Mr de Menezes boarded a local bus in Tulse Hill.
That is a distance of between three and five miles to Stockwell, a journey of twenty to thirty minutes, to where he was shot. The decision to shoot Mr de Menezes may or may not have been made in a split-second by those who pumped eight bullets into him in Stockwell.
The number 2 bus route travels through some very busy parts of London, including the shopping area of Brixton and a number of overground and underground stations.
Although there were concerns that he might be a suicide bomber, Mr de Menezes was allowed to get on the bus bound for central London.
Why was Mr de Menezes allowed to proceed ?
Is it because it was hoped that he might lead those trailing him to someone or something more significant?
The decision to allow Mr de Menezes to proceed was not made in a split-second.
If the person or persons who made that decision believed that he may have been carrying a bomb then they should be sacked for playing fast and loose with the safety of the public by allowing someone they thought had volatile explosives on them to travel into more densely populated areas. I feel even less safe now than when I first posted on this subject. As I said then, I have as much reason to be afraid of being killed as a result of police action than I have of being blown up by a suicide bomber.
Sir Ian Blair said in his press conference on Friday that, "My information is the he (Mr de Menezes) was directly linked to the bombings."
Sir Ian's information was fatally wrong.
This gross incompetence at the intelligence level cost an innocent man his life.
The people who provided Sir Ian with this false information will hopefully be called to account for their ineptitude, although that will be little consolation to the family of Mr de Menezes.
The police and security services are agents of the State. As such, they do things in our name. There is grave disquiet amongst many people about the professional competence and ethical standards of those who are supposed to act on our behalf.
As taxpayers we pay these guys' wages. It would be nice to be reassured that my hard-earned is being spent responsibly.
I doubt that any enquiry will lead to anyone of significance being sanctioned for this tragic debacle. The careers and reputations of too many big-wigs are at stake. At most, a few people in the junior ranks will be set up as fall guys.
It's a murky saga. If the clandestine services were involved there is no hope that the truth will ever become public.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Today a man shot in London and another tube station closed
its quite a difficult subject to be honest but the fact of the matter is the police did their best to protect this country and we should be thanking them for that, ok mistakes happen and thats sad but what if he had been a bomber and that police officer thought 'oh hes just late for his train' and 10 mins later a bomb went off, what would we all be saying then, at the end of the day he shouldn't have even been in this country and no i am not saying that it was ok to shoot him for that but he wasn't shot for that, he was illegal in this country, he ignored the police officers regueat to stop sho whos fault is it really? .thre police have a very difficult job at the moment and the whole country know that so we have to help them to help us and running from a police officer when asked 2 stop isn't going to help you
Sex God
Quote by Riff Raff
Mr de Menezes boarded a local bus in Tulse Hill.
That is a distance of between three and five miles to Stockwell, a journey of twenty to thirty minutes, to where he was shot. The decision to shoot Mr de Menezes may or may not have been made in a split-second by those who pumped eight bullets into him in Stockwell.
The number 2 bus route travels through some very busy parts of London, including the shopping area of Brixton and a number of overground and underground stations.
Although there were concerns that he might be a suicide bomber, Mr de Menezes was allowed to get on the bus bound for central London.
Why was Mr de Menezes allowed to proceed ?
Is it because it was hoped that he might lead those trailing him to someone or something more significant?
The decision to allow Mr de Menezes to proceed was not made in a split-second.
If the person or persons who made that decision believed that he may have been carrying a bomb then they should be sacked for playing fast and loose with the safety of the public by allowing someone they thought had volatile explosives on them to travel into more densely populated areas. I feel even less safe now than when I first posted on this subject. As I said then, I have as much reason to be afraid of being killed as a result of police action than I have of being blown up by a suicide bomber.
Sir Ian Blair said in his press conference on Friday that, "My information is the he (Mr de Menezes) was directly linked to the bombings."
Sir Ian's information was fatally wrong.
This gross incompetence at the intelligence level cost an innocent man his life.
The people who provided Sir Ian with this false information will hopefully be called to account for their ineptitude, although that will be little consolation to the family of Mr de Menezes.
The police and security services are agents of the State. As such, they do things in our name. There is grave disquiet amongst many people about the professional competence and ethical standards of those who are supposed to act on our behalf.
As taxpayers we pay these guys' wages. It would be nice to be reassured that my hard-earned is being spent responsibly.
I doubt that any enquiry will lead to anyone of significance being sanctioned for this tragic debacle. The careers and reputations of too many big-wigs are at stake. At most, a few people in the junior ranks will be set up as fall guys.
It's a murky saga. If the clandestine services were involved there is no hope that the truth will ever become public.
you have said it so much better than i could... and summed up how i feel at the moment, the point about him travelling on the bus and going thru densely populated areas and being allowed to is an important one......
so are the police saying that the people on the tubewere more important than the people travelling on the bus?
now if i was one of the people on that bus, knowing that i travelled on it with a suspected suicide bomber and the police had been trailing this guy, and they actually allowed this man to do so.... they potentially put just how many people lives at risk.. for the sake of capturing "bigger fish" .... I know that i would go nowhere near a london bus in future......
like riff raff said...the inteeligence was shocking
sean xxxxxxxx
There is great confusion over the so called "Shoot to Kill Policy"
Let me tell you this, when ANY member of the security forces (and by security forces I mean Police, Military or "other agencies") opens fire they shoot to kill. There is no "shoot to incapacitate" or "shoot to injure" policy. At all times when fire is opened, be it in return fire or otherwise, the aim is to kill the 'target'.
Very clear rules are set out:-
If you have to fire, use only aimed shots
Do not fire more rounds than is absolutely neccessary to achieve your aim
Automatic fire may be used at identified targets in the same circumstances as single shots if in the opinion the commander on the spot it is the minimum force required and no other weapon can be employed as effectively. Because automatic fire scatters, it is not to be used where persons not using firearms are in, or may be close to, the line of fire.
Warning before firing
Whenever possible a warning should be given before opening fire.
The warning should be as loud as possible.
Give clear orders to stop attacking or halt as appropriate
State that fire will be opened if the orders are not obeyed.
You may open fire after due warning:-
Against a person carrying what you can positively identify as a firearm* but only if you have reason to believe he is about to use it for offensive purposes.
Against a person throwing a petrol bomb, if this action is likely to endanger life
Against a person attacking or destroying property or stealing firearms or explosives if this action is likely to endanger life
Against a person who, though he is not at present attacking has:
a). In your sight killed or seriously injured a member of the security forces or a person whom it is your duty to protect
AND
b). not halted when called upon to do so and cannot be arrested by any other means
Or
There is no other way to protect yourself or those whom it is your duty to protect from the danger of being killed or seriously injured.
The only circumstances in which you may open fire without warning are set out below.
YOU MAY FIRE WITHOUT WARNING WHEN:-
Hostile fire is taking place in your area and it is impracticable to do so
a). Against a person using a firearm* against you or those whom it is your duty to protect
Or
b). at a vehicle if the occupants open fire or throw a bomb at you or those it is your duty to protect, or are clearly about to do so
Or
If there is no other way to protect yourself or those it is your duty to protect from the danger of being killed or seriously injured.
*Note "Firearm" also includes grenade, nail bomb, gelegnite bomb or other explosive device
This is by no means the complete list of orders, and the wording may be different from agency to agency, but you get the jist.
I wonder what discussions would have been going on now if those involved had NOT opened fire and killed this person, if he had indeed been a suicide bomber and set off a bomb on the train................
Having been involved in such situations myself, and being injured as a result (which ended my career) let me tell you there is no time to think of anything but the worst, and to take 'preventative action'
The unfortunate thing is that this time an innocent person has been killed. However, a positve message of what may happen has been sent to the terrorists, who even if they were hell bent on killing themslves in the process of carrying out their crime, may now think twice before they embark upon their mission. I for one, hope that that is the case..
Let me tell you this, when ANY member of the security forces (and by security forces I mean Police, Military or "other agencies") opens fire they shoot to kill. There is no "shoot to incapacitate" or "shoot to injure" policy. At all times when fire is opened, be it in return fire or otherwise, the aim is to kill the 'target'.
Very clear rules are set out:-
If you have to fire, use only aimed shots
Do not fire more rounds than is absolutely neccessary to achieve your aim
Automatic fire may be used at identified targets in the same circumstances as single shots if in the opinion the commander on the spot it is the minimum force required and no other weapon can be employed as effectively. Because automatic fire scatters, it is not to be used where persons not using firearms are in, or may be close to, the line of fire.
Warning before firing
Whenever possible a warning should be given before opening fire.
The warning should be as loud as possible.
Give clear orders to stop attacking or halt as appropriate
State that fire will be opened if the orders are not obeyed.
You may open fire after due warning:-
Against a person carrying what you can positively identify as a firearm* but only if you have reason to believe he is about to use it for offensive purposes.
Against a person throwing a petrol bomb, if this action is likely to endanger life
Against a person attacking or destroying property or stealing firearms or explosives if this action is likely to endanger life
Against a person who, though he is not at present attacking has:
a). In your sight killed or seriously injured a member of the security forces or a person whom it is your duty to protect
AND
b). not halted when called upon to do so and cannot be arrested by any other means
Or
There is no other way to protect yourself or those whom it is your duty to protect from the danger of being killed or seriously injured.
The only circumstances in which you may open fire without warning are set out below.
YOU MAY FIRE WITHOUT WARNING WHEN:-
Hostile fire is taking place in your area and it is impracticable to do so
a). Against a person using a firearm* against you or those whom it is your duty to protect
Or
b). at a vehicle if the occupants open fire or throw a bomb at you or those it is your duty to protect, or are clearly about to do so
Or
If there is no other way to protect yourself or those it is your duty to protect from the danger of being killed or seriously injured.
*Note "Firearm" also includes grenade, nail bomb, gelegnite bomb or other explosive device
This is by no means the complete list of orders, and the wording may be different from agency to agency, but you get the jist.
I wonder what discussions would have been going on now if those involved had NOT opened fire and killed this person, if he had indeed been a suicide bomber and set off a bomb on the train................
Having been involved in such situations myself, and being injured as a result (which ended my career) let me tell you there is no time to think of anything but the worst, and to take 'preventative action'
The unfortunate thing is that this time an innocent person has been killed. However, a positve message of what may happen has been sent to the terrorists, who even if they were hell bent on killing themslves in the process of carrying out their crime, may now think twice before they embark upon their mission. I for one, hope that that is the case..
Sex God
Of course the above rules are standard , and apply normally , except in the case of the current instructions , they are instructed to choose a headshot where possible .
Call it shoot to kill if you like , its an emotive description used by the media to make it sound more sinister . It is a practical instruction to avoid manual detonation of a device by the bomber or equally to avoid bullets entering and triggering any device secreted about the body of the perpetrator. My sympathies are with the family of the dead man , and equally with the officers who had to make such a terrible choice . Thank God we have them .
Peace ( soon I hope)
G
Call it shoot to kill if you like , its an emotive description used by the media to make it sound more sinister . It is a practical instruction to avoid manual detonation of a device by the bomber or equally to avoid bullets entering and triggering any device secreted about the body of the perpetrator. My sympathies are with the family of the dead man , and equally with the officers who had to make such a terrible choice . Thank God we have them .
Peace ( soon I hope)
G
Quote by Jon
I wonder what discussions would have been going on now if those involved had NOT opened fire and killed this person, if he had indeed been a suicide bomber and set off a bomb on the train................
I would be inclined to agree with you, Jon, if the only opportunity to intercept Mr de Menezes was at the point in time where the armed officers in Stockwell had to make the decision to shoot Mr de Menezes. However, as I outlined in my most recent post, there are a lot of questions to be answered regarding the half-hour or so preceding the killing.
Why was the victim allowed even to get near an underground station ?
If the security services believed that he might be carrying a bomb, why did they allow him to travel through such heavily populated areas, thereby putting the safety of the public at even greater risk ? Although the residents of Tulse Hill might not agree, it would be far preferable for a suicide bomber to blow himself up in that more suburban area than to allow him to proceed so far towards central London, through shopping areas and on to the underground. The volatile home-made explosives could have self-detonated anywhere on route. Yet someone made a decision to allow him to travel on that bus.
Having been involved in such situations myself, and being injured as a result (which ended my career) let me tell you there is no time to think of anything but the worst, and to take 'preventative action'
The unfortunate thing is that this time an innocent person has been killed.
Yet someone thought he was guilty. And this belief went as high as the head of the Metropolitan Police. A belief that was based on flawed intelligence. Why should I have confidence in security services that make errors of this magnitude ?
However, a positve message of what may happen has been sent to the terrorists, who even if they were hell bent on killing themslves in the process of carrying out their crime, may now think twice before they embark upon their mission. I for one, hope that that is the case.
If one was a conspiracy theorist, one might wonder if the real reason for allowing the suspect to enter the underground system was primarily to provide a pretext for sending just such a message. In such a scenario, the person or persons who shot Jean Charles de Menezes may not even have been aware of the work of a more sinister mind in the background.
It is unlikely that the killing will have sent the "positive message" that you hope for to the terrorists. It probably won't make any difference to their attitude and almost certainly won't deter them from their murderous campaign. If there is any change in their attitude it is most likely that they will be heartened by the potential for alienation that the killing in Stockwell has rekindled amongst some sections of the community. It may act as a recruiting sergeant for their twisted cause. Which would be further tragedy considering the bridge building that has been done since July 7
PS Sorry for the large font size. I don't wish to appear "shouty". It's just that I can't get the font colours to change to distinguish Jon's post from mine. So I used a different font size instead.
Quote by Mal
There was a shoot to kill policy, albeit denied, in Ulster and quite rightly so!
I am not happy with your comment regarding the Shoot to Kill policy in Ulster. Mainly the point you said about 'quite rightly so'. That is offensive to the Irish people and I ask that you retract that statement. You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect.
Mal
Mal I wont retract but I will qualify. I was meaning that there was a shoot to kill policy against terrorists, albeit denied. Those terrorists could have been from either side of the divide.
I happen to believe that it was the correct policy. You or others may disagee and think that it was wrong, you may disagree whether there was such a policy and you may think that it wasnt applied correctly. That is fine, everyone has their views as they do with regard to the london bombings
How on earth you think I am making out that it is ok to shoot ANY Irish person I really dont know.
Mal, half of my family are Irish, I used to live there, go to school there, my family have been subjected to sectarianism, I have been abused because of my previous accent and my name.
Your statement "You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect."
I find this offensive, given my explanation, are you now willing to retract?
Mod
Quote by Happy Cats
There was a shoot to kill policy, albeit denied, in Ulster and quite rightly so!
I am not happy with your comment regarding the Shoot to Kill policy in Ulster. Mainly the point you said about 'quite rightly so'. That is offensive to the Irish people and I ask that you retract that statement. You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect.
Mal
Mal I wont retract but I will qualify. I was meaning that there was a shoot to kill policy against terrorists, albeit denied. Those terrorists could have been from either side of the divide.
I happen to believe that it was the correct policy. You or others may disagee and think that it was wrong, you may disagree whether there was such a policy and you may think that it wasnt applied correctly. That is fine, everyone has their views as they do with regard to the london bombings
How on earth you think I am making out that it is ok to shoot ANY Irish person I really dont know.
Mal, half of my family are Irish, I used to live there, go to school there, my family have been subjected to sectarianism, I have been abused because of my previous accent and my name.
Your statement "You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect."
I find this offensive, given my explanation, are you now willing to retract?
No, I wont. Quite simply what you said previously was open to interpretation and misinterpretation because of the sparsity of information given with the comment and lack of explanation. Someone of an equal background to yours took offence because of that. Perhaps now you have more fully explained yourself, that person will be satisfied with your response.
Mal
Quote by Mal
There was a shoot to kill policy, albeit denied, in Ulster and quite rightly so!
I am not happy with your comment regarding the Shoot to Kill policy in Ulster. Mainly the point you said about 'quite rightly so'. That is offensive to the Irish people and I ask that you retract that statement. You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect.
Mal
Mal I wont retract but I will qualify. I was meaning that there was a shoot to kill policy against terrorists, albeit denied. Those terrorists could have been from either side of the divide.
I happen to believe that it was the correct policy. You or others may disagee and think that it was wrong, you may disagree whether there was such a policy and you may think that it wasnt applied correctly. That is fine, everyone has their views as they do with regard to the london bombings
How on earth you think I am making out that it is ok to shoot ANY Irish person I really dont know.
Mal, half of my family are Irish, I used to live there, go to school there, my family have been subjected to sectarianism, I have been abused because of my previous accent and my name.
Your statement "You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect."
I find this offensive, given my explanation, are you now willing to retract?
No, I wont. Quite simply what you said previously was open to interpretation and misinterpretation because of the sparsity of information given with the comment and lack of explanation. Someone of an equal background to yours took offence because of that. Perhaps now you have more fully explained yourself, that person will be satisfied with your response.
Mal
Mal
I hope the other person will now understand my sentiment and be satisfied with my response. I, on the other hand, am not satisfied with yours regarding me.
Having read what you have said, I have to take it that you do not retract saying -
"You are making it out to be ok to shoot ANY Irish person, which is incorrect."
Please tell me whether you still think that. If you do not then it is obviously a retraction, if you do then I find it offensive.
You may find this tedious, but you chose to accuse me, rather than question me on the open forum.
Mal, we all get it wrong sometimes, it is how we deal with it that matters. I gave sparse information, you came to an assumption that I still find offensive. I have explained and dealt with mine. Will you?
there are always two or more sides to an arguement
being in a multi cultural enviorment such as london ,birmingham ,leeds ,manchester
you become more tolerant and understanding of others and their ways
HOWEVER,,
if someone ( unfortunately on this occasion ) is percieved as a risk i.e bomber the police must act
muslims ,who undeniabley perportrated these acts
come in all colours and apperances and in at least 92% of them judging by the newspaper polls are TOTALLY against these attrocities
any decent minded ,law abiding person ,of any faith , colour or religion will NOT be against police exterminating vermin
please god the police get any further actions against the correct targets
being in a multi cultural enviorment such as london ,birmingham ,leeds ,manchester
you become more tolerant and understanding of others and their ways
HOWEVER,,
if someone ( unfortunately on this occasion ) is percieved as a risk i.e bomber the police must act
muslims ,who undeniabley perportrated these acts
come in all colours and apperances and in at least 92% of them judging by the newspaper polls are TOTALLY against these attrocities
any decent minded ,law abiding person ,of any faith , colour or religion will NOT be against police exterminating vermin
please god the police get any further actions against the correct targets
Mod
All I will say, Happy Cats, is I am satisfied with your response.
Mal
Mal
