Police lied about Menezes

Tom Collier · 19-08-2005, 12:37 PM

The idea that he vaulted over the barrier is too ridiculous for words. Has anyone ever heard of a suicide bomber who tried to attract attention by bunking the train to save two quid? Had it been true it should have indicated that this was a teenager dodging the staff. Not yet a shooting offence.

I see that the souce of the leak has been suspended Roger.

It looks like I. Blair wants to tough it out for the sake of his job. His comment on "Today" that Menezes` death was one of 57 was one of his worst and sickest utterances yet. Whether or not he deliberately misled the public, he has to accept responsibility for what happened and resign. He is also denying trying to block the investigation. A bare faced lie.

mkpdavies · 19-08-2005, 12:51 PM

Quote:

His comment on "Today" that Menezes` death was one of 57

Low, very low.

In other words he is saying that we should just shut up and accept innocent people being killed, no matter how incompetent the killing is. The fact the liar tried to cover it up should also be accpepted in the fight against terror.

********, the law in this country is rapidly being proven to be an ass.

MarkR · 19-08-2005, 01:08 PM

Collateral damage?
I could have accepted that position until the lies and deceipt emerged. The initial premise of bulky jacket, vaulting barriers, failing to comply made a tragic incident. The picture emerging is that of criminal incompetence resulting in manslaughter.

Paul Birch · 19-08-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkR

The picture emerging is that of criminal incompetence resulting in manslaughter.

Sorry, but that's still a whitewash. It was criminal incompetence and malfeasance, resulting in murder. The multiple shots leave little room for any doubt over the intent to kill.

arden forester · 19-08-2005, 11:43 PM

ITV News has more revealing stuff about misleading information given by the police to the pathologist doing the post mortem! As I say, it's flowing like treacle from a jar!
http://www.itv.com/news/index_2037715.html

Tom Collier · 22-08-2005, 04:18 PM

So, Ian Blair knew nought for 24 hours but that didn`t stop him heading the news conference and passing on rumours. Clark waded in at the weekend to defend him. Can`t beat an independent non pressured inqury

I must be stupid but I only just thought: how could the police (even those not involved in the case like Blair) not know what what menezes was wearing - who had possession of the body? The police. Maybe such things are kept secret as part of questioning proceedure for the officers involved. Still doesn`t explain the wacky news conference.

mkpdavies · 22-08-2005, 04:28 PM

Even though the tube bosses were adament that at least 3 of the 4 cameras that would have shown the whole thing were working, the police came back and said they were blank.

The BS just keeps on coming thicker and faster.

social observer · 23-08-2005, 11:17 PM

Just to inject a little information here, not that some of you are particularly interested in diluting opinion with it, consider these.

1/ As far as I am aware, barrier vaulting, clothing and other initial details were largely reported by the media, gleaning it from bystanders. I don't recall seeing any official statement saying this in the first day or so (or even later) - thereafter, a general impression is created in the public's mind that this is the official police version. Later when police do start releasing details it looks like they have changed their story, when in fact they never released one in the first place.

2/ Matt, no, they will not release CCTV, surveillance footage, officer notes, testimonies, transcripts or reports to 'set the record straight'. That is for any court or inquest. To release before hand would render any juror or witness called open to allegations that they have been swayed. No unbiased witness=no court case.

You might all want the juicy details but how would you feel if your relative did not get a fair inquest because the police wanted to quieten the media. Equally how would you feel if you had been accused of a maximum offence (as many of you here are accusing the officers of) and find you were on a kangaroo show trial for the same reason.

3/ Much as some of you don't want to accept it, police firearms officers don't actually want to shoot anybody if they can possibly help it. Police get enough problems when they have to use baton, spray, cuffs or even just a stern voice, let alone anything more forceful like a gun.
It comes across here that some of you seem to think they are out there trying to see who can get a notch on their sidearm.

Maybe there were mistakes made, that is what the subsequent proceedings will be all about. I can guarantee that if there is any possibility whatsoever of hanging a police officer out to dry they will.
The McPhearson enquiry showed just how warped a public enquiry can go in twisting the events against officers so don't go thinking this will be any different. Police officers have always had less rights when they have the finger pointed at them than other members of the public so you'll get your pound of flesh, and one or more coppers will have their and their families lives utterly ruined no matter what the outcome, just as you are hoping.

Judging from the lack of thinking going on here at the moment I'd hate to ever have to rely on some of you as witnesses. You're supposed to see everything, not just the bits that suit you.

mkpdavies · 24-08-2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

1/ As far as I am aware, barrier vaulting, clothing and other initial details were largely reported by the media, gleaning it from bystanders. I don't recall seeing any official statement saying this in the first day or so (or even later) - thereafter, a general impression is created in the public's mind that this is the official police version. Later when police do start releasing details it looks like they have changed their story, when in fact they never released one in the first place.

Fraid your wrong there. The police said he had a bulky jacket, ran and jumped barriers. They also said he refused to follow instructions. All lies, all made up. There are hundreds of old internet articles with the police saying this, including Ian Bliar himself. If it wasn't for the leak, there would have been no attempt to clear the innocent mans good name either.

Quote:

2/ Matt, no, they will not release CCTV, surveillance footage, officer notes, testimonies, transcripts or reports to 'set the record straight'. That is for any court or inquest. To release before hand would render any juror or witness called open to allegations that they have been swayed. No unbiased witness=no court case.

Well they have said they were convieniently blank now, even though the station bosses say they were in full working order. I would have been happy to wait for their release if it was part of the investiagation, but now they are wiped, we'll never see anything.

Quote:

3/ Much as some of you don't want to accept it, police firearms officers don't actually want to shoot anybody if they can possibly help it. Police get enough problems when they have to use baton, spray, cuffs or even just a stern voice, let alone anything more forceful like a gun.
It comes across here that some of you seem to think they are out there trying to see who can get a notch on their sidearm.

Don't know what gave you that impression. Most of us were supporting the police fully before it turned out they told us a load of lies.

Quote:

Judging from the lack of thinking going on here at the moment I'd hate to ever have to rely on some of you as witnesses. You're supposed to see everything, not just the bits that suit you.

I'd suggest your the one not think here. Clearly you haven't been paying attention, if you didn't know the police made the statements about coats, running, jumping and refusing orders. While most of us were willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt, indeed supported them to start, we tend to let the fact we were told a pack of lies sway us.

You see, that's what thinking is all about. Being able to change opinion as new information comes to light. Sadly it seems you are stuck in a back the police at all costs mentality, which is sad.

I think most people would have accepted genuine mistakes, if given good reason. The fact the good reasons all seem to have slipped away and a large helping of lies and attempts to stop any enquiries added for good measure, means all but the most braindead of sheep can see what happened was wrong. The fact the Bliar decided to try and lie and cover it up, means he is beyond contempt and must be sacked.

Tom Collier · 24-08-2005, 12:15 AM

When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police gives a statement at a press conference that begins "I understand that.." and goes on to talk about a man not obeying police instructions and warnings and all the rest, that to me sounds like an official statement. You are entitled in that instance to assume that that is injected with information, as you put it so clinically.

I don`t agree that the police have ALWAYS had a rougher ride in the courts. Sometimes it has been the opposite.

I have no desire to see someone, who I havesn`t met, to have their life ruined. I am concerned that is justice done. On the judgement of individuals` actions, the courts will have to sort it out.

On the other issue, of Ian Blair, there is the question of departmental responsibility.

22-08-2005, 04:28 PM	#27 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Even though the tube bosses were adament that at least 3 of the 4 cameras that would have shown the whole thing were working, the police came back and said they were blank. The BS just keeps on coming thicker and faster. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

23-08-2005, 11:17 PM	#28 (permalink)
social observer Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cambs/Norfolk Border Posts: 290	Just to inject a little information here, not that some of you are particularly interested in diluting opinion with it, consider these. 1/ As far as I am aware, barrier vaulting, clothing and other initial details were largely reported by the media, gleaning it from bystanders. I don't recall seeing any official statement saying this in the first day or so (or even later) - thereafter, a general impression is created in the public's mind that this is the official police version. Later when police do start releasing details it looks like they have changed their story, when in fact they never released one in the first place. 2/ Matt, no, they will not release CCTV, surveillance footage, officer notes, testimonies, transcripts or reports to 'set the record straight'. That is for any court or inquest. To release before hand would render any juror or witness called open to allegations that they have been swayed. No unbiased witness=no court case. You might all want the juicy details but how would you feel if your relative did not get a fair inquest because the police wanted to quieten the media. Equally how would you feel if you had been accused of a maximum offence (as many of you here are accusing the officers of) and find you were on a kangaroo show trial for the same reason. 3/ Much as some of you don't want to accept it, police firearms officers don't actually want to shoot anybody if they can possibly help it. Police get enough problems when they have to use baton, spray, cuffs or even just a stern voice, let alone anything more forceful like a gun. It comes across here that some of you seem to think they are out there trying to see who can get a notch on their sidearm. Maybe there were mistakes made, that is what the subsequent proceedings will be all about. I can guarantee that if there is any possibility whatsoever of hanging a police officer out to dry they will. The McPhearson enquiry showed just how warped a public enquiry can go in twisting the events against officers so don't go thinking this will be any different. Police officers have always had less rights when they have the finger pointed at them than other members of the public so you'll get your pound of flesh, and one or more coppers will have their and their families lives utterly ruined no matter what the outcome, just as you are hoping. Judging from the lack of thinking going on here at the moment I'd hate to ever have to rely on some of you as witnesses. You're supposed to see everything, not just the bits that suit you. __________________ If you don\'t like what I think, attack the opinion with Logic and reason, don\'t attack the opinion holder!

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

19-08-2005, 12:37 PM	#21 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	The idea that he vaulted over the barrier is too ridiculous for words. Has anyone ever heard of a suicide bomber who tried to attract attention by bunking the train to save two quid? Had it been true it should have indicated that this was a teenager dodging the staff. Not yet a shooting offence. I see that the souce of the leak has been suspended Roger. It looks like I. Blair wants to tough it out for the sake of his job. His comment on "Today" that Menezes` death was one of 57 was one of his worst and sickest utterances yet. Whether or not he deliberately misled the public, he has to accept responsibility for what happened and resign. He is also denying trying to block the investigation. A bare faced lie.

19-08-2005, 01:08 PM	#23 (permalink)
MarkR Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: West Cumbria Posts: 143	Collateral damage? I could have accepted that position until the lies and deceipt emerged. The initial premise of bulky jacket, vaulting barriers, failing to comply made a tragic incident. The picture emerging is that of criminal incompetence resulting in manslaughter.

19-08-2005, 11:43 PM	#25 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	ITV News has more revealing stuff about misleading information given by the police to the pathologist doing the post mortem! As I say, it's flowing like treacle from a jar! http://www.itv.com/news/index_2037715.html

22-08-2005, 04:18 PM	#26 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	So, Ian Blair knew nought for 24 hours but that didn`t stop him heading the news conference and passing on rumours. Clark waded in at the weekend to defend him. Can`t beat an independent non pressured inqury I must be stupid but I only just thought: how could the police (even those not involved in the case like Blair) not know what what menezes was wearing - who had possession of the body? The police. Maybe such things are kept secret as part of questioning proceedure for the officers involved. Still doesn`t explain the wacky news conference.

24-08-2005, 12:15 AM	#30 (permalink)
Tom Collier Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bournemouth Posts: 359	When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police gives a statement at a press conference that begins "I understand that.." and goes on to talk about a man not obeying police instructions and warnings and all the rest, that to me sounds like an official statement. You are entitled in that instance to assume that that is injected with information, as you put it so clinically. I don`t agree that the police have ALWAYS had a rougher ride in the courts. Sometimes it has been the opposite. I have no desire to see someone, who I havesn`t met, to have their life ruined. I am concerned that is justice done. On the judgement of individuals` actions, the courts will have to sort it out. On the other issue, of Ian Blair, there is the question of departmental responsibility.