TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD
Iraq-War.RU | 25.07.2005 17:37
It's amazing how ridgidly the media is adhering to these points. My favourite Journalism prof said, "When the media speaks with one voice, start digging".
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD
Urgent Release For All Press
Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:
* The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
* He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
* Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
* Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
* Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
* Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
* When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the alleged bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
* Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
* Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
* It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
* Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
* One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was), or hired to say just that. Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
* The police allegedly began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the alleged bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
* Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
* Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
* Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
* Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
* Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
* Don't mention the war.
* Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
* If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
* If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
* Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
* Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.
* Do not attempt in any way to ascertain the identity of the shooter, or what specific unit or intelligence service he is connected to.
All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden.
Urgent Release For All Press
Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:
* The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
* He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
* Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
* Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
* Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
* Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
* When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the alleged bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
* Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
* Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
* It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
* Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
* One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was), or hired to say just that. Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
* The police allegedly began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the alleged bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
* Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
* Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
* Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
* Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
* Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
* Don't mention the war.
* Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
* If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
* If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
* Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
* Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.
* Do not attempt in any way to ascertain the identity of the shooter, or what specific unit or intelligence service he is connected to.
All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden.
Iraq-War.RU
Homepage:
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/57867
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Seven bullets in the head.
25.07.2005 18:00
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The unanswered questions
What led police to be so suspicious of Mr De Menezes?
Why was he not apprehended when he left the house?
Why was he allowed to board a bus?
Who, if anyone, authorised the shooting?
What was the exact warning given by police?"
Guido
e-mail:
Guido@stopimperialism.be
WHO DID THE SHOOTING?
25.07.2005 19:13
Who did the victim work for?
Did he perhaps see something he shouldn't have, as last week's devices were obviously left for investigators, in order to point their work in an intended direction, presumably one of the PNAC target destinations?
Why Would They Shoot A Prone Man, Appehended?
What really happend?
25.07.2005 21:47
The police deployment of firearms is governed by a manual published by the Association of Police Officers, last revised in February 2005. It is not true to say that police officers must identify themselves or shout a warning when confronting a suspect believed to pose a grave and imminent threat.
While we have graphic eye-witness accounts of the killing, there appears to be no independant eye-witness reports or CCTV footage to support the police's version of events, so did they identify themselves as Police officers and what if any warning did they give?
No doubt they will use the 'grave and imminent threat' clause as the get out of jail card (Although I'm not sure how that clause applies to chasing the train driver down the tunnel and holding a gun to his head).
It also interesting to note that the smear campaign against the victim has already begun with the suggestion that he might have run because his visa was out of date.
Richard
Interesting Pattern
26.07.2005 02:09
Are you beginning to notice a pattern developing here? In the most heavily surveilled country in the world, one grainy photos of random "Arabs" is really the best they can do? And if this many cameras aren't working, I think it's time to drop the contract of those charged with operating them.
That's my main problem with the PNAC Conspiracy Theory about 911 (besides the fact that it was used to cover two previously-planned Aggressions), the fact that no airport or other surveillance system was able to catch any of "ze terrorists" where they should have been if the Gov't's Theory was true.
The "Orgy of Evidence" and the fact that all the alleged hijackers were sure to get themselves photographed in the days leading up to the attacks, give this the feel of an intelligence operation and frame-up.
Much like the devices which did not explode in London last week. They were no doubt left behind intentionally, in order to point investigators in a certain direction, most likely one of the planned PNAC military destinations.
Funny That The Media Hasn't Noticed
I got killed in the War on Terror and all I got was a load of bullshit rationali
27.07.2005 01:54
-cass
"Yes, it is frightening and disturbing that we have armed police roaming the streets and underground stations of London, prepared to shoot on sight anyone deemed to be a terrorist threat. But if we have any doubts that this is the correct policy to follow, we just need to ask ourselves: what if Mr De Menezes had been a suicide bomber? ...
"It is painfully obvious that we are going to have to bring our justice system up to date to meet the new threats - and fast."
Kevin Maguire London Daily Mirror, July 25
What if? I guess to exonerate some trigger-happy cops, new laws will have to be drafted. In the blink of an eye, the people of England will get to give up all civil liberties and trust the police. So it's certainly a victory for both sides; those who perpetrated the act and those who defend against it. If the goal is to turn society towards more fundamentalism, the terrorists are certainly doing their jobs well. In this act of state-terrorism, Jean Charles de Menezes' killing, London police's authorized extra-judicial "shoot to kill" policy actually benefits the police by showing the populace that they will do anything and everything, even sacrifice innocent civilians for the benefit of innocent civilians. London's in the throes of fear now, perpetuated by extremists on both sides, and now with terrorists in their very midst, will have to accept that they might be shot if they are of a "suspicious" minority or deemed a "threat".
The authorities have declined to apologize, offering instead their "deepest regrets and sympathies", and no one is taking responsibility. Jean Charles de Menezes will become another ghost, an asterix in the noble cause Tony Blair and George Bush get to utter action-film ultimatums in as they exacerbate a conflict that, by its very nature, takes its toll on their populace.
There are two sides in every war, and neither have to represent "good." When final discretion is ceded to the police, we have all lost. They are servitors to maintenance of order, and with all the weapons in their arsenal, they will maintain the most guarded and repressive order possible. Now, hopefully as fundamentalists seek to "re-create" the carnage they unleashed in a city bound-and-gagged by martial law and surveillance, someone will please ask if all this is necessary. I know it's hard in a situation where taking public transit could result in death, but it is so sorely needed. Just don't stand up to the police. You don't want to be a "threat".
I don't want to see another bombing either, I just want to know what all this escalation is for. It helps nothing. It's just the manufacture of martyrs in a war where martyrs are prized on both sides.
cass miller
e-mail:
cassklay@hotmail.com
Homepage:
http://blackspotbuffalo.blogspot.com/