De Menezes execution

by **Peachtree Pam** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:11 am

This is from Zymphora. It gets worse and worse. How Ian Blair can stay on is beyond me. : Sunday, August 21, 2005 Unbelievable tales from London From The Observer: "Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times." and (more evidence that the SAS hit squad was just out to kill someone, and didn't need or want a good reason): "A police source said: 'There is no way those three guys would have been on the train carriage with him [de Menezes] if they believed he was carrying a bomb. Nothing he did gave the surveillance team the impression that he was carrying a device.'" and (more changes to the Official Story, which seems to change completely each day): "The Observer now understands that seconds before the firearms team entered the tube train carriage, a member of the surveillance squad using the codename Hotel 3 moved to the doorway and shouted: 'He's in here.' De Menezes, in all likelihood alarmed by the activity, stood and moved towards the doorway. He was grabbed and pushed back to his seat. The first shots were then fired while Hotel 3 was holding him." and, in case you thought the surveillance team was off the hook (my emphasis in bold): "Meanwhile, questions have been raised about the accuracy of the police intelligence that led to the raid on the block of flats occupied by de Menezes. It was initially suggested that the flat was connected to the man known as Hussein Osman, who was arrested in Italy. On the Saturday after the shooting, officers raided the flat in a high-profile operation watched by the world's media. As a result, a man, identified only as 'C', was arrested 'on suspicion of the commission, instigation or preparation of acts of terrorism'. But he was released on 30 July with no charge, raising the possibility that the flats had no connection with the bombings." The Independent Police Complaints Commission is also "expected to look into selective briefings to the media over the days following the shootings." 'Selective' is the nice way to refer to the fact that the police effectively lied by allowing untrue speculations to circulate. This whole thing has become completely unbelievable. It wouldn't be any weirder if they held a press conference tomorrow with de Menezes himself, announcing that it was all part of the latest Richard Branson publicity stunt to advertise Virgin bulletproof vests.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 8:38 am

Pam, You've done the right thing to start a new thread here. I'll just add the URL from the last thread to cement the link <a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=127.topic">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...=127.topic</a> Thanks for yesterday. I've left some comments with Xymphora so we'll have to see if s/he visits. I confess I'd written today's comment before seeing what you posted. There's duplication, but that in itself is instructive. Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times. Sources said that the surveillance officers wanted to detain de Menezes, but were told to hand over the operation to the firearms team. The two teams have fallen out over the circumstances surrounding the incident, raising fresh questions about how the operation was handled. A police source said: 'There is no way those three guys would have been on the train carriage with him [de Menezes] if they believed he was carrying a bomb. Nothing he did gave the surveillance team the impression that he was carrying a device.' Snip….. For the firearms officers involved in the death to avoid any legal action, they will have to state that they believed their lives and those of the passengers were in immediate danger. Such a view is unlikely to be supported by members of the surveillance unit. For reasons as yet unclear, members of the firearms team have yet to submit their own account of the events to the IPCC. The two members of the team believed to have fired the fatal shots are known to have gone on holiday immediately after the shooting. In one case, the holiday had been pre-booked, in the other the leave was authorised by Blair <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1553440,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/u...40,00.html</a> Five days after the shooting, accounts of de Menezes fleeing the police made their way into the post mortem report. Lawyers for the family claim that information could only have come from the police and that the post mortem report shows that the Met continued to mislead the public and the investigating authorities even when the truth should have been known. In response, the Met says that these details were all provided by members of the public and were never confirmed by police. Several witnesses have since admitted that they were mistaken in what they believed they had seen. <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1553306,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/f...06,00.html</a> This is how the Guardian reported the story on 23 July At Stockwell, bewildered eyewitnesses spilled out of the underground station and told how they had witnessed the moment, shortly after 10am, when the suspect was repeatedly shot. All described the man as wearing a bulky, winter coat, despite the warm weather, and at least one said he thought he spotted a belt with wires running from it. After leaping the ticket barriers, racing down an escalator and dashing on to a train, the man appears to have either fallen or been bundled to the ground by pursuing police, one of whom leaned over and shot him several times in the head. Anthony Larkin, who was on the train, said: "I saw these police officers shouting 'get down, get down', and I saw this guy who appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out. People were panicking and I heard two shots being fired." Mark Whitby, 47, who was sitting a few yards from the shooting, said: "I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train. He was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun. "As he got on to the train I looked at his face, he looked sort of left and right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox. "He looked absolutely petrified. They couldn't have been any more than two or three feet behind him at this time and he half tripped and was half pushed to the floor, and the policeman nearest to me had a black automatic pistol in his left hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him. "They pushed him to the floor and basically unloaded five shots into him. "I was totally distraught. It was no less than five yards away from where I was sitting." At one point, the train's driver was chased by police and had a gun pointed at his head after he leapt from his cab and ran down a tunnel on hearing the commotion. The shot suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1534671,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uk_new...71,00.html</a> Then there is this Lighter blamed for fatal car fire Friday April 19, 2002 Guardian A youngster playing with a lighter or matches may have caused a car fire which claimed two children's lives, an inquest heard yesterday. Shannon Averiss, three, and her brother Ciaran, 14 months, died from smoke inhalation after the Vauxhall Cavalier they were strapped in the back of, burst into flames while parked in Reading, Berkshire, on January 31. Their parents, Sulie Averiss and Damien Moore, both 20, had left them in the back seats of the G-reg vehicle as they stopped to see friends, the inquest in Windsor was told. A forensic expert who examined the vehicle said the most likely explanation for the fire starting was a naked flame applied to combustible material in the driver's footwell. When pulled from the burning vehicle by their parents, Ciaran was still strapped into his seat, but Shannon had wriggled out of her booster seat and was found in the footwell between the front and rear seats. Ms Averiss, from Reading, told the hearing that the couple had owned the vehicle for three months prior to the blaze and at times smoke had come from the ignition lock when she started the engine. Anthony Larkin, the forensic scientist who examined the car, said in a statement: "It is not possible to conclusively state the cause or origin of the fire. "The fire did not start in the engine bay and there were no signs of an electrical cause of the fire. "The most likely cause is a naked flame applied to combustible materials in the footwell." The inquest was told that the car was littered with sweet wrappers and newspapers and that cigarettes and a lighter may have been in the front compartment. Both parents were smokers. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,686843,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uk_new...43,00.html</a> Apart from Blair, the only people that know what happened are the two shhoters and Anthony Larkin. So how do you hold an inquiry by speaking only to the ignorant? No wonder the police look such fools. What I think. The MO of the Windsor Mob is to selectively intervene in the functioning of the State machinery (using the Treason Felony Act of 184<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> . Occasionally something inexplicable happens like the de Menezes murder, because somebody intervenes to make it happen. The shooters were clearly SAS. The SAS reports to "The Palace" and NOT to the Ministry of Defence. The SAS are fanatically loyal to the Queen and it is likely that one must be a Freemason to be part of it. Whatever, they are untouchable. I'll bet we don't even find out the murderers' names.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 2:59 pm

It seems to me that SIR Ian Blair has set-up his own organisation by infiltrating a SAS hit squad with a separate agenda. If I were a cop I’d want rid of him. What the Israelis call a “wet job” the SAS calls “butcher and bolt”. In other words you destroy the target (butcher) and get the hell away (bolt). Let’s look at the butcher aspects (i)There is no camcorder footage from the MILITARY surveillance officer. (ii)A CIVILIAN surveillance officer seeks permission to apprehend Menezes and is denied. (iii)The hit takes place UNDER GROUND and so outside of radio contact. It is known that poor Cressida lost control of the operation for just this reason. (iv)Misleading statements were immediately put out by “DISINTERESTED CIVILLIANS” Mark Whitby and Anthony Larkin. The guy was a terrorist. Now look at the bolt aspects. (v)The shooters, the two men who emptied their weapons into Menezes’ head, were sent on vacation IMMEDIATELY after the hit. (vi)Sir Ian Blair begins his LYING with the statement that the hit is “bomb investigation related”. (vii)Sir Ian Blair tries to OVERRIDE LEGISLATION and kill any independent investigation. (viii)The Metropolitan Police LIE to the forensic examiner about the circumstances of the shooting (on 27 July). (ix)The independent investigation is DEFERRED for more than five days while the perpetrators retain control of the crime scene. (x)We are told that NO CCTV PICTURES EXIST because the cameras “were not working”. (xi)No statement has been made to the IPCC by the shooter team even now ONE MONTH after it happened. (xii)The two shooters are STILL ON HOLIDAY and have not spoken to the IPCC. (xiii)There has been NO IDENTIFICATION of who the shooters were, only vague and anonymous statements. (xiv)We have been told to expect the outcome of the inquiry in about THREE YEARS. Really, there is only one explanation for all this. This hit was carried out on the instructions of QUEEN ELIZABETH, and her hit-men are untouchable.

by **winsomecowboy** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 3:55 pm

<img src="http://www.antigravitytheatre.com/notamused.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Starman** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 4:52 pm

Antiaristo: 3 YEARS for an INQUIRY???? The fact that the shooting team STILL hasn't provided a statement is ... just MIND-boggling enough. The 3-year thing is incomprehensible, except for the apparant purpose to avoid holding the shooters responsible for their criminal incompetance or misfeasance -- at the very least it's manslaughter if not unjustified homicide. It would seem the shooting team, perhaps SAS, were in an extreme emotional state likely aggravated by their 'extreme prejudice' training and under pressure by superiors to 'do their duty' -- it's like they caught-the-scent like dogs bred to fight to the death, and they went 'off' -- VERY fucking scary. The State is now in a conundrum -- how can they hold their officers accountable when the State is implicated in providing the Israeli assassination-squad training and created the high-stress context that put them in a potentially tragic situation? I'm sure their training includes abundant assurances that they will be fully exonnerated for any killing incidents. Reduced morale and resentment are sure to occur if the State doesn't protect the shooters. But there were so many serious errors and poor-judgements made that it seems there's plenty blame to go around among the chain-of-command -- which of course the State must also protect to keep the whole system from collapsing. Thus, it seems the State sees the best action is -- to postpone action. (The 'Israeli' solution? Delay, put-off making concessions or acknowledging ones responsibility as long as possible, using distraction or 'new' problems to keep the public diverted -- hoping that something will happen to make the difficult, hard choice moot.) What a cop-out. Just shows how incapable the current state institution is to hold itself accountable -- Just like the US. The hallmark of a Police State. <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/ips/suri.php?articleid=6991">www.antiwar.com/ips/suri....cleid=6991</a> London: Last Police Lie Blown-Off: Sanjay Suri (InterPress Service) --quote-- Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Ian Blair had said after the killing: "Whatever else they were doing, they clearly thought they were faced with a suicide bomber and they were running toward him. Had that person been a suicide bomber and had the officers not fired and 25 yards up the track the bomb had exploded, the officers would be in a worse situation than they are now." He announced and later defended a "shoot to kill" policy, and said that more people could be killed. He expressed "regret" over the death. But his predecessor expressed sympathy for the officer who killed Charles, not for Charles or his family. "My heart goes out to the officer who killed the man in Stockwell Tube Station," Lord John Stevens wrote in a newspaper. Ian Blair said lethal force was the only option available to his officers. But the police themselves compromised that defense when they used no more than a stun gun to arrest Yasin Hassan Omar, one of the July 21 suspects. --unquote-- Pathetic and tragic. Starman

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 21, 2005 5:47 pm

Hi Starman, Hey, you don't know when you are well-off. Three years is but the twinkling of an eye. Did you know that the "inquiry" into the "death" of the former Princess of Wales is STILL UNDERWAY? In fact it is being conducted by your friend Lord Stevens. It will be EIGHT YEARS come the end of the month. No it's not a British obsession with monarchy: these people have REAL POWER and it is a matter of State. They will NEVER allow open investigation of what happened. So who is going to force them? That person will not last long. But Meneses was Brazillian, a Catholic. The people are REALLY angry. Lula is going through a bad patch. If they can get names there is nothing to stop Brazil going after the perpetrators through Interpol. Interestingly, the two envoys to be sent by Brazil are MAGISTRATES rather than policemen.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:05 am

A letter from today's Guardian You are right that "something more sinister" may be at work in the police reaction. In January 2003 the Met claimed ricin had been found in a flat in Wood Green and that an al-Qaida terror lab had been shut down. For over two years the government was adamant about a plot. But there was no ricin and no terror cell, as we found when the case finally got to court. Bill Dixon Peterborough, Cambs (NB if you read the peceding thread on Loftus you will find the Guardian article that was D-Noticed, The Ricin Ring that Never was)

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:02 pm

Sir Ian Bliar is now asking us to see the “dreadful mistake” in the context of the terror attack which claimed 57 lives. Fair enough. What WAS the context? This piece is fairly typical font size=3]Who duped the London bombers?[/font] By GAVIN GATENBY, Possum News Network 18 July 2005 Citing police and MI5 sources, The Mirror.co.uk, a mainstream British internet publication, has now admitted the probability that the four London bombers were in some way duped by a master bomber (<a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742951%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=was%2dit%2dsuicide%2d%2d-name_page.html).">www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_...age.html).</a> This theory has been widely reported internationally (for example by the Sydney Morning Herald, 18 July 2005). In the Mirror’s scenario the master bomber cynically tricked his team into thinking that when they pressed the button, they were setting off a timing device that would give them sufficient time to leave the target area. Instead, they pressed the buttons, detonated the bombs and killed themselves as well as their victims. According to this scenario the bombers were merely expendable low-level operatives whose death would happily remove the probability that, if caught, they would reveal, under interrogation, details about their controllers and other members of the network. In its way, this admission is a breakthrough that should allow other more plausible scenarios to emerge for investigation. In that spirit, let me suggest variants of the “dupes scenario” that I believe are at least equally plausible, given the information currently available to the public . <a href="http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_on/london_bombers_duped.html">www.brushtail.com.au/july...duped.html</a> So, on 18 July the thrust was shifting away from “suicide bombers” and towards dupes. And there was talk of a master bomber, presumably Aswat, the MI6 agent. Then came the harmless “bombings”. Then came the Stockwell shooting. Now we don’t hear anything about 7/7. Except for the purposes of excusing the excesses of the State. Strange, eh? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 8/22/05 1:44 pm

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:35 pm

Meanwhile, it was claimed yesterday that CCTV tapes depicting Mr de Menezes' last moments were handed out to police but returned blank. Tube Lines, the company which runs Stockwell station, said it had not been aware of any faults on its cameras on 22 July. The Mail on Sunday quoted a senior transport union official as saying: " After the incident, the police took the tapes away. When they brought them back three or four days later, they said, 'These are no good to us. They're blank.'" Snip...... Gareth Peirce, whose firm Birnberg Peirce is representing the de Menezes family, said: "The question of the police going to Brazil to speak to Jean Charles' parents was just one of many examples where the police appeared to be trying to ensure that the family did not have legal advice at important moments." Ms Peirce, who has condemned Sir Ian for "extreme negligence" over the information he put out about the killing, complained of "a catalogue of disturbing features of this from the start to finish and I suspect they haven't finished yet". A statement from Scotland Yard said: "We can confirm a letter signed by the Metropolitan Police solicitors has been passed to representatives of Mr de Menezes' family which provides a £15,000 ex-gratia payment. The letter is very specific that this sum does not inhibit any future claim that the family may have against the Metropolitan Police Service and this point was reiterated at the meeting with the family in Brazil." But the family told The Mail on Sunday they had been pressured into meeting Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, from the Met, without their lawyers. Mr de Menezes's brother, Giovani, said: "They thought we were poor people, stupid people. We may be poor but we are not that stupid. We will not exchange money for my brother's life but we will punish them. " <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article307445.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...307445.ece</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 8/22/05 1:47 pm

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:57 pm

There HAVE been inquiries into shoot-to-kill in Northern Ireland. The Stalker Inquiry. The SAS are now playing the same game in Britain, so it is worth learning from history... The Stalker Affair Paul Lashmar Violations of Rights in Britain Series 3 No.27 The slapping of a Public Interest Immunity Certificate on John Stalker by the Northern Ireland Secretary in May was one of the more remarkable Government gagging orders of recent times and yet another bizarre episode in the long running Stalker Affair. The former Deputy Chief Constable was about to give evidence in court in a civil action brought by his friend, Kevin Taylor, against the Greater Manchester police.  <a href="http://www.charter88.org.uk/publications/violations/lashmar2.html">www.charter88.org.uk/publ...hmar2.html</a> Read the whole thing if you want to know what will happen with Meneses.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:47 pm

Here is a comment just posted on Jeff's latest blog: Today I listened to Fintan Dunne's take on the killing. He has an excellent analytical mind and does not care what others say. He maintains that the police were not surveilling the apt building of de Menezes and that the papers recently "leaked" were leaked deliberately, to explain why there were no pictures of de Menezes leaving the building; Dunne thinks the address of the apt was obtained from de Menezes's id at the time of his execution and the police had to begin to work backward to construct a story. Could the role of Whitby and Anthony Larkin (who works for the police?) be to give them breathing space to concoct a story? (The "official" story was that they had a obtained the address from a rucksack at the scene of the 21/7 "failed" bombings.) There was (according to what I understand from Dunne's analysis, although I could be wrong about this) NO team of three men on the bus. There WAS a man already stationed inside the train (plainclothes) who, after de Menezes entered the train and sat down, went to the door and shouted for a group across the platform to come...this group executed de Menezes. HAD de Menezes been a Muslim, from anywhere, the police could have made up any story about him and none would be the wiser... As it was, he was Brazilian, and the police were in deep trouble. All of this supports Jeff's theory and of course the theory of others that this was a demonstation killing, or a killing for some occult purpose.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 8:47 pm

Police and Tube firm at odds over CCTV footage of innocent Brazilian's shooting Police officers and station managers were at odds last night over the existence of crucial CCTV-footage of the shooting of a Brazilian man wrongly suspected of being a suicide bomber. By Nigel Morris, Jason Bennetto and Barrie Clement Published: 23 August 2005 None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working, a police document revealed. Cameras on the platform and the train were not operational, officers told the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The submission by the Metropolitan Police, obtained by ITV News, puts officers at odds with a statement from Tube Lines, the company operating the station. The police document says: "Stockwell station and environs has been surveyed and all existing CCTV has been seized. "During the course of this it has been established that although there was onboard CCTV in the train, due to previous incidents the harddrive has been removed and not replaced. "It has also been established that there has been a technical problem with the CCTV equipment on the relevant platform and no footage exists." However in a statement to The Mail on Sunday, Tube Lines said: "We are not aware of any faults on CCTV cameras at that station on that day. Nothing of that nature has been reported to us." Yesterday the company refused to elaborate. While some sources denied police had deliberately wiped the tapes, others remained convinced there was a cover-up. One union official argued however that the on-board cameras may have been empty. Employees' representatives said Met officers emptied the cameras the day before police killed Mr de Menezes as part of their investigation into the failed bombings on 21 July. According to a report he would have passed eight cameras, two in the station entrance pointing at the barriers, another aimed at the Northern Line escalator and another on the way down. When Mr de Menezes reached the bottom of the escalator, another camera would have captured him. And as he turned on to the platform one above the track and three more at each end of the platform would have caught him on film, the reports say. This information should have been sent to a control room and passed to video tape. Yet there is apparently no footage of him in and around the platform. The source, who is close to the investigation, said reports of a cover-up were "absolute rubbish''. The source said reports that the tapes had been handed back to London Underground staff were "nonsense'' because such material would have been kept as evidence in the ongoing inquiry. A spokesman for the IPCC said: "We are not willing to comment about every story that comes up.'' But confusion still surrounds the contents of surveillance tapes taken from Stockwell station. Sources have suggested that the tapes had been recovered from the station booking hall, which had shown images of Mr de Menezes and that there was limited footage from cameras inside the carriage where the shooting took place. All Northern Line Tube trains are equipped with CCTV - at either end of the carriages, but the only photograph published of the incident seems to have been taken from a doorway. The confusion deepened as two senior Brazilian officials flew into London to examine the background to Mr de Menezes' death. The officials will want to know if CCTV footage of the incident exists. The Brazilian government has expressed "shock and bewilderment" over the death and has said it wants answers to "a number of matters". Wagner Goncalves, of the federal prosecutor's office, and Marcio Pereira Pinto Garcia, of the ministry of justice, went from Heathrow airport to Scotland Yard, where they met senior officers led by deputy assistant commissioner John Yates. They are also due to meet members of the IPCC tomorrow. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has faced unrelenting pressure since it emerged last week that initial police accounts of the killing were at variance with the facts. Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority yesterday said Sir Ian still had their full confidence, but admitted that a public inquiry into the death appeared inevitable. For the second time in two days, Downing Street issued a statement declaring the Prime Minister's complete confidence in the Commissioner. A spokeswoman said Mr Blair, who is on holiday in Barbados, had been kept fully up to speed with the matter. She added: "The Prime Minister recognises that the Metropolitan Police, led by Sir Ian Blair, do a very difficult job and they do it very well." Clare Short, the former Cabinet Minister, said it was now clear that the public had been misled over the death of Mr de Menezes. She told ITV News: " We've been lied to. This should be bigger than just calling for Sir Ian Blair to go. We need to find out exactly what happened. Who was telling the lies?" As relatives and supporters of Mr de Menezes began a vigil outside Downing Street, his mother, Maria de Menezes, demanded justice for her son. She said of the officers who shot: "They took my son's life. I am suffering because of that." Speaking from Brazil, she told the BBC: "I want the policeman who did that punished. They ended not only my son's life but mine as well." Mr de Menezes' cousin, Alessandro Pereira, handed a letter to Downing Street demanding a public inquiry. The unanswered questions * If the CCTV cameras showed Mr de Menezes using his Oyster card to open the ticket barrier, why did police sources suggest he vaulted it? * Were cameras trained on the platform in full working order? Police and Tube sources contradict each other. * How could all four cameras around the platform have failed at the same time? * If the cameras had failed, why did the station log book contain no details of the fault? * Why had CCTV onboard the train been removed?  <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article307649.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...307649.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:02 pm

Anyone have access to the full article?  Michael Brown: Where are parliament or our politicians in this crisis of confidence in the police? The truth is that Parliament has had no say in the methods employed by police forces Published: 23 August 2005 Something tells me that most of our politicians have seriously underestimated the growing public anger at the recent behaviour of the Metropolitan Police and its Commissioner. It may simply be that the foreign holiday sun-lounger has spared them from reading the domestic media coverage surrounding the killing of the Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes. But, even when they return, I suspect most will run for cover into the long grass conveniently provided by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. There have been no opinion polls so far, but a hunch suggests to me that there is more than an underlying disquiet about the current methods and attitudes of our police forces. Politicians probably assume that, seen through their own prism of public opinion, terrorist attacks justify whatever actions the police deem necessary. I am not so sure. <a href="http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/michael_brown/article307646.ece">comment.independent.co.uk...307646.ece</a>

by **reader** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:21 pm

<a href="http://"http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=15875479%26method=full%26siteid=50100-name_page.html"">icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/...</a> 'It must be true', says de Menezes shooting witness Aug 19 2005 Exclusive By Chris Pragnell And Gareth Dorrian, South London Press SHOCK revelations surrounding the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting must be true, says a key witness. The innocent Brazilian was gunned down in Stockwell Tube station by cops thinking he was a bomber. Brixton resident Mark Whitby was yards away in the same carriage. Various witnesses said they saw an Asian man wearing bulky clothing directly involved in the action. But Mr Whitby says that man - who may have vaulted a ticket barrier - is likely to have been an undercover cop trailing Mr de Menezes. "What's been on the news this week is as close to the truth as you're going to get," he told the South London Press. "I think the guy I saw being bundled out of the way might have been a surveillance officer who was following him." Mr Whitby, 47, described what he saw: "There was a mass of bodies and I saw a gun being lowered and I heard the shots. "Mr de Menezes must have been ahead of the officers. The guy in the thick coat can't have been him."

by **reader** » Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:23 pm

<a href="http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_objectid=15875479%26method=full%26siteid=50100-name_page.html">better link </a>