Cressida Dick

[Edward Trunk]

Cressida Dick has been made head of the Met's anti-terrorism operations. Anyone with relatives in London who are Brazilian electricians should advise them to leave.

[PeterG]

[:)][:D]

[NickP]

[quote user="Edward Trunk"]Cressida Dick has been made head of the Met's anti-terrorism operations. Anyone with relatives in London who are Brazilian electricians should advise them to leave.[/quote]

Especially if you don't have a visa!

[Quillan]

Oh come on she was no where near the scene when he was shot. Yes she was the 'Gold' commander and yes she was in the control room when it happened but she wasn't actually there on the spot. All she had to base her decision on was the information being fed back to her by those that were there. She made her decision based on what she believed to be factual. Yes of course the 'buck' stops with her as the person in charge BUT having heard her version and others in the control room at the time of what information was passed back she did the right thing. Indeed during the trial the jury cleared her adding that she had "no personal culpability" in the affair. If the bloke was carrying a gun and bomb they would have all been hero's. One could argue it was his own fault, had he left the country in 2003 instead of forging an immigration stamp on his passport (stupid man put the wrong one on) and then when discovered went to Ireland and return thus technically making him a legal "visitor" at the time of the shooting he wouldn't have been in the country and would not have been shot. As to the rights and wrongs of 'Operation Kratos" which was in operation at the time, well that's a different matter.

[Edward Trunk]

1. After the shooting the Met. lied repeatedly; about what De Menezes was wearing (they said he was wearing a bulky jacket which could have concealed a bomb(he wasn't), they said he vaulted over the ticket barrier (he didn't) - I can't remember the other lies.

2. It wasn't a trial, it was an inquest. No-one, from the inept intelligence officers to the hapless Cressida Dick, was ever charged with anything.

Quillan's opinion that if you are an illegal immigrant it hardly matters if the police shoot you dead, is an interesting new take on the law. I have long felt that the Metropolitan police is a force out of control; recent news events seem to have proved me right.

The inquiry came up with the predictable conclusion: mistakes were made, lessons have been learned, but no-one was really to blame. The Chilcot report into the Iraq war will say exactly the same thing. You read it here first.

[mint]

Ah, ET, these are things that some on here and elsewhere do not wish to know about.

As for that donkey Commissioner of the Met.....when has it been OK to enjoy 4 weeks in a Health Farm FOC in order to be able to go back to work earlier?

How pathetic is that as an excuse?  And whatever happened to principles?

[Clarkkent]

I note that Cressida Dick is being named in the press as a possible replacement for Sir Paul Stephenson. It will probably depend how she gets on with Boris Johnson.

Has anyone else noticed how Boris has turned into a latter day Blind Pew? He delivered the Black Spot to Ian Blair and then a couple of years later to Stephenson. And he has delivered a warning  to Cameron ...

[Quillan]

The Met did not lie, the Met consisted of over 28,000 police officers, they did not all lie. You are slightly wrong in that there were actually two separate enquires (Stockwell 1 and 2)and it was the second enquiry that found differences in the description of the cloths he was wearing. The CPS decided that there was still insufficient evidence to make a prosecution of the policemen involved in the killing. However a criminal prosecution was bought by the CPS under the Health and Safety Act in that the Met did not exercise its 'duty of care' with regard to de Menezes. The Met pleaded not guilty but the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the Met was fined (don't know how much), the jury also said that Cressida Dick bore "no personal culpability". Shortly after this the Met offered de Menezes family in excess of half a million pounds in compensation which they refused. So yes technically you are right for it was the Met that was put on trial in this instance and not individuals. You are however wrong in that there was not trial because there was.

Finally came the inquest which is very lengthy and you have already touched on some of the issues raised, there were eight issues in total that the jury had to decide on, if you want them I can dig them out. However at the end de Menezes family were awarded only £100,000 (or there abouts) plus costs which was basically transport, living allowance in the UK and hotel costs as the inquest cost is paid for by the state. The biggest issue was did they warn him before they shot him and they didn't but that's not their fault because they were, at the time, operating under the "Operation Kratos" guidelines which is not to give a warning to a suspected suicide bomber least he/she detonate the bomb and the officers were instructed to go for a head shot. Kratos has now been scrapped but the core method of dealing with a suspect suicide bomber is three shots to the head without warning preferably at very close range. This is not intended to protect the officers involved but the public. Could it all have been handled differently and did de Menezes have to die? Well we can't get inside the heads of those 'on the ground', none of us were there and none of us has ever experienced the sort of pressure these officers were working under especially as it was within 14 days of the London bombings in which more than 50 people lost their lives.

As for giving an opinion, well read it properly and in context. If you want to say that Dick was ultimately responsible then you could also argue that if he, de Menezes, was not in the country illegally he would not have been in the country at all and therefore would not have been shot. My personal opinion, which if you look back at any threads where killing has been mentioned and I have posted, is that any form of killing is wrong.

So the initial comments about this woman are not correct which is why I posted, you can give an opinion but you can't make libelous comments especially as she was exonerated. It is a matter of record that she took no part in the killing at all. Her last command was to issue a 'code red' which is to call in armed officers and prior to their arrival and turning over command to SO19 she told the surveillance officers to arrest the suspect prior to his entry to Stockwell tube station. The use of firearms (physically) was absolutely nothing to do with her once she had called the code red.

[NickP]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

Ah, ET, these are things that some on here and elsewhere do not wish to know about.

As for that donkey Commissioner of the Met.....when has it been OK to enjoy 4 weeks in a Health Farm FOC in order to be able to go back to work earlier?

How pathetic is that as an excuse?  And whatever happened to principles?

[/quote]

May I humbly suggest SW17, that it was 5 weeks, and obviously it's OK when it's free [:D]

[Russethouse]

 In his favor, he did declare it as of course he should and like many he seems to have been unaware of the 'connections' in this case.

[mint]

[quote user="NickP"][quote user="sweet 17"]

Ah, ET, these are things that some on here and elsewhere do not wish to know about.

As for that donkey Commissioner of the Met.....when has it been OK to enjoy 4 weeks in a Health Farm FOC in order to be able to go back to work earlier?

How pathetic is that as an excuse?  And whatever happened to principles?

[/quote]

May I humbly suggest SW17, that it was 5 weeks, and obviously it's OK when it's free [:D]

[/quote]

Oi, NickP, you just stop winding me up!

Actually, none of those 3 from the Met Police impressed me one bit.  That man, Yates, was naive or what, to suggest that he was merely a "post box" for pushing forward the job application of Wallis' daughter.

Then, there was the "media" man with the Italian-sounding name.  If he was the front man for media, PR, etc for the Met Pol, why can't he string a couple of sentences together without breaking out in a sweat?

No, Nick, I'm not going to talk any more about any of this as I don't think my blood pressure can stand up to it!

Why don't they have an emoticon for a SNORT when you need one? 

 

[Judith]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Well we can't get inside the heads of those 'on the ground', none of us were there and none of us has ever experienced the sort of pressure these officers were working under especially as it was within 14 days of the London bombings in which more than 50 people lost their lives.

[/quote]

Whilst I wasn't in Stockwell at the time I was living in the centre of London during all the events you describe, including the bombs 14 days before - it was a period of intense pressure for everyone - it was impossible to know what would happen next - and I do know of people who would not travel on the tube during that time - I too was fearful and watchful when I had to do so, though fortunately I was within walking distance of my office so that at least I could get there whatever happened.  It is impossible for anyone who did not live in London at the time to understand the extremely strong feelings running riot during that summer....

And for what it's worth, my thought as the story broke was that, if he was in the country without permission, he got what he deserved.

[Boiling a frog]

No one ever criticises the "friendly fire " incidents but are quite happy to have a go at police officers who are even more constrained about when they can shoot.

[Gardener]

@ judith "And for what it's worth, my thought as the story broke was that, if he was in the country without permission, he got what he deserved"

Expired visa = he deserved to be shot?

Lets hope that the French government don't change the rules eg re health care and leave you in a position where you are in France illegally!

[Quillan]

[quote user="Gardener"]Expired visa = he deserved to be shot? [/quote]

Off course not but he was obliged to carry ID including his visa at all times as a none EU citizen which is why he tried to forge a visa stamp then came up with the idea of going to Southern Ireland and returning to the UK. Don't kid yourselves that this was a really nice guy who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time because he wasn't BUT that does no mean he deserved to die. Part of the 'duty of care' prosecution also talked about this in that the Met should have visited him a long time before and turned hm over to the Border Agency. This was blown out on the basis that The Border Agency (or whatever it may have been called at the time) forgot to inform the police in general (like the UK police force) that he (and many others) had expired visa's and should be arrested and turned over to them. Had this happened he would have been locked up or even deported back to his own country long before the shooting took place.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]No one ever criticises the "friendly fire " incidents but are quite happy to have a go at police officers who are even more constrained about when they can shoot.[/quote]

Oh yes they do !!!!!!!!

Lets face it, anyone firing at you can hardly be called ''friendly'' can they??????????

[mint]

[quote user="powerdesal"] Oh yes they do !!!!!!!! Lets face it, anyone firing at you can hardly be called ''friendly'' can they??????????[/quote]

Oh, Steve, you are not meant to state the obvious and "say it as it is"![+o(]

What about "ethnic cleansing", nothing hygienic about it surely?[:-))]

PS:  hope Mrs PD is over her crises and is keeping well [:)]

[Rabbie]

The point with that shooting which many have missed is that if a suicide bomber uses a "dead mans handle" device as a detonator then shooting him in a crowded place is the worse thing to do  because that will explode the bomb.

[Judith]

[quote user="Gardener"]

Expired visa = he deserved to be shot? [/quote]

As Q said, you weren't there - in such a heightened state of awareness, yes, I would have happily shot him if he'd tried to do something nasty.  The fact that I would never have had the guts to do so is quite another thing ..... normally someone who would travel the tube without many qualms, during that period, I, and as far as I could see, almost everyone else, was regarding anyone they didn't know, and especially if they wore "funny" clothes (and by that I mean anything our of the norm worn by the majority in London) very carefully and closely.

It was a very uncomfortable time to be living there ... so I for one am not surprised at the reaction of the police to an unknown, who as far as I remember, ran away from "officialdom" when he saw it coming towards him. What else, given the recent events, were they supposed to do - let him possibly blow up a few more people?

[Judith]

[quote user="Gardener"]

Lets hope that the French government don't change the rules eg re health care and leave you in a position where you are in France illegally![/quote]

But changing the rules and thus making someone already living legally in the country, illegal, is not the same as being there illegally all the time.

Do grow up.

[Edward Trunk]

There's no point in arguing with Judith, who thinks that illegal immigrants deserve to be shot, but for the saner members of the forum these are the facts: De Menezes happened to be sharing the same address (a block of flats) which had been found in the wallet of one of the dead bombers the previous day. He was followed from this address across London, on and off two buses, he attempted to board the tube at Brixton but it was closed so he was forced to go on to Stockwell. At any time he could have detonated his non-existent bomb. He was not stopped or challenged at any point. He was falsely identified as a terrorist on the flimsiest of evidence, and it was on the basis of this evidence that Cressida Dick authorised his killing.

Members of the public are entitled to be panicky and irrational. Senior police officers are not.

[mint]

Goodness, ET, you put the case well.

Wish I could think, and explain, as lucidly as you can.....

[Quillan]

[quote user="Edward Trunk"]He was falsely identified as a terrorist on the flimsiest of evidence, and it was on the basis of this evidence that Cressida Dick authorised his killing. Members of the public are entitled to be panicky and irrational. Senior police officers are not.[/quote]

She did not athorise his killing, she authorised his arrest before he entered the tube. She then called a 'code red' which automatically hands over 'control' to SO19. She had no authority over SO19, once she had passed control over it was down to them and their 'boss'. It's all in the inquest transcripts if you have read it or have time to read it. If you haven't read it then below is a link to all the pdf files of the inquest in a day to day order.

http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-jean-charles-de-menezes-inquest/index.html

These are from the J7 website as the original source mysteriously disappeared and are believed to be the original version. You can also order them from HMSO if you wish.

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Edward Trunk"]There's no point in arguing with Judith, who thinks that illegal immigrants deserve to be shot, but for the saner members of the forum these are the facts: De Menezes happened to be sharing the same address (a block of flats) which had been found in the wallet of one of the dead bombers the previous day. He was followed from this address across London, on and off two buses, he attempted to board the tube at Brixton but it was closed so he was forced to go on to Stockwell. At any time he could have detonated his non-existent bomb. He was not stopped or challenged at any point. He was falsely identified as a terrorist on the flimsiest of evidence, and it was on the basis of this evidence that Cressida Dick authorised his killing. Members of the public are entitled to be panicky and irrational. Senior police officers are not.[/quote]

 I think you know full well that isn't what Judith meant, surely the case is that he ran from police as a consequence of his dishonesty in being in the country illegally ? So in some ways he could be said to be the author of his own misfortune ?

The fact surely is that the police shot a man who they thought was endangering other peoples lives - I guess the day they don't you'll be criticising them for that too.....[:@]

[Quillan]

Actually blowing up a bomb in the underground and the way explosives work would have been the better choice and have the biggest 'killing' impact so no he would not have blown it up on the street. Out of the 50 odd people killed the highest by far were amongst those on the underground as were the most injured (around 700). For that reason if he were a bomber he would be looking to get in to the underground system to explode his bomb which is what it was thought he was trying to do.