Another de Menezes tragedy could happen again

Cressida Dick. Picture by Paul Grover

Because I haven’t been fired or prosecuted yet, says Cressida Dick (not really):

Facing cross-examination about the shooting for the first time, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick admitted: “I am afraid that I do believe that this or something like this could happen again”.

She added: “The nature of these operations is that they are immediately high risk to all concerned and that is because of the nature of the threat we face from suicide terrorists.

“Our job is to reduce the risk to everybody as best as possible. But I do fear that, in the future, a bomber might not be prevented from setting off a bomb. And equally, I pray it doesn’t happen, but it is possible an innocent member of the public might die like this.”

No responsibility taken by Dick than, who was the person in charge when de Menezes was murdered, but instead the Met’s standard Barbie defense “policing is hard”. No recognition either of the simple fact that these police tactics have not prevented any of the London suicide bombings but do have a hundred percent track record of killing innocent bystanders. Even on its own terms the police tactics did not work, yet the Met still insists they were the right tactics for the circumstances.

What’s more, the first response by the Metropolitian Police when their momentous error became know was to smear de Menezes, even though it was clear immediately after his murder he was not a suicide bomber. Who smeared de Menezes? And why did Dick not protest against this? Are we supposed to just accept the idea that the London police every now and again will murder one of us just because they think it’s necessary?

In olden days, senior commanders who screwed up like Dick or her superior, Ian Blair, did would be given a bottle of whisky and a loaded pistol. Instead one denies all wrongdoing, was even promoted afterwards, while the other was finally forced to resign by Boris Johnson, of all people.

Still no justice for Jean

It’s been three years since Jean Charles de Menezes was brutally murdered by the Metropolitian Police and still nobody has been punished for it. Commissioner “sir” Ian Blair is still in power, Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation that murdered de Menezes was actually promoted and we still don’t know the names of the police agents that actually shot him. Sure, the Metropolitian Police as a whole was found guilty of his murder last year and had to pay some insultingly low fine for it, but as I noted then we still didn’t know the exact details of what lead to Jean’s murder. One year on, and a new report says we still don’t know:

It finds officers involved are yet to be fully debriefed about the events and says legal constraints, due to the inquest to be held in September, may be partly to blame. But it lambasts senior officers it interviewed for accepting the lack of a full explanation from those under their command.

“We were presented with a paradox during our evidence sessions: on the one hand a recognition that undertaking a comprehensive debrief is important and that lessons need to be learnt, and on the other hand a complacent acceptance that, in this case, it has not happened and is unlikely to in the future.

“The scrutiny panel also wishes to emphasise that it is our perception that the MPS has a cultural predisposition to adopt an overly defensive stance when asked to explain how it is responding to criticism and challenge. It is our view that the MPS needs to counter this tendency energetically.”

After the shooting, firearms officers wrote their accounts together, and presented their notes 36 hours after the shooting. The IPCC contrasted this with civilian witnesses who gave their accounts straight away and without consulting other witnesses. The MPA says officers did nothing wrong, but: “The practice of conferring … is open to misinterpretation.”

Thirtysix hours to get their statements straight? That’s not open to misinterpretation, that’s the police protecting its own. It will be interesting to see how that tendency plays out now Ian Blair has been accused of something even the dullest law ‘n order, trust-the-police freak will admit is a crime. It’s telling of the priorities of British politics if “improper financial dealings” were what finally got Blair sacked instead of the murder of an innocent man.

Jean Charles de Menezes roundup

I’ve wanted to say something about the Metropolitian Police finally being held responsible for their murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, but I think Palau said everything I wanted to say on Friday about the Met’s continuing refusal to accept this responsibility:

But if there has been a defining leitmotif of the Labour years it’s been this, this constant, mulish refusal to take responsibility for incompetence and error, this wilful blindness to one’s own fault and this utter certainty, despite all the evidence to the contrary, of one’s own rectitude.
Anything to justify hanging on to power for power’s sake.

To much of the public it’s simple. Blair is responsible for the safety of the public. He didn’t do that, he did the opposite. He should go. Like his namesake the forner prime minister, Blair argues he’s not guilty of any personal wringdoing therefore he’s squeaky-clean and should stay in the job.

Anyone who gets up in the morning in a crowded city and gets on a metro or a tram or a tube system will have seen that CCTV footage of Jean Charles de Menezes’ extra-judicial murder and will have seen themselves in that blurry video, on the floor, scared out of their wits, about to
have their brains very deliberately blown out on the carriage floor.

But Londoners have real cause to fear; their police chief thinks that the deliberate murder of an innocent man by his subordinates is not a serious matter enough to resign over. ‘Mistakes happen’.

Palau hints that the reason various government officials and Nwe Labourites, including London mayor Ken Livingstone have rallied around Ian Blair may have something to do with the police chief’s habit of taping phone calls, ala J. Edgar Hoover back in the day. Personally, I think
it’s simpler than that. The first instinct of New Labour when confronted by a fuckup has always been to deny responsibility and shift the blame away from theirselves. Mistakes may be made, but they should not have consequences for the people in charge, who always do the best they can in difficult circumstances. Livingstone has long ceased to be a rebel and has fully reintegrated himself into the New Labour project, hence has no problem defending Blair.

Speaking of Livingstone, Jamie K tears apart his defense of Blair:

Of course counterterrorism is hard. The point is that counterterrorism is irreducibly hard. If you make it “easier” by tolerating a permissive attitude towards killing innocent people, then that is what will happen. To reverse Livingstone’s thought experiment: what happens if an armed police
officer in pursuit of someone who he believes might be a terrorist but isn’t quite sure starts making calculations along the lines of “I’m legally immune so I’ll shoot him anyway, just to make sure.”

Alex does away with the idea that “our security” means we cannot criticise the security forces:

More seriously, where do these people get the idea that organisations with safety critical functions work better in the absence of criticism or responsibility? It can’t be from experience; Kettle is a career pundit, having started out as a leader writer. The whole history of safety engineering is the exact opposite; if you’re playing with the big boys’ toys, you cannot afford to skim over your mistakes, ever. There are very good reasons why airlines have senior training captains and CHIRP confidential-reporting forms, companies have external auditors, and newspapers have editors.

Or IT companies have software testers, for that matter.

Alex also has a post up about all the things we still don’t know about the shooting and how the Met seems more interested in smearing de Menezes again than finding out exactly what happened that day. Standard operational procedure it seems with the Met; see also the Forest Gate affair.

Why protect the identity of murderers?

As you know bob, the Metropolitian Police currently is on trial for breaching the health and safety laws when they murdered Jean Charles De Menezes. One of the more ridiculous features of this trial is the parade of police witnesses only indetified by their code names. Roobin at Through the Scary Door wonders: “Who on earth are the police officers identities being protected from? What do they imagine is going to happen?

Good question. Perhaps they imagine angry De Menezes taking the law in their own hands, as they haven’t gottne justice through the normal channels, but more likely it’s the usual security bollarks. “the terrorists must not know their identity” and all that. the worse thing is, we all just accept this, just like we accept that there are super sekrit police squads who can blow us away on the street with impunity, if somebody somewhere thinks we might be a terrorist. And if we’re not, hey, the police do a difficult job and we should be understanding of any little errors they make.

“failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes”

Jean Charles de Menezes, murdered

That is the charge against the Metropolitian Police in the trail for their murder of Jean Charles de Menezes two years ago: “failing to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes”. No individual police officers have been charged, just the Met as a whole. It’s not verys atisfying isn’t it, that the police can gun down an innocent man in the middle of London with the worst that they can expect for it some slap on the wrist for violating health and safety laws!

If you want to follow the trial, the Guardian has a good set of reports available, something they’re reasonably good at. Myself, I’m not sure I will bother, as the usual excuses are trotted out once again for the inexcusable:

“I have, since that time, constantly thought about what other potential tactics or strategy might have been available to me because of the outcome of this tragic set of circumstances,” Mr McDowell told the jury.

“I have done that on a weekly, if not daily, basis. “I remain of the view that I and we did our best that morning to mitigate what was clearly a threat to the public in very difficult circumstances.”

It’s the talk of a “clear threat” that gets me everytime. Because if there’s one thing that is clear, it’s that there wasn’t a threat. Jean Charles de Menezes was just a guy going off to work, not a terrorist, not involved in anything even remotely associated with terrorism and he was shot down in cold blood. If it could happen to him it can happen to anybody, and the policy under which he was shot is still in effect…