Would have been nice to see these pictures in the Evening Standard, instead of their red-baiting story today attacking those who have been assisting the family as "Marxist agitators".

Word in the ear of the Evening Standard editors: if you're still looking for Communists under the bed, the president of Brazil, which has sent its investigators to look into this atrocity, is a longtime Marxist. Half of the cabinet, which authorised Operation Kratos, used to be "Marxists" in their day (didn't you hear them humming along to "The Internationale" like hypocrites at Robin Cook's funeral?).

Marxism isn't the problem here. Dishonest journalists and their "sources" are the problem.

But maybe the Evening Standard is, in its clumsy way, telling us something.

It may turn out that Marxism and other agendas for radical change are the real target of the anti-terror campaign. By sleight of hand, the "enemy within" will one day be changed from Islamic fundamentalists to trade unionists, critical academics, student organisers, and anyone else who supports radical social change. Remember our old friends, the striking miners? Have a good look at the anti-terror agenda that the government wants to rush through. In the hands of Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill could have been detained without charge or trial by order of the Home Secretary; flying pickets would have been liable to be stripped of their citizenship and deported (preferably to a country that allows torture but disavows it in "memoranda of understanding"); writers supporting the miners, or speaking at public assemblies, could have been charged with "indirect incitement" of politically-inspired violence (which is, in case you missed it, the government's new definition of terrorism).

Something smells - and not just on the pages of the Evening Standard.

Clearly the phrase they should have used was "bunch of pricks", based on the photos above. What, pray tell, does one gain from bringing a "BUSH - WORLD'S NUMBER ONE TERRORIST, ps please buy a copy of Socialist Worker" banner to what is supposed to be a vigil for a man killed by the police as part of an ongoing campaign for truth and justice?

And can anyone explain why Indymedia refused to post the article I wrote questioning the hijacking of the JCDM campaign by both the British left wing to further the anti-war cause and the the Brazillian government to draw attention away from it's own shortcomings?

Once again, this website has prooved to be no more independent than any of the "mainstream" press — if your thoughts don't fit the right frame, you're not welcome.

> And can anyone explain why Indymedia refused to post the article I wrote questioning the hijacking
> of the JCDM campaign by both the British left wing to further the anti-war cause and the the
> Brazillian government to draw attention away from it's own shortcomings?

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/topics/analysis/
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/321851.html

I think you've confused comments by the J4J campaign with comments by the Stop The War Coalition/SWP though, and you've not made clear what your motivation is in smearing the campaign.

> Once again, this website has prooved to be no more independent than any of the "mainstream"
> press — if your thoughts don't fit the right frame, you're not welcome.

*yawn*

Could someone who knows Portugese please ring up the BBC and tell them how to pronounce Jean De Menezes' name??!! I know it's not the most important detail but I do think the guy has a right to be called by his real name, rather than this vague "shhhing" sound that seems to come out when the newsreaders try to talk about him. And it seems to be getting worse. "Zhiang Zhah Meneshesh" was the latest I heard. Makes this guy sound like some 12th Century Mongol warlord. I'm not an expert, but I'm sure the Portugese and Brazilians don't really talk like that! It's driving me nuts!

Taken from the campaign's own website:

The campaign aims to:

- find out the truth about Jean’s unlawful killing
- bring those responsible for his death to justice
- end the ‘Shoot to Kill’ policy and so prevent a similar tragedy happening again
- to campaign against the rising tide of racism and the attack on civil liberties in the UK

 http://www.justice4jean.com/

Now I don't have a problem with anyone being political or campaigning for whatever they like. But this campaign seems to be conflating two quite distinct things:

- the desire for there to be a proper investigative and if necessary, judicial process to examine the circumstances around this single incident;
- a very broad set of political objectives concerning STK, racism and civil liberties.

I don't think any reasonable person wouldn't support the first objective but it's probably worth pointing out that the IPCC investigation currently in progress seems to fulfil it.

The second set of objectives are somewhat more debatable. We don't even know if Jean himself would have supported them. With all respect to his family and friends, they're probably not the best people to take a balanced view on whether STK is a good idea.

Far more people get killed by the police every year as a result of the police chasing them in cars and causing them to crash / crashing into them / running over them than they do in firearms incidents. We don't hear anyone seriously suggest that the police shouldn't drive cars. We hear them say that police drivers should be better trained, more careful, and properly accountable when their bad driving injures. I don't see why the police's use of firearms should be any different in principle.

The photos posted here from the demonstration don't seem to show Jean's family and friends looking for justice. They show the usual suspects from the SWP etc. stirring it up for their same old objectives on the back of one man's misfortune and the grief of his family who are half a world away and presumably know little about British domestic politics. To my mind, that's pretty tasteless.

So to boil it down to a single suggestion, if anyone with other affiliations wants to support this campaign, is there any chance they could leave their partisan banners at home? Such things only benefit the parties represented; they detract from what should be an independent campaign by turning away people that would otherwise support it but aren't going to sign up to the baggage that the "Left" brings with them.

Zorro sed: "I don't think any reasonable person wouldn't support the first objective but it's probably worth pointing out that the IPCC investigation currently in progress seems to fulfil it."

Any chance you can tell us how the IPCC can "find out the truth about Jean’s unlawful killing" when the tapes confiscated by the cops seem to be mysteriously blank despite the fact that the CCTV was working? How are the IPCC going to get around the fact that the chief investigator is known to have done everything he could to protect the Met in a former enquiry?

And finally, do you accept that the family and friends of Jean Charles de Menezes probably have a better idea of his politics then you do?

At ease

"Any chance you can tell us how the IPCC can "find out the truth about Jean’s unlawful killing" when the tapes confiscated by the cops seem to be mysteriously blank despite the fact that the CCTV was working?"

Well that remains to be seen. Even if it is the case, there will be plenty of other material evidence and witnesses. You could try waiting for the final report before coming to conclusions about its contents.

"How are the IPCC going to get around the fact that the chief investigator is known to have done everything he could to protect the Met in a former enquiry?"

Even accepting your premise which is debatable, I imagine they'd "get around it" by pointing out that he is a professional who has a duty to his current employer, not his former one. Further, that the IPCC's investigators are simply that - people who investigate and gather evidence, not the people who ultimately assess it and make recommendations based upon it. Those people are the IPCC commissioners, who are not and cannot be serving or former police.

"And finally, do you accept that the family and friends of Jean Charles de Menezes probably have a better idea of his politics then you do?"

Of course they do. But I'd imagine if Jean or his family felt very strongly about these issues they wouldn't have waited until after his death to start campaigning. Or perhaps they are all lifelong card-carrying Swappies, who've been burning up the street between Embankment and Trafalgar Square every fortnight on the back of the cause du jour and their sales quotas?

I have every sympathy for their personal situation, but the idea that they have anything particular to add to campaigns about police powers and civil liberties in this country that have been going on for decades is stretching generosity just a tad. A single tragic case such as this doesn't make the case either for or against the policy. Trying to campaign for justice from the state when your fellow travellers are broadly speaking anti-state, anti-police and anti-law doesn't sound like the smartest of moves.

Zorro sed: "he IPCC's investigators are simply that - people who investigate and gather evidence, not the people who ultimately assess it and make recommendations based upon it"

I think I follow now - Roy Clarke doesn't get to assess the the evidence - he just gets to decide what evidence the IPCC Commissioners get to assess.

Would you be at all surprised if I said that that doesn't fill me with hope?

Zorro sed: "I have every sympathy for their personal situation, but the idea that they have anything particular to add to campaigns about police powers and civil liberties in this country that have been going on for decades is stretching generosity just a tad. A single tragic case such as this doesn't make the case either for or against the policy."

Would I be foolish to presume that you're talking about STK? Because we, the tax paying public, weren't actually aware that it was in existence prior to the slaying of Mr. de Menezes. So, I don't think that there was a campaign against it for "decades" before the death.

Zorro sed: " Trying to campaign for justice from the state when your fellow travellers are broadly speaking anti-state, anti-police and anti-law doesn't sound like the smartest of moves."

The fact that you think the SWP are anti state/police/law doesn't (unfortunately) make it true.

Anyone would think that you were concerned that they should only talk to people who are pro-state/police/law - someone like yourself for example.

Dismissed.

"I think I follow now - Roy Clarke doesn't get to assess the the evidence - he just gets to decide what evidence the IPCC Commissioners get to assess."

Well I assume that the commissioners aren't idiots. Perhaps you think they are.

"Would I be foolish to presume that you're talking about STK? Because we, the tax paying public, weren't actually aware that it was in existence prior to the slaying of Mr. de Menezes. So, I don't think that there was a campaign against it for "decades" before the death."

Operation Kratos was reported and debated before 7/7 so if you missed it, you weren't paying attention. The more general principle, that the police are empowered to use lethal force to protect life, has been established for as long as the police have, so there's nothing new there. The only difference with Kratos really is the stuff about warnings and shooting for the head rather than the body.

"The fact that you think the SWP are anti state/police/law doesn't (unfortunately) make it true."

Well true or not, it would be easy to get that impression. As it would with you, so I don't see why you think the state has anything to offer in the way of justice for De Menezes family, so what do you want? A revolution? A lynch mob?

"Anyone would think that you were concerned that they should only talk to people who are pro-state/police/law - someone like yourself for example."

Or someone like their lawyer, Gareth Pierce. She's spent her whole career defending people's civil rights and ensuring that the police follow the law rather than break it. A more dedicated defender of justice and the law/state/police system that it relies upon you'd be hard to find.

"Dismissed."

I'm doing overtime tonight. Double bubble.

Zorro sed: "Well I assume that the commissioners aren't idiots. Perhaps you think they are"

I don't think they're clever enough to assess evidence that isn't presented to them. They can't assess the CCTV footage because it has 'mysteriously disappeared' - and the tapes have been returned to LT blank - not by the IPCC but by the cops. Furthermore, the IPCC was kept out of the initial evidence gathering by Sir. Ian's letter to the Home Secretary, so they can now only assess the evidence that Roy Clark presents to them, which he gets to select from the evidence that the force that is being investigated collected all on its own, without any outside monitoring.

You mention Gareth Pierce as being a good person for the family to talk to. That'll be the same Gareth Pierce who made the following comments, I presume:

"We expressed our extreme concern that although they [the IPCC] have a statutory duty to investigate from the very moment of a fatal death at the hands of the state, they were not there. We know not whether it was the commissioner of the Metropolitan police or the home secretary, or both, [who] delayed their advent into the case."

""One of the things we asked the IPCC to investigate is: are there lies that have been told? Who told them?

"There are lies that have been told and lies that have been allowed to remain uncorrected. He was not wearing a bulky jacket ... he did not run."

" "What we have asked the IPCC to find out is how much is incompetence, negligence or gross negligence and how much of it is something sinister."

And who also described the earlist stages of the investigation as a "chaotic mess"

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1551648,00.html

Zorro sed: "Operation Kratos was reported and debated before 7/7 so if you missed it, you weren't paying attention."

Well, thats interesting - unlike you, I didn't get to read the "Redbridge Borough Policing Plan 2003-2004" document, which mentioned it. Is there any chance of you providing a source for this prior public debate, cos according to this source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kwh/Operation_Kratos):

"Operation Kratos and the "shoot to kill" policy was first mentioned publicly by the British Government on July 15, 2005. It was asserted that "Armed police officers could be given more aggressive shoot-to-kill orders, telling them to fire at the heads of suicide bombers."[5]

There is little indication that the British public took particular notice of this policy or its implications until one week later, when Brazillian immigrant Jean Charles de Menezes was killed in Stockwell Tube station on July 22, 2005."

and, if you are correct, that needs correcting.

Zorro sed: " so I don't see why you think the state has anything to offer in the way of justice for De Menezes family"

I don't - but then I'm neither a SWaPpie, nor an adviser to the family. I do however think that the whole thing stinks to high heaven and that theres as much chance of finding out the truth about the killing from the IPCC investigation, as there is of finding a copper in your nick who isn't as bent as a nine bob note.

zorro sez "The more general principle, that the police are empowered to use lethal force to protect life, has been established for as long as the police have, so there's nothing new there. "


Whilst some here may approve of, or even enjoy, your parading of 'principles', let me make it clear to all readers

The police have no special powers to kill. When they do, as they do seem to, from time to time, they are(well, should be) subject to the full force of the law just as anyone is.

I must now ask on behalf of all readers here for zorro to put his money where his not inconsiderable mouth is and provide us with a posting of the exact statute where police are authorised to kill, remembering that Menezes was not and can never have been shown to be a danger to anyone.


over to zorro.

Zorro is peddling the same tired line, that the de Menezes family cause is being "hijacked" by assorted Leftists. Why should that be? Because there are people on the Left who care about what happened, who are horrified about the circumstances that are slowly being revealed, and want to help bring pressure to bear to get justice for the family and - this is the key - to prevent it from happening again? Brian freaking Eno could be at the head of this campaign, and Zorro and his Evening Standard friends would think he was mounting another campaign for the Lib Dems. What does the family have to do to mount a credible campaign in their eyes - link up with the WI?

"The ideals of the Women's Institute of truth, justice, tolerance and fellowship are as strong and important now in the 21st century as they were at the birth of the WI in 1915.

The WI exists to educate women to enable them to provide an effective role in the community, to expand their horizons and to develop and pass on important skills."

which sounds about right for the wonderful people I know who are part of the J4J campaign and who have been sharing campaign experience and contacts with a bereaved family who would otherwise have little access to the mechanisms of justice seeking in this country.

and if the best that anyone can smear them with is that some of them were already interested in peace, anti racism etc before this murder and that someone or other involved is a bit of an old lefty.. well...

case closed. the 'establishment' must be getting pretty desperate on this one!

The comments above seem to largly revolve around the double page spread in Tuesdays ES which claimed to expose the de Mezenes supporters as 'Marxist Agitators'. Firstly be aware that as far as the ES and it's sister paper The Daily Mail are concerned anyone to the left of Gordon Brown is a 'Marxist Agitator'. Secondly who exactly did they expect to volunterily fight the corner of a working class Brazilian family against a state sponsored Police cover up? The Torys? The Countryside Alliance? The BNP? The fact that the lawyer involved is linked to Galloway/Respect/GR is hardly a revelation. All they had to do was google his name. So why did they print two pages of recycled facts and half truths masquerading as investigative journalism?

The simple truth is that ES and all the other Associated News title are amongst the most rightwing and pro Police papers that you will find anywhere. The problem with the de Mezenes case is that every revelation that emerges paints the Police in an even worse light. It is impossible with the info now availible to put any kind of pro Police spin on the story at all. So instead they focus on the supporters of the family thus taking their readers attention away from the awful facts of the case which seem to get more horrific every day. Sadly this tactic certainly seems to have worked on some of the tossers posting above.