Almost every newspaper in the country gave front page coverage to the story. An Old Bailey jury found the Metropolitan Police guilty of breaking health and safety law back in July 2005 when they killed, with seven dumb-dumb bullets to the head, at point blank range, the Brazilian electrician Charles de Menezes

Were it not bad enough that it has taken more than two years to get the de Menezes case before a judge and jury, the case could only be pursued via prosecution under health and safety legislation.!! Eh?

But, what the hell. I’m not gonna diss the verdict – it’s better than nowt – and not least because it contradicts the groundless claim by the government that in its “war on terror” there are instances when it can flick the Vs to civil liberties to protect innocent lives. So fuck you too, Brown. And don’t forget that notwithstanding two investigations by the IPCC, there had been no criminal prosecution against any leading police officers who were implicated, neither Sir Ian Blair nor Commander Cressida Dick, who was in charge of operations that day.

And let’s not ignore the narrow provisos of the trial - that there would be no deliberation on the actual legality of the murder and that those cops who actually blasted de Menezes to pieces would not be giving evidence and that members of the public who witnessed the execution would not be called to testify. All that was at issue here was the chain of command and decision-making procedures that day

Hopefully now this case will lay the path for real charges to be levelled against the actual cold-blooded killers and the higher-ups they took their orders from. For this was cold-blooded killing. This was a state execution.

In his defence, Ian Blair claimed that there was no evidence of 'systemic failure' on the day in question, and he’s adamant he will not resign, despite many of his own rank-and-file believing he should throw the towel in, and despite the fact that every national newspaper is calling for his head as well as the leadership of the opposition parties. Blair’s lingering supporters insist that he should stay for the simple reason that the person who supervised the tragedy is the best placed to learn from its. Christ, howz that for reasoning? It’s like putting a captain who has just sunk an ocean liner with the loss of all passengers and crew back in charge of a similar ship on the grounds that he won’t make the same mistake twice.

Both the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister Gordon Brown have said they have confidence in Sir Ian – well they have to; they depend on his boys for their security. And as for the Mayor of London? “In a situation like this,” said Red Ken Livingstone, “mistakes are just going to happen.” ‘Mistakes’, you gloopy bastard!?

To be sure, at a time when Met should have been functioning at the peak of its proficiency it quite clearly fucked up and big time – not that this is a first, for they fuck up helluva lot. Summing up, the judge cited a catalogue of the most atrocious blunders and ruled that some were “simply beyond explanation”. The jury heard of no fewer that 19 mammoth gaffes, a far cry from the case the Met presented of a couple of armed cops making a mistake that anyone could make in a similar situation.. Indeed, such was the size of the blunder that at one stage cops very nearly shot one their own, which I reckon most people would have found more acceptable – at least it could have been put down to “friendly fire”.

So I’m hoping this case is investigated further and that the arrogance and corruption in the Met is exposed and its hierarchy really called to account. The gall of Blair and his clique is unbelievable. From day one there was an attempt at a bloody cover up, a white wash, for Christ’s sake. On the very day of the execution Blair wrote to Sir John Gieve, the senior civil servant in the Home Office, arguing that any investigation should be carried out by the Met itself. He said that the IPCC should be “given no access to the scene at the present time.” What was he afraid they would uncover? A state-sanctioned assassination?

From day one the police stooped to all manner of lies in attempt to hide what they had done. We were told de Menezes had ran away from them and jumped over the turnstiles, ran down the escalator and onto the train, all of which proved to be damned lies. They then claimed that he wore a bulky jacket - again, another crock of shit. Even the mainstream media, the BBC especially, supported the same pack of lies in attempt to cover the actions of a hit squad, even allowing witnesses to speak on TV and whose imaginings, in hindsight, are unbelievable. One witness even claimed he saw de Mendez carrying a bag with wires protruding. Where are these same witnesses now?

Even as the trial continued, there were the ongoing attempts to exonerate the officers involved. Lawyer for the police, Ronald Thwaites, informed the jury that de Menezes was shot because of his suspicious behaviour, “because when he was challenged by police he did not comply with them but reacted precisely as they had been briefed a suicide bomber might react at the point of detonating his bomb." When he was challenged? Like when a cop pins you down and another rams a gun into your temple? Like there’s a way you should react in such circumstances when you’re innocent? Like someone has actually sat next to a suicide bomber and watched his reactions before he detonated the bomb

The establishment now fears that the demand by the de Menezes family and many others will result in a full public inquiry. Not only do they fear that the truth will arise out of such an inquiry, the shockwave of which will reverberate far and wide, but that the arguments for the government’s war on terror will also be challenged head on.

Well, here’s one writer who will welcome any move that will expose the deceit and hypocrisy of a corrupt system that will stoop to anything to protect its own interests. I’m eagerly awaiting a fuller independent inquiry.

One parting shot. Let’s get one thing straight. A lot more people are killed at the hands of the police than by terrorists.

Between 1997 and 2002, the first five years of New Labour rule, a total of 328 people died as a result of police action. Of these deaths, almost half -158 - happened while the victim was in, or had just left, police custody.

Labour's first year in power saw 69 deaths, including 11 during or following police pursuits and 40 in or following police custody.

During the following year, the figure fell slightly to 67, of which four were in pursuits and 41 in custody. In 1999-2000, 70 people died, including 19 in pursuits and 30 in custody.

In 2001-02, 70 people died during or following police action: 31 of these deaths occurred in pursuits and 22 in police custody

In 2003 A record 104 people died while in police custody or in accidents involving police cars.

From 2005-06 118 died as a result of contact with the police.

No comments: