rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:32 pm**

She stoops to conquer <blockquote>Quote:<hr>De Menezes family furious over Met 'sex smear' on son By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter Published: 12 March 2006 Scotland Yard was at the centre of a new row over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes following allegations that he was the suspect in a rape case. It has emerged that the 27-year-old electrician, gunned down by armed officers at Stockwell Tube station, is being linked with a sex attack in London. Officers have contacted lawyers acting for the dead man's family to ask for permission to examine DNA samples taken after his death. These are understood to be held by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) which has been investigating the shooting and has also been contacted by the Metropolitan Police. The inquiry is in response to a call, more than six months after the Brazilian's death, from a rape victim who named Mr de Menezes as her attacker. Sources close to his family have reacted with fury to the allegations. They accuse the Metropolitan police of deliberately leaking the details of the rape inquiry in an attempt to deflect attention from the investigation into the shooting of Mr de Menezes, who was mistaken for a terrorist by armed officers. His relatives are already pursuing a complaint against Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police who, they allege, misled the public in the wake of the shooting. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is also considering whether to bring charges against the officers involved in the death of Mr de Menezes. A source told The Independent on Sunday: "This is a deliberate attempt to deflect the blame. First [the police] tried to say he was a terrorist and now this... he is no longer here to defend himself." Last night, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that inquiries were continuing into the alleged rape, which happened in the West End of London. The Met said in a statement: "The victim of a rape in the West End more than three years ago contacted us earlier this year and provided the name of a suspect. The name was given as that of Jean Charles de Menezes... and inquiries are continuing." Mr de Menezes was shot dead by armed officers on 22 July, the day after the failed copycat bombings on the London Underground. Eyewitness accounts of the shooting initially suggested that the Brazilian electrician was a suicide bomber - an impression the police did not try to alter. Surveillance officers searching for Hussein Osman, who was allegedly involved in the failed bombings, had been staking out the flats in Tulse Hill from which Mr de Menezes emerged. The Independent on Sunday last month revealed that the IPCC report alleges police tried to fake evidence relating to the killing by altering the police log. According to the report an officer outside the flats wrongly identified Mr de Menezesas Osman and firearms officers were dispatched to stop him. Once it was known an innocent man had been killed, the log was altered so that instead of reading "it was Osman", it read "it was not Osman".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article350779.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...350779.ece</a> There's your explanation, by the way. They thought it was Osman. He could not be allowed to live. Like the Madrid bombers could not be allowed to live. And were murdered at Leganes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/16/06 7:26 pm

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:07 am**

I see Bliar has been illegally taping his conversations with the IPCC and others. No doubt DNA samples can get mixed up, just like the sample taken from Henri Paul in the Paris morgue. Anders www.dancingonthebrink.comEdited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anders@rigorousintuition>Anders</A> at: 3/11/06 11:45 pm

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:20 am**

What is it with these freaks and guys named Osman? <a href="http://stewwebb.com/Ted_Gunderson_Selling_Terrorist_Osama_Bin_Laden_Stinger_Missiles/ipage_1_0.jpg">stewwebb.com/Ted_Gunderso...ge_1_0.jpg</a> When Osama Bin Ladin Was Tim Osman by J. Orlin Grabbe The two men headed to the Hilton Hotel in Sherman Oaks, California in the late Spring of 1986 were on their way to meet representatives of the mujahadeen, the Afghan fighters resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of the two, Ted Gunderson, had had a distinguished career in the FBI, serving as some sort of supervisor over Special Agents in the early 60s, as head of the Dallas field office from 1973-75, and as head of the Los Angeles field office from 1977-1979. He retired to become an investigator for, among others, well-known attorney F. Lee Bailey. And all along the way, Gunderson, whether or not actually a CIA contract agent, had been around to provide services to various CIA and National Security Council operations, as he was doing now. In more recent years Gunderson was to become controversial for his investigations into child prostitution rings, after he became convinced of the innocence of an Army medical doctor named Jeffrey McDonald, who had been convicted of the murder of his wife and three young children in the 1970s. This has led to various attempts by the patrons and operators of the child prostitution industry to smear Gunderson's reputation. Michael Riconosciuto was there to discuss assisting the mujahadeen with MANPADs—Man Portable Air Defense Systems. Stinger missiles were one possibility. If the U.S. would permit their export, Riconosciuto could modify the Stinger's electronics, so the guided missile would still be effective against Soviet aircraft, but would not be a threat to U.S. or NATO forces. But Riconosciuto had another idea. Through his connections with the Chinese industrial and military group Norinco, he could obtain the basic components for the unassembled Chinese 107 MM rocket system. These could be reconfigured into a man-portable, shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft guided missile sytem, and produced in Pakistan at a facility called the Pakistan Ordinance Works. The mujahadeen would then have a lethal weapon against Soviet helicopter, observation, and transport aircraft. Riconosciuto was more than just an expert on missile electronics; he was also an expert on electronic computers and associated subjects such as cryptology (see my "Michael Riconosciuto on Encryption"). Riconosciuto was a prodigy who had grown up in the spook community. The Riconosciuto family had once run Hercules, California, as a company town. In the early days (1861) a company called California Powder Works had been established in Santa Cruz, CA. It later purchased land on San Pablo Bay, and in 1881 started producing dynamite, locating buildings in gullies and ravines for safety purposes. A particularly potent type of black powder was named "Hercules Powder", which gave the name to the town of Hercules, formally incorporated in 1900. In World War I, Hercules became the largest producer of TNT in the U.S. Hercules, however, had gotten out of the explosives business by 1940 when an anhydrous ammonia plant was constructed. In 1959 Hercules began a new manufacturing facility to produce methanol, formaldehyde, and urea formaldehyde. In 1966 the plant was sold to Valley Nitrogen Producers. Labor problems led to a plant closure in 1977. In 1979 the plant and site was purchased by a group of investors calling themselves Hercules Properties, Ltd. However, Michael and his father Marshall Riconosciuto, a friend of Richard Nixon, continued to run the Hercules Research Corporation. In the early 1980s Michael also served as the Director of Research for a joint venture between the Wackenhut Corporation of Coral Gables, Florida, and the Cabazon Band of Indians in Indio, California. Riconosciuto's talents were much in demand. He had created the a-neutronic bomb (or "Electro-Hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel Device"), which sank the ground level of the Nevada test site by 30 feet when a prototype was tested. Samuel Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, said of Riconosciuto: "I've spoken to Michael Riconosciuto (the inventor of the a-neutronic bomb) and he's an extraordinarily bright guy. I also have a hunch, which I can't prove, that they both (Riconosciuto and Lavos, his partner) indirectly work for the CIA." Riconosciuto's bomb made suitcase nukes obsolete, because it achieved near-atomic explosive yields, but could be more easily minaturized. You could have a suitcase a-neutronic bomb, or a briefcase a-neutronic bomb, or simply a lady's purse a-neutronic bomb. Or just pull out your wallet for identification and —. The Meridian Arms Corporation, as well as the Universities of California and Chicago owned a piece of the technology. But there was more than explosives in the portfolios of the CIA agents who surrounded Riconosciuto like moths around a candle. Both Robert Booth Nichols, the shady head of Meridian Arms Corporation (with both CIA and organized crime conections), and Dr. John Phillip Nichols, the manager of the Cabazon reservation, were involved in bio-warfare work—the first in trying to sell bio-warfare products to the army through Wackenhut, the second in giving tribal permission for research to take place at Cabazon. According to Riconosciuto, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was in charge of the classified contracts for biological warfare research. Riconosciuto would later testify under oath that Stormont Laboratories was involved in the DARPA-Wackenhut-Cabazon project. Jonathan Littman, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle would relate: "Cabazons and Wackenhut appeared to be acting as middlemen between the Pentagon's DARPA and Stormont Laboratories, a small facility in Woodland near Sacramento." more <a href="http://www.orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm">www.orlingrabbe.com/binla...mosman.htm</a>

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:06 am**

Ono, Was that a rhetorical question? OSMAN is an anagram of MASON

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:15 am**

Anyone remember the hushed -up Police/Security Services 'Operation Mason' that was in operation the morning that Dr David Kelly was murdered? They do like their hiding in plain sight. Anders www.dancingonthebrink.com

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:21 am**

dna may not be the wonder we thought it was. not only can there be intentional or unintentional mix ups, but it seems that a person can carry more than one dna print in their body.

Posted: **Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:40 am**

dna may not be the wonder we thought it was. not only can there be intentional or unintentional mix ups, but it seems that a person can carry more than one dna print in their body. absolutely, and a whole raft of legal cases are pending on this 'new' finding same with fingerprints and other biometrics imho...biometrics are not foolproof by any means... Anders www.dancingonthebrink.com

Posted: **Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:05 pm**

Sir Ian Blair is another out of control bureaucrat who answers to nobody. He is responsible ONLY to the Queen, under the terms of the Treason Felony Act <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Met chief under fire for taping phone calls with Attorney General By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent and Helen McCormack Published: 13 March 2006 Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has provoked Government anger after being caught secretly taping a private telephone conversation with the Attorney General. Lord Goldsmith was incensed over the breach of trust which, coincidentally, came as the men discussed whether the law could be changed to enable the use of bugged telephone calls in court cases. Sir Ian has also infuriated the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) by covertly recording conversations with three officials investigating the accidental shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. The disclosures will renew the pressure on Sir Ian, who recently faced demands to resign over comments he made about the Soham murders. They also threaten to undermine the relationship between the Commissioner and ministers, who have previously leapt to his defence. Sir Ian secretly taped the conversation with Lord Goldsmith in the early autumn, when they discussed the merits of changing the law to allow the intercept material to be admissible in terrorist prosecutions. A Whitehall source said: "The Attorney General is very cross and really rather disappointed that the conversation was recorded without his knowledge or permission. It's ironic given the subject being discussed." Lord Goldsmith will demand an apology for the intrusion from Sir Ian, who is currently on a skiing holiday. The taping emerged following the disclosure that Sir Ian also secretly recorded conversations with three IPCC officials, including its chairman Nick Hardwick. Mr Hardwick is said to be livid over the intrusion and to have protested to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. It was reported last night that the conversation with Mr Hardwick took place on 22 July last year, in the hours after the shooting of Mr de Menezes. The two were said to have argued over whether an independent examination of the death should take place. A Metropolitan Police Service spokesman last night would not comment on the allegation. The recordings came to light when IPCC investigators examined an "audit trail" of who Sir Ian spoke to after Mr de Menezes was killed. It is not a criminal offence to record a telephone conversation providing the recording is for individual use. But the person could be entitled to pursue a civil case in courts if the recording is passed on to a third party without his or her consent. A meeting will take place today between members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the body responsible for disciplining officers, and officers at Scotland Yard. A spokeswoman for the authority refused to reveal who would be in attendance. A Met spokesman said no attempt had ever been made to conceal the existence of the tapes from the IPCC. An IPCC spokesman said: 'We are surprised about the recording of calls and we have the recordings. We are dealing with this issue." There was speculation last night that Sir Ian had also recorded conversations with Sir John Gieve, who at the time was the most senior civil servant at the Home Office. Sir Ian provoked controversy two months ago when he accused the media of "institutional racism" and questioned why the Soham murders had become such a big story. The comments led to calls from Conservative MPs for him to be sacked and reports that the Home Office had advised him to take a lower public profile. Publicly Mr Clarke has expressed his full confidence in the Commissioner. Last night the Home Office said it would not comment on the allegations.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article351038.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...351038.ece</a> Charles Clarke is another buffoon bobbing-head who gives democratic cover to the psychopaths running the country. On the "Today in London" thread there is an explanation of the caption to the Steve Bell cartoon- "fit for purpose". I'll add this. About a week ago ACPO met to review the shoot-to-kill policy after de Menezes. ACPO is the Association of Chief Police Officers. The female head of the Welsh Police announced that the policy was "fit for purpose" and would not be changed. Not an elected politician to be seen. No Home Secretary. No Home Office Minister. This process is being driven by royal prerogative powers (also known as the Treason Felony Act of 184<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> From the Sunday Times yesterday <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police get 'licence to kill' without questions David Leppard GOVERNMENT lawyers have told police chiefs preparing to “shoot to kill” suspected suicide bombers that they are likely to escape criminal charges even if they kill an unarmed or innocent person. The legal advice is contained in confidential legal papers prepared for the Metropolitan police Special Branch and chief constables. More than 150 pages of documents, seen by The Sunday Times, detail Operation Kratos People and Operation Clydesdale, the secret guidelines on dealing with suicide bombers. They provided the justification for the operation that led to the accidental shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, at Stockwell Tube station in London last July. This weekend Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the human rights group, said that she had resigned from the review panel set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which last week declared the guidelines “fit for purpose”. She said: “It was window dressing, the review was a sham.” The leaked documents reveal that at the time of the shooting, Scotland Yard’s firearms officers and senior commanders were acting on advice from one of the government’s top lawyers: that they could mount a successful defence to murder or manslaughter charges even if they killed a person who was not carrying a bomb. The police had been told that they did not have to prove that they had acted reasonably in shooting dead an unarmed person. All they had to show was that they “believed” they were acting reasonably, a much more liberal level of defence. Critics say that the advice amounts to a licence to kill innocent or unarmed people. In Israel, by contrast, police have to demonstrate that a suspect is actually carrying a bomb before they are permitted to open fire. Chakrabarti said someone should be held accountable if police shoot and kill entirely innocent people: “No one is suggesting that an officer acting reasonably and in good faith should face murder charges. But if, as this leaked document suggests, the Acpo guidance is less stringent than in Israel — if it allows lethal force without firm belief that a suspect is carrying a bomb — those responsible for this system will have to carry the can.” The controversial guidelines were drawn up by Acpo. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, it was searching for a legal framework to deal with the threat of suicide bombers posed by the rise of Al-Qaeda. The advice by David Perry, a leading Treasury counsel, will reassure police marksmen and their commanders that even if they make critical “mistakes of fact”, they can be confident of having a good defence to possible murder charges. Perry was asked by Special Branch to give the government’s legal opinion on a hypothetical scenario in which two suspected suicide bombers target a Westminster conference hosted by Tony Blair. “If a police officer genuinely believes that a person is in possession of explosive substances and poses a danger to the lives and safety of others, the defence (of self-defence) would be available if, for example, the police officer shot that person,” Perry said. “The defence would be available to the commander who gave the order to shoot and the officer who shot the suspect.” Perry advises that the police do not have any duty of care to the public. They are thus not liable for damages for killing an unarmed person and failing to shoot the real bomber, as in the scenario. That advice is likely to help both the two Scotland Yard marksmen who shot de Menezes in the mistaken belief that he was one of the failed Tube bombers of July 21, and Commander Cressida Dick, the senior officer who ordered them to stop him. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether they and at least 10 other officers involved in the shooting operation should be charged with murder or manslaughter. SNIP The police sniper shoots dead a male suspect, who is subsequently found not to have been carrying a bomb. A second sniper then refuses to shoot a female suspect — thus failing to prevent her killing 15 people, including four police officers. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2081524,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...24,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perry advises that the police do not have any duty of care to the public.<hr></blockquote> So you see it is ALL window dressing. The Home Office. The Metroplitan Police Authority. The Independent Police Complaints Commission. All there to give a democratic facade to the Windsor Dictatorship. Which grows more brutal by the day.

Posted: **Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:25 pm**

You've just read they can shoot who they like and there is no duty of care to the general public (It's Article 13 again). Now read this comedy of errors. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police told to rewrite tactics on bombers By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent Leaked shoot-to-kill report piles more pressure on Sir Ian Blair SCOTLAND YARD’S plans to deal with a suicide bomber on the streets of London were totally inadequate, a highly critical report into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes has found. The Times has learnt that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has told every force in Britain to review training after the death of Mr de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station last July. The IPCC found that many forces had no plans to deal with a bomber walking through a crowded street or city centre. Less than two hours before the 7/7 attacks, Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, boasted that Scotland Yard was the “gold standard across the world for dealing with terrorism”. The report, delivered to Sir Ian this week, also calls for improvements in radio communications, clarity about issuing the crucial orders to open fire, and streamlining of chains of command. The commission is still investigating the aftermath of the shooting but The Times also understands from Scotland Yard sources that it has heard evidence of “chaos” among senior commanders. Frantic meetings were held all day but it still took hours for any clear understanding of Mr de Menezes’s identity to emerge. Today Brian Paddick, one of the deputy assistant commissioners, is consulting his lawyers over comments by the Yard about his evidence to the IPCC. He told investigators that an officer in Sir Ian’s office knew that Mr de Menezes was innocent six hours after the shooting. He is understood to be extremely angry at a Scotland Yard statement challenging his evidence. Mr de Menezes was shot seven times on an Underground train at Stockwell station in South London after officers wrongly identified him as one of the bombers involved in the failed attacks on the London transport system on July 21. According to police sources the IPCC investigators found that the Yard’s training and planning for Operation Kratos, the national shoot-to-kill policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, was inadequate. The commission accepts that there is a need for a shoot-to-kill policy to deal with terrorists who can trigger a device in seconds. Scotland Yard officers maintain that they had taken into account the eventuality of a bomber seen on foot in the street, and had adapted strategies used for kidnap cases. One officer told The Times: “We did have a plan. We have a strategy for every scenario. We had been training for an operation with someone on foot.” The IPCC is understood to believe that this was not good enough and did not meet a fluid situation. Scotland Yard has been told that the plans simply did not work and its planners should rewrite their strategies. No one envisaged a suspect moving on to public transport — Mr de Menezes caught a bus at one point — and there were differences between officers about whether he was one of the suspects being hunted by police. Officers are still disputing whether the coded order to open fire was given by Commander Cressida Dick. The IPCC found that other forces did not even plan for a situation where police had to deal with a suspected bomber moving through busy streets. Many of their teams relied purely on traditional scenarios such as a suspect identified in a building or holding hostages. Most forces only trained marksmen to deal with a 999 call to a suspected bomber identified by the public or for protection for a public occasion such as a royal visit. Both Scotland Yard and chief constables have studied what happened on July 22 and the Yard has said that it will consider the IPCC recommendations. Last night Scotland Yard confirmed that Sir Ian will be questioned under caution when he gives evidence to the IPCC towards the end of the inquiry next month.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-2090281,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...81,00.html</a> There were TWO teams. The Clowns, to provide the cover. And the executioners. To carry out the execution. They are assets of Her Majesty. But they depreciate when their identity becomes known. WE MUST LEARN WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THE STREETS OF LONDON.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:42 pm**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ian Blair's fate hangs in the balance Met chief faces vote of no confidence by his own police authority as critics say he's now in 'last-chance saloon' By Sophie Goodchild Published: 19 March 2006 Sir Ian Blair's role as Metropolitan police chief was plunged further into crisis last night as it emerged he faces a vote of no confidence by his own police watchdog. Members of the Metro-politan Police Authority (MPA) are expected to call for his resignation at a meeting later this month. Sources told The Independent on Sunday yesterday that Sir Ian, who is already under fire for secretly taping phone conversations with senior members of the Government, had "reached the last-chance saloon" and that some members are minded to pass a motion against the commissioner at a meeting with him on 30 March. One said: "We will obviously listen to what he has to say for himself, but it's getting to the stage where he is the issue and not the safety of London. We should be talking about burglary and knife crime, not his latest gaffe." Sir Ian is under intense pressure to resign from his job over a series of blunders which have been seized upon by his critics as evidence that he is not capable of leading Britain's most powerful police force. Earlier this week, he was forced to apologise to Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, as well as to Nick Hardwick, the head of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), for secretly taping phone conversations with them. Insiders within the Met say that the commissioner is being kept on until the outcome of an inquiry by the IPCC into claims that he misled the public over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station in July. HIS SUPPORTERS KEN LIVINGSTONE Mayor of London, has suggested officers within Scotland Yard who are hostile to Sir Ian's modernising agenda are trying to undermine the commissioner. CHARLES CLARKE The Home Secretary, has said that he has "full confidence" in Sir Ian and adds that he considers the matter of the taped phone conversations as "closed". PAUL STEPHENSON The Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner said:"It is clear to everybody that the commissioner does regret the unfortunate recording." ALAN RUSBRIDGER Editor of The Guardian wrote an article entitled: "Why Blair must not quit" 12 months after the commissioner took up his post. JENNY ABRAMSKY Head of BBC Radio and Music is said to be a close friend of Sir Ian's, and reportedly accompanied him and Rusbridger to a Nuffield College, Oxford, dinner last year. HIS CRITICS PAUL ROBERTS from the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents serving constables, has called for Sir Ian's resignation "forthwith", describing his position as untenable. SHAMI CHAKRABARTI Director of human rights organisation Liberty has called for Sir Ian's resignation, branding his actions as "bizarre", "unconstitutional and quite possibly unlawful". DAVID DAVIS Shadow Home Secretary views the outcome of the IPCC inquiry, expected at the end of April, into the shooting of Mr de Menezes as crucial to Sir Ian's position. ROB WILSON MP One of three Conservative backbenchers to table a Commons motion calling for Sir Ian's sacking following his remarks about the Soham murders. RICHARD BARNES Conservative member of the London Assembly and Metropolitan Police Authority expressed disbelief at Sir Ian's remarks about the Soham murders.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article352164.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...352164.ece</a> It seems we have forgotten Mr De Menezes. So soon? He was the man shot dead, while on his way to work. The work of Her Majesty's hit-men. We need THEIR identities, not a run-down on policing politics. Which is irrelevant anyway. The police have NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. So this is all window-dressing in any case.

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:57 pm**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It seems we have forgotten Mr De Menezes. So soon? He was the man shot dead, while on his way to work. The work of Her Majesty's hit-men. We need THEIR identities, not a run-down on policing politics. Which is irrelevant anyway. The police have NO DUTY OF CARE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. <hr></blockquote> Many "madmen" have been seeing all this coming for some time. But thru their years of explaining this, the sheeple have fallen for the flock mentality, whilst all the while the sheepdog came closer. Want the good news John ? These guys who are imposing this stuff are the major losers in the greater scheme of things. Trust me on that one please <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> In the meantime, keep saying it as it is buddy !

Posted: **Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:32 pm**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Trust me on that one please <hr></blockquote> slim, Oh I do! It amuses me as I enter my sixth decade on this Earth that I have come to realise all those "fairy stories" I was told during my youth are in fact the truth! This is known as a conspiracy of the mediocre. Because anybody with talent wants no part of it. And here's some evidence for that, from within this thread. The latest argument is "when did Blair know?". Today's Observer lead story is <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Met chief 'cleared' over Menezes Testimony by top Scotland Yard officer confirms police did not know for nearly 24 hours that they had shot a man with no terrorist links<hr></blockquote> Now look at this, from upthread <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sir Ian also secretly recorded conversations with three IPCC officials, including its chairman Nick Hardwick. Mr Hardwick is said to be livid over the intrusion and to have protested to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. It was reported last night that the conversation with Mr Hardwick took place on 22 July last year, in the hours after the shooting of Mr de Menezes.<hr></blockquote> So Blair was taping a row with the IPCC BEFORE he knew De Menezes was innocent????? Suuuure.

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:31 am**

please, to understand this. it seems that a policeman can escape manslaughter or murder charges if he says he believed the dead person was carrying a bomb ( or presumably any other threatening device) whether or not that belief was reasonable? so does that defense extend to other people in Britain? could I escape a manslaughter or murder charge if I were able and inclined to kill someone by stating that I believed that the victim was carrying a lethal device? Is this not a precedent for a defense strategy which could be used by anyone who thought the scenarios out carefully enough and took care to use a murder method which didn't of itself infringe the law (ie not shooting with a handgun as carrying a gun is in itself illegal)? Further on the duty of care point. Many ra cases flounder because police do not act like one expects police to act, and then the victim finds out that they have 'no duty of care' to them. Anyone know to whom, if anyone, police do have 'duty of care'?

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:37 am**

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyone know to whom, if anyone, police do have 'duty of care'?<hr></blockquote> blanc, Their ONLY duty is to Her Majesty the Queen. They are agents of the Crown. That is why they can get away with ANYTHING. Read the Treason Felony Act of 1848. To put "any force or constraint upon her" is illegal. The courts recognise that. So no, it does not aply to anybody. Only to those working for and under the protection of Her Majesty.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:12 pm**

This happened no less than eight years ago. Sufficient time to sanitise the story. What we aren't told is that the police had beaten him up in the first place. The police caused the injuries, then left the man to die. But since there is no duty of care towards the general public, the murderers kept their mouths shut. They do this all the time to ethnic minorities. It's what they had lined up for John Cleary. And all that the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission can do is to talk of "serious neglect". <blockquote>Quote:<hr>'Serious neglect' in police custody death Press Association Monday March 27, 2006 Four police officers who were present when a black paratrooper choked to death in custody were guilty of the "most serious neglect of duty", the police watchdog said today. Christopher Alder choked to death on the floor of a Hull police station on April 1 1998 as officers joked and chatted around him. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said the treatment of the 37-year-old amounted to "unwitting racism". However, Nick Hardwick, the IPCC chairman, stopped short of saying the officers were responsible for Mr Alder's death. "I do not believe, as has been alleged by some, that any of these officers assaulted Mr Alder," he said in his report. "Nor can it be said with certainty, such are the contradictions in the medical evidence, that their neglect of Mr Alder, as he lay dying on the custody suite floor, caused his death." After the IPCC report was published, the chief constable of Humberside police, Tim Hollis, apologised to the Alder family "for our failure to treat Christopher with sufficient compassion and to the desired standard that night". Alder's sister, Janet, said she was not satisfied with the apology. "It's not enough for me and it's not enough for the public at large," she told Sky News. "For justice to be done, and for us to move on in a positive light to ensure that this is not going to happen again, there must be prosecutions". Five officers were cleared of Alder's manslaughter and misconduct in 2002, even though an inquest had concluded he was unlawfully killed. He had banged his head during a scuffle outside a hotel, and was then arrested for an alleged breach of the peace after being taken to Hull Royal Infirmary for treatment. He choked to death on his own blood and vomit as he lay on the floor of Queens Gardens police station without moving for 11 minutes. A Healthcare Commission report into Alder's treatment by medical staff was also published today. It identified a series of "mistakes", including failure to relay information about the paratrooper's care and treatment between ambulance and A&E staff and the police. In his 400-page report, Mr Hardwick said: "The most serious failings were by the four police officers who dealt with Mr Alder throughout his time in the custody suite. I believe they were guilty of the most serious neglect of duty. "I believe the failure of the police officers concerned to assist Mr Alder effectively on the night he died were largely due to assumptions they made about him based on negative racial stereotypes." Although Mr Hardwick said the officers' neglect was not responsible for the death, he added: "All the experts agreed that, at the very least, the officers' neglect undoubtedly did deny him the chance of life." The four officers were Sergeant John Dunn, PC Matthew Barr, PC Neil Blakey and PC Nigel Dawson. "In the case of Sergeant Dunn, the duty placed upon him as a custody officer was greater than that of his colleagues," the IPCC report said. A fifth officer, Acting Sergeant Mark Ellerington, was also involved, but to a lesser extent than the others, it added. Mr Hardwick said he was "disappointed" that the officers directly involved had refused to cooperate with the IPCC review. He also emphasised the inappropriate behaviour of officers caught on CCTV tapes on the night of Mr Alder's death. The footage shows the paratrooper dying with his trousers around his ankles. Monkey noises are heard being made at the beginning of the officers' shift and after Mr Alder's death. "I do not think these noises were directed specifically at Mr Alder," Mr Hardwick said. However, he added: "If the racist connotation of these noises was not obvious to the officers, they should have been."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1740816,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/crime/...16,00.html</a> The funny thing is that Old Woman Windsor wants to introduce "Hate Speech" legislation. Say something she doesn't like, go to prison. But the police carry out "Hate Deeds" all the time, and nothing at all happens. There's always some loophole, some parsing of words, that comes to the rescue.

rigorousintuition.ca

How Low Will the British Go? (De Menezes)

How Low Will the British Go? (De Menezes)

Re: How Low Will the British Go?

Re: OSMAN

OSMAN

Re: OSMAN

dna

Re: dna

How Low Will She Stoop?

Re: How Low Will She Stoop?

More of the Illusionist's Art

Corporatism ( Fascism ) in action.

Comedians

help me

Re: help me

Another Murder by the British Police