Attack in London Today

You infer then, that this may have been something similar to what SAS did in Ulster, but a cock-up nonetheless?

I guess I'm revising my thoughts on this. No doubt it was a mistake in that they killed an innocent man. But its not impossible they deliberately targetted someone they believed to be mixed up with the bombings to send a very clear statement to anyone else of similar inclination.

You infer then, that this may have been something similar to what SAS did in Ulster, but a cock-up nonetheless?

Altogether, MI5, MI6 and SAS seem to me to be sometimes too competent at what they do.

SNAFU

18 Aug 2005 16:54 GMT UPDATE:

London Police Dodged Probe Into Shooting

(This updates an item published at 1536 GMT with reaction from the Metropolitan Police commissioner.)

LONDON (AP)--The police oversight group investigating the shooting death of a Brazilian man mistaken for a bomber last month accused London police Thursday of resisting an independent investigation into his death.

The comments came after lawyers for Jean Charles de Menezes' family met the watchdog group, demanding answers amid allegations of a police cover-up - a charge that Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair denied Thursday.

John Wadham, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said "the Metropolitan Police initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that."

Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head on July 22 by police who had tailed him to a subway station the day after four bombs were carried onto London's transit system but failed to detonate fully. The attacks came two weeks after four suicide bombers killed 52 commuters on the London Underground and a bus.

Pressure on police has been growing after news reports, citing leaked documents and closed-circuit television footage, called into question initial reports about what happened. Lawyers for the Brazilian man's family have also accused authorities of trying to intervene and delay the investigation into how Menezes had become a victim of the shoot-to-kill policy.

"This has been a chaotic mess," said lawyer Gareth Peirce, one of the attorneys representing the Menezes family.

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

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair fired back that there was "no cover-up" in an interview with London's Evening Standard published late Thursday.

"These allegations strike to the heart of the integrity of the police and integrity of the Met and I fundamentally reject them," he reportedly said. "There was no cover-up."

In the heightened state of anxiety following the failed attacks, witnesses reported that Menezes, who they claimed was dressed and acting suspiciously, jumped over station ticket barriers before bolting from armed officers toward a train. Blair told journalists on July 22, the day of the shooting, that Menezes failed to obey their instructions, and police said that "his clothing and his behavior at the station added to (police) suspicions."

But a leaked report made by public by Britain's ITV television Tuesday into Menezes' death suggested the initial police statements about what happened that day were riddled with inaccuracies.

While Blair initially insisted Menezes was linked to the attack investigation, it soon become clear that he had no connection to the failed attacks and police expressed their deep regret at the shooting.

Peirce claimed that authorities tried to intervene and delay the investigation into how Menezes had become a victim of the shoot-to-kill policy.

"We know not whether it was the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or the home secretary, or both, (who) delayed their (the IPCC's) advent into the case. We have asked for a fast investigation on behalf of the family," Peirce told reporters on Thursday.

The Home Office refused to comment.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed that Blair wrote to the head of the independent investigation group on the day of the shooting while police still believed Menezes was a suspected bomber. Blair wanted "to clarify the role of the IPCC...this was because it was crucial that the terrorist investigation took precedence over any IPCC investigation at that time."

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

Yes, Thou Candleless One, the rest is mere speculation.

GF, an all-purpose expression, no?

Well it was obviously a cock up in that the killing of an innocent man has not exactly produced favorable reactions.

But what if they had killed a real suicide bomber or an associate? Who would then have questioned the "official" version of what took place - that he was challenged, refused to stop, chased onto the train, wrestled to the ground and finally shot? And if it was shown later to have been more like an assassination, who would care?

I'm not saying this was a deliberate hit, only that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, and given the history of English and British secret service operations, certainly not without precedent.

Sir Ian Blair
He must stay - for now

Leader
Saturday August 20, 2005
The Guardian

Calls for Sir Ian Blair to resign as the commissioner of the Metropolitan police are premature and, on the evidence so far, not substantiated either. This is not to diminish the unquestioned seriousness of the Jean Charles de Menezes wrongful killing. Nor is it to belittle the evidence of police misdeeds on July 22, or to understate concerns about the misleading versions of the event which the police gave in the following days. These matters have to be fully investigated - which they are being; and the facts must be laid before the public - which they will be. At that stage, competent authorities will decide if there are legal charges to answer and a meaningful public assessment can be made about wider issues - including Sir Ian's responsibilities. But that stage is not now. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about justice should recognise that the process now underway should be completed first.

Article continues
To repeat: the De Menezes case is extremely disturbing; it is vital both that those responsible for his death should have to answer for it and that wider lessons should be learned and applied to make sure no such thing happens again. Even so, the current level of preoccupation in some quarters with the iniquity of the De Menezes shooting is beginning to verge on the obsessive, is in danger of becoming politicised and increasingly lacks an appropriate sense of context. Mr De Menezes should not have died. But nor should the 56 people who were killed by terrorists on July 7. The officers who killed Mr De Menezes believed, tragically and wrongly, that they were preventing another attack of that kind. If they had been right, they might have been heroes. Instead, having been wrong, they are now treated by some people as villains.

Nevertheless, the police have accepted responsibility for the death and an independent inquiry is under way - neither of which would have happened as recently as the 1980s. Sir Ian, meanwhile, has no choice but to balance his responsibilities to the law, to the public, to his officers and to Mr De Menezes. He does not have the luxury of only being concerned about the tragic Brazilian. Justice is being done, not perfectly and not without false starts, but done nevertheless. In such circumstances, it is a misjudgment, and perhaps even a mischief, to demand Mr Blair's head. It smacks of politically motivated interference. If the campaigners are so concerned about the police, rather than politics, why are they calling their demonstration at Downing Street and not Scotland Yard?

This is not to imply in any way that the officers who shot Mr De Menezes, or Sir Ian himself, should not be accountable. They should, both to the law and to the public on whose confidence the police service depends. Sir Ian's statements to the public about the shooting have not been satisfactory. The old questions - what did he know and when did he know it? - apply with some force. Until we know the answers it will be impossible to say for sure whether the commissioner tried to deceive or merely erred in his early comments. We shall have to see.

Even then, it would be inhuman and would lack common sense to pretend that negligence or something more sinister were the only possible explanations. Justice must be done to Mr De Menezes. But it has to be done within a context that at least recognises that his killing took place in circumstances of phenomenal danger and exceptional pressure. On July 21, a lot of Londoners were nearly the terrorists' next victims. No one could know, on the following day, that there would not be a further attempt. It does not excuse what happened to Mr De Menezes to recognise that the police have done a mighty job in protecting the public. But the public understands, even if some people seem sometimes to forget, that we - and, on our behalf, the police - are faced by murderous fanatics.

Govt backs London police chief over shooting probe

Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:25 PM BST


By Tim Castle

LONDON (Reuters) - The government expressed confidence on Saturday in London police chief Ian Blair, under pressure over the police killing of a Brazilian electrician mistaken for a would-be suicide bomber.

The family of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot eight times by police on an underground train last month, have called on Blair to quit after leaked investigation documents cast doubt on the official version of events and highlighted police blunders.

But Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he was satisfied with how Blair and his force had responded to deadly suicide bomb attacks in London on July 7 and an attempted second wave of strikes two weeks later.

"I'm very happy with the conduct not only of Sir Ian Blair but the whole Metropolitan Police Service in relation to this enquiry," Clarke told the BBC.

He said people should not pass judgement before the results of an independent investigation into the shooting, which took place the day after the failed second set of attacks.

"There are very important issues about the death of Mr de Menezes and what happened and how it took place which rightly should be investigated," he said. "We have a process for doing that."

Earlier on Saturday, police said they had reviewed the controversial "shoot-to-kill" policy for suicide bombers after the killing of de Menezes but left it largely unchanged.

"We have reviewed it and we have made one or two small changes, but the operation remains essentially the same," a spokeswoman for the London police force said.

The spokeswoman declined to detail the changes but Blair said officers would continue to use lethal force if necessary.

"The methods that were used appeared to be the least worst option (for tackling suicide bombers) ... we still have the procedure in use," he told the Daily Mail newspaper.

British police spent years studying how to deal with suicide bombers but the issue became acute following the July 7 attacks in which four British Muslim men killed themselves and 52 other people on three underground trains and a bus.

Len Duval, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority which oversees policing in London, said there was a growing consensus for a public inquiry into the "shoot-to-kill" policy but it was a decision for the government.

On the day of the shooting Blair said de Menezes was under surveillance as part of a hunt for suspects from the July 21 attacks and had not responded to police challenges. The next day police admitted they had shot an innocent man and apologised.

Is it really all that necessary for the government to back Ian Blair at this point?