Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

Rushing to Judgement.

It's absolutely right to examine in detail what the police said, both on and off the record, about the death of Mr Menezes at Stockwell tube station on the 22nd July 2005. Even before the Independent Police Complaints Commission publishes the report-many months away-it's unrealistic not to expect the media to use the leaked information to start unpacking the whole tragic tale. It has its drawbacks. The usual one cited in these circumstances, with the prospect of a criminal prosecution in the offing, is that it may prejudice a fair trial. But what we have seen from the available evidence suggests the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair has much to answer. If there is to be a battle of looking after backs between the Commissioner and John Gieve, the Permanent Secretary ot the Home Office, the smart money's on the mandarin! But that's for another day.

One lesson the written media ought to learn is to keep clear from unattributable briefings. Especially in this sort of case where both civil and criminal proceedings are lurking. This point is well made by Simon Hattenstone in today's Guardian. The same paper's Marina Hyde has a pop at the some of the commentators who, just after the electrician's death, weighed in supporting the police.

"Mad" Melanie Phillips in the Mail on 25th July:

Now more than ever, it is absolutely imperative that we keep our nerve. A terrible mistake has been made. An innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was killed by mistake last Friday when the Metropolitan Police wrongly assumed that he was a suicide bomber and shot him dead while he was cowering on the floor of a tube train.

It is crucial, however, that the correct conclusions are drawn from this appalling tragedy. The first and most important point is that the police response to the threat they believed was posed at Stockwell station was correct, and indeed was the action they could responsibly have taken."

"Barmy" Bruce Anderson a day later in the Indy:

“Anyone who behaves as Mr de Menezes did cannot have been keeping abreast of current affairs. On Thursday, we were lucky: on Friday, less so. Yet when considering Jean Charles de Menezes's death, it is important to attain a sense of proportion. It is right that there should be shock and an inquiry. We are not so inured to violence that we respond with indifference to an innocent man's death. Indeed - although they will never return - many of us feel nostalgia for the days when policemen rarely carried guns. Even so, Friday's shooting was also a further demonstration of the courage and professionalism of the police force. In the most dangerous of contexts, a man draws suspicion upon himself. Refusing to stop, he hares off into the Underground. The police pursue him, although they could be running towards their own deaths. They catch him and dispatch him in the manner designed to minimise the risk of his being able to explode a bomb."

Janet Daley in the Thunderer a day later:

“It was probably bound to happen — if not now, then eventually. There is an all-out war on the streets and almost inevitably somebody was going to be killed by the authorities who was believed to be implicated but then turned out not to be. Given the peculiarly ruthless tactic of suicide bombing, who could take the risk of allowing someone who seemed to be a plausible suspect to ignite himself in a public place? Given that we are up against an enemy who states categorically that he “loves death” as opposed to the weak and decadent West which so pathetically clings to life, how could anyone dare to assume that the likely man who chooses to run to the London Underground rather than stop on order is blameless? The Metropolitan police say this shooting of an apparently innocent man in Stockwell is a “tragedy”, as indeed it is. But what would the scale of the tragedy have been if they had given him the benefit of the doubt and got it wrong? How many nanoseconds do you have in which to make the choice? And what, as a law enforcement officer, is the inescapable priority? The Muslim extremists have produced something of a genuine martyr: a victim of what — if he proves to have been Muslim.

A notable and worthy exception was Tim Hames in the Times, ironically a day after the Daley’s daft comment. Tim refused to be marched into the “ Oh dear….but…" camp.

“The inconsistency bordering on callousness of Scotland Yard has been breathtaking. It was initially suggested that Mr Menezes was under surveillance and had been approached after he walked from his residence in Stockwell to the Tube station. It is now clear that he started his trip from Tulse Hill, where he had stayed at someone else’s home, was watched, was noted wearing bulky clothing, yet was allowed (despite the slaughter at Tavistock Square on July 7 and the attempted blast on a double-decker at Hackney last Thursday) to board a bus for a 15-minute journey and was challenged only when he sought to buy an Underground ticket. Why was someone whom the police continue to insist was a “potential suicide-bomber” no menace on the No 2 bus, but an urgent threat who had to be taken out when moving in the direction of the Northern Line?”

Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti warned against “rushing to judgement”

Melanie, Bruce and Janet, that's pretty sound advise.

posted by Tony @ Thursday, August 18, 2005