Met Police prosecuted under health and safety laws

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by geo7863, Sep 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I am a professional Construction Health & Safety Consultant and at times I am asked to justify certain regulations and codes of if i wrote the bloody things, however I do my best to explain why we must do this and why we must do that, keep the workforce safe and yet help the construction business survive etc etc.

    The news today totally blew me into the weeds, how the hell can anyone justify prosecuting the Met Police for shooting Jean Charles de Menezes, even his family say it's ridiculous....

    The charges revolve around 'a duty of care to someone not in their (the Met Police's) employment'....what a load of total arrse.

    Which idiot in the HSE had enough lack of common sense to press this charge forward, and which total moron in the Crown Prosecution Service allowed the charge to get to serious discussion let alone go to court.

    A charge of 'lack of duty of care' arises when someone (an employer) omits to do something in their normal day to day operations which results in the injury or death to their employees, visitors, members of the public or anyone else affected by their operations, or damage to machinery buildings the environment or any other infrastructure...

    The guy was running from the police when chased..the sensible thing to do would have been to stop no matter how scared he was... and the officers involved had moments to assess the risk to the public and themselves and act..which they did thinking this guy might of had pounds of high explosive strapped to his chest a hard moral decision to take and a brave one, and they took it.

    A criminal lack of care would have been to do nothing and see a tube train and its passengers blasted into little lumps, because at that time no one knew if that would happen or not

    The fact that there was apparently a cock-up in communications with some officers on surveillance alledgedly identifying this fella as low risk is by the by... sh*t happens.

    The actions of the CPS, HSE and the Home Office ministers, Civil servants and other lackeys makes a total mockery of the standards and ethos that made this nation, once upon a time a long long time ago, great.

    These people should be sacked and made to work in MacDonalds 'cos thats all they are worth.
  2. msr

    msr LE

    The sensible thing would have been to have gone home when his visa expired...

  3. Innit.
  4. If I remember correctly the officers involved were given the order to shoot?

    The radios didnt work once they went down to the underground?

    The 'victim' had an expired visa?

    So they carried out their orders to the rule?

    I dont object if the Met Higher command are investigated for the reasoning behind the order, but NOT the officers involved. They did their job however unpleasant.

    As mentioned before I am no fan of the Polizi or HSE, but police shootings must be carefully investigated not with a witch hunt, they are not the army.
  5. It doesnt work that way, the bill dont shoot on orders, they are CLEARED to use lethal force where necessary, it usually comes down to the officer with his finger on the there a risk of someone being killed by the suspect.... It would be different in a stand off situation where a police sniper would be ordered to take a shot when clear and such orders would be given in the same circumstances where lives are at risk... the aim of every firearms officer that I know is to end the situation without loss of life either to the public or the suspect.

    In this situation the commander on the scene had to make the same snap decision as her armed there a risk... with the info she had at the time and the info the pursuing officers had, and without this bloke stopping they made the only choice that HE gave them.

    Prosecuting the higher command for the reasoning behind the order would be just as ridiculous and a pointless exercise, they ALL used their judgement in a situation controlled by the dead suspect he left them with no choice due to the terrorist threat and hysteria of the media, politicians and the public after 7/7
  6. I dont doubt what you say, but we must make sure that any mistakes that could be rectified in future are delt with.

    I dont support the prosecution, but civilians (police included) and guns are a dangerous combination, this is not the USA.
  7. So what were the mistakes in this case?
  8. Poor intel and communication
  9. Why is nobody up on charges for lying to the gutter press about the Brazilian jumping the barriers, wearing a padded jacket, etc? Don't say the press made it up - they all went with the same story. It's not just the officers who did the killing who are above the law, but the lowlife that lied to try and cover it up
  10. Because they are covering for people far up the sewer food chain, who dont want to answer the difficult questions, I dont think the address of where the reside is too difficult to guess
  11. oh was he in jeans and a tee shirt and just strolling calm as you like onto the train, and the police thinks... mmm lets shoot that one he looks dark enough!!
  12. As a matter of fact , that was exactly how it was.

    He even paused to pick up a copy of the Metro to read on the train , and used his pass to go through , not over the barrier.

    Jack Straw also confirmed to the Brasilian Ambassador , that Menezes was here legally.

    What is ridiculous about this charge, is it is being used as a sop and a smokescreen , which is what Menezes's family is actually upset about.
  13. I thought it was Arrse policy not to have threads that are currently going through the courts as this one is?????.
  14. Didn't I explain that to someone else?

    Court actions concerning Military personnel.
  15. Jack Straw is he still alive? Oh sorry he's been replaced by the wierd caravan woman