• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Police guilty over Menezes’ death (on health and safety grounds)


    by Rumbold
    1st November, 2007 at 2:37 pm    

    No, the title is accurate.

    “London’s police force has been found guilty of breaking health and safety laws over the shooting dead of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.

    The Metropolitan Police unnecessarily put the public at risk in chasing a suspected suicide bomber across the city, an Old Bailey jury decided.”

    So their crime was to try and stop a suspected suicide bomber, not the shooting of an innocent man. Er…

    “The Met faces a potentially unlimited fine over the botched operation.”

    Lets fine the Met. What a great idea. Where does the money come from? The taxpayer. What happens if the Met is fined? It has less money to spend on policing. Does the Met care? No, because it knows that the taxpayer will always bail it out.

    “The unprecedented, highly controversial trial came after prosecutors said that no individual officer could be held responsible for the electrician’s death.”

    I certainly would never blame the police marksman- they were doing what they believed to be their job. However, it does appear that senior officers could share some of the blame for this mess.

    A bad verdict all round.

    Update: The Met/taxpayer has now been fined £175,000, with £385,000 costs. That will teach them not to shoot any more innocent people.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties,Current affairs






    59 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Kismet Hardy — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

      Good job, considering the prosecuter Clare Montgomery QC said a few weeks back: ‘If jean charles had been a bomber, any bomb he was carrying would have been detonated well before the officers entered his carriage.’ Then added, and it’s weird that this is the prosecution lawyer here, ‘The fact is that London, and in particular the occupants of that tube carriage, were lucky he was not a bomber.’

      Yeah, Londoners were also lucky that a fleet of spaceships full of human flesh hungry alien zombies didn’t strike that day

      Lucky is when you find a tenner stuck to the gum in your shoe. Lucky is when you stop an actual bomber from blowing people up. Going about your day then getting chased by men with guns who don’t tell you they’re sure you’re a suicide bomber then getting shot repeatedly in the head is a different kind of luck altogether

      I agree the Met shouldn’t be fined at our expense. But for fuck’s sake arrest and try the incompetant wankers responsible

    2. Kismet Hardy — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:16 pm  

      “they were doing what they believed to be their job”

      What a ridiculous excuse. I believe my job is writing entertaining articles about shampoo. If I wrote a piece mistakenly thinking it would be entertaining to say something idiotic like lesbians use l’oreal to wash their fanniers I’d expect to get my arse sued

      I think you’ll find killing a man is slightly more idiotic

    3. El Cid — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:26 pm  

      something idiotic like lesbians use l’oreal to wash their fanniers I’d expect to get my arse sued

      by who exactly (heads and shoulders?)

    4. Kesara — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:30 pm  

      If jean charles had been a bomber, any bomb he was carrying would have been detonated well before the officers entered his carriage

      Not necessarily…devices can take time to prep. and presumably the officers acted at the moment when they felt it was absolutely necessary to use lethal force to surpress the subject. Firing off automatic weapons in a crowded tunnel for instance is hardly a situation they’d want to be in.

      Ms Montgomery told the court the situation had worsened because senior officers failed to keep to their own agreed plan, while firearms teams were both poorly briefed and in the wrong locations.

      This meant that it became impossible to effectively stop the suspected suicide bomber before he boarded a bus and headed for the underground system.

      The Met denied this, saying its commanders and officers on the ground did all they could to apprehend the bombers and minimise the risks to the public.

      That bit however (from the Beeb) is extremely important. If anything this will make the pen pushing deskwits on the Force think about how efficient thier operations are and minimise clusterf*** on an OP. I live in hope though…thank God they havn’t made scapegoats of the officers at the scene at least.

      Damned if you don’t, absolutely skewered if you do.

    5. Kesara — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:33 pm  

      I think you’ll find killing a man is slightly more idiotic

      I’d love to see you say that while a suicide bomber prepares to take you with him to Paradise, and the marksman who could save your life keeps those words in mind and goes to wash his pubes instead.

    6. Kesara — on 1st November, 2007 at 3:49 pm  

      Also Kismet, Im keen to know what your experience in dealing with & understanding the variables involved in CQC/B, Survellience & CT operations is?

    7. Refresh — on 1st November, 2007 at 4:20 pm  

      The verdict shows they were incompetent, at a minimum. The fine is irrelevant.

      What matters now is whether Jean Charles de Menezes’ family can make use of this in a civil case against the Met.

      It is worrying that we start concerning ourselves with where the money is going to come from for any fines. You could go the whole hog and give the Crown and ALL its agencies carte blanche - other than of course red faces.

      Do that and we step back in time.

      You could argue, the money comes from the taxpayer and it goes to the taxpayer. The Met as an organisation may (and probably will) get the money from the taxpayer to bail them out, but they should be required to explain themselves at every step of the way before they recieve it.

      But in the end a man is dead, through no fault of his own.

      Admittedly he should not have jumped over barriers, run, got on and off buses, had by-products of cocaine in his urine, looked like a post-ops e-fit etc. etc.

      Its not over yet. Procedures and processes may have conspired against Menezes, but he was NOT killed lawfully, someone is responsible. And someone/people attempted to deflect responsibility, they also need to be sought.

    8. Roger — on 1st November, 2007 at 5:08 pm  

      There were proven examples of disobedience of orders- senior officers who had no business to be in the control room stayed there after they had been repeatedly told to leave. These people not only neglected their own jobs but bear some responsibility for the god-awful cock-up that led to Mr Menezes’s death.
      I look forward to their dismissal without pension, but not very optimistically.

    9. Rumbold — on 1st November, 2007 at 5:29 pm  

      Kismet:

      “I think you’ll find killing a man is slightly more idiotic.”

      You either have armed police for such situations, or not. If you do, then they are going to shoot people, on the orders of their superiors. The only way you can get round this is by never having armed police for any occasion.

      “It is worrying that we start concerning ourselves with where the money is going to come from for any fines. You could go the whole hog and give the Crown and ALL its agencies carte blanche - other than of course red faces.

      Do that and we step back in time.”

      I think that it should be senior officers who made blunders who should pay, not the Met itself. Fining the Met, or any government organisation is pointless, because the staff will continue to receive their wages, benefits and pensions. You have to punish the people themselves.

    10. Refresh — on 1st November, 2007 at 5:38 pm  

      Rumbold

      “I think that it should be senior officers who made blunders who should pay, not the Met itself. Fining the Met, or any government organisation is pointless, because the staff will continue to receive their wages, benefits and pensions. You have to punish the people themselves.”

      Personal responsibility - I could take to that. Bankrupt the buggers I say, let that be their mark of Cain.

      This is big! Worth a whole thread of its own.

      I would love to bankrupt a few people - usually worth starting at the top - which often means politicians.

      Yet another thread I suspect.

    11. Rumbold — on 1st November, 2007 at 5:44 pm  

      Refresh:

      “Personal responsibility - I could take to that. Bankrupt the buggers I say, let that be their mark of Cain.

      This is big! Worth a whole thread of its own.

      I would love to bankrupt a few people - usually worth starting at the top - which often means politicians.

      Yet another thread I suspect.”

      I reckon we can fit it all on this thread- just try.

    12. Refresh — on 1st November, 2007 at 6:00 pm  

      Well I’ll start with a list -

      Senior Police officers
      Home secretaries
      Prime Ministers (one, maybe two if I can go back to 1979)
      Newspaper proprietors
      Editors

      Still think this could go rapidly off-topic, but then I am sure you can keep everyone in check.

    13. Refresh — on 1st November, 2007 at 6:02 pm  

      “Blair’s position is untenable”, says David Davis.

      Why now?

      It was untenable on the day.

    14. Bert Preast — on 1st November, 2007 at 6:30 pm  

      Good case for bringing the army in to do the armed police job. Not quite so prone to panicked overreaction. Now that Iraq and Afghanistan are shooting wars the sneaky beakies would probably be better used on surveillance in the UK. Not that the Rozzers are ever going to let their favourite toys be taken away.

    15. Refresh — on 1st November, 2007 at 7:06 pm  

      Seriously gruesome graphics simulating the killing:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm

    16. Ravi Naik — on 1st November, 2007 at 8:35 pm  

      You have to punish the people themselves.

      To me, this has been an exercise of stupidity from beginning to the end. Let’s agree with this: some people do make decisions that have implications on the life and death of others. These include doctors and police officers, and sometimes people die. Now, I don’t believe that someone in that condition should be criminalised just because someone dies, because I am sure glad I don’t have to make those life-death decisions. A police officer shoots an innocent man who they thought was about to detonate a bomb. Why should anyone feel that the Met should pay when they were trying to protect the people?

      For one, they made a series of unacceptable blunders that led to a tragic end, and then they tried to cover and lie about it. Hence, whoever was responsible for this operation should pay for it, and be immediately sacked. If you follow the protocol and shit happens is one thing, but when you are utterly careless then you should pay heavily. Not the guy who received the orders, but the one who coordinate this whole circus.

    17. Clairwil — on 1st November, 2007 at 10:02 pm  

      Roger
      ‘There were proven examples of disobedience of orders- senior officers who had no business to be in the control room stayed there after they had been repeatedly told to leave.’

      That almost beggars belief. That senior officers treat such a serious operation as if they were doing nothing more than sneaking a peak at some football results when they should be working is damning.

      ‘Good case for bringing the army in to do the armed police job. Not quite so prone to panicked overreaction.’

      Good point. I accept the need for armed policing in certain situations. So lets have the best qualified and most experienced people doing it.

    18. sonia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:12 am  

      Well there probably isnt any need for a fine or ‘arrests’ per se - the point is to make the point, that the Police messed up, and for them to realise it. You dont need to fine people, or arrest them to make the point about ‘wrongdoing’ - ironically of course, its a Police like thing to go around fining folks or arrest them, so what can they expect!

      But the wider point is about culpability (- again - which is what Policing is all about.) and taking the responsibility, and being able to admit, when a very expensive ‘mistake’ has occurred.

    19. sonia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:14 am  

      and of course, that culpability shouldn’t just be left to rest on the Police’s shoulders - it should be realised that our governance structures - play a key role - in what expectations/constraints the Police operate under.

      that is - if we actually want to do something/understand how this sort of stuff comes about, other than just ‘point fingers’ and scapegoat people.

    20. sonia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:18 am  

      but if the police want to go around shooting people randomly, and get away with it, they should just change careers and join the army. result of deadly shootings -> glory and medals, not ‘disgrace’ and failure.

    21. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 7:00 am  

      #16 Ravi good comment

    22. Letters From A Tory — on 2nd November, 2007 at 8:50 am  

      Yes, I suspect that murdering an innocent man in public probably does break a few health and safety laws. I could have told them that!

      http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

    23. Refresh — on 2nd November, 2007 at 9:40 am  

      Doctors who are shown to be negligent get struck off, and are pursued individually. They can also be pursued if their misdemeanour is breaks the law..

    24. Refresh — on 2nd November, 2007 at 9:53 am  

      misdemeanours break the law

    25. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:14 am  

      “Also Kismet, Im keen to know what your experience in dealing with & understanding the variables involved in CQC/B, Survellience & CT operations is?”

      I understand this much. If you shoot an unarmed man, you’re shit at your job

    26. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:17 am  

      And all this rubbish about ‘what if he were a suicide bomber’ doesn’t wash

      What if the black guy they stop and search stabs the copper? They must suspect he’s carrying a knife to stop him in the first place. So they may as well shoot him because ‘he could be a knifer’

      Since when did murdering people based on probability become so acceptable with you guys?

    27. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:28 am  

      Since when did murdering people based on probability become so acceptable with you guys?

      Kismet, this argument is so niave it’s beggars belief!

      So say, for example, MI5 are 99% sure some guy is about to launch multiple remote detonation bombs in a highly populated area. Literally has his finger on the button on his mobile - you would choose to sacrifice 500 people since there’s 1% of doubt. Come on people, think.

    28. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:33 am  

      And all this rubbish about ‘what if he were a suicide bomber’ doesn’t wash

      Kismet, this too, seems like very laissez-faire thinking. Logically your are implying if he was a suicide bomber it would still have been wrong.

    29. Roger — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:52 am  

      “So say, for example, MI5 are 99% sure some guy is about to launch multiple remote detonation bombs in a highly populated area.”

      …which was the justification for invading Iraq. The important question is not, “Is MI5 99% sure?” but “Is MI5 100% accurate when they say they are 99% sure?” and they certainly aren’t.

    30. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2007 at 11:58 am  

      Serious question. Does anyone know whether or not the use of a Tazer on John Paul de Menzes, or any other suspect come to that, would work?

    31. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:01 pm  

      Douglas, it didn’t have to be a tazer. Why couldn’t they use rubber bullets or at least shoot him in the arm or leg? Or ooh ooh better still, have a look to see if he has a big fuck off bag of explosives taped to him

      Jonz, how many people, statistically, carry explosives compared to how many could? Let’s try to find the ones that do, shall we?

    32. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:03 pm  

      Does anyone know whether or not the use of a Tazer on John Paul de Menzes, or any other suspect come to that, would work?

      Absolutely not. Armed officers are trained to shoot in the chest to eliminate the target. With suicide attackers it’s different. Israeli security services has found that the target can still detonate - unless the bullet goes directly to the brain.

    33. sonia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:15 pm  

      25. kismet i agree.

      we may as well exhort each other to commit suicide en masse before someone kills someone else :-)

    34. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:16 pm  

      Israeli security services found that, eh? Wonder how many willing volunteers they had to go through before reaching that conclusion…

      (passes the mantle to Anas)

    35. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:22 pm  

      Also, a Tazer might set off the bomb.

    36. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:29 pm  

      Israeli security services found that, eh? Wonder how many willing volunteers they had to go through before reaching that conclusion…

      #34 Kismet, scores of innocent Israeli civilians. It’s easy to forget about them when your pining for the loss of Palestinian suicide bombers isn’t it?

    37. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:30 pm  

      jOnz,

      I know what Police firearms Officers are trained to do, at least in broad outline. What I was specifically asking was whether or not a non lethal intervention would be a valid alternative. You say absolutely not. Why?

      The publicity for these weapons suggests that they can disable people for around five seconds or so. Given that the police officers were at very close range, that would be long enough to determine whether someone was a risk or not. If so, you’ve got a gun as a back up.

      Kismet,

      My understanding of this case is that the victim was neither wearing bulky clothing nor ‘vaulted’ the ticket barrier. The Wikipedia entry seems to back up my recollection:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

      To be clear, killing terrorists is one thing, killing innocent folk is quite another.

    38. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:31 pm  

      Kimset, rather telling that you sneer at the Israeli security services for finding the most effective way to stop a suicide bomber before he blows up innocents.

      Any way, back to the topic, looks like Blair may have to resign. Somebody has got to take some responsibility for this tragic cock up.

    39. j0nz — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:34 pm  

      Dougleas, if the target is assumed to be a suicide bomber than any other method part from a shot to the brain risks detonation of the explosives. There’s no other way. Even a shot to the heart or lungs give leeway to the person consciously triggering the explosion.

    40. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:35 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Has any research been done that you are aware of that backs up your concern @ 35. I’d be interested to know.

    41. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:48 pm  

      Douglas:

      “Has any research been done that you are aware of that backs up your concern @ 35. I’d be interested to know.”

      This controversy was the only thing I could find at short notice:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726485.stm

      Though I am not sure I believe what Ian Blair says anymore. Common sense indicates he is right on this mind.

      The problem with suicide bombers is that they want to kill themselves, unlike ordinary armed villains. In the good old days, it was usually enough to wound the villain, who would then surrender. But how do you get a suicide bomber to surrender?

    42. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:56 pm  

      jOnz,

      Obviously we can’t turn the clock back, Kratos was the Met’s chosen means of intervention. I think that that policy should be reviewed, and preferably by politicians and not policemen.

      Blair appears to agree with you:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726485.stm

      but, frankly he has too much invested in the policy to argue otherwise.

      I repeat, there does seem to be a method of stopping someone without using lethal force, a bald statement that a taser could set off a bomb needs to be verified and that there really, really ought to be accountability for this complete systemic failure.

    43. douglas clark — on 2nd November, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Snap! Great minds think alike, but what about folk that use the same links :D

    44. Rumbold — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:02 pm  

      Douglas:

      “Snap! Great minds think alike, but what about folk that use the same links”

      Be scared Douglas, very scared. I know I am. In mitigation, that link was the only one I could find about the potential impact of a taser on a suicide bomber.

    45. Muhamad [peace be upon me from the upper-wallah] — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:23 pm  

      no. 26.
      Kismet, well put.

      Rumbold, complacent, compliant, and docile taxpayers deserve nothing more and nothing less.

      If one must whinge about paying one’s taxes, let’s say that the scumbags like Ian Blair, the army, the old hag or the queen (as some fondly call her), owe their lively to people like me. You are, literally, royally screwed annually.

    46. Natty — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:30 pm  

      I think most people here are missing the more serious points and hence the Senior Police Officers are getting away with it:

      1. The Met lied and continued to lie about the person shot for at least 24 hours - this at a point when they knew they had got the wrong man.

      2. They were incompetent and simply failed in their duty to the public. In private industry such people wouldn’t stay in their jobs. Nuff said.

      3. The Met Police refused to accept the H&S verdict hence they were prosecuted.

      4. They doctored evidence presented at trial. How many police officers get given half a picture when after a wanted man. If you look at the wanted man and the man shot with full pictures side by side they don’t even look the same. So they presented misleading evidence at trial - is this what you want from the UK Police?

      5. They smeared the man shot and continue to do so. Is that how the people who are charged with upholding the law behave???

      6. The Commanding Officer didn’t even know the fire arms people supposed to make the arrest were not in position to make said arrest. Hence the office in a position to make an arrest was told not to try. Thus leading to the chain of events which unfolded on the Tube Train itself.

      7. The order to send a fire arms team to the flats wasn’t given on time which led to subsequent events.

      8. The Met Police chose to fight this case and the tax payer pays.

      The simple fact is they got it hugely wrong and to hide behind the pressure of the situation and events isn’t acceptable. Senior Officers are paid huge amounts of public money to handle precisely such pressure, if they can’t then they are accountable.

      What good is a Police Force that cannot handle these situations at a command level? Yes things go wrong on the ground but the command and control went wrong. It failed.

      The Police set an example and provide the public with confidence and reassurance. How many people here with what has emerged think the Met Police set a good example and are you confident and reassured that those responsible are still at the helm.

      Consider that next time it could be one of us who is a mistaken target and in this case do you want a Commander who will make the right call to possibly save your life?

      Is that person Sir Ian Blair?

    47. swaraj — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:45 pm  

      I can’t wait for the IPCC report to be published in the next few days…if its as damning as we were told then Sir Ian Blair will have no choice but to resign.

      They at first apologised for killing him and then tried to make him out to be a cocaine addict and there was that story that he was a rapist too.

      There are serious flaws in the police’s operations they must be reviewed again. This was incompetence of the highest degree.

      To say in defence that they were under pressure and the circumstances were uniques is a weak defence because this is exactly what they are trained for.

      If it was such a unique event and the police were on the highest alert - why did it take SO19 nearly 4 hrs to get to the Tube station? They were called at 4.55 in the morning. Why could they not get to the bus? what were they doing? Surely, this was the highest priority at the time - they couldn’t have been on another job. What’s more important than stopping a potential suicide bomber.

      There are serious flaws in their operational activities.

    48. swaraj — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:53 pm  

      As this is going to cost the taxpayer.

      Can the fine and legal costs come out of Sir Ian Blair’s salary for the next few years?

      The whole thing is just utterly disgraceful!

    49. swaraj — on 2nd November, 2007 at 1:55 pm  

      As this is going to cost the taxpayer.

      Can the fine and legal costs come out of Sir Ian Blair’s salary for the next few years?

      The whole thing is just utterly disgraceful

    50. Refresh — on 2nd November, 2007 at 2:36 pm  

      “4. They doctored evidence presented at trial. How many police officers get given half a picture when after a wanted man. If you look at the wanted man and the man shot with full pictures side by side they don’t even look the same. So they presented misleading evidence at trial - is this what you want from the UK Police?”

      Are you suggesting there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice? And a conspiracy to go with it?

    51. Sofia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 2:53 pm  

      well prosecution did say they think the photo was doctored..

    52. Kismet Hardy — on 2nd November, 2007 at 3:02 pm  

      “Are you suggesting there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice? And a conspiracy to go with it?”

      Very clever. If you don’t agree with the pro-police pro-government take on things, you must be a conspiracy theory nut

      (Juliet) Bravo

    53. Sofia — on 2nd November, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

      But Kismet you’re missing the point..we live in a democracy so this type of thing never happens…
      happy clappy yay

    54. Refresh — on 2nd November, 2007 at 4:00 pm  

      oops! Should have said “Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.

    55. Natty — on 2nd November, 2007 at 4:59 pm  

      -Are you suggesting there was an attempt to pervert
      -the course of justice? And a conspiracy to go with it?

      No. They doctored the photo as the prosecution pointed out.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,2193070,00.html

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2681349.ece

      The Mail presents the doctoring in detail:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=488107&in_page_id=1770

      They even went to the trouble of removing a mole to make it appear like the wanted man.

      Is this ethical for a Police Force? Does this type of behaviour put confidence in the Police?

      Their behaviour has set back Police relations by years and the public will have a tough time believing the Met with Blair in charge.

      You show me where on Crimewatch or Crimestoppers or any Police Briefing the police are shown half a photo of a suspect.

      They have smeared a person killed in error with all sorts of claims like cocaine use etc.

      So you tell me if Ian Blair is fit to lead the Met Police?

      Look it isn’t difficult to comprehend - they lied then and they lied now.

      We need a Police Force we can trust not a political Police Force. Everyone makes mistakes but to lie and lie and lie and lie that isn’t acceptable.

    56. Morgoth — on 2nd November, 2007 at 5:53 pm  

      Very clever. If you don’t agree with the pro-police pro-government take on things, you must be a conspiracy theory nut

      Did the judge rule there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice? Prosecution lawyers say many things. Some of which are occasionally even true. But “attempt to pervert the course of justice” is a specific criminal charge.

    57. Natty — on 2nd November, 2007 at 5:59 pm  

      They lied - everyone can see that. So are they fit to hold high public office?

      Making a mistake is one thing - lying to cover that up is not acceptable.

      The senior people in the Met Police are not fit for Office. It is that simple. It isn’t about conspiracy or perverting the course of justice.

      They won’t accept they are wrong when they have been told by the H&S Executive they are, when at trial they have been told they are.

      Damn man how hard is that to understand. They lied - they got caught lying, they went to trial on lies and their evidence was based on fabrication. They lost the damn case.

      So how the hell can they be fit for high public service?

    58. Refresh — on 2nd November, 2007 at 9:23 pm  

      You see in my estimation if you lie and present falsified evidence, it is an attempt to pervert. I’m happy to be advised otherwise. Or at least understand when the line is crossed.

      Its an extremely important point.

    59. Natty — on 3rd November, 2007 at 9:57 am  

      Refresh - this whole case and how it has been handled stinks. A major issue outstanding is the fact that they presented misleading facts to the public and this was exposed by a lady on the monitoring committee who leaked what the Met Police were up to, and faced prosecution.

      I saw her interview on TV.

      They doctored images which not only were presented in the trial but to the press.

      The whole thing stinks and Ian Blair needs to stand down.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.