INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Should Ian Blair resign over De Menezes shooting?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

Should Ian Blair resign over De Menezes shooting?

#1 Post by FloatingBoater » November 2nd, 2007, 11:52 am

Personally I don’t think he should. We seem to be living in an age of instant opinion and ‘rolling news’ and knee jerk sensationalism. The media machine has to be fed, and its seems as though any fall guy will do. What happened to internal investigation based on ethical judgment and sense of fair play? If the problem is seen to be one of a corporate failure in as much as there were many who contributed to such rapidly moving events and were deemed to have failed, internal investigation should provide an improved service through the implementation of revised procedures.
More than anything the tabloid media love a feeding frenzy and are unashamed to stir things up so as to grab the most lurid headlines.
Has anyone assessed what Ian Blair has achieved – does anyone care? Just who should replace him and would the replacement guarantee never to be found wanting.
Life’s not like that, I would rather have a person in control who knows he is under scrutiny and a commitment to improve on results rather than a newbie shielded by the absence of a scapegoat predecessor.
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

Zoe
Posts: 564
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 4:08 pm

#2 Post by Zoe » November 2nd, 2007, 12:24 pm

I totally agree, FB.

I think the police get a lot of things wrong and although this may be the most tragic mistake they've made recently, I don't hold Blair responsible for it and I get the impression he has done a lot of good for the police service.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#3 Post by Nick » November 2nd, 2007, 12:53 pm

Likewise. I also agree with Ken Livingstone (which doesn't always happen!) who has expressed a similar view. In particular, he draws attention to the likely effect on future operations. It's only a matter of time before a Chief Constable hesitates and members of the public are blown up as a result.

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#4 Post by gcb01 » November 2nd, 2007, 4:32 pm

I agree that he shouldn't resign but only because I think he should be sacked.

The operation that ended in Mr De Menezes death was a fiasco. Anyone remotely resembling the person they were after (i.e. a non-white male) coming out of that block of flats was at risk, especially if they have been wearing an anorak and carrying a rucksack.

This was not a case of "shit happens", this was a case of someone dying because of an operation that was botched many times. Add to this the lies the Met did not strike down at the time and that no-one could be bothered to tell Blair that, oops, they had shot an entirely innocent man suggests an organization not being competently managed.
Regards

Campbell

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#5 Post by FloatingBoater » November 3rd, 2007, 3:30 am

gcbo1 calls for the sacking of Ian Blair because an innocent man was shot. Has he forgotten the 59 innocents who were blown to bits by Muslim terrorists or the capture of the bastards that failed to blow up themselves and other innocents just 24hrs before this incident?
How much different it would have been if the Brazilian had only gone home when his permit expired or that he had indeed been a potential mass murderer and been found to be strapped up with explosives? The policemen that shot him would have been heroes. Who would take on a job for average pay that requires you to run into the underground in pursuit of a potential suicide bomber?
No it’s far easier to have 20/20 hindsight and join in with a bit of police bashing. What kind of effect do you think this has on those men and women who are still prepared to do what won’t then condemn them for if they cock up.
We should be backing them not sacking them!
The key word in all this is ‘terrorist’. This is what they do … this is the whole point of their exercise … to create panic and fear in the general public., undermine our trust in those who protect us.
De Menenses was and innocent victim, yes, not of the Met but of the terrorists still amongst us who would threaten us all.
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

User avatar
Oxfordrocks
Posts: 673
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 9:45 am

#6 Post by Oxfordrocks » November 3rd, 2007, 9:10 am

Well said FB


Let's give the police "carte blanche" to shoot anyone they like (as long as they look a bit foreign)

Honestly!
Boy, am I glad you're not running the country.
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating staying in EU.

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of staying in the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens will be caused by leaving EU?
3. Should the supreme court ruling on British subjects be based in UK?

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#7 Post by FloatingBoater » November 3rd, 2007, 9:28 am

Not much of a response there then, or mabe not much undertstanding either.
As for giving the <I>police</I>, carte blanche to shoot anyone foreign looking, what a vacuous comment. BTW, any thoughts an the arrest of the Somalian involved in the shooting of PC Beschenevski? If he is found guilty, once he has served his sentence he can't be deported back because it would infringe his human rights to be sent to a country that is deemed to be unsafe for his welfare and right to a peaceful life.

Honestly!
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#8 Post by gcb01 » November 3rd, 2007, 12:30 pm

FloatingBoater wrote: gcbo1 calls for the sacking of Ian Blair because an innocent man was shot. Has he forgotten the 59 innocents who were blown to bits by Muslim terrorists or the capture of the bastards that failed to blow up themselves and other innocents just 24hrs before this incident?
No, I haven’t forgotten and thanks for asking.
FloatingBoater wrote: How much different it would have been if the Brazilian had only gone home when his permit expired or that he had indeed been a potential mass murderer and been found to be strapped up with explosives? The policemen that shot him would have been heroes. Who would take on a job for average pay that requires you to run into the underground in pursuit of a potential suicide bomber?
No it’s far easier to have 20/20 hindsight and join in with a bit of police bashing. What kind of effect do you think this has on those men and women who are still prepared to do what won’t then condemn them for if they cock up.
We should be backing them not sacking them!
I have not in any way condemned nor criticised the officers who shot Mr de Menezes. I believe that with the remit they had been given and the information they were given about Mr de Menezes they acted correctly and I agree, courageously.

You seem to be joining the Met and blaming Mr de Menezes death on himself with your reference to his work permit. I argued before that any non-white male emerging form the block of flats where Mr de Menezes lived was at high risk because of the many inadequacies of the police operation.
FloatingBoater wrote: The key word in all this is ‘terrorist’. This is what they do … this is the whole point of their exercise … to create panic and fear in the general public., undermine our trust in those who protect us.
De Menenses was and innocent victim, yes, not of the Met but of the terrorists still amongst us who would threaten us all.
Any police operation should not create more risk than it is intended to remove. In this case, if Mr de Menezes (these foreign names are such a nuisance to spell correctly aren’t they?) had been a suicide bomber he could have blown up two buses prior to arriving at the tube station. The operation was badly planed, badly thought through and badly carried out. I appreciate that incompetence is no longer a reason for resigning within the UK’s establishment – it simply confirms the lack of accountability.
Regards

Campbell

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#9 Post by FloatingBoater » November 3rd, 2007, 2:01 pm

Hi Campbell,

In response to your post re <I>(these foreign names are such a nuisance to spell correctly aren’t they?)</I> Let’s not nit pick over trivialities such as minor spelling mistakes and tones of inferred racial discrimination, otherwise it descends in to a flaming session of retaliation with snotty responses such as, ‘hello?’, <I>“The operation was badly planed”</I> pots kettles and black bottoms etc. :pointlaugh:

I don’t like it and I’m sure you don’t either … any way back to the issues at hand … :halo:

The modus operandi of the bombers was to twice hit the underground system. The bomb on the bus scenario, was a second option, not nearly enough potential victims.

<I>“…badly thought through and badly carried out.”</I>

This statement surely need backing up with some evidence such as by whom you think failed and how it was evident in this case.
The surveillance men were watching the flats from which the failed bombers created their devices, and the Brazilian did have a resemblance to some of the others and was followed by unarmed police on the same busses and to the same tube station used before calling in the guns. More than a little disturbing I would suggest; what do you think they should have done?

Not so long back a man was shot dead for brandishing a chair leg as though it was a gun. It was concluded that he was a contributory influence in his own demise. As I recall the armed response team was called to account and were returned to duty. The Chief Con of Brighton was not pressured to resign over that matter, compo was duly paid

Ian Blair is seen as a political target and ally of Tony Blair and therefore regarded as fair game for the left wing media and political opportunists. And isn’t it a bit odd that so many of De Menezes impoverished family have been able to make the trip to the UK, and so many times, to demand justice. I wonder who is footing that bill?
Surely the whole issue would have gone away for a couple of £mil compo.
Yet the family, via the sensation hungry media, disguise their real motives in a cloak of moral indignation that suggests that only the sacking of Blair will assuage their grief, or will it conveniently up the ante. :thumbsup:

kind regards FB :wink:
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#10 Post by gcb01 » November 3rd, 2007, 2:34 pm

So many errors, too little time.
Regards

Campbell

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#11 Post by FloatingBoater » November 3rd, 2007, 3:03 pm

Too bad :sad:
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

Zoe
Posts: 564
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 4:08 pm

#12 Post by Zoe » November 4th, 2007, 1:35 pm

gcb01 wrote:

This was not a case of "shit happens", this was a case of someone dying because of an operation that was botched many times. Add to this the lies the Met did not strike down at the time and that no-one could be bothered to tell Blair that, oops, they had shot an entirely innocent man suggests an organization not being competently managed.
I agree with this. Just to clarify my own position, I think the whole thing was an almighty botch-up but I feel the responsibility for it lies with those who planned and managed the operation and this wasn't Ian Blair. According to the press it was Commanders John McDowell and Cressida Dick who ran the operation and they are the people whose heads should roll, IMO.

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#13 Post by FloatingBoater » November 4th, 2007, 6:30 pm

Spot on Zoe!
Blair's main duty was to protect those on the cutting edge and maintain morale. He wan't given any time to put his house in order before the politico's were baying for his blood. :notworthy:
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

#14 Post by Ted Harvey » November 4th, 2007, 8:28 pm

The unlawful killing of De Menezes was the result an appalling series of cock-ups and ineptness on the part of The Metropolitan police. That it was such an appalling series was not "the most lurid headlines"; it was the official court finding.

The Met made an utter cod of the entire episode (one wee example; one of our admired 'heroes' on "average pay" was taking a pee in a bottle at the crucial time... talk about Keystone Cops).

But the real questioning about the whole moral and honesty stance of the Met lay in thier considered post-event response. Let's leave aside all the hoo ha about running "into the underground in pursuit" of a terrorist - that of course did not exist.

Senior officers in the Met 'misinformed' (!) their their top man in the 2 days after the killing - and he was far too quick to plunge in and revel in the media limlight of 'we've killed a terrorist'.. The Met brought up the utterly irrelevant black propaganda about the innocent victim's visa expiry. In a similar tawdry way, the Met found it useful to bring up allegations about traces of cocaine in their victim's blood.

Ach well, the victim looked a bit ... you know... like one of them, and his visa had expired and he might have taken cocaine in the previous 24 hours ... so, I mean Gov, what can you do? Anyway, he was a victim of those terrorists not the police who shot him? What tortured, manipulative nonsense all that is - why not just accept the verdict of the court? And why not accept that just because there are bad guy terrorists out there, that does not mean we should go any easier on the police when their incompetence kills innocent people?

As for Blair resigning. That actually has very little to do with this case. The continuation of Blair in his post has been a long running proxy war for the progressives and the reactionaries, of all political backgrounds, in the Metro-London hothouse. Given that, I for one will not pretend to understand what is really going on with regard to Blair's position or merits.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

#15 Post by Alan H » November 4th, 2007, 9:09 pm

Ted Harvey wrote:- and he was far too quick to plunge in and revel in the media limlight of 'we've killed a terrorist'..
Having seen something of how the Portuguese police do things, there seems to be much in favour of the police not saying anything about a case. Although this has generated a mountain load of ill-informed speculation by the media here (I'm not sure about the Portuguese media), they do that anyway. If the police kept quiet and did not give in to the voracious reporters (hungry for a story, but not necessarily hungry for facts), would justice be better served? This wouldn't have stopped the tragic death of de Menezes, but it's always better to know you are in possession of all the facts before opening one's mouth.

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#16 Post by FloatingBoater » November 4th, 2007, 9:21 pm

Ted said

“Ach well, the victim looked a bit ... you know... like one of them, and his visa had expired and he might have taken cocaine in the previous 24 hours ... so, I mean Gov, what can you do? …
…one of our admired 'heroes' on "average pay" was taking a pee in a bottle at the crucial time”

So this constitutes incompetence does it, or did you mean incontinence? I’m not sure which you mean.

For someone who appears to wish to make a relevant comment on this issue, what challenging facts have you brought forward exactly, apart from regurgitated media hyperbole?

<I>”why not just accept the verdict of the court?</I> jokin ain’tcha?

The entire court case was based on a ludicrous health and safety issue … and this is what you say should be accepted? In my opinion, if such an incident had happened in de Menezes’ own country, do you think it would have merited such world wide discussion and condemnation; Courts of enquiry and a corporate witch-hunt against the anti terrorist squad?
Not on your nelly old chum. Our own national sense of openness and integrity makes us vulnerable as always to petty snipers and attention seeking do-downers only too unwilling to address the real issues.

What sort of logic could possibly deny that had it not been for terrorist activity this situation would not have arisen? …

Ted you do seem to have a severe downer on the efforts made on our behalf by the individual police officers of the Met. Your criticisms and ironic cynicism that suggests to deny that these men and women are worthy of our gratitude, does little other than to portray yourself as a person of a sour disposition against the police in general and consequently seems to colour the rest of your opinions.

I do however agree with your last paragraph, that makes perfect sense. :thumbsup:
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 633
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

#17 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » November 5th, 2007, 1:44 am

FloatingBoater wrote:
De Menenses was and innocent victim, yes,

not of the Met

but of the terrorists still amongst us who would threaten us all.
True

False

False

( in that order)


FB,

I understand, I hope, why you say these things. But I prefer humdrum truth.

Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

#18 Post by Ted Harvey » November 5th, 2007, 10:03 am

"it's always better to know you are in possession of all the facts before opening one's mouth."
Alan H that’s exactly my point thanks :) . Incidentally on the Portuguese situation the problem is not what the police say, or do not say, under their system. The problem is the hideous behaviour of the British media pack. A point That makes your above quote all the more relevant.

FloatingBoater I’ll try not to respond in kind, for one thing you confuse ‘media hyderbole’ with court decisions - that you are happy to deride and discount as that does not accord with your opinion and that reflects the general tenor of your response.

However, since you mentioned media, this piece by Andrew Rawsley in yesterday’s Observer is an excellent reprise of this appalling catalogue of errors by the Met:

“What the de Menezes case has suggested is that the Met was - and possibly still is - in a state of institutional hysteria. When the Met should have been performing at its very best, a series of the most horrendous blunders was perpetrated. The judge ruled that some were 'simply beyond explanation'. This was not just a couple of armed coppers making a regrettable but understandable mistake in the heat of a tragic moment.

The court case catalogued no fewer than 19 catastrophic errors. Mr de Menezes's tragedy was to live in the same block of flats as one of the would-be bombers. The police failed to accurately verify his identity, partly because, in one of the farcical aspects of this tragedy, the surveillance officer went for a pee at a critical juncture.

Though a suspected suicide bomber, Mr de Menezes was allowed to board a bus full of commuters, get off it, get on another bus, get off that and then enter the crowded underground station where he was killed.
Firearms officers did not make it in time to Mr de Menezes's home before he left for work because they had to stop to get petrol. Orders to detain him were cancelled and then reinstated. There was the most amazing chaos in the control room. Such was the confusion about the identity of the terrorist that armed officers almost shot a colleague.

There was failure at every level that there could be failure. The surveillance was inadequate, the intelligence was wrong, the armed officers were not deployed in time, orders were confused and the chain of command broke down. As for Sir Ian, he was so out of touch with what was going on within his own organisation that he was still bragging that his force was 'playing out of its socks' 24 hours after his officers had killed an innocent man.”


The full reprise of this unbelievably bad failure at:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 34,00.html

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#19 Post by FloatingBoater » November 9th, 2007, 12:47 am

Talk about fighting with one hand tied behind your back, is it any wonder why Ian Blair tried to stop a media driven investigation into the Met’s handling of the de Meneses affair. Who in their right mind would wish to give the ‘enemy’, an accolade of congratulation in screwing the efficacy of a successful counter terrorist combatant.
Left wing, armchair experts … that’s who!
As Boris Johnson says in this extract from the Telegraph :-
<I>…’No one in their right mind would cast aspersions on the bravery of the police. Look at the conduct of "Ivor", one of the surveillance team, who followed the suspect all the way down into the Tube, and then on to the train, and then pinned down de Menezes's arms in order to stop him reaching for a putative detonator.…
...They were brave as lions. So what stopped them from exercising their common sense, and what stopped the situation from getting so out of control? It is because they were once again following procedures
…only conclusion we can draw is that it was deemed essential to wait for the firearms team in order to protect the health and safety of the surveillance team’</I>

Gimme strength!! and pass the vallium :angry:

<B>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... 801.xml</B>
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

Jem
Posts: 973
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:37 pm

#20 Post by Jem » November 9th, 2007, 12:25 pm

FB - you've been told before: please stop using html code in your posts - they don't work!

[-X

To italicise a word or phrase, just highlight it with your mouse then click on the i button above the text book. It's so simple! :grin:

Post Reply