J C De Menezes - We Did Nothing Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
I have a lot of sympathy for the police (tempered by occasional flashes of righteous outrage) but it seems to have vanished on this occasion.

The "gold commander" on the day the unfortunate Brazilian was shot reckons she, and her staff, did nothing wrong. Latest is below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7656886.stm

Officer fears repeat of Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was killed the day after failed London bombings
An innocent person could be shot dead by police again, a senior officer has admitted at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick said police aimed to minimise the risk to the public.

But Ms Dick, who was in charge of the operation on the day Mr de Menezes was killed, said this could be done only to a "less than perfect extent".

Mr de Menezes, 27, was mistaken for a suicide bomber and shot dead in 2005.

The Brazilian was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Tube station in south London on 22 July 2005, by police who believed he was failed bomber Hussain Osman.

Michael Mansfield QC, counsel for the de Menezes family, asked Ms Dick if such an incident could happen again.

"I'm afraid, sir, I do believe that this or something like this could happen again. The nature of these operations is that they are incredibly high risk to all concerned," she said.

"And that is because of the nature of the threat that we face from suicide terrorists, and the difficulty that there is in dealing with such a threat and the very fast timescale in which these things can happen."

She added: "Our job is to reduce the risk to everybody as best as we possibly can all the time. That is what we set out to do.

"But I do fear that in the future a bomber might not be prevented from setting a bomb, and there would be a huge scrutiny of why we did not manage to prevent that.

"And equally, I pray it doesn't happen, but it is possible that an innocent member of the public might die in circumstances like this.

"Our job is to minimise the risks. Given the huge scale of the risks, we may only be able to do that to a less than perfect extent."


Ms Dick responded to allegations that she told another senior officer that the first hour of the operation had been "appalling".

"You can't get everything in terms of planning right immediately so there is always a period of needing to get the structure right," she said.

Ms Dick denied that either she or Scotland Yard had a problem with admitting that things went wrong.

"I regard myself as somebody who will always take full responsibility for what I have done. I will be quick to say if I think I have done something wrong," she said.

Ms Dick was asked about the failure of a firearms team to go to a block of flats linked to Osman in Tulse Hill, south London, where Mr de Menezes lived.

Mr Mansfield said: "I am going to ask you - I'm afraid it will be a repeated theme - there were serious breakdowns in communication at the very least on that night."

She replied: "I don't know that, sir... If that is what happened, then that sounds like a miscommunication."

Mr Mansfield asked the DAC whether she was "on the ball" on the day of the shooting or rushed off her feet.

Ms Dick said: "I was very, very focused. I would say I was extremely on the ball.

She added: "It was busy - I didn't leave the room until 11.30am for the first time - and there was a great deal going on.

"During that time I was continuously talking to people and making decisions. I would not describe myself as rushed off my feet, certainly not."

Ms Dick was the designated officer for Operation Kratos, the Metropolitan Police's codename for special tactics to deal with a suicide bomber.

The day before Mr de Menezes was fatally shot, four suicide bombers tried and failed to set off explosions on London's public transport network.
I recall reading of a number of glitches leading up to the shooting, including a surveillance officer taking a leak, the failure of the team to pick up JCDM at his flat, the failure to stop him getting on a bus, and a breakdown in giving orders with the apparent "stop him at any costs" instruction being issued.

I've worked in a busy ops room with air defence responsibilities, and if an operational commander had ordered the shoot-down of an aircraft (light, business jet, airliner) as the result of errors then they would in all likelihood have faced court-martial and disgrace. All our ops-room comms were recorded on tape - why not the police ops room?

The wider implication of this disaster is that members of the public may be reluctant to call in suspicious activity in case there is a similar incident - this is why someone needs to take ultimate responsibility for a botched operation.
 
#2
I am in the job and whilst I agree it was a lamentable occurrance, I would hate to see your post had he been a suicide bomber and no action had been taken. I would however prefer they admit to any mistakes they made, albeit in the knowledge that there would be no prosecutions, but merely a 'learning' curve. We don't live in Columbia and in my view our police service is better than this. But and it's a big but, in todays letigious society no-one can afford to admit blame. A sad, but true fact.
 
#3
We did nothing wrong? Nope, absolutely spot-on bit of policing. 'Course it would have been nice if you got the right person BEFORE shooting him in the head. Hey-ho, these things happen.
 
#4
nottyash said:
I am in the job and whilst I agree it was a lamentable occurrance, I would hate to see your post had he been a suicide bomber and no action had been taken. I would however prefer they admit to any mistakes they made, albeit in the knowledge that there would be no prosecutions, but merely a 'learning' curve. We don't live in Columbia and in my view our police service is better than this. But and it's a big but, in todays letigious society no-one can afford to admit blame. A sad, but true fact.
Yeah, but that's just bollocks innit. They shot an unarmed man catching a train and doing absolutely nothing wrong, lied repeatedly about it, then found no fault with their own.
Fukcing disgraceful. It's a license to kill members of the public in an attempt to scare the masses. What a crock.
 
#5
Accidents can and do happen. In aviation, for example, human factors is something that is studied closely because people are fallible. Every accident has a chain of events that leads to it. If one link in that chain can be broken the accident doesn't occur. In this case mistakes were obviously made, or the poor chap wouldn't have been shot. So they need to accept that mistakes were made, identify what they were, and amend SOPs so it doesn't happen again for the same reasons.

To claim they did nothing wrong is just stupid.
 
#6
Whilst I have little symapthy for the dead Brazilian and I understand the difficulties the Police had to deal with, if nobody did anything wrong why is Jean Charles de Menezes dead?
 
#7
As someone who makes a living from civvy land observation & surveillance the whole Stockwell shooting incident went off on the wrong tangent as soon as the 'victim' left the flat.

The bloke in the o.p was taking a whizz and didnt get a solid look at the guy - he radio'd that he couldnt confirm the ID..... but nobody seemed to pick up on it....

... somewhere wires were crossed and it was assumed it was "the bomber". Everything else was just a increasing margin of error stemming from that original problem. No one took an effort to be positive on the ID.

Unfortunately it ended in a needless death. That's my tuppence worth anyway.
 
#8
Ord_Sgt said:
Accidents can and do happen. In aviation, for example, human factors is something that is studied closely because people are fallible. Every accident has a chain of events that leads to it. If one link in that chain can be broken the accident doesn't occur. In this case mistakes were obviously made, or the poor chap wouldn't have been shot. So they need to accept that mistakes were made, identify what they were, and amend SOPs so it doesn't happen again for the same reasons.

To claim they did nothing wrong is just stupid.
Agree entirely, but it will never happen.
 
#9
jagman said:
Whilst I have little symapthy for the dead Brazilian and I understand the difficulties the Police had to deal with, if nobody did anything wrong why is Jean Charles de Menezes dead?
Because he was (illegaly) in the wrong place, at the wrong time perhaps?
 
#10
Chuffit said:
nottyash said:
I am in the job and whilst I agree it was a lamentable occurrance, I would hate to see your post had he been a suicide bomber and no action had been taken. I would however prefer they admit to any mistakes they made, albeit in the knowledge that there would be no prosecutions, but merely a 'learning' curve. We don't live in Columbia and in my view our police service is better than this. But and it's a big but, in todays letigious society no-one can afford to admit blame. A sad, but true fact.
Yeah, but that's just balls innit. They shot an unarmed man catching a train and doing absolutely nothing wrong, lied repeatedly about it, then found no fault with their own.
Fukcing disgraceful. It's a license to kill members of the public in an attempt to scare the masses. What a crock.
If you really believe that members of the police service, armed or otherwise relish the thought of taking a life, you need to get one, a life that is.
 
#11
Airfix said:
jagman said:
Whilst I have little symapthy for the dead Brazilian and I understand the difficulties the Police had to deal with, if nobody did anything wrong why is Jean Charles de Menezes dead?
Because he was (illegaly) in the wrong place, at the wrong time perhaps?
He wasn't an illegal. He was in the right place on the right train going to work and paying taxes rather than scrounge off the state. He got filled with holes, because some copper wanted to make a name for himself. That goes all the way back up the CoC.

For Sir Ian Blair to have claimed he was in the dark for so long, is bollox, and I'm stunned he hasn't ever been seriously pressed on that.

So why exactly do you have little sympathy Jagman?
 
#13
Praetorian said:
I heard that his Visa had expired, and he shouldn't have been here?


Excerpt from wikipedia....

Biography

The son of a bricklayer, Menezes grew up on a farm in Gonzaga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. After discovering an early aptitude for electronics, he left the farm at age 14 to live with his uncle in São Paulo and further his education. At 19 he received a professional diploma from Escola Estadual (State School) São Sebastião. He had originally wanted to go to the United States of America but was refused a work visa.

The Home Office said he arrived in Britain on 13 March 2002, initially being granted a six-month visitor's visa. He then applied to stay on a student visa, receiving permission to remain until 30 June 2003. It said it had no record of any further correspondence. A spokeswoman added: "We have seen a copy of Mr Menezes' passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given."

The family of Menezes however deny this, and then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that he believed Menezes was living in the UK legally, but had no precise information to confirm this. Immigration records in fact show that Menezes entered the Republic of Ireland from France on 23 April 2005. There are no records to show the exact date that he returned to the UK; however, a person entering the country from Ireland has an automatic right to remain for three months. Therefore, Menezes was lawfully in the UK on the day he was killed, irrespective of his previous immigration status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
 
#14
PartTimePongo said:
Airfix said:
jagman said:
Whilst I have little symapthy for the dead Brazilian and I understand the difficulties the Police had to deal with, if nobody did anything wrong why is Jean Charles de Menezes dead?
Because he was (illegaly) in the wrong place, at the wrong time perhaps?
He wasn't an illegal. He was in the right place on the right train going to work and paying taxes rather than scrounge off the state. He got filled with holes, because some copper wanted to make a name for himself. That goes all the way back up the CoC.

For Sir Ian Blair to have claimed he was in the dark for so long, is bollox, and I'm stunned he hasn't ever been seriously pressed on that.

So why exactly do you have little sympathy Jagman?
I have little sympathy for de Menezes on the grounds he should not have been here. He did not have a valid Visa to be here, unless the news reports were wrong on that score?
I fully appreciate that doesn't justify shooting him and the reality is it could have been anybody that got shot that day (therefor rendering his Visa irrelevant)
I do however believe that the sin here is the statement that the Police did nothing wrong (an innocent man died and nobody made an error?) and the lies and arse covering that went on in the aftermath.

Editted to add that I have just read the post above. Stillnot convinced but then I'm no immigration expert. Are we to asume his immigration status has been clouded for some purpose?
 
#15
I don't think that Commander Dick (unfortunate name) did anything wrong. If there was any doubt Sir Ian would not have promoted her to DAC Dick now would he?
 
#16
I find it incredible that on a site such as this there is not more sympathy for the Police Firearms Officers. The circumstances surrounding the ID of JCDM, his perceived counter surveillence, his reaction to a challenge from Firearms Officers and lest you all forget the climate of July 2005. Should next time a Police Officer not shoot who he believes to be a suicide bomber, imagine the consequences? Mistakes are made, apologies have been issued, get over it and give credit to those who have to make split second decisions our defence.
 
#17
Therefore, Menezes was lawfully in the UK on the day he was killed, irrespective of his previous immigration status.
Which was what Jack Straw had to stand in front of the Brazilian Ambassador at a press conference and admit. I hardly think he'd have cuffed it.

Jagman, he was legal.
 
#18
hairymonster1006 said:
I find it incredible that on a site such as this there is not more sympathy for the Police Firearms Officers. The circumstances surrounding the ID of JCDM, his perceived counter surveillence, his reaction to a challenge from Firearms Officers and lest you all forget the climate of July 2005. Should next time a Police Officer not shoot who he believes to be a suicide bomber, imagine the consequences? Mistakes are made, apologies have been issued, get over it and give credit to those who have to make split second decisions our defence.
I dont see the main issue as resting with the Firearms officers.....

the problem was the 'eyeball', in the op at the flat, clearly stated he could not confirm the ID of the man that had departed.

No efforts seem to have been made to confirm this prior to the 'dogs of war' being unleashed..
 
#19
Pompey_Jock said:
Praetorian said:
I heard that his Visa had expired, and he shouldn't have been here?


Excerpt from wikipedia....

Biography

The son of a bricklayer, Menezes grew up on a farm in Gonzaga, Minas Gerais, Brazil. After discovering an early aptitude for electronics, he left the farm at age 14 to live with his uncle in São Paulo and further his education. At 19 he received a professional diploma from Escola Estadual (State School) São Sebastião. He had originally wanted to go to the United States of America but was refused a work visa.

The Home Office said he arrived in Britain on 13 March 2002, initially being granted a six-month visitor's visa. He then applied to stay on a student visa, receiving permission to remain until 30 June 2003. It said it had no record of any further correspondence. A spokeswoman added: "We have seen a copy of Mr Menezes' passport, containing a stamp apparently giving him indefinite leave to remain in the UK. On investigation, this stamp was not one that was in use by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on the date given."
The family of Menezes however deny this, and then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that he believed Menezes was living in the UK legally, but had no precise information to confirm this. Immigration records in fact show that Menezes entered the Republic of Ireland from France on 23 April 2005. There are no records to show the exact date that he returned to the UK; however, a person entering the country from Ireland has an automatic right to remain for three months. Therefore, Menezes was lawfully in the UK on the day he was killed, irrespective of his previous immigration status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
My bold - Seems to sugest he was a. in the UK unlawfuly and b. working in the UK unlawfully!!!

Ok, those facts on their own don't warrent getting tapped in the head on the tube, but fact remains fact, if he was where he should have been, i.e. anywhere else in the world except the UK going to work, the poor git would still be alive! Man the fcuk up and get over it!

Does it mean there weren't mahosive cock-ups in the ops that day by those concernded? Of course it doesn't.
 
#20
Is the fact a challenge was ever issued in question?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top