James Ashley and the immunity of the police

Good solid forensic stuff on police propensity for shooting innocent people from 'Obsolete'.

For all the assurances of police training and professionalism, the plain fact is that they are just ordinary guys and as susceptible as the next man to the subtle corruptions that are the natural accompaniment of any and all power. Give them powers not available to anyone else and, in pursuit of 'the baddies', they WILL be exercised - more often than not in circumstances that were neither envisaged nor intended - and to hell with any 'pain-in-the-ass innocent bystanders' that get in the way.

Thus, alleged 'anti-terror' legislation is used to harass photographers or remove a legitimate octogenarian heckler from a conference - that sort of thing. The big problem with 'Special' Armed Police Units is that the 'special' bit is apt to imbue them with a certain elitist gung-ho attitude as well. Couple that with the knowledge that they will pretty well ALWAYS be given the benefit of any doubt and you have a lethal cocktail that guarantees innocent victims and subsequent deliberate obfuscation - the 'Unit Corps God Country' code of the accused in 'A few Good Men', that relegates the innocent victim to the status of an mere inconvenience to be dealt with.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that giving ever more powers to the police together with constant fear-mongering about terrorism are emphatically NOT a part of it.

17 to 8 - So who do you believe?

According to the IPCC report (Stockwell 1) , all 17 public witnesses say they heard no warnings from police officers, nor any indication they were police officers, prior to the execution of Jean Charles De Menezes at Stockwell Tube Station on 22nd July 2005. Whereas all 8 of the police officers involved say that 'armed police' warnings WERE shouted.

The police were allowed to prepare their evidence to the IPCC in collusion with one another. In other words they made sure they got their stories agreed first and, being police officers, understood the importance of closing ranks in their own defence. The public witnesses on the other hand, gave independent, non-collusive evidence with no interest other than providing individual accounts of what they witnessed.

So - rhetorical question - which would you put your money on:

1. All 17 public witnesses are mistaken?

2. The police are lying through their teeth?

Is there no one in the Met with moral fibre?

In reply to Sir Ian Blair's special pleading whinging about the decision to bring a Health & Safety prosecution against the Met for the events leading to the public execution of Jean Charles de Menezes, Richard Barnes, a Tory MP and Deputy Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority had this to say:

"Is there no one within the Met with the moral fibre and sense of personal obligation to recognise that Jean Charles's fate was sealed by systemic failure? The power to exercise ultimate force carries with it the responsibility to ensure all other possible alternatives are exhausted, even in such a fast-moving, fluid situation. Those obligations were not fulfilled at Stockwell, and Jean Charles paid the ultimate price for that failure.

I find it repugnant, and an affront to common decency, that the establishment can get it so wrong and then close ranks to protect its members from accepting and exercising the obligations of office. It is simply not enough to accept the glittering prizes, whilst ignoring the failures. Where is the man of personal stature and integrity amongst them?"

The shooting was followed by various leaks that intended to besmirch Mr Menezes' character. The source of this information is questionable, but it most probably came from those in authority. An innocent man was shot dead, and it was thought appropriate to traduce his character."

That's a pretty fair summary of a totally disgraceful shambles for which no one - and least of all the man in charge - is prespared to accept any responsibility.

Full report in The Guardian

On one level the Met Commissioner ought to be pleased about the prosecution since the matter becomes sub-judice thus delaying publication of the IPCC reports until after the trial. He will therefore be spared full public scrutiny of the gross incompetence that culminated in the shooting for another couple of years. With any luck he'll be gone by then and WE will be spared more of his puke inducing media appearances.

More on the Menenez and Forest Gate shootings

More on the Forest Gate and Stockwell Tube police shootings from The Observer and News of the World which has published leaked extracts from the Stockwell report - originally scheduled for publication back in April.

On the Stockwell tube shooting:

The leaked report details a catalogue of police blunders, including failing to pass on alerts from the undercover team that they were tailing an innocent man. It also suggests that there was a delay of five hours in deploying a specialist firearms unit that could have taken de Menezes alive.

And the Lawyer for the Forest Gate family said:

"..the officers failed to give a warning during the raid and did not identify themselves as police. The family thought they were armed robbers wearing helmets with their visors pulled down. Nobody identified themselves as police as they stormed in wearing terrifying black hoods and started bashing them over the head."

One of the Blairs will lose his job over this -trouble is it will arguably be the wrong one. Such bungling is a direct and predictable result of the politicisation of most public services in response to New Labour spin and the climate of fear/cover-your-own-back-first, that it has produced.