Thursday, November 01, 2007

Rough Justice

So, Sir Ian Blair had another close shave as the Jury finds the Met guilty but Cressida Dick innocent in the De Menezes shooting case. The Met mounted a defence of the most cynical variety, continuing their character assassination of de Menezes which started on the day of his shooting just before they shot him: he ran when challenged, he vaulted the barrier, he came towards the police. This was followed by photo-shopping his picture to make him look more like the suspected terrorist, saying that he had taken cocaine (implying he was still under its influence, when he wasn't) and pointing out that his visa had expired (presumably a capital offense).

A sorry picture of incompetence, dishonesty and lack of principle emerges and you hope that the public sees through it. Then, if you read the Have Your Say feature on the BBC website, it is quite clear that mud sticks. Half of the commenters are mouthing these half-truths and lies as defense of our glorious police.

The truth is simpler. Individual police are usually brave and most are doing their best in difficult circumstances, but their organisation is deeply flawed at the deepest (and highest) levels. The fast track graduates with little on the street experience and heightened political sensitivities who run our police forces shouldn't be trusted with organising a milk-round let alone armed police and counter-terrorism.
For a BBC timetable of the whole glorious cock-up go here.


Anonymous said...

There's something deeply mysterious about the praise for Cressida Dick in conrast to the ignominy being heaped on Sir Ian Blair. One suspects that the MSM have already composed their grand narrative and so are gunning for Sir Ian in accordance with it.

Simon Israel on Channel 4 may have had it right in his version: the surveillance team failed to intercept the suspect, and by the time he had gone through the ticket barrier at Stockwell Underground station it was too late to do anything except let the fire arms team take their course.

At the very least though, the shooters themselves have not been scapegoated, and blame must therefore clearly lie with either the surveillance team or with Dick herself.

But she's a woman, and so in eyes of the MSM she cannot possibly have done any wrong.

(Whoops! Did I just write that?)

Clovis Sangrail said...

I'm afraid your suggestion about Cressida Dick is entirely believable.

Here is a little background (from Wikipedia):
"In June 2001, she returned to the Metropolitan Police as a Commander. She was head of the Diversity Directorate until 2003, when she became head of Operation Trident, which investigates gun crimes within London's black community."
The Diversity Directorate sounds unpromising.

With regard to the surveillance team, their communication sounds appalling. The time taken by the Firearms team seems worse, though. If they'd been on hand earlier (they were summoned just after 5 am, Menezes didn't leave the block of flat until 9.33) then their final intervention would not have been `necessary'.

down with comm Purpose said...

Someone, somewhere must be having a right laugh at the Metropolitan Police.

The key fact to understand: is that they really thought that the guy they were following was responsible for making the bombs that went off on 7/7.

You must understand: they really believed it.

Someone told them a porky!

shouting "armed police" does not constitute a warning. There was no way for de Menezes to know if it was meant for him or for someone else.