THE family of the Brazilian man shot dead by marksmen who mistook him for a suicide bomber revealed last night how police have changed their account of the incident. Yet again.
Many of us have followed closely the lies, disinformation and propaganda that have been vomited by Metropolitan Police and the British government following the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
These have ranged from:
1) publicly stating in a press conference that the man they had shot was directly linked to terrorism, even though they didn’t actually possess any credible evidence to support that statement whatsoever. The only link Mr Menezes had to alleged terrorists was entirely indirect, tenuous and purely speculative, presumptuous and circumstantial, i.e. he was living in a very large council block, where several dozen people apparently lived. One of the flats (through documents retrieved from the rucksacks) had a possible link to one or more of the unexploded rucksacks from the 21st July. Hardly grounds for authorising a shoot to kill policy of anyone, let alone neighbours of the flat, innocent bystanders, without not just a trial, but the most rudimentary questioning or investigation.
2) maintaining that pretence, even going as far as to tell his family when they came to view the body that they had shot him because he had been a terrorist. It seems from the moment he was pursued for nearly an hour as he travelled to Stockwell tube station, to the moment he was shot and in the immediate aftermath, Mr Menezes was “guilty until proven innocent”. Not that they needed to, even when his family had proven him innocent, statements were still being released by the Met, insisting the man was a terrorist.
3) claiming repeatedly that the police shouted warnings to stop, even though not a single, independent eye-witness out of dozens of people at the tube station recall hearing any of the armed men identify themselves as police officers. One witness who was even standing nearby as Mr Menezes was pursued by the armed officers on the train platform, has clearly and unequivocally stated that he didn’t hear any of the men identify themselves, those being the closing seconds of Mr Menezes life.
4) lying and claiming that Mr Menezes was wearing a bulky coat and releasing statements and other imbecilic briefings to the press that it was felt that the victim was wearing suspiciously heavy and unseasonably warm clothing, that may have hidden a suicide bomb, and made him look threatening. Now his family have had the chance to view and examine his body and he is now in the process of being flown home, the police are now retracting this statement (although they’re not going out of their way to release press briefings about that!), informing a cousin of Mr Menezes that he was only wearing “a lightweight denim jacket”. (The Times, July 28, 2005).
5) lying and imbecilically claiming that Mr Menezes “vaulted the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube station” again, even as if that could possibly justify murdering the man in cold-blood. But again, police now say that “he used his travelcard to gain access to the station“ (The Times, July 28, 2005). Again, they’re not going out of their way to release press briefings about that.
In a kind of related matter, BBC News are today reporting the outrageous demands of a Birmingham MP (one of Blair’s cronies and henchmen) who has called for the chairman of the city's Central Mosque to resign after he said the government could not be trusted.
The Chairman of the Mosque has made a perfectly valid point. It is Kahlid Mahmood (MP for Perry Bar) superannuated fat-cat and betrayer of the Muslim community who should resign.
Tony Blair HAS lied [and continues to lie] over Iraq.
Indeed, it is more than clear that the police, in doing the governments bidding, are not to be trusted either.
Countless millions of ordinary men and woman, many organisations (including Britain’s own intelligence service, MI5) warned that launching this illegal war of aggression against Iraq in defiance of the international community and the United Nations would make Britain a target for terrorism. MI5 continue to remind us of that and have admitted that the London bombings and Iraq are linked.
When will that get through Blair’s pig-headed skin?
MI5 analysts admit link between Iraq war and bombings
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711093,00.html
Brazilian's family claim police altered their story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711303,00.html
Call for mosque chairman to quit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4723731.stm
These have ranged from:
1) publicly stating in a press conference that the man they had shot was directly linked to terrorism, even though they didn’t actually possess any credible evidence to support that statement whatsoever. The only link Mr Menezes had to alleged terrorists was entirely indirect, tenuous and purely speculative, presumptuous and circumstantial, i.e. he was living in a very large council block, where several dozen people apparently lived. One of the flats (through documents retrieved from the rucksacks) had a possible link to one or more of the unexploded rucksacks from the 21st July. Hardly grounds for authorising a shoot to kill policy of anyone, let alone neighbours of the flat, innocent bystanders, without not just a trial, but the most rudimentary questioning or investigation.
2) maintaining that pretence, even going as far as to tell his family when they came to view the body that they had shot him because he had been a terrorist. It seems from the moment he was pursued for nearly an hour as he travelled to Stockwell tube station, to the moment he was shot and in the immediate aftermath, Mr Menezes was “guilty until proven innocent”. Not that they needed to, even when his family had proven him innocent, statements were still being released by the Met, insisting the man was a terrorist.
3) claiming repeatedly that the police shouted warnings to stop, even though not a single, independent eye-witness out of dozens of people at the tube station recall hearing any of the armed men identify themselves as police officers. One witness who was even standing nearby as Mr Menezes was pursued by the armed officers on the train platform, has clearly and unequivocally stated that he didn’t hear any of the men identify themselves, those being the closing seconds of Mr Menezes life.
4) lying and claiming that Mr Menezes was wearing a bulky coat and releasing statements and other imbecilic briefings to the press that it was felt that the victim was wearing suspiciously heavy and unseasonably warm clothing, that may have hidden a suicide bomb, and made him look threatening. Now his family have had the chance to view and examine his body and he is now in the process of being flown home, the police are now retracting this statement (although they’re not going out of their way to release press briefings about that!), informing a cousin of Mr Menezes that he was only wearing “a lightweight denim jacket”. (The Times, July 28, 2005).
5) lying and imbecilically claiming that Mr Menezes “vaulted the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube station” again, even as if that could possibly justify murdering the man in cold-blood. But again, police now say that “he used his travelcard to gain access to the station“ (The Times, July 28, 2005). Again, they’re not going out of their way to release press briefings about that.
In a kind of related matter, BBC News are today reporting the outrageous demands of a Birmingham MP (one of Blair’s cronies and henchmen) who has called for the chairman of the city's Central Mosque to resign after he said the government could not be trusted.
The Chairman of the Mosque has made a perfectly valid point. It is Kahlid Mahmood (MP for Perry Bar) superannuated fat-cat and betrayer of the Muslim community who should resign.
Tony Blair HAS lied [and continues to lie] over Iraq.
Indeed, it is more than clear that the police, in doing the governments bidding, are not to be trusted either.
Countless millions of ordinary men and woman, many organisations (including Britain’s own intelligence service, MI5) warned that launching this illegal war of aggression against Iraq in defiance of the international community and the United Nations would make Britain a target for terrorism. MI5 continue to remind us of that and have admitted that the London bombings and Iraq are linked.
When will that get through Blair’s pig-headed skin?
MI5 analysts admit link between Iraq war and bombings
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711093,00.html Brazilian's family claim police altered their story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1711303,00.html Call for mosque chairman to quit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4723731.stm
Comments
Hide the following 24 comments
MI5
28.07.2005 10:59
Sorry, are we allowed to believe MI5 again now?
chatterton
More conspiracy twaddle
28.07.2005 11:13
1. The police didn't say that the man they had shot was linked to terrorism. They said that the man they had shot was linked to their investigation into the terrorism, which he was, due to his connection with the building apparently used by the terrorists. There is an important distinction.
2. The police never said they had shot anyone because they were a terrorist. They said they'd shot someone they suspected of being a terrorist. They were wrong. What's important is not whether they were right or wrong, but whether that suspicion was reasonable and whether the police should be empowered to kill when they have reasonable suspicion. No-one knows the answer to the reasonableness of the suspicion but I'm sure it'll come out in the IPCC investigation and if necessary in court. It's likely that members of the public sitting as a jury will have to make a decision on that. As for the shoot to kill policy, many people argue that it's necessary to counter suicide bombers that are a threat we clearly face. The wisdom of that policy is a separate matter from the ability of individual officers to 100% make a correct decision in the heat of the moment.
3. The assertion that no witnesses that you have heard from have corroborated the police's story that they warned the man to stop doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Besides, their stated policy ("Operation Kratos") is that they do not warn in these situations. Again, you might disagree with that policy, but that's a different matter from claiming the police said they did something which they didn't. It appears that the chase started well before the tube station so that the fact that no-one in the tube station heard a warning doesn't mean that one wasn't given elsewhere. People who witnesses the start of the chase are quite welcome to contact the IPCC, make public statements and if necessary, come to court to say what they saw and heard. Given that we all accept that there was a chase over some distance, isn't it implicit from that that the police desired the man to stop and he had the opportunity to do so?
4. All the statements about Mr de Menezes's dress and behaviour have come from the conflicting reports of eye witnesses that the various corporate media were quite happy to run as "unverified" reports in the immediate wake of the shooting. The police have not made any statements about this. Indeed, eye witness reports that they saw an "Asian" man that clearly do not correspond with reality should make you somewhat circumspect about putting too much credibility on instant reaction by witnesses relayed through the media rather than considered, sworn statements made later.
5. The claim that he "vaulted the ticket barriers" was also made by eye witnesses, but not by the police.
Dr Mohammed Naseem, chair of Birmingham Central Mosque, said he believed the four dead 7/7 suspects were innocent victims who had been accused due to their race or their faith. He believes it's more likely that they would have met up at Luton early in the morning and then been killed two hours later in four separate incidents than the somewhat more plausible explanation that they were the cause of the explosions. Which do you believe? More's the point, do you think Dr Naseem's statements which are based on a highly improbable and prejudiced view of the facts as we know them are more or less likely to influence his Muslim followers to hate British society and British institutions and do something nasty about it?
You then go on to argue that Britain has launched an illegal and aggressive war and that Tony Blair lied over WMD. I agree with your political assessment of the war, your judgement about Blair's truthfulness in that matter and the assertion that the Iraq war made Britain more likely to be a target of terrorism. I just don't see how that leads you to a conclusion that the police are doing the government's bidding by investigating the terrorism that has occurred as a result, however incompetent they may have been in the case of the Stockwell shooting.
Zorro
pig skin
28.07.2005 11:28
well i say Blair doesn't really care. He has the power to do what the fuck he likes and he will continue to do what he likes and no-one can get in his way.
sean
Correction
28.07.2005 11:48
"4. All the statements about Mr de Menezes's dress and behaviour have come from the conflicting reports of eye witnesses that the various corporate media were quite happy to run as "unverified" reports in the immediate wake of the shooting. The police have not made any statements about this.."
According to the Times, a Met statement said:
"He was then followed by surveillance officers to the station. His clothing and his behaviour at the station added to their suspicions."
IHT says the same:
proof reader
To be specific...
28.07.2005 12:35
As it should be: "All the _specific_ statements about Mr de Menezes's dress and behaviour..."
The police did say they were suspicious about his dress and behaviour. They didn't say anything specific about what exactly aroused their suspicions. All the comments about his "bulky" and "unseasonal" coat and others about "wires hanging out" and a "bomb belt", not to mention the reports of an "Asian man" have come apparently from witnesses as relayed through corporate media.
The IPCC investigation will of course ask the police to be specific about what aroused their suspicions. If the case comes to court, a jury of citizens will decide whether those suspicions are reasonable and convict or aquit the officers accordingly.
I still don't see anything that supports the assertion that the police have lied about this, or that shooting suspected suicide bombers is an unreasonable policy in the circumstances. The fact that the police clearly made a tragic mistake in this case doesn't change these principles which I believe in but you're quite welcome to disagree with if you don't.
Zorro
Zorro is a troll
28.07.2005 14:19
"5. The claim that he "vaulted the ticket barriers" was also made by eye witnesses, but not by the police."
The times article linked to above states specifically:
"Detectives also claimed immediately after the shooting that Mr Menezes had refused to heed shouted warnings by armed police and vaulted the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube station."
I'm going to assume that the rest of your refutations are lies as well, I think your comment should be removed since it breaches indymedia editorial guidelines.
Newswire Open Posting Guidelines
articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
..
Inaccurate : posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
..
mark
...
28.07.2005 14:41
The fact that Blair lied about Iraq and many many other things doesn't mean to say any poor sod in the plod is some sort of brownshirt. You'd be surprised at the amount of plods who don't like politicians anymore than we do- they are after all tax paying people with families just like the rest of us. How often do people like the posters like to cite instancies when police chiefs have told Downing Street to stick their stupid legislation up their arses (a.k.a.- "unworkable")
Group psychology 101:
The world of bigotry is a the last refuge for the scared. In a bigotted world, an identity is formed by congretgating around shared hate figures to whom all ills can be conveniently ascribed:
"It wasn't anarchists that smashed that window. It was Special Branch or MI5"
Nothing more insightful that infantile egoncentric paranoia. Step outside and face the real world where things are often a lot more complex, bizarre and downright absurd than anything you'll read on infowars.com.
The real world'll thankfully ever fit into to any bigot's paradigm.
magoo
Censor all trolls, liars and anyone that disagrees with IMC groupthink!
28.07.2005 15:12
To go from one small inaccuracy to assuming that I must be lying, and to go from there also to assume that my entire post(s) must be lies shows a characteristic lack of logic about this whole matter. Conveniently, it means you don't have to address any of my other points and your call for my posts to be hidden just shows you to be highly uncomfortable about anything that challenges your prejudices. Ironic, really, on a site that prides itself on challenging prejudice, distortions, lies and manufactured opinion. Like the original poster, you seem to make huge jumps of faithlessness from Blair lied about WMD (which I believe myself) to the Met have lied about Mr Menezes and have tried to justify their actions by besmirching his good name.
Nothing could be further from the truth. They admitted their mistake as soon as it became known and quite properly stopped talking about the facts of the situation other than the outcome which we all know, for fear of prejudicing a possible trial. I don't see anything wrong with any of that, and if the case comes to court, which it is likely to, people who were there can give evidence and material evidence like CCTV can be used to show what happened.
Whether or not he vaulted the ticket barriers is really quite immaterial. The police haven't claimed that they shot him because they thought he was fare dodging, and the various bombers presumably bought tickets which didn't make any difference to their intent.
I'm happy to accept that the police made an honest mistake. I'm happy to accept that the police were murderously getting their jollies shooting up innocent commuters if there's any evidence to support that. But right now, there isn't. Calling me a troll and a liar doesn't help your argument, nor does any of this have much bearing on whether or not shooting suspected suicide bombers is a good policy. Clearly if it is the policy, it has to be done with the utmost care. Whether or not that was the case here will depend on the full facts, which we don't have, and can't infer from pulling together scraps from a few news stories.
Zorro
Not enough Facts?
28.07.2005 15:30
Aah - now that the "facts" you presented prove to bollocks, we suddenly don't have enough facts to infer anything.
Well, in that case STFU till you DO have all the facts!!!
Factually challenged
We have some of the facts...
28.07.2005 16:07
However, I have argued that we don't have enough facts to decide whether the police's suspicion of De Menezes was reasonable or not. So we need to reserve judgement on that matter until we do. The original poster, many others and you seem to have decided that you already have all the facts you need: simply that the police have shot someone and that is always wrong. I hope you don't think I'm splitting hairs if I say that life is somewhat more complicated than that. At least, mine is.
The points I raised weren't proved to be bollocks. They were all uncontested apart from one, which I admit was mistaken but doesn't change the material argument about whether this is a police cover-up one way or another.
I'll make up my own mind whether to STFU, if it's all the same to you. By all means do likewise.
Oh, and have some exclamation marks!!!
Zorro
Nick, nick... nick,nick... nick,nick... nick,nick...
28.07.2005 16:58
nick, nick... nick,nick... nick,nick... nick,nick...
Skyver Bill
Oh yes they did !
28.07.2005 17:15
I was in Holland and we have the Beeb on cable I had BBC world up and running while I was working on
my computer. The BBC reported pretty much what the above article stated.
Then Bliar (the cop) came on and said that dead man was definitely linked to their investigations and there was no choice but to to bump him off. The BBC repeatedly stated that the guy had come out of a flat, this varied from entrance to block of flats, had been wearing a heavy coat that he was chased into the station and jumped the barrier and that he had tried to get on a train.
They then wheeled out the usual dimbo experts so they could be asked the usual dimbo questions and of course came up with the usual dimbo conclusions and these were that the police had no choice but to take this extremely dangerous terrorist out. They repeated basically the same shite all day.
When it was clear that the dead guy was not a bomber they watered down all their reports.
I seem to remember that their was heated debate hear on IMC and most of this shit was trashed out up and down using the police verson all the excuses that they had given in about 200 comments on three or four articles. and now according to Zorro at least they didn't actually make the claims.
I reckon if Zzzzzz wishes it he could say that the guy never really got shot and the bombers were just a pigment of IMC's amalgamation INNIT
sorrow
Lies, lies and more lies
28.07.2005 17:25
They wrongly asumed he was Asian and police plainly stated on July 22nd, that he was shot for disobeying orders. Obedience or death is the law.
The officers pusuing him were in plain clothes, for all Jean Menezes knew, they were muggers, it's pity they weren't, he would still be alive!
Mugger
Focus Is Interesting
28.07.2005 17:53
I refer you to "The 25 Tactics of Disinformation" ...
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
One small innacuracy?
28.07.2005 17:58
You've shown that your arguments are unreliable, since you haven't even bothered to read the article linked to in the original post. If I wanted to read some unquestioning cheerleading for authority, blatantly unsupported by the facts, then I'd pop out and buy a copy of The Sun.
mark
Shooting to Kill
28.07.2005 20:25
The things is, chaps, that in London the situation has got so critical that police shot an unarmed innocent man eight times in the head. You're doing some interesting research which probably no-one else is bothering to do, and your friends are probably bored of hearing about it, and as a result you are having to argue the toss over the net, instead of with each other over a pint. So things get partisan and debate becomes oppositional.
There should be an IMC reach out & sup club.
XXXXX
z
Police DEFINITLY said bloke was wearing suspicious bulky jacket & jumped barrier
28.07.2005 20:53
Recently re-affirmed in today's Guardian:
"Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop."
Anyone who seeks to suggest the police didn't supply the media with these comments, are clearly simply seeking to disseminate delusory propaganda.
Timothy
Focus Is Interesting
28.07.2005 21:05
Don't Fall for the PsyOps
Oh no they didn't...
29.07.2005 06:56
No they didn't. One bloke on the train did. The same one bloke who everyone on Indymedia quotes chapter and verse when they want to cast the police in a bad light.
A
Police, psyops etc
29.07.2005 09:50
I don't think we need to try to show the police in a bad light, they do a good job of that themselves.
The question for the left is, can the police be shown to have acted culpably recklessly in this case? They've certainly not helped by propagating (or at least not clearly dissassociating themselves from) stories about jackets, jumping barriers etc before the actual facts are revealed. It's not even clear who fed the media the visa story - or even whether it is true. It would only explain why the guy ran, but we don't know what happened to make him run.
I don't think we can argue with the need to shoot people dead if it looks like they're going to blow themselves up, murdering lots of people with them. We do need to know, though, on what basis the police are going to decide to shoot, and to judge whether or not that seems reasonable. In this case, did the police do everything they could have done to avoid a lethal situation developing, even by accident?
What we don't need are people of unknown provenance attempting to divert us from these crucial questions into made up bullshit, that can only discredit the left and the questions the left should be asking.
chatterton
At last, some pertinent common sense
29.07.2005 10:47
The situation about his visa has now been confirmed by the Home Office. Make of it what you will.
I've got no idea how disciplined the Met's media relations are. (This may surprise some people that think I work for the Met's media relations.) Clearly it would be in their interests to filter everything through the press office and ban anyone except senior officers from talking directly to the media. That way we would get the definitive view of the organisation, rather than Copper A said this, Copper B said that.
I'm sure opinions will vary on why this doesn't seem to have been the case in this situation.
Zorro
Dearie Me
29.07.2005 19:36
Mate, I think you're overestimating your/our own importance here.
Boab
Needed - honest journalists - apply within
30.07.2005 08:37
It seems increasingly likely that the witnesses who saw someone in a "heavy jacket" "vaulting the ticket barrier" actually saw police with jackets covering their bulletproof vests jumping over the barrier to catch up with Mr Menezes (who is now admitted to have used his travelcard to access the station). That is possibly what the CCTV discloses, and would explain why it has not been released to calm fears that the police had taken extremely inappropriate action. If there was evidence that Mr Menzes was fleeing from police by jumping over the ticket barrier, it would certainly have been released by now.
What is needed is the greatest pressure to ensure the transparency of the independent investigation. Blair's comments this week, attacking judges over their verdict on administrative detentions, are no doubt fuelled in part by the government's concern that everyone should line up behind New Labour and submit to their dictate on questions like this. Honest journalists should keep close to this investigation and be alert to the pressures that will be applied by the government to conceal the truth.
Not a Labour Voter
oh yes they did and whats your game anyway ?
31.07.2005 23:22
29.07.2005 07:56
"They [the police] wrongly asumed he was Asian"
No they didn't. One bloke on the train did. The same one bloke who everyone on Indymedia quotes chapter and verse when they want to cast the police in a bad light.
A
Freedom of speech
30.07.2005 07:58
I believe in freedom of speech, but only when it is correctly spelt.
Alec
Same old same old...
29.07.2005 07:22
You know, it's just possible that some witnessess wanted to talk to the police but not the media...
A ?
If the name fits
30.07.2005 23:52
I must say I am proud of the label of 'Frustrated Civil Servant' (bollocks, I am a soap-dodging student!). Like Groucho, I would not want to be a member of a club which wanted me as a member.
Alec
Eidetic memories
30.07.2005 23:57
==> However the comment that he doesn't remember a bag being where the bomb went off seems fairly meaningless to me. It's not as if you get onto a train and remember the presence and location of every person and every bag.
He could do if he were to suffer from advanced Asperger's. Then again, he might not have been too keen to talk to the cameras.
Alec
Eh?
29.07.2005 10:28
I am not sure about the tone of this erudite piece? Is the focus of it's ire talkative 'eye-witnesses' holding up "hello, mum" cards, or is the implication that MI6 and space aliens blew-up the No. 30 because Lord Lucan and Shegar were on board?
Alec
delinquenti di Sinistra