Brazilian citizen shot to death "by mistake" [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Brazilian citizen shot to death "by mistake"

Denaon
07-25-2005, 05:12 PM
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200nationalnews/tm_objectid=15778662&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=pm--desperately-sorry--for-shooting-name_page.html

PM 'desperately sorry' for shooting Jul 25 2005

Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed his sorrow over the death of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken for a suicide bomber at Stockwell station on London's Underground and shot five times in the head by plain clothes' police.

Mr Blair told a Downing Street news conference: "We are desperately sorry for the death of an innocent person and I understand entirely the feelings of the young man's family.

"But we also have to understand the police are doing their job in very very difficult circumstances and I think it is important that we give them every support and that we understand that had the circumstances been different and for example, this had turned out to be a terrorist and they had failed to take that action, they would have been criticised the other way.

"At the same time therefore, in expressing our sorrow and deep sympathy for the death that has happened, it is important that we allow the police and support them in doing the job they have to do in order to protect people in this country."

On Monday, Mr de Menezes cousin Alex Pereira told BBC Breakfast that the police "have to pay" for the mistake.

Asked if the family was taking legal action, he said: "They (the police) have to pay for that in many ways, because if they do not, they are going to kill many people, they are going to kill thousands of people. They just kill the first person they see, that's what they did."

The 28-year-old added: "They killed my cousin, they could kill anyone."

A police chief has defended the "shoot to kill" policy as a last resort.

Chris Fox, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: "Shoot to kill is very good headline but, in fact, what we have to do is we have a series of tactics which range from disruption to the very, very final moment when you have to shoot and the aim is to prevent the criminal or suspect causing harm to other people."

He told BBC Breakfast that the range of tactics was in response to the new kind of threat posed by suicide bombers.

How ridiculously tragic is this?!? Absurd!
My condolences to Brasil and the victim's family.

+alonso
07-25-2005, 05:24 PM
Awful :o !

+alonso
07-25-2005, 05:26 PM
oh yes! my condolences to brasil :p

sigmagirl91
07-25-2005, 05:33 PM
This is terrible! My condolences to the victim's family and friends.

nermo
07-25-2005, 06:01 PM
First of all, my sincere Consolations to the Brazilians.. :sad:
second, i want ot say that terror is an ugly war against humanity, an ugly war against the other who tries to live his life safely...
the worst thing about terror is that by time, it tries to turn ppl against each other...cuz simply , when terror reveals, u can't identify ur enemy,u don't know his face or looks..so u get afraid and aggressive towards the other..and there ..terror makes us terrorists ourselves...the worst way to face terror ,is becoming a terrorist ur self, using violence may be the rapid wayfor prevention ..it's needed sometimes but using it randomlyis very dangerous ..and in my humble opinion ,violence is surely not the only true answer for preventing terror

GermanBoy
07-25-2005, 06:08 PM
You also have to think of the fact that a shot in one of his legs could still have allowed him to detonate the bomb if he was a terrorist. I don`t want to defend Scotland Yard but after all what has happened there lately. Plus, why did this guy run away if he had nothing to hide? :shrug: He could have surrendered and then the police could have checked his identity and then everything would have been fine.

In a way I am happy that Scotland Yard is that strict in fighting against terrorism. We all don`t want to be arround when a bomb detonates, so we also have to understand the reasons of the British police.

Angle Queen
07-25-2005, 06:20 PM
:mad:

No good answers, I suppose. But still....

*Ljubica*
07-25-2005, 06:21 PM
Yes - of course this is tragic - and my sincere condolences to the Brazilian people and, of course, to this guy's family. But just a few points from a British point of view.

First - British Police are not generally armed - I think we're the only country in the world where this is still the case - our only armed forces are a very small, special "eilte" force dealing with terrorists only. Our Police are the least "trigger happy" in the world - probably because they don't really have triggers to pull!

Second - the guy in question came out of a house that was under surveillance - the address of that property was found in the pocket of one of the suicide bombers of July 7th and is known to be a "safe house" for terrorists. Of course, it could be that his visit there was wholly innocent (maybe carrying out his work as an electrician), but the Police did not know that.

Second - the Police told the Brazilian guy to stop 3 times and he did not - he ran away from them and went into a crowded tube station - as you know 6 tube stations have been tagreted by suicide bombers in the past 2 weeks. Ironically, they say the reason he did not stop when asked, was because the Police in Brazil are so corrupt that he had been bought up with a terror of Police Forces that we British do not have and can rarely understand.

Thirdly - the guy was wearing a thick jacket when the temperature was almost 30 degrees C in London that day - his jacket was identical in style to those worn by all the suicide bombers in London.

In retrospect, maybe the Police could have handled things differently, - but they say that if they had shot him in any other part of the body he coud still have enabled any explosive device he may have been carrying - thus killing more than a hundred people in the tube train carriage and on the station at the time.

So please do not judge us too harshly. Thanks.

Denaon
07-25-2005, 06:22 PM
You also have to think of the fact that a shot in one of his legs could still have allowed him to detonate the bomb if he was a terrorist. I don`t want to defend Scotland Yard but after all what has happened there lately. Plus, why did this guy run away if he had nothing to hide? :shrug: He could have surrendered and then the police could have checked his identity and then everything would have been fine.

In a way I am happy that Scotland Yard is that strict in fighting against terrorism. We all don`t want to be arround when a bomb detonates, so we also have to understand the reasons of the British police.
NO way it is a good thing what has happened. And I'm not talking about this ridiculous death.
As nermo :hug: :kiss: just said, terror and violence as it result does not conduct us to any way else than pain..
About why he ran away, obviously the conclusion about him having things to hide proved to be false, from now on, if they'd continue killing innocent people, running away should not be taken as proof of suspicion.

buddyholly
07-25-2005, 06:27 PM
He jumped over the turnstiles, ran away from the police and ran into a crowded subway car.
It may be a tragedy, but the police did exactly what they had to do in today's London.

alfonsojose
07-25-2005, 06:33 PM
He jumped over the turnstiles, ran away from the police and ran into a crowded subway car.
It may be a tragedy, but the police did exactly what they had to do in today's London.
Agree with u and Rosie. Of course, it hurts, but if he had been a terrorist, we wouldn't talk about one life :shrug: :sad: He ignored the police. They weren't haunting anyone who appeared in front of them

Denaon
07-25-2005, 06:34 PM
I hardly disagree, coz in the first place they jumped into wrong conclusions. I know safety nowadays, especially in London and last terrorist targets, is the main issue and concern, but I think that these actions, supported by a terrified goverment will cause much more damage than it is supposed to prevent.
Remember that these kind of misjudgements were and are still usual in Afganistan and Irak, killing thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals.

Nikki♥
07-25-2005, 06:59 PM
Terrible...truly terrible. :sad:

Kudz
07-25-2005, 07:00 PM
I don't think any judgements should be made against the Police at this time. They had to make a split second decision and at that precise moment in time they truly believed he could have been a danger. Be grateful that you didn't have to make the decision!

I'm not going to say anything else becuase Rosie has pretty much said it all!

ae wowww
07-25-2005, 07:01 PM
Apparently, his visa had run out to keep him in the U.K. Obviously, it is tragic he was shot, but it is asking for it, running from police at times like this. And the family intend to sue :rolleyes:

Nikki♥
07-25-2005, 07:01 PM
My boyfriend told me that he heard in the news that the man was running away from the police because he was afraid that he might get into trouble as his visa had expired.

Kudz
07-25-2005, 07:05 PM
My boyfriend told me that he heard in the news that the man was running away from the police because he was afraid that he might get into trouble as his visa had expired.
There are reports that his Visa had expired but his family are denying it.

To be honest with you I don't think we will ever find out why he ran.

Denaon
07-25-2005, 07:15 PM
I don't think any judgements should be made against the Police at this time. They had to make a split second decision and at that precise moment in time they truly believed he could have been a danger. Be grateful that you didn't have to make the decision!

I'm not going to say anything else becuase Rosie has pretty much said it all!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against any Police Force of any country, I'm against the orders that confused goverments give...

Ok, how can anyone be positive about his reasons to run......? He could have run for many other reasons than having a bomb taped to his body... Does that allow policemen to shoot you?

Beware citizens (or on a second thought, foreign inhabitants) of London, do not run coz that might be your last run. :rolleyes:

Kudz
07-25-2005, 07:26 PM
Ok, how can anyone be positive about his reasons to run......? He could have run for many other reasons than having a bomb taped to his body... Does that allow policemen to shoot you?
No of course it doesn't.

But that's the thing though, the police didn't know why he ran but in the current circumstances and the reasons why they were following him in the first place they had to assume he was a threat.

Yes it's a tragedy that their assumption was wrong, but given the circumstances I don't blame them for doing what they did.

Nikki♥
07-25-2005, 07:33 PM
Beware citizens (or on a second thought, foreign inhabitants) of London, do not run coz that might be your last run. :rolleyes:

:lol:

*Ljubica*
07-25-2005, 07:34 PM
No of course it doesn't.

But that's the thing though, the police didn't know why he ran but in the current circumstances and the reasons why they were following him in the first place they had to assume he was a threat.

Yes it's a tragedy that their assumption was wrong, but given the circumstances I don't blame them for doing what they did.

I agree. And I also wonder how many other innocent people are killed by armed Police all over the world every day - but no one comments on that :rolleyes: Maybe this is such huge worldwide news because the British Police are so good 99.9% of the time that this is such a shock and so unusual - whereas it's perhaps more commonplace elsewhere. Plus, also the fact that Scotland Yard immediately admitted they had made a mistake and there was no corruption and no cover up.

Nikki♥
07-25-2005, 07:37 PM
There are reports that his Visa had expired but his family are denying it.

To be honest with you I don't think we will ever find out why he ran.

Maybe his family didn't even know that his visa had expired or whatever. Maybe he just ran because he was afraid of the police in general because it's usually like that: As a foreinger you usually have to be afraid that you are all of a sudden accused of something that you haven't even done. And all that only because you have a different skin color or accent or...etc. .

Denaon
07-25-2005, 07:39 PM
Kudz, what if that guy would have been a friend of yours? Would you exactly feel the same?
Given the circumstances every single person in England could be shot like this because of some policemen's presumptions...

I cannot believe that supporting such a mistake like this, you people in England cannot understand that you're giving your lives and freedom in a tray to your goverment who's desperate to "stop terrorism", I certainly hope this does not happen again, but what if it does?? Would the goverment apologize again or would they lie?

Denaon
07-25-2005, 07:47 PM
I agree. And I also wonder how many other innocent people are killed by armed Police all over the world every day - but no one comments on that :rolleyes: Maybe this is such huge worldwide news because the British Police are so good 99.9% of the time that this is such a shock and so unusual - whereas it's perhaps more commonplace elsewhere. Plus, also the fact that Scotland Yard immediately admitted they had made a mistake and there was no corruption and no cover up.
Rosie hunny, police may not be as corrupt as argentine ,I'm truly positive about it.
But as an alliated to USA, whose foreign politics are so evil as Mr. President himself, who btw has his presidential suite with all acomodations in hell already reserved, preventive actions resulted to be perjudices hidden into "good intentions" and/or financial interests hidden into "democracy for all :rocker2:

I sincerely believe that Police has no resposibility, again I feel that your goverment should start to think what the hell they're doing wrong.

Kudz
07-25-2005, 07:49 PM
Kudz, what if that guy would have been a friend of yours? Would you exactly feel the same?
Given the circumstances every single person in England could be shot like this because of some policemen's presumptions...
Unless I was in that position, I have no way of knowing how I would feel.

I'm sure I probably would blame the police (which is only natural) however I hope that my friends/family would have the sense to stop when requested to by police.

If you are innocent and don't have anything to hide, why run? You only make yourself look more guilty!

Denaon
07-25-2005, 07:56 PM
Unless I was in that position, I have no way of knowing how I would feel.

I'm sure I probably would blame the police (which is only natural) however I hope that my friends/family would have the sense to stop when requested to by police.

If you are innocent and don't have anything to hide, why run? You only make yourself look more guilty!

OMG, I cannot believe that if any related to you, is killed by no reason other than running away from police (whichever reason that might be, temporal insanity, delirium, panic of being haunted, i dunno...) then you would advice other people not to run.........
:rolls: hilarious!!!

Kudz
07-25-2005, 08:09 PM
OMG, I cannot believe that if any related to you, is killed by no reason other than running away from police (whichever reason that might be, temporal insanity, delirium, panic of being haunted, i dunno...) then you would advice other people not to run.........
:rolls: hilarious!!!
I never said that.

If you read my post, you'll see that I actually put - "Unless I was in that position, I have no way of knowing how I would feel." How can anyone possibly say what they would do in this situation.

And I'm hoping that this whole sorry story would make people stop for poilce when asked to, particularly if that someone is going into a London tube station! Like I said if you don't have anything to hide, why run?

And you really need to get your facts right. The man wasn't shot just because he ran away from police, if this was the case then we would have dozens of people dying this way every day. He was shot because he left a house that had been connected to the bombings, a house that had been under surveilance not to mention other reasons which have already been posted on here numerous times.

You've got to remember that people don't know absolutely everything about their friends or family. The family of the victim shot by police 'by mistake' say that there was nothing to warrant the police suspecting him of being a terrorist, however I'm sure the famillies of the four men that have been confirmed as suicide bombers would have said the same thing about their loved ones prior to them blowing themselves up on 7th July.

undomiele
07-25-2005, 08:16 PM
Damn shame IMO. I was impressed with how the police quickly and openly admitted it however. A lot of other countries would have tried to cover it up methinks. It was just one of those things...

Denaon
07-25-2005, 08:31 PM
I never said that.

If you read my post, you'll see that I actually put - "Unless I was in that position, I have no way of knowing how I would feel." How can anyone possibly say what they would do in this situation.

And I'm hoping that this whole sorry story would make people stop for poilce when asked to, particularly if that someone is going into a London tube station! Like I said if you don't have anything to hide, why run?

And you really need to get your facts right. The man wasn't shot just because he ran away from police, if this was the case then we would have dozens of people dying this way every day. He was shot because he left a house that had been connected to the bombings, a house that had been under surveilance not to mention other reasons which have already been posted on here numerous times.

You've got to remember that people don't know absolutely everything about their friends or family. The family of the victim shot by police 'by mistake' say that there was nothing to warrant the police suspecting him of being a terrorist, however I'm sure the famillies of the four men that have been confirmed as suicide bombers would have said the same thing about their loved ones prior to them blowing themselves up on 7th July.

I know what you said, but (I apologize for my english, :o worse and worse every day) you suggested you'd tacitly agree that running (in this case) might look like a threat.

Everything made him suspicious (even more, somewhat guilty), he was under surveilance, everything coincided, what was wrong? why was he innocent then??

What you said is true, relatives might not know his activities, but does that or anything state so strongly that makes anybody instant guilty?

Denaon
07-25-2005, 08:37 PM
IMHO, it's a human life that we're talking about and if that isn't taken in consideration, no matter what circumstances around, no human life will be worthwhile. Period.

Kudz
07-25-2005, 08:48 PM
I know what you said, but (I apologize for my english, :o worse and worse every day) you suggested you'd tacitly agree that running (in this case) might look like a threat.
You're right I did say that. And if anyone is approached by police and asked to stop in a tube station in London at the moment (particularly one of the ones that had a failed bomb attack the day before) but they decide to run, then yes it will make them look like they have something to hide.

This in itself doesn't warrant being shot, but this along with all the other factors in this case did make the police believe he was a susicide bomber.

Everything made him suspicious (even more, somewhat guilty), he was under surveilance, everything coincided, what was wrong? why was he innocent then??
We don't know why he ran and we probably never will know. The only person who can answer that question is the victim himself.

What you said is true, relatives might not know his activities, but does that or anything state so strongly that makes anybody instant guilty?
You're right. In the UK we have the policy 'innocent until proven guilty' however like I said previously the police truly believed he was a threat which is why they stopped him. They thought he was a suicide bomber and was possibly going to activate a bomb, in these circumstances they couldn't take the chance. They had to act and ask questions later.

I don't usually like talking about 'ifs' and 'buts' but if it had turned out the other way round and he was carrying a bomb, these same poilce officers would be hailed as heros now!

buddyholly
07-25-2005, 09:20 PM
no matter what circumstances around, no human life will be worthwhile. Period.

That is exactly what the terrorists think.

And to answer a point above where you said you cannot believe that English people are fully backing a government that is desperate to stop terrorism. I can assure you that if the government in Westminster does not take desperate measures to protect the British people from terrorism then it would not be doing its job.

Kudz
07-25-2005, 09:32 PM
And to answer a point above where you said you cannot believe that English people are fully backing a government that is desperate to stop terrorism. I can assure you that if the government in Westminster does not take desperate measures to protect the British people from terrorism then it would not be doing its job.
Exactly!

There is currently an investigation into the shooting of an innocent man however things could be so much worse. The same police officers that are currently being investigated for shooting one person, could be being investigated for not stopping someone who then went on to kill/injure dozens if not hundreds of people. Which would have caused outrage around the world especailly in the UK. Not to mention the officer who pulled the trigger would have dozens of deaths on his conscience rather than just one, however I'm sure he would prefer to have none.

Saying this I'm not condoning the death of anyone just saying that one death is better than dozens.

nermo
07-25-2005, 09:35 PM
He ignored the police. They weren't haunting anyone who appeared in front of them posted by alfonsoj

If you are innocent and don't have anything to hide, why run? You only make yourself look more guilty! posted by Kudz

it's something called: FEAR...different ppl. behave in different ways when they 're afraid...some 'll stop moving, some run, some get over it and behave logically...why afraid??we'll never know the true reason..but i believe under these circumstances...the police doesn't behave in a very wise way about interrogation or at least so it seems for ppl.(specially those with foreign looks) and plz, don't get me wrong cuz i honestly mean no offense against the british police...but let's face the truth, the way he looks was a factor...

again.., a wonderful post said..Thank GOD u 're not in the police position to take the desicion whether to shot or not..which is very true ,but honestly ;
, British ppl are hurt , british governoment is hurt ..it's fully understood ..but the most difficult thing about facing this kind of terror is that it needs us to be wiser and to try to be more self controlling so as not to condemn innocent ppl. with those who are true criminals..but then almost every country exposed to this kind of terror faces these miserable faults .

I was impressed with how the police quickly and openly admitted it however. A lot of other countries would have tried to cover it up methinks. It was just one of those things...posted by undomiele

totally agree...and an honest salutation for the fair way they handled this mistake ...and yes, admitting mistakes is looked as a crime in some situations and in some regions which is another crime in itself...but wish Scotland yard continues investigations with the same honesty..

I think that these actions, supported by a terrified goverment will cause much more damage than it is supposed to prevent.
Remember that these kind of misjudgements were and are still usual in Afganistan and Irak, killing thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals.posted by Denaon

:hatoff: :yeah:

ae wowww
07-25-2005, 09:36 PM
Ok, how can anyone be positive about his reasons to run......? He could have run for many other reasons than having a bomb taped to his body... Does that allow policemen to shoot you?

They can't afford to take that risk, stupid!!?!

Denaon
07-25-2005, 09:42 PM
Saying this I'm not condoning the death of anyone just saying that one death is better than dozens.
Nope, no death is better.
Sorry guys, I know we all intend better for everyone, but I just do not agree with you.....(and I cannot argue no longer after some hours coz in a few minutes I'm off :p )

I could not tolerate that anyone I know (I find it really hard to admit this from someone I don't know) is killed when that one is innocent. I don't find that method of prevention fair and accurate. Stuff like this will eventually happen on a regular basis, and that if people of England agree with the use of this methods. :shrug: I dunno.

Denaon
07-25-2005, 09:44 PM
They can't afford to take that risk, stupid!!?!
Are you calling the risk stupid or me?? :fiery:

I would definitely shoot you if I catch you running around my place :devil: :armed:

Kudz
07-25-2005, 09:48 PM
Nope, no death is better.

Totally agree with you.

Sorry guys, I know we all intend better for everyone, but I just do not agree with you.....(and I cannot argue no longer after some hours coz in a few minutes I'm off :p )

I'm not gonna be online for much longer either. But we're not arguing as such, just having a debate. :hug:

I could not tolerate that anyone I know (I find it really hard to admit this from someone I don't know) is killed when that one is innocent. I don't find that method of prevention fair and accurate. Stuff like this will eventually happen on a regular basis, and that if people of England agree with the use of this methods. :shrug: I dunno.
Unfortunately innocent people are killed every day all over the world. It's a fact of life.

And the shoot-to-kill policy still stands in the UK at the moment, so it is possible that more innocent people are killed, although the police will do everything in their power to avoid this situation in future.

Denaon
07-25-2005, 09:49 PM
I think that these actions, supported by a terrified goverment will cause much more damage than it is supposed to prevent.
Remember that these kind of misjudgements were and are still usual in Afganistan and Irak, killing thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals.posted by Denaon

:hatoff: :yeah:

You were the only one so far that acknowledged this :yeah:

Denaon
07-25-2005, 09:51 PM
I'm not gonna be online for much longer either. But we're not arguing as such, just having a debate. :hug:

Oops my english again, debating :yeah:

nermo
07-25-2005, 10:00 PM
You were the only one so far that acknowledged this
posted by Denaon

:) it deserves acknoledgement in my humble opinion...
i tried good reps too ..but have to spread some reputations around first...so there's now a private message :secret: just for now if u accepted ...

Clara Bow
07-25-2005, 11:55 PM
One of the largest tragedies about this is that the London police now have to act in a city that has been a victim of heinous acts of terrorism and must do things to ensure the prevention of more horrible acts that would, in turn, create more fear. And Jean Charles de Menezes – for reasons that we will likely never know, fled in fear, which caused his death. (They still haven't confirmed the visa story).

And I also wonder how many other innocent people are killed by armed Police all over the world every day - but no one comments on that

It happens a lot in Brazil. Which could be a factor of why he ran- instinct. The police are particularly notorious in Sao Paulo, which is where he lived for a few years. I came across an article by an acquaintance of Jean Charles that said:

His English was OK, but he wasn’t fluent. He was pursued by up to 20 normally dressed men who screamed at him in a language that was not his own. Jean comes from Brasil, a country where violent crime is a lot more ‘in your face’ than it is over here. A group of plainclothes men screaming at you, chasing you, you fucking run. Brasilian police frequently shoot the public indiscriminantly, there was an incident earlier this week - 10 killed. Maybe Jean had thoughts about this when he ran, I don’t know. Watch “Bus 174″.

And some news reports have also said that Jean was attacked by a gang a few weeks ago. I am not sure if any of you have ever been attacked or assaulted but the residual affects can cause a real knee-jerk reaction to an unexpected approach can be to flee or something defensive. And sometimes you are so focused on the fear and reaction that you do not understand what is being said. I know from experience.

I just hope that no more innocent lives are lost. Because too many innocent people have already died. This whole horrible situation just makes me even more enraged at the terrorists.

Jim Jones
07-26-2005, 01:02 AM
The chap ran away because he had an expired visa and was afraid that the cops were from the immigration services. If he had thought a little more he would have realized that immigration officials never wear guns. Britain also has one of the most lenient immigration services in Europe so he could still stay in the nation and appeal. In any case the different services, immigration, criminal etc.. usually mind thein own businesses so if special services found out that he was an illegal immigran they would have still let him go instead of turing him to immigration services. The Brazilian guy gambled and lost. It was his fault that he was shot. Plus his family deny that he was an illegal immigrant which he was. But still I hope that his family are compensated for this error.

Scotso
07-26-2005, 01:16 AM
I've never shot anyone by mistake. I always meant to do it.

Kudz
07-26-2005, 10:07 AM
The chap ran away because he had an expired visa and was afraid that the cops were from the immigration services.
This is purely speculation at this time. Nothing has been confirmed with regard to his visa status.

Both Mr Straw and Mr Amorim said they believed he was living in the UK legally - though there are reports that his precise immigration status is still being checked.

"I haven't got any precise information on his immigration status, my understanding is he was here lawfully," Mr Straw said.

The Home Office could not confirm his immigration status but said they were looking into it "as a matter of urgency". Source: BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm)

buddyholly
07-26-2005, 02:02 PM
I hardly disagree, coz in the first place they jumped into wrong conclusions. I know safety nowadays, especially in London and last terrorist targets, is the main issue and concern, but I think that these actions, supported by a terrified goverment will cause much more damage than it is supposed to prevent.
Remember that these kind of misjudgements were and are still usual in Afganistan and Irak, killing thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals.

You seem to relish the opportunity to talk about a ''terrified'' government. Obviously you know little or nothing about the British character.

And as for those statistics about Iraq and Afghanistan - what is your source?

Denaon
07-26-2005, 04:05 PM
You seem to relish the opportunity to talk about a ''terrified'' government. Obviously you know little or nothing about the British character.

And as for those statistics about Iraq and Afghanistan - what is your source?
About Irak and Afganistan my sources are world wide media (I bet your sources are those too, I doubt you could have a better one) And I will post links to articles to prove what I said, however you pointing my comment as dubious makes me think you more unaware of things going on aorund the world than you think you are or you get the information partially given to you, I dunno.

About the British Goverment, I sincerely don't know and care about its character and what I meant by terrified (not paralized) is that its actions were from a terrified person/entity. Very little reasoning and too much impulse. To kill someone that easily and not regret that action. :shrug:

nermo
07-26-2005, 04:29 PM
And as for those statistics about Iraq and Afghanistan - what is your source? posted by buddy holly

u can find lots unbiased statistical information about the case in Iraq and Afghanistan if u really want ...as an example;
Published on Thursday, October 28, 2004 by Reuters
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study


LONDON - Deaths of Iraqis have soared to 100,000 above normal since the Iraq war mainly due violence and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said Thursday.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess death and air strikes from (U.S.-led) coalition forces accounted for the most violent deaths," the report added.

The new figures, based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq, are much higher than earlier estimates based on think tank and media sources which put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.

About the British Goverment, I sincerely don't know and care about its character and what I meant by terrified (not paralized) is that its actions were from a terrified person/entity. Very little reasoning and too much impulse. To kill someone that easily and not regret that action.posted by denaon
well, IMHO,i think there's a kind of misunderstanding about it, the ''terrified " word may be misunderstood here..and it doesn't imply the meaning of being coward as buddyholy might have imagined..i think ,denaon wanted to describe the case of being motivated or irritated or even being very keen about preventing other accidents by the police after what happened in London, ..and in reflection to this feeling, they behaved rapidly and they did a mistake...that's all

Denaon
07-26-2005, 05:05 PM
well, IMHO,i think there's a kind of misunderstanding about it, the ''terrified " word may be misunderstood here..and it doesn't imply the meaning of being coward as buddyholy might have imagined..i think ,denaon wanted to describe the case of being motivated or irritated or even being very keen about preventing other accidents by the police after what happened in London, ..and in reflection to this feeling, they behaved rapidly and they did a mistake...that's all
:yeah: EXACTLY!

take a look at this (i posted the article, the link is for you to check the source)

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article61304.ece

One incident. Forty dead. Two stories. What really happened? By Justin Huggler in Baghdad 21 May 2004
A tiny bundle of blankets is unwrapped; inside is the body of a baby, its limbs smeared with dried blood. Then the mourners peel back the blanket further to reveal a second dead baby. Another blanket is opened; inside are the bodies of a mother and child. The child, six or seven years old, is lying against his or her mother, as if seeking comfort. But the child has no head.
These are the images that American forces in Iraq had no answer to yesterday. They come from video footage of the burials of 41 men, women and children. The Iraqis say they died when American planes launched air strikes on a wedding party near the Syrian border on Wednesday. US forces insist that the attack was on a safe house used by foreign fighters entering Iraq from Syria.
They do not dispute that they killed about 40 people, but claim American forces were returning fire and the dead were all foreign fighters. For the video footage that shows dead women and children they have no explanation. So potentially damaging is the video to the US occupation that American officials have demanded that the Dubai-based al-Arabiya television news network, which obtained the footage, give them the name of the cameraman who took it. Al-Arabiya has refused. In the footage men weep and cling to the bodies of their loved ones before they are buried. There are dozens of bundles wrapped in flower-patterned blankets.
Some of these images were shown on Western television news yesterday, but not the most disturbing: the bodies themselves. "These were more than two dozen military-age males. Let's not be naive," Major General James Mattis, commander of the US 1st Marine Division, said. But he had no explanation of where the dead women and children in the video came from. "I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars," he said cryptically. "I don't have to apologise for the conduct of my men." US forces say they have been watching the border area where the attack took place for some time.
They saw a large group of suspicious people moving in the area and sent in ground forces, who came under fire, so the US forces returned fire. They are sticking doggedly to this version of events despite growing evidence that a wedding party was hit. More and more eyewitnesses are coming forward. Hussein Ali, a well-known wedding singer, was buried in Baghdad yesterday, alongside his brother Mohammed. Their family said they had been performing at the wedding. The evidence that the US military has put forward to support its version of events has been seriously undermined.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said guns, Syrian passports and a satellite phone had been recovered. But Sheikh Nasrallah Miklif, the head of the Bani Fahd tribe to which most of the dead belonged, said that was to be expected, given that the air strike happened in Makradheeb, a village in the desert, about 10 miles from the Syrian border. Every household in Iraq has a gun, usually a Kalashnikov assault rifle, to protect itself. In the desert it is even more common for people to keep guns, as protection not only from robbers, but also wild animals. Shepherds need to protect their flocks.
The village is 80 miles from the nearest town, al-Qa'im, and 10 miles from the nearest road. There are no telephone lines and no mobile coverage. Satellite phones are comparatively cheap in Iraq and it would be surprising if the villagers did not have one. People in the area frequently marry neighbours from across the border. That means there have always been villagers on the Iraqi side with Syrian passports and vice versa. On top of that, many of the villagers on both sides make their living smuggling sheep across the border, and have been routinely crossing it for years - not entirely legal, but that does not make them foreign fighters planning to attack US forces.
General Mattis asked: "How many people go to the middle of the desert 10 miles from the Syrian border to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilisation?" Iraqis replied that the victims of the attack were holding the wedding in the village where they had lived all their lives. Sheikh Mikfil was not in the village at the time of the attack, but he has spoken at length with the survivors. All of the villagers were members of his tribe; the only dead from outside were the musicians. He put the death toll at 41 - 25 of whom were members of the bridegroom's family. The wedding was held at the home of the bridegroom's father, Rikat Obeid Hussein. The newly married couple survived because they were in a specially erected honeymoon tent when the bombing began. The sheikh said that by 2am, when the attack started, the celebrations were finished and the guests were asleep.
There had been US helicopters in the sky earlier, but they had not fired and the wedding guests were not worried. General Kimmitt said: "We sent a ground force in to the location. They were shot at. We returned fire." But Sheikh Mikfil said the attack began with air strikes, without warning. They were followed by helicopters, and after several hours of air strikes, US troops arrived in armoured vehicles to search the devastated village. Contrary to earlier reports, the sheikh said, there was no celebratory gunfire. Firing guns in the air is traditional at Iraqi weddings, and it was initially suspected that US forces had mistaken such shooting for hostile fire, as they did at a wedding party in Afghanistan when US air strikes killed more than 50 people in 2002. Sheikh Mikfil says he questioned the survivors extensively on this, and they were categorical: there was no shooting in the air. He said the bride came from the same village, so there was no large-scale movement of people that could have aroused US suspicions. "If they killed foreign fighters, why don't they show us the bodies?" he asked. "If they suspected foreign fighters were there, why didn't they come to arrest them, instead of using this huge force?" Sheikh Mikfil said he suspected the Americans might have been acting on false intelligence information, given by someone who wanted to increase the tension between Iraqis and Americans.
It is impossible to reconcile the American and Iraqi versions of events. But with more and more evidence emerging that casts doubt on the American version, and Iraqi anger rising, US forces need to come up with some answers. If this was one of the "bad things" that "happen in wars" - to use General Mattis's phrase - more explanation is required.

This link is :eek:, please check it out too:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


And this article, I cannot tell the source though I found it "funny"
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17112

Oops, I Killed You, Again
by S. A. A.
(Monday July 25 2005)

"That is why they condemn a desperate man who straps explosives to his chest for killing soldiers occupying and destroying his nation; it is barbaric and evil. Does he not know the code of ethics for killing?"

The difference, the Western world tells us, between them and us Muslims is that when they kill, they do not really mean it. They raise themselves superior to us, professing their innocence when civilians die at their hands, declaring it to be a tragedy worth its price. And even as they grind out an apology at times, it is followed by either a ‘there was a terrorist among them’, ‘we are in difficult times’ or ‘if the terrorists had not attacked us on 9/11, none of this would have ever happened’.
Surely, if the most experienced and informed army in the world drops a bomb weighing 2,000 lbs. on a village, they could not possibly have guessed that civilians could be among the casualties, now could they? How absurd to think that a superpower that has given so much to all nations would not mean well nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world’s largest arms manufacturer and trader does not really intend this ammunition to fulfill its actual purpose. Indeed, cluster bombs, depleted uranium and napalm are all made, sold and then used with the best of intentions at heart!
Thus, when another historically imperial country joins them in their campaign to rid the world of terror and invade a sovereign country using forged evidences, everyone must understand that they did the right thing. Sure, they killed around 39,000 civilians with many more living as dead, but they did not really expect that. After all, earlier on, even more countries had joined them in their campaign against a country racked by sanctions, poverty and war, when approximately 4,000 civilians died and no one misjudged them then. Moreover, they will point out, they have been signing defense pacts with India, Russia and Israel for ages now, and those countries have always waged peaceful battles, right? Even nations who claim to be members of the Islamic countries use their weapons and knowledge for cleaning up their homelands of disagreeable and disagreeing people.
They always want what is best. They always care about innocents. They always say sorry.
That is why they condemn a desperate man who straps explosives to his chest for killing soldiers occupying and destroying his nation; it is barbaric and evil. Does he not know the code of ethics for killing?
Step 1: identify a terrorist’s description, like the cops do; in today’s age, it would be ‘Asian-looking, suspicious, bearded, Muslim’; sorry, not the last bit.
Step 2: pinpoint his location; if he is alone, targeted assassination will do, and if not alone, it will still do.
Step 3: choose from an array of weapons and means of delivery according to the impact desired – F-16 fighter jet, Apache or a bunker buster? Remember, the only thing to focus on is ensuring the target is hit; all other collateral damage is insignificant.
Step 4: limit coalition casualties and get the killing done in a sanitized manner by pushing a button thousands of miles away so the missile can drop from the sky.
Step 5: obtain results from intelligence solely regarding the objective; disregard other casualty reports.
Step 6: do a little jig and hug the person next to you.
Step 7: let your speechwriter pour his heart out in your statement to give it a heartfelt touch as you express condolences at the tragedy of innocent civilian casualties and practice your sad face look.
Step 8: roll your eyes at the last step and exhale loudly as soon as you perform it convincingly enough.
You know, it really matters to a dead person to have two minutes of the ruler’s time devoted to apologizing to him for putting him in his grave. Wonder if he even gets to hear it; oh well, he got his two minutes of fame anyhow. It does reflect a higher standard of morality to unleash arms and ammunition in its glory and stating that though you do not do body counts, you respect innocent life. It is a civilized thing to do to lock people up without trial and shoot them perhaps five, no, eight times if they resist arrest from plainclothes policemen, because after all they do not aim at them, but the real terrorists.
However, if a Muslim or a Muslim country happens to copy their antics, you will never hear the end of it. There will be a cycle of cries, vigils, demands, frowns, sanctions, diplomatic moves, condemnations, conferences that will keep on going on and on. That is because Muslims are terrorists and you want to know why? They do not say sorry after killing a person.
And so, life goes on. The word sorry loses its importance and meaning, day by day. The powers that be of the 21st century kill and offer apologies. The underdog Muslim nation rejoices at their condolences – what more could they ask for? And that man, woman and child so mercilessly murdered, lying under the soil in mass graves, wonder for what fault of theirs they were killed.

>Source:

by courtesy & © 2005 S. A. A.

Jim Jones
07-26-2005, 06:41 PM
u can find lots unbiased statistical information about the case in Iraq and Afghanistan if u really want ...as an example;
Published on Thursday, October 28, 2004 by Reuters
100,000 Excess Iraqi Deaths Since War - Study


LONDON - Deaths of Iraqis have soared to 100,000 above normal since the Iraq war mainly due violence and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said Thursday.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess death and air strikes from (U.S.-led) coalition forces accounted for the most violent deaths," the report added.

The new figures, based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq, are much higher than earlier estimates based on think tank and media sources which put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.


well, IMHO,i think there's a kind of misunderstanding about it, the ''terrified " word may be misunderstood here..and it doesn't imply the meaning of being coward as buddyholy might have imagined..i think ,denaon wanted to describe the case of being motivated or irritated or even being very keen about preventing other accidents by the police after what happened in London, ..and in reflection to this feeling, they behaved rapidly and they did a mistake...that's all
the 100,000 death toll is completely false. The figure first came out a few days before the U.S. elections which was clearly intended to influence the U.S. elections which fortunately it failed to do. Usually with such heavy death toll fugures, famine is the main chunk of the death toll. But there was and is no famine in Iraq since U.S. troops intervened in Iraq. The death toll accoerding to UN fugures is around 20'000 since U.S. intervention. Most of whom were killed by Iraqi insurgents.

Denaon
07-26-2005, 06:43 PM
the 100,000 death toll is completely false. The figure first came out a few days before the U.S. elections which was clearly intended to influence the U.S. elections which fortunately it failed to do. Usually with such heavy death toll fugures, famine is the main chunk of the death toll. But there was and is no famine in Iraq since U.S. troops intervened in Iraq. The death toll accoerding to UN fugures is around 20'000 since U.S. intervention. Most of whom were killed by Iraqi insurgents.
Source with link or article please ;)

Jim Jones
07-26-2005, 06:45 PM
check out sources on the web. Maybe human rights watch or UN sources. Sorry I don't have them on hand but I read reliable sources a lot. In also used to work for a UN organization in Geneva, Switzerland :)

Denaon
07-26-2005, 07:03 PM
check out sources on the web. Maybe human rights watch or UN sources. Sorry I don't have them on hand but I read reliable sources a lot. In also used to work for a UN organization in Geneva, Switzerland :)
Ok, i'll try to check them on the web, however there could be a misconception here, coz as I read somewhere (you will have to check it on the web too) they say almost 200,000 (maybe it's the wrong figure, and it said 100,000) persons died since US invasion by many causes. Among them obviously killing. By this that doesn't mean that the troops help them die, but it suggets that USA intervention is causing or has caused so far much more harm than benefits. :shrug:

:scratch: So, you worked for an UN organization in Switzerland and you are satisfied by voters in USA paying no attention to this "possible attempt" to damage Bush's image and his re-election? :eek: Bizarre :scratch:

buddyholly
07-26-2005, 10:05 PM
About the British Goverment, I sincerely don't know and care about its character and what I meant by terrified (not paralized) is that its actions were from a terrified person/entity. Very little reasoning and too much impulse. To kill someone that easily and not regret that action. :shrug:

Absolute nonsense!!!!!! There are very few governments in the world with the character to tell the unshaded truth about what happened and express their regrets so quickly.
To use the words ''not regret'' in your post clearly shows that you write only what you want to be true.

Denaon
07-26-2005, 11:55 PM
Absolute nonsense!!!!!! There are very few governments in the world with the character to tell the unshaded truth about what happened and express their regrets so quickly.
To use the words ''not regret'' in your post clearly shows that you write only what you want to be true.
Ok buddyholy, I know they apologized...You should know me better before saying that I write only what I want to be true.
I think that an apologie is not a show of regret, they intend to continue with this "shooting" plan and that doesn't seem like regret.
If I do something wrong and I really feel sorry and I regret it, be sure that I wouldn't do it again. I dunno.

It's remarkable your goverment's guts to admit such an error. That's true and :worship: admirable.

buddyholly
07-27-2005, 12:59 AM
In answer to all the other posts above, what you said was ''kill thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals'' In the spirit of this thread I was concentrating on this statement, which I do not think is supported by the links offered.

And to nermo's post about the meaning of ''terrified'', that was not the point. The point was ''regrets.''

I think Denaon figures we have talked this one out, and I do too. No doubt there will be many more tragedies to come, unfortunately.

Denaon
07-27-2005, 01:36 AM
In answer to all the other posts above, what you said was ''kill thousands of innocent people who were presumed to be criminals'' In the spirit of this thread I was concentrating on this statement, which I do not think is supported by the links offered.

I gave this particular link and article about an US bomb that killed 40 people in Irak who were presummably "criminals" (change this word to insurgents, terrorists, saddam supporters, suicidals, evil) It happened to be a wedding :shrug:
I must say that I had very little time and not good skills at googling (in english) this type of articles that I had heard or seen in our local news. ;)

Golfnduck
07-27-2005, 05:27 AM
Yes - of course this is tragic - and my sincere condolences to the Brazilian people and, of course, to this guy's family. But just a few points from a British point of view.

So please do not judge us too harshly. Thanks.
I'm with you Rosie. Since he ran, the police assumed he was guilty. I've always been taught/told that if you're not guilty, you have no reason to run. I think it was handled the best way it could be at that time. Could the police have been wrong? Yes, but that still puts some of the blame on the man that RAN from the police.

Kudz
07-27-2005, 09:22 AM
The only reason why another innocent man got killed was because of the situation that the terrorists put them in.

So if anyone should be blamed it should be the terrorists. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes just like they are responsible for the deaths of the people killed by the bombs they used.

*Ljubica*
07-27-2005, 12:53 PM
The only reason why another innocent man got killed was because of the situation that the terrorists put them in.

So if anyone should be blamed it should be the terrorists. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes just like they are responsible for the deaths of the people killed by the bombs they used.

I agree Kudz. And don't know whether you saw it, but there wa a poll on Sky TV the other day which showed that 85% of the British people agreed with what the Police did - and want to keep our "shoot to kill to protect" policy. With all due respect to my friend Denaon and others - until you have lived in an environment of fear like we're doing here in Britian, and like they always do in israel and in some parts of the States too - you have no idea what it's like. Every time we get on a train or a bus to work now we wonder if it will be our last journey because some terrorist wants to murder us - and I'm sorry if I shock people - but if I saw a guy running from Police and getting on my train - but I would want the Police to shoot him too. As Golfnduck says - if you are innocent - you do not run - and in our current climate the Poilce had no other choice but to try and protect many other innocent people with a spur of the moment decision. And as buddyholy said - our Poilce did stand up and admit it was a mistake very soon after the incident - many other forces in the world would have done a cover-up and this thread would not exisit because no one would be any the wiser.

Kudz
07-27-2005, 01:21 PM
There were four more arrests this morning in Birmingham and one of the men is thought to be one of the suspected bombers who's attempt failed last week. He resisted arrest and police used a taser 'stun' gun on him rather than a firearm.

'Bomb suspect' arrested by police

A man arrested in Birmingham by anti-terror police could be one of the suspects in the failed 21 July attacks on London, security sources say.

The man was held after being shot with a Taser stun gun. The BBC has learnt he was wearing a rucksack at the time.

He is believed to have been taken to London's high-security Paddington Green police station for questioning.

A further three men were arrested at a separate Birmingham address and are being held in the city.

Full article can be found BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4720027.stm)

Denaon
07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
I agree Kudz. And don't know whether you saw it, but there wa a poll on Sky TV the other day which showed that 85% of the British people agreed with what the Police did - and want to keep our "shoot to kill to protect" policy. With all due respect to my friend Denaon and others - until you have lived in an environment of fear like we're doing here in Britian, and like they always do in israel and in some parts of the States too - you have no idea what it's like. Every time we get on a train or a bus to work now we wonder if it will be our last journey because some terrorist wants to murder us - and I'm sorry if I shock people - but if I saw a guy running from Police and getting on my train - but I would want the Police to shoot him too. As Golfnduck says - if you are innocent - you do not run - and in our current climate the Poilce had no other choice but to try and protect many other innocent people with a spur of the moment decision. And as buddyholy said - our Poilce did stand up and admit it was a mistake very soon after the incident - many other forces in the world would have done a cover-up and this thread would not exisit because no one would be any the wiser.

Rosie :hug:
In Argentina we had in the decade 90's two terrorists attacks in Buenos Aires (targeting jewish buildings). Terrorism is perfectly known in Buenos Aires at least.
Were the police wearing their uniform or were they wearing civilian's clothing?
I would definitely run from, I dunno, let's say 5 guys shouting at me with no identification as policemen, and in the worst case I wouldn't ever dream they'd shoot at me.........(well I'd expect they shoot at me in some places in Argentina, not in London)

Kudz
07-27-2005, 03:44 PM
Someone on another board I go to posted the following link to an article about why police have to shoot-to-kill by targeting the head.

It makes really interesting reading!

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/106466.php

*Ljubica*
07-27-2005, 05:21 PM
Today they have announced that 16 (yes 16 :eek: ) explosive devices have been found in a car belonging to one of the 7th July bombers - they are packed with nails - each one could take out at least 100 people - probably many more. This means we that must admit there are many more people out there prepared to get onto public transport with one of those and kill themselves and many of us with them. Sorry - but Police here can't be hard enough in my opinion. These terrorists consider themselves to be "at war" against the West and the "infidel" as they call us - to protect ourselves we must consider things in the same way - and in war innocent people get killed - sad but kill.

Denaon
07-27-2005, 07:58 PM
Tragically this a lose-lose situation.
:fiery:

Denaon
08-18-2005, 02:31 PM
I'm sorry if there's anyone that bringing this up would be bothered but this update has to be done, coz as it came to light, the brazilian guy was shot apparently without any excuse.....

These are two links for articles, one is posted next:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551648,00.html?gusrc=rss

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18591662.htm

Lawyer for Brazilian urges UK police chief to quit
18 Aug 2005 11:49:33 GMT

Source: Reuters

(Adds quotes from lawyers after IPCC meeting, background)

By Kate Holton

LONDON, Aug 18 (Reuters) - Lawyers representing the family of a Brazilian man killed by police who thought he was a suicide bomber accused London's police chief on Thursday of trying to block an official inquiry and urged him to resign.

Police shot electrician Jean Charles de Menezes eight times on an underground train on July 22, the day after four would-be bombers failed in attacks on London's transport system. Two weeks earlier four suicide bombers killed 52 commuters.

London police chief Ian Blair first said the shooting was linked to the investigation into the failed bombings and that de Menezes was challenged and refused to obey police orders.

However leaked police and eyewitness accounts obtained by ITV News cast doubt on the official version of events.

"Sir Ian Blair should resign. The lies that appear to have been put out, like the statement from Sir Ian Blair, for instance, are clearly wrong. And nobody has stepped in to correct the lies," lawyer Harriet Wistrich told ITV News.

Gareth Peirce, another lawyer working for the family, told reporters after a meeting with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) that they needed a fast inquiry.

Both lawyers have accused Blair of delaying the inquiry, saying he initially wrote to the Home Office asking for an internal investigation into the killing as opposed to handing the case over to the IPCC.

"There has been a chaotic mess and what we have asked the IPCC to find out is how much of it is incompetence and negligence, including gross negligence, and how much of it may be something more sinister," she told reporters on Thursday.

EXTREME CONCERN

The IPCC began work on 1 April 2004 with a wide range of new, stronger powers to improve the handling of complaints against the police in England and Wales. The Stockwell shooting is its most high-profile case to date.

Initial accounts said the Brazilian, 27, was dressed suspiciously in a heavy coat on a warm day, fled armed officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and ran on to a train.

The leaked documents indicated statements gathered from police and other eyewitnesses showed he was not wearing a padded jacket, had walked calmly through the station and stopped to collect a free newspaper before sitting down in the carriage. :eek:

Peirce questioned why police did not correct the false reports earlier.

"We expressed our extreme concern that although they (IPCC) have a statutory duty to investigate from the very moment of a fateful death at the hands of the state, they were not there.

"Why the delay? What were the police doing investigating themselves when that was not their role?" said Peirce.

A senior police source told the Guardian newspaper this was to avoid damaging the morale of the elite firearms squad and said Blair wanted to put the anti-terrorism investigation before anything else.

"We did make an error, the IPCC should have been called in immediately," the police source was quoted as saying.

Peirce said the parents and brother of de Menezes were hoping to visit Britain next week to meet the police.

NO COMMENTS :tape:

Action Jackson
08-18-2005, 02:39 PM
This is just shit from the British police and trying to cover it up as well.

gooner88
08-18-2005, 03:03 PM
This is just shit from the British police and trying to cover it up as well.

The more we find out the worse it gets for the Met.
Lying to the public over this is just distasteful, even if we were in a heightened state of security.
Heads will roll over this.

alfonsojose
08-18-2005, 03:45 PM
It seems Denaon was right :sad:

Kudz
08-18-2005, 10:02 PM
Courtesy of Sky NEws (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13415542,00.html)

MET CHIEF HITS BACK

Scotland Yard chief Sir Ian Blair has hit back at allegations of a cover up over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station.

Sir Ian has dismissed claims that he had tried to block an independent inquiry into the death of the innocent Brazilian electrician.

Shortly after he made his comments, Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt revealed that a member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC) secretarial staff has been suspended over the leaking of a report.

The report highlighted a series of alleged differences in the shooting compared to the details that had previously emerged.

Mr de Menezes was at first thought to have aroused suspicion by wearing a heavy padded coat, vaulting ticket barriers, and fleeing police.

It now appears that he was wearing a light denim jacket and calmly walked into Stockwell station, even picking up a free newspaper before sitting down on the Tube train, where he was shot.

He was hit in the head at point blank range by seven bullets on a train in south London last month.

Earlier, the IPCC claimed Scotland Yard had "initially resisted" it taking on the investigation into the shooting.

This had delayed the inquiry, the watchdog has claimed.

It was also claimed that one of the senior officers at the centre of the operation had ordered him to be taken alive.

Commander Cressida Dick allegedly instructed officers to "detain" him minutes before he was shot, according to the Daily Mirror.

But Sir Ian told the Evening Standard: "These allegations strike to the heart of the integrity of the police and integrity of the Met and I fundamentally reject them. There is no cover-up."

Lawyers for the dead man's family have met investigators from the IPCC.

They described the shooting as a "catalogue of disasters" and blunders in the police operation.

One of the family's lawyers, Harriet Wistrich, said it was "looking more and more" as though there was a "deliberate cover-up and a prevention of the IPCC inquiry".

One, Gareth Peirce, said: "One of the things we asked the IPCC to investigate is, Are there lies that have been told? Who told them?"

I'm not going to pass judgement on anyone until the full investigation has taken place.