There was a large feature on this in the Observer this weekend, well worth reading.

Indeed, where else are we being lied to?

What exactly was the "published evidence"?

People will automatically see the leaks as a good thing as they confirm what the family have said, that Jean Charles was not wearing a winter coat, that he did not jump the barrier at Stockwell station and that he even stopped to pick up a free paper.

But we need to think about why these leaks were made and who made them. On the experience of previous deaths in police custody and fatal shootings, tonight's news reports effectively scupper any possibility of a successful prosecution of police officers, even if evidence is found that would lead the Crown Prosecution Serice to bring charges with a strong prospect of success.

The argument will be made, as it has before, that the news coverage prejudices any chance of a fair trial. Judges have bought this argument before now in a number of other cases. The Metropolitan police will ride out the storm over the next few days until the news cycle moves on, repeating its regret and promising compensation, whilst the CPS will in all probability be spared the politically difficult responsibility of having to make a decision in the future that could lead to another strike by firearms officers.

We need to be demanding to know who leaked the information that came out this evening. Was it the police, who might be embarassed in the short term but gain in the long term? Was it someone in the IPCC, even though it undermines an important aspect of its investigatory role? is this just more news management?

Usually I'm very suspicious of the 'who benefits?' argument as simplistic but on this occasion, and after experience of working wih bereaved families following custody deaths over the last ten years, I think it's one we should carefully consider.

...if its all a big conspiracy of lies (the shooting, not the bombing) then how come the truth is coming out from the Police complaints boys? Doh...

This poor guy was quite intentionally butchered as part of a PSYCHOLOGICAL SOFTENING exercise aimed at us, the general public. It takes the exact same form as the standard handling method for Prisoners of War under duress interrogation. They are made to witness what they think are REAL executions of other prisoners, so that they will accept the ruthlessness of their captors, and mentally give in.

Remember, Blair is playing without ANY rules, and will do whatever it takes to achieve his goals. I am amazed that there is anyone who has not yet got this simple fact. One would have thought that even for the thickest person, the use of the World's worst racist mercenaries in Iraq, protected against ANY prosecution for ANY crime by the blanket immunity given by the so-called UN to ALL foreign workers and soldiers, would be a bit of a clue. I mean, Blair puts the sick twisted apartheid era butchers of South Africa in Iraq to lead his 'irregulars' in a campaign of rape, torture, and murder, and their are still people who think that Blair has ANY moral limits.

(yeah, right... Straw protests about Pinochet as a student, but has ZERO problem protecting Pinochet against prosecution when Straw is a minister. Blair protests about Apartheid when young, but willingly recruits the worst criminals of South Africa'a darkest times to work above the law in Iraq. Something VERY wrong with this picture, don't you think, and it is NOT that people change as they grow older. Blair and Straw were ALWAYS monsters- biding their time, understanding that true Fascist power must ALWAYS arise from the left, because people are ALWAYS willing to fight Fascist power from the right.)

BTW it is not unreasonable to think that a Brazilian was targeted as a sick reference to the film Brazil. The people that do this kind of thing are hardly random in their actions, and humour and sarcasm does not disappear merely because you are in the atrocity game!

The simple answer to your question, Pete, is this - it's not a conspiracy of lies. It's more complicated than that.

The idea that armed officers set off on the morning of 22 July to shoot someone IS the stuff of conspiracy theory. The questions that the IPCC investigation need to ask are whether the surveillance operation that took place on that day was flawed and whether those responsible for it, through their incompetence and a filure of their duty of care, created a situation that led directly to "gross negligence" involuntary manslaughter. They also need to examine whether the officers who fired the shots breached CO19 guidelines, for instance by failing to give a warning, committed an unlawful act and therefore should be charged with "constructive" involuntary manslaughter. The information that has emerged does point to a complete screw up but saying 'oops, we made a mstake, sorry' isn't really good enough if we accept that public servants are accountable for their actions (particularly those with the unique powers to use lethal force).

My point is that by leaking information at this stage, the prospect that the CPS can wriggle out of bringing charges, even if there in strong evidence pointing to manslaughter, is greatly increased. The fact that the DPP would undoubtedly prefer this because of the considerable political pressure not to prosecute is, of course, entirely coincidental...

Personally, I've had my doubts from the start about the IPCC, in part because the Police Reform Act was a missed opportunity to create a complaints system that is substantially better than the old PCA, rather than a small step forward. The involvement of a former Assistant Commissioner of the Met in heading the investigation into Jean Charles de Menezes' death is also not just a concern for cynical old buggers like me, but is also a hot topic for a number of the IPCC's Commissioners. And given that anyone who has been involved in the field of custody deaths knows about the importance of not prejudicing a possible prosecution, perhaps it is worth questioning the competence of the IPCC in allowing a leak in such a high profile case.

Of course, they made not be the source of the leak, in which case it came from the police. Now that would be a conspiracy...

BTW, have enjoyed your postings rubbishing the nutters who think the 7 July bombings are the work of the CIA (admit it, Paranoid Pete, Magoo and Zorro are all the same person, right?)

Back to you to tell me I'm full of shit.

No. We are most definitely seperate people. Unlike PsyOps and his many guises and sock puppets we don't need to hide behind lies.

Leaked info should always be received with caution. The years of the Thatcher government and mysterious filing cabinets turning "accidentally" up in second-hand furniture shops "embarrassingly" full of classified documents is enough to make anyone cynical.

My suspicion is we are dealing with a monumental fuck up and what we'll see next is police rank closing and trying keep the fall guy as far down the ladder as possible- as would happen in any institution.

With no real data on what actually happened it's all pure speculation. One thing is for sure /SO/CO19 are in for a roasting if they pulled the trigger, given their already dubious reputation for overreaction.

If this was an execution, it is the sloppiest job since that would-be "hitman" put an advert in Exchange & Mart hahahaha!

As also pointed out: so much for the expected fit up. PsyOps seems to be unaware of this story:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4607377.stm

But, I guess it doesn't fit into his prejudiced paradigm.

in your take of events several bullets to the head is "involuntary manslaughter". I presume at least you are not a lawer. All right minded people see this for what it is. A deliberate execution by the killer dog pack in order to introduce a bit of 'shock and awe' with a view to subdueing the Brutish public.
Seems to be falling apart. Also there is no exception to the law which allows a murdering policeman to avoid adhering to the law of the land, although I am unaware of any policemen who have murdered innocent person(s) having yet even been tried in a court of law. So in this direction you are probably correct.

What *evidence* do you have that it was an execution? "All right minded people..." ah, now I understand. That phrase equals "I have no bloody evidence but I'll quote notional mass support for my prejudice".

"I am unaware of any policemen who have murdered innocent person(s) having yet even been tried in a court of law."

Well, you may just be about to see the first. Pay close attention for words beginning with 'm'.

"Insp Sharman and Pc Fagan were arrested on Thursday on suspicion of murder, gross negligence, manslaughter and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4607377.stm

There have been a few convictions of officers for murder (also the range of violent crime from rape to armed robbery), but I assume that wasn't what you meant?

Just pondering this allegation.

If as claimed this guy was killed to "soften up" the UK for "executions", why didn't they choose someone they could fit up easily. Like an Asian or North African?

And, if this is supposed to be an execution by "MI5" or whoever you think is opening your mail, wouldn't the healines have read:

______

P.4 of the newspaper.

Brazillian man found dead in public park.

A young Brazillian man was by a passerby in the early hours of this morning. Police are treating the death as suspicious and are not ruling out links to a series of attacks that have been happing in the area.

Blah blah blah.
______

THAT's how you bump someone off properly, quietly and discretely, not by whipping up a frenzied media circus.

Any CND members in the house?

Although I don't completely discard allegations made against the police/government from other like-minded people I think some should be careful what they say as they are clearly, and probably quite right, being (excuse the pun) shot down by people like Magoo.

It is correct to say that if this was some sort of execution then it wasn't done very well it must be said.

It is also correct to say that there IS NOT ANY video footage.

It is correct to say that the police deliberately misinformed the public or more to the point, Sir Ian Blair did the day after the shooting with his press conference (shown on almost all TV channels).

No heavy jacket, no approach from the police, no vaulting a barrier and the fact that he has got on a bus.

Now as we have no video footage we have to assume the police are telling the truth about the incidents even though they clearly misinformed the public prior to this. If it was going to come out in this complaints commission then why didn't they just publish this information the day after the shootings, apologise and be in a far better position than they are now.

The answer is that I don't know but would certainly like to find out.

Note that the police officers statement now gives excuses as to why they let him on a bus, why they have no footage from when he left the scene but certainly does not explain why he was thought to be a suicide bomber.

No explanation required?

I expect so.

and the evidence.
well the evidence comes from the police statement, where one policeman states that he had the suspect's arms pinned to his side when a pistol appears at his left ear and a shot is fired into the head of the suspect, whereupon the surveillance officer was then dragged to the floor before the rest of the shots were fired (as a legal punishment). Of course you will argue magoo, that it was not a legal punishment,therefore no execution. Whatever.
The killer dogs(hunt in packs) were according to chief alpha dog Blair, in no doubt that this was 'their man'. In other words he was a dark skinned, foreign MUSLIM.
As for your darkened field hypothesis, I'm afraid you misunderstood. Once again, this execution was deliberately carried out in a most public place in order to plant fear in the hearts and minds of the type mentioned above. In order to emphasise this, it was stated in the following days that ethnic minorities of a 'certain type' only would be targetted. Otherwise put..'white trash relax'
An easy question this time for you.
Who kills with five to the head?
a) a panic stricken beginner.
b) a psycho on angel dust.
c) an executioner under 'gold standard' orders. Orders which must be obeyed.

over to yoo magoo. or anyone else.

"admit it, Paranoid Pete, Magoo and Zorro are all the same person, right?"

Wrong.

Its just there are a lot of us that don't confuse healthy cynicism with the latest crappy consipracy theory which comes along.

It's getting to look like you've gone off shift.
No problem.
Please give me your considered reply first thing.

I will be able to expand on any point you may not have been able to grasp.

By the way, some of your pals/aliases/clones do let themselves down a little by using such embarrasingly peurile guttersnipe language. Oh so macho, oh so dim.

First thing in the morning with your reply. There's just the three answers, so even if you have to guess you could get it right.

Mind you, you'll just as likely pull a completely new one out of the miasma of hyperbole and obfuscation that seems to hang round your skull, and that perhaps indeed even serves as a source for some of your more fabulous hypotheses.

They're often fun.

Good luck!

Jimjam

The evidence is as yet inconclusive. Contrary to what you may think of me, I am myself rather critical of SO19's conduct.

I don't like you multiple choice answers. So I'll do what I'd do at uni. Provide my own.

Why was the man shot?

1.) Operational fuck up on behalf of the spotter and/or
2.) Trigger happy S019 officer
3.) Perhaps the officer acted in good faith in bad instructions (poor comms between units).


Why has the press been allowed to run riot with speculation and didgy eyewitnesses?

1.) Ian Blair doesn't want to retire yet.
2.) Ian Blair doesn't want to retire yet.
3.) Ian Blair doesn't want to retire yet.


I think this may be borne out when we get a hold of the coroner's reports; if we get confirmation that STK was not an operational policy; when we have a better global picture of testimonies.

It is clear that someone fucked up and someone has tried to minimise it.. if indeed all the rumours of report content are true. It's early days, but if things progress along the same themes, Ian Blair'll be out of a job soon.

Conspiracy theory? Laughable! Assuming you live in London (posting on the London site) you should know better. SO19 haven't exactly got glowing public confidence have they!

Thank you for your reasoned and cogent reply.

My apologies for any inferred derogatory remarks

GOOD LUCK.
Jimjam.

I had no idea you were a DI of course.

Quite alright. It made me laugh at least ;-)

Right now back to polishing my buttons. We're so short staffed these days, I have to do it myself now, DS Waldo is off on some course regarding how to operate a video camera with one hand, Insp Morose is down in procurement discussing something called 'The Traveller's Mate'.

At 14oo hours some yokel from the Swedish Airways Service is coming down from the West Country to give a presentation called "Arse & Elbow: Know the difference!"... Probably some New Age guff that Blair bint has dreamed up.

Always a pleasure to indulge the proles!

Keep an eye on WHO did the shooting and the issue of remiving the CCTV disks. I'm not going to speculate wildly but things could get "interesting". There may have been two units here with very different orders.

After having a chuckle at most of the posts in here i then had then scary though that some of the people on here may actually hold down positions of trust within their respective comunities the immediatley dismiss the thought as laughable.

None of you (thank whatever passes as your god) have ever carried a firearm in a high pressure situation and i hope you never have to. Seeing these conspiracey theories develop where there isnt even any credible evidence just a bad dose of paranoia going on here. Lighten up guys the only bad guys you need to worry about are the ones that want to blow yer arse away not the incompetent police who shouldnt be allowed out with a baton far less a pistol. PEACE xx