Tonight:
5°c
Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has been accused of "rewriting history" over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Sir Ian, 56, who retired last year after being forced out by Mayor Boris Johnson, writes in his book Policing Controversy that he made some mistakes during his term - including the de Menezes affair - an incident that fuelled claims of a police cover-up.
In his book he praises the two officers who shot the Brazilian saying: "Given what they thought they were dealing with in running towards and getting within a few feet of a suspected suicide bomber... [they] should have been awarded the George Medal."
Mr de Menezes' family said: "It feels like Sir Ian is attempting to rewrite history and exonerate himself, when he presided over a range of incompetencies."
Reader views (12)
Philip, Carrickfergus. What uneducated nonsense. If you want to know the type of characters in the employ of the Metropolitan Police, and the trigger happy attitudes. Just search YOUTUBE for 'metropolitan police shooting' you will see a Met officer shooting and laughing as his 'friend' screams in pain.
I certainly didn't do anything to deserve policing like that. My final say is that until the Police are held accountable for their actions, we will have the policing we currently have, a FORCE that really does operate with impunity above the law.
- Mark Andrews, London, 20/10/2009 12:01
Report abuse
Mike, again I reinterate: SO19 have the final decision as to whether or not to shoot. A man wearing jeans and a denim shirt (untucked) with no bags sitting reading the newspaper does not match the description of a suicide bomber intent on blowing up a train. The police training teaches them to recognise such situations and avoid killing innocent people. The briefing of the officers was seriously flawed as it hyped them up so much they would have shot anyone that was pointed out - maybe even you if you happened to be on the same train. There are very serious questions which you sweep easily under the carpet; why was he identified as a suspect? The police had been following him for at least 20 minutes and had many opportunities to confirm he was not carrying a bomb. He was NOT wearing a bulky jacket (as detailed by Blair), he was not acting suspiciously (as claimed by Blair), he did not run from police (as claimed by Blair). Supporting the police does not entail unblinkered acceptance of one the biggest mistakes made by the Met police. The whole operation was flawed from the start by officers wanting to impress politicians instead of carrying out their duties in line with their training. Politics and policing do not mix, the results are disasterous.
- Dannyp, Egham, 20/10/2009 08:05
Report abuse
Escobar,
Did or did not JCdM's passport obtain a counterfiet remain to leave stamp at some point between enetring the UK and the day he was shot?
I thought that fact had been established in court, which would then negate his entitlement to be in the UK! If the Irish, Mr Roach, official who had been at the trial was at the inquest he would have confirmed that.
- Mark, South-East London, South East Londom, 19/10/2009 21:30
Report abuse
What exactly are you supposed to say, if anything at all, to a man who you suspect is a suicide bomber? "Excuse me old chap, do you mind if you don't blow me up?". They believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber and did exactly what their training taught them to do.
- Mike, Herts, 19/10/2009 17:03
Report abuse
Before everyone gets too carried away with slagging down Philip, Carrickfergus, try, just for a change, to remember that he only has so much space the lay out a comment. It is, of necessity, going to be abbreviated.
He was in error about the legal residency - ok, point that out & move on. Don't throw the rest of his comment, like the proverbial baby, out with the bathwater!
Accusing the police of murder and execution is inflammatory, emotive and just wrong. Even saying it is morally so is hardly reflective of all pertinent information of the events in question. Everyone goes on & on about how the witnesses didn't hear any instructions to the man. Like just about everyone else commenting here I wasn't there at the time. What I do know, however, is that witness reliability in moments of extreme stress is considered to be sketchy at best (not merely an opinion, but quoting people who are involved in these things for a living!) and is frequently consensus rather than a personal recall - which is what the police are being accused of, if you care to remember, only they are accused of doing it deliberately by the foaming at the mouth brigade.
Everyone, me included, is going to stick with their own perceptions on the incident. Nothing is going to change. No matter whose preferred version of the events is recorded for posterity, others are going to accuse them of revising history. It's an all too human response to something that was an unfortunate tragedy.
- Rogan, Irving, 19/10/2009 16:56
Report abuse
Philip, check your facts. Jean Charles was clearly not running away from the police when he was murdered. I support the police and think they generally do a good job, but the penalty for their mistakes should not be my or someone else's death.
- Chris, London, 19/10/2009 15:47
Report abuse
Philip of Carrickfergus,
What chance did Menezes ever have to 'stop and comply with police'. You have outrageously distorted the facts. If you were quietly minding your own business and suddenly confronted by screaming men pointing guns at you, wouldn't you be just a little alarmed? He was, he blinked, and he was shot. Much of the rest of what you say may be right - but the true fact is that this poor man never had a chance. How right is that????
- Keith, London, 19/10/2009 15:27
Report abuse
Menezezes was never given a chance to comply before he was "executed" ... independent witnesses, ie other tube passengers, said they never heard anyone shout "police". If he had been given the chance to comply, but didn't, perhaps the inquest jury's verdict would have been lawful killing rather than an open verdict. Also, he wasn't here illegally, although even if he had been, that's still no excuse to shoot seven bullets at point-blank range into an innocent man.
- Philly, Ipswich, 19/10/2009 15:03
Report abuse
Philip, you may wish to acquaint yourself with some of the facts in this case. At no point during his trip to the underground station was JC de Menezes challenged by the police. His normal route was unavailable as the police had closed the station, so he boarded a bus to Stockwell station (this was apparently interpretted as "suspicious"). He calmly walked into the station, paid using his Oyster card, picked up a free paper and sat down on the train reading this paper. So where did he not comply with the police?
I support appropriate police action. This case stinks of politically motivated senior officers wanting to deliver a "head on a plate" during a terrorist alert. If the police had been more professional this would never have happened. There were many failings throughout but the main driving force is the officer in charge; who has since been promoted! Also SO19 have full authority to not shoot if the situation does not require it. They failed to assess the situation before firing. For that reason the truth must be publicised so that it doesn't happen to you when you are minding your own business and reading the paper on a train on a sunny morning.
- Dannyp, Egham, 19/10/2009 13:22
Report abuse
Philip, Carrickfurgus, YOU ARE WRONG.
Jean Charles de Menezes was in the UK LEGALLY. It was in Sir Michael Wright's opening statement at the inquest. September 22nd, Page 51 Lines 24 & 25, Page 52 Lines 1 to 12. It's in the public domain, go there, read it and educate yourself.
He, JCdM, did not ignore an order to stop. None was given. He did not run away from the Police, they did not even identify themselves. He did not jump the barriers, he was not wearing bulky clothing.
Educate yourself Philip, and others that trot out the same old myths, and then feel free to come back here and apologise publically.
- Escobar A-Lop-Lop, Camden County, 19/10/2009 13:17
Report abuse
The price to pay for living in a free country is that someone could walk on to a train or bus and set off a bomb. The alternative (which we have) is that the authorities kill people just in case.
The police have my support, but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Nobody should be allowed to kill someone without proof that they are an immediate danger to others - not just because they think they might be.
The cover up isn't the main issue with the de Menezes case, but it does provide some sort of acknowledgement of culpability on the part of the police. Blindly supporting anyone, regardless of the generally good job of tough work they may do, is dangerous.
- Gavin, London, UK, 19/10/2009 13:04
Report abuse
Menezes had the chance to stop and comply with police, hr didn't. He was in the country illegally. Don't start to vilify the police over this incident. If you may end up in the same position as the PSNI, police officers hands who are so tied up by politics and political correctness that they are unable to do thier jobs effectivley.
You will also end up with heroic police officers being forced to leave the police due to the fear of prosecution for simply doing thier job.
It is time the British public got behind the police and supported them, if you don't then you will end up with the police service that you deserve.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!! SUPPORT THE POLICE!! TURN YOUR BACK ON CRIME AND CRIMINALS!!
- Philip, Carrickfergus, 19/10/2009 12:12
Report abuse
