Double standards from the Brazilians

#3
yes, but London isn't Rio...so no comparison


and I wouldn't go as far to describe Jean Charles de Menedez 'dodgy' either!
 
#4
drain_sniffer said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4803944.stm

This from a country that condemed Britians shoot to kill policy because of one dodgy bloke on the tube!

An Innocent bloke Im afraid, The only dodgy thing was that SB fcuked Up!!!
 
#6
However, had he observed the terms of his visa, he wouldn't have been in this country.

msr
 
#7
Dogface said:
msr said:
However, had he observed the terms of his visa, he wouldn't have been in this country.

msr

That's hasn't become justification to kill a man, has it?
No, but msr didn't say it had, as far as I can see.

de Menezes was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which seems to be sufficient justification for the USA to imprison people without trial in Guantanamo Bay.
 
#8
Dogface said:
msr said:
However, had he observed the terms of his visa, he wouldn't have been in this country.

msr

That's hasn't become justification to kill a man, has it?
I suppose it's not your fault when all those Cubans drown in their desperation to reach the States?
 
#10
msr said:
However, had he observed the terms of his visa, he wouldn't have been in this country.
had certain members of the surveilance team actually been doing their jobs, followed ROE etc.. if it hadnt have been the innocent Brazilian coming out of the building some other poor resident would have copped it.

just because some bloke shouldnt have been in the country doesnt give anyone the right to jump him on the tube, hold him down, stick half a dozen or so rounds in his head then lie about the events leading up to it, about his clothing and try to change log entries to back up your story then try and buy off his family.
 
#11
Has it been looked into whether the fact that he was here illegally confused recognition, as there would be no record of him? Did his status confuse / contribute to matters?

As has been said, you can hardly suggest that illegal immigration should be a capital offence - but as he shouldn't have been here it's at least accurate to say that had he not been "dodgy" - as, yes, he was dodgy- then he would not have been in the position to be here to die. Whether somebody else would have copped it instead - ?
 
#12
Filbert Fox said:
msr said:
However, had he observed the terms of his visa, he wouldn't have been in this country.
had certain members of the surveilance team actually been doing their jobs, followed ROE etc.. if it hadnt have been the innocent Brazilian coming out of the building some other poor resident would have copped it.

just because some bloke shouldnt have been in the country doesnt give anyone the right to jump him on the tube, hold him down, stick half a dozen or so rounds in his head then lie about the events leading up to it, about his clothing and try to change log entries to back up your story then try and buy off his family.
Allegedly.
 
#13
erm..he ws held and shot by the police. he was an innocent man.

there is nothing alledged here. they are the facts.

yet another fcuk up by the int/police community
 
#14
And also - allegedly - remove the tapes from the station control room and replace them with blank ones, then blame London Underground for the cameras not working...
 
#15
As with anything to do with either of the Blairs everything is 'allegedly' except for the fact that they are both pricks.
 
#16
Back on thread for a moment... Yes, I agree that it's hypocrisy for the Brazilians to kick up such a fuss whilst their death squads are at work daliy.
 
#17
clownbasher said:
Has it been looked into whether the fact that he was here illegally confused recognition, as there would be no record of him? Did his status confuse / contribute to matters?

As has been said, you can hardly suggest that illegal immigration should be a capital offence - but as he shouldn't have been here it's at least accurate to say that had he not been "dodgy" - as, yes, he was dodgy- then he would not have been in the position to be here to die. Whether somebody else would have copped it instead - ?

The snoops would have checked to see if anyone of suspect background was living in the building, so when old Mrs Rodgers, who has lived there since 1964 pottered out to buy her spuds at the local Tesco there was little chance of her getting followed, but when a bloke who fitted the general description, who didn't officially exist and was had avoided all bureaucracy since appearing out of nowhere walked out, I'm personally pleased the SneakyBeakys followed him. They would have been negligent if they hadn't.

That he was then shot was of course a tragedy, but it simply wouldn't have happened if his status was legal.
 
#18
it wouldnt have been so bad if theyd have admitted it was a cock up, its the lies and cover ups that have blown it open.
 
#20
Sorry I thought this was a football thread. Brazil against the Met however sneaky they are.

And Jean Charles de Menezes (Plonko) is through, he's bearing down on goal, he's clean through. But wait, the Met defenders have pulled him down. It's a penalty. Fcuk, that's a bit harsh, I would have thought a red card would have been enough. Still it's far worse in Brazil and you don't want to talk about Columbia. A harsh decision but a fair one.

Sorry about that. Brazil are supporting the family of Jean Charles de Menezes (thank fcuk for cut and paste) and are just milking it. Hypocritical barstewards nothing more, nothing less.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads