Man shot dead by police on Tube

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Unimpeachable vigilante reasoning (Yep, gonna string them jaywalkers up maself. Sherriff doan know howda keep the streets safe nohow.) I suppose you also laid in several tons of supplies to tide you over the Millennium Bug Catastrophe. Still waiting for that iota, Rick. :)

Very good Nono. Insults and derision. Making light of an innocent man shot eight times in the head at short range as he sat in the carriage. Gee that's a larf. Har.Har.

I asked you two questions which you apparently ignored. I noted that you had faith in the folks who ordered the "shoot to kill" policy. Is the investigation wholly independent of the government? Are those involved political hacks or notionally independent?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Nono Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. You're pretty damn sure of yourself, for someone who wasn't present (but knows what he prefers to believe alright).

You're right, I do know what I believe. When every news account and eye-witness has shown virtually every claim made by the police to be an outright lie, the cops tend to lose credibility. If you want to wait for the "official report" of those same cops investigating themselves, go right ahead. It's been well over two months now, when (if ever) do you suppose that report might be forthcoming?

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Very good Nono. Insults and derision.

Merely adapting to my environment, Ricko, i.e. debating with you: Mr Strawman Champ, Mr Remind-Me-Since-When-Two-Plus-Two-Equals-Five.

I noted that you had faith in the folks who ordered the "shoot to kill" policy.

Well you're mistaken in your notation, y'see. I never said anything of the sort. (Just one iota, Rick, c'mon.)

Is the investigation wholly independent of the government?

Can you name any official investigation into anything that has ever been uncontestably independent in the eyes of the skeptics? (That's a question for you, Rick.)

In any case, the commission of inquiry in this case will be under the most intense public scrutiny. They will be obliged to bend over backwards to prove their independence, or be creamed in the press. This ain't no lockstep post-911 USA the thing is being held in.

[Nono]

Quote by: Zee When every (emphasis added) news account and eye-witness has shown virtually every claim made by the police to be an outright lie, the cops tend to lose credibility

A sweeping statement of the facts, Zee. If it's correct, then the commission will find against the cops. If it doesn't -- in the face of the facts as you describe them -- I'll join you in condemning it without reservation. If.

It's been well over two months now, when (if ever) do you suppose that report might be forthcoming?

What planet you been living on, Zeeb? Here's a question: Can you name an official inquiry into anything more serious than a major-league umpire's call that's issued its report in two months? Hmmm?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Merely adapting to my environment, Ricko, i.e. debating with you: Mr Strawman Champ, Mr Remind-Me-Since-When-Two-Plus-Two-Equals-Five..

Give me a break, Nono. You called me a "vigilante" who had "laid in several tons of supplies to tide you over the Millennium Bug Catastrophe."

Not only is that insulting but purely nonsensical crap having nothing to do with the topic at hand. What in hell is that supposed to mean anyway? Now you go on ranting again calling me, "Mr Strawman Champ, Mr Remind-Me-Since-When-Two-Plus-Two-Equals-Five". If I am being insulted, I do prefer the epithet to be comprehensible. Otherwise I would suggest you put me on your ignore list.

Quote by: Nono In any case, the commission of inquiry in this case will be under the most intense public scrutiny. They will be obliged to bend over backwards to prove their independence, or be creamed in the press. This ain't no lockstep post-911 USA the thing is being held in.

So basically, you are saying that it is a Blair administration inquiry. The same gang that defended the "shoot to kill" policy following the gunning down of Jean Charles de Menezes as he sat peacefully on tube carriage. Thank you for the clarification. (You can answer your rhetorical questions yourself.)

[Nono]

Rick, you habitually sneer at people all over this board and twist and willfully misinterpret their words. And you seem to have taken a special shine to me lately. That isn't debate -- it's abuse.

It's all a bit strange because I think you and I basically agree about most issues. But you just can't help yourself: If there's some niggling little detail in a post that you can't bring yourself to agree with, you just have to jump straight down the poster's throat boots first.

If you can't fathom "Mr Remind-Me-Since-When-Two-Plus-Two-Equals-Five", I suggest you review your posts on this and other recent threads, and think about how emotionally overwrought they sound.

So basically, you are saying that it is a Blair administration inquiry. The same gang that defended the "shoot to kill" policy following the gunning down of Jean Charles de Menezes as he sat peacefully on tube carriage. Thank you for the clarification.

This is typical: all sarcastic misrepresentation. I made no attempt at all to say what it was. And you know this perfectly well. I posted a BBC link. Period.

And now I can damn well answer my own self the questions I put to you, eh? Letting yourself right off the hook. My, how convenient.

[ise]

who's a lucky man. i know. it's Walter Wolfgang. he's lucky to be alive. yes, a terrorist who lived to tell the tale. unlike a certain non-terorist brazilian, who did not live to tell his tale. the fact that walter is 82 years old and just about able to manage a waddle may have helped save him from 8 of the best from a british bobby for trying to re-enter his labour party hall.

[labour] Party chairman Ian McCartney criticised Mr Wolfgang's behaviour but said the way he was ejected was "inappropriate".

so "shouting 'nonsense' as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended Iraq policy." is a terrorist act in blair's britian now.

which of these statements are true
1. in takes 8 bullets to kill a brazilian on the tube
2. in takes three very heavy heavies to subdue a 82 year old jewish 'terrorist'
3. camera carrying mp are subversive labourites.
4. tony blair is a true blue tory.
5. tony is a born again bush_hite.
6. the british bobby is dead and gone.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nono Rick, you habitually sneer at people all over this board and twist and willfully misinterpret their words. And you seem to have taken a special shine to me lately. That isn't debate -- it's abuse.

Well Nono, excuse me for taking offense at being called a "vigilante" who had "laid in several tons of supplies to tide you over the Millennium Bug Catastrophe." Given that you were the author of that comment, I find it odd that you complain of abuse. Your dislike of me is noted. Fine.

Perhaps you are closer, literally and figuratively, to this case than I but given the police attempts at at least obstruction and more likely cover-up, I think a degree of scepticism is warranted especially when I read that the " Independent Police Complaints Commission" "was set up to replace the Police Complaints Authority." I'm sure changing the name and appointing new investigators may make a huge difference, or not. Only time will tell. The BBC link you posted described bureaucratic infighting, whcih may or may not be encouraging.

My point is simple. You have been claiming for literally months that the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is a topic that shouldn't even be discussed until the investigation is complete. Other than sneering at anyone who suggested otherwise it isn't clear to me why you think this very public shooting should be a tabu topic.

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Excuse me for taking offense at being called a "vigilante" who had "laid in several tons of supplies to tide you over the Millennium Bug Catastrophe."

You're excused. You were being paid back in your own coin, which is to lazily smear debaters you don't agree with by means of reductio-ad-absurdum abuse.

I think a degree of scepticism is warranted especially when I read that the " Independent Police Complaints Commission" "was set up to replace the Police Complaints Authority."

Do you now? Well guess what (brace yourself): So do I.

You have been claiming for literally months that the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is a topic that shouldn't even be discussed until the investigation is complete.

So typical of your word-twisting. I suggested (on one occasion -- Rick: "claiming for literally months") that drawing conclusions as to the actual events and their circumstances might be put off until all the facts (including those circs) were in -- which they aren't as yet, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.

Your problem is that you allow your desires to take possession of your analysis.

[ise]

Police chief blocked death probe - letter
Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:22 PM BST12

TOP UK POLICE OFFICE'S COVER-UP EXPOSED

Met chief in 'cover up' attempt over shooting
16:08pm 30th September 2005

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair suggested a change in the law in the wake of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes so that he would not have to provide information to an independent inquiry. On the day the Brazilian electrician was shot dead by police, Sir Ian wrote to Home Office Permanent Secretary Sir John Gieve saying he should be able to suspend as he saw fit a legal requirement to give material to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Sir Ian said revealing information to external investigators, as he was required to do under section 17 of the Police Reform Act, could compromise police tactics and intelligence sources and put lives at risk.

The existence of Sir Ian's letter was known six weeks ago. He lied ever since, saying that the letter was a REQUEST that the Independent Police Complaints Commission NOT investigate the murder. It was only following a request under the Freedom of Information Act that the TRUTH was reveled now by the Home Office. So the purpose for which the Independent Police Complaints Commission was setup - to investigate killings by the police - was to be prevented on this high profile case. If he'd succeeded in this case then he could have hand picked the cases that the IPCC could have investigated in the future.

Sir Ian had strongly denied that the letter was part of an attempted cover-up or that he had tried to block an independent inquiry into the shooting to protect his officers. The TRUTH is plain now that he lied as to the content of the letter. When the top cop wants to

suspend as he saw fit a legal requirement to give material to the Independent Police Complaints Commission

then what expectation is there as to 'Law & Order' for everyone else.

This 'Shoot to Kill' policy must go! More importantly SIR IAN BLAIR MUST GO, if not for his incompetence, then as a worth while sacrifice, to give back to the public and visitors some sense of trust in the previously fondly non-killer 'British Bobby'.

Usually the British are not so clumsy at covering up. They have had decades of experience and usually could give lessons. The BIGGEST scandal has not been revealed yet. "What happened to the camera film taken away by the police that covered the incident.?" The police said the cameras were not working. Rail personnel said they were!!!. This is interference with evidence and should lead to an immediate dismissal case.

I could see this case going on longer than the BLOODY SUNDAY INQUIRY,
started in 1998 and concluded in 2004 to undo the totally discredited white wash of the WIDGERY TRIBUNAL

[RickSp]

Nono, your personal attacks are really boring and off topic. You obviously have developed an intense dislike for me. Fine. Noted. Move on.

You claim I twist language and then you come up with some real pretzels. You take exception to my suggestion that you have argued for months that we shouldn't even discuss the topic until the investigation is finally completed. You claim that on only "one occasion" you suggested that "we avoid drawing conclusions ...until all the facts were in."

That is both inaccurate and dishonest. You have argued the same position since July. That qualifies as several months on my calendar.

Quote by: Nono 07-27-05 So yes, in a subway system that has had two attacks in two weeks, that's what you think and there's no time for analysis. If it eventually turns out that the guy in fact wasn't challenged or given an adequate opportunity to comply with police instructions, I'll join you in your condemnation. At the moment, though, it looks like they did what they could in no-win circumstances.

Quote by: Nono 07-28-05 Were you present, Rick? Did you count the number of discharges? No? Then how do you know? And how do you know on what basis they fired? The facts will presumably come out in due course. And (since unlike the circumstances surrounding the Hutton and Butler inquiries, Tony the Tooth need not fear for his political hide either way) those facts will probably be reliable. Then we can all start ranting.

Quote by: Nono 07-29-05 For my part, I'm reserving judgement. PatrickHenry seems to doubt the reliability of the inquiry. I see no reason to. If it turns out that this poor guy was the victim of trigger-happy cops, the Brits will have (once again) some tough questions to ask themselves about their police force. If it turns out that he was jumping turnstiles or otherwise acting in a reckless manner, it will have to be chalked up to Just One of Those Things And There but for the Grace of God... In the meantime, a little less conclusion-happy judgementalism woulndn't go amiss.

Quote by: Nono 09-22-05 I suggest we adjourn the discussion and give them a bit more time to come up with a credible account of what did, and what didn't, actually happen.

Of course when I point this out, all I get is insult, invective and a denial which are obviously not true.

But enough. Insult away, as I am sure you will. Vent your spleen. I really don't care. This has gone beyond boring.

[Nono]

Quote by: Rick Insult away, as I am sure you will. Vent your spleen. I really don't care.

And it's clear from your lengthy post that you don't. :)

[ise]

When the NEW Labour Party stole the clothes of the Tory/Conservative Party few realised that the body and soul of the Labour Party had also changed. "All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born... W.B.Yeats". Not only have they stole the clothes, the New Labour is now more right-wing than the Tory/Conservative Party ever was. Not having the more enlightened PR voting system, it is unlikely that things will change. Strangely, it is more likely that the United States will regain a middle ground than the British.

There was a time when it was the Tory/Conservative Party had advocated Law & Order. Not so now. The bad old days of "Shoot To Kill" and British Injustice is being revisited and compounded with worst cock ups than Bush's USA... When will they ever learn,:( when will they ever learn. :(
We shall over come, we SHALL over come, some day soon

.

[Nono]

Quote by: ise It is more likely that the United States will regain a middle ground than the British.

That I doubt. I can understand your despair, ise, but the worm may yet turn. There are still leftists in Labour who are biding their time, and still -- I'm sure -- a number of "Red Tories" who'll come out of the woodwork when the current lean'n'mean fashion wears off.

[Matt W]

Indeed. Isn't Ken Clarke contesting the Tory leadership election?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4301286.stm

[RickSp]

Charges for police in Tube shooting

Stockwell officers face charge of perverting course of justice after logbook was faked. Marksmen exonerated in CPS inquiry into mistaken shooting of 27-year-old Brazilian electrician Police officers are facing criminal charges over allegations that they tampered with evidence after shooting dead an innocent Brazilian at a London Underground station, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials investigating the killing of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes plan to charge the officers who oversaw the operation with attempting to pervert the course of justice. The disclosure comes three weeks after reports that undercover police deliberately attempted to blame firearms officers for the shooting.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono Supply even one iota of proof for this statement. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. You're pretty damn sure of yourself, for someone who wasn't present (but knows what he prefers to believe alright). You two can knock off the strawman stuff already. I know it's stoopid of me, but I prefer to suspend judgement until the facts are in, and they will be one day -- as they always are eventually.

OK. We now have facts that there was a major attempt at a cover up here. Is this a time to start discussing the topic?

And, are all the facts in on the Maine? Do we have all the facts on Roosevelt's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? Do we know exactly what happened to the Lusitania?

Perhaps we do but all those facts came long after the damage was done and people stopped paying attention to the story.

Keith

[jose]

Quote by: Nono Any police killing that fits the 'rules of engagement' could be described as a "state execution". I suggest we adjourn the discussion and give them a bit more time to come up with a credible account of what did, and what didn't, actually happen.

is it a good time now?

[Nono]

Quote by: Keith We now have facts that there was a major attempt at a cover up here.

Quote by: jose is it a good time now?

Any time is a good time to talk about what is known at that point, which doesn't sound like a lot yet.

Quote by: Indpendent Senior CPS sources have told the IoS that the blame for the shooting lies with Special Branch and the surveillance officers who wrongly identified the Brazilian electrician as a suicide bomber. (...) The armed officers were acting under controversial new guidelines which allow police to shoot suspected suicide bombers without challenge.

So we know there was a cover-up, but we don't yet know how the cops came to kill a man they're now perfectly willing to describe as an innocent victim, someone who -- according to the Independent source -- they believed to be a suicide bomber.

So we can debate ourselves blue in the face -- we still don't know how it happened.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono Any time is a good time to talk about what is known at that point, which doesn't sound like a lot yet. So we know there was a cover-up, but we don't yet know how the cops came to kill a man they're now perfectly willing to describe as an innocent victim, someone who -- according to the Independent source -- they believed to be a suicide bomber. So we can debate ourselves blue in the face -- we still don't know how it happened.

So, this whole discussion is to go the way of the Kennedy assasination? We wait a decade or two so that anyone who is still interested is branded a kook and make sure not much attention is payed to the real story?

Is that what you're shooting for here?

Keith