Met Chiefs Lie About Terrorism 15


I know that headline comes in the “Old news” category, but for once it’s official. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has ruled that the public were “Misled” over the death of Jean Charles De Menezes, the innocent Brazilian executed on the London Underground.

The lies which the Metropolitan Police told – from Sir Ian Blair down – in the ensuing cover-up were inexcusable.

Catalogue of Lies

– The Met maintained that De Menezes was a terrorist for 24 hours after they knew he was innocent.

The Met then proceeded to tell a series of lies about De Menezes behaviour to justify his killing. They said he had:

– Run into the tube station

– Vaulted the ticket barrier

– Raced through the subway and dashed onto the train

– Been wearing a bulky jacket from which wires protruded

These were 100% lie. In fact De Menezes had

– Picked up a newspaper in the station

– Used a ticket in the normal way

– Walked calmly throgu the station

– Been wearing tight clothing with no wires

These lies by the Met are inexcusable. In fact the IPCC were unable to get to grips with much else for lack of evidence – the cover-up went much deeper. Especially

– The CCTV footage of De Menezes throughout the station and at the shooting got “Lost” or corrupted

The IPCC named only Andy Hayman, the Head of counter-terrorist operations at the Met, as guilty of these lies. But we all know it went both higher and deeper. In fact:

– Police chiefs ensured the removal of criticism of more senior officers by the Police Federation taking out legal cases against the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

In any real democracy this scandal would cause not just major resignations amongst senior police, but a government to fall. Unfortunately we are no longer much of a democracy. News reports are emphasising that the shooting was “understandable” as it happened the day after the attempted July 21 bombings. In a classic piece of news management, the immediately preceding news item is that a man has today been charged with “Witholding Information” about the 21 July bombings.

Two years after the event, the police arrested him two days ago, and now charge him on the day that the IPCC report came out. Both those timings were within the sole remit of the police. Anyone who believes the timing is coincidental is so naive as to be certifiable.

Given the catalogue of lies they told in the De Menezes case, I am not prepared to believe the police version of what happens in any “Terrorist” incident without other verification. That goes for the recent London alleged car bomb too. Just like Tony Blair and WMD, the same applies to Ian Blair and Andy Hayman:

– Never take the word of a proven lying bastard.


15 thoughts on “Met Chiefs Lie About Terrorism

  • Chuck Unsworth

    A vindication for those many who believed that the Met's sole purpose in all of this was to exonerate itself. Unfortunate that the huge effort placed in 'news management' is being paid for by all of us – in more ways than one. It's my view that Ian Blair has been entirely and personally responsible for this shambles and for the resultant loss of public support.

    Who now believes anything emanating from the Metropolitan Police? What the cops should understand is that Ian Blair has almost single-handedly damaged their individual personal credibility beyond repair. No one with any sense will ever again accept a police statement or evidence as being a frank, transparent and truthful account. For further confirmation look at the nonsense trotted out after the Forest Gate incident – and there are all too many others.

    The British public have been, and continue to be, stitched up by these shameless operators. Why should anyone continue to support such a corrupt and disgusting organisation?

  • Sabretache

    This whole episode has had me incandescent with anger ever since its inception; so much so that I find it very difficult to write about at all. The police can, and all to often do, get away with murder – as in: "when was the last time they shot dead a guilty man?". I can think of at least half a dozen totally innocent ones over the past few years though – the de Menenez one being just the worst and most cold-blooded example. The thing is they KNOW they will always be given the benefit of any doubt and that knowledge has a deadly effect on their behaviour.

    If I have mentioned this before here then I apologise but I have first-hand experience of their propensity for gratuitous violence. Several colleagues of mine received serious injuries from the tooled up Met police in Parliament Square when the Hunting Bill was being debated back in 2004. I came very close to being being hurt myself. I had a fairly senior organising position that day and I know exactly what happened. Those guys were scary. They had very different orders from the dozens of other demos I'd been on and it was crystal clear from the word go. Their demeanor said, quite clearly, "Behave like good little sheeple or we're gonna enjoy banging a few heads" – and that's EXACTLY what they did. But to read the mainstream press (with honourable exceptions) you wouldn't know it. OK 7 officers were charged – but every single one was aquitted, as usual in such cases – and the IPCC? another bloody whitewash.

    It was a seminal experience for me and turned my whole view of the police and law-enforcement on its head. The Met police are the tooled up, armed, politicised Agents of what is becoming a thoroughly oppressive State – and they're about to be given even more powers. God help us all.

    All power tends to corrupt – absolute power corrupts absolutely. That applies to the Met police in spades.

  • Numeral

    Just a couple of minor points. De Menezes was wearing a denim jacket and it was one day after the 21st July events.

  • Craig

    Numeral

    Thanks. Corrected the entry. It was perhaps a light denim jacket, but does seem to be the only garment on the upper half of his body. Am posting photo.

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Anyone taking any bets on whether Hayman will be sacked? Very slim chance of that, I think. Of course Ian Blair is comfortable. But the Report revealed an interesting mindset at all levels in the Met. Time and again the discussions revolved around appearance rather than substance – a bit like Ian Blair himself, then.

    But note that the Report really did not properly examine the actions of several others within that group of witnesses. There are quite a few discrepancies in their (reported) evidence.

    I'd have enjoyed an opportunity to scrutinise the actions of the IPCC guys, as well.

  • Wegal

    There is a bigger question that I have yet to see answered.

    WHY ?

    Why did armed officers shoot this man, what information had they been given, and what actions did this man take that lead them to shoot him 7 times in the head.

    I have used firearms and I can tell you that to shoot someone in the head is quite a shot in its own right. Police and armed forces the world over are taught to shoot at the body mass, because its easier to hit and will put your target down. So again why a headshot and why 7 times, only one round to the shoulder. It doesnt make sense. Surely and trained firearms officer would know that a single head shot is more than enough to finish the argument.

    There is a much bigger cover up here than wether the IPCC misled anyone, if anything the report that we have been missled is missleading in its own rights.

    The whole thing smells funny if you ask me.

  • HarryTheHorse

    What I find very frustrating about this case is how the fundamental question – 'why was jean shot?' – is never asked. We spend most of our time talking about the psot shooting cover up. For the police action to been legal, the armed policemen who shot him must have formed the HONEST view that Jean was armed with a bomb and that shooting him was the only way in which they could protect themselves and public. But the IPCC report concedes that Jean was wearing light summer clothes, with nowhere to hide a bomb, and did not behave suspiciously in any way. So how the hell did the armed police form the honest view that he was an armed bomber? Were they told to execute him regardless of the evidence of their own eyes? That would be the Kratos policy which the police say wasn't authorised by Cressida Dick. Were the police so tanked up on adrenaline that they shot him without acertaining whether he was a threat? Sounds like manslaughter to me, with possible grounds for diminished responsibility. Or did they deliberately decide to shoot someone they thought was Hussein Osman in revenge for the terrorist attacks of July 2005? One of those has got to be the case. Why is the IPCC silent on this fundamental point?

  • Craig

    Wegal and HarryThe Horse

    I quite agree. Plainly this was an execution, not a mistaken act believed to be self-defence.

    I am not entirely convinced we know the true identity of all the killers.

  • Wegal

    As far as I am aware the only forces in the world that are taught to religiously use headshots are the special forces. There are only a few special forces that would have people with this capability ( to shoot in the head a moving target outside of point blank range) You can count them on the fingers of one hand. SAS/SBS Delta ( and derivitives thereof) GSG9 and possibly a Mosad group. Although I suspect that if mosad wanted him dead it would have been a little more inventive than 7 9mm rounds. (Probably involving helicopter gunships artillery and tanks, but thats a whole different arguement)

    British soil, British operation. Gibralter anyone ?

    Question still remains, and I suspect will alwys remain. Why ? If he was a terrorist taken down by special forces our media and government would be celabrating the fact.

    I agree with Craig. It was an execution. Perhaps the unfortunate recipiant was not as innocent as is being made out and if that is the case why not produce the evidence and silence the critics. Or maybe, and I feel more likely mistaken identity of someone they really didnt want walking around for what ever reason. But again, why not admit the mistake and move on. Everyone makes mistakes, Doctors make mistakes that kill people every day, we dont persicute them for it. Soldiers policeman and intelligence officers are human ergo they will make mistakes.

  • Randal

    parallel between the Blair regime over Iraq and the Met over Menezes is well drawn.

    Both in the totally instrumental attitude to truth, and in the utter and shameless lack of any personal accountability.

    Incandescent anger and a cold determination never again to support such corrupt and disgusting organisations are really the only acceptable responses.

  • Lopakhin

    To those who asked about him being shot in the head, I think the answer to that is that one of the officers was holding him down, so it wouldn't have been so difficult as that.

    Btw – Craig M: '- The Met maintained that De Menezes was a terrorist for 24 hours after they knew he was innocent.'

    Yes and no – for instance, the IPCC report stated that Andy Hayman told a gathering of specialist crime journalists on the afternoon of the day of the shooting that he probably wasn't one of the four wanted bombers. This seems to me to be a sign that there wasn't a concerted attempt to cover this up, as it'd be an odd way to cover something up to tell a load of journalists about it. Nevertheless, shortly afterwards, Ian Blair told a press conference that he was connected to the bombing enquiry, so it seems to me that there's more of a failure of communications within the Met than a conspiracy to cover up.

  • Lopakhin

    By the way: 'The Met then proceeded to tell a series of lies about De Menezes behaviour to justify his killing. They said he had:

    – Run into the tube station

    – Vaulted the ticket barrier

    – Raced through the subway and dashed onto the train

    – Been wearing a bulky jacket from which wires protruded'

    My understanding is actually that most or all of these assertions were made not by the police, but by witnesses on the media. The police failed to correct them when they knew they were wrong. Ian Blair in his press statement the other day said that this was due to a policy which was agreed between the Met and the IPCC that once the latter's enquiry had begun, the police would not comment on the matter, and he said that in retrospect he though this agreement had been a mistake.

  • DuncanMcFarlane

    This was shameful. Some supposedly highly trained professionals decided this man 'looked a bit foreign' and lived in the same block of flats as a suspect.

    On this vague suspicion they killed him.

    People should be sacked and up on manslaughter charges at the least for this. If he was a British citizen and not an immigrant it would have brought down the government – which is a sad comment on the bigotry against immigrants whipped up by the tories and some of 'New Labour' to the benefit of the BNP.

    This kind of murder is what happens when suspicion is thought to be enough without any evidence of guilt being thought to be required.

  • Wegal

    Lopakin said "To those who asked about him being shot in the head, I think the answer to that is that one of the officers was holding him down, so it wouldn't have been so difficult as that."

    So they held him down and shot him in the head ? 7 Times ? Thats murder, plain and simple. No further comment needed.

  • Randal

    "This kind of murder is what happens when suspicion is thought to be enough without any evidence of guilt being thought to be required."

    "So they held him down and shot him in the head ? 7 Times ? Thats murder, plain and simple. No further comment needed."

    The rationalisation is that if he might be a suicide bomber it's necessary to shoot the suspect in the head in order to get an instant kill.

    I'll leave it to the reader to pick out the obvious holes in that rationalisation as it applies to this case.

    Yes, to any normal person what happened to Menezes was murder, plain and simple. So you have to wonder, what kind of people, operating under what kind of priorities and principles, run this country, the Met, and the IPCC. And what kind of people in our press and media let them get away with "pissing on our heads and telling us it's raining", as some less couth Yanks might put it.

Comments are closed.