Skip to content or view screen version

UK's shoot-to-kill policy #LAST UPDATED 19/09/05

socialist | 20.10.2005 11:40

Analysis and commentary on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and subsequent events.

The author is experiencing difficulties [censorship] posting to usenet although this article has been posted previously.


UK's shoot-to-kill policy #LAST UPDATED 19/09/05

UK's shoot-to-kill policy

Twenty-seven year-old Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by
plain-clothed armed officers at Stockell tube station, south London
at 10.00 a.m. on Friday 22 July, 2005. Mr. de Menezes was shot seven
times in the head and once in the shoulder while a further three
shots missed.

de Menezes's violent death brought out the fact that UK police were
operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy. It was claimed that certain,
instantaneous death was necessary to "protect" the public.

On the day of the killing, there were many reports from eyewitnesses
giving the impression that de Menezes (although at that time he was
unnamed) had intended to detonate a suicide bomb. The reports claimed
de Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket that could hide a suicide-belt
of explosives, had run from the police, had jumped over the ticket
turnstile and had run onto a tube train before he was killed. There
were also reports that he was actually wearing a suicide-belt and
had wires coming from his clothing.

Jean Charles de Menezes was an innocent bystander, killed without
any involvement with the exposions that had taken place fifteen-days
and one-day before in London. It was not until the following evening
that Ian Blair [boss of the Metropolitan Police] announced that the
police had shot an innocent man. There are racist overtones to Jean
Charles de Menezes's killing e.g. surveillence reporting that de
Menezies had "Mongolian eyes". [e.g. see a "Mongolian eyes" reference

It is difficult to accept that the police did not realise until the
following evening that they had killed an innocent bystander. He was
apparently carrying identification when he was killed and they should
have learnt soon enough that he was Brazilian and Catholic instead
of Muslim.

It appears that the Metropolitan Police attempted to 'spin' and
take advantage of the earlier witness statements that had been
published. They claimed that de Menezes "clothing and behaviour"
added to their suspicions. [Scotland Yard releases a statement which
includes the line: "His clothing and his behaviour at the station
added to their suspicions."]

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigates
deaths by police shooting. Ian Blair [boss of Metropolitan Police]
tried to have the death investigated by his own force instead of
the IPCC. The IPCC investigation was delayed by Ian Blair and the
Metropolitan Police.

Details of the IPCC investigation was
revealed by ITN News, including a photograph

The IPCC report reveals many differences to the impression that
had been formed through media reports. He didn't run away from
police, he didn't jump over the ticket turnstile, he didn't
refuse to follow police orders, he was detained before he was
shot. [ Police shooting -
the discrepancies]

It is clear from the photograph that, contrary to reports, de Menezes
was not wearing a heavy jacket and was instead wearing a light denim
jacket. Although it's not absolutely clear, it looks as though the
jacket is not fastened at it's front. It is claimed that rucksacks
were used in the London explosions. Yet de Menezes did not have a
bag of any sort.

de Menezes had sat down on the tube before he was shot. Wearing such
a light jacket, it should have been obvious that he was not wearing a
suicide-belt of explosives especially if it was open at the front. He
didn't have a bag of any sort. If the police were scared that he might
have exploded a suicide bomb, then where was the bomb supposed to
be? It is claimed that earlier bombs contained 5.5 kg of explosives
in huge plastic storage containers. So where was de Menezes supposed
to have a bomb?,16132,1550565,00.html

The police were on a high state of alert because of the July 7 and
July 21 bombings, and had been briefed that they may be called upon
to carry out new tactics - shooting dead suspected suicide bombers
in order to avoid another atrocity.

The IPCC investigation report states that the firearms unit had
been told that "unusual tactics" might be required and if they
"were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity
to challenge, but if the subject was non-compliant, a critical shot
may be taken

Note that this is not a shoot-to-kill to disarm suspected suicide
bombers policy. It is a shoot-to-kill people who do not comply with
demands from the police policy. The de Menezes killing seems to have
been executed even outside these Fascist 'kill them if they don't
do as you say' orders. According to the IPCC report de Menezes was
co-operating with the police.
Last Updated: Friday, 22 July 2005, 21:25 GMT 22:25 UK [The day of
the killing]

"Police have said they shot a man dead at Stockwell Tube station in
south London after he was challenged and refused to obey an order.


Sir Ian [Blair] told a press conference: "I need to make clear that
any death is deeply regrettable but as I understand the situation
the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."

It looks like Blair is saying this in all seriousness. Doesn't
he realise that he can't kill people simply because they do not
jump to do as he commands? There is a serious issue here. The
most powerful policeman in Britain thinks that it is acceptable to
kill people that do not do as he says. We must obey the police or
get shot? Seems more like shot-to-kill-to-enforce-state-power or
we-can-kill-civilians-at-will than shoot-to-kill-to-protect.

Ian Blair is closely-associated with New Labour - he is widely
recognised as "New Labour's favourite policeman" and controlled by
what appears to be a New Labour dominated police authority. He enjoys
New Labour support.

Prime Minister backs beleaguered Met chief
By Nigel Morris. Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 22 August 2005

"Tony Blair and John Prescott gave their full backing to Sir Ian
Blair as the pressure built on the embattled Metropolitan Police
Commissioner over the shooting of a Brazilian electrician.


Downing Street indicated that the Prime Minister, who has been
briefed on holiday on the controversy, gave unqualified backing
to Sir Ian. Asked if he had full confidence in the commissioner,
a spokeswoman replied: "Yes."


Asked on BBC's News 24's Sunday programme if Sir Ian enjoyed his
"full and unqualified" confidence, Mr Prescott also replied: "Yes."

UPDATE 29 Aug 2005

Following the first publication of this article many commentators
claimed that the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign had been hijacked by
extremists or Marxists. While media commentators concentrated on George
Galloway's press secretary, it is suspected that the real target was
this author and that censorship prevents the media reporting this fact.

This group of International Socialists supports and shows solidarity
with the Jean Charles de Menezes campaign. The killing of Jean Charles
de Menezes raises serious concerns regarding the Metropolitan Police's
'Operation Kratos' shoot-to-kill policy.

It is this article which exposed the media lie that the Metropolitan
Police had merely not corrected media reports and that they had in
fact issued an untrue and misleading statement. It is this article
that suggested that the rules of engagement are that police can kill
when individuals do not respond to challenges regardless of whether
they are armed. That is martial law. It is this article that claims
that police shot Jean Charles de Menezes knowing full well that he
was not a potential suicide bomber since it was clear that he was not
carrying a bomb. The corporate media failed to adequately inform on
all these issues.

We will continue to show support and solidarity with the de
Menezes family and campaign and we will continue to oppose the UK's
shoot-to-kill policy.

#UPDATE 19/09/05

Blair & BLunkett were consulted over shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy
Posted by: bedblogger on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 01:29 PM

Very interesting interview
with Lord John Stevens, on Radio 4 Today programe.
It emerged that although the change to the shoot-to-kill-to-protect
policy was "only" a Police operational issue, Tony Blair and David
Blunkett were involved in the decision to send gung ho armed police
on the streets.

It puts a different slant on how the shoot-to-kill-to-protect came
to our streets. Here is the transcript of John Humphries and Lord
John Stevens (11.45 minutes in on Listen Again):

JH: We did not know the policy had been changed. The politicians
apparently did not know the policy had been changed, certainly some
politicians did not know the poilicy had been changed.

JS: Well I think some did.

JH: Some did?

JS: Mmm

JH: But it was not discussed in Cabinet. It was not discussed with
the MPA, as far as we know.

JS: No, it wasn't discussed with the MPA as it was a change of
operational direction really, that's right.

JH: Is that right? Is that how it should have been?

JS: Maybe we should have discussed it, but I think at the end of
the day we have to keep some things quiet(his strike) secret about
because in fact if people know what we are doing then obviously they
can take action to stop it.

JH: So who did...? Well, precisely, that's what democracy is all
about - if people are concerned about something then they can do ...

JS: Indeed

John Humphries: Who did know? You knew it was your suggestion. Who
did know?

John Stevens: Well there was a Working Party on this...

JH: The Home Sec?

JS: Oh, certain Senior politicians, of course they knew. Yes

JH: So the Home Sec knew, without any question. Tony Blair would have
known then, without any question?

JS: Politicians, of course they know and they... these things are
discussed because we have to find the right ways of ······dealing
with them.

JH: But those specifically, the home sec and PM would have known?

JS: In terms of what the operational decisions, yes indeed.


So who else was in the loop? Who was consulted? Who was on the
"Working Party and does this form part of the IPPC'c inquiry into
Menezes murder?

How can it "only" be a Police operations issue, when the only logical
end point of shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy is the death of someone,
be they a prospective suicide bomber or an innocent Brazillian
electrician going about his day, and thus the killing needs to be
"legal" under UK law as it stands?

Blair and Blunkett and those in the Working Party decided to quietly
hide this important change of policy from Cabinet, Parliament, the
MET Police Authority and the public.

When innocents are killed "by mistake", will only the coppers take
any responsability in the courts? Or because the PM and Home secretary
kept a policy that was always going to be highly controvertial quiet,
not wanting to draw attention to it by drafting new legislation,
could this mean they have left themselves wide open to a conspiracy
to murder rap? [ QUOTE ENDS]

Menezes death 'a state execution'

The shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes during a hunt for
terrorists amounted to "a state execution", a leading Liberal Democrat
has said.

Matthew Taylor, the party's former chairman, said the "fundamentals
of civil liberties" were under threat from government-led anti-terror

Mr Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell tube station the day after
the failed 21 July bombings in London.

Mr Taylor said the government should not "surrender" the rule of law.

'Not convinced'

He told a fringe meeting at the Lib Dem conference in Blackpool:
"I'm not prepared to stand by in a country that takes the decision
to allow state execution on the basis of suspicion - even suspicion
of mass terrorism."

Mr Taylor said: "I would not be convinced if there were five dead
terrorists and one innocent man dead.

"We cannot defend the principles of this democracy and rule of law
and liberty on the basis that we surrender them - even in the case
of terrorist threats."
[QUOTE ENDS, article continues],15935,1573412,00.html

Met chief faces inquiry over statement on De Menezes shooting

Vikram Dodd
Monday September 19, 2005
The Guardian

Britain's most senior police officer is to face an official
investigation into whether he told the truth about the shooting dead
of an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist, the Guardian
has learned.

Witnesses have told the Independent Police Complaints Commission about
events inside the Metropolitan police on July 22, the day Jean Charles
de Menezes was killed at Stockwell tube station. It is believed their
testimony raises questions about a claim by Sir Ian Blair, the Met
police commissioner, that he did not know that the wrong man had been
killed until 24 hours after the shooting.

The Guardian has learned that a senior Met officer has told the
IPCC of his concerns that senior colleagues knew or suspected
on the afternoon of July 22 that the wrong person had been
shot. Investigators have also received the names of other officers
at the top of the Met who by the afternoon of the shooting feared
the force had made a mistake.QUOTE ENDS, ARTICLE CONTINUES

There is a serious problem with the notion that they did not know for
24 hours that Jean Charles de Menezes was not a suicide bomber. It is
that he was not a suicide bomber since he did not have a suicide bomb.

Ian Blair seems to be suggesting that it is acceptable to murder
suspected suicide bombers who do not have suicide bombs. Isn't
that the only conclusion? How can you be a suicide bomber without a
suicide bomb?

Jean Charles de Menezes was carrying identification in the form of
his Metro card which must be registered and which he had used to
enter the station. Is Blair seriously suggesting that they did not
identify a man they had just slaughtered - knowing that he was not
a suicide bomber - for 24 hours?



Hide the following 7 comments

Not News

20.10.2005 12:37

If this was last updated on the 19th September, then in what earthly way does it qualify as "news"?


Fuck off objector

20.10.2005 14:17

Objector - You're a shit, and write trivial rubbish on IndyMedia.

State execution and murder under shoot to kill still exists in the UK.

The Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign for justice is ongoing. The issues are current.

The family, friends and supporters of the Menezes Family Campaign will make sure that Jean's murderers are punished. The Blair killers must go to jail.

United Friends and Family Campaign
Saturday 29th October 2005
Assemble 1pm at Trafalgar Square (nearest Tube Charing Cross) for a silent march down Whitehall and a noisy protest outside Downing Street.

Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign for justice

Objector's an idiot

A recently adopted semi-secret shoot to kill policy

20.10.2005 14:57

will remain as news for those who are apprehensive about official slaughter being visited upon the British public, for some time to come. This matter is very far from being resolved. In this case the behaviour of the public face of the executioners, the police, gives rise to serious doubts as to the veracity of the highest officers in charge of the Met police. That these matters should remain under discussion and review here may cause offense to some - too bad. We have a high ranking officer who has insisted on speaking untruths over the matter of an extra-judicial execution, and who would like to 'move on' no doubt, as opposed to explaining himself fully, bearing in mind that like all members of the policeforce, he is a public servant. When servants step over the line they must be brought to heel or dismissed.
Got it?


When the murder of one presages the murder of billions

20.10.2005 19:05


Have you heard of the arrest of ANYBODY responsible for disseminating any of the thousands of lies about the execution in the days that followed???

In the UK, knowing the truth about ANY of Blair's activities gets you immediately arrested or worse.

The import of this fact is simple. Indymedia, and other places are flooded by Blair's New Reich goons challenging articles with the black propaganda technique of demanding an impossible 'kind' of proof that only intimates of Blair would have access to. The same individuals, of course, were at the forefront of promoting the lies about the execution as a justification for the act.

However, when an 'insider' leaks EXACTLY that kind of 'proof', Blair's goons have that person immediately taken out in a blaze of publicity, putting the fear of god into other people who have precise details about Blair's crimes, and a growing fear to reveal that information to us.

(Hear it comes again) In Nazi Germany, many, many people had access to the precise details of the crimes carried out by the regime. Significant numbers of these people were unhappy enough to want to make the German public aware of what was happening in their name. Hitler's goons constantly reassured the German people that rumours of atrocities were lies, and the people spreading these stories were scum, because if true, they would give 'proof' (see above). At the same time, those people with that kind of 'proof' had it made clear to them that ANY attempt to provide this 'proof' would attract the most severe of penalties.

1) Blair executes an innocent man in the most vile and wicked way possible.
2) Blair's Mass Media outlets all carry the same lies justifying the murder, and actually 'PROVE' why such executions are a GOOD and necessary thing, and would be happening more often in the future.
3) Indymedia, and other sites are flooded with people defending the execution ON THE LOGIC OF FACTS THAT WERE ENTIRELY FALSE
4) An insider leaks the TRUE details of the execution.
5) Not one Mass Media outlet gives the true story a fraction of the coverage that the lie received
6) Indymedia, and other sites are flooded with people that STATE that the truth MUST be ignored, until Blair finishes fixing his investigation.
7) The woman that leaked the information is brutally arrested, and all people with inside information about Blair's operations warned that ANY attempt to reveal that data to the public will result in the most horrific consequences for them and their family.

Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are condemned to relive them.

When a serial murderer kills, the specific act is irrelevant compared to the fact that the person is prepared to go out and kill over and over, and maintain a lifestyle that makes this possible, and minimises the likelyhood of his detection.

The same is true of Blair, and was true of Hitler. While people are caught up thinking about any specific act of Blair, they miss the big picture, and that is all Blair needs to succeed in his plans. When a politician has the mind of a serial killer, detection DOES NOT occur because we witness any particular act. Only the analysis of a pattern of behaviour will allow us to determine the intentions of such a monster.

For a monster such as Blair, having snuffed out 300,000+ lives in the invasion of Iraq, maybe a million+ during the sanctions he maintained with manufactured lies, several dozen deaths in London, or hundreds in Moscow, or thousands in New York are nothing to him, just an obvious maens to an end. But where in the history of the Human Race is this at all extraordinary. Which leaders of the past would NOT have destoryed a building full of people if they 1) would gain some great advantage, and 2) would get away with it???

Why are people so naive. UK ex-leaders alive during Blair's life had burnt whole cities to the ground, having first trapped their civilian populations within them. Thatcher (the DARK John-the Baptist to the anti-christ Blair) even erected a statue to 'bomber' Harris, the military head of the city extermination program.

Of course, today Blair's goons control the teaching of history, informing the young that WW2 was about the crimes of Hitler's "death camps". This despite the fact that not ONE allied military action during the war was designed to help the people threatened by those camps, and that actually those that attempted to inform the ALLIED public of the truth about Hitler's acts were ruthlessly supressed. (Imagine the scenario in today's terms- people attempt to get the word out on Indymedia, and the usual goons say "prove it" and "conspiracy theory nuts- ignore them"- and "if it were true, don't you thing some of those involved would have said by now")

Our recent past allows Blair to use the most disgusting methods, safe in the knowledge that they are as visible as a scratch on an old desk. It is not so much the 'means' but the 'end' that we should be paying attention to. You may feel cynical about the crimes that most politicians seem to get away with, but history PROVES that not every politician is the same, regardless of the similar methods they have access to. When a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Ghengis Khan is arising, you had better pray that such a person is spotted early, and prevented from reaching their potential. On this basis, you really won't hear about the ones that forces in history stopped in time. However, you may well be given the opportunity to stop one in your own time and circumstances. Blair is a monster to end all monsters, and all we seem to do is passively watch as the worst history imaginable is played out before us.


A Challenge

21.10.2005 09:48


You state:


Please substantiate this.

1. Who was arrested and how do you know it was on Blair's direct instructions
2. What is this incotravertable evidence that she gave us

You then go on to claim that "Indymedia, and other places are flooded by Blair's New Reich goons challenging articles with the black propaganda technique of demanding an impossible 'kind' of proof that only intimates of Blair would have access to."

Well I'd love you to show how Magoo, Sceptic, Pete, Zorro, Boab and I are all goons or spooks. Do share your evidence with us.

In order for any argument to be taken seriously, it is necessary for the accuser to lay out his case; evidence, corroboration, and so forth. We then weigh this up - assess the likely veracity of that evidence, the reliability of the witness, etc - before coming to a decision. Yet you claim that no evidence exists to support your hypotheses, as far as I can tell because those involved in the acts have concealed them almost utterly. How then, can we consider or accept your argument? We have nothing specific to test it against. No objective yardstick by which to measure the case.

Most tellingly, how did you arrive at so certain conclusions in the absence of evidence?

I'd love to think that you would respond to this, but you will not or can not - I suspect the latter. Whenever challenged to prove your spam, you clam up.

The challange remains; put up, or shut up.


They don't shoot politicians, do they?

21.10.2005 12:32

A while back big media had news that video footage of the 7/7 'al-qaeda' style suicide bombers had been released by the authorities. Did anyone notice that the pictures shown were not new, but the same ones from 7/7 (as opposed to the practice run)?

What is the scoop on how the 7/7 bombers visiting Afghanistan/Pakistan story was nothing more than yet another hoax, allegedly based on a single easily discreditable source?
Has anyone noticed how nobody cares? Out of the people that really believe Messrs. Blair, Murdoch et al., why aren't any of them going to Afghanistan to root out the evil Osama bin Laden, hopefully to claim $25 million for their troubles and bring on a victory in 'The War Against Terrorism'?

Although Indymedia has allowed for dissent from official events, the site has lacked contributions from those actually present at 7/7 style ‘strategy of tension’ spectacles. In a world of lies and a war fought more on our own streets than in some far off cave, the truth regarding events can be glimpsed only if the likes of Indymedia can get more eye witness accounts of 'Blair-crimes'.

As for 'bounty hunting' and the $25 million offered for the fearsome bloke in a cave (dead or alive), Indymedia readers should feel free to post their own obits for notables - e.g. the Blairs (Ian and the other one) - and what the tariff was, e.g. 'accessory to genocide', 'murder', 'manslaughter', 'treason', 'conspiracy', 'fraud', 'deception', 'breach of the peace' - you can tick the boxes, however evidence has to be presented as non-sensationally as possible, with dignity and decency afforded. When an obit has been posted, other readers could then take part in the peer review by adding comments.
It should not take too long for consensus to emerge, whatever that might be. There could be lily livered liberals wanting to let the evil wrong-doers off. Then there are those sticklers that insist on the law being obeyed, punishments carried out to the letter. As it happens, for 'treason', just so long as the country is at war (and it is, remember 'The War Against Terrorism'), then the tariff is capital, i.e. 'decapitation' in the 'Sunday Best' language of our great leaders. So, what constitutes treason? Lying to the people so as to take the country to war, at great expense to the taxpayer, anyone? Aren’t the media operatives guilty of that one too?

Fantasy bounty hunting for politicians on Indymedia and on the streets of London might arouse suspicion from the authorities, but their laws no longer matter. Many individuals, with names and addresses, have participated in getting from September 11 2001 to the escalated game of today. Consequently, many of them face a people and buildings problem. It is no big deal, just that they are the wrong people in the wrong buildings at the wrong time. They pre-occupy themselves with being in parliaments and other grand institutions. They should be in prison instead, and that is that, they will just have to lump it.
One option for escape is the Mental Health Act. For the convenience of our great leaders and their numerous foot soldiers, pleas of insanity could be entertained, the result – Blairs in Broadmoor! To avoid heads on spikes scenarios (should they arrive during the Pentagon's 'Global Strike 2006') they could throw in the towel early, get two doctors and a psychiatrist to get them assessed and safely locked away. They could still see their families, and their assets could be retrieved by 'the government' to pay for their rehabilitation treatment, maybe with the surplus invested in trust with the Kabul University Fund. They could atone, maybe with a life dedicated to removing mines from minefields, returning to society 're-born' once the job is a good one.

That is another weird aspect of the current conflict, how many of ‘the adversary’ has some playing-God fixation. From time to time Mr Blair goes all Messiah on the world with crusades to eradicate scars of poverty, then Mr Bush (Junior) comes across as on a mission from God, and his Dad is probably the real 'Holy Ghost'. (That is real as in real-IRA, by the way.) The titter in big media regarding the spiritual worlds of our great leaders seems to focus on 'God' (whomever that could be) instead of the Christian teachings. Funny that. They spurn the mythically true stories of the Bible in favour of superstitious nonsense regarding an all-powerful sky-God. This is last refuge of a scoundrel territory – they desperately seek explanation for their criminality as if it could all make perfect sense in the context of some as-yet-to-be-clearly-revealed 'Biblical Master-plan'. All I can say is: “Woe unto you that are full! For ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep.”

Empathise with the high stakes fear of the politicians. Although no remorse has been shown, in their hearts they all know that they have fallen. It is a known known. A voice inside seeks mercy, but in the current circumstance none of them can reach out. They are not strong enough, and besides the lies have gotten out of hand to such an extent that they no longer live in the real world. It has gone horribly ‘Lord of the Flies’ and that is it, the end, there will be no ways and customs of the ‘Revolutionary Kingdom of God’ for them.

But what of the rest (in public life)? They have stood on the sidelines, presumably freaked out with post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by the violence of the New World Order. Somehow some have cottoned on to some of the more perplexing issues of our age yet done nowt about it, passing by on the other side and betraying themselves in the process. One year they will snap out of it, start to articulate the conviction and stop standing shoulder to shoulder with terrorist-finger-pointing-politicians. This will happen, people get bored of staying mum with important facts, even ‘important’ people.


Previous Post

21.10.2005 13:12

New poster, so excuse me if I'm off-beam here.

Twilight is wrong. The national curriculum in England & Wales (don't know about the rest of the UK) makes quite clear that the Second World War was a result of a basket of related issues such as the harsh Versailles Treaty conditions, resulting economic depression in Germany, and so on. There is no suggestion, as far as I am aware, that it was to do with the Final Solution. I'd be interested to see what his source for this is.

Trainee Teacher