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.

Its an extremely important point.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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

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.

“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?

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