So the CCTV camera tapes which would have shown the facts pertaining to tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes were blank. Right. But the IPCC says they have the vital CCTV footage. Ooookay, that is sorted then.
What the hell is going on?
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
There is no CCTV footage… then again, here is the CCTV footageAugust 24th, 2005 |
 17 comments to There is no CCTV footage… then again, here is the CCTV footage |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Most journalists are Left wing, the Left hates or distrusts the police, having held their noses and supported the police over the shooting, ex-marxist-mniddle-class studetns now in the media get the chance to attack their old enemy.
We support our police, just not these police, and if they do anything wrong, or even something which might be wrong, or even if they haven’t we’ll get the bastards, seems to be the BBC/msm chant.
Well, yes – what is going on?
I appreciate the need not to prejudice future legal proceedings, but the ebb and flow of contradictory stories contributes nothing but a deepening impression of either deceit or incompetence.
People will chose which they believe depending on their predilections, but I can see no valid reason why we should be put in that position. The truth is, err, out there, as the saying goes. Why the hell won’t they just tell it?
Maybe not the London Underground CCTV footage, but maybe footage from the bus CCTV, from cameras along the route or from the initial surveillance cameras?
I do hope that the IPCC is not shallow enough to release footage early on, and thus possibly compromise any case against the inept Commander Dick who ordered her officers in to fire on this man, only to rescind the order once she knew – too late – that she had no way of communicating with them .. the radios would not function underground apparently.
I’m sitting here staring at the corner of the ceiling for the last hour thinking about this.
If the UK is anything like the US, cover-ups are so common that we all develop an instinct for them and can guess pretty close to the truth. So why is this one setting off almost everybody’s alarm bells?
For one, the apparent desperation of it. Usually, the only ones who get desperate in a cover-up are the ones who may go to jail, (or worse, be removed from office). This time, those participating in the cover-up are wide ranging and pushing the limits more than usual and individually making it up as they go along. There seems to be either a desperation or determination to stuff this Genie back in the bottle.
For two, communication. This cover-up is too big to communicate within itself. Hence, so many failed stories that just fall apart because someone didn’t get the right script. There are too many witnesses and too much evidence to keep in the bottle. It appears that maybe some of the “coached”? witnesses got a little carried away. It’s just to big to control.
For three, the 5? day lock-out of IPCC. It seems pretty obvious they weren’t in at the start and whatever it is, it took the PTB 5 days to get them “on board”.
For four, the stakes. A public execution is about as high stakes as it gets. Legitimate? Maybe, but why not say so. If the means don’t justify that end, what on earth were the means? Mistaken? Maybe. Tragic, but why the huge cover-up? Worst case, somebody resigns, indignation, “Why, I never yada yada!” The system that failed gets analyzed to death in committees.
What could explain this? Maybe it goes higher than Ian and Cressida. What would that be? Secretly enacted policy? How high would that go? Downing Street? What kind of policy could explain everything up to this point?
We suspect from the number of people who want this back in the bottle that it must be something that would, even in light of terrorist threats, be considered a very bad thing.
We know that communication broke down long before the cover-up or even the shooting. It appears that the surveillance unit decided to call in armed response unit but that on arriving at the scene, the armed response unit was acting under different orders, protocol and chain of command than the surveillance team.
We know that the spin doctors immediately went into hyper drive to wrap things quickly. They stayed at it and are still at it.
We know that IPCC was locked out for approximately 5 days. 5 days! Whatever it was, it so violated standard accepted procedures that it took five days of ?’s lobbying to get them on board with the team? If they are.
In the US the only policy that could explain this level of cover-up would be something like using CIA covert ops inside our borders. Absolutely forbidden and sure to cause a major scandal.
Is there an anti-terrorism measure in your country that a desperate PM might have tried thinking it would work and could be kept secret? Could there really be that many people trying to protect Cressida Dick from losing her job? I would think if it were possible, she would have been politically defenestrated from the halls of power long ago. Does she know something that prevents this?
Just some thoughts.
Secretly enacted policy?
That’s my diagnosis of the real problem.
Forget the details of the case for a moment.
Of course armed officers may shoot someone if it is necessary to protect the others from a direct, serious, imminent and actual threat. That has been true as long as there have been guns.
But a committee of the Metropolitan Police does not have the power to suspend or amend the law of homicide in secret so that officers may shoot people for any other reason. Nor does the Cabinet Office or any other executive organ. Yet that appears to be what has been tried on. By whose authority?
We don’t yet know what happened in the de Menezes case. But if someone were to be killed pursuant to such a bogus policy, everybody involved in the decision would have a much more tangible link to and responsibility for the death than some mad mullah praising suicide bombers. That might explain why we’ve had such an extraordinary pulling together by all parts of the London political establishment that are normally at each other’s throats.
It is also an interesting contrast with the Steven Lawrence case. Where there no hearing was to be had for criticism of the identical political motivation of the agitator-lawyers and pressure groups who battened onto that unfortunate family, here it gets front page treatment.
>What the hell is going on?
Er, a bunch of half-arsed incompetents who stopped and put nine (or however many it was) bullets into the head of an entirely innocent and well-behaved person on his way to work are now attempting a cover up with the approximate same level of competence?
I’m guessing there is something really damning on those tapes.
guy herbert writes:
” That might explain why we’ve had such an extraordinary pulling together by all parts of the London political establishment that are normally at each other’s throats.”
I read that rather differently. Livingstone’s support for Ian Blair (according to the report from BBC News Online) seems to be predicated on his impeccable (from the newt fancier’s point of view) PC credentials.
It was significant, I felt, that that Livingstone claimed disgruntled officers in the ranks were attempting to destabilise Blair. Assuming he is right, having met more than a few of these plain old Plods, I can both understand their disenchantment and sympathise with it. They have to endure endless 1970’s flavour politically-motivated “initiatives” and Maoist-light indoctrination sessions from former polytechnic sociology lecturers, when they’d rather be out nicking villains which they, rightly, see as their proper job.
The liberal elite has formed a circle around Ian Blair because he was selected, indoctrinated and promoted specifically to promote their Time Out political agenda. To lose him before he has had the chance to permanently “reform” the Met would be unthinkable.
So, no – I’m not inclined to suspect a conspiracy involving special forces, or secret policies, without a lot more evidence (though I wouldn’t rule it out).
My guess is that we have witnessed complete incompetence on the part of the very people London’s liberal elite have only just stopped celebrating putting in place.
Which means, if I am right, that we should look to the ranks for the truth of what really happened.
More leaks, please!
I saw part of an interview the other evening with a member of the Met Police Authority (Jenny Jones, perhaps, judging by the mugshots on their website). She said that she knew nothing about the shoot-to-kill policy – they hadn’t been briefed on it – but that she understood that it had been approved by the Home Office. Eh? What, as you so wisely enquire, the hell is going on?
Guy wrote: armed officers may shoot someone if it is necessary to protect the others from a direct, serious, imminent and actual threat. That has been true as long as there have been guns.
They can actually do so and get away with it (see the Stanley case) if they ‘reasonably suspect’ this to be the case: even if it’s subsequently proved that their ‘reasonable suspicions’ were utterly groundless. The effect of the Kratos rules, of course, is to widen the definition of who might be reasonably suspected to be in imminent threat . . . to pretty much everybody.
This is why even the Mail is concerned – as far as most of the traditional supporters of (some) police are concerned, shoot-to-kill is fine so long as it’s for other people.
Also, it’s my understanding that the rules of engagement were loosened following Hungerford. At that time, they were based on an ‘existing’ rather than merely imminent threat, and so says an unsourced rumour from a source known to me, a cop had Ryan in his sights halfway through the massacre, but didn’t pull the trigger.
Another data point – during the periods of licensed shoot-to-kill in Northern Ireland when the death squads in question had lots of resources, training, and intelligence, about 25% of the people killed were innocent victims of mistaken identity or crossfire. We can take this as a lowest possible benchmark. I doubt that S019 are ever going to get as good at it as the SAS, 14 Signals Co, and the RUC FIU in this regard.
I heard Ken Livingstone defending Ian Blair on radio yesterday. He said that even if there had been negligence on the part of the police, Livingstone should remain as he’s the best police commissioner the UK has ever had.
Personally I have no time for Livingstone but it seems to me that we have a clear cut case for immediate resignation here. Blair has not been honest, in fact he has been quite evasive about this extra-judicial killing. The more the facts come out, the clearer it is that there was poor communication between the police cells involved, that Menezes got on the tube normally and sat down, that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself etc etc. The cops were certain he was a bomber and killed him in error. After it became clear that it was a tragic error, the senior police – Blair included – have tried to evade responsibility not so much by actively lying but by misleading through omission : by not being open with the facts, by sending out miselading messages to the media and the public etc.
Blair should resign, but with red Ken on his side and the politicisation of the entire affair, I’d put money on Blair staying.
Shameful, shameful stuff.
A few more thoughts.
Gcooper, what your saying is a more informed and thoughtful version of what I thought to begin with. The only problem is, it boils down to business as usual. Those circumstances exist to some degree continuously and this degree of desperation seems unjustified. The could have protected Blair by blaming Dick, couldn’t they? As I recall, that particular effort is flying like a well fed Christmas goose.
Chris Williams – Something that interested me was that the armed response unit was operating under rules of engagement that came as a complete surprise to the surveillance detail. Surveillance had made clear that they didn’t believe he was carrying anything and they certainly didn’t expect the response they got. “The surveillance officer who called in reports about Menezes described him as wearing a denim jacket and carrying nothing, but suggested he was “worth someone else having a look.””
Ted, what if Ian had permission to carry out whatever policy it was? Where would that have come from? And you said “The cops were certain he was a bomber and killed him in error.” Clearly, the ones most in a position to know, thought otherwise.
If the person sending in the armed response unit listened to the entire transmission that surveillance called in, it makes this killing look punitive, not preventative. Sending a message? Let’s hear the radio tapes.
I also heard Red Ken give total support to his friend Sir Ian Blair.
This should remind us that for all the factionalism of the left, the bottom line is that they are all our foes.
“Tony” Blair and his wife (the “wicked witch” as Richard Littlejohn has rightly called her for years) I supposed to be opposed on various matters of policy – but on practical matters they cooperate (such as the “Human Rights Act” which he passed and she gets lots of money from), and they are united in there basic hatred of British tradtion (remember “libertarian” is one of the Prime Minister’s most hated words).
The Bliars and Red Ken are supposed to be opposed on various matters but they are all friends of Sir Ian Blair – the P.C. Chief Constable who hates liberty (and truth) with a passion.
“What the hell is going on?” – very simple.
First support a pack of lies about the killing of an innocent man (“he vaulted over the ticket barrier, he was wearing a bulky coat, he ran away from the police, he refused to do what we told him to do…….”).
And then try to delay any investigation.
Remember that “Tony” (Sir Ian’s boss and close friend) was a pal of Bill Clinton and is a pal of President Putin.
What is the shock? We are governed by evil scum – surely you knew that?
Ken also said on his Radio 4 interview yesterday that he did not agree with those who criticised the incorrect early reports given out by the Police about how de Menezes behaved “suspiciously”.
Ken said (quote): “I don’t think the police should be in a position of constantly updating the information for the benefit of the media”………
so apparently its ok with Uncle Ken to blacken the name of a decent man and leave it so for months during the enquiry just so long as it doesn’t inconvenience the police and his new best buddy Ian Blair. And the criticism of the backstabbers in the police force is typical conspiracy thinking. Forget the comparisons withe Mandela Ken is starting to resemble Mugabe in his pronouncements.
I thought I noticed a comment from Nick Hardwick of the IPCC yesterday saying that he had “some CCTV footage” (hints are that it is the main hall but not on the platforms (what a surprise).) When el Ken was asked about the lack of CCTV footage last night on television he said “Stockwell tube is being modernised at present so it wouldn’t be surprising if some cameras weren’t working”. Despite the tube staff saying they were all working of course.
Ken also said he couldn’t see that the Police would blank all the footage as “that would be stupid”.
Oh yeah, as stupid as the surveillance team and the gunsquad with incompatible phone systems so they couldn’t communicate with each other ?.
Also the surveillance team seem to have been soldiers on secondment from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. It was the gun squad who were police and who panicked when they got to the tube too late to obey Ms Dick’s command to stop de Menezes getting on the train. They are now blaming the army for false info.
The only light in the tunnel (sorry about that) is that there are so many parties trying to keep their a—es clean and the eye witnesses to check up on that there is plenty of information leaking out – which must be enraging el Ken and his cohorts.
(What an odious creep Ken is proving to be. Presumably if he thinks al-Qal is such a hero his version of diversity does not etxtend to gays. Wonder what the Paddickistas think about that?) .
What has still not leaked is when de Menezes went from being a “white European” male under surveillance to a Hussein Oman look alike and a definite suicide bomber to be shot on sight. What’s the betting the SW police radio records will be “lost” as well.
All these people saying the shoot to kill Police squads make them feel safer – if the bunch of loons who killed de Menezes are typical then I certainly don’t feel safer quite the opposite in fact. Who knows who might be next.
From what I can gather, things seem a bit clearer now.
Mr Menezes was identified by the surveillance operative with the leaky bladder as a “possible”. He was never ID’ed as a suspect. That’s why the surveillance team were happy to follow him onto the bus and then onto Stockwell station.
Cressida Dick was commanding the armed unit, and it seems gave a rather contradictory order that he had to be arrested, but also “stopped” from going onto the station, at a time when he had already entered the station.
Now, it’s a principle of British law that no senior officer can order a junior officer to shoot someone, because it’s the man who shoots who has to justify himself in court. But in effect Operation Kratos does just that. If a senior officer says a suspect has to be “stopped”, that means the “shoot to kill to protect” policy will be used, ie shoot at the head without warning. The armed officers are surely entitled to beileve that their superior officer knows more than they do, so if they are ordered to “stop” the suspect, that’s what they have to do.
So the question is, what exactly did Ms Dick order her men to do, and did she understand what the outcome of her order would be? If she decided Mr Menezes had to be “stopped” under the Kratos policy, why did she reach this conclusion, since he was giving the surveillance team no reason to believe he was armed or dangerous? Did she realise that her officers were now operating as per Kratos, or did she think that the order to “stop” Mr Menezes did not in reality mean “kill without warning”?
From what I can tell at present, the surveillance team did not do a bad job, they did not identify Mr Menezes as a terrorist, they flagged him as someone to be checked out. The shooters did what they were ordered to do, “stop” a suspect as instructed under Kratos. The key figure seems to be Ms Dick.
I would argue that any officer commanding such a complex armed operation, especially given the nature of the Kratos rules of engagement, should have been a very experienced armed officer, someone who knew what his officers would be thinking. Ms Dick just did not have that experience, she seems to have been promoted to this job as just another rung on her ladder to the top. Political correctness costs lives.
A reality check: we presume people to be innocent until they are found guilty.
Like Mr Menezes?
Paul Marks – So you, also, have observed the obvious. I can’t see what you post contributed except an apparent belief that everyone should join hands and chant “We are so abused.” How enlightened.
I hope I never achieve that degree of fatalism. I have chosen to be a determined optimist and activist. I am amazed how here in America the MSM news talk shows were referring to what was being said on the blogs. They don’t as much anymore because now, it’s a given the blogs are driving the news priorities. What better way do they have to raise ratings (and revenue) than to poll the blogs and see what’s hot?
I like the term ‘Blogswarm’ see Adriana’s samizdata.net/blog/archives/007938.html(Link). It reminds me of a roof repair I once did on a roof that was occupied by yellowjackets. Didn’t know they were there. Ooops.