.
If you don’t reveal and punish such negligence it’s more likely such a thing could happen again. For example all if a surgeon has a slip of the hand and accidentally kills someone that could be seen as a tragic mistake, however if it turns out he was drunk at the time… or was knowingly ignoring standard procedures as a shortcut then that’s a whole different matter.
Let me be clear, I don’t see anything morally wrong with killing someone who is intent on taking many innocent lives, however I just can’t see how a shoot to kill policy against suicide bombers can be effective in practice. The key word here is suicide, these people don’t care if they die, so you can’t hold them at gunpoint and order them to do things because they aren’t going to listen. Therefore immediately after they have been challenged by police (or however they become aware they are being pursued) they have the option of detonating the bomb there and then. Logically the only sure way it to shoot them in the head without them even being aware of a police presence, however that has two problems: 1) If the bomber has set his bomb to detonate after he releases the switch (which is perfectly feasible if you’re a suicide bomber) the bomb still goes off
2) We’ve already seen one innocent man shot because of this policy and that was apparently while he was fully restrained and the marksman was at point blank range. I shudder to think of the mistakes that might be made attempting to shoot a person from distance.
I don’t think there is that much the police can do once a suicide bomber is armed and in amongst the public (so why let Jean Charles get anywhere near a bus let alone the tube!?), perhaps someone with more security experience than I have could tell us otherwise. Mind you, if it were possible to do something surely Israel with all its experience wouldn’t be suffering as many attacks as it does.
We can fight terrorism at a higher level, preventing the causes, targeting the recruiters, arresting the bombmakers, BEFORE they strap someone up with a bomb and send them out the door. At that point it might well be too late, as testifed by the fact that four bombers got onto london public transport and attempted to detonate their bombs a mere two weeks after four similar bombings and when London was on the highest possible alert. The only thing that saved us then was pure dumb luck.
I agree with a lot of what people are saying here, the thing is that we always seem to implode when things like this happen. We should be trying to focus on prevention of terrorism and as a matter of course, prevention of innocent people being killed. This is a time of support, we can witch hunt later when we are not under threat. What happened to Jean will be sorted out, if some copper is at fault, then he needs to be sorted. I dont think for one instant though that he was some blood thirsty gun toting looney looking for a kill. The pressure under these circumstances is amazing, I know, I have been there as a soldier in Northern Ireland and the Balkans – shoot or not to shoot. We had a saying, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. I feel for the coppers in this case, no one wants to be marked as a murderer / trigger happy as they will pose a threat to the public and there own colleagues. I know on a whole that the police are the best trained people for the job, it was a major step for them to agree to a shoot to kill policy, in this case it back fired. I think under normal circumstances they would not fired, these are not normal circumstances. I want them on the streets, I want them to protect me and my family. I mourne for the family of Jean to.
What the Police did in shooting the innocent Brazilian was very unfortunate and played directly into the hands of the terrorists who are trying to destroy our way of life and our country.
The Police did what they had to do and no-one can really question what they did for a number of reasons. Firstly and probably the most obvious reason being that if it had been a suicide bomber no-one would have given it a second thought.
However in my opinion one of the most important reasons why the Police should be left alone to do what they do (99.9% of the time very well) with no enquiry and no ‘heads rolling’ is this. Only a very small number of the people in this ‘Nanny State’ would ever have the courage and guts to do what these people do every day. They walk our streets, protecting us carrying weapons that would scare most people just to look at let alone use. They have to make life or death decisions in a split second that others would have to take days or weeks to take.
They did their job and they made a mistake. They are human beings and human beings make mistakes everyday and no-one even notices. A single innocent man was killed purely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is gut wrenchingly unfortunate and every respect and thought should be with his family. However, this is no-one’s fault.
We live in a ‘Blame’ society where every time something goes wrong everyone points the finger at someone. Sometimes and only very rarely it’s no-ones fault. We’re fighting against the most evil people on the face of the earth at present and innocent lives have been lost and I have no doubt many more will be lost before this is over, maybe my own, maybe yours but something has to be done to combat this evil and that is what the Police did that day and in my opinion they should be praised, not criticised.
What the Police did in shooting the innocent Brazilian was very unfortunate and played directly into the hands of the terrorists who are trying to destroy our way of life and our country.
The Police did what they had to do and no-one can really question what they did for a number of reasons. Firstly and probably the most obvious reason being that if it had been a suicide bomber no-one would have given it a second thought.
However in my opinion one of the most important reasons why the Police should be left alone to do what they do (99.9% of the time very well) with no enquiry and no ‘heads rolling’ is this. Only a very small number of the people in this ‘Nanny State’ would ever have the courage and guts to do what these people do every day. They walk our streets, protecting us carrying weapons that would scare most people just to look at let alone use. They have to make life or death decisions in a split second that others would have to take days or weeks to take.
They did their job and they made a mistake. They are human beings and human beings make mistakes everyday and no-one even notices. A single innocent man was killed purely because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is gut wrenchingly unfortunate and every respect and thought should be with his family. However, this is no-one’s fault.
We live in a ‘Blame’ society where every time something goes wrong everyone points the finger at someone. Sometimes and only very rarely it’s no-ones fault. We’re fighting against the most evil people on the face of the earth at present and innocent lives have been lost and I have no doubt many more will be lost before this is over, maybe my own, maybe yours but something has to be done to combat this evil and that is what the Police did that day and in my opinion they should be praised, not criticised.
Tom:
1. Posting something twice does not make it more true;
2. If you are Sir Ian Blair just say so.
Oh, dear god! Here we go again. Spodpaul: “We can fight terrorism at a higher level, preventing the causes, targeting the recruiters, arresting the bombmakers…”
“preventing the causes”. Oh, we are the world; we are the children. Right. The only way to prevent terrorism is to outlaw Islam worldwide. They have a mission to convert or kill the infidel. Du-uh. Read the koran. And simpering around looking for root causes isn’t going to save your skin.
It was hugely put about – I was not just referring to the BBC; in fact I seldom refer to the BBC because I only go to their site for laughs – that this fellow was from the slums of Sao Paolo. This was instantaneous information fed to the media.
John K says “London is an international city with a large Brazilian community;” So is Rio. And at least twice as big as London. And why would Menezes run the risk of being gunned down by a death squad in Brazil? What had he done? I know people who live in large Brazilian cities and they have never seen a death squad in their lives.
Spodpaul: ” The horrible irony in all this is that many people initially implied it was partly Jean Charles’ fault he was killed because he ran from police when he was challenged. ” It wasn’t “implied”, as though someone was sneaking the thought in. It was in all the papers. The first episode in the disinformation campaign.
“tens of thousands” of Brazilians do not come to London to work. There is a population of around 60K.
rockette said the US was his first choice, but he failed to get permission to live there. I wonder why he was rejected?
If it turns out that this man was innocent (and wasn’t “playing chase” with his cousin in a tube station that was swarming with police) then it most assuredly is a tragedy. But there is too much that doesn’t hang together. And now there’s this big Galloway-led bandwagon (headed up by a Muslim).
I agree with Paul. The British turn in on themselves, and it’s not conducive to survival.
I agree with Paul’s posting. These officers had a split second to decide. People making these decisions from Jane’s Fighting Armchairs have somewhat more time to reflect and their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens are not on the line.
I also agree with Tom’s reasoned post.
John K – You’ve never posted twice, then?
Verity are you saying we can’t fight the causes of terrorism? Must all fighting be done at the front line? At the last link in the chain?
Forgive my impertinence but I think you meant to say:
“The only way to prevent Islamic terrorism is to outlaw Islam worldwide”
Its possible you’re right. Given that there will ALWAYS be certain people (usually angry young males) drawn to violent causes, if Islam exists its probable some of these people will be born and raised as moslems and view it as a “cause” that needs fighting for. In the same way protestants and Catholics did, and Basque separatists did, and hindu militants did etc etc.
My point being that we’ll never entirely get rid of terrorism in the same way we’ll never be rid of murder – there will always be someone. That isn’t a reason not to try our hardest to stop all terrorism at all levels.
Presumably you’re saying that Islam contrubutes to a terrorist idealogy more so than, say, Christianity. As much as it may shock you to hear me say it, you might be right. That doesn’t mean however that Islam needs to be banned to defeat the majority of terrorism. You ask me to read the Koran, well here you are, Chapter 60, verse 9:
“Allah forbids you not respecting those who have not fought against you on account of your religion, and who have not driven you out from your homes, that you be kind to them and deal equitably with them; surely, Allah loves those who are equitable.” – if you can work out the double negatives!
On the other hand if you look elsewhere in the Koran you can find justification for a holy war. The point being that a text as large as the Koran (and this holds true for the Bible and the Torah and probably the vedas etc. etc.) can be interpreted in many different ways (although I think it would be hard to find anywhere that supports the actions of 9/11 and the bombings of Madrid and London). Perhaps we’d have more effect influencing the way its taught rather than banning all teaching.
Speaking personally I would like to see an end to ALL religion, however I would never suggest it be banned. At most, I think religion should be a personal matter, not something that governs behaviour of a nation.
Tom, Verity:
“They have to make life or death decisions in a split second” – this is true and I sympathise with people in this position. However you seem to assume we’re looking to blame the guy who pulled the trigger, that isn’t so. We might find he acted exactly as he should have done given the information he’d been provided with. Someone else further up the chain of command might be the one responsible for this death. That’s why we need an inquiry. We certainly shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders and say, ‘These things are bound to happen, and anyway its only one guy compared to the 52 others. Besides it’s a difficult job and I bet YOU wouldn’t want to do it’.
Verity,
Tom’s “reasoned post” said that the police should be left to get up to their business with no inquiries. I’m not that happy to give Cressida Dick and Brian Paddick the right to decide who is shot dead with no career consequences.
The use of Operation Kratos means this is a real can of worms. You see, traditionally, no British police officer can be ordered to shoot anyone. The decision is his alone, because he will have to answer for it in court if necessary. However, Kratos says that to “stop” an identified suicide bomber (which of course Menezes wasn’t, neither identified nor a bomber) then the policy is to shoot for the head with no warning. Thus, if Cressida Dick ordered her men to “stop” Menezes, then under this policy she was indeed ordering his death. She was telling them that he was a bomber and they had to shoot him without warning. But if she ordered them to arrest him, but also to stop him entering Stockwell station, then she has really muddied the waters. If he was a bomber, he couldn’t be arrested, but if he could be arrested, there was no need to use the Kratos policy to shoot him without warning. Do you think Cressida was a bit out of her depth on this one? If so, do you really think she should be allowed to operate without any scrutiny?
The Met is behaving appallingly over this. They shot an innocent man. Their press officers gave unattributable briefings to the effect that Menzes left a “house” that was under surveillance, not a block of flats, that he was wearing a heavy coat, that he jumped the barriers at Stockwell station, that he ran when challenged. They got the shooters out of the country the day after the incident, they tried to stop the IPCC investigating, and now it looks as if they may well have tampered with the video evidence from Stockwell station. Do you really think none of this deserves any sort of investigation?
Does anyone really think that the met press office deliberately gave false press briefings? likewise does anyone really think that the met boss decided to lie in front of the media? When you look at an op such as this there are hundreds of police, transport police, plain clothes police, armed response units, dog handlers, chiefs injuns the works. The man or woman at the top rarely knows what the score is for hours / days after until everyone has been de briefed fully. The front line coppers will be clouded for starters, in these situations your mind becomes blanked whilst your focus on specific things, in this case jean. I am not excusing these people, but I know first hand what they will feel and experience. Stories will differ, from the people in the carriage to all the other hundreds of police involved in the operation. Its a fact! I can say this because I know, in operations in Northern Ireland, the de briefs were sometimes comical, because of the law, soldiers had to be de briefed in silos to prevent “gossip” influencing statements, its was hilarious sometimes to read the differences in statements, 10 people, 30 people, 5 dressed as clowns you know what I am getting at, all because your judgement becomes clouded under stress. The police management and press office wont have known at the initial press conference what actually happened. There will have been guess work, numerous reports and so forth. I wouldnt fancy that job! Re the IPCC, of course they didnt want them involved at that stage, because at that stage the genuinely thought they had stopped a bomber, it was an anti terrorist operation. If they had realised then they had topped an civvy, then it would have been dealt with like any other un lawful police shooting. One thing we are all forgetting, there have been 18 unlawful police shootings since 1988. Why the major focus on this one? I dont see the human rights people knocking on the door for all the other cases…..
“rockette said the US was his first choice, but he failed to get permission to live there. I wonder why he was rejected?”
Verity,
Overall, international enrollments at universities in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. have risen by 10, 15, and 23 percent respectively in the last year. By contrast, the total number of international students in all majors at U.S. colleges stands at 586,000—an increase of just 0.6 percent from the previous year. In 2003, the number of student visas issued by the U.S. dropped 8 percent to 214,694, following a 20 percent decline in 2002. This represents the two biggest drops since the government began tracking student statistics in 1952.
and
Nor is the situation limited to the student population. William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, tells of an August visit to Russia, where members of the prestigious Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) complained bitterly about difficulties in obtaining visas for U.S. visits. “I am at a loss to convey the strength of their reaction,” Wulf wrote in a letter to National Academy members. “Some said they had waited as long as a year and had still not received visas. Words like ‘demeaning’ and ‘insulting’ were used repeatedly and heatedly.”
full text available at http://www.designnews.com/article/CA478164.html(Link)
It is possible that he was denied for no good reason.
Journalists speaking on Radio 4 last Saturday morning said precisely that they received unattributable briefings from Met press officers in the days after the shooting, spinning the story that Menezes was the author of his own downfall due to his behaviour. They found Ian Bliar’s claim that the Met doesn’t do spin particularly risible.
As to debriefs in NI, how would people have taken it if the army tried to stop any investigation of a shooting, and then got the men involved out of the country on a holiday paid for by the job before they could make statements to the investigators? Might that have been seen as just a little odd?
Tom 2:29
If it had been a bomber no-one would give it second thought
couldnt agree more. The fact that he wasnt a bomber doent change the way the police should react. If they hadnt shot him id be very worried
Wow, what an outpouring of invective. All those that viscously attacked me must be suffering from a bad case of guilty conscience. Could I have touched a raw nerve? So to all those fragile ego trusting souls that believed authority’s version of the Stockwell shooting, and now can’t admit they may have got things just slightly out of perspective, I say this: Truth hurts, huh? If you are “innocent”, naturally this does not apply.
However, at least I have the moral courage to put my money where my mouth is, and emigrate off out of Police State UK (pending). The threat to your way of life is not synonymous with the threat to Britain, however much you may try to deceive yourselves to the contrary. You moral high ground jokers don’t really think you speak for the ignorant, inarticulate, downtrodden, silent mass of the British people? They are too dumbed down and apathetic to distinguish between erosion of civil liberties and a hole in the ground. You’d have to ban football to get them manning the barricades. And make the most of anti-government blogging. UK based bloggers and blogging sites can expect to be shut down when Tyrant Tony has his way. “Love it or leave it” is intended as a rebuke, but in fact it’s good advice. Turn it around and you have “hate it and leave it”. Trust me, finding a more democratic country is not the issue. You don’t feel anything like as incensed when it’s not your country as you can always vote with your feet. So if you ever find yourself in downtown Beijing, Vientiane or even Yangon (Rangoon in BBC speak)… One advantage of a military dictatorship (besides not having an extradition treaty with UK), at least you can walk the streets at night. You wouldn’t last 10 minutes in London of a Friday night. So what are you getting for your high prices and even higher taxes? On a conciliatory note, nothing like a bit of uncalled for personal abuse to help one raise one’s game.
I’d like to write something eloquent but this doesn’t really call for eloquence. Just shoot the bastard police scum. Declare a republic. I too am fed up of living in a police state. In 1919 my Grandfather returned to a “land fit for Heroes” We are still waiting. Oh and a word to Special Branch-Go screw yourselves.What use are you?Wasnt Enniskillen in 1987 an “own goal”?
Very bogus argument. They did not have a split second to decide, they had from the moment he left his flat all the way until he got on the tube to decide. There is NO evidence he did ANYTHING to justify the reasonable suspision he was a suicide bomber. If they thought he was, why the hell was he allowed to get on a bus? Sorry but something does not add up here and all we are getting from the police is lies when absolute transparency is called for.
I was one of those who was willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt until the facts were in as if he WAS a person whose actions gave rise to the reasonable expectation he was a suicide bomber, then the shooting would be regretable but legitimate. But the facts have not bourne that out at all and we still have no plausible explaination why this happened.
No, the idea the police should get a free ride is both unwise and frankly monstrous.
And how exactly will that make the slightest difference? Were you under the impresion the Queen was somehowe involved shooting this guy dead?
Perry 2:46
they may have had 5 mins to comtemplate it but he only displayed hostile action in the station, and im quite sure time will seem to go faster when your own and 50 other lives are on the line. The only poeple really qualified to critise the officers involved are other officers who have faced the same position.
Did he? Not according to the witnesses who said he just looked confused and then terrified when the armed cops challenged him. Who said he acted ‘hostile’? By all the accounts I have read he was just sitting there on the tube before that.
That is an incredible position to take. So what you are saying is that if a cop, say, shoots your mother dead whilst she is going about her lawful business on the tube, and then refuses to give a consistent and factually supported reason why that was done, you do not feel anyone except another cop is qualified to ask the hard questions and criticize what was done?
Are you of the view that civilian control of the police is a bad thing and they should be free to do whatever they think is for the best in their uncontested view?
well, i think that running from police in the atmosphere after 7/7 IS a hostile action, and I would have been very worried if the police hadnt shot him.
If it had been me in that station i would have expected the police to shoot me if i ran. The point is that there is NO INNOCENT REASON for someone to run, that is why it was percieved as hostile.
The civilians control the police through their elected leaders. You have not got the information they have and cannot pass judgement.
You should not criticise the police unless you are willing to take the job and risk your life for the people of this country. You cannot understand the situation, circumstances or consequences of the situation they faced at the time.
fh, don’t you read the newspapers? He DID NOT RUN FROM THE POLICE!
The initial report after it turned out he was NOT a terrorist was:
1. he was wearing an unseasonable bulky padded jacket
2. He ran from the cops after being told to stop,
3. they chased him into the tube,
4. he jumped over the ticket barrier,
5. ran into the train
6. and they shoot him dead because he was not retrained and could have set off a bomb.
And with THAT in mind, I continued to support the police action as a tragic but strongly mitigated error. But…
It turns out that he was only wearing a short denim jacket, he was NOT told to stop (in fact he calmly took the bus to the tube), thus he did not run form the cops, he did not jump the ticket barrier (he used his travel card in fact) and he just walked onto the tube and sat down. Moreover, he was pinned to the ground by several cops and THEN shot dead.
Sorry, but to put it bluntly HOW THE HELL was this man’s actions interpreted as those of a suicide bomber about to blow himself up?
the truth is that at this point we cannot discern what happened. Seeing as we dont know what hapened the police deserve at the very least to be considered innocent until proven guilty. You seen hell bent on prejudguce and condeming them at every turn. Personally i respect the police and therefor am inclined to believe their verson. Most police officer join the force to protect those who cannot defend themselves. they dont join so they have the chnage to kill people. as there is no real reson to believe otherwise i have to believe that the police acted as they thought best, and that this was in the publics best interest.