The fact that a jury felt the police completely fabricated their evidence in the inquest in to Jean Charles de Menezes killing by the metropolitan police ought, in any decent society, to lead to the sacking, discipline and prosecution of those who have brought the name of the Metropolitan Police in to disrepute.
Seventeen witnesses with no axe to grind, stated the police lies when they said they shouted warnings, they said the police lied when they said Jean Charles jumped barriers, say the police lied when they said he moved aggressively towards the policemen, and they made it clear through their evidence that the police must have concocted their story together in order to mislead the inquest.
The question is now it is clear that the police perjured themselves, why are the police not being charged with perjury ? Does the CPS now need to review their decision not to prosecute now that it is clear that the evidence on which they made this decisions has been proved to be a pack of lies, and how on earth can we trust the police to protect us from terrorism when they behave like this.
I have a great amount of respect for the police, and I have a great deal of sympathy for those police who without communication with their superiors, were told to use all means to deal with Mr de Menezes. One would have hoped that the common decency of their superiors who made their order that they were following would have seen of of them raise their hand and accept the blame. We talk about honour amongst thieves, sadly this trait appears to be missing though from senior police officers in our capital.
What would we be saying though if this happened in Russia ? I think we'd see it as a corrupt police state where the police are above the law. Sadly, it can now be said of us.
2 comments:
Nich, you have hit the nail on the head. This killing has brought out the worst in the Met. Whilst I doubt that anyone would argue that anyone involved genuinely believed that they were trailing a terrorist, the post event cover up has been lamentable, and despite all of political cover being spouted, a criminal conspiracy has clearly occurred.
Thank god for juries. Even after their options were curtailed by the coroner, it is clear from their verdict and their answer to the questions that they have come as close as they could have to saying that Mr de Menezes was unlawfully killed.
We can only hope that tomorrow's papers focus on the post killing cover up to pressure the government into a public enquiry. I doubt that there will ever be prosecutions, but that would be a just outcome.
Raison d'etat, old boy: if you don't understand that, you're not fit for public office.
'b. reason of state, a purely political ground of action on the part of a ruler or government, esp. as involving some departure from strict justice, honesty, or open dealing. Freq. without article, as a principle of political action. So public reason.
A rendering of F. raison d'état or It. ragione di stato, the latter used or cited by Scarlett Estate Eng. Fugitives (1595) Riij, Ben Jonson Cynthia's Rev. (1599) I. i, Volpone (1605) IV. i, and Bacon Adv. Learn. (1605) I. ii. §3.
. . 1667 MILTON P.L. IV. 389 Public reason just..compels me now To do what else..I should abhorre. ' [OED}
Post a Comment