It could only come from a Labour politician

[Thracian]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081213/tuk-e...ef-6323e80.html

No-one of course has denied that the police always said they made mistakes. It was what happened in the incident, the build-up to the incident and the apparent attempts at cover up afterwards that were questioned, not for the first time in relation to incidents involving the Police.

And, seeing as police accounts of the incident were rejected by the inquest jury, I cannot see how any officer would come out of the affair with any credit whatsoever.

Me, I'd be much more interested to hear the views of the De Menezes family about Ms Dick's abilities as a senior police officer rather than someone who clearly had a vested interest in London police appointees and the type of people they were.

[Daggers]

Big Chief I-Spy's scoring system for Thracian's Political threads:

20 points - Reference to the Golden Shred golliwog

45 points - Reference to parking attendants

10 points - Reference to Andy King

50 points - Praise of Gordon Brown

75 points - Accusations of racism

30 points - Accusations of fascism

15 points - Reference to the official opening of the M1

17 points - Photograph of Myra Hindley

[Webbo]

This was a tragic accident that happened in a time of panic. Sacking /jailing police officers won't bring any one back.

There might be reasons to sack senior officers at the Met, I don't know I don't know enough about it, but this incident on it's own is not one of them.

[Zingari]

very tragic incident , but mistakes happen ,

i'm fairly sure there have been plenty of british soldiers with british or allied bullets inside them ,victims of tragic sets of circumstances no less and probably no-one prosecuted for it

ken is a bit of a twat though , he was useless on "have i got news for you" last night

[Thracian]

This was a tragic accident that happened in a time of panic. Sacking /jailing police officers won't bring any one back.

There might be reasons to sack senior officers at the Met, I don't know I don't know enough about it, but this incident on it's own is not one of them.

If you and me are involved in a "tragic accident" you can bet our police force will be hell bent on finding out who was to blame and making sure they face the consequences.

They wouldn't let it rest as being a "tragic accident" until they'd examined every other option.

But that's me and you.

This was no more an accident that any tragic car crash.

This was a series of mistakes. Unintentional mistakes no doubt, as in the car crash mentioned, but mistakes that ought to be answered for just the same.

And you wouldn't be nearly so dismissing if were your family involved.

I've not mentioned sacking/jailing anyone since Blair's belated departure while wriggling for all he was worth.

But heaping praise on the police officer in charge of this disaster is just about as tasteless, tactless and witless as it could get in my book.

[Zingari]

yes the police would investigate any fatal accident to determine responsibility , but i believe that classing it as an "unlawful killing" would require a lot of evidence against the person responsible, indicating some sort of intent

i'm only guessing though from watching lots of episodes "the bill"

[Thracian]

yes the police would investigate any fatal accident to determine responsibility , but i believe that classing it as an "unlawful killing" would require a lot of evidence against the person responsible, indicating some sort of intent

i'm only guessing though from watching lots of episodes "the bill"

Sorry but if you pumped seven bullets into a bloke I'm 100% convinced you'd find it impossible to claim you had no intent to kill him, or am I missing something?

As for you then finding out and claiming it was "the wrong bloke" wouldn't that make it pretty unlawful too? You're not supposed to kill anyone let alone someone you'd failed to identify.

Dress it up how you like and argue what technicalities you want but could you and I get away with that, shooting some bloke dead cos you "thought" he was a terrorist.

It'd be a novel defence I must say but I wouldn't want my freedom to be dependent on it.

However I'll be interested to hear the verdict when it's first used as the defence of a layman and when his brief argues that he should only be charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

Because while I've no reason to doubt the integrity of the inquest surely, the same criteria should apply to everyone else.

Indeed, don't defence lawyers constantly refer to previous case history? So where does that lead us and can I now quite safely mistake, perhaps, a thief, for a potential terrorist?

[Rincewind]

Not easy view this as an outsider. I remember when it first happened and this among other messageboards and forums turned out scores of people saying the police were right to take out anyone they thought could endanger the general public.

As usual there are many now being wise after the fact. When it was known the victim was innocent the crys rang out blaming the government, the police and anyone els who happened to be passing or wore a blue uniform.

I dont know whether the police were right or wrong at the time but since the bombings in London (2002?) ways of preventing it happening again had to be found. There is some common sense in the view that if faced with a suicide bomber there would be no time to ask if they were a bomber. They would detonate before the words 'excuse me sir' were uttered. Then what would those who are saying the police were to blame would say.

Hopefully the inquiry wil have highlighted the errors and ways can be found in procedures to prevent a similar situation repeating itself.

I am sure that if compared to other countries police faced with the same situation British police have a good record. I dont think there would be the outcry accusations and public inquiry we have had here.

If anyone can think of a better way the situation could have been handled given the same information the police received I'd like to hear it.

Thracian, the reason you or I would not be able to shoot anyone we thought to be a terroris is that we are not members of a special anti-terorist squad. We have not been trained in the use of firearms. We would not have been given the all clear from senior officers.

Police just dont just walk around the streets and make decisions like this on their own. If a police officer went up to a stranger and shot them in the head they would face a murder charge like you or I would.

The general public can only pass information onto the police if they suspect someone of terrorist activities. The police will then use that information to determine what action should be taken that involves the least risk to the general public, themselves and the suspect.

[Zingari]

Sorry but if you pumped seven bullets into a bloke I'm 100% convinced you'd find it impossible to claim you had no intent to kill him, or am I missing something?

As for you then finding out and claiming it was "the wrong bloke" wouldn't that make it pretty unlawful too? You're not supposed to kill anyone let alone someone you'd failed to identify.

Dress it up how you like and argue what technicalities you want but could you and I get away with that, shooting some bloke dead cos you "thought" he was a terrorist.

It'd be a novel defence I must say but I wouldn't want my freedom to be dependent on it.

However I'll be interested to hear the verdict when it's first used as the defence of a layman and when his brief argues that he should only be charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

Because while I've no reason to doubt the integrity of the inquest surely, the same criteria should apply to everyone else.

Indeed, don't defence lawyers constantly refer to previous case history? So where does that lead us and can I now quite safely mistake, perhaps, a thief, for a potential terrorist?

Happen you are right , I'm really not qualified to say , and can only give a layman's view .

Yes, the intent was to kill him once certain events had occured, but in the heat of the moment the security forces must have thought that he was a dangerous terrorist ( this turns out to have been a tragic mistake ) but they must have been under orders, so cannot really be responsible for the actual killing , I'm sure they were acting in good faith and didn't particularly want to shoot the poor victim ( what possible motive as individuals could they have had ?) But were convinced the alternatives would be much worse .

The seemingly overuse of gunfire is probably only evidence of how dangerous the situation was thought to be , and they may have informed that any movement could have caused a device to explode. Remember at the time they thought they were standing close to what they thought was a human bomb , not a very pleasant thought i'm sure you'll agree . ( this is just a guess and probably i've just been watching too much Spooks on tv )

Can you make a murderers out of security forces acting on poor information ? difficult situation , can you make murderers out of intelligence officers responsible for bad intelligence information ? , probably just as difficult

I'd rather believe that the officers at all levels acted in good faith , are deeply sorry for the end results and can learn valuable lessons , but I'm quite sure events such as this will continue to occur due to the fragile nature of national security in recent years . And am equally sure more tragic mistakes will be made

Perhaps in the not too distant future , (but hopefully not ) , the security services will be accused of not taking actions quickly enough , and a greater tragedy will occur , causing greater loss of life .And the we will all be asking why they didn't act . They really tread a very fine line and probably have only split seconds to make massive life and death decisions . I know i couldn't cope with it .

Not sure if you can legally mistake a burglar for a terrorist though , unless you live in Whitehall or GCHQ or something

But as usual, you make some excellent observations and points and ( hopefully ) this will generate some healthy debate , ( for a couple of pages at least anyway )

all the best

[Rincewind]

The incident could only turn out two ways.

A) The man turned out to be a terrorist and those firing the fatal bullets would be hailed as heroes.

B) the man turned out to be innocent and those firing the fatal shots would be branded as unemotional killers.

It seems a life with the secret services is not as glamorous as portrayed in James Bond movies. I wonder if other countries would be as open about what really happened. No doubt some would have planted explosives on the victim or falsified his profile to fit in with their findings. We should be grateful living in a country where witnesses are not afraid to give evidence.

Yes it was a premedicated act, but that is the nature of the job. If the officers had frozen for a second many lives could have been lost if it turned out the victim was actually a suicide bomber. Thracian says how would we feel if it was a member of our family. Obviously we would not be happy, but on the other hand if a member of our family was lost due to no action or a hesitation in an action to deal with a terrorist threat it also would cause us to ask questions.

The balance in doing the right and the wrong thing is very fine.

I wonder if the officers were convicted of murder whether future incidents involving terrorists would have been jepodised through officers reluctant to take a suspect out due to fears of a similar accusation of murder. They are human too.

[ozleicester]

Apart from the horror that this must have inflicted on the innocent mans family... it serves as a very important reminder to ANYONE who says the most frightening phrase in the world...

"if youve done nothing wrong...youve got nothing to fear"

Tell that to that family.

[Zingari]

Apart from the horror that this must have inflicted on the innocent mans family... it serves as a very important reminder to ANYONE who says the most frightening phrase in the world...

"if youve done nothing wrong...youve got nothing to fear"

Tell that to that family.

true , good point

but this also applies to victims of terrorists as well , they probably went out that day thinking they had nothing to fear

[Zingari]

The incident could only turn out two ways.

A) The man turned out to be a terrorist and those firing the fatal bullets would be hailed as heroes.

B) the man turned out to be innocent and those firing the fatal shots would be branded as unemotional killers.

It seems a life with the secret services is not as glamorous as portrayed in James Bond movies. I wonder if other countries would be as open about what really happened. No doubt some would have planted explosives on the victim or falsified his profile to fit in with their findings. We should be grateful living in a country where witnesses are not afraid to give evidence.

Yes it was a premedicated act, but that is the nature of the job. If the officers had frozen for a second many lives could have been lost if it turned out the victim was actually a suicide bomber. Thracian says how would we feel if it was a member of our family. Obviously we would not be happy, but on the other hand if a member of our family was lost due to no action or a hesitation in an action to deal with a terrorist threat it also would cause us to ask questions.

The balance in doing the right and the wrong thing is very fine.

I wonder if the officers were convicted of murder whether future incidents involving terrorists would have been jepodised through officers reluctant to take a suspect out due to fears of a similar accusation of murder. They are human too.

well said , tough life changing decisions made in fractions of seconds are always sadly going to have the possibility of being the wrong ones

[Jon the Hat]

well said , tough life changing decisions made in fractions of seconds are always sadly going to have the possibility of being the wrong ones

They weren't though. The guys who fired the shots did exactly what they were supposed to do. They took down a guy who as far as they knew was a confirmed suicide bomber from the day before. Not their fault that he wasn't. The mistakes were more to do with the disconnection between the guys doing the ID, the decision makers and the guys doing the shooting. How you improve that is the challenge.

[Rincewind]

Apart from the horror that this must have inflicted on the innocent mans family... it serves as a very important reminder to ANYONE who says the most frightening phrase in the world...

"if youve done nothing wrong...youve got nothing to fear"

Tell that to that family.

Yes maybe true in this country but the guy came from a country where many people live in fear from the police. It is not a community work or slap on the wrist. Its punishment ask questions later. I believe he left an house that was being surveilanced by undercover officers. Something he did, however little or insignificant to us may have alerted the watchiers to report it thus causing the chain of events to occur.

Like it has been said the fault lay in the system in passing the information they had gathered. At l;east we live in a country where ways to improve things and ensure it doesnt happen again can be found.

[breadandcheese]

They weren't though. The guys who fired the shots did exactly what they were supposed to do. They took down a guy who as far as they knew was a confirmed suicide bomber from the day before. Not their fault that he wasn't. The mistakes were more to do with the disconnection between the guys doing the ID, the decision makers and the guys doing the shooting. How you improve that is the challenge.

There was systemic failure all round. Whilst the guys who fried the shots did exactly as they were supposed to, the question has to be asked, why was he allowed to get onto the tube? Why was he not stopped as he took his journey to the underground. The moment the police allowed him into the underground station meant the only way to stop him, if a suicide bomber, was to kill him. At that point, it was believed he had reached his target and so would detonate his bomb if challenged. If they surprised him and stopped him en route, they may have been able to avoid having to open fire, and if a suicide bomber, could have provided useful intelligence.

The shameful cover-up afterwards should result in heads rolling. Claims that he was wearing a thick heavy jacket, etc, were appalling and did a deep disservice to the reputation of the police.

Ultimately, I do agree with you that those who carried out the surveillance and made the identification, sent an innocent man to his death at the hands of an assasination squad. They should carry the ultimate can for this as they were neglectful in the line of duty.

[Alexikokopops]

The best thing about this whole fiasco was when Cressida dick made some kind of admission in court and the Metro had a picture of her with the caption "Admission: Dick". I chuckled at that on my way to work.

[skinnydipper]

The best thing about this whole fiasco was when Cressida dick made some kind of admission in court and the Metro had a picture of her with the caption "Admission: Dick". I chuckled at that on my way to work.

Reminds me of one of the great newspaper headlines of all time.

Julian Dicks picked up an ankle injury in a game that was going to put him out of action for a couple of weeks. The headline on the back of the Sun was

SWOLLEN DICKS OUT

[Suffolk_fox]

If he hadn't outstayed his visa, he'd probably still be alive today...

[Ultra]

Despie the efforts of some, being an illegal immigrant is not generally considered sufficient to warrant a death penalty..

[Suffolk_fox]

Despie the efforts of some, being an illegal immigrant is not generally considered sufficient to warrant a death penalty..

True, but the fact remains. If a burglar broke into my house and I shot him dead, the point would be the same.

Beside that (rather flippant) point - I think the policeman who pulled the trigger truly believed he was a terrorist. I have been trained for that exact situation and there are so many things you have to think of/consider in the split second before opening fire.

Is this person a threat? Are my colleagues or anyone else in immediate danger? If I shout a challenge, will it increase the danger? Would my opening fire increase the danger?

Every month we had to attend a qualification shoot, and also had to attend regular training on challenge procedures and they tended to change every time, especially when something had happened in NI (Lee Clegg incident for example)

I feel for the De Menezes family but also for the police who were let down by bad comms and a sense of panic across the whole city.

[Thracian]

True, but the fact remains. If a burglar broke into my house and I shot him dead, the point would be the same.

Beside that (rather flippant) point - I think the policeman who pulled the trigger truly believed he was a terrorist. I have been trained for that exact situation and there are so many things you have to think of/consider in the split second before opening fire.

Is this person a threat? Are my colleagues or anyone else in immediate danger? If I shout a challenge, will it increase the danger? Would my opening fire increase the danger?

Every month we had to attend a qualification shoot, and also had to attend regular training on challenge procedures and they tended to change every time, especially when something had happened in NI (Lee Clegg incident for example)

I feel for the De Menezes family but also for the police who were let down by bad comms and a sense of panic across the whole city.

You know and I know that the Police are as close knit as any military unit and they look out for one another in a crisis.

The initial attempts to cover up the details of the incident, while understandable given the above, were a disgrace in reality because the Police are not there first and foremost to serve themeselves, they are there to serve the public.

Just as bad, people need to be held accountable for what happened as much because they let the officers at the sharp end down as because the mistakes made cost the life of a totally innocent man, irrespective of his being an illegal immigrant.

In fact De Menezes being an illegal only makes it worse because the various authorities clearly let the public down twice - first by allowing the Brazilian to remain here illegally and then in executing him without reason.

In fact the whole issue highlights the need for us to have far better leaders. People who are capable of taking and accepting responsibility (Blair never did stop wriggling) and people who are far less inclined to make elementary mistakes.

Because failure to identify someone properly was elementary. Not just elementary but fundamental.

Leaders supposedly become leaders because they are capable of shouldering responsibility and of not making the sort of mistakes a novice would make. Given the standard of leadership here I wonder who on earth can be trusted to oversee your instruction sessions.

Cos top of my list for any challenge procedure would be making certain the person in your sights was the guy perceived to be the threat.

[Jon the Hat]

Cos top of my list for any challenge procedure would be making certain the person in your sights was the guy perceived to be the threat.

You make some good points Thrac, but that isn't one of them. They didn't shoot some random guy on the tube, they shot the guy the surveillance team told them was a bomber from the day before - who is exactly what you say.

We don;t live in some ideal world where everyone gets everything right every time. We all screw up, and everyon needs a bit of leeway. You and I screw up we get away with it more than once because no one dies. What makes you think every link in the chain of events can be any different? Yes we should expect the best possible, but sometimes that is not quite good enough.

[Hullfox]

Just as bad, people need to be held accountable for what happened as much because they let the officers at the sharp end down as because the mistakes made cost the life of a totally innocent man, irrespective of his being an illegal immigrant.

Is it possible for a totally innocent man to be illegal too?

Just as bad, people need to be held accountable for what happened as much because they let the officers at the sharp end down as because the mistakes made cost the life of a totally innocent man, irrespective of his being an illegal immigrant.

In fact De Menezes being an illegal only makes it worse because the various authorities clearly let the public down twice - first by allowing the Brazilian to remain here illegally and then in executing him without reason.

Execute - verb [T]

to kill someone as a legal punishment:

Whilst your use of the verb is undoubtedly designed to be emotive, it is in fact incorrect in the context that you intend.

The man was shot for a reason, tragically it was for the wrong reason

[Thracian]

Is it possible for a totally innocent man to be illegal too?

Execute - verb [T]

to kill someone as a legal punishment:

Whilst your use of the verb is undoubtedly designed to be emotive, it is in fact incorrect in the context that you intend.

The man was shot for a reason, tragically it was for the wrong reason

The man was totally innocent in the context of the shooting and you know it. Or would you perhaps justify shooting all the illegals because they're here?

As for the execution he was not shot for a reason. It was someone else who was supposed to be shot for a reason.

He was executed and the fact that the court has not found that he was unlawfully killed only confirms it an execution. A mistaken but entirely official execution that has effectively been partially and inexplicably excused.

Can you imagine a hitman taking out the wrong guy? Would he be excused? No way. This guy was executed by our security forces because the lengthy chain of command malfunctioned. The days events were always likely to produce an execution. But of a different man.

De Menezes may have been an illegal but there was no way he was guilty of anything that would make him subject to the summarary ending of his life without the opportunity of a single word in defence.

He was never offered the opportunity of surrender. He was despatched without trial, with no defendable justification and having committed no offence that would ever have legally put his life in danger at all.