About me
Archive
About me

Unanswered questions about the Stockwell shooting

close

Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

Last Sunday’s Observer had an interesting piece highlighting some of the yet-to-be-answered questions about the Stockwell shooting, and correcting a number of the initial misconceptions (thanks to Corin for the link):

He wasn’t wearing a heavy jacket. He used his card to get into the station. He didn’t vault the barrier. And now police say there are no CCTV pictures to reveal the truth. So why did plainclothes officers shoot young Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head, thinking he posed a terror threat?

It’s worth reading, and the questions urgently need answering.

This 704th post was filed under: News and Comment.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th February 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 31st December 2016)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 30th November 2016)

Photo-a-day 22: Sage (published 22nd January 2012)

White wine in the sun (published 25th December 2011)

A really disappointing Guardian article (published 4th February 2012)

Charles does a Jack (published 8th April 2005)


Comments and responses

Comment from Corin


by Corin

Comment posted at 22:51 on 19th August 2005.

I was rather surprised at how this article failed to register on the radar.

As far as I can tell, all of the points it raised have now been confirmed by the ITN report of the leaked material.

Furthermore it was unnerving to hear the Metropolitan Police Commisioner on the BBC justify the position of the police by saying that the terrorists had killed 52 people, whereas they had only killed one, and had even apologized for doing so.

It was apparent that he failed to add that the one killed by the police was not even English but one of those hated illegal immigrants.

In a similar vein, the BBC itself through its frontman Michael Buerke (BBC Radio 4 Moral Maze Saturday July 23[?]rd) stated blithely and without remorse that it was a pity that the man the police shot was innocent, which can only be interepreted as meaning that the BBC regards the police as having wasted their bullets (and not wasted a life).

Obviously the sheep, sorry people of England, in their loyaly to the Dear Leader, are not even thinking about questioning on what constitutional and legal basis the police have a right to deem a person guilty and carry out on the spot execution without a proper criminal trial. At least when capital punishment was in effect, one had the right to a lawyer to defend one’s-self.
Now the killing of innocents is just “collateral damage” in the war on terrorism.


Comment from Andrew Milner


by Andrew Milner

Comment posted at 06:37 on 20th August 2005.

If the Metropolitan Police would fabricate just about every detail of the Stockwell shooting, you can’t help wondering if the 7 July bombing was kosher (no pun intended).
Face it, the Vietnam War was lost on the home front, so what more logical way to keep the Brits. on side than a terrorist outrage in London. Risky strategy, because in backfired in Madrid. But this time Tricky Tony has the media under tight contro


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 19:04 on 26th August 2005.

Quoting from Corin…

Furthermore it was unnerving to hear the Metropolitan Police Commisioner on the BBC justify the position of the police by saying that the terrorists had killed 52 people, whereas they had only killed one, and had even apologized for doing so.

That’s something I very much agree with, and I was actually planning a completely separate post about this quite abhorrent comment – but never got round to it.

To say that this is just ‘one more death’ to add to the total is just wrong. There’s no two ways of looking at it. Or does this mean that the police now sanction killing in the ratio of 1:50? If so, since they claim that the 60,000,000 population of Great Britain is in mortal danger, then does this give them the right to gun down 1.2m of those citizens to protect the rest?

As much as Bush and Blair like to use terms like ‘War’, the current situation does not fit any definition of the term that I’m familiar with, and the White House have even withdrawn the description ‘War on Terror’ in recent days, due to its legal implications.

Just one further point: If the shooter had been a private citizen, whether he had thought he was working for the greater good or not he would now be detained at HM’s pleasure. How is it that this murder of an innocent citizen by the state has not (thus far, at least) resulted in even a single well-paid resignation, let alone criminal charges?


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 08:54 on 28th August 2005.

Just as a point of interest, Andrew Brown has written a column exploring similar points to the ones I was making above… albeit rather more eloquently and logically than I managed… It’s well worth reading.


Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.