The police lie, or the Deaths of Jean-Charles "Speedy" de Menezes, Mark Duggan, Mohammad Kahar, etc.

Now the riots following the shooting of Mark Duggan down London way are long-over, I’ve been thinking about the impunity of the police who murdered him. I could accept that in the heat of the moment an armed police officer might get a bit twitchy and accidentally shoot someone, I could even admit the possibility that the independent eye witness who saw the police force Duggan to the floor and only then shoot him repeatedly in the head were wrong, fine.

I could, that is, if it weren’t a regular thing. If it was a one of, even an armed police officer could perhaps be forgiven for shooting someone wrongfully, after an appropriate jail term. The trouble is that it happens on a regular basis, and that the police engage in what seems to be a conscious effort to enact a cover-up and obscure the damning fact of their guilt.

For example, the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, killed at Stockwell station after the alleged attempted suicide bombings the previous day in 2005. Given the context I could see a copper getting a bit trigger happy. Perhaps that interpretation would be stronger if he hadn’t been held on the ground and had eight bullets pumped into him, but even so.

The most alarming thing is what happened thereafter. The police announced, through the head of the force himself, that “Speedy” de Menezes had run away from officers and disobeyed an order to stop. This was a lie. More intriguingly, someone claiming to be an eyewitness was broadcast on a phone-in show claiming he was wearing a big padded jacket with wires coming out of it. Reports that he was carrying a black ball with “BOMB” written on it and a burning fuse remained unconfirmed. This “eyewitness” was also lying, preempting the police statements on the same issue, as if to lend the police credibility. The CCTV is freely available on youtube (although the police intitially claimed the CCTV was malfunctioning) and shows him wearing no padded jacket, and even the official story no longer involves him running, disobeying orders, wearing suspicious clothing or doing anything else suspicious at all. He was simply catching a train, having been followed from home by two armed surveillance officers who were never outside a radius of a few yards centred on his position. Then a gang of armed government thugs stormed into the station, vaulted the turnstiles, grabbed and restrained an innocent man and blew his brains out.

An inquest jury was ordered not to find that he was unlawfully killed, the Met was eventually fined on the grounds that repeatedly shooting an innocent man in the head is a violation of Health and Safety Executive guidelines. Of course, lone before then the damage was done with the immediate aftermath of the killing being full of government and police lies about the circumstances.

The man in direct command of all the above was, of course, Andy Hayman, now employed by Times Newspapers and known to have been taking money from Murdoch’s rags for quite some time, but somehow he still escapes the lengthy prison sentence he so deserves.

Mohammad Abdul Kahar was lucky enough to survive his brush with the fuzz. His house was raided because the police had supposedly received a tip-off. He was shot in the shoulder. “Accidentally”. Stories were immediately circulated by the police that the poor lad had tried to grab the policeman’s gun, which was a lie, which had caused it to go off. Eventually he had to be released just because he was totally innocent. The police made a half-arsed apology and, on the very same day, arrested him again on the ground that his computer was full of child porn. So he was on the front page of the national newspapers accused of being a paedophile terrorist. He wasn’t, it was all lies.

The case came before a court and was immediately dropped due to lack of evidence, in that there was no evidence at all. The next day’s headlines were not “Paedophile terrorist cleared of all charges”, nor “Senior police arrested over wrongful arrest, libel, shooting innocent man”. Most papers didn’t even notice his being cleared.

Now the police may, I suppose, have had “no choice”, as the then-Commissioner claimed, but to launch the raid and act on information received. Even the itchy trigger finger might really have been an accident, although messing about with guns in such a way that you end up nearly killing someone is stil something that ought to land you in jail, but the rest wasn’t. It wasn’t an accident to blame the victim for being shot by telling lies about him going for the rozzer’s gun. It wasn’t an accident to tell the papers that he had a huge cache of industrial-strength child pr0n, arrest him for it and only drop the case when it came before the court.

I could list a lot more police murders, men shot in the back for having a chair leg in a bag, men shot in their beds because the police went into the wrong house, all summary executions with no warning and for no legal reason and with absolute impunity for the uniformed assassin. But those weren’t normally high-profile enough to accrue a cloud of lies from the police spokesmen.

That’s the really disturbing thing about it, after all, the fact that they spread these lies, and that they do it quickly enough an in such an organised fashion that it’s obviously an instutitionalised thing. Perverting the course of justice, we used to call it in my day.

Of course it happens in cases where no-one gets shot, too.

There’s Mohammad Hamid, who was convicted of terrorist offences and given an indefinite sentence so that he can’t be released until, as the judge put it, he changes his beliefs. The evidence against him was that he had been camping, allegedly terrorist training, and that on another occasion he’d going paintballing, which was also characterised as training for the jihad, even though it was paid for by the BBC as part of a documentary called “Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic”. He also allegedly said, according to a police bug, that the deaths in the 77 bombings were “not even breakfast for me in this country”, which was enough to potentially cost him life in prison. Or there was Khalid Khaliq, who was in possession of “terrorist material”, according to the police, which turned out to have been published by the American government.

Obviously Met corruption has been in the news lately because of the Murdoch scandal, revealing that they take bribes, breach the Data Protection Act, murder the odd trouble maker, and so on. But they’ve appointed a new man to run the place, Sir Paul, who defrauded money from the tax payer during his relocation from Ulster a few years back. A new broom sweeping clean.

A few small steps toward remediation:

The Met should be broken up into smaller forces, all the staff above the level of district commander should be laid off, being some of the most disgraced, overpaid and useless of all so-called public servants. The number of guns in police hands should be drastically reduced. Any policeman caught lying should be immediately and lengthily imprisoned. An entirely new force should be formed from the handful of honest police it may be possible to find, tasked specifically with putting as many police behind bars as possible.

I think you are confusing your events. Duggan was not forced the to floor and shot in the head; that was the man who was shot in 2005.

Well, I don’t think the notion that police should be held accountable for wrongdoing is going to be all THAT controversial, but is this one of those deals where you’re going to harangue everyone who expresses anything other than fawning support for your views? If it is, I won’t bother much further.

See, there seems to be a slight problem with this passage:

It’s Mohammed, by the way. I didn’t know who this guy was before you brought him up, but on a bit of research’ it appears that he was ‘camping’ with, among others, four of the men who participated in a failed suicide bombing on 21 July 2005, and that this and recorded statements favoring terrorist acts, not paintballing trips, was the primary substance of the charges against him. Why would you not consider this worth mentioning? It certainly sounds as though you are trying to put a spin on events favorable to your argument.

In any event, his conviction was at the conclusion of a jury trial, so it sounds as though your beef in this instance is more with the jury than the police.

I would also appreciate it if you could link to a primary source that confirms that the judge did indeed say that he cannot be released “until he changes his beliefs”, just so I’m sure this is factual.

The incident regarding Jean Charles de Menezes is especially egrerious on several differant facets.

First, he was under observation by police for whatever reasons they had - so far so good, no doubt a warrant had been obtained (though this has never been confirmed) He was suspected of being a possible terrorist it was a complete misidentification, but let that pass for now…He was seen leaving his flat, now at that time the police claimed they thought he had an armed bomb on him

You might think that is the belief he had a bomb was genuine that police would have stopped him before he reached a public area - but no, they allowed him to get on a bus - a couple of weeks previously a bomber had blown a bus to bits, so you would think the police would be concerned not to let him do the same.

When you think of all the people who were caught up in the notorious ‘sus’ laws, and that police have been operating a ‘stop and search’ policy on dusky gentlemen in London for years, it just does not begin to hold water as a reasonable argument.

Jean then got off the bus, walked into a tube station, still the police claim they thought he had a bomb on him, now wouldn’t you think that having screwed up once, that they would not let him get into the tube? Nope - well anyway due to problems with the tube caused by failed bombings of the previous day, Jean was allowed to walk out the tube, get on the bus and go to another tube station - where he was executed, but not until he was acutally on a tube train.

The police claim Jean ran into the tube station, vaulted the barriers, was wearing a large coat and carrying a rucksack, stangely enough the CTV footage went missing, but was eventually recovered (no explanation of how that happened) it showed Jean was wearing a short denim jacket, he walked through the barriers in exactly the normal manner.

So, operationally it was a total bollocks and a huge amount of lies were told at the inquiry.

Lets look a little deeper though, at the policy that killed Jean. On any given day in London there are hundreds of thousands of people wandering around whose first language is not english, in fact its fair to say, there are many thousands who cannot speak english at all, and within all these nationalities, there will also be many who have a very differant view of police in general than the relatively benign police force we have in the UK.

The policy was ‘shoot to kill’ - failure to comply with police orders would lead to authorisation to kill - now can you see what might be the weakness in such a policy in London? I’ll give you a clue, how many British police can speak a language other than English?

It was absolutely inevitable that someone would fail to comply with police expectations and end up being a victim of ‘shoot to kill’. The reality is that we never get to know about all the covert observations on suspects who turned out to be completely innocent - this is the nature of terrorist intelligence, you will get far more false positives than real ones.Its also inevitable that the person who was shot would be completely innoocent.

The question of the misidentification has never been properly addressed, the police officer who had filmed him was suppoed to send those images off to another party who could make a positive identification - however that officer was not able to do so becuase he was ‘urinating’ this beggars belief, imagine you film what you believe to be a suicide bomber but you need positive identification, is it likely that you would not be able to carry out your duty of passing on theinformation because you went for a piss? The likely explanation is that this officer was goofing off somewhere, alseep or otherwise distracted.
Thing is, this is not the first time this sort of thing has happend, I remeber one person being shot as he stepped out of a car, that person did strongly resemble a known IRA terrorist, but the claim made by police was that he was aremd was a lie, fortunately the person in question survived the 6 or 7 gunshot wounds, however given that Mr Steven Wldorf was not armed with any weapon and could not have presented any threat to the lives of the police officers, one wonders just how competant the police officers were, and how come they were nver charged with criminally injuring him.

They were, and were acquitted by the jury. Try and get the facts right before pontificating on this sort of stuff.

The Jean-Charles Demenezes case is not talked about that much now for the simple fact that everyone agrees it was wrong. He was completely innocent (he overstayed his visa, but that’s not a shooting offence), the cops were wrong about who he was (they thought he was someone else who lived in the same building), the media lied (he ‘jumped the barrier’ and was ‘wearing a big bomber jacket’), and there’s not a single thing we can do about it.

There’s just not much to say beyond that.

The “media” lied. Given recent revelations on the relationship between some media outlets and the Met, its entirely probable that the “jumping a barrier” story came from within the Met itself in order to muddy the waters and remove the heat from themselves.

If I am remembering correctly there was a man who jumped the barriers just before de Menenzes was shot – he was one of the armed officers in pursuit. Several witnesses interviewed by the media following the killing assumed that he “must have been the terrorist”. In this case the truth was not obscured so much by the deliberate intent to lie as by the human tendency to reorder the facts to fit what you thought you saw. Sigh.

Well it could be worse; at least your Parliament isn’t rushing through a Bill to retrospectively legalise an unknown number of illegal police surveillance operations.