News The Ultimate Loss of Civil Liberties: Innocent Man Shot Dead in UK

[arildno]

It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:

"He immediately stood up and advanced towards me and the SO19 officers. He appeared agitated and I noticed that his hands were held below his waist and slightly in front of him. The man did not stand still and advanced to within about three or four feet of myself and the SO19 officers. Assessing that I may be dealing with a terrorist subject and fearing for the safety of the public on the carriage the SO19 officers and myself, I grabbed the male in the denim jacket by wrapping both my arms around his torso pinning his arms to his side. I then pushed him back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right hand side of my head pressed against the right hand side of his torso.

 

[Daminc]

I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:

You knew that De Menezes was innocent, but deemed that as irrelevant.
However, an innocent man will act differently from a guilty man
(unless you basically assume that De Menezes was mentally unstable).

No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.

Thus, when the police description you had at your disposal tried very fervently to portray De Menezes as acting suspiciously, then you essentially concluded that De Menezes must have been insane, rather than that the official report was wrong.

As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.

However, you also knew that De Menezes had been capable of holding a job as an electrician;

I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.

Note that one of the major facets where explicit doubts were raised here at PF was whether the police had in fact challenged him at all.
We could have accepted the chase, but NOT if the police had properly identified themselves!
It simply didn't fit

The lack of challenge and the size of the team was what first made me think about the SAS.

You had the exact same information as the rest of us - de Menezes was not concealing a bomb.

No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.

... I doubt you are capable.

You don't know me.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

No, I didn't. I don't have time to watch TV a lot of the time so I haven't had access to all the stuff you people had.

Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you.

You don't know me.

I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction. I didn't know Fred West... I still judge him.

 

[arildno]

I thought we'd sorted most of this out about 10 pages ago but obviously not:

No I didn't. One side was saying he's innocent the other side guilty. I didn't know for sure.


I didn't know he was an electrician at the time.

What time are you speaking of here, Daminc?
The police went out the day after the incident and declared the shot-down man as having no links.
You (and others) have asserted your view that De Menezes' innocence was irrelevant long after this became public, also beyond the next day after that or so, when the dead man was identified as the Brazilian electrician De Menezes.

As far as I knew at the time, he had ran. I think I referred to fear not insanity.

A fear that a sane, mentally stable, innocent man capable of holding a job would not have felt, if he had been PROPERLY challenged by the police.
Hence, by implication, your statement is supportive of the statement that De Menezes was mentally unstable.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It's in this link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739960,00.html

Here's the relevant passage:

Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.

 

[arildno]

Yes, I recall. No, that does not mean there was "evidence", merely that the officer was aware of why he had been asked to follow de Menezes "he may be a terrorist suspect". That was not a conclusion of his surveillence, but the reason for it - you are misrepresenting the facts. That he was a suspected terrorist wasn't a judgement of Hotel 3.

What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.

 

[Daminc]

You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?

Ah, so you were calling for us to await the evidence that you yourself were unaware of? And at the same time hypothesising invented scenarios to justify the killing. I see. Yes, we need to be more like you.

Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.

I don't need to, or want to. If that constitutes decent behaviour in your book then I'm glad PF is the extent of our social interaction

Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What I meant, is that by inserting that assertion (about fearing for the safety of the public) in his testimonial, he has basically created a loop-hole through which the killers of De Menezes might wriggle themselves out of.
It is a loyalist statement, that might be used to declare the killers not guilty of murder.

If he had testified that he didn't really regard De Menezes as an immediate threat, he would basically have said that he regarded the shoot-down as wrong.

Note that I wrote "evidence", rather than evidence.

Ahhhh, the penny drops. Sorry, I have a migraine and wasn't registering irony. I guess I'm grumpy today. Yes, it does smack of not wanting to rock the boat somewhat, and the 'fearing' for safety comment sounds like he was playing up his own heroism.

To nip any schadenfreude in the bud, though, by "and he was of the view that he did not pose a threat" ought to read "and he did not survey evidence that the target posed a threat."

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You people should listen to yourself.

I've tried to be rational and give comments to how I understood things at the time. Because my opinions differ from yours you want to attack me and my credibility. Why is that?

Perhaps you should listen to yourself. You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.

Do you find this funny? At any time that I made a comment I did so using the information I had at that time. Assertions were made that, as far as I was aware, didn't have any facts to back it up only circumstantial evidence and a certain amount of prejudice. I proposed circumstances that may have explained what occurred based on what I knew at the time.

And we did the same, but with more information. The difference is, when your 'proposals' did not yield fruit, you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not. You can't defend your ignorance and attack ours when yours was the greater. That's the point. It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS. And, no, I don't find this funny.

Perhaps you're right. I don't take too kindly to people with no manners.

What can I say? Your opinions bring out the worst in me.

 

[Daminc]

You admit you didn't have all the information before forging your opinion, and yet insist that we all should. And you haven't been above the occassional snide or rude comment yourself, even before our run-in. You've been a tad hypocritical.

When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.

you came along to tell us we wrongly prejudged anyway, that we should have waited for facts that you, clearly, did not.

I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.

It's not that you were wrong, it's that you've been pontificating about bias, prejudice and ignorance but not applying it to yourself. That's all I was saying when I told you to back off with the holier than thou BS.

In what manner did I not apply it to myself?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

And this gets back to all those posts I made about the list of 'evidence' the police cited as reasons to blow his brains out which, at the risk of getting dizzy, I will recapitulate:
1. he lived in the same block of flats as terrorist suspects (who, since then, have turned out NOT to be terrorists);
2. he was wearing a big coat (which he wasn't);
3. he looked Asian (which he didn't);
4. he ran onto the tube.
These were the known "facts", many of them fabricated, and none of them suggesting he was a suicide bomber. Your 'alternative scenarios' (or senarios as you consistently spel itt) did nothing to escape the blinding truth - there was no evidence to condemn de Menezes. You can hark on with ifs and maybes but it doesn't change the fact that there was no evidence. Notably, he was not carrying a bomb (even our government-baiting UK media would not run stories about innocent lives being lost if de Menezes had been carrying a bomb on the tube). This wasn't a grey area then and it's even more black and white now. When people said that this was an unjustified killing, they were not prejudging - based on the evidence upon which we were told de Menezes was killed he SHOULD NOT have been killed. Period. Had there been an additional claim that de Menezes was carrying something that may have concealed a bomb, you'd probably have seen less outrage on this thread. But that would have been too big a lie even for the police and home office, more comfortable with spin, to promote.

Besides, proposing alternative scenarios does not constitute 'awaiting the facts'. And your clear and repeated defense of the shoot-to-kill policy sounded like you were doing more than playing Devil's advocate.

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.

Clearly I of all people am not condemning any shortage of patience on your part. I'm merely pointing out that, on yet another topic, you reproach others for your own sins.

I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.

And so are we. But nothing new has contradicted out original position. The facts as they stood told us de Menezes was wrongly killed and told us that the British public were being misinformed. The only questions now are: "who exactly is to blame" and "to what extent have we been lied to".

In what manner did I not apply it to myself?

To the extent that you did not await the facts before forging your opinion that under the circumstances the police behaved appropriately. Note, again, I'm not dissing you for coming to this opinion (well, not in this paragraph), merely for telling us we prematurely came to the opposite view, the view that actually stood the test of time.

 

[The Smoking Man]

When I came up with alternative senarios it was because a few people here came out and stated there opinions as facts. I never said that my senarios were correct only that the alternative scenario was possible (based on what was know at the time).

As for snide comments...maybe. I get exasperated when people seem to be bigoted and that also brings out the worst in me.


I have waited for the facts...I'm still waiting for the rest of them.


In what manner did I not apply it to myself?

One thing you fail to realize Daminc.

We have as much information now if not more than Ian Blair when he went to the media on the day after the shooting and made all his announcements.

You can criticize us for our statements and judgements however, WE are not the top guys working in the UK Police or Anti-Terrorist Squads. He is.

 

[arildno]

That is not entirely correct, TheSmokingMan:
From this article, it seems that Blair was not told that the person shot in all likelihood was innocent until AFTER he'd gone out publicly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1745084,00.html
This does not excuse his later behaviour, though.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That is not entirely correct, TheSmokingMan:
From this article, it seems that Blair was not told that the person shot in all likelihood was innocent until AFTER he'd gone out publicly.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1745084,00.html
This does not excuse his later behaviour, though.

Sorry for the way I put it ... You said what I meant however, nobody can claim Blair know this guy was a bomber since I would imagine one of the first things to go through everyone's headset at the time would have been 'SH!T, he's not wearing a bomb!'

 

[The Smoking Man]

And now the infighting starts:

Sunday newspapers said undercover officers who followed de Menezes after he came out of an apartment block they were monitoring did not believe he posed an immediate threat.

They were therefore shocked when armed police arrived at the train at Stockwell underground station in south London and shot him, the reports said, citing senior police sources.

But the armed officers maintain they would not have shot the man if he had not been openly identified to them by one of the surveillance team.

Lawyers for the de Menezes family have voiced doubts that senior police officers were not aware of the truth soon after the shooting despite Blair's protestations that it took nearly a day to confirm the mistake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050822/ts_nm/security_britain_dc

 

[arildno]

Police tampered with cameras and footage?

It has been confirmed on the morning of the incident that no camera was out of order at Stockwell:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1746975,00.html

 

[arildno]

Sorry for the way I put it ... You said what I meant however, nobody can claim Blair know this guy was a bomber since I would imagine one of the first things to go through everyone's headset at the time would have been 'SH!T, he's not wearing a bomb!'

While Blair must right away have been informed that the person did not have a bomb on him, it does not necessarily mean that the investigating officers had found out or told him that De Menezes had no terrorist links until after Blair had gone publicly.

However, what is rather strange is that De Menezes carried his ID with him, so they knew he was a Brazilian, rather than a Middle Eastern guy.
That ought to have alerted them that they had shot a guy who in all probability had never engaged in Moslem fanatics' acts like bombing innocents.

 

[Daminc]

To the extent that you did not await the facts before forging your opinion that under the circumstances the police behaved appropriately. Note, again, I'm not dissing you for coming to this opinion (well, not in this paragraph), merely for telling us we prematurely came to the opposite view, the view that actually stood the test of time.

I wasn't giving my opinion as such. I was just stating a possible alternative. This whole 'argument' started because people were stating their opinions as 'facts' when, at the time, they weren't.

Two things also influenced my opinion somewhat.

1) It's an extremely rare occurance when british police shoot a civilian.

2) The SAS deploying a hunt and destroy order against the IRA.

2.1) The mention the the CCTV 'being inactive' also enforced my thought that the SAS were involved because that would be standard procedure.

The fact that your opinions have been validated over the past few days does not justify stating them as facts in the beginning.

Anyway, this doesn't really matter does it? I disagree in the way you state things and you disagree with my methods. So what? I don't know you guys and I don't want to argue with you so let's just see what happens shall we.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It has been confirmed on the morning of the incident that no camera was out of order at Stockwell:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1746975,00.html

Curiouser and curiouser!

 

[arildno]

Curiouser and curiouser!

I agree; most curificational.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I agree; most curificational.

This has always been my problem with peoplewho are set up to be the 'authority' or 'police' in any situation.

Who 'Polices the Police'?

Was it the same officers who performed this act who were responsible for gathering the evidence at the scene thus allowing them to tamper with that evidence?

And even if it wasn't, are we supposed to assume that people investigating the incident don't have a false morality of 'us and them' and the 'old boy network' gone mad?

Justice must not only be done ... it must appear to be done.

 

[arildno]

This has always been my problem with peoplewho are set up to be the 'authority' or 'police' in any situation.

Who 'Polices the Police'?

Well, it is the perennial problem, of course.
The guy who manages to find a neat and simple solution to this would get more than a Nobel prize..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I wasn't giving my opinion as such. I was just stating a possible alternative. This whole 'argument' started because people were stating their opinions as 'facts' when, at the time, they weren't.

The fact that your opinions have been validated over the past few days does not justify stating them as facts in the beginning.

What are you talking about?!? We were discussing the facts, those being:
- that he was not a suicide bomber (OVER-RIDING FACT: he did not have a bomb... this was known by the time I joined the thread);
- that the police and home office were spinning the facts about the case, giving 'reasons' that to the unthinking would pass for justification but under anaylsis collapsed like a paper cup under a ten ton weight (e.g. he lived in the same block of flats, he looked Asian, he ran toward the tube).

So, to summarise, we were wrong to discuss out opinions about the facts, while it was fine for you to hypothesise BS? Yeah, that works. Just about as much as expending so much energy on fabricated scenarios to justify the unjustifiable is not a biased attempt to exonerate the police.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

"But the armed officers maintain they would not have shot the man if he had not been openly identified to them by one of the surveillance team."

Well, it's good to know one thing at least: the criteria under which I can be shot. So as long as I'm identified by a police officer, even if I'm not identified as anything criminal, I may be killed. So glad I have no cop friends. If a passing officer said "Hi, El Hombre," I guess that would be the end of me.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It has been confirmed on the morning of the incident that no camera was out of order at Stockwell:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1746975,00.html

It is quite startling how far they have gone to cover this up. Have I just gotten older and so am now more privy to the true corruption in our government and institutions, or has this method of operating arisen in a Labour cabinet? Or is the post-9/11, "we've got terror so anything goes" philosophy that brought us here, regardless of our spin-happy, fundementally dubious government?

 

[arildno]

It is quite startling how far they have gone to cover this up. Have I just gotten older and so am now more privy to the true corruption in our government and institutions, or has this method of operating arisen in a Labour cabinet? Or is the post-9/11, "we've got terror so anything goes" philosophy that brought us here, regardless of our spin-happy, fundementally dubious government?

It is, IMO, what the overly simplistic bad guy/good guy mentality naturally evolves into.
A "good" guy has the moral right (and duty) to do anything to stop or punish a (suspected) bad guy, if he doesn't, he's either a bad guy himself, or not a guy at all.

In other words, apart from being an idiotic, worthless mentality, it is also extremely dangerous if it takes hold over the minds of people of consequence.

 

[Daminc]

So, to summarise, we were wrong to discuss out opinions about the facts, while it was fine for you to hypothesise BS? Yeah, that works. Just about as much as expending so much energy on fabricated scenarios to justify the unjustifiable is not a biased attempt to exonerate the police.

I wonder if you're deliberatly misunderstanding me and just wish to argue or it's something else. It's seems obvious to me that, no matter what I say, you'll find some way to twist it in order to find an excuse to insult me. So be it.

There's a quote from a song I'm particularly fond of:

"hearing only what you want to hear
and knowing only what you've heard"

I think it's quite apt, don't you?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

It is, IMO, what the overly simplistic bad guy/good guy mentality naturally evolves into.
A "good" guy has the moral right (and duty) to do anything to stop or punish a (suspected) bad guy, if he doesn't, he's either a bad guy himself, or not a guy at all.

In other words, apart from being an idiotic, worthless mentality, it is also extremely dangerous if it takes hold over the minds of people of consequence.

No, I didn't mean the shooting itself - I agree, I don't think there's any doubt that the shooters were over-zealous, and this can be sensibly be ascribed to the freedom, gung-ho attitude and paranoia that comes with the scare-mongering we've become subject to.

My question was more concerning the cover-up by the higher ups. Has the potential for this level of corruption always been present and it just took a scandal such as this to highlight it, or is the cause more recent?

 

[arildno]

I think they justified it since they sincerely believe that any "embarassment" to the force will weaken their ability to catch the "bad guys" too much.

That is, they have what they think, a MORAL justification for this cover-up (which I don't regard as much else than a rationalization of the matter)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I wonder if you're deliberatly misunderstanding me and just wish to argue or it's something else. It's seems obvious to me that, no matter what I say, you'll find some way to twist it in order to find an excuse to insult me. So be it.

I don't think I've misunderstood you; I just don't believe you. Your enthusiasm to postulate circumstances under which the shooting may have been justified was bogus given the facts at the time and smacked of blind exoneration. Your follow-up wrist-slapping of those who weren't so keen to bury their heads in the sand with such foundless, unreserved faith only highlighted this further. I'm not trying to insult you; on the contrary it is very difficult to stop myself.

There's a quote from a song I'm particularly fond of:

"hearing only what you want to hear
and knowing only what you've heard"

I think it's quite apt, don't you?

Here's one I'm fond of:

"We rely on technological follies
We forget how to function without these
More to lose, more to break, more to maintain
A mollycoddle all our kids will ever know
And, yes, kids are now an issue."

That doesn't have anything to do with anything either.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think they justified it since they sincerely believe that any "embarassment" to the force will weaken their ability to catch the "bad guys" too much.

That is, they have what they think, a MORAL justification for this cover-up (which I don't regard as much else than a rationalization of the matter)

Yes, we must distinguish between official motive and likely motive. They may claim they have such a moral justification, and indeed have made noise about the effects of the IPCC investigation and leaked information on public assessment of their ability. However, is this the true or only motive for such extreme behaviour? It seems highly unlikely to me that in order to obfuscate its cack-handedness the police would risk highlighting to the world its own predilection for immoral and unethical practises. Not to mention that, upon realising that they thought such policy would work, the public would also lose faith in their basic intelligence. So instead of just 'inept', they have risked the public opinion being 'inept', 'corrupt' and 'dumb'. I find that difficult to swallow. Are we Brits really that stupid? Maybe we are.

If public opinion as to their effectiveness is not the prime or only motive for a cover-up that goes to the lengths suggested by that last link, then where exactly do they think they're coming from?

 

[arildno]

The (IMO, probable) fact that they sincerely believe in their own hearts that they have the right to destroy evidence, lie to the public, execute an innocent man is to me totally irrelevant in my judgment of them.
They do not posess these rights, however much they think themselves in posesssion of them.

 

[Daminc]

I don't think I've misunderstood you; I just don't believe you.

You think I'm lying?

Ok, amaze me with your powers of reason and deduction and come up with why I would lie to you or anyone else here.

Your enthusiasm to postulate circumstances under which the shooting may have been justified was bogus given the facts at the time and smacked of blind exoneration.

I'm sick of repeating myself in an effort to try and explain my position to you. Believe what you want to believe. I think you just justified my quote from that song.

 

[arildno]

It has been confirmed on the morning of the incident that no camera was out of order at Stockwell:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1746975,00.html

Daminc:
Have you read this link?
What do you make of this?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The (IMO, probable) fact that they sincerely believe in their own hearts that they have the right to destroy evidence, lie to the public, execute an innocent man is to me totally irrelevant in my judgment of them.
They do not posess these rights, however much they think themselves in posesssion of them.

Oh yeah, it's not surprising to me that they do believe these actions are justified. I just can't believe they were sooooooo stupid they did it to such an extreme, in a way they could be caught out so easily and under such public scrutiny. But maybe you're right. If so, then you've convinced me of the impossible - the British police service is even worse than I thought, and I thought next to nothing of them beforehand.

 

[arildno]

Oh yeah, it's not surprising to me that they do believe these actions are justified. I just can't believe they were sooooooo stupid they did it to such an extreme, in a way they could be caught out so easily and under such public scrutiny. But maybe you're right. If so, then you've convinced me of the impossible - the British police service is even worse than I thought, and I thought next to nothing of them beforehand.

Well, it is also the matter with the paranoid bad guy/good guy mentality that one goes about with the mistaken belief that the "good guys" never really can't do anything wrong ("Heck! I know his wife Glenda, she's so happy with him! How could such a husband ever do anything wrong??")

That, however, means, there will be a tendency to exonerate those you regard as "good guys" (a long with the tendency of vilifying those you regard as "bad guys")
So, since they didn't know whether De Menezes was a good guy or not, but that Shooter 1&2 were definitely good guys, wouldn't it be natural to be unwilling to let the shooters go to jail? (After all, Glenda and the kids would suffer then, wouldn't they?..)

Blah-blah..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

You think I'm lying?
Ok, amaze me with your powers of reason and deduction and come up with why I would lie to you or anyone else here.

I think your endless suppositions of unfounded extentuating circumstances that may, were it not for the fact they were fictional, have justified the shooting (although they still wouldn't have in the eyes of pretty much everyone except you, DM and Brewnog, the latter of which presumably still think that everything's hunky-dorey in shoot-a-foreigner-land) were attempts to exonerate the police despite the known facts at the time (such as: no bomb). I think you views were proven wrong and, rather than accept that and move on, you tried to tell everyone that, even though their views proved correct, they were still wrong to hold them simply because they observed formidible truthsthat you were deterred by (re: no bomb). I think your defense of this hypocrisy by waiving off your earlier position as that of some Devil's advocate is phoney. What else do you want to know? This isn't an attempt to insult you anew - these are the same insults as before.

I'm sick of repeating myself in an effort to try and explain my position to you.

Stop doing it then. I'm not forcing you to argue. My post you objected to was not aimed at you in particular. You can stop whenever you want.

Believe what you want to believe. I think you just justified my quote from that song.

I'm a music lover. Quotes from songs are always justified.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Well, it is also the matter with the paranoid bad guy/good guy mentality that one goes about with the mistaken belief that the "good guys" never really can't do anything wrong ("Heck! I know his wife Glenda, she's so happy with him! How could such a husband ever do anything wrong??")

That, however, means, there will be a tendency to exonerate those you regard as "good guys" (a long with the tendency of vilifying those you regard as "bad guys")
So, since they didn't know whether De Menezes was a good guy or not, but that Shooter 1&2 were definitely good guys, wouldn't it be natural to be unwilling to let the shooters go to jail? (After all, Glenda and the kids would suffer then, wouldn't they?..)

Blah-blah..

This still only works in, at most, the first day after the shooting. Claims such as those about the CCTV came much later, by which time de Menezes was cleared of pending 'bad guy' status. If it were that simple, why have they done everything to portray themselves as the bad guys (i.e. by doing that which will betray their corrupt working practises to the public eye) since de Menezes was known to be innocent? It makes no sense. Do we really expect people with so little foresight to fill us with confidence that they can foil a future terrorist plot? I'm not arguing; it's just hard to get a handle on. Blair & co. have done more to destroy the public image of the police service than even the shooters were capable of. If they'd told the truth from the beginning they could have fired the shooters and everyone would say "Good call!" As it is now, no-one has any choice but to fear the whole structure is fundementally f***ed.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

BTW, I do know how to spell 'fundamentally', but try telling my fingers! A law unto themselves, they are.

 

[Daminc]

Daminc:
Have you read this link?
What do you make of this?

When I first heard that all the CCTV's in that area were not active I thought it would be highly unlikey, especially given our security status as it stands.

That's why I thought it was possible that the SF were involved and the cover up was to prevent their identities become known (standard practice). I still think that this may be a possiblity, however, it's my opinion that there is CCTV coverage of the incident.

Whether it will be available for public viewing at some time...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to conceal SF identities...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to cover up a colossal f*ck-up by the police...I don't know.

 

[arildno]

When I first heard that all the CCTV's in that area were not active I thought it would be highly unlikey, especially given our security status as it stands.

That's why I thought it was possible that the SF were involved and the cover up was to prevent their identities become known (standard practice). I still think that this may be a possiblity, however, it's my opinion that there is CCTV coverage of the incident.

Whether it will be available for public viewing at some time...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to conceal SF identities...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to cover up a colossal f*ck-up by the police...I don't know.

1)That some key agents whose identities need to be kept secret are involved in this may well be true.
2) However, I cannot see how this should justify to withhold the tapes from the independent police complaints comission, nor do I see any justification for that the public is not informed that there ARE footage here, but that it cannot be publicly accessed for security reasons.

 

[The Smoking Man]

1)That some key agents whose identities need to be kept secret are involved in this may well be true.
2) However, I cannot see how this should justify to withhold the tapes from the independent police complaints comission, nor do I see any justification for that the public is not informed that there ARE footage here, but that it cannot be publicly accessed for security reasons.

Ummm ... I think I have seen enough of those Cops and 'Stupid People Video' Programmes to know they can fog out a face when they don't want a person identified.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

When I first heard that all the CCTV's in that area were not active I thought it would be highly unlikey, especially given our security status as it stands.

That's why I thought it was possible that the SF were involved and the cover up was to prevent their identities become known (standard practice). I still think that this may be a possiblity, however, it's my opinion that there is CCTV coverage of the incident.

Whether it will be available for public viewing at some time...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to conceal SF identities...I don't know.
Whether it was removed to cover up a colossal f*ck-up by the police...I don't know.

Aren't CO19 trained by SAS? Could be they employ the same tactics. However, they are NOT military, they are police, and as such they're actions should be visible and accountable. There is no security risk in the public knowing what happened, and so no justification in this evidence being withheld or destroyed.

Besides, if its disappearance isn't part of a cover-up, how would you account for the discrepancy between the police's far-fetched claims that all CCTV cameras were inoperative, and the claims of Undeground security that they were up-and-running? Regardless of the whereabouts and content of the footage itself, this contradiction is alarming.

 

[Daminc]

IF the SF were involved then the tapes would probably fall under the military jurisdiction and the 'independent police complaints comission' would have a say in the matter.

I can't think of any reason for why the public should be informed that any footage would be withheld for security reasons except perhaps they think it's simpler this way? I don't know.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Ummm ... I think I have seen enough of those Cops and 'Stupid People Video' Programmes to know they can fog out a face when they don't want a person identified.

Very true. The identities of the shooters can remain protected while the actual events leading up to the shooting are inspected. Security isn't an issue. What else?

 

[Daminc]

Mmmm, you people type fast

"Aren't CO19 trained by SAS? "

Yes, I think I mentioned that before so yes they could employ the same tactics in that type of scenario (spelt it right this time). If they were SO19 then they would probably be held accountable after the internal investigation has been completed.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

IF the SF were involved then the tapes would probably fall under the military jurisdiction and the 'independent police complaints comission' would have a say in the matter.

If it was SF, then the sarcastic proposal you suggested earlier (replace police with military) wouldn't be so far-fetched, I guess.

I can't think of any reason for why the public should be informed that any footage would be withheld for security reasons except perhaps they think it's simpler this way? I don't know.

I think he meant as opposed to claiming it didn't exist at all, i.e. lying (if that is the case). Surely admitting it exists but for security reasons cannot be made public is a much less stupid idea?

 

[Daminc]

Surely admitting it exists but for security reasons cannot be made public is a much less stupid idea?

I would have thought so.

If it was SF, then the sarcastic proposal you suggested earlier (replace police with military) wouldn't be so far-fetched, I guess.

The SAS are primarily involved Counter Terrorism (as far as I'm aware anyway)

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The SAS are primarily involved Counter Terrorism (as far as I'm aware anyway)

Sure, I'm aware of their involvement in Ireland for one thing. Don't think they'd have cocked this up so monumentally to be honest.

 

[Daminc]

They are involved all over the world and the one thing that gives me doubts is that I agree that they wouldn't make such a c*ck up (unless there was some bad intel going around that we're not aware of yet)