Upcoming Events

International | Crime and Justice

no events match your query!

New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Central Asia?s Neoliberal Tragedy: A Review Fri Oct 15, 2021 21:42 | amarynth
By Michael Hudson and posted with special permission : How the World Bank and neoliberalism has hurt central Asia . In the mid-1980s, Soviet officials saw a need to open

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2021/10/14 ? Open Thread Thu Oct 14, 2021 20:00 | herb
2021/10/14 19:00:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

offsite link Russians are in total awe at the suicidal stupidity of the West Thu Oct 14, 2021 16:36 | The Saker
The Russians are openly expressing their absolute amazement at the utter stupidity of the West.  Three examples: A recent article by Medvedev: Dmitry Medvedev: Why contacts with the current Ukrainian

offsite link Pepe Escobar?s new ebook: Forever Wars, recaptured in real time Thu Oct 14, 2021 15:43 | amarynth
About 20 days ago, Pepe Escobar let us know that part 2 of his Forever Wars series is now available for purchase and download as an e-book.  I sat down

offsite link Dmitry Medvedev: Why contacts with the current Ukrainian leadership are meaningless Wed Oct 13, 2021 18:21 | amarynth
Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev addressed Kommersant with his new article, titled: Five short polemical theses Kindly note that this is a machine

The Saker >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Are the wheels of justice creaking into action?

offsite link Middle class revolution Anthony

offsite link Allegations of political criminality reported to An Garda Siochana Anthony

offsite link Minister Catherine Martin: Not fit to serve Anthony

offsite link Establishment media and delusional analysis Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Iran's allies lose Iraqi legislative elections Wed Oct 13, 2021 19:38 | en

offsite link The political power of Facebook, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Oct 12, 2021 09:28 | en

offsite link Lebanon's bankruptcy deliberately caused by IMF under Christine Lagarde's watch Fri Oct 08, 2021 16:17 | en

offsite link China-US high-level talks in Switzerland Fri Oct 08, 2021 14:54 | en

offsite link Covid-19: noose is tightening around Doctor Anthony Fauci Thu Oct 07, 2021 20:09 | en

Voltaire Network >>

Police shoot man dead on London Tube. "suspicious"

category international | crime and justice | news report author Friday July 22, 2005 13:01author by way of life Report this post to the editors

Less than 24 hours since London, Londoners and London's emergency services coped so well with a multiple bombing incident which saw no deaths, casualties or serious explosions reported, and which offered it is said excellent forensic and other evidence for an investigation, Armed Police shot shortly after 10am an asian male in Stockwell Tube station, south London.

Eye witness describe 5 fatal shots at point blank range.

After such "luck" or "angelic intervention" yesterday, it seems to "not quite be the way" of pursuing a proper criminal investigation.

And we remember top Police Officer Blair's insistence yesterday after the COBRA meeting that "proper trials" would result, and thats why comments on the incidents of July 21 were so scant-.

The dead man was described as wearing an out of season winter padded jacket and a baseball cap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4706913.stm
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/19885043?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA16247791122024846A00000?source=PA%20Feed&ct=5

author by non constat de jurepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

is that police activity at Stockwell Tube station prompted a posting on indymedia uk less than an hour before the shooting, the contributor reporting they were stopped by a policeman who had noticed the book they were carrying...
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319073.html

author by Innocent IIpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This looks like a judicial execution and is not the first done by these elite porkers.

Related Link: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450142000?open&of=ENG-384
author by Arlopublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Thanks for that excellent analysis of the execution. You clearly know what you're talking about.

I would say it is more like a foiled attempted execution myself, but for the moment I'll reserve judgement till I get the facts.

Actually, apparently the person who pulled the trigger looked a bit like Cherie Blaire's famous cousin.

author by Running Manpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

could have been running from the police for any number of reasons for example he might have had drugs on him etc. This reminds me of the executions of unarmed IRA personnel in Gibraltar by an SAS hit team. Expect similar smearing of this guy to what Mairead Farrell & Co. received to cover up this type of state-sanctioned murder. If it was a suicide bomber dont expect this type of killing to discourage people who arent afraid to die anyway. This will simply prompt a change in tactics and probably a move away from London to regional centres now all the focus is on London.

author by W. Gallagherpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

According to an eyewitness on the BBC the suspected bomber was put on the floor and had five shots fired into him. I’m not going to shed any tears for suicide bombers (if that’s what he was) but have the British not learned anything about creating martyrs from their previous experiences on this side of the Irish Sea? Obviously not by the looks of things.

author by Davepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 14:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

....be shot with "five fatal shots".... ? Surely only one of them was fatal. The ones before were just shots, the ones after were 'insurance'.

Speaking as someone who'se been shot a couple of times at close range and survived... the phrase just niggles me!

author by Michaelpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 14:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

.

author by DV8publication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 14:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

1300: The Muslim Council of Britain calls for the police to explain why the man at Stockwell Station - described as Asian in appearance - was shot dead.

A spokesman says Muslims are concerned police may have a "shoot to kill" policy in force.

author by way of lifepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

niggled me too. i wrote just before scotland yard confirmed the death "at scene of the man", and had read of five shots, and thought to write "pointblank"...or "at close range" but then thought "no there clichés". One of the witness said five shots were fired as three officers held the man on the ground. "he's dead".

one of the five shots was technically fatal. Yes.
perhaps the others followed post mortem or ante mortem we don't know. Depending on where the first shot was fired, and which of the five cuased death, the speed of emergency medical care, hmmmmmm-
We'll have to check the quality press for an autopsy.
& then read the findings of the public inquiry [?] into the whole thing from july 7 (is that a goo start date) to whenever its all going to end.
The case of the Stockwell shooting might end up being compared and contrasted for police professionalism and calm with the arrest of a man in unusual clothing of asian appearance yesterday who being apprehended with a back pack on Whitehall close to Downing Street was seen on global network tv to be escorted minus his backpack (which was empty) off the scene at gunpoint.


Indeed, we might get another press conference soon.

author by -publication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

this morning's temperature in London was 22º.
at what temperature does a padded jacket become too suspicious?
Comments on the indymedia article seem to indicate people there are "disturbed" by this incident. Worth a read & archive--

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319077.html

author by archivepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Witness Mark Whitby was the first who's version was publicised he spoke to BBC News 24 he reported that the man was shot five times at close range after he had jumped on a train.

Mr Whitby said he was sitting on the Tube train reading his paper as it was stationary with its doors open in Stockwell station.

He said he heard people shouting "Get down, get down!"
He said: "An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers."

He tripped and was also pushed to the floor and one of the officers shot him five times.

"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it.

He's dead, five shots, he's dead."

Mr Whitby said later he was "totally distraught" by what he had seen.

He said that as he was helping an elderly woman off the train, another 10 to 15 police officers with pistols and sub-machine guns ran on.

When he got up to the ticket hall, he was offered counselling by police and Tube staff.

"I'm totally distraught," he said. "It was no more than five yards away from where I was sitting as I saw it with my own eyes."

He continued: "As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox.

"He looked absolutely petrified.

"He sort of tripped but they were hotly pursuing him and couldn't have been more than two or three feet behind him at this time.

"He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor.

"The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left hand, he held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him.

"He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat.

"It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket.

"Maybe he might have had something concealed under there, I don't know.

"But it looked out of place in the weather we've been having.

"He was quite large, big built, quite a sort of chubby guy."

*****************************************************

Passenger Briony Coetsee, 23, told PA: "We were on the Tube when we suddenly heard someone say 'Get out, get out' and then we heard gunshots - someone was shooting.

"Somebody in plain clothes who I thought was a civilian cop had his gun out and started shooting and told us to get out."

Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell.

He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase.

He said: "There were at least 20 of them (officers) and they were carrying big black guns.

"The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'Get out, get out"'.

****************************************************

Christopher Scaglione, 35, a fashion designer, was also on a Victoria line tube train shortly before the incident.

He told PA: "The train didn't stop at Vauxhall and so I got out at Stockwell.

"I was just on my way out when I heard at first a little bang - not like a bomb, more like a gun - and then people were shouting.

"People then started to run and I heard two or three more bangs, like people shooting."

*****************************************************

Journalist Chris Martin said he was waiting on the northbound Northern line platform at Stockwell station and a train had pulled in when several men burst on to the platform about 20 yards from him.

"There was a lot of shouting, I thought it was football fans or something," he said.

"There was obviously some sort of altercation going on, and then they came flying on to the platform and these guys just threw this man into the open doors of the train.

"Then I heard shots, I thought it was three but someone else said five.

"It sounded like a silencer gun going off, and then there was blind panic, with people shouting and screaming and just running away.

"I didn't actually see the gun, but I heard this 'bang, bang, bang'.

"When I left the station a guy called Mark who had been on the train said they had shot the man dead, no doubt about it."

A large area around Stockwell Tube station, an interchange for the Northern and Victoria lines in south London, was cordoned off and traffic approaching the area ground to a halt.

An ambulance and several police cars were also at the scene and sirens were heard blaring in every direction.

Tube services on the Victoria and Northern lines were suspended following a request by the police, London Underground said.

A London Ambulance Service spokesman said an air ambulance, an ambulance and a duty station officer had been sent to Stockwell after an emergency call.

*****************************************************

Christine Burgess, a 56-year-old accountant, said the apparent shooting was the second security alert she had been caught up in this morning.

She said: "I was on a Tube train at Kennington when we were told to get off and we saw a suspicious person with a bag taken away from the carriage I was in.

"After leaving the station, I decided to get on the 155 bus to try and get home and we had just got to Stockwell when we stopped.

"I was looking out of the window on the right-hand side and another driver from a different bus came on to ours and said police had just shot a suicide bomber in Stockwell station.

"I was still looking out of the window and saw them bring out the black zip-up bag and that must have been the person involved because nobody else was hurt. I saw it taken into the ambulance."

She added that, despite her chaotic morning, she still felt calm and composed and able to travel on public transport.

She said: "I'm not a highly-strung person, I am fairly calm, but I am confident that the police and security forces are doing an excellent job

author by Spelvispublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I certainly won't be wearing my jacket and listening to my Ipod on the way home..

It would fit the description issued yesterday way too closely...

Big jacket + Wires hanging out = shoot to kill....

author by redjadepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

London Underground evacuation after 'Incidents'
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/London_Underground_evacuation_after_'Incidents'

21 July 2005 London explosions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_explosions

author by DV8publication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

1505: An eyewitness at Harrow Road tells the BBC she believes she earlier heard six shots at the scene.

1459: Scotland Yard confirms detectives investigating Thursday's bombings are searching an address in the Harrow Road area of West Kilburn.

It says armed officers are there as a precaution and no arrests have been made.

author by Self Centered - Wankers Council of Britainpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"1300: The Muslim Council of Britain calls for the police to explain why the man at Stockwell Station - described as Asian in appearance - was shot dead."

What a bunch of wankers. Instead of rooting out the murderers in their midst, they complaining about police activity related to bombings...
It shows complicity within the moslem community.
Time for THEM to join US against the bad guys, and stop wanking

author by Joepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Seems reasonable - we should all know if this really was a suicide bomber with his finger on the trigger (which would provide an excuse for this execution) or some panicked fare dodger shot by profile obsessed cops.

author by Markpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The Muslim community has every reason to be worried and are just asking the Police to explain the reason why an 'Asian looking fellow' was shot 5 times after he appeared to be apprehended. I think we all want to know the answer to that. You would think they would be keen to interogate the man if he was a suspected suicide bomber.

I just hope the truth comes out but I'd be surprised.

author by Nordiepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

1319: Labour MP for Vauxhall Kate Hoey says she believes police acted with the best interests of the public in mind when they shot a man dead in Stockwell, which lies within her constituency.

Not surprising for a keen supporter of Arlene Foster and her lot. Shoot first - ask questions later.

author by Joepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

What the Muslim council guy actually said was

Spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "There may well be reasons why the police felt it necessary to unload five shots into the man and shoot him dead, but they need to make those reasons clear." (Source BBC website).

Seems quite reasonable.

One obvious cause for concern is that there are no reports of bomb disposal teams being called to the scene. I'd guess if a 'suicide bomb belt' or something similar was present they'd be there.

author by LONDONERpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 20:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

" You would think they would be keen to interogate the man if he was a suspected suicide bomber"

Tell me how do you arrest a suspected suicide bomber without him or you setting a bomb off. Most people in london (including me) belive the MET did the right thing.
Now stop talking bullshit about a subject you now fuck all about!

author by Auld Dublinerpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 20:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Tell me how you pump five bullets into someone you suspect of being wired with explosives without the risk of setting off the bomb?

author by seanpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 20:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

They shoot in the head.

author by Leonpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 21:17author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Muslim Executed on Tube by London Police

Whatever happened to due process of law--arrest and trial?
"Suspect" was unarmed [and even without backpack.]

Witness:
"There was a lot of shouting, I thought it was football fans or something," he said.
"There was obviously some sort of altercation going on, and then they came flying on to the platform and these guys just threw this man into the open doors of the train.

"Then I heard shots, I thought it was three but someone else said five. It sounded like a silencer gun going off, and then there was blind panic, with people shouting and screaming and just running away." http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1534138,00.html

What's more, other media reports say suspect was first followed from his home then into Tube station, then immobilized in the train and shot!

Whatever happened to due process--arrest and trial?
When ancient rights become a casualty of terror, that may very well explain why the terror occurred--to eliminate citizens rights (think Reichstag fire). And also who committed the acts. Think about it--if your leaders decide to end your rights (collectively) how else would they go about doing it? Ask you nice?

Why now?
Because they no longer have confidence in their ability to maintain domination within the framework of working democracy. (Old regulators breaking down--religion, education, TV propaganda, etc--new phenomenon of P2P communications). Witness vote in US Congress even as events of July 21 in London went down -- Patriot Act rights violations made permanent.

And also of course because of fate knocking: the historically inevitable second proletarian revolution waiting at the door.

Why Muslims? Whose turn to wear the pointed hat in tiny elite-run capitalist society?
1935-Jews (Bolsheviks)
1955-Blacks
1994-Tutsi
2001-Muslims, who happen to reside in the world's most oil rich regions--justifies useful foreign invasions as well as domestic repression/divide and conquer policy.

People divided by the hate-mongering and fear-mongering of their leaders cannot stand united against them.

Fascism is on the march again in Europe, USA.

author by Paulpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 21:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Whatever your views on the events at the time, I hope you agree that there should be an investigation of the incident. We should hear exactly why this man was killed by the police, rather than trusting that they knew what they were doing. Surely you are not suggesting that the police should be entrusted to shoot people without explaining themselves?

author by LONDONERpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 21:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Of course there should be an investagation into it but its not up to you or me to investagate it.
BTW
its londoner not Mr Londoner

author by seanpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 22:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If they grabbed hold of the man, held him in a kind of four pointed restraint and shot him in the head, then it's murder, and the police can't take the moral high ground.

If he was wired up so to speak he could have detonated the bomb just before they got hold of him.

author by George W Bush International Terroristpublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 22:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Somebody did not want this Canary to Sing. Seems like the Bush Iran-Contra Junta has a Long Arm these days. Inside the British Colony. Welcome to the USSA.

author by our way of lifepublication date Fri Jul 22, 2005 23:14author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Nor can we allow our way of life to be altered.

So we've all got the "why 5 bullets?"
then we went to the "which one was fatal?"
We have briefly looked at "why the head?"
We have touched upon the neutralisation of a suspected suicide bomber.
Now we haven't called neurological experts to evidence yet. But the incident is to have its inquiry.
& there are many young Londoners who despite such excellent civic training and community efforts are "emotionalised" by the idea of extra-judiciary killing of suspects. What they were against before they still are.
& our duty to uphold their right to those emotions and display of them is paramount.

author by -publication date Sat Jul 23, 2005 14:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Increasing concern & outrage at apparent police "shoot to kill" policy
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319207.html
'Man shot dead was not a bomber'
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319163.html
police murdered unarmed suspect in tube shooting
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319094.html
Someone shot at Stockwell Northern Line station
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319077.html

author by TheTrollpublication date Sat Jul 23, 2005 17:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

...and the police knew it for a fact.

Some people think that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald because Oswald was (as he claimed) a patsy and that he knew (implied he knew) who was really behind the Kennedy assasination.

This guy could have been working for the 7-7 attackers and knew, how they say, "where the bodies were burried." He might have had the skinny that would have led to the "wrong" doors. Maybe even number 10.

What were his contacts in the Muslim community? Maybe it would be more prudent to ask what his contacts to MI5 were? It might lead you somewhere.

author by our way of life - (iosaf)publication date Sat Jul 23, 2005 21:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

He was not a terrorist or related to terrorism in any way.

The loss of life in such a way is a tragedy.

***********************************************


It is much more than just a tragedy, it is a mistake which was waiting to happen. Some may attribute chance to such occurances as bombs exploding or not exploding and to the innocent being killed and not.

I have spent the last hours watching the various TV stations of the southern mediterranean, something which I can do with ease, living on that sea.
Morocco boasts two stations which are satelite broadcast, one only slightly less state controlled than the other. Its weekend, saturday the night after prayers, and a quiz show seperates teams of teenagers all dressed in matching baseball hats and t-shirts to answer questions and compete.
Some of the female kids wear hijabs and the baseball caps look all the more intimidating perched on top. Other female kids do not. I flick to RM2 and the weekly soap opera set in the urban north sees the problems with the daughter at home, the son at home, and the daughter who went to germany and what is she doing? played out in a home of what seems even on my side of the mediterranean to be of opulence and success.
The soap opera family of RM2 have succeeded in the competition.
Algeria, is stunned. Normally algerian telly is very predictable, lots of figures and facts, a bit of farming info, news, desert and gas. But tonight the news affords three seperate reports on the Egpytian bombing and then the kidnap of its ambassador and his aide in Baghdad. I flick back to Moroccan telly, the quiz have finished now more pictures of kids in an amusement arcade shooting things, driving cars, testing their strength boxing a ball. Some kids in good clothes some kids in bad clothes. Some in hijabs some not. I go back to algerian telly, and they are interviewing a tourist who describes the dustcloud and noise and then silence, I filter the dubbing and it turns out he is Irish.
Egyptian telly, It turns out I've just seen their coverage on algerian telly. The hotel, the supermarket, the grim faces, the president, the blood on the roadside. They are not presenting "rolling news" instead they have a civilised discussion forum between an imam and a writer and a politician. I presume it was pre-recorded.
Sky News is at that end of the presets. Odd, that sky news "the sister channel of FoxNews!" is squeezed down between mid german telly, some dodgy radio stations and north african telly.
Mr Straw tells me it is a fight. Britons on holidays, "I'm from London" says a londoner standing next to her husband "We just came from where the bombs were and now theres bombs here too".
Sky News goes back to Leeds where the first demonstrations of "Peace" have occured amongst the young regardless of creed or ethnicity.
Two young people are interviewed, one obviously muslim, but his RP accent makes his beard and clothing seem odd, the other pointedly "local" and he agrees with his brother in peace.
Saleem = Pax = Peace = Shalom

I go through Murdoch to Tunisian telly, compressed news reports not swelling on the pictures or their obvious implications - "tourism". Tunisia has gone much further down that road in comparison to Algeria. Tunisians are not associated in the popular imagination or "tourism market" with terrorism or acts of terror. They tell me Milan have cancelled the football match in London.

I thought : "I'll go see what's happening at home with Rossport and the Migrants", wish them all solidarity and support, and maybe tell me what the world looks like from down here, "on the periphery of the impossible caliphate". & just before I do that, and & just before I do I check Moroccan telly to see what the kids are doing "now" and I find them being utterly normal, utterly like Londoners or Dubliners, _they're in a bowling alley._

Just one difference, this is telly, they get to keep the baseball hats and t-shirts but they don't get jobs, even if they were children of the elite to get to play the game in the first place.

author by Damien Moran - Dublin Catholic Workerpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2005 02:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The above title is a quote from 'anti-terrorism expert' Robert Ayers of the Royal Institute of International Affairs think tank.

It describes the shoot-to-kill policy perpetrated by the Met. cops who murdered an innocent man in London's Tube yesterday.

So will the killer cops be charged with murder? I think not. Despite the fact that ten British servicemen are facing charges arising out of their war crimes in Iraq
(http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8630), fears of a shoot-to-kill policy is bound to breed animosity amongst Britain's multi-ethnic community, and of course amongst everyone who likes to wear long baggy coats.

The cold blooded murder of a young Brazilian electrician by the Brits shoot-to-kill policy bears bad news for London's homeless - afterall, it's usually street drinkers who are laden with jackets and jumpers in summer time, london style.

I remember an old wise man telling me when I was studying in Co. Galway: "If you can't see the hills of Clare it's going to rain, and if you can see them, well, it's raining."
Such is the advice one should offer everyone living in Britain and Ireland.
Have a long (baggy) rainjacket close at hand

A few scattered showers are expected in London tomorrow, but what would you choose? 5 bullets or a rainjacket. See the London forecast yourself:
http://www.lbc973.co.uk/Article.asp?PT=News+Headlines&id=26815

Although the five day forecast in Sao Paulo (where Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, came from) looks a bit more like what one would expect here in Dublin or over there in London. Summer is in December-February.
http://www.geographia.com/brazil/saopaulo/usefulfacts.htm
Yesterday's weather in London was closer to Sao Paulo's 'Fall' period

'Man Killed in London Not Linked to Blasts'
By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - 'Police identified the man who was chased down in a subway and shot to death by plainclothes officers as a Brazilian and expressed regret Saturday for his death, saying they no longer believed he was tied to the recent terror bombings.'

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050723/ap_on_re_eu/britain_underground

The Brits carried out their own unique form of terrorism in Northern Ireland with a Shoot-to-Kill policy.

Interestingly Gerry Adams writes in this week's Vincent Browne edited/managed 'The Village' magazine, about the background to West Belfast's Annual Feile an Phobail. The March 1988 murders of 3 unarmed IRA volunteers by British undercover soldiers were just the beginning of a series of tit-for-tat killings in N.Ireland's Dirty War which led to a whole community of people labelled as 'terrorists' or the harbourers of same.

As the Sunday Times article linked below states:
'Prophetically, a former senior Special Branch officer from Northern Ireland said: “I suspect that the authorities in England will make all the same mistakes as we did.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1706149,00.html

While Sky News breezes over the murder of an innocent man by the British police, 'The Weekend Journal on CBS broadcasts a terror-training package for all it's braindead (that must include me if I'm relating this news) viewers.

Fear is the health of the State.

So if you've seen anybody wear something resembling these baggy coats please call the Mets. Anti-Terrorist hotline at
0800 789 321

http://www.met.police.uk/counter_terrorism/hotline.htm

If you see any dodgy bums wearing 6 jumpers and a duffel coat in NYC's Subway then call
1-888-692-7233

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/terrorismhl.html

Suicide Bombers & Brazilian electricians favourite
Suicide Bombers & Brazilian electricians favourite

Related Link: http://www.peaceontrial.com
author by the truth - plain and simplepublication date Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Haven't you realised the truth of the matter as revealed by the divine Toneore ?
THE TERRORISTS BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS MAN'S DEATH.

Repeat after me:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....
THE TERRORISTS ARE TO BLAME ....

The police are never at fault. Neither in the UK nor in Ireland.
Remember Donegal and their relentless pursuit of the evil terrorists who murdered Mr. Barron !
Remember Abbeylara and their relentless pursuit of potential terrorists on that day.
Your police are the Guardians of Peace.

Related Link: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71096&condense_comments=false#comment115899
author by hilaalpublication date Sun Jul 24, 2005 20:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Thanks to the Met the people of London now have something else to worry about........being shot dead by police............That is terrorism too isn't it??? Perhaps the cops should just shoot themselves....

author by kill your tv.publication date Sun Jul 24, 2005 21:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

& they generally clamour to send people to jail or the gallows.-
It is for the benefit of CNN, Sky, Fox etc that the Met called the press conferences, and indeed put back one conference.
& from Argentina to Ireland the tabloids pick up on inaccuracies and plant them in the mind of readers.
& from London to Egypt to France innocents are being rounded up.
I know what I'm writing about, colleagues.
In the period since July 1, there have been less than 8 publically declared detentions of terrorist suspects globally who are known to be connected to Al Q & Co.
In the period since july 1, there have been globally over 900 arrests related to "ongoing investigations" "linked" to London July 7.
There have been over 60 deportations. Only one with known and justifiable accountable reasons.
There has been 24/7 calls on US TV to officials of the Bush regime asking "are you doing enough to assist London, Pakistan, Lebanon, India, Turkey, Egypt in their investigations and war on terror?"
Excluding the Israel/Palestine and Iraqi theatres more than 200 have died in "greater europe" (including the mediterranean, where are food comes from and our tourists go to) in the last 3 weeks. There are over 2000 wounded. Nasty wounds, amputations, first, second, third degree burns, deafness, trauma. The victims actual or psychological are countless. & our the commercial media and particularly the US media rather than playing a role in collective sympathy which is not morbid, or support which is not patronising have jumped to judge 2 individuals at least one who is now dead. & they clamour on-
Round up!
Fight them!
just bury they dead. don't start fighting them if you don't even understand them, or have the slightest inkling of how they operate. & most of all, don't give them "terror tips", for they are as much like "the borg" as any western civilisation entity or even how rts! used describe itself- "they learn every time they do it better". And Commercial Media is giving them ideas. From Ireland to Argentina. & stop calling for quick investigations.
Have the Met already not said they are almost at the limit?
There are constructive things most people can do, to stop becoming "israeli like".
1. is seriously discuss withdrawl from Iraq.
2. is become seriously knowledgeble on Afghanistan why does the west and the UN want all of us there? why should we be there?
3. what is the real pakistan problem?
4. what is happening in the western maghreb, have you noticed the _very serious_ crises?
5. do not recruit for fundamentalists. Don't give them reason to find more dissatisfied young men and turn them into infernal suicides either "here" or wherever it is they get deported to.

It means "indymedia business as usual".

author by blair_ police line _ brazilian responsepublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 03:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I mean, the important point here is there's nothing gratuitous in what's going on, there's nothing, you know, cavalier here. There's no conspiracy to shoot people.

"I am very aware that minority communities are talking about a shoot-to-kill policy. It is only a shoot-to-kill-in-order-to-protect policy. There is no point in shooting at someone's chest because that is where the bomb is likely to be.

"There is no point in shooting anywhere else if they fall down and detonate it. The only way to deal with this is to shoot to the head.

"I think we are quite comfortable the policy is right but these are fantastically difficult times. We have to take this tragedy, deeply regret it and move on to the main investigation which is proceeding at an extraordinary pace."

Mr Pereira said the police were incompetent and cowardly. He claimed that his cousin had been murdered and said that when he went to identify Mr de Menezes's body, it was clear he had been shot in the back of the neck.

"He walked five minutes to a bus, then he travelled two miles to a station, then he went in to the station and only then did they shoot him," Mr Pereira said.

"Why? If they think he is a suicide bomber, why let him on a bus, why not stop him on the street?"

"I say to Tony Blair, to everybody: watch out, this could be you next, it could be me, it could be anybody, shot in the back of the neck by some incompetent policeman."

Fellow Brazilians were equally appalled at what was presented in their media as an execution by the Metropolitan Police.

On the BBC's Brasil website, one contributor compared the killing to the worst excesses of the Brazilian police in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo.

Related Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/25/nshoot25.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/25/ixnewstop.html
author by Maria Ambrosia de Menezespublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 03:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"I'm begging God for justice," Mr De Menezes's mother, Maria Ambrosia de Menezes, told the Guardian, in floods of tears. "I'm begging that the police be punished. It's not fair to kill an innocent worker.

"I told him to take care [in England] ... but he laughed. 'It's a clean place, mum. The people are educated. There's no violence in England. No one goes around carrying guns. Not even the police.'"

The No 2 bus reaches Stockwell station in about 15 minutes, following a near-straight route down Tulse Hill and through the commercial bustle of Brixton Road.

More questions than answers cluster around Mr De Menezes' final minutes when he got there: why was he wearing clothing bulky enough to arouse the suspicion he was hiding explosives? Why was he not challenged sooner? Why did he jump the turnstile when ordered to halt?

"I think that the police are inventing this thing about the thick jacket," said Mr Avila, whose number police found in Mr Menezes's mobile phone.

Mr Pereira denied his cousin would have jumped over the barrier. "Running, maybe. But not running from the police. Everyone runs for the underground. But he wouldn't jump. Why would he jump?"

He was not carrying his toolbag, both men said, because he had left it with Mr Avila in Kilburn the evening before.

Mr Menezes had been stopped twice by police in the past, said his cousin, who said that was a normal occurrence for young Brazilian men in London, part of a community of about 100,000 Brazilians in total. The police had searched his toolbag, but let him go when it was found to contain nothing but tools.

A small crowd of largely Brazilian demonstrators gathered outside parliament yesterday lunchtime, holding their national flag and decrying the Stockwell shooting.

Fausto Soares, a friend of Mr Menezes, said: "We are all terrified about the bombs, but now we are terrified of the police as well."

Related Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535565,00.html
author by toneorepublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 04:23author email toneore at eircom dot netauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Looks like there's a lot of Brazilians posting to this site who need to read up about their own country before they start slinging mud at the UK.

"Official figures cited 663 killings by police in the state of São Paulo and 983 in Rio de Janeiro state. Both figures were lower than in recent years. The vast majority of the victims were young, poor, black or mixed-race men. While investigations were opened into some of these cases, few progressed very far.

Members of state police forces were attacked or killed both on and off duty. Eighty-two police
officers were killed in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro while on duty."

Related Link: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/bra-summary-eng
author by emotional ettiquete (sic) in a world gone scary for kidspublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 04:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Yes if anyone said, say in the emails PP quotes, that he "deserved to die," they are horrible for saying so.
What I'm taking issue with is the idea that it is somehow also horrible to feel sympathy for the police involved.
The point is not that the police had some kind of weird right to kill him; the point is that the killings happened through a tragic series of mistakes and misunderstandings, with negligence, obliviousness, and (sorry) overkill thrown in to the combustible mix.
What I'm not seeing is cavalier willfullness.
I accept that he was not cavalier to run from them, but did so because he thought that was the thing to do. Meanwhile I don't think they were necessarily cavalier to gun him down, if they were tailing him as a bombing suspect. I reserve judgement on that until I see some more definitive account."

"I agree with the police here--and that doesn't mean I have fallen for the Bush/Blair kool-aid or am a victim of terrorism hysteria. Let's be clear: this guy deserves a Darwin Award. This guy:
1. Came from an Muslim/Pakistani neighborhood.
2. Wore a heavy jacket in summertime. 3. RAN FROM POLICE.  Why?
4. Ran INTO THE SUBWAY--a day after a second round of subway terror attacks, and during a lockdown alert.
5. Jumped the tube turnstiles.
6. Ran into the subway train, at full speed, from the cops.
What the fuck do you expect the cops to do???  Wait and SEE if perhaps he's wired to an explosive detenator, on the off chance that he's some Brazilian fool running from the cops for god knows what reason, into the goddamn subway?"


"Let me explain. It's clear you are not a public transportation person.
Hundreds of people behave like that on an ongoing basis in and around the big tubestations in london and the underground in paris and the buses in dublin and new york as i remember it anyway - faredodgers - low level heroin dealers - beggars - homeless - the distracted - the addled - the growing underclass - If you're homeless in a european city you need bulky clothes - If you're foreign and homeless you most likely do not know what is even on the news .
People like that usually have low level police records with probations etc mandated and a high probability of ending up in jail for a minor theft or minor drug offence. They will continue to run from the police. Should they be shot for making that calculation?
Should all the old guys (some vietnam veterans I know from my experience of living there) who hang around wearing bulky jackets in summer and sleep in public parks in Boston be shot for running from the police?"

Related Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/24/173034/497
author by Ali H.publication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 09:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The nonchalance with which various rightwing trolls regurgitate the spin on this public execution is chillingly familiar to those familiar with this island.

These police goons have been programmed by the brainwashing of security consultants. Funny how Ian Blair (the Met Commissioner) only refers to the Sri Lankans who are not exactly known for their security industry, and not the Israeli companies who are the "authorities" in this area, the same consultants would also be familiar to the residents of Abu Graib. Perhaps he and his political masters dont want to further inflame the passions of British Muslims?

This operation bears all the hallmarks of conditioned response where police officers have practiced this scenario over and over again and used blank rounds when shooting each other in the head as each plays the terrorist and their instructor roars encouragement.

So much for split second decisions we hear about in the media spin. These guys are robots whose higher brain function plays no part in this type of action which is a reflex like blinking or jerking a knee.

The dangers of having these goons running the streets is well known to those north of the border whose relatives were killed in cold blood by the so called security forces, eg the family of Aidan Macanespie. The spin will be equally familiar .......

The fact that this unfortunate guy was allowed to walk from his home, onto a bus and eventually was pushed onto a train full of commuters before being shot in the head 5 or six times reeks of an exhibition killing aimed at sending a "message" to would be suicide bombers.

The only question is whether this execution was approved directly by the political powers that be or not.

One clue however is the relentless spin which is the hallmark of Downing St. and Tony Blair.

The elements of this spin and news management are how we moved from we've got the terrorist in the process of carrging out a bombing and how this transmuted into:

It was all the guys own fault
He looked wrong
He wore the wrong jacket
etc.

What do you bet (as his brother stated when interviewed by the BBC) that

the guy was deliberately killed
he wasnt warned at all
the jacket was a light fold up anorak of the type Italian tourists wear all the time because they find our summer cold
In fact the poor unfortunate was publicly executed in a gruesome exhibition of the states power

These kind of lies are stock in trade to the Blair government.

author by Juvenalpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 14:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Sadly, detecting and neutralising suicide bombers is not an exact science.

In an ambiguous situation, where the lives of potentially dozens of people are at stake, the police must make judgement calls under tremendous amounts of stress.

Sometimes, they can make the 'correct' call, and in hindsight the outcome is a negative result.

This is such an incident.

Had this man stopped when challenged by armed police officers (who would have shouted that they were such), prior to his entering the tube, then he would be alive today.

As callous as it sounds, ultimately he had a hand in bringing about his own death. Given the circumstances at the time, he must have been aware that running from police towards a train and ignoring a call to stop was tantamount to asking to be shot.

I believe police we acting entirely according to correct procedure when they opened fire on him. In conventional policing, an individual who runs must be chased down and arrested. These were unconventional circumstances, and you do not arrest a suicide bomber. They are neutralised.

"But he wasn't a suicide bomber!" Some cry.

Well hell, folks ... he behaved like one when he ran from the police. They are not mind-readers and there is no margin for error when there are people in London walking into the tube station with a belt of explosives wrapped around themselves.

As I mentioned at the outset, sometimes you can make the right call (the only call you could have made), and still get a negative result.

This is because real-life is chaotic, it is imperfect. All the monday morning quarterbacking and hand-wringing in the world will not change this.

Guaranteed that no-one feels worse about this than the individual who pulled the trigger. However, I hope that his colleagues and trainers have assured him that his motives were honorable and his intentions were good. He could not have known that the deceased, attempting to flee police contact, was unnarmed and apparently uninvolved in terrorism. He was not a mind-reader.

If you want someone to blame (aside from the deceased), then lets look to the walking jackals who have engineered this crisis and necessitated the introduction of a shoot to kill policy by virtue of their adoption of suicide bombing as a weapon.

Blaming the Met for recent events is like blaming a doctor for the unpleasant taste of the medicine he has prescribed, instead of focusing on the illness which has made it necessary.

author by Ali H.publication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 14:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If the authorities in Britan have nothing to hide they should publish the CCTV footage of what happened along with the police radio recordings and/or transcripts.

Dont hold your breath.

Blaming terrorists for this mans death is simply not acceptable, and the spin around Jeans murder is calculated to put the blame on him and distance the British government from any responsibility in the matter.

We've gone from:

Terrorist killed in the act

to

Person not thought to be one of the bombers

to

Person came from house that was under surveillance

to

Person was from same block of flats or housing estate ...

to

Shot because he ran away

to

Its all his fault because his visa had expired

No doubt there will be additional attempts to besmirch his name in order to protect the scum who inhabit no. 10.

This spin has all of the hallmarks of Downing St. and smacks of the 45 minutes WMD claims.

In the meantime the family of Jean are right to believe that he was the victim of a gruesome ritual killing as a capability statement by the British government.

Hopefully the family will have their day in court and the deceipt of the British establishment will be revealed.

author by redjadepublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 16:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I was watching SkyNews this morning and there was some old tory type grumbling away asking (paraphrasing but nearly a quote):

'Why was he acting like he was a terrorist?'

author by Dublinerpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 16:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Following the Enniskillen bombing Mrs Thatcher declared that there would be 'no hiding place' for the IRA. At that time she already knew of the IRA unit's presence in Spain, as did British intelligence. Thatcher has made no secret of her view that Britain is at war with the IRA. Indeed she has said that civil liberties such as freedom of the press and the right to silence must be sacrificed in this war. What better opportunity could there be to put the war strategy into operation? Tipped-off that three senior IRA figures were engaged in preparations for an operation in Gibraltar, the British government took the decision to eliminate them in as public and terrifying a fashion as possible.

The very terms of the inquest precluded the truth from becoming known and the murderers from being revealed. Whilst the M15 and SAS hid behind a curtain, their masters hid behind a thicker veil - Public Interest Immunity Certificates. No questions could be raised about the intelligence that enabled the SAS to claim they thought the three were armed and in control of a bomb. Nor about the decision, made by Thatcher herself, to use the SAS. Yet it was this decision that sealed the fate of the three. Neither the eyewitnesses who saw the three finished off while on the ground, nor the forensic evidence with its cold scientific portrayal of Sean Savage shot in the head whilst immobilised on the ground, could alter the outcome of such a carefully managed event.

Yet it was precisely the excluded intelligence background which would have been central to revealing the truth. Firstly it was this 'intelligence' that led the SAS to be so sure (and so wrong) that the three were armed and had a remote controlled bomb on 6 March. This provided the SAS with their stated reason for shooting the three. The PIICs meant that no questions could be asked about the basis on which the British believed the three to be armed or to have a bomb. Secondly, the question of what surveillance the three were under in Spain and why, nevertheless, they were allowed to cross into Gibraltar could not be properly pursued. By its use of PICs the British government ensured that there could be no serious inquiry into the Gibraltar operation.

Instead the British government presented an elaborately-rehearsed, two-stage cover story. Stage One was 'for reasons which we cannot divulge we mistakenly let three IRA members into Gibraltar and mistakenly thought they were armed and had a bomb'. This led neatly to Stage Two: the SAS 'saw threatening gestures by the three which led us to believe they were going to detonate the (non-existent) bomb so we shot them' - Stage One led inexorably to Stage Two, but Stage One could never be questioned. It was designed as a neat, circular and impenetrable cover.

Related Link: http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/larkin_pubs/older/motr/motr_all.htm#appendix
author by News watcherpublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 16:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I was watching da newz last night. I think it was BBC 24 when they were reporting on the Brazilian guys family. Without pausing for breath they went straight into the four uncaptured suspects.
I wonder what would have happened if an Israeli had been killed by mistake. They are Semites just like the arabs. If the cops mistake a Brazilian for an arab it's highly possible that an Israeli might be mistaken. I'm sure the right wingers would have a different opinion then (unless of course it was a working class Israeli.)

author by 8 not 5publication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 18:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

7 to head
1 to shoulder
The inquest has heard.

he was 27 years of age.
he looked brazilian.
he was doing his best to be a Londoner.
RIP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4713753.stm

author by redjadepublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 18:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

'Security sources have said Mr Menezes had been in the UK on an out-of-date student visa,....'

well, this explains why he 'acted like a terrorist' (as SkyNews was saying this morning)

author by mmspublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 19:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Brazil request explanation for the death of an Innocent man
we should learn from the Brazilian people "o Povo Brasileiro" who they know who to love the life!

VIVA O POVO BRASILEIRO!!!

A Brazilian man, 27 years old, working as an electrician in London, from the State of Minas Gerais in Brazil, innocent person
A sad day for a citizen on the way to work and the government with their laws take from him his life.
Myself as a citizen who loves Brazil express my solidarity for the victims of this State terrorism. Bring back a Social and Pacific Europe, And countries like Brazil showing us how to love the life but they took from us the hope and dreams of "Another World is possible", the message I learn from Porto Alegre!

author by Eoghan Harrispublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 20:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Every Muslim immigrant should be given a good grounding in Irish history and Western civilisation. The Irish history course should emphasise the emergence of Irish democracy.

The course on Western civilisation should stress the primacy of civilisation over culture. There should be no pretence that cultures which practise genital mutilation are on a par with the civilisation which produced Aristotle, democracy and the rule of law.

We must make sure that every Irish Muslim accepts that beating women or supporting suicide bombers is no more acceptable than bad old Irish habits - which we shamed out of ourselves - such as beating young boys or bombing bars in Belfast.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1438366&issue_id=12779

author by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - Indymedia Internationalepublication date Mon Jul 25, 2005 21:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

12: 20pm Pacific Standard Time.

Stalker (interviewed from Cheshire) says he can't see any alternative to "shoot to kill". Talks about the IRA years and claims that the police find it harder to deal with Islamic-terrorists because they have no informants. Also quoted is Chris Fox in harmony with Stalker.

(Note: stalker chaired some inquiries into Brit shoot-to-kill policies in the past).

Stalker talks about how the British police have been trained by the Israelis and "that is what is upsetting the Muslim community here ... they see the police as an extension of the Israelis"

Interviewer says "but what the British police need now are the tactics of the Israelis ... cold"

Stalker agrees and then says "there is no other way than shooting a man in the head ... this is very difficult for the British police and public to come to terms with .... given 150 years .... it's a culture shock"

Stalker then talks about current rules of engagement which require a Brit police officer not to open fire unless they are individually certain they can only save others from death/injury by firing on the suspect.

Stalker can't see any evidence of any bad will on any officers part. There may be criticism of the intelligence that found its way to these officers.

author by Ali H.publication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is easy to see how myopic politicians are attracted to the thought of a quick fix solution. In this case an ritual killing designed to send a message to would-be suicide bombers.

The same message was sent many times in the north of our own Ireland.

Of course some of us (a minority I fear) on this island actually understand from observation of the facts that state exhibition assassinations did not produce the desired outcome, ie they did not remove the root cause and did not stop terrorism.

In fact the state got it wrong in many cases and killed innocent people actually increasing resistance.

Why should it be any different in this case?

Afterall it hasnt worked in Israel where despite large scale extra-judicial assassinations and building a massive "security" fence there was yet another suicide bombing just the other week.

What the Brits and others need to do is not to bull ahead regardless in terms of policy and let their civilian population take the consequences when the chickens come home to roost, but start addressing the occupation of Iraq and Palestine etc.

Only political action in tandem with security measures will provide long term safety for citizens; burying your head in the sand will not.

author by Juvenalpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The purpose of shooting a suicide bomber en route to his target area is not to primarily to 'send a message' to his islamofacist compatriots, (although that may be an inevitable by-product of successfully doing so).

The purpose is far more practical : to stop that would-be mass murderer cold so that he does not successfully detonate a bomb killing innocent people.

Treating root causes is a valid part of an overall strategy (though I suspect we mean very different things when we use those terms). It is *not* a substitute for preventing terrorist operations in progress.

author by DV8publication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"The purpose is far more practical : to stop that would-be mass murderer cold so that he does not successfully detonate a bomb killing innocent people."

Why the use of the word 'that'. As has been proved the murdered Brazilian was not a would be mass murderer. The only murderers were SO19.

author by Paul Baynespublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Somebody is dead. An innocent man has been shot by the police.

Juvenal: “As callous as it sounds, ultimately he had a hand in bringing about his own death. Given the circumstances at the time, he must have been aware that running from police towards a train and ignoring a call to stop was tantamount to asking to be shot”

This doesn’t sound too reasonable to me. Running away is like asking to be shot? One might expect to be chased, but to be shot? I don’t think so. This is not acceptable police behaviour. I don’t know what kind of vision you have of how the police should behave. This young man is dead. His life is finished. And you think this is justified because he ran away from the police? On the contrary, I think that running away from the police is starting to sound more and more sensible by the day.

I find it very difficult to get my head around this kind of ‘blame the victim’ rubbish.

You twice justify the police actions by saying they were not mind readers. Perhaps they would use the ‘not a mind reader’ defence in any inquest into the matter.

Then you compare this young man’s murder with having to drink unpleasant-tasting medicine. The mind boggles.

"Blaming the Met for recent events is like blaming a doctor for the unpleasant taste of the medicine he has prescribed, instead of focusing on the illness which has made it necessary."

Bizarre stuff...

author by DV8publication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes appears to have been in the UK legally when shot dead by police.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said his understanding was that the 27-year-old was living and working in the UK lawfully.
Mr de Menezes was shot eight times by armed police in Stockwell Underground station on Friday when mistaken for a suicide bomber.
Reports had suggested his visa may have run out and that prompted him to run from the police.
Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim confirmed: "The information we have got from our consulate is that he was here lawfully."
Mr Straw told the minister he "profoundly regretted" the death of Mr de Menezes.
Mr Amorim has called on the British Government to compensate the dead man's family, who live in Brazil.
"The only thing that would give us satisfaction is to return Jean Charles back to life, but of course that is not possible.
"So some form of compensation to the family would be right because they are humble people.
"It would not lessen the shock and concern about the death of this innocent person, but it would be something concrete in addition to the apologies which have been made."
He also asked for the man's body to be returned quickly to Brazil for his burial.
He warned the killing risked playing into the terrorists' hands and said terrorism had to be fought with respect for human rights.
Jack Straw has said that both he, Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Ian Blair would be prepared to meet the family if they wished.

Related Link: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13394738,00.html
author by Juvenalpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"This doesn’t sound too reasonable to me. Running away is like asking to be shot? One might expect to be chased, but to be shot? I don’t think so."

The experiences of police in israel, sri lanka and other locations in dealing with suicide bombers have yielded harsh lessons.

A suicide bomber will detonate his payload if he believes he is in danger of failing to reach his target. Rounds delivered to the centre of body mass may also detonate his payload.

Either of the above outcomes means damage to his immediate vicinity and to the arresting officers and public, most likely. As such, suspected suicide bombers are shot in the head in the belief that this offers the greatest chance of preventing an explosion.

In light of recent events, the Met have correctly adopted the above policy. These are times in which an uncommon and vicious danger is presented to the public by terrorists without empathy or compassion for innocent people.

This is indeed a tragedy, but while the Met may express regret for his death, they are not guily of murder. He is a victim of circumstances, if anything: The final victim of the previous bombings.

Sadly we may never know what kind of brief madness drove him to run from police's challenge, jump a turnstyle and attempt to board a train. I stand by my assertion that he must have been aware that such an action would place him at extreme risk.

By taking such an action, he also forced the hand of the police, and my sympathies are with the officers who unfrotunately had to take action as such. This will be a difficult and uncertain time for them and their famillies while they await the vindication I am sure will come to them pending an investigation. It does not help that a section of the public they risk their lives to protect villify them.

"You twice justify the police actions by saying they were not mind readers. Perhaps they would use the ‘not a mind reader’ defence in any inquest into the matter."

A defensible use of force in this case would not revolve around whether or not the deceased was in fact a suicide bomber. It would hinge upon whether or not the officers concerned genuinely believed that the action they took was necessary, proportional and justifiable in light on the information they had available to them at the time.

It is not a 'mind reader defence', but it does not using the benefit of hindsight as a stick to viciously beat those in the public service with.

:)

author by Curiouspublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

...that he ran after being challenged?

author by Juvenalpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 15:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The testimony of eye witnesses as reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Their version of events has De Menezes vaulting the automatic ticket barriers and heading for the platforms, following which he ran down an escalator after being approached by plainclothes police and attempted to board a northern line train, failing to acknowledge calls to stop.

This also tallies with Scotland Yard's version of events.

This won't satisfy the more paranoid among us, but pending the outcome of the investigation by the Police Complaints Comission, its what we've got.

author by Ali H.publication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There is no proof that Jean ran.

Let's see the CCTV footage from the ticket barriers and the recordings of the police radio transmissions as based on their past record the British security services and police habitually fabricate evidence and perjur themselves.

Irish people know this only too well many of them having done significant jail time for crimes they didn't commit at best, and loosing their lives as shoot-to-kill victims at worst.

As for shooting people 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder this type of tactic will be completely ineffective if as in Palestine and Sri Lanka the bomber arms the bomb and has to keep a button depressed.

In this case severing the brainstem causes the hand muscles to relax and the bomb to go off these guys are not stupid and can change their tactics.

This killing was a political execution, no two ways about it.

The worst thing is that it has probably made things worse not better.

It may even turn the police themselves into targets and its not too difficult to imagine somebody walking into a police station with a bomb in retalliation.

The fact nobody and nowhere is safe until we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and mind our own business.

author by Curiouserpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:30author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Same eye witnesses that saw him with a bomb belt? The same police that are quoted on the front of Saturdays IT as saying the murdered man was 'directly linked to terrorism'?

author by R. Isiblepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

And we can add to them: the same police that apparently followed him (according to their non-verified statements) from the supposed terrorist house and all the way to the tube-station? What, they waited to shoot someone that they KNEW to be carrying bombs?

All this is speculation based on the bullshit dripped out to us by the police through the mainstream media.

It highlights the lack of basic information necessary to a functioning democracy.

Good job on Indymedia.UK for having eyewitness reports from people who talked about being searched by cops at the tube station 1 hour before the shooting.

The mainstream media are in general just disseminators of press releases from very entrenched interests.

Overall this looks like terrorism: police terrorism and Blair terrorism stupidly and cack-handedly ratcheting up the tension by entering into the immoral and foolish position of supporting the illegal US invasion of Iraq. When Blair and his cabinet decided to ignore their intelligence reports and lie to the public about the WMD they also decided that the likely terrorist backlash against ordinary Britons was acceptable collateral (but oh, so desperately sorry, sorry to the little Iraqi children starved and bloated by faecal E.coli from the water supply contaminated from bombed and cracked sewerage pipes, oh so desperately sorry for the secular Iraqis stuck between raping American troops and sharia enforcing Islamic nutbags. Oh... so sorry ... for Irish teenagers killed by bombs on holiday ... so sorry for us ... for the civilians).

They've been sweating bullets waiting for stuff like this and their lashing out in incompetent panic to try and stop it. And in a horrible way (exactly as with suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel) it provides Blair with exactly the excuse he wants: "they are evil and not like us, we are at war"

author by Juvenalpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"There is no proof that Jean ran."

Eyewitness reports in the media constitute evidence. The question of whether or not they meet your standard of proof is another issue. As I said, no evidence will be strong enough to serve as proof for the truly paranoid among us.

There are obvious reasons the CCTV footage has not been released. It would unnecessarily upset the family and friends of the deceased, as well as the public at large, and more importantly, it would be prejudicial to the proper investigation of the incident by the Police Complaints Comission.

"Irish people know this only too well many of them having done significant jail time for crimes they didn't commit at best, and loosing their lives as shoot-to-kill victims at worst."

Equally, there are many convicted irish terrorists justly serving time in prison. Likewise, irish terrorists have been shot dead by security services in order to preserve innocent lives. What's your point?

"As for shooting people 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder this type of tactic will be completely ineffective if as in Palestine and Sri Lanka the bomber arms the bomb and has to keep a button depressed."

If they have a 'dead man's switch' you are correct that it is a marginal tactic. However, not all of them do. And doing something which has at least a chance of success is a better option that doing nothing.

"It may even turn the police themselves into targets and its not too difficult to imagine somebody walking into a police station with a bomb in retalliation."

Everyone in London is already a target, especially the police service.

This has changed nothing.

"The fact nobody and nowhere is safe until we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine and mind our own business."

Nonsense. 9/11 happened long before most Americans could even point to Afghanistan or Iraq on a man.

The threat from islamist terrorist organisations and their sympathisers has been gestating for far longer than the past couple of years, and appeasement (read: pulling out of iraq) is not a solution. It would constitute a display of weakness which would only invite further attack.

"And we can add to them: the same police that apparently followed him (according to their non-verified statements) from the supposed terrorist house and all the way to the tube-station? What, they waited to shoot someone that they KNEW to be carrying bombs?"

Had he not gone towards the tube station he would have been tailed in the hope that he would lead them to further individuals or locations unknown to their intelligence sources. Fairly rudimentary stuff. They interceded only when it became apparent he was going for a train. And when he ran from them, that appeared to confirm a worst case scenario.

"All this is speculation based on the bullshit dripped out to us by the police through the mainstream media."

And this leftist hand-wringing conspiracy theory nonsense from you guys is somehow more credible?

Puh-leeze.

author by redjadepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

'There are obvious reasons the CCTV footage has not been released. It would unnecessarily upset the family and friends of the deceased, as well as the public at large'

Please point to somewhere on the web that says this is standard operating procedure.

'and more importantly, it would be prejudicial to the proper investigation of the incident by the Police Complaints Comission.'

Again, show us where this has been said by the authorities investigating the shooting.

a little evidence or links to back up your points would go a long way here.

author by R. Isiblepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

QUOTE (Juvenal): "Nonsense. 9/11 happened long before most Americans could even point to Afghanistan or Iraq on a man."

What does American geographical education have to do with this? I'll bet most Americans /still/ couldn't point to Afghanistan or Iraq on a map. More importantly AlQ stated clearly that 9/11 happened because the USA was interfering in the Middle East. You are falling for the notion that terrorism is something other than war carried on by other means. Although the ideology of AlQ may be repulsive they have specific political objectives and are trying to achieve them through force of arms by terrorising and slaughtering innocent civilians because they can't mount a conventional war.

Also, it's still unclear as to whether the London bombings were AlQ or some other group.

It seems at least possible that the London bombings occurred as a way to terrorise the population of the UK into demanding a withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq. Do you deny this is the most likely possibility?

QUOTE: "pulling out of iraq) is not a solution. It would constitute a display of weakness which would only invite further attack.'

Huh? You're going to have to explain that one a little better. It seems like vapid psychologising.

author by Badmanpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Can you point to one? I'm not saying that there aren't any, just that I haven't seen a single identifiable witness quoted in the media as saying so. Just second hand - through the cop PR machine type of stuff.

author by redjadepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:37author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Blaming the West for the fact that it is under attack is a root cause of sorts, but of Western defeatism. Analytically, it makes no sense. The name al-Qaeda dates from the 1980s and Islamic terrorists have been attacking Western targets almost since the end of the Afghan jihad, certainly since the 1993 WTC attacks. Arguing that the war in Iraq caused the threat or its manifestation in the London attacks makes about as much chronological sense as arguing that the Black and Tans caused the 1916 rising.

It's not even clear that attacks have increased in frequency since March 2003, with the rate between then and 9/11 and then and now more or less of a piece. Moreover, since 9/11, the number of countries that did not participate in the Iraq War yet were attacked is extensive, Turkey within the last week being but the latest example. The widespread murder of Iraqi Muslims by al-Qaeda in the last two years shows that being a passive coreligionist is insufficient to appease the ideology.

Trusting a grouping that instructs its members to "kill infidels wherever you find them" to leave you alone if you pretend that its none of your business is suicidally foolish. Already extreme Islam claims much of Europe as its sole preserve, citing the presence of recent arrivals in France, Holland, and other European countries.

Nor should we forget that an explicit al-Qaeda aim is to recover Spain - not because of it's one-time token support for the war in Iraq but to reverse to loss of al-Andalus at the end of the Fifteenth century. As Mark Steyn pointed out at the time only half in jest, at that rate they won't get around to worrying about the Iraq War for another five hundred years or so.

http://www.freedominst.org/2005/07/differing-us-and-uk-reactions.html

author by Ali H.publication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Equally, there are many convicted irish terrorists justly serving time in prison. Likewise, irish terrorists have been shot dead by security services in order to preserve innocent lives. What's your point?"

My point is that killing terrorists or innocent victims does nothing to enhance security. In fact it often does the opposite.

Did the IRA stop after Gibraltar or Loughgall?

Did it stop the Tamil Tigers?

Did it stop Hizbollah?

Does it stop Hamas?

This type of behaviour by the establishment and in particular a cover-up which is in progress will in fact galvanise terrorists who will now be even less likely to have second thoughts (does happen from time to time), and will cause them to use counter-measures such as a dead-mans switch which negates all of this "split-second decision" nonsense.

We all know that the decision to kill Jean was not split second and was in all likelyhood made in Downing St. by Blair with the policeman simply pulling the trigger as a "lesson" to would-be suicide bombers.

The CCTV footage if it ever emerges will prove that this was a ritual murder/execution by the British establishment, with no warning and no reason.

author by R.Isiblepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

QUOTE: "The name al-Qaeda dates from the 1980s and Islamic terrorists have been attacking Western targets almost since the end of the Afghan jihad"

Them vs. us. Who is the "us" in the "Western targets" cited above? My impression, which may be wrong, is that the previous attacks were all on the USA. This supports the idea that the terrorists are true to their word: they attack people that interfere with their countries.

Now that the Freedom Friers have mentioned it (and that's actually a very nicely written piece, did they really write it themselves or is it a cut and paste from some adult's work?) a timeline with geographical locations would be interesting to do.

I wonder what the rate of terrorist attacks in the USSR was from Islamic militants while they were occupying Afghanistan?

author by Prof. Badmanpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The italicised text was written by a grown-up. Only the last two paragraphs were written by freedom dick. Dick's exquisite prose style is exemplified by his first sentence after the huge chunk of quoted text :

"Blaming the West for the fact that it is under attack is a root cause of sorts, but of Western defeatism."

Ignoring the strange logical leaps embodied in this phrase and concentrating only on the grammar, I can still spot three distinct errors.

author by richard w. fanpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 19:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

for pointing out to the same gentleman that the word 'articulacy' actually existed. He denied this by pointing out it was not in the american dictionary.

It is in the english dictionary.

He certainly did not like me pointing out the striking ideological similarities of their group to the notorious 'chicago boys' either. Too close to the bone and too much of a logical conclusion to their rhetoric and their lionised influences. Try to get them to disown Pinochet and same 'chicago boyos' and they'll dissappear your comments.

author by author authorpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 20:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

you posted today!

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fiblog/112239247816597360/#51215

they fuck around with your posts sometimes but youre hardly banned

author by TEAM AMERIKA WORLD POLICEpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 21:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

TAKE THAT TERRORIST! AND SCORE ANOTHER VICTORY FOR "THE GOOD GUYS! TEAM AMERIKA WORLD POLICE. DEFENDERS OF THE GLOBE AND FIGHTERS OF EVILDOERS WHERE THEY MAY BE!

author by Juvenalpublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 21:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Re: the non-release of CCTV footage

"Please point to somewhere on the web that says this is standard operating procedure."

...

show us where this has been said by the authorities investigating the shooting.

a little evidence or links to back up your points would go a long way here."

If you cannot understand why releasing CCTV footage of the incident into the public domain would be prejudicial to this investigation and any further investigation, then you don't need me to give you links. You need to exercise grey cells and consider

- The possible effect on an already jumpy populace
- The unecessary further traumatisation of the deceased's friends and family

and most importantly

- The implications the widespread dissemination of such footage would have in the (unlikely) event of criminal procedings being initiated. The dissemination of such footage would be prejudicial not only to the impending investigation by the IPCC, but also future investigations.

However, if you don't believe me, then why don't you e-mail the IPCC and ask they why they will not be releasing the CCTV footage which they undoubtedly have in their possession to you.

enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

As an aside, I also find the suggestion that this man's gory death should automatically be aired in public disturbing to say the least. His parents and friends are still mourning, and they have a right to privacy. The conspiracy theorists will have to fight down their lust for all the bloody details for a while longer.

----

Onto the next one:-

----


"More importantly AlQ stated clearly that 9/11 happened because the USA was interfering in the Middle East. You are falling for the notion that terrorism is something other than war carried on by other means. Although the ideology of AlQ may be repulsive they have specific political objectives and are trying to achieve them through force of arms by terrorising and slaughtering innocent civilians because they can't mount a conventional war."

Sounds to me like you're attempting to defend the indefensible. "terroristing and slaughtering innocent civillians" is wrong ... BUT....

There's always a 'but' for well-meaning but wooly-headed westerners who still have not woken up to the realities of the situation we are facing.

I raised the issue of 9/11 in an attempt to remind readers that we were being hit where we live long before we went in to effect a regime change there. Or before we did similar in Afghanistan. Everytime someone lays the events in London at the feet of allied activity in iraq they are practically bolstering the terrorist propaganda machine. Further, it is indicative of a disgusting mentality implying that innocent westerners somehow 'brought it on themselves', that we asked for this. Talk about blaming the victim for the rape....


"Also, it's still unclear as to whether the London bombings were AlQ or some other group."

'The Base' is practically a franchise at this point. There is not central command or single strand of thought or organisational structure. Its almost a meme at this point. Certain commonalities are shared by the all the groups: A hatred of western civillisation and a desire to replace it with a perverted version of an islamic caliphate. I say perverted because their vision should horrify all right-thinking muslim peoples.

"It seems at least possible that the London bombings occurred as a way to terrorise the population of the UK into demanding a withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq. Do you deny this is the most likely possibility?"

No, it is obviously a central tennet of attacking london at a time when anti-war sentiment is high. They tried the same trick in Spain, and unfortunately got exactly what they wanted out of it.

Luckily this time around, sterner hands are at the wheel.

"Huh? You're going to have to explain that one a little better. It seems like vapid psychologising."

Actually, its elementary strategy.

In any protracted conflict situation, it is a myth that appeasement is a viable method of surviving for long. At least, if you want to survive free and independent. Displaying weakness to the enemy is to invite further victimisation.

Neville Chamberlain never understood this, and almost led the british people to disaster many years ago. Happily, I do not believe Blair will repeat his mistake.

"Can you point to one? I'm not saying that there aren't any, just that I haven't seen a single identifiable witness quoted in the media as saying so. Just second hand - through the cop PR machine type of stuff."

There were distinct individuals quoted and pictured in some length in the sunday papers at the weekend. Likewise, via the BBC, RTE and blogs. I agree that any one or few of them will contain questionable information, but I am satisfied that thusfar the overwhelming bulk of them establish not only where the deceased died, but the details of his flight through the station. The detail of his jumping the toll gate and running down the escalator persists.

---

"My point is that killing terrorists or innocent victims does nothing to enhance security. In fact it often does the opposite."

Sorry, you've lost me here. There is an obvious distinction between the death of a terrorist at the hands of the security forces, and that of a civillian.

I agree that the death of a latter is a tragedy which does not improve the security situation, but the death of the former can indeed do so.

Especially if he is killed in the course of making an attempt on the lives of civillians.

"Did the IRA stop after Gibraltar or Loughgall?

Did it stop the Tamil Tigers?

Did it stop Hizbollah?

Does it stop Hamas?"

Defeatism. You are correct that terrorist organisations are protean and persist. But that does not mean you stop fighting them.

If the problem cannot be eradicated, then you manage it as best you can. Because if you fail to do so then you are picking up the pieces of innocent people with greater frequency than you otherwise might. Its that simple.

The attitude that terrorist organisations are far too frightful to combat in any shape or form because they will only adapt and change to overcome us should be derided. It is the kind of defeatist nonsense that serves only them.

"We all know that the decision to kill Jean was not split second and was in all likelyhood made in Downing St. by Blair with the policeman simply pulling the trigger as a "lesson" to would-be suicide bombers."

Yes, Blair clearly orchestrated this massive PR nightmare as part of a cunning ploy ... to piss of brazil, inflame the fears of the muslim community, and demonstrate to everyone the tightness of security at the tube station.

(Yeah, right).

"The CCTV footage if it ever emerges will prove that this was a ritual murder/execution by the British establishment, with no warning and no reason."

If you're that psychic, you should be lending your occult expertise to the security forces.

: )

author by Nordiepublication date Tue Jul 26, 2005 23:36author address author phone Report this post to the editors

'Good old Kate
by Nordie Friday, Jul 22 2005, 4:23pm


1319: Labour MP for Vauxhall Kate Hoey says she believes police acted with the best interests of the public in mind when they shot a man dead in Stockwell, which lies within her constituency.

Not surprising for a keen supporter of Arlene Foster and her lot. Shoot first - ask questions later.'

Get your own facking name.

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There is no distinction, butchering an unarmed person in cold blood whether a terrorist or not does nothing to enhance security.

Why was a taser good enough in Birmingham today but not on the tube?

The policy of an eye for an eye does not work and is proven not to work the world over.

Maybe in Israel ("wooly-headed westerners") you think it does, and maybe it even alleviates the pressure temporarily but the fact remains based on bitter experience that you are simply storing up more trouble for the future if you go down this road.

In terms of CCTV footage etc. the government had no problem releasing CCTV footage of suspects responsible for mass killing on the underground.

Where was your "concern" for the victims then?

In fact where is your "concern" every day for bloodied victims of bombings in Iraq we see on TV every evening, or the Americans lynched on TV in Fallujah?

If you were coherent you'd be arguing for a blanket ban on all such footage on TV.

Paradoxically that might be much more effective than butchering innocents in public as it would deprive Al-Quaeda of the oxygen of publicity they need to survive.

If Jean was a member of my family and I'd had to identify him (as his cousin did) with his skull reduced to pulp by 7 bullets then seeing the CCTV footage would clear any doubt in my mind about the how and why he was killed and would certainly be no worse than seeing him in that state.

It would even give a sense of closure is the police story actually turned out to be true.

If the CCTV footage and radio transcripts are not released then there is obviously a cover-up aimed at buying time until things have calmed down in the UK.

You don't need to be a psychic to see what is going on, but not being brainwashed and myopic definitely helps, as does some knowledge of recent history (Iraq, WMD, David Kelly to name but a few).

Spin, delaying tactics and moving the goalposts when you're found out are all standard Blair/Bush/neo-con (con being the operative word) tactics.

No doubt if the officer is ever brought to court, and is convicted he'll be let off with a few months in prision and will be reinstated into the force in exchange for covering up for his superiors who gave him the order for vendetta.

This is the standard mode of operation for the British establishment and you can take the Lee Clegg case by way of example.

author by Paul Baynespublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Juvenal, you do have some valid points to make, but ultimately I’m afraid your argument is internally inconsistent. In an earlier post, ‘Armchair generals rest uneasy…’, while you say that the death of Jean Charles de Menzes was a tragedy, you blame the victim for what occurred:
“As callous as it sounds, ultimately he had a hand in bringing about his own death.”

Later you accuse someone else of doing the same thing:
“it is indicative of a disgusting mentality implying that innocent westerners somehow 'brought it on themselves', that we asked for this. Talk about blaming the victim for the rape....” (your post ‘Facts of Life’)


Your inconsistent approach is again highlighted when you state:
”There is an obvious distinction between the death of a terrorist at the hands of the security forces, and that of a civillian.

”I agree that the death of a latter is a tragedy which does not improve the security situation, but the death of the former can indeed do so”.

Jean Charles De Menezes was such a civilian, yet you have justified his killing by saying that the police were forced to act as they did. You essentially believe that it was worth making this mistake in order to ensure that the security situation is kept under control. Is this your position?

The killing of De Menezes was a gross violation of human rights which must be condemned.

author by Juvenalpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"There is no distinction, butchering an unarmed person in cold blood whether a terrorist or not does nothing to enhance security."

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

I see an obvious mandate for the security services to kill to preserve life if necessary, when confronted by suicide bombers. It is a choice between taking their lives, or allowing them to kill civillians with impunity.

Happily, I believe the majority of our society agrees.

"Why was a taser good enough in Birmingham today but not on the tube?"

Tasers are notoriously ineffective and might not incapacitate an individual before he could access or use a weapon.

"Maybe in Israel ("wooly-headed westerners") you think it does, and maybe it even alleviates the pressure temporarily but the fact remains based on bitter experience that you are simply storing up more trouble for the future if you go down this road."

Nonsense. Preventing an act of terror as it occurs does nothing to increase the severity of future attacks. Even if it did, are you seriously advocating a policy of not attempting to prevent the killing of innocent people?

"In terms of CCTV footage etc. the government had no problem releasing CCTV footage of suspects responsible for mass killing on the underground. "

Quite obviously that is because they are potential mass-killers who need to be brought to justice before they strike. There is little commonality between their case and that of the De Menezes investigation.

"In fact where is your "concern" every day for bloodied victims of bombings in Iraq we see on TV every evening, or the Americans lynched on TV in Fallujah? "

I've got plenty of sympathy for any non-combatant who is injured or killed, but you are sidetracking the discussion. I wonder why?

"If you were coherent you'd be arguing for a blanket ban on all such footage on TV."

Actually, I would be inclined to argue that much of the media hysteria which has been conjured up in the wake of the bombings does serve the ends of the terrorists. As a society we have an unhealthy need to pour over our tragedies instead of focusing our attentions on bringing the culprits to justice.

"If the CCTV footage and radio transcripts are not released then there is obviously a cover-up aimed at buying time until things have calmed down in the UK."

That doesn't logically follow at all. I've already provided perfectly logical explanations for why the release of such footage much await the conclusion of an investigation. I'm not going to bother repeating myself.


---



"Juvenal, you do have some valid points to make, but ultimately I’m afraid your argument is internally inconsistent. In an earlier post, ‘Armchair generals rest uneasy…’, while you say that the death of Jean Charles de Menzes was a tragedy, you blame the victim for what occurred:
“As callous as it sounds, ultimately he had a hand in bringing about his own death.”

You'll note, I hope, that I wrote "had a hand in", not "is entirely to blame".

I don't believe the whole blame for this incident lies with the victim (or any one person, for that matter) but I believe if we are being honest then we must acknowledge that his bizarre decision to try to evade the police escalated the situation to the point where they had reasonable grounds to believe that something untoward was going to happen if he succeeded in reaching the train. I stand by my earlier statement that given current events, running from the police when challenged in a tube station is 'tantamount to asking to be shot'. A hard truth to swallow, but our hand has been forced to this by the terrorists.

In a later post, I argued that he should be regarded as a victim of terror, perhaps the final victim of the bombings.

"Jean Charles De Menezes was such a civilian, yet you have justified his killing by saying that the police were forced to act as they did. You essentially believe that it was worth making this mistake in order to ensure that the security situation is kept under control. Is this your position?"

Nope.
His killing will not 'ensure that the security situation is kept under control', and I never suggested this.

However, neither is it a criminal act, an exectution or some ritual killing, as has been suspected.

As I wrote in an earlier post, it is indeed a tragedy, but the Met is correct in drawing a distinction between expressing regret for his death, and accepting culpability for it.

The De Menezes shooting actually has a lot in common with an incident of 'blue suicide'.

author by DV8publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Related Link: http://x1.putfile.com/7/20704162817.jpg
author by Copwatchpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In your insistence at not blaming the cops for this incident, you have made the classic "my country right or wrong arguement"

In operation terms the only arguement that top cop Blair has is that if the victim had got on the train and he had been a combatant then we would be blaming the cops if he had triggered a bomb....

It still begs the question that the Met was following a suspect for a long period of time and then executed him....

When did this innocent become a threat ?

What is the use of a dead suspect, when intelligence is the only battle to be won in this war against the far right religous minority in Islam.

The Met is culpable of a big operational mistake, which cost the life of an innocent and fan the flames of suspicion, that the Brit police are incompetent at best and racist at worse.

author by Ellepublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 13:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

One of the police officers involved in the shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes on a London Underground train has been given a free holiday by his force, it emerged today.

Britain's most senior officer, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, personally authorised the break for the officer and his family.

He was one of the three undercover officers involved in the shooting of Mr de Menezes (27), at Stockwell Underground station last Friday. The electrician had fled when the officers asked him to stop and they believed he could be a suicide bomber.

The Brazilian, who had no connection to terrorism, was hit with a total of eight bullets, seven of them in the head.

The three police officers have not been suspended but have been moved to non-firearm duties while the Independent Police Complaints Commission carries out an investigation, which is expected to take several months.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "An officer has had a break paid for by the Metropolitan Police, authorised by the Commissioner, to allow him to take his wife and family away from the family home."

Another of the officers is already on a family holiday.

Mr de Menezes's family have consulted lawyers about suing the police. He died after police introduced Operation Kratos, a shoot-to-kill policy for suicide bombers which is based on the theory that shooting a suspected bomber in the head is the only way to ensure that their device is not detonated.

Senior police officers have described Mr de Menezes's death as a "tragedy" but say they have no option but to continue with the policy. The independent investigation into the shooting is expected to focus on the police intelligence and communication process.

Mr de Menezes came out of a block of flats in Tulse Hill, south London, where police believed one of the bombers lived and which they had under surveillance. The Brazilian was followed for several miles, including on a bus, to Stockwell Tube station before he was challenged.

It was unclear at exactly what stage commanders at Scotland Yard gave the authorisation to use lethal force but the decision to do so would have rested with the officers on the ground.

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 13:50author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Preventing an act of terror as it occurs may do nothing to increase the severity of future attacks, however that is not the subject of discussion here.

We are discussing the state-sanctioned murder of a completely innocent man.

Murdering innocents or unarmed combattants certainly does increase the severity of future attacks as does torturing or interning them without trial etc.

Any fool can see that this is what is happening in Iraq for instance, with revenge for US/K brutality often being a prime motivation for many of those involved.

There is ample evidence from Ireland, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and your own backyard in Palestine to demonstrate that extreme and illegal or semi-legal behaviour by the state makes for more extreme terrorism and ends up making conflicts longer and more bitter resulting in more deaths and deeper scars for all involved.

I point you to the failed internment strategy and Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland as illustrations of how states get things badly wrong, and compound matters by covering up their actions.

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 14:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"As a society we have an unhealthy need to pour over our tragedies instead of focusing our attentions on bringing the culprits to justice."

author by Juvenalpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 14:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"In your insistence at not blaming the cops for this incident, you have made the classic "my country right or wrong arguement"

Not at all, you've misread my posts.
For me to be arguing for that position, I would have to agree that the police had done something wrong in the first place.

I don't accept this to be the case. Their actions were reasonable, given the information available to them at the time, as far as I am concerned.

"It still begs the question that the Met was following a suspect for a long period of time and then executed him...."

You don't spring on a terror suspect as soon as you recognise him. You hope he will lead you to more. In this case, that was the plan until De Menezes made his run for a train.

"When did this innocent become a threat ?"

A more apt question would be, why did he behave in such a fashion as to convince trained police that he posed a risk?

"What is the use of a dead suspect, when intelligence is the only battle to be won in this war against the far right religous minority in Islam."

Unfortunately, you sometimes have to kill to protect the innocent. Intelligence gathering arguably exists to facilitate this.


"Senior police officers have described Mr de Menezes's death as a "tragedy" but say they have no option but to continue with the policy. The independent investigation into the shooting is expected to focus on the police intelligence and communication process."

Right on.


"Preventing an act of terror as it occurs may do nothing to increase the severity of future attacks, however that is not the subject of discussion here."

Re-read your earlier posts. You brought it up.

"We are discussing the state-sanctioned murder of a completely innocent man."

That's a matter of opinion. I reject the notion that this was murder. Death by misadventure most likely, manslaughter at the very worst.

As far as my advocating cover-ups for the police goes, I also reject this out of hand.

You are straying into attacking me personally because you have little to say in the form of reasoned debate. It is easier for you to fall back on asserting your opinion rather than producing convincing arguments to support it.

I must say, I am enjoying this discussion overall, however. I normally hardly have the heart, since opinions on either side will not be changed. However, for the moment I feel compelled to challenge some of the inexcusably silly and intellectually lazy notions which are being presented.

author by Paul Baynespublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You say you’re not blaming the victim, then you say
“I stand by my earlier statement that given current events, running from the police when challenged in a tube station is 'tantamount to asking to be shot'.”
This IS blaming the victim.

And in a later post you say
“Unfortunately, you sometimes have to kill to protect the innocent.”

This is incredible statement under the circumstances. Jean Charles De Menezes was innocent and has now been killed. Was he deserving of this protection you refer to?

This is why Ali H. had cause to remind you that
“We are discussing the state-sanctioned murder of a completely innocent man”.

Your only response was to argue the semantics of the word ‘murder’.

You clearly believe De Menezes was expendable in order to keep the security situation under control, whatever way you prefer to paraphrase this. You clearly are willing to allow the police certain extravagances such as this as a trade-off in order to perpetrate the war on terror. But this incident demonstrates concisely why this kind of strategy will inevitably result in the loss of innocent life.

You seem to be approaching this as some kind of rhetorical contest. This is serious. A young man is dead who should not be dead. The killing, whether politically motivated or a mistake, was a serious violation of this man’s human rights. Even if he did jump the barrier and run away, which is somewhat in dispute, his death should not have occurred. The event constitutes a gross failure of the UK police force to carry out their task. This is self evident whatever your response. This killing is unacceptable and must be condemned.

author by iosafpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

("who was wearing a backpack")
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4720027.stm

author by Ali ibn Sharmootahpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You say you’re not blaming the victim, then you say
“I stand by my earlier statement that given current events, running from the police when challenged in a tube station is 'tantamount to asking to be shot'.”
This IS blaming the victim"

Ya hafta wonder why the victim was wearing a heavy coat, and ran from police when challenged.
Suspicious actions for unusual times.
Here's an idea:
Go to London. Put on a heavy coat during the heat of the day. Ride buses and the tube, and ignore authorities. If challenged in any manner, just run AS FAST AS YOU CAN.
We'll see your photo on the Telly

author by Polpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

'Ya' don't 'hafta' wonder anything of the sort. The police are fucking crazy over there. This is not a recent thing. Just look at what happened to Harry Stanley.
Getting shot 7 times in the head for wearing a coat is indicative of inadequate gung-ho jock coppers who should be stuck in one of their own jails. Either that or a mental hospital.

author by Adepublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:01author address author phone Report this post to the editors

And I don't agree with the gist of them, you would have to admit that this is an absolute intelligence disaster for the Police and there is a need for a root and brach review of their procedures.
Dodgy dossier anyone?

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The prevailing neo-con view in the so-called war on terror seems to be

1). There is no excuse for anybody who attacks you
2). Any excuse will do when you attack someone else

This kind of nonsense rationale is exactly what leads some to blame the victim for his own demise.

It is also inevitably circular in that by following the logic of 2). you pretty much guarantee continued 1).

However, the approach advocated by neo-cons is more of 2)., ie they try to win by force alone, not politics, and again we're back again at square 1).

This has been tried and has failed all over the world in just about every guerrilla war you can think of.

Of course some including the Brits, Americans and Israelis haven't read their history books.

Im sure in 20 years time history will judge these neo-con artists appropriately.

author by Polpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The argument put forward to justify this man's murder is ridiculous and akin to the rapist's defence that the vicim's provocative dress encouraged the crime.
How much do people have to love a police force that they excuse it any wrong-doing?

author by Juvenalpublication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 20:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

De Menezes' death, as regrettable as it is, comes about as a result of a complex interweaving of his bizarre behaviour with the highly charged events of the past few weeks. The Met has put the structures and policies in place which it judges necessary to ensure the safety of the public at large.

If someone tells you there is no risk of another De Menezes, then they are lying to you. It is notable that Scotland Yard and indeed Blair have acknowledged that this could happen again. Unfortunately, it is part and parcel of the difficulties inherent in dealing with suicide bombers and a home-grown subversive element who have no respect for their own, or anyone elses' lives.

It would be in poor taste to say that bluntly De Menezes is 'to blame' or 'deserving' of being shot, but equally why would be discount his own actions in seeking a full explanation for what happened to him? Investigators can and will ask themselves questions in and around why he chose to take the action he did, and seek to understand how this then affected the repsonse of the armed officers in pursuit of him.

"This is why Ali H. had cause to remind you that
“We are discussing the state-sanctioned murder of a completely innocent man”."

And I'll happily remind both of you that it is purely your opinion that this is 'state-sanctioned' and indeed a 'murder' at all. Indeed, this is crux of the debate. If I were to bind myself to Ali's interpetation of events I would be presuming the factual truth of the very facts in contention.

"Your only response was to argue the semantics of the word ‘murder’."

Words have meaning. I deny this was a murder, and my basis for doing so is far from spurious. Why not dispute the details of my argument as opposed to dismissing them out of hand as 'semantics'?

"You clearly believe De Menezes was expendable in order to keep the security situation under control, whatever way you prefer to paraphrase this. "

Not the case at all. I certainly never used the word expendable, and I'd be delighted if you could limit yourself to what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. I try and extend you guys that same courtesy.

"You clearly are willing to allow the police certain extravagances such as this as a trade-off in order to perpetrate the war on terror. But this incident demonstrates concisely why this kind of strategy will inevitably result in the loss of innocent life."

Risk to the civillian population we are trying to protect is likely inevitable, unfortunately. In the same fashion that it is a matter of when, not if, there are further islamist terrorist attacks on free societies in the west.

I would not characterise the security measures necessary to manage such a threat as 'extravagances' (again, your word, not mine). More like hard necessities.

"You seem to be approaching this as some kind of rhetorical contest. This is serious. A young man is dead who should not be dead."

Its because I fully understand the gravity of the situation we have found ourselves in that I will continue to challenge faulty notions and knee-jerk responses to events surrounding these matters wherever I come across them.

You are correct that De Menezes' death is a tragedy and a mistake. What we seem to disagree on is where the ultimate blame for his fate lies with. Or rather, with whom.

---

"And I don't agree with the gist of them, you would have to admit that this is an absolute intelligence disaster for the Police and there is a need for a root and brach review of their procedures."

Unfortunately, many of the bombers had already slipped through the intelligence net. This is part and parcel of the problems inherent in facing british-born and naturalised bombers. They come from a dissaffected generation of muslim youth who comfortably see themselves as neither british nor as from the old country of their parents. They make superlative suicide bombers because they can more plausibly pass a security cordon than could a team from abroad. Many of these guys are clean-shaven, may dye their hair, and are prepared to live superficially non-religious lives in order to escape the attentions of the intelligence services. With limited co-operation from the muslim communities which (perhaps unwittingly) harbour them, they are difficult to identify.

The death of De Menezes comes about through a number of factors, and nominally one of them is a failure of intelligence. They could not identify him as someone not linked to a terrorist organisation in the limited period of time before he made his run and was shot.

But ... there are millions of young men in london, and the police do not have information on all of them at their fingertips. Even if De Menezes' records could have been pulled that quickly, and they were devoid of anything untoward, then I put it to you that given his flight from police and the address he allegedly emerged from, there were reasonable grounds for the police to suspect that something potentially was about to happen.

I am inclined to argue that the standing shoot to kill orders that are in place are still necessary and do not need to be changed. De Menezes' fate is tragic, but the ultimate threat we are exposed to, another 7/7, has not gone away.


---

Ali's neo-con argument:-

Was going to address it, but I think it is evident that he has created a straw man and then knocked it down himself.

Stay focused, boys, we've a bit to go yet.

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Jul 27, 2005 21:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You are in fact presuming that the police and unnamed sources are telling the truth.

You expect we who are very familiar with the modus operandi of the British Security Apparatus to take their (and by extension your) word for it that this man who had nothing to fear ran away from a group of armed police sometimes 3 and up to 20 depending on the unnamed source who were shouting at him to stop when he had been stopped and searched numerous times according to his cousin.

In fact these people are habitual liars as numerous miscarriges of justice over the past 30+ years in the UK have shown.

Perhaps this information has not yet reached Israel and you all believe all is sweetness and light in the UK ... sorry to dissappoint you.

Frankly I and many others simply do not believe this version of events and no amount of neo-con bleatings by you and others will change it, so I suggest you divert your energies elsewhere.

author by DV8publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Mark Honigsbaum in London
28/07/2005

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead last week by police in a London Underground station, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the London Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo (22) said the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had been killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station in south London were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket, that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq-war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has beguan inquiry which is expected to take several months.

Yesterday it emerged that one officer involved has been given leave, and two have been moved to non-firearm duties. Ms Figueiredo condemned police commissioner Sir Ian Blair's decision to authorise the leave.

The body of Mr de Menezes is being flown to Brazil tonight for a funeral tomorrow. Simultaneously, a memorial service will be held at Westminster Cathedral, with TV coverage beamed live to Brazil.

Related Link: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2005/0728/1621956467FR28BRAZIL.html
author by Juvenalpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You are in fact presuming that the police and unnamed sources are telling the truth."

Prior to the findings of the Police Complaints Commission's investigation being released, none of us have the full facts.

With the current information which has been widely disseminated via independent media services, and in so far as it tallies with what has been released by Scotland Yard, and the various eyewitness reports, I am putting an argument to you guys.

I make no apology for that- its all any of us are doing at this point?

It also happens that much of what we do know at this point is enough to shoot down crackpot theories of 'ritual killing' and 'sanctioned murder' which are coming from the lunactic fringe.

"You expect we who are very familiar with the modus operandi of the British Security Apparatus to take their (and by extension your) word for it that this man who had nothing to fear ran away from a group of armed police sometimes 3 and up to 20 depending on the unnamed source who were shouting at him to stop when he had been stopped and searched numerous times according to his cousin."

We'll await the findings of the investigation, then, if we're to take it that your contention is that this man was shot at some undisclosed location (inside the tube station? Outside the station?) and then had his body presumably transported down the escalator to the northern line platform where it finished. I must wonder who exactly they got to pay the eyewitnesses to lie, but I'm sure you've got a plausible explanation (they are perhaps paid actors in the service of the industrial military complex, or something equally nutty?).

"Perhaps this information has not yet reached Israel and you all believe all is sweetness and light in the UK ... sorry to dissappoint you."

You've lost me with the Israel reference. I live in Ireland?

"Frankly I and many others simply do not believe this version of events and no amount of neo-con bleatings by you and others will change it, so I suggest you divert your energies elsewhere."

Happily, its a free country for the moment, and I'll continue to post here if I choose to do so.

--

In other news, its reassuring that one of the escaped bombers, Yasin Hassan Omar, has been captured. I'm sure this delights all of you.

Hopefully this is the thin part of an intelligence wedge which will see further arrests along with the nine in Tooting, and more would-be mass-murders brought to justice.

author by DV8publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"..and more would-be mass-murders brought to justice."

You do accept that Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT a would-be-mass-murderer, don't you?
Or are WE all would-be-mass-murderers?

The difference between us is that you accept what the police have said without reservations, I can't.

author by DV8publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 13:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

She'd know a thing or two about trusting the police.

[EXTRACT]
Ms Peirce condemned Sir Ian's statements on the case, saying there had been a "regrettable rush to judgment".

She was astonished that the phrase "shoot to kill" was being used as if it was a legitimate legal term; the family would demand "transparency" both as to the facts of what had happened and on the policy.

She added that the family were ready to cooperate with the complaints body, and she saw no reason for delay: "They know what their questions are and we see no reasons why they should not be answered.

Related Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html
author by Ali H.publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The police were lying about the circumstances and they have admitted as much to the relatives.

More proof if it were needed that the British establishment is composed of habitual liars.

It will be seen in due course that they murdered an innocent person in cold blood.

author by Juvenalpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:46author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"You do accept that Jean Charles de Menezes was NOT a would-be-mass-murderer, don't you? "

If you read more closely, you'll see that I was referring to the as-yet still-at-large bombers lose in the city. One is in custody as of yesterday, but there are the others to consider.

"The difference between us is that you accept what the police have said without reservations, I can't."

Negative, I simply interpet the facts (as they stand at present) that both all of us have in a different fashion from you. I'm not accepting anyone's version of events, I'm giving you my very own reasoning. :)

It just so happens that at the present time I feel Scotland Yard is doing a commendable job in difficult circumstances, as evidenced by yesterday's arrests. As unfortunate as the De Menezes incident is, I am relieved it has not sidetracked the hunt for the bombers, or distracted us from the real threat: Islamist terrorists within Britain ltself.

"She was astonished that the phrase "shoot to kill" was being used as if it was a legitimate legal term"

I can't say I'm familliar with the extent of her legal expertise in matters of firearms legislation?

I agree the phrase 'shoot to kill' is ambiguous, however. Any use of firearms implies an acceptance of the use of lethal force. Whether the target is to the centre of body mass or the head. A basic rule of gunhandling is that you do not point your weapon at something you are not willing to destroy.

'Shoot to kill' is meaningless given that there is no such thing as 'shoot to wound', or 'shoot to incapcitate' outside of hollywood movies.

We should more accurately speak of circumstances where the use of firearms are authorised as a result of a threat to the safety of police officers and the public.

"the family would demand "transparency" both as to the facts of what had happened and on the policy."

As well they should.

Hmm... I wonder how much financial compensation they can anticipate from the british government? I wonder if they will turn it down, if they have reservations about what happened.

author by Polpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 15:57author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It beggars belief that people are trying to justify what the police did to this family by coming up with such specious arguments. If the police were highly strung owing to being on the look-out for potential kamakazes, that does not absolve them of their wrong-doing.
If I were to shoot someone 7 times in the head for wearing a coat and not stopping when I ran at them shouting 'stop, stop' (in plain clothes too), would any of you justify my behaviour by saying 'oh, well, he was highly strung'. Of course not. I'd be deemed a menace to sociaety and put in the loony bin.
The fact that the killers were police does not absolve them of there crime.
Murder is murder and the sanction of the government does not turn it into a misjudged act of policing.
This man was killed by people who, were they not carying a police badge, would be in prison now.

author by DV8publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 16:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Negative, I simply interpet the facts (as they stand at present) that both all of us have in a different fashion from you. I'm not accepting anyone's version of events, I'm giving you my very own reasoning. :) "

You simply are not interpreting the facts because you are not in a position to do so. You have accepted the word of the Met. The reason I haven't done so is because since Jean was murdered I have seen the story change within minutes. I've followed this closely - check through the archives for my posting of news updates.
From the IT's screaming headline of "Shot man 'directly linked' to terrorism, say police" (BTW I stopped believing Frank Millar's police fed reports back around the time of Mayday several years back) to the jumped over barriers, heavy coat, bomb belt, they are the only 'facts' that you are going on.
Why don't you come out and say you support the Police and State unconditionally and have done with the meaningless discussion that you are attempting to generate.

author by Andrew Milnerpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 16:36author email a-milner at zpost dot plala dot or dot jpauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

If you haven't received your copy, have this one on me:
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD

Urgent Release For All Press

Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:


The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
Don't mention the war.
Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.

All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden

author by Osama Bin Ladenpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 16:41author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Excuse my naivity, but those weren't real press guidelines, were they?

author by eeekkkkkpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 16:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

is usually uncomfortably close to some kind of truth :-)

author by Ali H.publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 17:16author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think this summarises this thread very nicely.

author by Semantic Sampublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 17:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Negative, I simply interpet the facts (as they stand at present)"

That's nonsense. Facts are facts not something that stands at present.

author by Phuq Heddpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 18:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Juvenal says the real problem is "Islamist terroists in Britain". This is an example of a failure in causative reasoning. There are at least two types of causes that operate (using Aristotle's definitions): proximate and ultimate. Suppose the cat knocks down your favourite Waterford Crystal statuette of Bertie and Bush exchanging Shamrocks. The ultimate cause for the breaking of this priceless treasure is the laws of physics and matter. The proximate cause is the cat's desire to make love to the autographed picture of Mother Teresa.

In this situation the proximate cause is a group of alienated young men. A more ultimate cause is the War in Iraq.

From the very inception of the 9/11 "phase" the terrorists have been very clear that their desire is for the West to leave the Middle East alone.

Britain was bombed because British forces are involved in the illegal occupation and invasion of Iraq.

Most people know this (79% of the population surveyed in a poll before the war said that Britain's involvement increased the risk of terrorism). Pilger has a great article with the details in a link I include here.

Also the police and media have lied straightout multiple times on this case, stating with absolute certainty facts that they had no way of knowing to be true. Like the dogmatic, absolute stone-cold lies about WMDs they asserted: 1) Menezes was a terrorist
2) He was wearing a bulky coat
3) He'd been followed from a surveilled house


This is a racist police force operating an illegal policy of "shoot-to-kill". Juvenal and others have defended this state-sanctioned illegal policy of "shoot to kill". It is illegal, it is not accepted policy. It is murder.

Related Link: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-07/21pilger.cfm
author by Ali H.publication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:06author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Juvenal is leaving his options open as do all neo-cons to change his line as the situation evolves, ie as the police have to slowly but surely start telling the truth of what really happened.

The reason for this of course is so that he can always claim to be right, while having actually been wrong from the outset.

The whole WMD/Iraq debacle is of course a perfect illustration of this stratagem which we can all see through.

author by redjadepublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:25author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

[....]

"He used a travel card," [Vivien Figueiredo] said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html

author by Juvenalpublication date Thu Jul 28, 2005 21:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

" If the police were highly strung owing to being on the look-out for potential kamakazes, that does not absolve them of their wrong-doing."

Agreed. If they'd been engaged in corrupt activity, say, or bullying young men of a middle eastern appearance, then they would need to be disciplined for their behaviour.

However, in this matter they appear to have acted in a justifiable manner with the information available to them at the point in time where they were forced to make a decision. The fact that they did not have all of the information we have now is not a reason to demonise them.

"Murder is murder and the sanction of the government does not turn it into a misjudged act of policing."

Laughable, of course it does. The police service has a mandate to use reasonable force in enforcing the law. Even up to the point of using lethal force, even when they don't feel like it, and even when they inevitably get shouted at by the usual malcontents afterwards.

"This man was killed by people who, were they not carying a police badge, would be in prison now."

I'm tempted to say here: "And if my auntie had bollocks, then she'd be my uncle". But that would be crude, so I won't. I'll content myself with suggesting that you limit yourself to the facts (that they were police) rather than 'what ifs' which prove nothing.

---

"You simply are not interpreting the facts because you are not in a position to do so. You have accepted the word of the Met."

Negative. Independent news sources and the eyewitness reports they carry. After that its a matter of exercising ones one reason.

"Why don't you come out and say you support the Police and State unconditionally and have done with the meaningless discussion that you are attempting to generate."

I'm not 'attempting' to generate a conversation, unless I'm imagining all these people who keep posting to this thread, inclunding your good self.

Its funny that you're the second person after Ali who has simply resorted to the tactic of telling me more or less to 'go away'. Haven't had that since primary school, really.

As far as supporting the police and state unconditionally : I don't. My confidence in the police service has its limits. They are human, after all, and fallible. My confidence in the british state? Crikey, can't say I have any. More like a detached self-interest since as an irish citizen I believe that the fates of our two countries are intertwined like it or not.

---


"Juvenal says the real problem is "Islamist terroists in Britain". This is an example of a failure in causative reasoning. ...

In this situation the proximate cause is a group of alienated young men. A more ultimate cause is the War in Iraq. "

Let's call them what they are: Would-be mass murders whose ilk have already perpetrated suicide bombings and atrocities against a multiplicity of cities both in the UK and abroad. 'Alienated young men' doesn't quite convey the fact of their criminality, their depravity or the manner in which they have perverted Islam.

"Britain was bombed because British forces are involved in the illegal occupation and invasion of Iraq."

If it wasn't one justification, it would be another. (sigh)

"This is a racist police force operating an illegal policy of "shoot-to-kill". Juvenal and others have defended this state-sanctioned illegal policy of "shoot to kill". It is illegal, it is not accepted policy. It is murder."

Nonsense. You'll have to do better than merely asserting it if you want to establish police use of ultimate force in emergencies as 'illegal'. Or indeed even 'murder'. In the De Menezes case I would again predict that the most that will emerge is a verdict of death by misadventure or at the very worst, manslaughter.

---

"Juvenal is leaving his options open as do all neo-cons to change his line as the situation evolves"

Yes, this is known as having an open mind.

"The whole WMD/Iraq debacle is of course a perfect illustration of this stratagem which we can all see through."

That was a debacle, we can agree on that. I think we should have been honest and said it was for the purposes of regime change from the start, and stuck with it.

--

"Flanked by the de Menezes family's solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and by Bianca Jagger, the anti-Iraq war campaigner, she condemned the shoot-to-kill policy which had led to her cousin's death and vowed that what she called the "crime" would not go unpunished."

I can understand that they are going through an emotional time right now and are looking for someone to blame for this senseless death. They're going to have to await the results of an independent enquiry along with everyone else, in particular the officers involved.

As for Bianca Jagger : What a shameless PR stunt, to intrude upon these people's grief. Tut tut.

--

Ladies and gentlemen, I am off to do some work for the weekend. I may pop back in to check on developments.

If not then I bid you all fare thee well, because I will be moving on to discuss something more current, as much as I have enjoyed this. I feel its time to put the De Menezes incident to bed pending the findings of the enquiry.

: )

author by Semantic Sampublication date Fri Jul 29, 2005 02:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"As far as supporting the police and state unconditionally : I don't. My confidence in the police service has its limits. They are human, after all, and fallible. My confidence in the british state? Crikey, can't say I have any. More like a detached self-interest since as an irish citizen I believe that the fates of our two countries are intertwined like it or not."

Sure you can say you have some confidence in the British State.
More interested in your fate (interesting American English) in the British State as a detached self-interested Irish citizen and our intertwinedness.
I happen to believe that we are intertwined with all of the nations on this planet.
Nothing human is alien to me.

author by Ali H.publication date Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This common neo-con tactic of dismissal is both arrogant and foolish.

In dismissing such argument you're saying that the Chatham House and Economic and Social Research Council report that said the invasion of Iraq had boosted al-Qaeda, are wrong in their analysis?

And you are also saying that the British government who are habitual liars, having lied about WMD, are completely correct and unbiased in their analysis?

The important point is not whether the invasion of Iraq is cited as a justification or not, but whether there is a causative link.

Bulling on regardless and relying on security measures alone as the neo-cons are doing, ignores the reality that independent analysis has shown that there is a motivation for these attacks.

As no security regieme is 100% guaranteed, this amounts to reckless endangerment of the British public by their own government.

Related Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4691979.stm
author by DV8publication date Fri Jul 29, 2005 14:21author address author phone Report this post to the editors

(Love the last sentence - got to keep making the non-existent link)

Witnesses sought to Tube shooting

Investigators have been appealing for witnesses to the shooting dead by police of a Brazilian man mistaken for a suicide bomber at Stockwell station.
Jean Charles de Menezes, 27, died last Friday after being shot eight times on a train at the south London station.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is conducting the inquiry.

Mr Menezes' funeral is to take place in his home town of Gonzaga on Friday. A requiem mass will be held at London's Westminster Cathedral at the same time.

Mr Menezes' family and friends based in London are set to attend the Westminster mass, which will be conducted by Father Frederico Ribeiro, chaplain of the Brazilian community in the capital.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, will read a message at the end of the service.

"The Brazilian Catholic community is angry and grieving and the Cardinal felt it was important to accompany them at the funeral," said a spokesman for the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Expired visa

On Thursday the Home Office said the visa of Mr de Menezes expired two years before he was shot by police.

A passport stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain "was not in use" on that date, added officials.

Home Office officials said they wished to end speculation over his immigration status but added that the statement was not intended to influence any investigations.

Some of the dead man's relatives have questioned the police account of events and called for the banning of the Met's shoot-to-kill policy for suicide bombers.

Scotland Yard has admitted Mr Menezes was not connected to the attacks.

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to his family but defended the force's policy as the "only one way to stop someone who is a suicide bomber".

Related Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4726617.stm
author by R. Isiblepublication date Fri Jul 29, 2005 23:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

and stop leaking partial information (such as the expired visa).

Related Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1538875,00.html
author by Guardian Readerpublication date Sat Jul 30, 2005 20:31author address author phone Report this post to the editors

And yet, somehow, the resilience of the British people and their support for the police continues, as it should.

Instead of allowing this tragic incident to undermine the war on terrorism, as some want and hope, it's done the opposite. Thank you Indymedia. Keep up the good work.

Extract

"If London truly was a city on the brink, then the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes might have ruptured the trust that holds things together. Instead, people seem to have decided that the police can make a dreadful mistake and yet still be worthy of support at the same time. A week after the innocent Brazilian was killed, an immense collective effort to identify and capture the real criminals appeared to have harvested spectacular success last night.

This could not have happened if the police were not good at their job - no wonder their ratings have rocketed. But that in turn could not have happened without public support and, in particular, support from the very communities whose trust in our institutions was supposedly most in doubt. None of it would have been possible if the police had not planted seeds of trust long before the first bombers arrived at King's Cross on the morning of July 7.

This is not in any way to brush aside the disturbing lessons of the Stockwell shooting. On the contrary. The lesson of July 2005 is that the honest and remorseless way of doing things pays bigger dividends and will win in the end. Quick fixes, whether in the form of volleys of bullets to the head or reflexive promises of tough new laws, are not the best proof of our collective implacability, even though each may have its place in extreme circumstances.

The public understands this better than the politicians may think. During the IRA killing campaigns of the 1970s, republicans and their apologists persuaded themselves that the longer the bombings went on, the more likely they were to achieve their goals. They failed to understand that, while the public was not particularly bothered about the politics of Ireland, they were also determined not to give into the bombers. In the end, the IRA gave up bombing because it got them nowhere. In the end the same thing will happen with the reactionary jihadists. This is a strong and resilient society, not one that is about to collapse in panic. "

Related Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1539152,00.html
author by Ali H.publication date Sat Jul 30, 2005 21:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Incorrect.

Canary Wharf bought them a place at the negotiating table they would otherwise never have had when the British realised the economic damage another such attack would have done to them.

Similar claims have been made many times in the past by the Brits to save face, Thatcher giving in on political status (civilian clothing) after the hunger strikes being a case in point.

The British establishment couldnt care less how many people are killed, but threaten to kill "the city" well that's a different story.

Dont be fooled, that's whats really bothering them this time round as well.

author by Guardian Readerpublication date Sat Jul 30, 2005 21:09author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Just like your excuses for the murder of Israelis by palestinian terrorists, you're more interested in the means than the ends.

The IRA didn't succeed. The war is now over and in doing so the IRA have to concede that the original causes of the conflict are either now resolved or their means could not bring them about. As Ireland still remains partitioned, I think we know the answer to that one... the provos are big enough to admit it. You should be too...

author by C&C "compare & contrast" - one of the golden rules.publication date Sat Jul 30, 2005 22:52author address author phone Report this post to the editors

surprised the british in more than one way, it brought the phrase "shoot to kill" back, and the US networks already doing their best to get scoops and present "unseen exclusive evidence" also focussed on tripping spokespeople on the IRA "dirty war". British diplomatic interests in the USA really didn't want all that stuff re-surfacing, and one spokesperson was pulled off of talking to networks for dismissing "shoot to kill" anger from a network US anchor with "oh that was gibraltar" to which the anchor replied - "oh no there were many cases". It was thus very timely of the IRA to make their statement, and remind everyone including the "sympathisers with the Q" that their war was over and that they and the british are on a new level of engagement. I assure ye there was almost gratitude. It must have been curious for the wanted men at least to see the telly change focus on july 28 in the final count-down to their arrest.

* I'm very interested in the alledged psi-op ABC scoop, which claimed that 12 bombs were left in a car and was bounced under D notice and Cobra to appear in print in the Times.
* I'm also very interested in the down-grading of Blair the Cop in the last press conferences who gave way to the assistant deputy commisioner for anti-terrorism who pointedly referred to "guitly until proven we don't want to try anyone on the media like we did in the 70s" sort of stuff, as the obvious reasons for his resignation floated off into the "someone said that last week" archives.
* I'm also very interested in the level of collaboration between European agencies and the British in the last days which though probably not going to provide a lot of evidence under _current law_ in court, might have led to the "wrap-up" of the investigation. The european nascent intelligence agency certainly pulled out a lot of stops, and to put a figure on it, saw no less than 450 people arrested and many more "brought into a net", this evening in a special session, the Italian parliament passed the new terror bills there, which till now were only a governmental decree, one the little sections, allows the security forces to grant asylum to any illegal migrant who gives them information amongst other curious little ideas aimed at "i-n-f-i-l-t-r-a-t-i-o-n". I can't imagine there is a big list of super spies queueing up to join al Q, "sure, I'll volunteer to infiltrate a bunch of suicide bombers, do I need any obscure languages, numerical ability or a belief in heaven?"

* I'm very interested in how the investigation into July 7 and July 21 and July 22 will effect European security laws, practise and most of all public perception. = don't go patting anyone on the back for a job most excellently done - just yet.

author by Ali H.publication date Sun Jul 31, 2005 13:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Incorrect.

The IRA succeeded when it switched from civilian and military to economic targets. Personally it didn't bother me too much when the blew up the Baltic exchange and Canary Wharf but I never approved of targeting individuals.

What happened was that the switch to economic targets broke the political logjam and in a sense what has happened since has been a "victory" for all sides. For anybody to claim victory when so many lives have been lost or destroyed is sick, although that doesnt stop the Unionists from trying.

There's no doubt that if the focus had not changed and the political will had not materialised because of it the conflict would have gone on much longer and more people would have died, as is the case with ETA.

As for Palestine I think it's pretty obvious that all you can do if you will not put anything on the table politically is to put in place a containment regieme, Israels being the worst I can think of anywhere in a supposedly "democratic" regieme.

Bad and all as the Brits were they still look like saints when compared with the Israelis.

Even in a best case (from the oppressors point of view) military containment means the pressure will periodically boil over and attacks are likely to be very opportunistic seeking to visit the same terror and oppression on the oppressor as they themselves have been subject to.

Whereas this is obviously terrible for the victims and their families and I can sympathise with their plight it can be viewed as the inevitable consequence of military occupation and repression.

More simply put if the Israelis were not occupying Palestine there would be no such attacks although there are those Zionists who would like to have us believe that Palestians = Muslims, Muslims hate the west therefore Palestinians hate the west. Our fight is your fight, our enemy is your enemy. Let us deal with the Palestinians whatever way we want as our part of the "war on terror" etc.

Unfortunately for them even Dubya is not enough of a political simpleton to believe that one.

If a political class allows such a situation to persist they have obviously "factored it in" to the price of maintainance of the status quo which favours that same ruling class.

Attributing the complete blame to the terrorist in such cases is politically expedient, but factually incorrect. Blairs line on excuses vis-a-vis the occupation of Iraq is a perfect illustration of this line which nobody is swallowing.

Obviously such governments regard a certain number of their own citizens as being expendable in the furtherance or maintainance of political and economic goals, as is obviously the case of the British occupation of Iraq.

author by Ali H.publication date Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is interesting to see that what many of us held to be the truth about the ritual exhibition killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is now coming out, ie

he did not run away
he did not vault the ticket barrier
he was not acting suspiciously
he was not wearing a heavy winter jacket
he was not warned by the police

This man was murdered by the British state and they added insult to injury by trying to posthumously blacken his name.

Eventually it will be seen that this brutal execution-style murder goes right to the top and was approved by Blair and his aides, and they subsequently spun the whole affair in classic Downing St. style when they realised they'd killed an innocent man.

author by DS craig adshead - north wales policepublication date Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:31author email spoof_mail_warning at f-m dot fmauthor address mold police stationauthor phone privateReport this post to the editors

Charles de Menezes was shot as a result of being the wrong colour wearing the wrong cloths on the wrong day he was innocent until proven guilty. now he has been shown to be innocent that should be the end of the matter. And a police apology accepted as in all mistakes we make policing the streets of Britain We shall continue to shoot anyone that runs for a train or looks foreign, police will not back off because even if they are wrong they still get full pay on suspension and our golden pensions are safe.If anyone dislikes the way our streets are policed then i suggest they get out of the country because there will be more persecution and attacks by the police.We have the full backing of government who are in turn backed by the public via there huge donations of cash to the treasury.we shall continue to drive around in our expensive mercs and BMW cars thanks to the increased taxation the public are now facing via dvla,gatso,arrive alive and local authority hand outs, Without the public easily paying our lavish lifestyles we could not continue. so thanks to the public for parting with your cash.

Related Link: http://www.conscienceonline.org.uk/Pages/home.html
author by DS craig Adshead - north wales policepublication date Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:59author email soof_warning at f-m dot fmauthor address Mold police stationauthor phone privateReport this post to the editors

Coppers Undercover Nicking Taxes from Society aka (CUNTS)

Recent statistics reveal that the chance of being a victim of a crime such as burglary is about 1 in 7000.compare that with the shocking statistics that the chance of you an innocent law abiding citizen being made a criminal by having a criminal conviction served upon you and then receiving a fine and having your license endorsed with penalty points and then receive increased insurance premiums is 1 in 7.
All this in the name of road safety a scheme I might add that has failed to save a single life on the road or even prevent a single death.
So what does all this pointless harassment and criminalizing of citizens have to do with anything other than nicking taxes from society.
Its all about taking your money plain and simple it was called highway robbery and in 1735 Dick Turpin was considered an outlaw for taking money from people using the highway but today your government employs coppers to do just that.
Arrive alive vans lay in wait for unsuspecting travels who are going 3 or 5 miles per hour over an antiquated limit (A limit that was set when cars never had all round disk brakes or ABS).
Road Hit List
North Wales Police have drawn up a hit list of 11 roads that will be targeted by speed camera vans, radar traps and even the police helicopter (Look out you nasty criminals behind the wheel going 3 to 5 mph over the limit)
The police claim that these have been the most dangerous roads in North Wales in the last 3 years and that the "main causes of deaths are excessive speed, excess alcohol and not wearing a seatbelt". Unsurprisingly, precise details of the accidents are once again conspicuous by their absence. Since 'not wearing a seat belt' isn't the cause of any accident, they are clearly trying to hide something you or I would be called a LIAR.
Using somewhat emotive language the roads are described as 'killer roads'. Maybe they should try improving them then (With the billions being nicked from us)
Because accidents happen at random, there is no doubt that over the next three years these roads won't be the most dangerous roads in North Wales, and the police will jump up and down and try and claim the credit for this 'success'. Meanwhile 11 other roads will have become the most dangerous because the police are ignoring most of the problems.
· Daily Post — Our killer roads At the end of the day you Joe Public are the victims you pay there wages you fund the council and you are to blame for letting these fascist bastards ruin our lives now is the time to be heard search the web or look here http://www.beatthespeedcamera.org.uk/
· And complain to your local MP its them that rely on your vote disbar them if they don’t address our concerns.
· The real thieves are coppers undercover nicking taxes from society more commonly known these days as (CUNTS). Complain to 01492 511143 NOW.
· Crime together we will crack it. CANT PAY WON’T PAY.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2021 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy