See latest revelation with regards to Scotland Yard / Ian Blair attempting to delay the investigation  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163568.stm and the fact that the BBC news at 6pm reported that it was police who removed CCTV tapes from Stockwell the day before in relation to the investigation into the "failed bombings" and then failed to replace the tapes.

I'm afraid I can't find a link to that anywhere but I'm sure this will become common knowledge over the next day or so.

If Ian Blair thinks the likelihood of another attack has increased rather than decreased in light of recent events then why aren't his officers replacing the tapes?

I have read "Sir" Ian's response in regards to the attempted delay of IPCC investigation and feel it holds about as much credibility as some of his other statements.

It is quite incredible that all eyewitness reports in the media after the shooting appeared to get it wrong. Petruding wires from his top, vaulting barrier, running from police, bulky winter jacket. This seems rather strange. How come no eyewitnesses were reported as saying he was wearing a denim jacket, didn't vault barrier, etc?

As if it doesn't get any more incredible the Daily Mail reports that "One of the clinching factors in the mistaken identification appears to have been the fact that some of the officers agreed Mr de Menezes had the 'same Mongolian eyes' as one of the terror suspects".  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=359494&in_page_id=1770

So they could tell he had the same eyes but could not tell the difference between his pale white skin (that covered his WHOLE FACE) and the "real" suspects black skin.

"Some of the officers" - as a percentage of the total that looked at the pictures, how many?

Who made the "positive identification" based upon the fact the two suspects eyes looked similar, ignoring the fact that their skins were a different colour and they just blatantly don't look alike, no matter how much pressure your are under?

The Daily Mail also quotes the report as saying "He is seen to run across the concourse and enter the carriage before sitting in an available seat. Almost simultaneously armed officers were provided with positive identification."

If we are to believe this then it perfectly answers why they let him on a bus and, against specific instructions, let him into the tube station itself. I'm afraid I feel it is too perfect and bearing in mind the lies and misinformation the police have made and let happen in recent weeks I, for one, will not be believing a single word of it.