Police lied about Menezes

Roger Gough · 17-08-2005, 12:45 PM

[quote="komerad"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arden forester

Quote:

It must be remembered that the Britiish Police have not had previous experience of facing a suspected suicide bomber.

What are we paying them to do then? Sir Ian Blair said they were prepared.

How exactly do you suggest that anyone obtains experience of facing a suicide bomber :?:

The only answer IMHO, shoot the b******s

That's commendable if you are aware - and sure - of who you should be shooting at. This suspect could have been contained in the flat or a short way outside it. The fact that he didn't have a backpack or similar, and the fact that he wasn't wearing a heavy jacket, should be suggestive that this was not a man on a suicide mission. It still begs the question, 'Why was he allowed to board public transport?' where his 'suicide bid' was bound to cause maximum mayhem. It's interesting to note that the permission to shoot to kill was obtained from a Commander situated miles from the scene, not in visual contact with the action but relying on what could have become 'chinese whispers'. The officer with the gun has to (and will) take the responsibilty of shooting a suspect and has been trained extensively to make similar life and death decisions. Why then is he not the master of his own fate in this situation? Also note that if the suspect is being held in a bear hug by a surveillance officer, there's not much point in shouting 'a warning'. Why wasn't this policy given the greatest possible publicity so that those that it affects i.e. the public at large, knew what was going on? Not that it would have helped the Brazilian it seems as he wasn't given the chance to respond to any shouted warning.

John Carter · 17-08-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Didn't Piers Morgan run with a leaked story in the Mirror a while back?

I'll repeat that just in case any of you are forgetting that this new information has come from a single, leaked source... ...In the same way that those Mirror-published photos of abuse in "Iraq" (which turned out to be taken in the back of a truck parked on a TA car-park in England) came from a single, leaked source.

mkpdavies · 17-08-2005, 01:55 PM

Well, they will be relasing the CCTV immedietly to clear it up then, won't they!

Won't they?

John Carter · 17-08-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Well, they will be relasing the CCTV immedietly to clear it up then, won't they!

Won't they?

A couple of days after they ship some industrial heaters to Hell, yes.

arden forester · 17-08-2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

I'll repeat that just in case any of you are forgetting that this new information has come from a single, leaked source.

The difference here John is that Piers Morgan got some photos which he took a hunch on and this leak is from the IPCC, so ITV News is on firm ground (unless it is a forgery which is unlikely).

Tom Collier · 17-08-2005, 11:09 PM

I`ll send in an email to HO. I cannot see the justification now for not holding a public enquiry. We know what basically happened and he was not a suspect so no national security issue. Let us have some UKIP response to this ridiculous silence. Blair had better have a damn good explanation or go.

arden forester · 18-08-2005, 08:44 AM

I'm posting this link to show how the Met's shoot-to-kill policy has stirred thinking elsewhere.
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/p...n/petition.php
Some of the comments show how easy it is to re-ignite old feelings. It is not just Irish thinking. Apparently Brazilians are passing around anti-British thoughts!

The Met, by getting it so wrong, has done a disservice to us by giving a bad impression. Please, Met, no more cover-ups!!

Roger Gough · 18-08-2005, 10:15 AM

Can anyone point me to a sliver of news that mentions that the 'leak' from the IPCC is, or will be, subject of an investigation? The information pack that ITV was 'given' included - from what ITV said - more than just one photo of the victim lying dead in the carriage. They had some that were too gruesome to show even after the watershed. Is this disclosure deliberate and simply a means to an end?

arden forester · 18-08-2005, 05:17 PM

The truth is coming out, slowly! Bit like treacle from a jar!!

Quote:

In a statement on Thursday, IPCC deputy chairman John Wadham said: "The Metropolitan Police Service initially resisted us taking on the investigation - but we overcame that.

"It was an important victory for our independence.

"This dispute has caused us delay in taking over the investigation - but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground."

Mr Wadham said the IPCC would now "search for the truth".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163568.stm

Quote:

Ms Peirce said: "This has been a chaotic mess. What we have asked the IPCC to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister.

"There are lies that have been told and lies that have been allowed to remain in circulation. It was said that he was a man linked a bombing incident, he was not linked to any bombing. It was said he was wearing a bulky jacket, he was not. It was said he ran from police and aroused suspicion, he did not."

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/1900255.html

Stephen Booth · 18-08-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Fully backed by government no doubt.

What else have the liars been lying about lately?

Any incidents where they won't show the CCTV footage or say that all the cameras were broken, are now deemed suspect.

I think the stories about him vaulting the barrier, running away from the police, wearing bulky clothing etc were part of a damage limitation exercise to create the initial impression that the man shot was a suicide bomber and that therefore the police were right to shoot him.

The non release of camera footage held by the police happened as long ago as the Hillsborough disaster, where the police said that cameras overlooking the disaster didn't work, but that later film tapes turned up.
I also feel worried about the way that CCTV pictures could be digitally altered.

This shooting is a very bad business indeed.

17-08-2005, 01:55 PM	#13 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Well, they will be relasing the CCTV immedietly to clear it up then, won't they! Won't they? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

18-08-2005, 08:44 AM	#17 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	I'm posting this link to show how the Met's shoot-to-kill policy has stirred thinking elsewhere. http://www.relativesforjustice.com/p...n/petition.php Some of the comments show how easy it is to re-ignite old feelings. It is not just Irish thinking. Apparently Brazilians are passing around anti-British thoughts! The Met, by getting it so wrong, has done a disservice to us by giving a bad impression. Please, Met, no more cover-ups!! __________________ www.ardenforester.blogspot.com www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17-08-2005, 11:09 PM	#16 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	I`ll send in an email to HO. I cannot see the justification now for not holding a public enquiry. We know what basically happened and he was not a suspect so no national security issue. Let us have some UKIP response to this ridiculous silence. Blair had better have a damn good explanation or go.

18-08-2005, 10:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	Can anyone point me to a sliver of news that mentions that the 'leak' from the IPCC is, or will be, subject of an investigation? The information pack that ITV was 'given' included - from what ITV said - more than just one photo of the victim lying dead in the carriage. They had some that were too gruesome to show even after the watershed. Is this disclosure deliberate and simply a means to an end?