Here's a narrative..........
The problem for the gunmen is simple.
Under current police procedures, if there is any doubt
whatsoever,
at all, about a suspect's identity, it is a
requirement that a verbal warning "armed police"
must given and and that the suspect's response
must be noted and taken into account
before any firearm is used.
The
only exception is in a situation where the officer(s) concerned is/are completely, totally,
100% certain of the suspects identity - not 95%, not 99%, not 99.5% or 99.99% certain, but
100% certain.
Now, as we know from the inquest, the gunmen bundled onto the tube train and spilled this poor guys brains all over the carriage just as he was standing up because they were rushing towards him - without so much as a:
"How's yer father", let alone any "warning", let alone "armed police". Seventeen eye/ear witnesses, members of the public, testified at the inquest that no warning was heard and that no officer shouted "armed police". Every single relevant (member of the public,) witness questioned, testified that de Menezes was in no way suspicious, did not
in any way move towards the gunmen and presented no apparent threat
whatsoever
Now, given the complete and total fuck up that was the surveillance operation and "follow" in this instance - from start to finish, it is unclear just as to how it would be possible for them to know that de Menezes was definately, 100%, "their man". In fact it was impossible!
Cressida Dick apparently "recalls" hearing 5 times during the "follow" that it was "definately" NettleTip, whereas no officer in the field admits to confirming this, not one - in particular, this includes "Pat" who was collating all the intelligence as it came in to the command room and was feeding it up to Dick, he says there was no confirmation, none. Further, within the command centre,
every single piece of paper retrieved and analysed, upon which notes had been made from info' in the field,
every single one had the notation "U/I" on it, as in "unidentified individual".
Dick never confirmed to the field officers that this was, in fact, the intended subject - and neither did anyone else, no one - all she ever said was to "detain him" and finally, at the last panicky second, to "stop him (meaning "before he entered the underground")" - but by this time he had already entered the station. Throughout the follow, no one mentioned his clothing, no one mentioned bombs or devices or wires, no one mentioned a bag or a rucksack and
no one made any queries about these issues - no one.
There was
no communication as to whether or not the suspect was armed or rigged with explosives, none.
One armed surveillance officer on the bus with de Menezes (from Brixton to Stockwell tube stations,) told the command centre that he could detain the suspect and asked the command centre, at the very minimum,
three times as to whether he should stop the suspect, he very strongly expressed the utmost of urgency and kept querying as to whether he should make the stop, finally telling the command centre that they had less than 20 seconds to give him the go ahead before the suspect entered the tube. Each time he asked, the message he consistenty got back on the phone was:
"Wait! Wait! wait!". He finally realised he was getting nowhere and hung up in exasperation - presumably when de Menezes entered the tube.
de Menezes has already entered the tube, he picks up a paper and heads down the escalator, gets on the train and sits down. Enter our trigger-happy gunmen - they jump the barriers and run to the escalators to catch up. By the time they reach the platform, de Menezes is sitting on the train. They run towards him, he stands up and is grabbed by another field officer and pushed back down to the seat, just in time to have his brains splattered -
no threat from him and
no warning from the gunmen.
Oops!
This explains all the lies by the officers saying they gave/heard one of the gunmen shout the "armed police" warning (and lied that de Menezes then advanced towards them - since this could be interpreted as a threatening response to their "warning"), despite the stupidity of doing so if faced with a suicide bomber immediately ready to deploy within a split second.
The simple fact is that if they
did not profer a warning of "armed police" and then wait to see his response and to ensure that by said response they could conclude he was, indeed, "their man", they would have been operating outside of their known operational procedures and, by dint of this......
Oops!
This is why they lied - to try to appear that they followed procedure when in fact they did not. They broke the rules and, in doing so, brutally executed an innocent young man.
Sir Michael Wright is a cowardly cunt with his nose so far up the establishment's arse that it's an embarassment.
The police, the government and the judiciary closed ranks, covered things up and lied, lied, lied, lied, lied - culminating in a whitewash of tragic proportion - and ensured that
none of "their own" was held to account.
The gunmen have been returned to the streets - armed.
Dick gets a promotion.
It was all a tragic mistake.
Bollocks! That's not good enough. Lessons have not been learned (other than how to carry out a massive cover up, whitewash and "cover everyone's arse" exercise) and
will not be learned until those paid to serve the public properly understand the concepts of "honesty" and "integrity" and are properkly held to account for their actions.
The kind of "establishment truthtwisting" we've seen here leaves
everyone in greater danger.
Dick and the gunmen should be fired without pension or compensation and the gunmen (and probably others,) should stand trial in open court and defend themselves in front of a jury for manslaughter.
Only through
true accountability can it be ensured that lessons will be learned, improvements made and that the public are served and protected better than they have been in this, dreadful, instance.
So there!
Woof
