Please explain to me why there is even any question regarding the facts surrounding the death of Jean Charles de Menezes? I would be amazed if almost every inch of his final journey was not caught on the omnipresent CCTV cameras that disfigure London’s streets. Was anything we were told born out by the evidence? It should be quite easy to check.
Clearly the Metropolitan Police is in the midst of a massive crisis in which the most fundamental question needs to be asked: “Can the police be trusted not to recklessly slaughter people who are just going about their lawful business?”
Only complete transparency over the process and the facts leading up to the shooting can even begin repair the damage to Metropolitan Police credibility. As things stand, a rational observer would have to conclude the Metropolitan Police is run by incompetents and liars. Was being in charge of the ‘Diversity Directorate’ the proper background for Cressida Dick to be put in charge of such work?
And then when John Wadham, the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission says “The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation, but we overcame that”, but Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police replies that is untrue, well someone is lying then. Is it the head of the Met or the Head of the IPCC? At this point the credibility of the British Establishment is approaching the credibility levels of a ZANU-PF press release.
Release all CCTV footage showing the fatal journey of Jean Charles de Menezes as clearly the words of the police as to what happened are now worthless. If this is not done, one could be forgiven for thinking the reason the state so loves CCTV is only to detect crimes which are not committed by agents of the state. One law for them and another for us?
Release the footage because the ‘official line’ is now as credible as a Comical Ali war report from Iraq.
Perhaps the Met need a crisis blog?
”
Was being in charge of the ‘Diversity Directorate’ the proper background for Cressida Dick to be put in charge of such work?”
Yes it was. In the weird convoluted world where ‘community relations’ and ‘racial sensitivity’ are the most important aspects of police work, the present situation, where any rational discussion about the reality of what is happening oftimes results in cries of racism, is best dealt with not by someone who specialises in law enforcement but rather by someone who has experience in ‘Diversity’.
Lunatics.
Chris Harper – I find your post a little odd, given that the Diversity Tsarina concerns herself with grievances of foreigners/aliens against her own race and sex. She is quoted as saying she loves anarchy. This is what London has been reduced to by Pakistani terrorists? Cressida swinging her baton in their service?
There are many forms of victory, and Ms Dick is one head taken by the enemy.
As Head of Diversity Ms Dick has brought the Met a long way,they are only whacking Brazilians now.
Transparency is impossible – especially CCTV bears out the worst case of incompetence, lies, and cover-up. That evidence needs to be shown to a judge and jury! Public curiosity must take second place in the queue.
The police control the cameras.
The police control the guns.
The police control you.
Orwell was an optimist.
Never been to England. Too late to see it now.
Mark, wrong.
Shopowners control the cameras (police can ask to see). Police have guns but are no means in control of the “illegal gun culture”. And police aren’t particularly controlling anyone. They’re too up themselves with “diversity” and “community relations”.
This theme of this sorry saga is police incompetence. The silly buggers couldn’t even cover up properly. Be afraid of them, not as some jackbooted menace, but rather as a five-yer-old with ADHD and a loaded gun.
First of all, shopowners only control the cameras on their premises. The police – via the private companies mandated to operate them – control the CCTV cameras omnipresent on the streets in most cities in the UK. Further, any shopowner refusing a request to view CCTV footage will suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of a campaign of threats and intimidation, from the offer of arrest & prosecution for obstructing a police officer (and I despise using that term – they are not officers) up to attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Free will?
Quite, TPO. Last night an even grander example of police intimidation was proudly displayed as PR for the police on the most popular British TV channel (an independent commercial one).
The program (“Inside Crime”) was one of those encouraging people to assist with current investigations and appealing for witnesses to various murders and robberies. Fine. I don’t think I have a problem with that: seems like a genuine public service. But of a 25 minute programme something like a fifteen minute segment was devoted to cameras accompanying police in Dartford as they “cracked down” on drugs and illegal working on one evening.
A sergeant swaggered around in a head mike proudly demonstrating how new technology allowed the detection of traces of cocaine in pub lavatories. It was then revealed that “with the cooperation of landlords and managers” that night everybody wishing to enter a pub or club in the centre of Dartford had to submit to police swabbing their hands for drugs as a condition of entry. Those who tested postive were then formally searched under “reasonable suspicion”.
The swabbing itself didn’t count as a search because it was “voluntary”. Thus is the law perverted by those who are supposed to uphold it. The programme was silent on what happened to those who got as far as the entrance to a bar but refused the entry procedure. I’d have been interested to know.
It did say that all landlords were cooperating. I bet they were. Not only might failure to do so be likely to result in police opposing a license application in future (which would normally be the end of a business), but s1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act allows police to close, more or less instantly, premises from which Class A drugs (including cocaine) are produced, used or supplied and which are associated with disorder or serious nuisance–a power that was introduced on the basis of dealing with crack houses.
Meanwhile the streets of Dartford were being patrolled by “passive dogs”, and it was proudly explained how these too allow the requirements for reasonable suspicion for a search to be evaded. Apparently, if a policeman looks in your pocket it is a search, but if his dog (trained to do so) sniffs you and sits down to indicate it doesn’t like how you smell, it isn’t. But it is grounds for reasonable suspicion for the poiceman to look in your pocket.
As if all this police overtime were not sufficient, it seems taking advantage of high police presence to get their work done without resistence–though in theory they were not working together–inspectors from the Department of Work and Pensions were racking up a bit of extra pay checking the kitchens and the bar workers, in case anyone was doing poorly-paid cash-in-hand work who should’t allowed to. Cracking down on *crime* so unquestionably a Good Thing, according to the voiceover. But one is put to wonder quite how many dodgy plongeurs the inspectors would have had to put out of business (assuming it possible) in order to make their night out cost effective for the taxpayer.
I’m going to make that into a post on White Rose.
PdH: “Can the police be trusted not to recklessly slaughter people how are just going about their lawful business?”
No,.
Actually, I think that quote could have ended at the 5th word.
Guy H, I assume you could rub yourself over with a small quantity of an illegal substance, get rid of it. Get caught by the dog undergo the search on grounds suspicion then when found innocent take them to court?
A related point is that dogs will pick up the scent from you if you have been on a bus/in public with a dope smoker.
Innocent until proven……
Naaa!
This is all very odd. A socio-psychological problem.
One poor chap gets shot because of some ghastly cock-up by the police. No one could possibly suggest that he would have been done in if they knew he was innocent, far less that they would have gunned down someone completely at random.
The Islamic terrorists killed 54 people at random, who were certainly innocent. (Don’t forget, too, that is is the toll for a bad day in Iraq).
Which of these events – bad blunder or real crime – is getting the more attention? If a Brazilian had been among the 54 (for all I know there may have been one), would a Brazilian minister be coming here asking why weren’t his murderers being hunted down. Would his family be asking he same question? Of course not.
One reason for the discrepancy is that it’s EASIER to do something about why this unfortunate electrician got shot than to identify the Muslim fanatics who did, tried to, or plan to, or want to carry out their atrocities. The media also find it easier to sound off than to do some real investigative reporting, like finding Muslims who know someone who knows someone who knows who’s up to what. “That’s a job for the police,” they’d say, forgetting that police are somehow less nondescript than journalists.
The other reason is somewhat more cultural. We tend to judge the police by our standards, but somehow our standards slip when we discuss or judge our true enemies, dangerously judging them by their culture which is, to put it simply, that ANYONE is fair game to kill if it promotes the cause. They are no more to be judged, some might say, than a fox for running amok in a henhouse.
Don’t get me wrong. The actions of police must be investigated and judged by our standards. But they are not the primary problem, in dealing with which, mistakes will inevitably be made
What makes you think that any of the CCTV “evidence” of the Stockwell Tube shooting
will ever be made public ?
According to the BBC,
This incident reminds me of another one in NYC in the 90ies, when a black man was shot, because the cops mistook his reaching for his vallet (to show his ID) for his reaching for a gun. Anyone remember the details? I am curious how much in common the to incidents have.
Actually, it *is* the primary problem – if these people cannot be relied upon not to murder (lie, cheat, steal, commit fraud, commit paedophilia etc. etc. etc.), they certainly cannot be relied upon – or trusted – to gather intelligence enough to prevent further terrorist atrocities.
No amount of jingoistic rhetoric or self-aggrandisment is going to prevent another bombing. Whining about what a difficult job it is is not an acceptable excuse for “accidental” murder.
Chris Harper wrote,
Well of course not. This was a rather sensitive anti-terrorist operation based loosely upon the possible identification of Hussain Osman as the Stockwell failed bomber. I completely fail to see how Cressida Dick could have been placed in charge of such an operation, surely the Met must have far better qualified and experienced commanders than this politically correct officer?
What if, instead of it being the unfortunate Mr de Menezes, it had indeed been Hussain Osman trying for a second attempt at martyrdom? Would we have read on 22nd July of a far worse bombing at Stockwell, because he had managed to walk through the barriers, down onto the train and detonate his device, all the while being shadowed by armed police being told by Cressida Dick to ‘take him alive’, as the Daily Mirror claims she is now maintaining?
TPO,
I agree totally,Mr menezes was the third person I know of offhand,shot by the police.The other two were the man with the chair leg and another who was menatally ill but contained in a flat by his mother.
There needs to be an inquiry into the whole operating procedure and rules of engagement for armed response units.For similar actions under far more difficult conditions members of the armed forces are facing prosecution under the ICC Act
WTWU,
It would e interesting to know how exactly the BTP control all +6000 (not 1800) CCTV cameras on the London Underground, given that the actual recording and monitoring equipment is in the security control room of each station, with a copy transferred to the LU Security Control Centre via a Petabit (1 Million Gigabit) optical transfer network and thence to both secure storage and a copy, if needed, to the BTP centre in Victoria. There are at least 2 tape copies made of every single camera’s ouput over a 24 hour period, so it is, as I am sure you will agree, very unlikely that they would have ‘lost’ any footage – BBC wet dreams notwithstanding.
What kind of lunatic allows a suspect anywhere near a known target? In this case it was two,a bus and the tube.
I was dubious over the lack of CCTV footage too (though have only seen the part about the police having removed the disks reading this thread), until I read this comment from someone who used to work for LU.
Personally after my run in with muggers in Cambridge Centre in direct view of at least three CCTV cameras. My confidence in CCTV is zero, I’m still waiting for the police to come up with any views!
@ Julian Taylor – as the hardware has dropped in price, the number of CCTV surveillabce cameras on London Underground , mainline railway stations and on London Buses, has increased rapidly over past few years, but without a proportionate decrease in crime, and obviously with no deterrent effect at all on terrorists.
It does seem strange that even if , for no good reason, some or all of the CCTV cameras at Stockwell Tube station were left without any recording media (disk or tape) temporarily, the slack could not have been picked up by piping the feeds along the network to the BTP or LU operations centres for recording there.
Other media sources, apart from the BBC, e.g. the Daily Mail. have also commented that the relevant Stockwell CCTV footage is not available, without speculating/reporting exactly why.
Findlay,
Reason 1:
Ignore Terrorists Killing people: they are ineffectual and are less likely to continue.
Ignore Police Killing people: they are likely to be less careful next time.
Reason 2:
You can hold (in theory!) the police to account.
The terrorists want to hold you to account (usually for your governments actions).
Reason 3:
Terrorists are “supposed to be” killing people, it is what they do, almost by definition.
Police are supposed to catch the killers, not be them.
Reason 4:
Terrorists are expected to lie, it is often a necessary part of what they do.
Police are only expected to lie when working undercover, and even then there are limit I understand. Also they can keep quiet, but only to ensure a prosecution can proceed or for privacy/libel and in rare cases national security reasons.
7rin writes:
“…. until I read this comment from someone who used to work for LU.”
In so far as one can ever risk believing what people post on the ‘net, that was a really interesting link, for which thanks.
It seems very unclear (literally) what amout of cctv coverage of this event there was. Like others, I have kept reading the story about police having taken disks, but other comments supposedly based on existing footage – which suggests some, at least, exists.
The whole situation stinks – but whether due to cock-up or conspiracy, I feel it is too early to say.
ThePresentOccupier
This is nonsense, coupled with a council of despair So we are to do nothing until until the police are cleaned up? (And who, please is to do the cleaning up?) After the next (if there is one) bombing, no action will be taken because there’s no one to do it, because the police action is “the primary problem” and we cannot trust them not to murder, lie, cheat, steal &c. On the other hand, while this lack of trust incapacitates the police, we CAN trust the terrorists to murder and to do all the other things as well.
No policeman I know of has been convicted of murder, but it’s suggested we can’t trust them not to. Why? This case brings to four the number of deaths caused by the police in the last – how many years: five, ten, twenty? Someone ought to know. All lamentable mistakes and cock-ups, which never happen anywhere else, of course.
The murder rate is now about 800 a year (compare with 150 to 200 before the abolition of capital punishment) and we’re worried about the POLICE?
This is anti-patriotic masochism run mad.
Findlay,
So mistrusting the police is anti-patriotic (sic) The police never get charged for dangerous driving either,but have managed to rack up an impressive death toll nonetheless.
It is not unpatriotic to question the competence of the police,nor is it so to question the political or administrative imperatives that drive their actions.
The story of James Ashely probably has the most in common with the De Menezes killing; faulty intelligence, ill-trained and badly prepared police. The new Chief Constable of Sussex did make a point of apologizing to the family of this guy.
The article in the link also contains the chilling statistic that the Britsh Police have shot dead 15 unarmed people in the last ten years. I haven’t cross checked this statistic but what strikes me as worrying is the distinct lack of stories about the police correctly shooting somebody. Maybe because the police are not routinely armed there might be a sort of group think that if an armed response unit is called out then the situation definitely requires armed action.
Of course, we need the police and the British police are substantially less venal, corrupt, self serving and dangerous than most other police forces but they are still the strong arm of the state and need to be watched very closely.
One final point, if the government had given up its ridiculous “war on drugs” James Ashley would still be alive.
Ah well, if we’re engaging in hyperbole, then that is knee-jerk myopia at it’s best.
The police need to be held to account for their actions. Any suggestion that they should not is frankly sociopathic. Muddying the waters with hysterical cries of “unpatriotic” bears stark similarities to HUAC’s methods (yes, I know we can go back further than that, but that’ll result in Godwin’s law being invoked).
“the distinct lack of stories about the police correctly shooting somebody”: isn’t this normally explained as “dog bites man”?
Findlay,
You are right of course.
Between all the noise and clutter of events, we must pick up what is the most important. Preventing another terrorist atack is, by far, the first priority.
Putting an end to the crazy policy whreby England became an asylum, and a safe refuge, for “Saudi dissidents”, crazy mullahs and convicted terrorists – is imperative.
As to a reform of the police – don’t worry, it’s under way:
“The commander [Dick] believes two of the biggest race issues the Met will face in the coming years are trying to reach the demanding Home Office target of a quarter of its officers being from visible ethnic minorities by 2007.” (From the article linked to by Perry above).
Dearieme – good point about “dog bites man” not being newsworthy but I don’t think that Britain is actually so violent that justified fatal shootings by police are so common that they are not reported. Of course, an unjustified shooting is always going to get more attention but it’s just that I couldn’t recall a single story about a justified shooting, so I have been looking around and found a recent story of such a justified shooting (not fatal.) I wonder how many times the police have justifiably killed people recently?
I agree… and having the public seriously doubt both the probity and competence of the police is NOT something which is going to help. The more people feel the police can not be trusted, the less they will cooperate with the police and the easier Islamic nutjobs will find it to blow us all up.
These are not unrelated issues.
The problem being,the police did not prevent any attack taking place and shot a man in error.
THe great weakness in the shoot to kill argument is that it requires precise intelligence to be preventive,so far the Metropolitan Police record on this has not been impressive.
The shoot to kill order appears to be more in the nature of being seen to be doing something after the first two terrorist outrages.
I seem to recall a pattern among British msm and blog commenters distinguishing the long experience of European terrorism from America’s more recent and limited experience. Perhaps the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes demonstrates that that doesn’t count for shit, and that countries like Britain, Spain and Italy are effectively starting from the same learning position as the Americans in learning to deal with terrorism?
I notice that people talk about the foremost necessity of being able to trust the police not to commit random acts of murder, let alone catch real terrorists – but one question that I haven’t seen raised is whether the Met already do have firm and sound procedures for the engagement of terrorist suspects by armed response units – but that perhaps they were simply not observed in this instance? If this were the case, then reviewing procedures that are already sound but were simply unfollowed would raise different questions about police competence, burn-out and fatigue and so on. The criticisms of Ms Tsarina, as the officer in charge of the operation, seem well founded and that her immediate resignation is due. Are the Met sacrificing the quality of police operations for quantity? If burn-out and fatigue are to blame for the disastrous lack of communication between the intelligence and armed response units, would Londoners be willing to accept a reduction in the number of police anti-terrorist operations to give the officers more R&R?
Mind I am not saying that fatigue necessarily is the cause of this tragedy, just that it is likely to be one of the primary causes (alongside the Tsarina’s incompetence) that we can immediately do something about. Does anyone think fewer (or fewer intensive) operations might promise better quality and thus reduced risk of terrorist attacks?
Only a miracle will save Sir Ian Blair’s backside now. As Jean Charles de Menezes was in London earning money which he was sending back to his family to help alleviate the burden of his father’s cancer treatment, the best thing that Sir Ian Blair can do to salvage any respect (and to embrace his conscience) would be to offer the family the full cost of the treatment out of his own salary.
Of course, it doesn’t really get to grips with the problem that the man is a rather incompetent Commissioner, especially now we are supposed to be in a time of danger, and now that the ‘rules of the game have changed’. So why not sack the man, and then have a trial of one of those popular ideas amongst the think tanks – an elected police chief. Let the people of London elect the new Met Commissioner, and see that the citizenry is in fact really rather more capable than governments keep telling us.
The problem with removing Ian Blair from office is that there are only 2 ways: either he resigns or The Queen requests his dismissal, as is commonly believed to have happened with much unlamented Sir John Stevens over the Windsor Castle party last year.
If The Queen is forced to exercise the Royal Prerogative on Ian Blair then I daresay she will not be very amused – having to sack one Metropolitan Police Commissioner couild be seen as unfortunate but sacking two of them in less than a year might well be regarded as incompetence by a certain politician, whose name is a not a million miles away from Sir Ian Blair’s …
“The more people feel the police can not be trusted…”
Let’s see what we have here: a hysterical reaction of some policemen who shot the Brazilian… a bungled attempt at cover up… I would say – normal fare. Sure, police incompetence, sure, it needs to be corrected.
If you wait to erradicate all incompetence from the Police (or from anywhere else) you will wait forever.
Meanwhile, (to paraphrase Rumsfeld) you need to combat terrorism with the police you have.
People loose faith in the police not because of this lamentable incident. There was a report about some Muslim elders who complained to the police about young dangerous fanatics at their mosque and the police did nothing. It is this that causes people to lose trust in the police. Also the failure of police to effectively combat burglary and assault – and reduce the crime rate.
The Menezes incident, lamentable as it is, is of no major importance. (Which does not mean that it need not be investigated, and have corrective measures taken).
“Let the people of London elect the new Met Commissioner…”
You want another red Ken ?
Jacob, anything’s better than picking some guy off the Establishment street! The difference is that Livingstone is a political leader, and people will disagree over whether or not he succeeds or fails in whatever he does. For the Met Commissioner, the lines are not so blurred. If a bomb goes off in the capital, he’s failed, at least on preventing terrorism. And then the people will sack him.
It’s idealistic and hopeful, and ignores that democracy is the worst type of government apart from all the rest, but it would be a step up from what we have.
Unless there is a sub-narrative to this, which I believe there might be, as I have posted below on the Utterly beyond belief topic, then Blair should be sacked. The alarming this about sacking Blair, though, Ms Paddick would be promoted to the post – queen of all she surveys.
“If you wait to erradicate all incompetence from the Police (or from anywhere else) you will wait forever.”
Agreed.
“Let the people of London elect the new Met Commissioner, and see that the citizenry is in fact really rather more capable than governments keep telling us.”
And what kind of manifesto commitments with regard to anti-terrorism measures might be made? How would candidates distinguish themselves on this issue? Everyone will agree to more and better trained police – so how would an elected commissioner have made any difference to this disaster, other than possibly (possibly mind you) with telling the truth afterwards?
mike – good points. The only difference, and a critical one, is the people could dump him (or her). Being answerable to an alert electorate does tend to concentrate the mind, as any elected American police chief, sheriff, fire chief, schoolboard chief and dog catcher will tell you.
Who’s going to fire Humpty Dumpty Blair? Tony Blair? Gimme a break!
“The Menezes incident, lamentable as it is, is of no major importance.” Well, except to Mr. Menezes — I imagine it made rather a bit of difference to him.
The fact that there are independent inquiries – including one by the IPCC – being held into this disaster mean that unpallatable conclusions will not be hidden from the public thus charging the political ‘atmosphere’ such that there may be significant, if not irresistable, pressure for the Home Secretary to ask for the Commissioner’s resignation. I think this is fair enough.
A critical problem with direct public accountability is that the public are more or less deranged – I have in mind the political hijacking of democratically open offices of power. Elected policemen, especially for a vast city like London, would be a nightmare of stupid election campaigns with empty slogans and moron journos in trivia pursuit.
“The Menezes incident, lamentable as it is, is of no major importance.”
What ever happened to the not in my name mantra?
mike – It works in NY. It works in Los Angeles. It works in Chicago. It works in Houston. The biggest cities in the US. Why wouldn’t it work in London?
You have never lived in the United States, so you do not know how very efficient this system is. The police chiefs do the will of the electorate, not their political masters. In fact, the electorate is their political master.
Mike writes:
“A critical problem with direct public accountability is that the public are more or less deranged -…”
So you’d advocate the return to an absolute monarchy? Dictatorship? Rule by oligarchy?
I can see, from the tone of the above comments, that you are all worried that Commisioner Blair may be asked to forgo his super-sized pension.
Please do not distress yourselves, he may have to forgo his ‘K’, but then, who really cares about that devalued bauble? that is for pop stars, sportspersons and contributors ‘to the Party’, not for dumb as two planks Commish’s.
But rest assured his pension is inviolate, he will continue to receive it until the day he shrugs off this mortal coil, and his surviving spouse will no doubt be eligible for it after that.
As Louis said; ‘It’s a wonderful world’….
G Cooper – Ha ha!
Perry, I would suggest that the British establishment under NuLab never had a shred of credibility in the first place. They routinely lie about education. They tell lies about the health service. They lie about the police. They cook the books and they make up statistics – sometimes on the hoof. The Official Liar and Minister of Disinformation Alastair Campbell, ruled for – what? – six years? writing scripts for the Puppet-in-Chief. He lied to the media. He bullied legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions trying to hold the government to account. They have told dozens if not hundreds of lies about immigration, “asylum seekers”, welfare costs for supporting illegal immigrants. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies.
What “credibility of the British Establishment” is in crisis exactly? How can a corpse be in crisis?
This is not the time for political experiments,London needs a Commissioner who can handle the problem now.
It is worth considering the electoral power of minorities in London – a “Commissioner Galloway” is perhaps not a good idea.
Peter,
Why not? at least we would be in no doubt as to just what type of vermin we were dealing with.
It may also help in removing the blinkers from so many commenters, who refuse to recognise a catastrophe when it is staring them in the face. The complacency is truly staggering, at a time when we need strong leadership, all we get are, lies, platitudes and discussion of minutae, – long live ‘The Commitee!’
What Ernest Young said.
mike – “The fact that there are independent inquiries – including one by the IPCC – being held into this disaster mean that unpallatable conclusions will not be hidden from the public thus charging the political ‘atmosphere’ such that there may be significant, if not irresistable, pressure for the Home Secretary to ask for the Commissioner’s resignation.”
Errrr, “independent” inquiries by people seeking preferment and NuLab clones. Right.
Verity,
The corpse may not be in crisis,but the maggots are seething.
Earnest Young,
Because we do not have time for the political hoopla,war has already been declared.
The terrorists would laugh themselvse sick whilst a cavalcade of assorted Paddicks and Dicks flounced accross our television screens during the inevitable beauty contest.All the contestants would promise to be safer,stronger,more sensitive,more natural and better lubricated than the other.
It would be a good investment paying Blair the Lesser his pension to get rid of him,why not appoint one of those tough old Chiefs of Staff we have hanging about the place?
Peter “… ,but the maggots are seething.”
Well, as long as they’re not ululating at the same time, I guess I can live with that.
Verity wrote,
Presumably we’d be talking about local ethnic popularity surveys, designed to show Cressida “Crisis is my anagram” Dick as a paragon of diversity.
Oh, and I should think any corpse is in trouble when the media buzzards are circling and you didn’t ordered a sky burial …
Julian Taylor – What if you’re a Farsi?
OTOH, yes, the media buzzards are circling. Time to call in Batman – or, in the case of Alastair Campbell – Battyman. Or maybe even Campbell recognises a hand he can’t play.
You are right though, Julian. The tide seems to have turned, but, as always, Tone and the fat, mouthy fishwife are enjoying the lavish hospitality of a tycoon and are escaping the worst of it. No one takes John Prescott seriously, and a lot of it will have died down, as always, by the time Tone gets back in time to crash Mo Mowlam’s funeral.
Hmm, can Tone and Spouse actually attend Mo Mowlam’s funeral though without demonstrating that he therefore deliberately snubbed Robin Cook’s funeral?
Julian, Julian – He didn’t “deliberately snub” Cook’s funeral! He was stuck on a yacht on the Med, for god’s sake! It could happen to anyone! (Especially if they’d been warned off jetting back by the Scottish mafia and the two sons.)
And I have a feeling Mo’s will be yet one more funeral to which his invitation will get lost in the mail. Looks like the trembly jaw and barely controlled sob will be surplus to requirements yet again.
Verity,
Tone was safe whilst it was mere words,innitiatives,double counting expenditure,figgling the books and smearing any opposition was easy,when you start to get bodies in the street ,as it were,it is not quite as simple to kick down the road.
Even the Iraq war was a good opportunity for Tone to look good in Khaki whilst exploiting the last working institution left,now he has to be a real Prime Minister – is he up to it?
The problem for the left is that they thought this was the bright new future,all that remained was whatever loony fad in social engineering that took their fancy.For the seventh century to come up and bite them on the arse has been a shock,nowhere in the “feelgood Handbook” is an entry for “The Barbarians are back”,after all there aren’t any nowadays,unless they have stopped taking their Ritalin,of course.
We can therefore expect our elite to carry on in the same way,same attitudes,they will throw our money at the problem, continue apologising our racism and lack of undestanding. Never will it occur to the elite that it is their liberal lifestyle that the fundamentalists hate the most.MSDick and Paddick epitomised all that they detest,funny old world ain’t it?
Mo Mowlem@s funeral,will Jerry Adams attend,will there be a salute fired by masked IRA members?
Peter – Of course Jerry Adams will attend! It would be bad manners not to attend, especially as he is even more experienced at funerals than Phony Blair. I think the idea of a gun salute by masked IRA members is lovely – sentimental, just like the IRA’s dreams of the Auld Sod. There’s nothing as sentimental as a terrorist.
Peter writes:
“Mo Mowlem@s funeral,will Jerry Adams attend,will there be a salute fired by masked IRA members?”
Quite!
Off topic, I appreciate, but today’s BBC gushing over Mowlem’s departure has been even more sickening than that over Cook.
Could the MSM be any more transparent in its sympathies?
The Beeb’s [Don’t] Have Your Say asked, of course, bless them – for “tributes” to ol’ Mo. (When Dennis Thatcher, a far more worthy human being all round, died, they asked for “your thoughts”.)
They must be weeing their knickers at the moment. My personal view is, they would love to support the splodeydopes bombing themselves to heaven – ooh, I could kill for a cuppa that mint tea! – but they sort of sense that this may not be the diplomatic way to defend the licence fee at this moment in time. Actually, I think the splodeys will have done a lot to degrade the beeb, which was pitched like a chameleon onto plaid. Which colour to turn for sympathy from the people we admire (NuLab and down) and the masses we’ve been cleverly misleading but have now had a jolt but we’ve got to keep them sweet on the fee.
“So you’d advocate the return to an absolute monarchy? Dictatorship? Rule by oligarchy?
Replace the Met’s appointed commissioner with an absolute monarch? Of the Met?? You fancy the job or something?!
“mike – It works in NY. It works in Los Angeles. It works in Chicago. It works in Houston. The biggest cities in the US. Why wouldn’t it work in London? You have never lived in the United States, so you do not know how very efficient this system is. The police chiefs do the will of the electorate, not their political masters. In fact, the electorate is their political master.
Well then perhaps you can answer my earlier ‘good points’ in reference to these American cities?? How would elected police chiefs in the US differentiate their manifesto commitments on anti-terrorism measures without resorting to empty slogans?? You said it ‘works’ in America, so perhaps you’d be kind enough to get back on topic and describe for us how..
Looks like Blair the greater is preparin for his role a high Imam of oh Britain,
“mike – It works in NY. It works in Los Angeles. It works in Chicago. It works in Houston. The biggest cities in the US. Why wouldn’t it work in London?”
Police chiefs are not elected positions in any of those cities (or in most any major American city.) In each, they are appointed by the city’s mayor.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/brass/pc.html
http://www.lapdonline.org/c_o_s/bratton_w_bio.htm
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/SUPTBIONEW.pdf
http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/20040227.html
Thank you R.J. Lehmann!
I’m glad to know the Americans have more sense than to directly elect police chiefs – can you imagine being a candidate for such an election and having to communicate minute and/or trivial differences between your anti-terrorism policy and your opponent’s policy? It would be ridiculous, not to mention a stupid distraction from the practical anti-terrorist work that must be done.
There are counties here in America, particularly in rural areas, where you would elect the “sherriff.” Sometimes the sherriff is the chief law enforcement officer. Sometimes, he has more procedural duties, such as overseeing the transport of prisoners.
In those areas where an elected sherriff is the chief lawman, you do often have extreme perversions of the law, and they can run both ways. Usually, an onerous “get tough on crime” stance will get one elected, and it is then up to the courts to suss out where the cops have gone too far. But other times, one gets elected with a wink toward the laws he WON’T enforce. Many border towns in Texas have elected lawmen who intentionally turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. I recall reading of one sherriff in rural Kentucky who has been wildly popular among his farmer constituents by failing to notice that they’ve taken to marijuana as a cash crop.
But in major metropolitan markets, electing a chief of police is extraordinarily rare. Which is not to say that appointed chiefs are completely insulated from politics. They are appointed by, and report to, directly elected mayors, who can sack them at any time if they want to move in a new direction. Additionally, many cities also have directly elected prosecutors (usually called district attorneys) who ultimately decide which cases will be pursued, and which won’t.
mike – In other words, R J Lehmann’s post is essentially what I said, although he is correct that police chiefs – contrary to my faulty memory at first – are not elected. But they are, in the sense that the candidates for mayor had better have an extremely viable police chief to hand, with a good record, otherwise that mayoral candidate will not get voted in.
mike – you are growing out of your British provincialism – which you never really had to a great extent – and learning to live in Asia. But your experience of democracy is very limited. Do not forget that the most successful country the world has ever known elects more of its officials than any country the world has ever known.
Not only does it work, but its mechanisms will end up being adopted by most countries in the world. Well, except Europe. But so what?
“But they are, in the sense that the candidates for mayor had better have an extremely viable police chief to hand, with a good record, otherwise that mayoral candidate will not get voted in.”
For an incumbent, I suppose that’s true to some extent. If there is backlash against the police department, the voters will often take that out against the mayor. It’s forgotten now to the winds of fate, but in the months leading up to 9-11, the voters of New York were extemely displeased with their police force, and by proxy, with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. It’s remarkable how much tragedy can change historical perception.
But in evaluating a non-incumbent mayoral candidate, the voters would almost certainly have absolutely NO IDEA whom he or she would intend to tap for police chief or any of the other major city jobs. That early in the process, it’s likely the candidate hasn’t even given the issue that much thought himself. Our elections are always held in November. Inaugurations happen in January. In between those dates is when a mayor- or governor- or president-elect will work out who he intends to name to the executive posts.
And I would have to differ with your assessment of how well our system functions. Where it seems to function best is where the American ideal of divided powers is maintained. At the federal level, we allocate lawmaking powers to elected legislators, executive powers to an elected president and his appointed cabinet, judicial powers to an appointed Supreme Court. Most states and municipalities operate in a similar manner.
But some locales maintain elections for some other executive positions (prosecutors, various regulators) or for judges. Generally speaking, the experience is fairly negative with leaving to direct election those actually charged with running the day to day affairs of government agencies, or with determining legal outcomes. In both sorts of positions, a measure of independence from fickle political whim has value, and the public often just simply doesn’t know enough about, as a for instance, what sorts of qualities are necessary in a banking regulator to be able to effectively discern good candidates from bad ones.
“Not only does it work, but its mechanisms will end up being adopted by most countries in the world.”
And I certainly hope so. But my point was directed to Mark O’Brien’s suggestion that an elected police commissioner is what our current so-called ‘knight’ should be replaced with – a suggestion which I think is daft. I can see that there may be a case for elected police chiefs, until you consider the overriding issue of anti-terrorism measures; barring technological developments the political consensus on tackling terrorism will remain leaving no room for electioneering.
“you are growing out of your British provincialism”
As for this, thank you, but I’m sticking to my cup of hot black tea; I shall never be a convert to the disgustingly bitter green stuff they drink over here!
Where I live, the local police (appointed or otherwise) are the most likely to be lacking in professional skills/training/behavior outside of large cities. The general fall0back plan in a major situation is to call in the Sherriff’s department. Outside of medium and larger cities, most murders, stand-offs, etc., Anything requiring more skills, training or equipment is generally voluntarily handed off to the sherriff’s department.
Sherriffs are elected and their campaigns general are based on three issues. 1. Endorsements by various groups and well known persons, 2. their experience and qualifications, and 3. their law enforcement priorities.
Don’t underestimate the power of that last one. Failures in that one are generally the only thing that gets encumbent sherriffs booted out.
With a few exceptions, local law enforcement is generally all too eager to hand off hot problems. They are also quite close to the electorate and are the first sacrifice for a failure.
Interesting, state police are almost invisible to the public unless you are driving 90 mph on the interstate. They do have the state crime lab, though.
Midwesterner: I will not ask you where you live, but say it was one of the really major cities (more Chicago than Kansas City), would you countenance directly elected police commissioners for your major city – terrorism or no terrorism?
The main arguments that have been presented against elected police chiefs is that:
a) the people aren’t clever enough to understand the issues involved
b) the people aren’t responsible enough to take the ‘right’ decision
c) the people aren’t immune to the lure of a demagogue
I have my problems with elected police chiefs, many of which are based on my partial distrust of people! But not only is it arrogant of me to worry about whether the citizenry is up to the job of deciding who should represent them, isn’t it ever so slightly possible that if the political elites trusted people with the decision of who should represent them, they might naturally become more responsible and try to understand the issues involved, and end the long-running problem in British society which sees general election turnout far lower than it should be and interest in political decision-making at an all-time low.
If we trust people, they might just pull off something special. And even if we don’t wish to, what is there to even suggest that Tony Blair in Number Ten or anyone else in the shadowy modern-day Establishment knows better who should be in charge of our police forces than we people do?
Start treating people with respect, and people will thrive, achieving great feats and doing great deeds.
R. J. Lehman: in Kentucky there in at least one county where a previous Sherriff, who had started ‘cracking down on pot growers’, got a bullet in the head. That’s also the part of Kentucky where you can’t find a jury to convict for a pot violation: It’s where the “Fully Informed Jury” or Jury Nullification restoration movement kinda got started in the US
Sad that we don’t remember the early British history of the jury and how they are much more than rubber stamps on ‘the facts under the law’.
“Start treating people with respect, and people will thrive, achieving great feats and doing great deeds.”
When have ‘the people’ ever achieved great feats? Is it not individuals who do so? Always, as a rule almost, it is the daring and creative individuals who achieve great things – never the masses.
Besides which, there is a world of difference between a general or local election in which issues and differences among candidates can be summarised through rough soundbite illustrations of different philosophies, and an election for the post of police commissioner in a major city charged with directing and managing an overall anti-terrorist strategy. So far there is a political consensus on how to do this – it is not only that most people are too daft to evaluate differences in anti-terrorist policy between candidates, but that there will effectively be no policy differences among candidates.
“…if the political elites trusted people with the decision of who should represent them, they might naturally become more responsible and try to understand the issues involved, and end the long-running problem in British society which sees general election turnout far lower than it should be and interest in political decision-making at an all-time low.”
Bollocks. When people don’t bother to understand political issues it is because they are not interested, not because politicians don’t trust them. Maybe you think this argument could work standing on its’ head: if only we were to trust the politicians then they would try to understand political issues?!?! Hah!
For another thing, I don’t see why high voter turnout at an election is necessarily a good thing. Even without the first-past-the-post system, a high turnout would not necessarily make for a more ‘representative’ vote; the geographical means by which voting districts are established are just arbitrary criteria of representation in the first place.
To get back on topic, I’d think that the credibility of the British State might be helped by this IPCC inquiry if it raises questions, less about the minutae of procedure, but more about the general anti-terrorist strategy that any new Commissioner can take on board. For example it might be claimed that it is a strategic mistake to have the Met force overstretched as this may lead to fatigue and crazy tragic mistakes like we have just seen; instead, questions may be asked about how to use resources less and more efficiently.
Well, Mike, I’ve no interesting getting back on topic, I’d much rather stay off it: it’s more interesting that way. You’re right to say that the masses do not, as a rule, ‘achieve great feats’ (whatever my silly rhetorical bounce actually means). It is individuals who achieve. But how can either the masses OR individuals thrive and succeed if the government allows neither to do so? How can ‘the people’ or one person succeed if governments and those complicit with the government give them no credit and no responsibility for anything?
As far as turning the other argument on its head and arguing instead that it is the duty of the represented to start having respect for their representatives, not vice versa, I think that’s the kind of arrogance that starts a futile Communist uprising and ends in dictatorship!
Mike, I don’t want to ruffle any feathers with my first few posts on the Samizdata blog, but your position is arrogant to me, and it shows a dangerous trend which is prevalent in the political classes today: a failure to trust the instincts of people, perhaps out of fear; perhaps out of contempt. I don’t know about your politics personally, but I thought so far that this trend with confined to the metropolitan liberal elite and the trendy new socialists who make up the Civil Service and the Establishment professions. If it’s seeped out and taken others with it, that’s a devastating sign.
“Midwesterner: I will not ask you where you live, but say it was one of the really major cities (more Chicago than Kansas City), would you countenance directly elected police commissioners for your major city – terrorism or no terrorism?”
Mike, I’m not sure. The most responsive commissioners/chiefs of police are the ones that are easiest to remove. Typically, these are the one’s who can be removed by the executive action of a mayor w/o additional approvals needed.
The one problem I see with electing sherriffs is you typically have to wait for the next election cycle to remove them. The failures have to be ongoing or bad enough to be remembered.
But in some ways, althought they belong to political parties, sherriffs are the most responsive to ordinary citizens of all elected officials. People who are totally politically apathetic do care about crime, some times enough to vote.
As a general rule, elected law enforcement seems to be much less tangled up in politics. I wouldn’t consider changing our sherrif system, but having lived in a major city as a child, we moved away solely because of crime.
The last paragraph of my post disappeared in my edit. I wouldn’t change the way we select sherriffs. I lived in one of those major cities as a child. We moved away soley because of crime. Maybe that’s an answer.
“The one problem I see with electing sherriffs is you typically have to wait for the next election cycle to remove them. The failures have to be ongoing or bad enough to be remembered.”
Do you think that a potential safeguard against this might be the opportunity for some kind of recall election to be called, like the one which led to Schwarzenegger’s election as Governor of California?
In fear of contradicting my own preferences, I should point out that there are two separate issues here.
Daily, measurable, quantifiable and qualifiable crime. Murders muggings rapes et c. and potential crime like tube bombings. Since one candidate (hopefully) can’t show a better track record handling tube bombings, it all reverts to politics.
“As far as turning the other argument on its head and arguing instead that it is the duty of the represented to start having respect for their representatives, not vice versa, I think that’s the kind of arrogance that starts a futile Communist uprising and ends in dictatorship!”
Well where do you think we in the UK are headed now with the increasing centralisation of effective political power? Aside from a cheaply ironic dig at our current crop of politicos, that was my point.
As for your comments about my ‘dangerous attitude’, I merely make the point that representative democracy and ‘trusting the people’ is not the be all and end all – if you were a Jew in Vienna in the mid 1930s for example, you would prefer your government to uphold what was then Austria’s constitutionally liberal character – and to hell with the democratic majority of people calling for anti-semitic policies. Democracy is a necessary gate against tyranny – but it is precisely that, a gate – it can be opened to let tyranny in as well as closed to keep tyranny out.
“Since one candidate (hopefully) can’t show a better track record handling tube bombings, it all reverts to politics.”
Yes, but outside of the practical task of devising and implementing anti-terrorist strategy, where is the politics??? I don’t think there is any! In the case of terrorism and anti-terrorism measures I really don’t think ‘responsiveness’ comes into it at all – at least as things stand right now – because there is a political consensus that we need more and better trained police to protect our major cities. But what might break the political consensus is a debate on strategy. However, such a debate would probably skim over details for the obvious reason that it lets terrorists know what you might be up to. So given a pretty solid political consensus on this issue, it’s difficult to see any point in having an elected police chief for a major city; you can’t really debate the strategy or technology you might use for fear of giving your advantage away and so you are left with nothing really to talk about – maybe not even the empty slogans which regular politicos bandy about all the time.
However, elected police chiefs for small towns with little or no risk of terrorism? Sure why not?
The thrust of my postings was meant to get at the practical issues of what should immediately done at the Met following the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Where is Euan Gray?
“As far as turning the other argument on its head and arguing instead that it is the duty of the represented to start having respect for their representatives, not vice versa, I think that’s the kind of arrogance that starts a futile Communist uprising and ends in dictatorship!”
Well where do you think we in the UK are headed now with the increasing centralisation of effective political power?
The centralisation of political power can only be curbed by greater democratic accountability (if ‘people power’ is too much of a threat to our society, surely there can be no critcisim of the principle that people in power are responsible to the people, and nobody else) and one method is to give powers to people to elect those who serve them, not the powers to vote for a politician who is part of a party which forms a government which is led by a prime minister who then appoints everybody else.
Electing a police commissioner is not exactly a massive victory for democracy. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is accountable to those who appoint him, and as the people of London had no say at all in his appointment, the level of accountability he is subjected to is determined only by which side of the bed a newspaper editor wakes up on.
The people have the power to elect a councillor, an MEP and an MP. Many argue that one of the greatest threats to democracy as we know it is the fascist BNP (the kind of people those Jews in Vienna would have been worried about). Only on isolated occassions and in very depressed communities have any of them ever been elected councillor, and never has one of them been elected an MEP or MP. The difference between people power in modern Britain and people power in the then-expanding Third Reich is that today’s leaders have a wide range of checks and balances on them, whereas the Nazi dictatorship was supreme, with no limits on its powers. An elected Met chief would not become some kind of dictator, taking London into some kind of independent police state. As well as being responsible to Londoners, he would have to face up to the London Assembly, town councillors, the Mayor, the Home Office and its Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and two Houses of Parliament situated in the middle of his city. Elected police chiefs would hardly be a democratic bridge too far, not with appropriate checks and balances in place.
The most significant drawback to changing the way the Metropolitan Commisioner of Police is appointed is that the appointment process will become the issue,the battle against terrorism will become subordinate.This has always been the weakness of democracies,re-arranging the deckchairs whilst the ship sinks.
Blair the lesser should be sent on permanent gardening leave and someone appointed who knows what is neede,now!
There isn’t the time to set up a commission to examine the different kinds of electoral system,decides who is entitled to vote and all the rigmarole that bringing in new procedures entails.
Peter, I don’t recommend a commission to make a report in a couple of years to be then discussed at length in House of Commons Committees. I’m recommending that the Prime Minister put together a simple and straightforward plan (not just for the Met but for the whole country’s police forces), bring back Parliament and put it to a vote. If the Commons rejects it, then c’est la vie and let’s not mention it again! If the plan is successful (and a plan put together by our revered Prime Minister has rather less chance of success) in Parliament, time will tell if it works for the rest of the country.
Mark O’Brien, sorry for the delay. I got sidetracked on another thread.
“Do you think that a potential safeguard against this might be the opportunity for some kind of recall election to be called, like the one which led to Schwarzenegger’s election as Governor of California?”
I think in most cases there is always some form of recall available. There are, however, often fairly strict guidelines before it can go on the ballot. Example, there are many 2 year terms where I am than cannot be recalled in their first year.
In actual practice, to be recalled someone either has to be sitting in jail or amazingly spectacularly stupid and offensive. It does happen. Gray Davis was certainly offensive, probably stupid.
mike, the politics usually arrives in the form of ID cards v Civic Outreach v Speech censorship v Spies v etc.
When prevention cannot be achieved by the deterent of certain apprehension and punishment, (How could you punish a suicide bomber except maybe by cremation?) then it all devolves into speculation and ergo politics.
Law enforcement has to function under the umbrella of politics. They can’t do things they’re not allowed. Could a capable, best of the best, law enforcement leader achieve anything successful in your present political ecosystem? If yes, then elections will help, else elections won’t help. Oops, was that Cobol?
Mark O’brien
“I’m recommending that the Prime Minister put together a simple and straightforward plan (not just for the Met but for the whole country’s police forces), bring back Parliament and put it to a vote.”
Tony Blair has never had a a”simple straightforward plan” in his life,even if he did by the time the Civil service,lawyers,interest groups and lobbyists.the media,the unions and his party had got through with it,it would be simple no more. At the best ir would be watered down or so encrusted with codicils it would fall over.This Government can’t do legislation.
Why not the nice simple idea of kicking out Blair the lesser and appointing someone who can do the job?
Peter, I agree with you 100%. We don’t have the luxury of fiddling around with the system just now. That can be done afterwards.
And it doesn’t matter what new complicated idea Tony Blair’s gets in his silly head. Right now, the drill must be: fire Blair the Lesser and fire or demote Dickette. And put a rational, seasoned man, preferably with military experience as well as police experience, in place. This person should have a very clear brief that does not include the words “diversity”, “tolerance” or “multicultural”.
Verity,
Should that not be Dickettes? Might as well make it a duo.
Well, well, well – according to the BBC on biased-bbc.blopspot.com, Mr Mendezes, on the one-week anniversary of the murder and maiming of over 700 people on London Transport, when police and security services were on highest alert, was playing a game of “chase” in the tube station with his cousin when he was terminally apprehended.
A 30-yr old was “playing chase” in a tube station?
Knowing Britain was on highest security alert in TUBE STATIONS? Paging Mr Darwin. We have a new applicant for your award …
Further thoughts: I have never believed this narrative about this shooting of an innocent man. There is more to it, as I keep saying. With the new information, the way I read it is, he and his cousin were creating a diversion to engage the interest of the police, to allow a real bomber to get on the train unnoticed.
The Brazilian “electrician” bought the farm which, as diversions go, was a real grabber, and the terrorist with the bomb fled to bomb another day.
I loathe Ian Blair and the Diversity Tsarina, but the people who do the real work at the Met and the SAS are no fools.
Did Menezes have an employer? I keep asking this and never get a reply. No one has come forward to describe those crazy, fun-filled Brazilian evenings with Jean Charles. He seems to have been that old stand by “a loner” until his pod was activated. Just speculation, of course. But I just don’t believe that highly trained officers would shoot someone going unexceptionally about their business on the London Underground. Millions, on that tense day, did not get shot.
This man called attention to himself for a reason. I suspect the game of “chase” would have stopped abruptly the minute the real bomber was onboard. Had everything gone according to plan. Don’t forget, there was a surveillance officer in that carriage when it stopped at Stockwell. They were expecting someone.
As before on this subject, I’m astonished at your detailed knowledge of the exact facts (even a changed set of exact facts) of the incident, Verity.
But I’m even more astonished at the moral implications:
It’s all right for police arbitrarily to execute people who are suspicious because they are loners who don’t have an employer, because we should then be happy to put down their reasons for doing so as secret intelligence?
That’s an epitome of totalitarian collectivist thinking.
Mike O’Brien:
I’m recommending that the Prime Minister put together a simple and straightforward plan (not just for the Met but for the whole country’s police forces), bring back Parliament and put it to a vote.
I disrecommend it. We really don’t want any more nationalisation of the police. One of the Met’s big problems is it has all those specialist units and is too close to Whitehall.
What I recommend is making it clear that the police are subject to the law. The officers concerned should be tried for murder (and should have been even on the first account of the killing). Any defense of justification could then be examined in open court.
“The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is accountable to those who appoint him, and as the people of London had no say at all in his appointment, the level of accountability he is subjected to is determined only by which side of the bed a newspaper editor wakes up on.”
Direct vs indirect democratic accountability is not the issue, as I’ve said before. Not where terrorism is concerned.
“mike, the politics usually arrives in the form of ID cards v Civic Outreach v Speech censorship v Spies v etc.”
Yes of course, but the politics is dealt with by politicians not the Commissioner himself. The Commissioner is not responsible for introducing new powers, but for effectively using the powers his office already holds. Therefore politics does not come into it – ‘it’ being the office and responsibilities of the police chief.
“…the way I read it is, he and his cousin were creating a diversion to engage the interest of the police, to allow a real bomber to get on the train unnoticed.”
Interesting theory, but can we test it…? Surely the police would also have followed his cousin then? Is there any information about this chap? And where is he now – he can’t have gone into hiding with all the hullabaloo.
“But I just don’t believe that highly trained officers would shoot someone going unexceptionally about their business on the London Underground. Millions, on that tense day, did not get shot.”
Well I would not like to believe this either, so maybe the new information can shed more light (assuming it is trustworthy of course – was it leaked from the IPCC inquiry?)? However, the fact that one chap was shot and ‘millions’ were not shot is hardly remarkable Verity!! No-one is suggesting the police were randomly going around shooting people – the claim is rather that of mistaken identity. As yet, this claim still makes sense to me.
“What I recommend is making it clear that the police are subject to the law. The officers concerned should be tried for murder (and should have been even on the first account of the killing). Any defense of justification could then be examined in open court.”
Agreed! As per the title of Perry’s original article this would be vital to halting the slide in the credibility of the British establishment.
Get down off your high horse, Guy Herbert. You too could be in possession of facts if you read biased-bbc’s account, by people who saw it, of the BBC programme in which the incidents I repeated were reported. So, why not stop being astonished – a fly will fly into your mouth – and go to the site I quoted.
And you’re even more astonished – uh, nurse, I fear this may be too much astonishment for one man to take! – at moral implications which you personally have loaded on to what I reported.
You may follow the official line if you choose. Some of us are a little more alert and get a hinky feeling when we’re being hoodwinked by an official story that keeps being massaged. It is the alert people who protect democracies; not people in danger of exploding with moral outrage.
Do not have the impertinence to accuse me – who doesn’t believe the government/police changing stories about this incident – of totalitarian collectivist thinking.
A 30-year old illegal alien “playing chase” with his cousin in a tube station that was swarming with armed police, as were the streets outside, and hovering helicopters above, on the one-week anniversary of a terrorist mass murder? Why are you so anxious to believe what Tony Blair and Ian Blair tell you?
There’s something wrong here. Some of us want justice for the people were murdered and maimed on the 7th of July. Some of us think the government is lying.
Verity,
Can you supply a link to the item please?
Mr Menezes family were offered £15,000 in compensation.
This is a tacet admission of liability by the Metroploitan Police,Blair the lesser is merely trying to save his arse
Peter, no because I said it’s biased-bbc and they don’t have links for individual subjects. Click on the site on Samizdata and I think it’s around the third item down – although that may have moved down since last night.
Of great interest to the people accusing me of hysteria may be the fact that the person heading up Justice4Jean is none other than George Galloway’s assistant. Small world, eh?
Verity: Why are you so anxious to believe what Tony Blair and Ian Blair tell you?
I’m not. Nor do I believe what they say about this case. (I’m not sure if I’ve ever believed anything either of them have said.) I’m the one who was agnostic about the early accounts, remember. I’m the one who wants to see the facts brought to open court and properly tried.
It seems to me that you are being serially credulous about various wildly improbable stories because you want to believe in the competence and honest authority of the security forces (as opposed to the shiftiness of politicians and foreigners), and consider that such an axiomatic superior understanding and integrity gives them the right to dispose of the law in the best interests of the country. That’s a recipe for military dicatatorship on the old South American model.
What is the provenance of this strange story of Mr Menezes playing “chase” in Stockwell Station with his cousin?
The story we are being told is that he was on his own, and only ran to catch the train, sat down, and then was grabbed and shot without warning.
As far as we know, Mr Menezes merely had the misfortune to live in a flat in the same block as one used by the terrorists. Incompetent surveillance meant that he was flagged as a “possible” suspect, who somehow in the course of a short bus journey became someone whom Cressida Dick decided had to be “stopped” with extreme prejudice. The Met Police tried to spin his death with lies about him wearing a heavy coat, leaping the ticket barriers and refusing to stop when challenged. If they had anything on him at all they would be spinning like tops right now. They’re not, and it tells me that they ain’t got jack shit.
Guy – Yes, you were initially an agnostic. I don’t know why a sceptic like you became less suspicious.
I have not been “serially credulous” – clever phrase though it is and meant to diminish me. You could say that every time a detective on a murder case comes across a piece of new evidence, he may adjust the theory that previous pieces of evidence led him to in light of what’s new. That would make the detective serially credulous, too.
I have no strong wish to credit the security services with competence and honesty. I don’t have the same faith invested in them as do people who live in Britain. But given the new things that have slipped out about this man, I cannot help feeling that he was killed for a reason – not in error – and the security services/police/whomever cannot own to this without saying why; and saying why might jeopardise something now in progress.
The whole thing is just very off centre. There has been something wobbly about it from day one.
John K “The story we are being told …”. Yes, we have been told many stories regarding this. Why? Never mind the first couple of versions. Later, the police “admitted” they had got the wrong man and it was a tragic accident. This, I propose, was to shut down speculation. But it didn’t, and new things keep sneaking out. Now we read that he lived in that building with two other Brazilians. If the police had that building under surveillance, they would have known that there were three Brazilians living there.
The provenance of the story of “playing chase” was, as I said in my post above, the biased-bbc blogspot. No link because they don’t link to individual topics. You’ll just have to scroll down until you hit it and then scroll through the comments.
Well in the last 24 hours we have heard the Home Secretary, Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister all express their complete confidence in Sir Ian Bliar and the Met Police and their handling of the Jean de Menezes affair.
Sounds pretty terminal to me. How long do you give him? Two weeks or a month before we get the “I wanted to see this crisis to its conclusion” resignation letter”. The scary Gareth Pierce is already talking a gross negligence case against the police.
If I was Sir Ian I would be checking out my pension and that retirement home in Cornwall tonight.
Rockette
Never mind the first couple of versions. Later, the police “admitted” they had got the wrong man and it was a tragic accident. This, I propose, was to shut down speculation
As cover stories go, “Oops we killed an entirely innocent man” really stinks. Even Met Police spin doctors can’t be so utterly futile as to have come up with that one. Therefore, it is probably the truth.
If the police had that building under surveillance, they would have known that there were three Brazilians living there.
That’s the big “if”. We are now being told the surveillance was being undertaken by the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. At the crucial moment the man who was meant to be conducting video surveillance was having a pee. Even so, he reported that Mr Menezes was a possible. He did not positively ID him as one of the terrorists, but despite this Cressida Dick decided that he had to be stopped, which under the terms of Operation Kratos meant shot in the head without warning. She’s now got to talk her way out of that, but she’s pretty career orientated, so there’s every chance she’ll be back.
Deja Vu
Maybe y’all would like to read this
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/ashl-n24.shtml
(It’s about the similar case in Sussex a few years back which led to the resignation of the Chief Constable).
Rockette
Rockette writes:
“Maybe y’all would like to read this..”
And maybe we’d be as cautious of the source as we would be if it were bin Laden’s very own homepage.
Your fondness for the SWP’s wonderful philanthropy to the Menezes cousin wasn’t missed. What do you take us for – Independent readers?
Verity, could you be so kind as to tell us the date of that biased BBC story?
I have just been watching ITN news. They report that TfL sources say that the Met Police did seize recording discs from Stockwell station, but later returned them claiming they were blank. A rather different story than the one in which there were no discs for the police to take. Hmm.
Incidentally, ITN has been kicking the BBC’s arse over this story. Perhaps after Gilligangate the Beeb don’t want to rock the boat?
I am also reading that the surveillance team and the armed team (Cressida’s commandos) have fallen out over this. The surveillance boys tried to arrest Menezes, hence the officer who pinned his arms to his sides. The armed team shot him. It looks as if the surveillance team did not expect that. If they had actually thought Menezes had had a bomb, it would have been rather suicidal to have started grappling with him.
It is reported that the armed officers have still not given statements to the IPCC. In this context, the fact that Ian Bliar sent them off on a Met paid holiday to calm their nerves seems a bit off. No chance they were whisked out of the country away from the IPCC so they could get their story straight is there?
Happy Rampager – Jesus Christ, if you go to the Biased BBC website you will see there are no links and no dates for individual posts. It’s all a big ragbag under each date with no specific topic. It’s what anyone wants to complain about on that day. If you’d gone there you would have seen that.
I can’t imagine what led you to believe I wanted to do your research for you. I think there were two or three posts under the first item – the one with the photo of Norman Tebbit. Sorry, you’ll just have to trawl through all 124 postings, just as I and everyone else has. Dear god. Use some initiative!
What if we were to have a committee of elected representatives with authority to hire and fire police in each local authority area? That was the system which the UK’s cities enjoyed up to 1964. The Home Office hated it, of course, and spent 50 years trying to get rid of it.
Just for the record I have nothing to do with the SWP and never have had. If anything my politics are on the right of the political spectrum.
In fact I was a member of Liberty for many years – I joined following the Challenor case (if you are not familiar with it he was a member of the Met Police who went around planting bricks and stuff in the pockets of protestors – go and look it up on Google – Det Sgt Harry Challenor. )
I later left the NCCL when I thought it was getting a distinctly Labour agenda and I think civil liberties should stand outside party politics.
So are you disagreeing with the facts about the Sussex shooting? I am sure there are plenty of non SWP links, I will find you one if you like. Why did David Blunkett force then Chief Constable of Sussex Paul Whitehouse to resign following the enquiry into that shooting? But maybe Blunkett is in the pocket of the SWP as well?
Fitting up innoccent bystanders, to get themselves off the hook, is a practice for which the Met police, sadly, have form.
Indeed it was in response to concerns that most Police forces cannot be relied upon to investigate themselves that the IPCC was set up.
For the record I read the Daily Telegraph.
rockette
For those of you who are interested in the activities of SO 19 you may be interested in this account of the shooting of Harry Stanley as it appears on the Inquest website (I don’t think they are an SWP front but maybe someone can tell me different?)
Regarding the Bianca Jagger connection, at the first press conference by the family, shortly after the news about JC’s murder had been announced, and as I recall, before the leak from the IPCC, one of Jean’s female cousins spoke to the press to refute claims he was a terrorist. She was flanked by Gareth Piece on one side and Bianca Jagger on the other. As it seems unlikely that a de Menezes cousin would know Gareth Pierce, I made the assumption that Ms Jagger had stepped in to help an fellow South American faced with a human rights issue. (At that conference by the way Jean’s cousin refuted a number of the police claims and her comments were verified by the later leaks from the IPCC.)
Bianca Jagger also gave a reading at the service to JC in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in London held to coincide with his burial in Brazil. So I don’t think a connection with Ms Jagger can be dismissed out of hand.
I am not in principle against shoot to kill against suicide bombers provided the policy it is carried out by properly trained and managed police who know what they are doing.
Frankly I find the claims/justifications that they lost their heads in the general atmosphere even more terrifying – what is the point of a firearms officer on a shoot to kill mission who cannot keep a cool head? What is their training about if not that? God help us all in that case.
rockette
rockette – Nicaragua is in Central America. Brazil is in South America. A different continent. But it is interesting that ol’ Bianca seems to have her finger in the pie. Well, well we’ve got George Galloway, Amnesty International, Bianca Jagger…. the usual suspects.
If any of my relatives was shot in a foreign country by the police, I’d like the investigation to have the best local lawyers available. And to make sure that I didn’t get a lawyer who was going to pull their punches in order not to piss off the establishment, I’d make sure that I got one who had a track record of going against the state and uncovering miscarriages of justice: someone who was both competent and incorruptible. Half an hour’s web-searching and a phone call to Fair Trials Abroad would lead me to two or three candidates, who I’d call.
Are Brazilians too stupid to do the same? I doubt it. Any objective list of who’s going to do the best job is going to have Pierce in it, close to the top. Maybe Imram Khan was on holiday that day. It makes every sense for someone who wants justice to hire Pierce, who has a record of getting it. Ask Paddy Hill.
If the whole thing was an SWP set-up, Louise Christian would be doing the representing. Doh.
Anyone seen this quote – made by Gareth Pierce, the solicitor representing the family?
Ms Pierce, said: “The police are already talking about this being a lawful killing. The implication of a lawful killing is that the victim has no right to compensation.”
She added: “The implication of seeking to justify this as a lawful killing is that the killer bears no responsibility in law for having killed. However, I would hope the Metropolitan Police commissioner would not resist a claim for compensation by Mr de Menezes’ parents.”
It seems the compensation offer made by the police to the de Menezes family was not notified to the lawyers and Gareth Pierce has already expressed her suspicions about this and possible reasons for it being done in this way.
I have noticed in her public statements she seems to be looking at making a case of gross negligence against the Met police. Possibly it will be easier to make that stick than unlawful killing where it seems the police only have to say they thought they acted in self defence to get off.
I didn’t mean to suggest the family were not able to find a lawyer for themselves but the two cousins with whom JC lived were hauled off to a police arranged hotel after the shooting while the police checked their flat for evidence. At the hotel the cousins have said their phone lines were cut and they were under surveillance so it seems unlikely they had easy access to the Internet. Also they do not speak very fluent English.
But hey maybe their police liaison officer put them in touch with Gareth Pierce?
rockette
I will to remember Nicaragua is in Central America in future.
rockette – My guess, either the law firm approached them itself or – this assistant to George Galloway, Asad, was doing the shilling.
rockette writes:
“Just for the record I have nothing to do with the SWP and never have had.”
In which case, I unreservedly apologise for the suggestion. I was led astray by the generous interpretation you had put on the SWP’s acolytes taking the cousin under their wing and then by your choice of source for the Sussex story.
On a more general point, I tend to agree with you about the Jagger connection and am mystified why Chris Williams thinks it would have been easy under the circumstances for the family to find its way, unaided, to Ms Peirce (note spelling – the lady seems to have a penchant for unusual names, apparently she was christened ‘Jean’ and later changed it to ‘Gareth’ for unfathomable reasons). As for whether she lacks credentials with the SWP, I’m afraid I tend to draw the same conclusion about her as did Michael Gove. I doubt there is much she could learn from Imran Khan.
rockette also writes:
“Frankly I find the claims/justifications that they lost their heads in the general atmosphere even more terrifying – what is the point of a firearms officer on a shoot to kill mission who cannot keep a cool head? What is their training about if not that? God help us all in that case.”
I absolutely agree. Nowhere have I suggested that I believe the Met’s slaying of Mr de Menezes is anything other than a tragedy – and possibly murder. But what has interested me all along, as a sub-plot if you like, has been the role being played in this case by a cadre of sometimes familiar figures, whose real motives leave one wondering.
This is formal notice that I am changing my name to Dai lLewellyne.