| Non-motoring > De Menezes | Legal Questions |
| Thread Author: Duncan | Replies: 167 |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 08:40
De Menezes - Duncan
|
|
The De Menezes case is now going to The European Court for Human Rights. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33066098 Last edited by: Duncan on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 08:41
|
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 19:24
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
Which is why I want out of the EU in its current format. Trade agreements, 'yes'....more than that, 'no'. WTF has it got to do with anyone else? |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 19:44
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
| What's the relevance of the EU to enforcing Human rights at Strasbourg? |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 20:19
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>What's the relevance of the EU to enforcing Human rights at Strasbourg? Obvious; 1) They're both foreign 2) They both have "European" in their title. What more do people need? UEFA is next. Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 20:19
|
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 22:48
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> What's the relevance of the EU to enforcing Human rights at Strasbourg? >> I would have thought it was glaringly obvious. I don't like the fact that this country doesn't have the ability to fully make and stand by its own decisions. Both the EU and HRA interfere in our autonomy. Our parliament and our courts are the only institutions that should have the ultimate say in what we do or do not do. |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 23:12
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
This was a state sanctioned killing whether lawful or otherwise (well that choice was removed by the coroner at the inquest). Presumably checks and balances mean investigation by a superior court is in order. |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 23:24
De Menezes - Zero
|
| At the very least it was a monumental cock up with fatal consequences - someone's ass needs kicking |
|
New Wed 10 Jun 15 23:39
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
No bulky jacket 'with wires hanging out' (he was wearing light denim jacket open at the front and had no backpack). "Wasn't stopped outside the station because no armed cops were there" turned out to be BS. Wasn't running through the station - in fact stopped to pick up a copy of Metro. Didn't jump the turnstiles. Osman really looked sod all like De Menezes even after the photo comparison was touched up. Noone backs up claims of the police shouting "Armed Police" Ian Blair talking crap the day after with the usual Police management 'get our facts in first' a la Hillsborough. etc etc etc Nothing to see here... move along everyone. Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 10 Jun 15 at 23:39
|
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 08:13
De Menezes - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> What's the relevance of the EU to enforcing Human rights at Strasbourg? >> >> >> >> I would have thought it was glaringly obvious. >> The Court of Human Rights was established by the Council of Europe. Neither has anything to do with the EU. Britain was a founder member of the Council of Europe, under the Treaty of London in 1949. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 09:26
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> The Court of Human Rights was established by the Council of Europe. Neither has anything >> to do with the EU. >> Britain was a founder member of the Council of Europe, under the Treaty of London >> in 1949. >> Deep sigh. I have never stated or intimated that the Court of Human Rights is linked with the EU .... other than.... they are both non British institutions with say over how some elements of this country is run. I don't like that. It would be the same if it were the USA or anywhere else. I like Europe, I like the USA, I holiday in both places frequently, I have relatives that live in Europe, I'd like close trade agreements, etc... but I don't want political or judicial interference from either. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 09:39
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> Deep sigh. >> >> I have never stated or intimated that the Court of Human Rights is linked with >> the EU Original post >>The De Menezes case is now going to The European Court for Human Rights. your response. >> Which is why I want out of the EU in its current format. >>Trade agreements, 'yes'....more than that, 'no'. >>WTF has it got to do with anyone else? Thats intimation in anyones book. Theatrical sigh or not. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 12:58
De Menezes - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> Theatrical sigh or not. >> Exit crestfallen ex-policeman, stage right. :) |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 12:59
De Menezes - Crankcase
|
|
>> Exit crestfallen ex-policeman, stage right. With cat-like tread? |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 13:06
De Menezes - Londoner
|
|
>> >> >> Exit crestfallen ex-policeman, stage right. >> >> >> With cat-like tread? >> . . . and somewhat (p)irate. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 14:23
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> >>The De Menezes case is now going to The European Court for Human Rights. >> >> your response. >> >> >> Which is why I want out of the EU in its current format. >> >> >>Trade agreements, 'yes'....more than that, 'no'. >> >> >>WTF has it got to do with anyone else? B loody Nora.... O.K. so what I should have written was: "As in the EU debate, I want out of the HRA, for similar reasons........." I was rather hoping the similarity between the two would have been enough i.e. they are both Europe wide institutions that affect this country's autonomy. So if I mention one in the same breath as the other, it is because of that similarity. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 15:11
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> I was rather hoping the similarity between the two would have been enough i.e. they >> are both Europe wide institutions that affect this country's autonomy. They are vastly different. In scope and history. Only recently have the anti EU brigade tried to blur the two. And to be frank, we, in the UK, need the HRA more now than we ever did. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 18:08
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> They are vastly different. In scope and history. Only recently have the anti EU brigade >> tried to blur the two. You know exactly what I mean... and if you don't, re-read it. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 18:13
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> >> They are vastly different. In scope and history. Only recently have the anti EU >> brigade >> >> tried to blur the two. >> >> You know exactly what I mean... and if you don't, re-read it. I don't need to re-read, its clear you are one of those that blurs. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:02
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
WP still seems a bit mixedd up over terminology. The 'foreign' bit is the European Convention on Human Rights and the court in Strasbourg which decides cases where convention rights are alleged to be infringed. it was actually largely drafted by Brits with David Maxwell-Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, in the lead. Wiki describes the main articles here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights It's not clear to me how any of them are 'bad' or controversial. HRA refers to the Human Rights Act 19989; a major constitutional measure passed by the Blair Government. It's effect is to import the articles of the convention into domestic law and to require UK courts and tribunals, so far as possible, to interpret UK legislation so far as possible in accordance with the convention. It allows citizens to assert and enforce their convention rights in domestic courts rather than through Strasbourg. As Zero says we need that right more now than ever. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:13
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>As Zero says we need that right more now than ever. Although without it we could do a bit more about daft opinions......... Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Jun 15 at 16:13
|
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 23:31
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>As Zero says we need that right more now than ever. In fact I would go further, I would like to see a Global Convention on Human Rights which oversaw human rights for the entire planet ensuring that everybody had the same facilities. In fact, Westpig, since a while you were talking about how much you feel for the women who suffer in other parts of the world, I presume that you'd like to see that as well. In fact I'd guess you see the European Convention as a very good start on the road to ensure that nobody is done down by state or religion anywhere. Oh. I got muddled. I guess you don't want that, because just like the Muslims you mention that perpetrate those crimes you'd see any kind of "rights overseer" as a bad thing. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 23:55
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> In fact, Westpig, since a while you were talking about how much you feel for >> the women who suffer in other parts of the world, I presume that you'd like >> to see that as well. >> >> In fact I'd guess you see the European Convention as a very good start on >> the road to ensure that nobody is done down by state or religion anywhere. >> >> Oh. I got muddled. I guess you don't want that, because just like the Muslims >> you mention that perpetrate those crimes you'd see any kind of "rights overseer" as a >> bad thing. >> This country has a long and proud tradition of looking after people's rights. It hasn't always got it right, but generally has been at the forefront of forward thinking on that subject matter. You know very well what my thoughts are i.e. self rule... trying to twist it into something else is up to you.. most people will see it for what it is. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 00:01
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>You know very well what my thoughts are i.e. self rule What for the love of all, does the European Convention on Human Rights have to do with self-rule? You don't even understand the difference between the organizations, their roles in law and states or anything. And as for most people "will see it for what it is", then to be clear it is partly ridicule, and partly amazement and partly awe that you can have such strong opinions based on a complete lack of understanding. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 00:06
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> >>You know very well what my thoughts are i.e. self rule >> >> What for the love of all, does the European Convention on Human Rights have to >> do with self-rule? >> >> You don't even understand the difference between the organizations, their roles in law and states >> or anything. >> >> And as for most people "will see it for what it is", then to be >> clear it is partly ridicule, and partly amazement and partly awe that you can have >> such strong opinions based on a complete lack of understanding. >> FFS it isn't difficult. British courts or parliament make the decisions only. Someone elsewhere doesn't. This one is based in F ecking France tinyurl.com/pqxowjx Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 00:07
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 00:41
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>British courts or parliament make the decisions only. But they did. And one of the decisions that they made in 1959, along with the rest of the European countries, was that a convention guiding everybody made sense. And that British Law should be used to enforce the Human Rights, which it does. And it does make sense. And it should be a global convention, because everybody on this planet should have the same rights, whether or not they deserve them. Why does that bother you? Because its based in "F ecking France"? Really? If that's it, that your problem with the European Convention is that it is based in France then that is truly pathetic. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:16
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Why does that bother you? Because its based in "F ecking France"? Really? If that's >> it, that your problem with the European Convention is that it is based in France >> then that is truly pathetic. >> No, you doom brain.... it's not France that's the problem. Are you being wilful or do you just not get the angle? It's because IT IS NOT HERE. I want THIS country to decide things, not somewhere else. Similarly, I think France would wish to decide their own matters. By all means have international agreements and standards, but ultimately have Britain make the decisions for Britain. That's what I want. If you think that's pathetic, so be it, it just shows how intolerant you are, I am perfectly entitled to think it... and vote it. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:28
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Similarly, I think France would wish to decide their own matters. By all means have >> international agreements and standards, but ultimately have Britain make the decisions for Britain. That's what >> I want. France, being part of Schengen and party to ever closer union, seems to bear transnational decision making with equanimity. As Z observes it's only recently that the Eurosceptics have alighted on ECHR/Strasbourg. International agreements and standards have no value if governments can 'mark their own homework' when challenged on compliance. That's why we need bodies like Strasbourg on ECHR and the EU courts on compliance with those treaties etc binding us to the EU. Same principle would continue to apply if the EU was strictly a simple trade and customs bloc. It's the nature and proposed constitution of the dispute resolution body that's causing at least some of the controversy over TTIP. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:47
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
I'm not sure what a Doom Brain is, but if its anything like Doom Bar I can live with it. >>By all means have international agreements and standards I agree. You know what, human rights are important and something we've screwed up quite a lot in the past, lets have some kind of panel which we lead that helps us agree those international agreements and standards. But what could we call it? Well, it covers all of Europe, its a convention of all the leaders, and its concerned with Human Rights. Nope, nothing springs to mind. Well, I guess we'll just describe it and worry about a name later - the European Convention on Human Rights. >> ultimately have Britain make the decisions for Britain. Fair enough. How about we use British Law and set out exactly what we're going to do, which is essentially stick by the agreements that we want everybody else to stick by. Of course, it'll need an act to put the law through parliament. I wish I was better at thinking up names, oh well, it'll be an Act about Human Rights. Trouble is, how would we know we were sticking to the international agreements and standards. Here's an idea, we could have a body which looked at stuff we did and could either confirm it was in line with the international agreements and standards that we "agreed", or could point out where we'd missed a bit. But it would need a name. I know!! We could call it the European Court of Human Rights. And lets just stick it somewhere in the middle which is easiest for the most people to get to. I dunno, like France or somewhere. Brilliant, Westpig, just brilliant. I fully support your idea, lets get on and implement it (said a bunch of people a lot of years ago). >>I am perfectly entitled to think it... and vote it. Of course you are. You just seem a little confused about what "it" actually is. As I said, I don;t really know what a doom brain is, but whatever it is, are you sure its me? Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 14:49
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:54
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Of course you are. You just seem a little confused about what "it" actually is I'm not at all confused what 'it' is.... I'm happy for us as a country to agree whatever seems sensible.. but.. when push comes to shove, this country decides a course of action... not people's elsewhere.... ... and if we've signed up to something that sets it in stone, so that we do not have the autonomy to decide our own actions, then we've signed too much. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:55
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
| So you want to sign up to stuff and not stick to it if you change your mind? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:57
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> So you want to sign up to stuff and not stick to it if you >> change your mind? No, sign up to principles. If other signees think we've breached principles, we discuss it. If we still disagree, they can chuck us out or agree to disagree, but not tell us what we have to do with no choice. The chances are as this country is one of the few that actually does play the game, we'd comply mostly anyway. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:22
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Remember this? "Personally.. I think it is shameful that we all let Rwanda happen. The civilised should stand up for the oppressed... not just shrug their shoulders and let them get on with it. " So you feel its ok for the UK to get involved in other countries' behaviour, but not for them to get involved in ours? But what if Rwanda had said "It is not the right of other countries to tell us how to behave, it is our country and we will just have to agree to disagree"? A Brazilian was shot and killed in the UK by the UK police force. And in your world there is no need for anybody outside the UK to get involved? What if a UK citizen had been shot and killed by the Police in Brasil and they just told the UK to mind its own business? As you say, your opinion, your vote, your right. (You know that those are called "Human Rights"?). But it is your responsibility as a citizen to understand the things you voice opinions on. Have the opinion you wish, but make sure its based on understanding. As I said, you have strong opinions on stuff you don't understand. Nobody can understand anything unless they want to and put effort into doing so. And you are clearly not wiling even to learn about stuff you want to have an opinion on. You don't even seem to realise that you don't understand. However, nobody can be forced to want to learn. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:25
De Menezes - Roger.
|
|
want. >> >> If you think that's pathetic, so be it, it just shows how intolerant you are, >> I am perfectly entitled to think it... and vote it. ...........but unless you voted UKIP, you didn't vote it! |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:28
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
| What is UKIP's stance on the European Convention/Court of Human Rights? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:37
De Menezes - Roger.
|
|
We will remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights: the Strasbourg Court whose interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights has been known to put the rights of criminals above those of victims. Our own Supreme Court will act as the final authority on matters of Human Rights. We will also repeal Labour’s Human Rights legislation. It has given European judges far too much power over British law making and law enforcement and prevented us deporting terrorists and career criminals and from implementing whole-life sentences. Our human rights will be enshrined in law via the introduction of a new, consolidated UK Bill of Rights. This will complement the UN Declaration of Human Rights and encapsulate all the human and civil rights that UK citizens have acquired under UK law since Magna Carta. This new UK Bill of Rights will apply across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ‘INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY’ UKIP will fully uphold the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ This tenet of law is fundamental to British justice and UKIP will reverse the opt-in to EU law and justice measures, which disregard this fundamental principle, including the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Orders, which were enacted by the Coalition partners and supported by Labour. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:43
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
They are called "Rights" for a reason. Its to stop Governments picking on people they don't like, or don't agree with. All people, including victim and offender, have the *same* rights; although people may well offend each others the Human Rights act is there to try to ensure that they, and their states, do not. Its pretty much a fundament of society that "good" people will treat "bad" people better than they are treated by them. If you treat a criminal in the same way that he treated you, then why are you any better than him? I cannot for the life of me think why Human Rights should vary according to geographic boundary or why any one country, including the UK, should be able to have an "interpretation" of them. Do you remember how well the "Suss laws" went? Do you know what was wrong with them? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:45
De Menezes - WillDeBeest
|
|
...which disregard this fundamental principle, including the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Orders, which were enacted by the Coalition partners and supported by Labour. ...or, in other words, supported by the parties that won 89 percent of the votes cast at the relevant general election, yet you think it's antidemocratic? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:47
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>...or, in other words, supported by the parties that won 89 percent of the votes cast at the relevant general election, yet you think it's antidemocratic? Its driven by a phobia about foreigners. There is no logic. Mind you, UKIP, its understanding, desires and those of its supporters are the best argument I've ever heard of for staying part of the European Convention. Jeez wouldn't we need it if that lot ever got in charge of what people could think and/or do. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 09:23
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> This country has a long and proud tradition of looking after people's rights. It hasn't >> always got it right, but generally has been at the forefront of forward thinking on >> that subject matter. It doesn't and it hasn't. There's a full list of all UK cases here: researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05611/SN05611.pdf First of all it is surprising (given the hoo-hah about the ECHR) and gratifying how many cases are rejected. As I suggested elsewhere in this thread a large number involve 'unpopular' causes such as rights of convicts and suspects. Another prominent theme though is the treatment of homosexuals and trans people. It took Strasbourg to get us to take seriously safeguards for detained Mental patients. The opponents are also strangely silent on how HRA/ECHR has been used to secure full disclosure of evidence in child protection cases and on the closed shop. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:12
De Menezes - WillDeBeest
|
|
...Europe wide institutions that affect this country's autonomy. ...or, to look at it another way, guarantee that citizens of this country enjoy the same fundamental rights in any other member state; for example, that of seeing a police station staircase as simply a useful aid to locomotion. I've visited 15 of the other 27 EU countries, mostly as a solo business traveller, and been struck every time by how easy and safe the whole process is - certainly compared with the unease and suspicion I felt on arrival in Moscow, or even the way the USA treats its arriving visitors. But the European Convention on Human Rights goes deeper than that - and is much older and involves more countries - and the much-misunderstood Human Rights Act is only its formal integration into UK law. I'd be interested to know which human rights WP believes are universal, and which only a privileged few (including, presumably, himself) should enjoy. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:57
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Having helped you understand what theh European Court for Human Rights is, perhaps you;d enjoy the following; From their website.... www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw&c This link goes to a list of all their decisions in 2014. www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Cases_list_2014_ENG.pdf Which one(s) do you think were wrong, and should have been decided differently? Or is this just a case of a bottom lip stuck out and a statement of "nobody is going to tell me what to do"? |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:45
De Menezes - zippy
|
|
So armed police kill an innocent man and lie about the circumstances of his death. The armed police all go wobbly when there is a threat of prosecution and all threaten to hand in their fire arms at a time of national crises and the case gets nowhere in the UK. Where does one appeal to if the justice system here is totally blind to the case. The CHR in The Hague is perfect to hear this case. It is outside of the system and can give a totally impartial view. There is nothing wrong in my mind to having some other organisation of trusted legal experts review a case outside of the political sphere of influence of a country. They even agree with our courts in many instances, it just doesn’t get publicity. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 16:57
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
| It's also true to say that the rights of majorities and popular causes are rarely in question. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 23:33
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
A frownie? On Zippy's post? Really? Does the poor wee thing who was offended by Zippy's seemingly reasonable comments have the balls and the brains to explain why and how? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 13:53
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>have the balls and the brains Apparently not. |
|
New Thu 11 Jun 15 23:19
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Because Westpig there is nowhere else for the family to go. You can't blow a innocent person brains out and get away with it. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 00:00
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Because Westpig there is nowhere else for the family to go. >> >> You can't blow a innocent person brains out and get away with it. >> You can actually. As unfortunate as it is, if in a time of crisis a course of action is legitimately taken in the honest belief it is correct and they comply with the guidelines and law laid down by a democratic government... then 'yes', even if a mistake is made, an innocent person can have their brains blown out. The alternative is inaction. Think about it. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 00:39
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
The Police told a number of substantial lies about the case in the immediate aftermath. The Coroner did not allow the jury the ability to choose 'unlawful death'. This was a catalogue of intelligence and operational cock-ups and I'm not convinced that the Police are innocent of culpable/criminal conduct from the evidence presented (as reported). If you think Parliament and our courts need no checks/balances then you have given up some of your freedom in the name of sovereignty. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 08:59
De Menezes - Roger.
|
|
Some people think that it is about time the UK had a written constitution, which would/could incorporate a UK Bill of Human Rights. The Magna Carta and its guiding principles has done us pretty well for a very long time, but maybe it's now time to formalise, in writing, the way in which the State relates to the individual. Our rule of law which has held that the State must prove a person's guilt, rather than the accused having to prove his/her innocence (is the latter not the Napoleonic Code used in many, many other countries?) has served us well over the years and certainly, I think, should be preserved as an unbreakable part of any UK constitution. (The only "Kipper" part of this, is a policy for a UK Bill of Human Rights, I believe - the rest are my personal thoughts!) |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 09:43
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The Magna Carta and its guiding principles has done us pretty well for a very >> long time, but maybe it's now time to formalise, in writing, the way in which >> the State relates to the individual. Manga Carta was, in its time, of massive significance. But it was about the rights of the barons v the king and regulation of a feudal system. Its relevance to ordinary people is mostly mythology and legend. >> Our rule of law which has held that the State must prove a person's guilt, >> rather than the accused having to prove his/her innocence (is the latter not the Napoleonic >> Code used in many, many other countries?) Is there any suggestion of a threat to our 'rule of law' and method of trying crime from Europe? The idea that continental 'Napoleonic' (do you mean French?) law reverses the burden of proof is something of a simplification if not a complete misunderstanding. In serious French cases (the germanwings crash is a current example) the investigation is judicially led and is an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial process. This process may lead to findings of fact but the actual trial of suspects is closer to an adversarial model and involves a jury. The adversarial model is not in any event guaranteed to be the 'golden thread' that guarantees justice. Outside of the criminal courts and particularly in tribunals there is an increasing trend away from a courtroom model towards judicial intervention. The move is most evident in areas like Special Educational Needs, Social Security appeals etc. Other jurisdictions, notably Employemt, are adversarial courts in all but name. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:41
De Menezes - Londoner
|
|
>> Is there any suggestion of a threat to our 'rule of law' and method of >> trying crime from Europe? >> Good post - My Thumb. No, there isn't a threat and there is no need to imagine one either. I think that suspicion/resistance/fear of the UK adopting European methods comes from an underlying perception that it is making the country less "British". It isn't, but it is probably true to say that the UK has to adapt rather more to the European "norm" when laws & rules are standardised than most countries within the union. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:58
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> Manga Carta was, in its time, of massive significance. It wasn't, ever. Its been consistently ignored, repealed, abused, b******ised and bandied about as bribe, bargaining chip and fortune of political and social war ever since its inception. It is in fact the largest myth in existence. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 11:02
De Menezes - Alanovich
|
|
>> It is >> in fact the largest myth in existence. Except maybe Christianity/Islam/Judaism. |
|
New Tue 16 Jun 15 07:55
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> It wasn't, ever. Its been consistently ignored, repealed, abused, b******ised and bandied about as bribe, >> bargaining chip and fortune of political and social war ever since its inception. It is >> in fact the largest myth in existence. An interesting Q&A on Magna Carta following yesterday's celebrations. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-legal-significance |
|
New Tue 16 Jun 15 08:01
De Menezes - Duncan
|
|
>> An interesting Q&A on Magna Carta following yesterday's celebrations. >> >> www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-legal-significance >> Serious question. Why did they decide to meet in a field (on an island?) just outside Staines? Last edited by: Duncan on Tue 16 Jun 15 at 08:01
|
|
New Tue 16 Jun 15 08:24
De Menezes - Dog
|
|
>>Why did they decide to meet in a field (on an island?) just outside Staines? They were probably members of this crowd: www.doggers.co/ |
|
New Tue 16 Jun 15 09:00
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Why did they decide to meet in a field (on an island?) just outside Staines? >> Staines-upon-Thames surely? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:01
De Menezes - Manatee
|
|
>> The alternative is inaction. >> >> Think about it. I don't think anybody has suggested inaction? Surely the whole case here will turn on whether there was a choice of actions. Chilling animation of the sequence of events here news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:36
De Menezes - zippy
|
|
>>Chilling animation of the sequence of events here The BBC's account reads like an execution? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:31
De Menezes - zippy
|
|
>>You can actually. Yes, but there needs to be a totally independent investigation to prove it wasn't done with malice, otherwise you get "mission creep" for want of a better phrase and get the cops shoot anything that moves situation that they seem to have in the USA at the moment. In the Charles De Menezes case we need to know that the fire arms officers truly acted in fear of their lives or the lives of other and felt 11 shots were necessary and not just blood lust. If it was the blood lust then the fire arms officers had no right to be fire arms officers and need to be prosecuted. The police in this country do kill people when they should not and get away with murder... In a local case three detectives murdered (by shooting) a known drugs dealer. The man was naked and unarmed. There was an attempt to prosecute them but the evidence and files went missing. There was an attempt to sack the Chief Constable over the affair. If we don't want more of this then we need to show that the police are not above the law and even if they are allowed to make honest mistakes, this needs to be proven or the honest mistakes may become too common for all of our liking. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1310465/Chief-constable-quits-over-fatal-shooting.html |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 10:40
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> shots were necessary and not just blood lust. >> >> If it was the blood lust then the fire arms officers had no right to >> be fire arms officers and need to be prosecuted. I don't think blood lust came into it, at least I sincerely hope so. I suspect however the whole thing was driven by panic, at every level from the very top right down to the bottom. The panic was still in evidence when they realised how far they had bucked up and panicked into covering up. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 11:04
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Just imagine.My son lives in London uses the tube everyday.Running to catch a train. Phonecall. Son shot dead you won't be able to regonise his face because it is shot to pieces. It could have happened.I would want more than a apology and some cash in the bank.He was somebody's son and they are grieving for the rest of their lives. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 11:44
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I don't think blood lust came into it, at least I sincerely hope so. I >> suspect however the whole thing was driven by panic, at every level from the very >> top right down to the bottom. The panic was still in evidence when they realised >> how far they had bucked up and panicked into covering up. > Panic and c*ck-up. {cynic} The only bit of luck the Met had that day was that the innocent olive skinned guy they shot was a Brazilian Catholic and not a Muslim {/cynic} |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 14:34
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> In the Charles De Menezes case we need to know that the fire arms officers >> truly acted in fear of their lives or the lives of other and felt 11 >> shots were necessary and not just blood lust. You misunderstand the instructions that firearms officers are given in cases like this. Normally a firearms officer in this country has to justify each shot, individually... so unlike a military shooter where a double tap or other tactics of multiple shots could be the way to go, each different shot has to be thought through.... ... except under the then guise of Operation Kratos, (those tactics are still valid, but the name has now changed). tinyurl.com/q236rq4 Under Op Kratos, an officer of least ACPO rank (Association of Chief Police Officers) so Assistant Chief Constable or similar... has to authorise it and then the firearms tactics are such that the suspect must be fatally shot as quickly as possible, to prevent them from activating a suicide bomb vest. Head shots are used, because the upper torso may be covered by a ballistic vest. So the individual police firearms officer is disregarding normal tactics and specifically intending to deliberately shoot someone, in the head, a number of times, to prevent them activating a bomb. Far from prosecuting them, they should be congratulated... for running down into a tube train, to get up close to a bloke who they think has a suicide vest on. That is brave indeed. Then there's the police commander who authorised Op Kratos that day, Cressida Dick. I don't know her and never worked with her, but I do know she was very highly regarded indeed... and... many senior managers faff when the going gets tough... she didn't. Yes, there were flaws (there always will be), yes some initial feedback was confused and plain wrong (that is absolutely normal) and most importantly an innocent man died... however, there were some brave decisions made that day in very trying circumstances and trying to second guess them from safe armchairs years later doesn't always look at all the angles. I think a thorough investigation to try to ensure this doesn't happen again is more than appropriate, but this country can achieve that, can't it? Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 14:36
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:45
De Menezes - Slidingpillar
|
|
Somewhere, the buck has to stop. Otherwise, the armed response unit (or whatever it's called) just becomes a tool of someone's mis-guided notions. I am firmly of the opinion that the coroner was wrong in not allowing a verdict of unlawful death, as by reductio ad absurdum any death here must be legal. And by simple inference, it's valid to go around killing people because you think they might be being very naughty. A case like this to me underlines exactly why the human rights act exists. The Strasbourg court perhaps has too wide a scope legally, but not here. Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 15:48
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 16:24
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Somewhere, the buck has to stop. >> >> Otherwise, the armed response unit (or whatever it's called) just becomes a tool of someone's >> mis-guided notions. The police in this country think there will be a 'Mumbai' (hotel massacre) either here or in Europe. They also think there could easily be a suicide bomber. You have to have viable tactics to counteract the above, it would be wilfully negligent if you didn't. The tactics for the suicide bomber were invoked in the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, obviously erroneously.. but... in good faith. The decision to do that was the police commander in charge that day, Cressida Dick. Too many senior cops (and I believe this to be the case in many professions) would have prevaricated until it was too late... and hoped it would all be o.k. In this case it would have been o.k. as Jean Charles was not a suicide bomber... however.. that is a judgement call that someone has to make and unfortunately there are times when it isn't o.k..... and there'd be a baying armchair critic mob slating the police for not acting. >> And by simple inference, it's valid to go around killing people because you >> think they might be being very naughty. It is valid to kill someone if you reasonably believe them to be a suicide bomber. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 16:39
De Menezes - Slidingpillar
|
|
It is valid to kill someone if you reasonably believe them to be a suicide bomber. The issue here though is the interpretation of the phrase, 'reasonably believe'. We're not talking a man in a pub said so, but a very high degree of certainty. And arguably, that degree of certainty was missing here. I'm not saying any more as it's quite obvious your views are very strongly held and the chance of you changing any of them is about zero. Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 16:40
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 16:45
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> The issue here though is the interpretation of the phrase, 'reasonably believe'. We're not talking >> a man in a pub said so, but a very high degree of certainty. And >> arguably, that degree of certainty was missing here. >> >> I'm not saying any more as it's quite obvious your views are very strongly held >> and the chance of you changing any of them is about zero. >> Forget my views, they are virtually irrelevant. What about the basics? The principle that our police need to be prepared, need to have the tactics to deal with very difficult situations and the confidence to use those tactics if they think necessary, even if they were ultimately to get it wrong. If you don't have that you will have inertia. Yes, you need checks and balances, really good ones if you can... but you can't get it right all of the time... unless you can think of a way that you can. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:01
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> It is valid to kill someone if you reasonably believe them to be a suicide >> bomber. >> >> The issue here though is the interpretation of the phrase, 'reasonably believe'. We're not talking >> a man in a pub said so, but a very high degree of certainty. And >> arguably, that degree of certainty was missing here. The interpretation is one of a layman with regards to ROE, does the person firing reasonably believe that they are others are in risk? The layman ie a jury believe it was reasonable with regard to context, time pressure, information available etc? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 15:59
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>I think a thorough investigation to try to ensure this doesn't happen again is more than appropriate, but this country can achieve that, can't it? No. It has ALREADY DONE its investigation. Which was flawed. >>at the coroner was wrong in not allowing a verdict of unlawful death The Coroner ruled that a verdict of unlawful death was unacceptable. That is the State deciding that it is lawful to shoot the wrong bloke in the head, *irrespective* of the circumstances. It appears that various members of the police have either lied or "misremembered". His Brazilian family have taken this to the ECHR because they are not satisfied. I wouldn't be either. The state killed their son and then the State said that was ok. Thank God there is an organisation to pick up the buck. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 16:03
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 16:26
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> The state killed their son and then the State said that was >> ok. See my post at 1624. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 16:52
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
The State killed someone. Now maybe the State was right, or perhaps the State was not right. However, the arbiter of that cannot be the State. You wouldn't trust a killer to decide if his killing was ok or not, this is no different. You certainly CANNOT have the State tell its own investigation leader (Coroner) what his verdict will or will not be. It is not sufficient to say "we thought we were right so its ok". Why did someone think they were right? Was that a reasonable thought? What actions were taken? Were they reasonable? etc. etc. >>Yes, you need checks and balances, really good ones if you can.. You mean like a European Court of Human Rights? You were a Policeman. I do not and would not trust your judgement about a police killing. Who should check up on you? An internal Police board, fair enough. But if it seems that they have an interest in it being a lawful killing? Well then, perhaps the State. But if they seem to be handling it wrong (deciding that the verdict will NOT be unlawful killing), then who do you go to? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 17:52
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
Well.... wait for it.... I am willing to move my position. I do think this country does make a good go at getting things right and I trust our judiciary etc, but some of your points are well made. The ECHR has its merits, but it also has its faults. IMO it needs some tweaking to iron out the faults, so that we as a country do not have to put up with perverse decisions. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 18:04
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Well now, good on you for being open enough to think about it and having the balls to post about it. >>The ECHR has its merits, but it also has its faults. That is most certainly correct. At the very least we need to think about how we implement our own rules and regulations. Sometimes the fault is ours because our own laws have been written inappropriately and/or we didn't think them through. Especially difficult because our own judges stick to the letter of the law. However, sometimes the ECHR gets involved in stuff that perhaps it shouldn't. Finally there is the media which is guilty of the most outrageous inaccuracies and sensationalism when it reports the ECHR involvement. Thank you for your post. Thumbed. Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 18:05
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 19:51
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> The State killed someone. >> >> Now maybe the State was right, or perhaps the State was not right. However, the >> arbiter of that cannot be the State. >> >> You wouldn't trust a killer to decide if his killing was ok or not, this >> is no different. >> I think you might be in danger of overegging the pudding. The state (ie the courts) make a decision on the actions of the 'state' all the time without recall to anyone else. The state is a large beast. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a uk court* could make decision on the legality of the gov. * Probably by jury decision I think. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 19:55
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>I think you might be in danger of overegging the pudding Sometimes I do, but I don't think so this time. Just because we have a largely benign state now, doesn't mean we should blindly think it will always be so. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 19:59
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Just because we have a largely benign state now, Largely is not same thing as wholly. Definitions of benign may vary. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:03
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >>I think you might be in danger of overegging the pudding >> >> Sometimes I do, but I don't think so this time. >> >> Just because we have a largely benign state now, doesn't mean we should blindly think >> it will always be so. >> That wasn't my point, more the top cover ECHR wouldn't provide in such circumstances. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:13
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>more the top cover ECHR wouldn't provide in such circumstances. [Sorry, I misunderstood] You may have a point. Although that would drive us to do more, which I would support, rather than less. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:05
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The state is a large beast. It doesn't seem unreasonable that a uk court* could >> make decision on the legality of the gov. So long as the state plays ball. Attempts under both main parties to 'oust' judicial review (eg of immigration decisions) does not augur wel. >> * Probably by jury decision I think. Juries are brilliant at applying common-sense to straightforward facts (see Lady Chatterley case or acquittal of Clive Ponting). When it comes to law, or complex interactions of fact and law, Judges are a better 'tool'. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 17:02
De Menezes - NortonES2
|
| You never know. The ECHR might decide the police were justified in the circumstances. But the process would be outwith the scope of internal pressures and influence which might hinder a dispassionate examination. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 17:04
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Exactly. Its not like the Police have done a good job of policing themselves over the years. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 18:22
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Its not like the Police have done a good job of policing themselves over the >> years. >> Well, that's the thing. In a lot of cases they have done a good job of policing themselves, but that often isn't all that newsworthy. Obviously there are times when they haven't and naturally they come to the forefront, which in an open democracy is quite correct. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 18:30
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>> In a lot of cases they have done a good job of policing themselves By far the majority, I should think. But that's not the same as all. In any case, at this time insofar as human rights are concerned our Government and our Police Force are largely benevolent and responsible. Imagine that our Government and Police they were gradually taken over and replaced with something much less pleasant. Imagine where the BNP had got voted in because of the rising tide of support; or if you believe the tabloid reports then it continued as it was once a place of child molestation. I'd rather we all had somewhere to go to stop such trends. We do not want to be in a position where the State can act within the law and yet still mess with your rights - ask the Russians, the Germans etc. etc. And what we're hoping is that things such as the ECHR guide and influence the direction of travel, not that they necessarily fix everything now. Just that each year we're a little bit closer than we were the previous year. That's why we need an overseer, and that's why subjective laws are [almost?] always a mistake. It allows abuse. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 19:45
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> Imagine that our Government and Police they were gradually taken over and replaced with something >> much less pleasant. Imagine where the BNP had got voted in because of the rising >> tide of support; or if you believe the tabloid reports then it continued as it >> was once a place of child molestation. I'd rather we all had somewhere to go >> to stop such trends. Wouldn't such an unpleasant gov simply bin off any overseer anyway? |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:05
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
The headshots have little to do with wearing a ballistic jacket - it's to stop a bomber using a trigger device, and not to shoot a potentially unstable explosive device. The issue isn't about taking out a suspect. It's about the balls-up after balls-up of procedure and tactics pretty much from the moment De Menezes left his flat. Cressida Dick wanted him kept out of the underground 'at all costs' yet the Police/Army failed despite having armed agents outside. CO19, imo, could easily have seen the man was not wearing a backpack/able to conceal a peroxide bomb before unloading a clip into his skull. They didn't because, imo, they had already decided he was getting capped as they ran down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. And the lies and misinformation were almost on a par with Hillsborough, just with 95 less deaths. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:07
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> They didn't because, imo, they had already decided he was getting capped as they ran >> down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. >> >> And the lies and misinformation were almost on a par with Hillsborough, just with 95 >> less deaths. > Spot on. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:19
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> The issue isn't about taking out a suspect. >> It's about the balls-up after balls-up of procedure and tactics pretty much from the moment De Menezes left his flat. Can't say I followed the ins and outs of the PR afterwards. So I'll take your word for it. >> >> Cressida Dick wanted him kept out of the underground 'at all costs' yet the Police/Army >> failed despite having armed agents outside. Mistakes happen, suspects loose the people following them. Intentionally or otherwise. >> >> CO19, imo, could easily have seen the man was not wearing a backpack/able to conceal >> a peroxide bomb before unloading a clip into his skull. >> >> They didn't because, imo, they had already decided he was getting capped as they ran >> down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. >> In your opinion, but no-one will know really. I doubt, in my opinon anyone would pre-make that decision in that context. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:29
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> The headshots have little to do with wearing a ballistic jacket - it's to stop >> a bomber using a trigger device, and not to shoot a potentially unstable explosive device. That may well be relevant, but it is also about a quick kill... for the same reason i.e. not being able to set off a bomb. >> >> The issue isn't about taking out a suspect. >> It's about the balls-up after balls-up of procedure and tactics pretty much from the moment >> De Menezes left his flat. I think that is an unnecessarily harsh opinion. They did what they could with what they had, it was far from perfect... that's what happens in the real world. >> >> Cressida Dick wanted him kept out of the underground 'at all costs' yet the Police/Army >> failed despite having armed agents outside. >> CO19, imo, could easily have seen the man was not wearing a backpack/able to conceal >> a peroxide bomb before unloading a clip into his skull. Rubbish. The armed unit had to travel half way across London to get there, taking updates from the surveillance unit. The fact that Op Kratos had been authorised, had the armed unit thinking 'Oh sheisse, this is for real'. When you run down into a tube station and have a man pointed out to you by an unarmed surveillance officer and you've already had the authority to kill him quickly because you are told he is a suicide bomber... you do what you have to do quickly, that's your job. You don't stand there assessing things and thinking 'what if'. That is why they have not and will not be prosecuted, they were complying with an agreed procedure to combat a suicide bomber... and I note the procedure is still valid. >> >> They didn't because, imo, they had already decided he was getting capped as they ran >> down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. Yes, that is what Op Kratos is about. >> >> And the lies and misinformation were almost on a par with Hillsborough, just with 95 >> less deaths. You have to differentiate between obvious and known lies / misinformation, which I'd agree is illegal and should be stamped upon heavily and the perpetrators sent to prison.. and.. the usual fog of temporary incorrect information which comes out EVERY TIME, it's a known problem. It's what happens. You learn to sift it until you can verify it. As much as I disliked Sir Ian Blair, I do not believe for one minute he deliberately tried to spread disinformation. He seized upon some 'good' information (which was incorrect) and spouted it, trying to make himself / the police look good. He should have kept quiet, the trouble is the police were slow to the briefing game and looked shifty when they tried saying nothing, so they tried to join the club and often F it up. That's the modern media 'way' for you. I've been watching a 3 part documentary about the Spanish Armada with Dan Snow hosting it. King Philip of Spain was initially told various incorrect updates about how his Armada had defeated the English... which he ignored, because even in those days it was a known phenomena. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:40
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >> They didn't because, imo, they had already decided he was getting capped as they >> ran >> >> down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. >> >> Yes, that is what Op Kratos is about. Interesting, I stand corrected. ID of the person in question is sufficient to engage the target? Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 20:40
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:52
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>>Interesting, I stand corrected. ID of the person in question is sufficient to engage the target? Kratos rules in play and footsloggers convinced De Menezes was 'Osman'. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:11
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >>Interesting, I stand corrected. ID of the person in question is sufficient to engage the >> target? >> >> Kratos rules in play and footsloggers convinced De Menezes was 'Osman'. >> >> Interesting so under Op Kratos, the decision to fire is removed from those armed? Once the order has been given it's a matter of opening firing. No other options? >> |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:12
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>Kratos rules in play I've not heard about this before. Is the point that someone (how senior?) can decide that the Kratos Rules apply against Mr. X, and so the squad looks for him, finds him and kills him on sight? With all the goodwill in the world that sounds a bit iffy. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:16
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
You live and learn. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos Damn straight it should be reviewed. Every killing under rules such as these should be reviewed objectively at the highest level. Anybody who lied or tried to cover up after De Menezes was shot should go to jail. You can't mess around with something this lethal. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:25
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >>Kratos rules in play >> >> I've not heard about this before. >> >> Is the point that someone (how senior?) can decide that the Kratos Rules apply against >> Mr. X, and so the squad looks for him, finds him and kills him on >> sight? >> >> With all the goodwill in the world that sounds a bit iffy. >> It is, but with background it's easy to imagine why a situatuion such as this comes about. I can tell you the Madras shootings played on many people in govs minds, hugely so. That's not to say it was or should be a free card to play, but the context of the readiness and concern that such an attack played on those in command in their minds. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:35
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>it's easy to imagine why a situation such as this comes about. Agreed. And I can mostly understand why they are deemed necessary. But it then needs the very highest of integrity, trust and review. Like in this case; One would hope that a verdict woudl have came out that said something like; "We killed an innocent man by mistake and we're sorry. We followed all rules and protocols in place yet the mistake still happened. To an extent mistakes are a function of this situation, but we are reviewing to see what further safety measures could be put in place that would not harm the effectiveness of the approach". They should have welcomed the ECHR involvement and in fact should have invited it. They should have carried out all their internal reviews objectively and they should have allowed the Coroner full reign. Instead they have shown exactly why such tactics or strategy are dangerous and exactly why people are so reluctant to let these powers be available. As I said, anybody who tried to lie or succeeded in lying or misleading should, without question, go to prison. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 21:48
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
>>That is why they have not and will not be prosecuted, they were complying with an agreed procedure to combat a suicide bomber... and I note the procedure is still valid. they had already decided he was getting capped as they ran down the escalator and jumped the turnstiles. >>Yes, that is what Op Kratos is about >>You don't stand there assessing things and thinking 'what if'. Ok, so if De Menezes has taken off his jacket and sat down on the train, showing he was only wearing a t-shirt, it would have been just dandy for CO19 to shoot him to death because they were just following orders. No need to assess? That's simply daft WP, and an even bigger reason for a higher authority to ultimately Police our state. news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51296000/jpg/_51296600_jex_959997_de27-1.jpg 7/7 bombers - note the big backpacks Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 12 Jun 15 at 21:52
|
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:24
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51296000/jpg/_51296600_jex_959997_de27-1.jpg >> >> 7/7 bombers - note the big backpacks >> Bum bag?....Richard Reid had enough explosives in his shoe to bring an airliner down.... Fair enough in some circs you might want your firearms team to use restraint and common sense... but on jobs like this there's going to have to be a glaringly obvious anomaly .. and very little time to decide upon it.... there's a lot at stake. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:45
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
Reid used PETN which is similar to C4. My favourite use of PETN..... PETN was used in an attempt by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to murder the Saudi Arabian Deputy Minister of Interior Prince Muhammad bin Nayef. The target survived and the bomber died. The PETN was hidden in the bomber's rectum, which security experts described as a novel technique |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:55
De Menezes - Londoner
|
|
>> Reid used PETN which is similar to C4. >> >> My favourite use of PETN..... >> >> PETN was used in an attempt by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to murder the >> Saudi Arabian Deputy Minister of Interior Prince Muhammad bin Nayef. The target survived and the >> bomber died. The PETN was hidden in the bomber's rectum, which security experts described as >> a novel technique >> The cheeky plot was foiled when Saudi Arabian police got wind of the plot thanks to a stool pigeon in the plotters Headquarters (or should that be hind quarters). When asked how much PETN was used, a Police spokesman said "Piles". |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:58
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
| I thought the biggest fear of the security services was the use of a dirty bomb. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 09:13
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Bum bag?....Richard Reid had enough explosives in his shoe to bring an airliner down.... Not sure that comparison works. Bringing down an airliner is, I would suggest, a very different prospect from suicide bombing in a train or building. Provided the small quantity of explosive is in right place within the aircraft structure pressure and gravity will do the 'heavy lifting'. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 11:11
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >> Bum bag?....Richard Reid had enough explosives in his shoe to bring an airliner down.... >> >> Not sure that comparison works. I believe the comparison is more that a small amount can be leathal to many people. Dozens perhaps rather than hundreds casualties, but I believe the point that a small amount of explosive can be hidden and still dangerous is a valid one. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 12:10
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> I believe the comparison is more that a small amount can be leathal to many >> people. Dozens perhaps rather than hundreds casualties, but I believe the point that a small >> amount of explosive can be hidden and still dangerous is a valid one. You may be right. Suicide bombings that have killed large numbers of people though (eg 7/7) seem to involve rucksacks or a 'vest'. My point was simply that rupturing the pressure hull of an airliner was a very different requirement from mass murder in a building or on a train. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 06:54
De Menezes - Duncan
|
|
>> And the lies and misinformation were almost on a par with Hillsborough, just with 95 >> less deaths. >> It is a serious mistake to conflate the causes of the two events. At Stockwell, the police killed De Menezes. No one disputes that. At Hillsborough, the police did not kill the fans. They may have lied, they may have covered up, but they didn't kill the fans. The fans killed the fans. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 07:49
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
>>It is a serious mistake to conflate the causes of the two events. Who made that mistake? I was referring the the Police damage-limitation machine being wheeled out within minutes, dispersing half-truths and lies to hide any mistakes/culpability. >> The fans killed the fans. A tad simplistic - putting too many fans in a cage and then letting more in killed the fans. The reasons for this happening, and who was to 'blame' are debatable, and only now are likely to become as well understood as possible.... thanks to the Police misinformation efforts of the day. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31928476 Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 13 Jun 15 at 07:50
|
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 08:10
De Menezes - Manatee
|
|
The fans did not kill the fans. Mistakes in crowd control killed the fans. You know how to stir it up. If you want to make a distinction, the police meant to kill JCdM, they did not intend the fans to die. The similarity remains in the closing of ranks and the difficulty in getting at the truth. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:16
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>Wouldn't such an unpleasant gov simply bin off any overseer anyway? Perhaps. But these days the world needs a legal cover with which to act it seems. However, more likely the oversight tends to encourage a direction of travel, probably meaning that such a Government would get discouraged much earlier on in the day, before it had sufficient power base. Unless one left the overseer organisation, of course. And whilst Westpig is correct in that we are not the country most needy of this stuff, that does not mean we are without need nor that we can expect a more "needy" state to join and abide by something we do not. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 20:20
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Perhaps finally there is the point of individual failure and organisational or preocedural failure. It may well be that the police involved acted entirely within the existing guidelines and should not be seen as at fault or guilty. That does not necessarily mean that the parameters within which they are required to act are correct. One would hope that out of the de Menezes case woudl some system, process and organisational improvements rather than individual group. However, as often happens, the true offences probably lie within the CYA behaviour immediately afterwards rather than with the operational actions on the day. These people are human beings and human beings can fail or err under pressure. That leeway should not be offered to those who try to cover their own bums with half-truths, lies and misleading information. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:22
De Menezes - Manatee
|
|
To the ECtHR point, there are several references to the "state" as the UK judiciary. In fact, the separation of the executive and the judiciary is as I understand it part of the unwritten constitution, as well as being embedded in statute. Whilst I don't have a problem with the convention, the ECtHR shouldn't be necessary as a further layer if this separation is upheld. I'm no legal eagle, but it seems to me to have been chipped away at. The Lord Chancellor Michael Gove is a cabinet minister (Secretary of State for Justice) but not a judge, very much a politician. Maybe the ECtHR isn't such a bad idea. What's brought it into popular disrepute is the idea of its overruling the highest UK courts in cases involving undesirable people whose whole purpose appears to be to damage the UK; that, and our own politicians threatening to ignore or overrule it. The more they do that, the more I think it's a good thing. |
|
New Fri 12 Jun 15 23:47
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
>>Wouldn't such an unpleasant gov simply bin off any overseer anyway? Like, um, the government threatening to bin IPSA because they suggest MPs should get a rise in salary (whilst removing some 'invisible' sources of income, thus being cost neutral) Shurely not. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 06:38
De Menezes - Pat
|
|
I'd just like to say, probably out of context but I'm going to say it anyway, how much I've enjoyed reading this thread this morning. It's exactly what Non-motoring is all about and we need more like it. It's been so informative and conducted in a polite and sensible manner instead of descending into a willy waving contest so well done to all. While I'm on a roll :) I'm not pointing fingers at anyone at all but to assume that a lot of people like me 'don't have the intelligence' to understand is counterproductive. We do, we just don't like admitting we may struggle a bit and have t apply ourselves. Reading a good debate, looking at all the above opinions objectively made and enjoying doing so, I have been forced to look at other options and revise and understand some of my own beliefs. Far better than asking for help! Pat |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 08:47
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >> Far better than asking for help! >> >> why? |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 09:23
De Menezes - Pat
|
|
>>why?<< It's always easy for those able to give help to ask why those who need it don't ask for it. I'll try and answer that. Pride. Dogged determination to 'do it myself' working on the basis that if 90% of the people on this forum can understand then there is no earthly reason why I can't as well given a bit of self discipline. Pat |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 11:15
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> It's always easy for those able to give help to ask why those who need >> it don't ask for it. I'm not sure that's true, we all help and need help in different ways. Or more relevant to here, we all have our areas of knowledge to help others. For me it is the politics threads, some of the terms/phrases people use are, to me, totally baffling. I always have to ask quite a few questions to get there. >> >> Dogged determination to 'do it myself' working on the basis that if 90% of the >> people on this forum can understand then there is no earthly reason why I can't >> as well given a bit of self discipline. >> I was always taught the only stupid question is the one you don't ask. Asking questions were very much encouraged. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:34
De Menezes - Manatee
|
|
>> >>why?<< >> >> It's always easy for those able to give help to ask why those who need >> it don't ask for it. >> >> I'll try and answer that. >> >> Pride. >> >> Dogged determination to 'do it myself' working on the basis that if 90% of the >> people on this forum can understand then there is no earthly reason why I can't >> as well given a bit of self discipline. Anybody who wants to understand something properly has to put some effort in. Plenty of people "ask for help" when what they need to do is make the same effort as the person they are asking. Look at the number of questions on most forums that can be answered by googling. On the other hand - if I don't understand something despite making the effort, I'll ask. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:41
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>> if I don't understand something despite making the effort, I'll ask. Absolutely. Like feathers. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:00
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> Look at the number of questions on most forums that can be answered by googling. >> depends on what it is, sometimes it's best to ask rather than google. Stops any misunderstanding. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:03
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> depends on what it is, sometimes it's best to ask rather than google. Stops any >> misunderstanding. That's true but some of us are more inclined to help if people show signs of trying to help themselves - if only to eliminate stuff. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:14
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> That's true but some of us are more inclined to help if people show signs >> of trying to help themselves - if only to eliminate stuff. >> Each to their own, it doesn't bother me if people just ask or google away then ask. I find it's quicker and simpler if I/they just ask. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:15
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
I will help anybody with anything if i can. I only expect a bit of common courtesy in return. Occasionally people take the mick, but not often |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 09:04
De Menezes - NortonES2
|
| Here here. Lot of material unknown to me, including Kratos! Some very knowledgable contributors. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:40
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
>>assume that a lot of people like me 'don't have the intelligence' to understand is counterproductive. Usually its not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of interest and effort, and frequently prior knowledge. But by even reading such a thread, then one stands apart from the disinterested. However, I repeat that the implications of an EU/US trade agreement are huge and yet it was virtually unheard of in the media. Farage causing a rumpus in the EU parliament which stopped being relevant to the world about30 seconds after it happened and yet it was all over the media. The media print what [they believe] people want to read. Thus it would appear that, as a generalisation, a silly man jumping up and down is more interesting, and more intelligible than TTIP to the vast majority of the Mail readers. The shame of that (well there are many, but *this particular shame*) is that those who rely on the print/broadcast media for information, which is most people, will never hear about TTIP even if they are or would be interested. Wouldn't it be nice to read a newspaper that told you this stuff and left the silly stuff to one side? Sure it would. Do you know why there isn't one? Insufficient demand. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:43
De Menezes - Manatee
|
|
>> >>assume that a lot of people like me 'don't have the intelligence' to understand is >> counterproductive. >> >> Usually its not a matter of intelligence, its a matter of interest and effort, and >> frequently prior knowledge. >> >> But by even reading such a thread, then one stands apart from the disinterested. Duty pedant here - I think that should be 'uninterested'. But you're right. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:46
De Menezes - No FM2R
|
|
Disinterested - have no stake in the game / impartial Uninterested - don't care You're right. My head knew but my fingers got confused. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 13:52
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Wouldn't it be nice to read a newspaper that told you this stuff and left >> the silly stuff to one side? Sure it would. Do you know why there isn't >> one? Insufficient demand. The Guardian has reported on the issue but most of its coverage has been opinion pieces by George Monbiot. While Monbiot has an interesting take on stuff he's way off any form of impartial. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:31
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Of course it would be nice to read about this stuff.TTIP Will affect all of us in a way we might not like. The food we eat the stuff what is produced over the backs of people who are lucky do have a meal a day. |
|
New Mon 15 Jun 15 16:55
De Menezes - Pezzer
|
| Here here...... |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 08:46
De Menezes - sooty123
|
|
>> >>Wouldn't such an unpleasant gov simply bin off any overseer anyway? >> >> Like, um, the government threatening to bin IPSA err no not really. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:30
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
Washington Post article on British firearms officers and mentions the 'de Menezes' case tinyurl.com/qfl99c2 |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:41
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Because the Yanks speak some form of English doesn't mean there is any comparison between the two countries. Our comparison is with Europe in my opinion.I grew up with armed policemen on the streets in Holland.I never felt uncomfortable with them about being armed. In America depends on the State where they live Yankee coppers can and are lethal with their gun if confronted. |
|
New Sat 13 Jun 15 14:55
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Because the Yanks speak some form of English doesn't mean there is any comparison between >> the two countries. I've always said that and I suspect same applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to Australia. US though is a big place with considerable difference between (say) NY or SF and the rural midwest or deep south. >> In America depends on the State where they live Yankee coppers can and are lethal >> with their gun if confronted. Attitude is said to be completely different. My brother outlaw was stopped by a Highway Patrol while driving a hire car in US. Nothing serious but he was struggling with LHD and massive freeways, His attempt to get out of car and meet the officer on foot, as you might do in UK, was met with a loudspeakered instruction to stay put with his hands visible... |
|
New Sun 14 Jun 15 19:59
A Tory MP Talking Sense - Bromptonaut
|
|
Dominic Grieve on the need to stay with the ECHR: www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/11/tory-plans-human-rights-europe-strasbourg-dominic-grieve |
|
New Sun 14 Jun 15 20:49
A Tory MP Talking Sense - Manatee
|
|
I have a sketchy knowledge of the judiciary but my instinct is that Parliament/politicians have been reducing the separation of the state and the judiciary, and my impression is that ECtHR is an obstacle to that process because it is utterly outwith their influence; ergo they (some of them) want rid of it; ergo they should not be allowed to (unless it is clearly being politically manipulated by somebody else and so disfunctional). Is that reasonable for a broad perspective Bromp, or should I go and study it some more before pontificating? |
|
New Sun 14 Jun 15 23:38
A Tory MP Talking Sense - No FM2R
|
|
My pontification would be along slightly different lines. Despite the general public's lack of interest and lack of understanding of most of what goes on, they are prone to outbreaks of opinions and demand for action allied with a need to blame for anything on the front page of the Mail. Take the TTIP (or ECHR) for example; I doubt that most people understand it, its structure, its origins, its impact and the ramifications of having it or not. However, should something on the tabloid front page bring it to their attention then they demand apology, action and culprits. Since the culprit / spokesman / whatever is usually a politician, then this has an impact. For example, a significant different between a politician and a judge is probably that a judge tells the truth as he sees it, whereas a politician tells the truth as he would like it to be seen. By and large the politicians don't like, they just "present" the truth in a certain way. Consequently the politicians prefer other politicians in charge of stuff that might go wrong. Hence the politician creep into the judiciary. Difficult to see how else it might be; I would accept "Damn, it screwed up but I'll make sure it doesn't happen again" or even "Its damned difficult to renegotiate and I am not sure what result I'll get, but I am certainly going to try" In fact I would feel quite kindly towards the politician that said such a thing. But the Mail would not. And thus neither would an influential proportion of the electorate. |
|
New Sun 14 Jun 15 23:40
A Tory MP Talking Sense - No FM2R
|
|
Contd. However, by and large we should be seeking to make politicians look after stuff we want looked after, not letting them change it into something that they want to look after. It should be our "wants" through him, not his wants over ours. Thus, if a politician actually wants something, then we need to really understand why. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 15:54
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> The De Menezes case is now going to The European Court for Human Rights. >> >> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33066098 And the ECHR has decided that the convention was not breached: www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-police-officers-shouldshould-not-be-prosecuted-echr hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"languageisocode":["ENG"],"documentcollectionid2":["JUDGMENTS"],"itemid":["001-161975"]} Can you imagine the hoo-hah if it's gone the other way?? |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 16:11
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> Can you imagine the hoo-hah if it's gone the other way?? Wont stop any ho-ha about the ECHR and Brexit tho will it. TBH this was always going to be a no-hoper, never met any of the requirements for a breach of human rights. It was show boating. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 16:57
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> TBH this was always going to be a no-hoper, never met any of the requirements >> for a breach of human rights. It was show boating. So why do you think Article 2 was not engaged? Much of what you've posted above suggests the opposite Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 30 Mar 16 at 17:01
|
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 17:00
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"languageisocode":["ENG"],"documentcollectionid2":["JUDGMENTS"],"itemid":["001-161975"]} Was not the right link for the court's decision, should be: hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161975 Please could a mod do the required edit? |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 20:29
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Must be scary you go to work or whatever.Some geezers follow you thinking you are a terrorist. Next minute seven bullets in your body the majority in your head. Has anybody gone to the nick over this? |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 20:58
De Menezes - Zero
|
| No, thats why it was taken to the European Court for Human Rights. Essentially, the Metropolitan Force cocked up as a whole, but you can't blame the coppers who shot him because they were led astray. Nothing was deliberate, it was a cock up, thats why you can't claim it was a breach of human rights. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 23:14
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> it was a cock up, that's why you can't claim it was a breach of human rights. A cock up that could/should have been circumvented is perfectly capable of constituting a breach of the Convention. Plenty of cases bear that out. The question here was whether, a life having been taken by the state, there was an effective inquiry. The focus was on the procedural aspects. The court found that the complaint under Article 2 was admissible but (by majority) it did not prove a violation. A minority of Judges concluded there was a violation. The Court heard all the argument and that's the outcome. Job done. Zero's allegation of showboating by the family is both ignorant and offensive. Stick to dogs. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 21:40
De Menezes - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> >> >> Has anybody gone to the nick over this? >> If you accept that it is sometimes necessary for police to carry guns you also have to be prepared to absolve them for making honest mistakes. The whys and wherefores are easy to debate afterwards, but they have only a split second to decided whether the thing concealed under a cloth is a table leg or a shotgun, or whether the bloke sitting on the train is about to detonate a suicide bomb. They are acting on information they have to assume to be reliable, faff about making up their minds for too long and they're dead. Not a job I'd ever want to do. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 22:05
De Menezes - Rudedog
|
| I think what has incensed a lot of people is that the Met couldn't even just make an apology or statement regretting what happened - as far as I know they have kept very quite. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 22:11
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> I think what has incensed a lot of people is that the Met couldn't even >> just make an apology or statement regretting what happened - as far as I know >> they have kept very quite. They have in fact admitted they cocked up and paid a large amount of dosh to his family. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 22:15
De Menezes - Rudedog
|
| Oh OK, I was just going by what commentators were saying today after the court decision. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 22:31
De Menezes - R.P.
|
|
I know enough Cops that are/were armed and indeed one who was shot and injured, either that or his experiences at WarrenPoint did for him, all of them are decent well adjusted people who go to work and want to come home in one piece at the end of their shift and retire to a decent pension. I really don't know what the alternatives are. Maybe they should employ people to write editorials for the Guardian or something instead of costly authorised shots. Something went badly wrong that day - but in reality what would any of you have done in the same circumstances...? |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 22:40
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> Something went badly wrong that day - but in reality what would any of you >> have done in the same circumstances...? Command and control went badly awry that day, heads were lost in places that should have remained calm and detached. The troops in the front line didn't stand a cat in hells chance of being guided to the correct conclusion |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 23:04
De Menezes - R.P.
|
| Exactly. A symptom of the problems within the Met. I was asking the question from the perspective of the Officers on the ground...they thought they knew what they were confronting and had to make a very tough decision. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 23:12
De Menezes - Lygonos
|
|
>>A symptom of the problems within the Met Lions led by donkeys, or whatever metaphor you wish - the top brass lie-machine was immediately in full swing, with echoes of Hillsborough. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 23:32
De Menezes - Zero
|
|
>> >> >>A symptom of the problems within the Met >> >> Lions led by donkeys, or whatever metaphor you wish - the top brass lie-machine was >> immediately in full swing, with echoes of Hillsborough. >> And then got promoted, fat pension increase, then a job for the boys in government. |
|
New Wed 30 Mar 16 23:57
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> And then got promoted, fat pension increase, then a job for the boys in government. Discussion in another forum turned to subject of when was an Officer last jailed for a death in police hands. If the answer was accurate it's not difficult to understand why folks get a bit cynical. |
|
New Thu 31 Mar 16 11:50
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> If the answer was accurate it's not difficult to understand why folks get a bit >> cynical. >> Marvelous. So there should be a certain number of jailed cops should there? How many do you want? Despite the fact that Custody Suites have cameras and audio everywhere; that the British Police have the most robust complaints system in the world; there are nurses employed in most Custody Suites and easy/frequent access to doctors; there is a very high standard of the recording of evidence or management decisions at Critical or Major Incidents (Incident Management Logs) etc, etc.... .... you want a few jailed... regardless of any evidence or whether they've done wrong? It's no wonder some Forces are worried about whether they can recruit enough firearms officers, because PCs are concerned about the rent-a-mob mentality after shots are fired. |
|
New Thu 31 Mar 16 12:11
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
WP, Do you have an answer to the question I asked about when an officer or officers were last jailed over a death involving allegations of brutality in Police hands? Don't get me wrong, I don't want some quota 'banged up'. Neither do I believe that off all the deaths in police hands since say the late seventies there have not been folks who've got away, sometimes literally, with murder. Yes, accountability has improved since Red Lion Sq or Blair Peach but there are still too many that leave a bad taste. |
|
New Thu 31 Mar 16 12:34
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
If anyone, let alone a police officer*, commits a criminal offence and someone dies...then 'yes' they should be jailed. Simple as that. *they should be working to a higher standard and are in a position of trust If someone works in an environment where they are constantly dealing with very difficult people in most trying circumstances and on the odd occasion someone dies (usually through their own actions, and this includes such things as positional asphyxia, because if they weren't violent they wouldn't be pinned to the floor... or waving a gun around at an armed cop).... .... then there's a degree of inevitability about it and blame should be clearly aimed at he who's caused it. There will be a very full investigation and if no one has been imprisoned in the last 'x' years, so be it. You don't have the faintest idea what it is like to work in such conditions, but glibly want a few imprisoned so it looks better? |
|
New Thu 31 Mar 16 22:33
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> this includes such things as positional asphyxia, because if they weren't violent they >> wouldn't be pinned to the floor... or waving a gun around at an armed cop).... Interesting you should introduce positional asphyxia. While I've apparently 'not the faintest idea what it is to work in such conditions' I have extensive personal and professional experience of people with mental health problems. Too many cases of positional asphyxia in police custody are about people waving nothing more lethal than a health condition. I know the brother in law of Mikey Powell; tinyurl.com/glaotaf Just one of many cases where, at least from family's view, it's difficult to refute the idea that the coppers 'got off' Was David Oluwale really the last dead victim of police misconduct who's tormentor's got a criminal conviction? |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 00:40
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Don't start me off about people with mental health problems.Remember when care in the community came about? Institutions where closed ok not necessary the best help but better then what came after. |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 09:50
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> Interesting you should introduce positional asphyxia. While I've apparently 'not the faintest idea what it >> is to work in such conditions' I have extensive personal and professional experience of people >> with mental health problems. Too many cases of positional asphyxia in police custody are about >> people waving nothing more lethal than a health condition. Like I said, you do not have the faintest idea. With your extensive knowledge of mental health issues, you will know that a huge number of people with that condition are not violent... ...and a few sometimes have the odd violent characteristic on occasions, but can easily be handled with tact and good humour or similar.... ... and a few can be an utter nightmare to deal with. Concentrating on the 'utter nightmare' ones. What do you do with someone who is built like a brick outhouse*, frightening, exceptionally violent, intent on harming you, trying to bite you, spitting at you, etc... you place them face down on the floor. Having done so, you have to keep checking that they are breathing o.k. because of the fears of positional asphyxia... trouble is, every time you do that, you get Mr Angry attacking you again... so it's a difficult one to judge. Oh.... and non mental health violent people do the same... so is the wholly untrained cop expected to ascertain who has mental health issues or who is just violent, all at a time someone is trying to seriously hurt you?.... and then what, what would you do differently? * it's the bigger blokes who seemingly have the most problems with positional asphyxia So the bottom line is I think you are out of order. You are blind to the very difficult roles performed and despite having knowledge of the court systems, have an unrealistic expectation of conviction and imprisonment on people generally just trying to do their jobs in very difficult circumstances. |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 11:34
De Menezes - Fullchat
|
| And to restrain someone who is violent and strong (often with enhanced through drink/drugs) requires at least 4 - one on each corner. Not only for Officer safety but their own.This often attracts allegations of excessive force or being 'over the top'. |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 14:07
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> at least 4 - one on each corner. ...and with the knowledge that if it takes more than 6 you're in deep doo-doo... because you can't really get more than that into the fray. The amount of strength some people can muster when their gander is up is unreal. Being the last one out of the cell was never a volunteer job, was it? |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 14:11
De Menezes - Armel Coussine
|
| Glad I'm not a copper. |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 14:11
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
Agree regarding mentally ill people the majority are not violent and often can be calmed down by talking to them. How to deal with someone who is intend on harming you in a violent situation and restraining them without harming can't be easy. |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 18:02
De Menezes - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> How to deal with someone who is intend on harming you in a violent situation >> and restraining them without harming can't be easy. >> >> >> I spent a few years as a park ranger many years ago. Nowhere near the same level of aggro the police face every day, but it had it's moments and you occasionally (Very occasionally, thankfully) had to restrain violent people. Trying to pin down a complete nutter high on the effects of glue, to recall one instance, is impossible to do without hurting them. And the harder they fight, the more damage you have to inflict to overcome them. >> Agree regarding mentally ill people the majority are not violent and often can be calmed >> down by talking to them. >> |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 20:44
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
Westpig, I'm not pointing the finger at you or particularly the Met and if I've given the contrary impression or touched a raw nerve for any reason I apologise. Neither an I suggesting that any death or injury in custody should require an officer to be sacrificed at the Old Bailey. For all the fact that the biggest problem for the mentally ill is their own fears and demons if one kicked off big time in the office we'd be on to Holborn nick for back up. I'm not saying it's easy or that violent men (or women) can be restrained without risk of injury all round. The bar for action against officers should be a high one and juries will naturally be reluctant to convict. But at same time you said: >> If anyone, let alone a police officer*, commits a criminal offence and someone dies...then 'yes' >> they should be jailed. >> >> Simple as that. >> >> *they should be working to a higher standard and are in a position of trust My question remains; when did that last happen? And if the answer is, as suggested in another forum, that the officers were Inspector Geoffrey Ellerker and Sergeant Kenneth Kitching of the Leeds Police, the tormentors of David Oluwale*, then either folks have got away with stuff for too long or we're long, long overdue a reversion to mean. *I remember Oluwale's case being reported when I was in my early teens in Leeds. Lot of debate about it in the City and, for middle class folks who thought the police were 'goodies', a hell of an eye opener Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 1 Apr 16 at 20:49
|
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 20:55
De Menezes - Bromptonaut
|
|
Missed the edit. An account of Oluwale's story is here: www.theguardian.com/society/2007/may/30/immigrationasylumandrefugees.asylum |
|
New Fri 1 Apr 16 21:49
De Menezes - Dutchie
|
|
One of the few jobs I did after so called retiring was Security in a hospital.One situation where I was involved where a patient left his ward to go home in his pyama's. I found him in the lift going down he was about 6.5 6.6.And build like a brick s*** house I wouldn't have had much of a change to restrain him.Talking and having a joke did the trick.I was lucky. |
|
New Sat 2 Apr 16 00:25
De Menezes - Westpig
|
|
>> I'm not pointing the finger at you or particularly the Met and if I've given >> the contrary impression or touched a raw nerve for any reason I apologise. Polite and reasonable as ever Bromptonaut. We see life through different eyes though. I read the link you posted... and it's appalling. They deserved prison. The world now though is a completely different place than what it was then, the systems in place: CCTV, Complaints system, training, culture, younger generation's perceptions... are all world's apart from what it used to be. |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
