Breaking News

[paulvonscott]

Hey Fuzz, the link to the BBC article is below.  I've linked to the most recent one I can find, and on the right of that is a list of articles that follow the stories progress. You might want to look at the '03 one as that has quite a few details about the case, the rest deal more with the enquiries.  As I said, I HAD read more, and it got even more disturbing, but I think that was in Private Eye.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4368735.stm" target="_blank">James Ashley

[Max Kon]

Surely Harry Stanley could have been ordered to drop the bag and then be shot if he didn't comply?

[Bico]

Actually, British soldiers were okay compared to the police over here during the troubles.  Don't get me wrong - for every soldier that spat at me for living in a catholic estate, there were soldiers just as willing to look the other way when they were supposed to be raiding teenage drinking dens (gaelic football grounds) where I was getting sloshed - but the RUC seemed to have some kind of vendetta against the population of Northern Ireland as a whole - both the nationalist and loyalist sides of the community hated the cops, and the feeling was most definately mutual.
Things have calmed down a bit now, but I for one will harbour a grudge for many a year to come based on personal experiences and the treatment of family members.  Soldiers were just doing a thankless job (my dad served in the army for years, and the local priest actually attempted to talk him out of joining), but the RUC were supposed to be public servants - it may seem baffling to many, but the arguements over police reform is bitterly fought in Northern Ireland because of the deep scars left by mistrust and mistreatment over three decades.

[judge dreddd]

In 10 years it will come out that he did the electrics for the bombs and they didnt have enough evidence so they just shot him.  They are THE LAW

[Funt Solo]

I assume that's a joke, dreddd, given that there's no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to with any terrorist activity.

In fact, it appears to be a clear case of mistaken identity.  The man they were after lived in the same block of flats, is all.

There does seem to be a disturbing amount of character assassination directed at Jean Charles de Menezes by the establishment and the media, in the form of stories about his visa being out of date.  Is this supposed to paint him as a "bad 'un" and therefore elicit less sympathy for his having been killed?

Let's be clear here, Menezes was never found guilty of any crime whatsoever.  He was a completely innocent victim of mistaken identity under a government-sponsored shoot-to-kill policy (that I only hope has since been revised).

I too was thinking about the Iranian Embassy siege, in which Thatcher ordered the SAS to effectively murder the kidnappers in order that other terrorists got the message that the UK wasn't a soft touch.  Slightly different case there, in that the people who were killed were the perpetrators of the crime.

[Quirkafleeg]

Anyone watch Newsnight last night... like the way that bloke who had the main job in the surveillance op missed the crucial event (the Brizialin guy leaving the house) because he was taking a piss (and he had no relief, as it were). This is looking pretty poor all round.

[FuzzBuck Fuzz]

thnx Paul. That is terrifying. Anyone could be lying in bed and based on incorrect info. & a badly bungled operation get shot.

Safe in our own homes?

@prof B - yup, was my ex-squaddie mate's point. And not to say that accidents never happened either. I'm reminded of a case when a scared 17-yr old was on sentry duty and heard a noise. So he emptied the magazine of his GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun - BIG, explosive rounds). Made quite a mess of the fox that made the noise and earned him a fortnight in the glass house for not identifying his target. He was very very lucky it was only a fox. The troubles in Ireland go back alot longer - way, way back to before the Norman conquest of England. The fact that now after nearly a thousand years of strife (some times worse than other's) it finally appears to be getting sorted is excellent. I hope we do it well and that the rest of the world can take note.

@ JD (homage to the name...F starts treading VERY carefully). You may be SO right, but somehow I'll doubt we'll ever get to hear about it.

[FuzzBuck Fuzz]

thnx paul. Jeez, that's scary. Not safe in our own beds.

@ Prof. B - yup, was my ex-squaddie mate's point. Basically the army handle things better than the police force, but where does that leave us? With British squaddies riding tube trains in London?

@Fate. Yes, a big difference in this case. Now you can get shot on suspicion.

[FuzzBuck Fuzz]

BIG sry for that dbl post - seem to be having a prob with my browser refreshing. Gone to sort it.

[Will I. Cooling]

Personally, I'd say that 99% of the time it would be extremely unfair and unrealistic to blame the indiviual police officers for shooting an innocent when there's "a shoot to kill" policy in place. Anyone with a hint of common sense knows that this is going to lead to accidents. However, like with so much in this country, the poor bastards who were doing their "duty" will made scapegoats whilst the politicans, civil servants (inc. senior policemen) who dreamt up the policy will remain unpunished (see also Iraq War). That said, if the leaked report is right, the level of incompetence and disregard shown by these police officers must  (on the face of it) result in some sort of criminal action.

Also, it has to be said that the behaviour of the Met stinks. From the day of the shooting, there seems to have been a rather desperate attempt to "spin" this story. With Iain Blair praising his officers, lying about the involvement of the victim in terrorism and also going to extent of criticisng another force for using electic stun guns. I can't see how he or Clarke are going to survive this.

Will

[paulvonscott]

There seems to be two major mistakes, the identification was seriously flawed, and the rules under which they shoot to kill in the first place seem to be a bit bizarre.  If either were more rigorous, then I suspect he wouldn't have died, going by what we've heard.

The other major issue, is the information that was released, and information that wasn't corrected.  Though they may argue they were waiting for the investigation to announce its results, it doesn't look good.

[Steve Green]

The original surveillance seems really bizarre - wouldn't it be normal procedure to have 2 officers, to cover each other, especially if it was for such an important crime?

To hear that the guy watching the flats was having a piss and was unable to transmit the video which could saved a life seems unbelievable.

- Steve