Who is protecting us?
The findings of the Menezes report are deeply worrying, especially as the current head of Counter-Terrorism seems to be someone who 'chose to mislead' the public and his boss.
Before we hand over civil liberties to the police and security services, we should examine these organisations and their office holders very closely. It is clear that those charged with protecting the public are not 'fit for purpose'.
This report shows that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman is not fit to hold any public office and that the structure of our counter terror force needs to be revised and more safeguards, checks and balances put into operation.
I note that Sir Ian made several remarks after publication, here's two of them
"If I had lied I would not be fit to hold this office. I did not lie," he said.
Of Mr Hayman, he said: "He retains my full support in the crucially important job he undertakes for this country."
Full support? Yeah, right.
It puzzles me that, while
It puzzles me that, while the actual shooting of de Menezes appears to have been perfectly legal as far as the UK authorities are concerned, misleading the public about his background is being built up as far more serious.
I am still amazed to find myself living in a country where a man can be sent to prison for looking at a photograph, while other men can shoot a perfectly innocent civilian going about his lawful business 7 times at point-blank range without committing a crime.
The only unifying theme or principle I can find is something like this:
"Anything that our rulers and thought controllers deem good is praiseworthy, but anything they disapprove of is criminal".
Remind you of anything?
Who is protecting us? we
Who is protecting us? we know who is protecting Blair...
"Furious neighbors of Tony Blair's £3.6m London townhouse are to complain to the Home Office after being frequently quizzed at gunpoint by police outside their homes."
"Officers from Scotland Yard's elite Diplomatic Protection Group assigned to guard Blair's new house, openly carry Heckler & Koch sub-machine guns while on duty outside his home in leafy Connaught Square."
"Dramatic incidents were recounted by some neighbors at the Connaught Square Residents' Association meeting & many of the neighbors are now thinking of changing their place of residence. Blair's greeting party which was held just a few days before he left the office at the square itself, only proved to be an act of courtesy rather than providing reassurance for a calm atmosphere."
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=18282§ionid=3510303
Sabretache Blog "If I had
Sabretache Blog
"If I had lied I would not be fit to hold this office. I did not lie,"
I watched that and it bore an uncanny resemblance to another high profile denial:
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
I totally agree with Tom Welsh too. It seems the actual shooting doesn't matter that much - just the spin put on it afterwards by coppers covering their arses. It is simply taken for granted that a cold-blooded public execution is a tragic but thoroughly understandable error by fine upstanding brave policemen - BULLSHIT! I say - more like unaccountable out of control bloody Rambos.
We have thoroughly politicised police and security sevices. Thay are rapidly morphing into the unaccountable aggressive, tooled up, armed agents of an oppressive State. They KNOW they will be given the benefit of any doubt and the toothless nature of the IPCC plus all and any other oversight. That knowledge has a disasterous impact on their propensity for gratuitous violence and I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of it. They will never get any cooperation from me (and thousands like me) ever again, whatever the circumstances, unless and until there has been root and branch reform. In the present climate of government incited fear of their phony 'war on terror' I don't see that happening anytime soon either - quite the opposite in fact.
Welcome to Police State Britain - we're well on the way.
The elephant in the room
The elephant in the room with respect to the de Menezes case is the simple question 'why did the police shoot Jean?'. This is such an elementary basic question, I am astonished that there is not more comment on why the IPCC report has completely neglected this fundamental question. For the police actions to be legal the officers who shot him MUST have had an HONEST belief that Jean was armed with a bomb and therefore an immediate threat to the public and themselves. The IPCC report agrees that Jean was wearing summer clothes and did not in any way behave suspiciously, so how the flying fuck did the officers form the 'honest' view that Jean was armed with a bomb. All they had been told was that he was a suspected terrorist. They were not told that he was armed so how did they form the honest view that he was? It is a reasonable question to ask, so why isn't it being asked? The cover up is of secondary importance but that's what the report mostly goes on about. So why was Jean shot? Why will the IPCC not tell us? What precisely is the state afraid to disclose?
Stephen, I believe Knacker
Stephen, I believe Knacker contracted Israeli special forces to train their 'firearms officers.' Nobody raised the obvious question, that these guys operate in a judicial vacuum, with carte blanche to murder and torture tagetted Paletinians, and are these racist manicas the right people to be training our allegedly 'democratic' plod...? This is now a source of embarassment.
The political class, and their police accessories, were relying on public hysteria to carry the day. They assumed we would all rally round the flag, and nobody would care about a 'guest worker' shot through the head. Their PR people produced a series of smears, knowing the corporate media would run with it, and hoping the issue would end up on the backend of the media agenda within hours. They overplayed their hand, and the gamble backfired. Now the cover up begins in earnest, but it could still go bad - another reason for Blairs early departure...?
Of Mr Hayman, he said: "He
Of Mr Hayman, he said: "He retains my full support
His support may be full, and I sincere I hope is underpants will shortly follow suit, but why should Hayman be retaining it?
Sabretache
Sabretache Blog
"................. but why should Hayman be retaining it?
Because, in the immortal words of Herry Enfield's 'Tory-Boy', the ex-chief constable of Norwich is 'a damn nice fellow'. Probably a Mason too. How's that ? you say. Check out Iain Dale on the matter: tinyurl.com/25oo69
Two things coming out of
Two things coming out of Stockwell 2 for me:
1. The police deliberately killed someone who posed no threat, without warning. This is intolerable, as is indeed the view that it would have been OK if the victim had been a suspect. If people are to be trusted with guns, and with the command of people with guns, they need to behave better than this.
2. The police were remarkably slow to pass up the chain of command the facts that Jean posed no threat and was not even a suspect - which must have been apparent within seconds of the shots being fired, if not before they were fired - and the top command was remarkably slow at enquirng down the line to find out what had been done. This demonstrates complete failure to understand what a chain of command is about, and responsibility for that failure of understanding for that must lie at its top, ie with the Commissioner and the politicians who appointed him.
All the rest is a smokescreen
Jean Charles de Menezes was
Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 11 times.
The well-trained armed officers missed 4 shots to the head at point blank range.
It is a well reported fact our armed anti-terror policemen have been Israeli trained, not just an assertion, Cassandra.