Re: OT: The de Menezes Killing

lucifer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>So you have no confidence that any inquiry into this matter will
>reveal the truth?

I take it you have little idea what such enquiries are about. If you
are happy thinking that they are about discovering the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then that's up to you.

>Then where are you going to get your version of the truth from?
>The media? Animated crab-sticks like George Galloway?
>Axe-grinding ramblings from vested interest civil-liberty
>brown-nosers?
>Go on... Tell us.

See below.

I have taken the liberty of editing the postings to date, for two
reasons. One is that they are getting long, and with ever-increasing
indentation, less easy to follow.

The other is that I see a persistent pattern in your replies, which I
believe is fundamental to the misconceptions that are leading you to
make such thoughtless if not naive comments. In order to demonstrate
the latter more clearly, I have edited the post to which I am
replying, and may have changed the order for the sake of clarity.

Your post also raises two other topics, which are dealt with later. It
would have been more helpful had you separated such issues from the
matter under discussion; but that was your choice - not a necessarily
helpful one.

>It would appear from some of your postings, that it is you who
>believes that because it's been in the newspaper, it must be so.

>Anything you or anyone else speculates as happening during that time
>is merely speculation and worthless.

>All you, or anybody else making such comments are doing, is repeating
>what for the most part has been written by some newspaper hack and
>assuming that because of that, it is gospel.

>But is it too difficult for you to understand, that in the immediate
>hours, after an incident, there are always many conflicting reports
>about what may, what did and what didn't happen.
>
>As more information comes in and the persons involved are debriefed,
>the reports are corrected.
>
>e.g. On CNN immediately after the incident, they had interviews with
>people who had been on the train and viewed the incident.
>Some said the police were uniformed (they weren't).
>Some said the police shouted a warning, others that they didn't.
>Some even said that the man shot was reaching into his pocket when he
>was shot.
>
>Since then we've had many different reports. So which are correct?
>The ones which agree with your opinion, or the ones which don't?
>
>So raising those questions was just speculation on your part then eh?

I've put these comments together because they neatly illustrate the
weakness of yours that I have alleged, and seek to illustrate.

Look at these excerpts: "many conflicting reports", "As more
information comes in", " they had interviews with people who had been
on the train", "we've had many different reports. So which are
correct?".

Your modus operandi appears to be to ignore all comments, reporting,
news items, seemingly anything that is published prior to the
published results of the inquiry.

What you choose to ignore is that *all* information can be processed.
It's why the police and other agencies keep everything, even unfounded
speculation and innuendo.

But those who attempt this seek to sort the valid from the invalid,
and the missing from the published, the complete from the incomplete,
etc, in the interests of working out what may have happened, finding
where the gaps are in the published accounts, and anticipating what an
inquiry might be tasked to look at or ignore. Collateral evidence,
precedents, and personal experience are all brought to bear.

Now, it is inherent in this exercise, is that information falls into a
number of categories: some is just plain wrong, some is partially
complete, some is merely partial, some is disingenuous or misleading,
some is never revealed. This is not an exhaustive list.

The information analyst looks at *all*of this available information,
in the light of what else is known or suspected about the players and
organisations involved, and forms an initial view of the possibilities
as to what actually happened.

As more information comes in - which still is covered by the list
given above - it is fitted in to what is already known, or put in
abeyance for the time being, with the aim of modifying the
possibilities or adding to or ruling them out as the information
suggest.

At some point in this exercise, patterns may emerge, that can then be
used to fill the gaps, predict future behaviour, anticipate the
inquiry remit, suggest new lines of thought and informatrion research.
At this point, it might be appropriate to review what has so far been
emerged, in the light of the possibilities revealed.

This is a continuous process. Only the moronic would reject a
published article *merely* because it was written by a journalist or
uttered by a politician, or, worse, cop-out of the process and wait
for the results of an inquiry.

One thing is quite clear as far as the particular topic of the de
Menezes killing is concerned, is that no-one will ever know the
totality of what happened.

In the light of the above, let's see what you make of one snippet of
news, namely that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police spent
one if not two days in the immediate aftermath of the killing pushing
for an internal police enquiry, which, it is alleged, is against
police guidelines.

Could it be that this unusual if not unprecedented step would give him
full control over the people and the evidence available? Could it be
that it would delay any other form of inquiry? What was the
significance of his being abruptly over-ruled by the Home Secretary?
What do you read into the statement that the IPCC agreed to a delay of
four days (in fact it turned out to be six) before taking over the
investigation? What might have happened to witness evidence, police
officer interviews, CCTV evidence in the meantime? Will any of this
even be covered by an inquiry? Is the whole thing of no significance
whatsoever?

And this is just one item that took place early on in the whole sorry
saga.

>No. I'm saying wait until the case has been inquested and any
>resulting court case has been decided.

Well, stick your head in the sand, why don't you?

Turning now to your other points.

>So it is your view that the police ethos, is that the risk to/safety
>of, the police is first and foremost. Even if that is "while Joe
>Public is being slaughtered." Is that it?

There have been enough high-profile cases in the recent public domain
to strongly suggest such a policy. Don't you read the news? Sorry, I
forgot that you wait for the outcome of inquiries.

>>Kindly do not lump me in with 'Jock'. I haven't seen his postings
>>since he gave some extremely dubious advice concerning rights-of-way
>>at French roundabouts. I have no idea what he is posting on this
>>topic, and have no wish to be so enlightened.
>
>I had no idea you were a follower of 'The Airy Religion' and
>kill-filed anybody with opinions that didn't agree with yours. Is
>that because you cannot argue your corner, or is it just because you
>like wearing blinkers?

>I have nobody in my killfile. Kill-files are the last refuge of those
>with nothing to say.

Don't be idiotic. 'Jock' can say what he likes. But, I couldn't care
less about his postings. I exercise my right, which is just as valid
as his or yours, not to read them. For someone who waits for the
outcome of inquiries, why do you then fail to select the postings you
read, but read instead all sorts of rubbish? What a strange, partial
philosophy you apply.

>There are far too many 'Armchair Generals' making bloody silly remarks
>about what the police/army/whatever, should have, or could have done
>in various circumstances.

And there are far too many idiots with their head in the sand, waiting
for something that will never arrive.

>There was even one dipstick on this newsgroup recently, suggesting
>that de Menezes, should have been shot with a TASER weapon.
>
>Think about it... You have somebody in a confined space (with a
>number of members of the public close by) and who officers believe may
>have been carrying an electrically triggered bomb and some cretin
>wants him shot with a device which delivers electricity at the points
>the darts penetrate.
>
>It's a bloody joke.

Someone else has already commented on the vastly different approaches
of the Birmingham and London police. Nevertheless, have you seemingly
chosen to believe something that was in the papers?

from
Aero Spike
.

Relevant Pages
Loading