NEWS: Sir Ian Blair Has Full Support Of The Prime Minister

The Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair, has the explicit backing of the Prime Minister over the police shooting of the innocent Brazilian man, Charles de Menezes. When asked whether Tony Blair has "full confidence" in Sir Ian his spokesperson replied "yes". The Police Chief has claimed it was over 24-hours before he learnt that the man had been mistakenly shot. The de Menezes family has called on Sir Ian to resign over his public comments following the shooting in which he laid blame on de Menezes for being shot.



Well its pretty safe to say that Sir Ian Blair isnt going any where over this. His job is pretty much secure considering the Prime Minister has shown his backing.

I honestly thought that at the very least, Sir Ian, would resign over this tragic bungle.

Does this mean that a scape-goat is being created as we speak and that the armed officers who were carrying out Kratos ROE will bare the brunt of this error? I wouldnt want to be an armed officer in Britain at this moment. They are ALL volunteers and I can see quite a lot of the already scarce armed officers requesting other duties while a shoot-to-kill policy is still in effect.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NEWS: Top Police Officer Ian Blair Blocked Enquiry into Brazilian's Death
NEWS: Documents Released About Brazilian Mistakenly Shot On 22/7
NEWS: Man mistakenly shot dead in London was Brazilian...

[edit on 21/8/05 by subz]

[edit on 21/8/05 by subz]

I would think it is pretty common for this kind of support as they would not want to look like they were wrong in their policy. I do not think Ian should resign over this. It was a terrible mistake that occured during a highly emotional and fearful time in London. Although it does not make it right, it does not make the shooting one of malice intent. The officers were responding as trained and to a situation that gave all the appearance of being a possible suicide bomber. Perhaps had previous events not occurred the whole matter would never have escalated to what it did.

Though this was most likely a mistake that occurred under a policy that was instituted as a knee-jerk reaction to the attacks, someone should be held accountable in the administrative aspect.

Armed officers where before there were none? Shoot to kill policy? Volunteers? Sounds like this wasn't thought through enough....what criteria did the volunteers have to meet? Though I am loathe to excuse a mistake of this nature, so I won't, however, the officer in question was ill-prepared. Not only was he an individual attempting to work in a professional capacity, but he was a citizen torn between the recent tragedies and subsequent state propagandas......obviously.

Changing the status-quo is an undertaking that must be handled with kid gloves. ALL ASPECTS need to be considered, especially the field counterparts......everything before thatcan get lost in thw wind because application has yet to transpire. And that is where the problem occurred....the transition from 'theory to application' wasn't given the attention it needed......it was a knee jerk reaction.

MemoryShock,

I should probably clarify my "volunteer" remark. The armed police we have are highly trained police officers, they volunteer to take up arms. They are not contracted to and are not forced into doing so. They can merely undertake normal (unarmed) police duties if they wish to avoid this current situation whereby they can be charged and convicted of murder.

I think its the least Sir Ian Blair can do to offer to resign over this. The buck stops with him, period. Some of his officers shot dead an unarmed man with no apparent justification. This is all fact and public domain now, there was no vaulting over turnstyles, there was no heavy jacket, there was no running to the train, there was no attempts to get the man to halt.

Sir Ian Blair also misled the public into believing, contrary to the facts, that this man brought his death upon himself through his reckless behaviour. First of all he made these serious allegations before he was in possession of all the facts, he has admitted as such. He also made no attempt to exhonorate de Menedez until publically forced to by the leak from the Independant inquiry being conducted.

His credibilty within the public and most probably with his police forces (especially the armed officers) is in tatters. He should go.

[edit on 21/8/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
I should probably clarify my "volunteer" remark. The armed police we have are highly trained police officers, they volunteer to take up arms. They are not contracted to and are not forced into doing so.

I see I misunderstood some points here...... but the situation is roughly the same. A new policy was introduced in the aftermath of a harrowing event and the reaction of these individuals are going to be a target for speculation. Allowing firearms where there weren't initially precludes that there is a definite need for them. And that is an arguable point. The terrorist attacks did not include any direct interaction with authority. The level of planning implied by the success of the attacks would suggest that there was never meant to be any direct individual conflict. So admitting the arming of a police force in light of the event doesn't necassarily carry with it the ability to discern readily where and if a direct conflict warrants the use of them.

And that is what happened. The officer in question most likely got caught up in the situation and began to act on instinct with diseasterous results.

Originally posted by subz
I think its the least Sir Ian Blair can do to offer to resign over this. The buck stops with him, period.

I agree. The situation should, but probably won't, include a look at the reasonings for the new policy. Granted an armed police force introduces a new and relevant level of deterrance, but I would wager on the fact that the point of deterrance wasn't stressed.

Originally posted by subz
Sir Ian Blair also misled the public into believing, contrary to the facts, that this man brought his death upon himself through his reckless behaviour.

Here is an important factor......one that is recurrant throughout the communications between authority and public. The highlight is public relations. You can't undermine your authority by admitting an kind of incompetancy. Better to appear guilty. But where possible construe the facts of a given situation and let it unravel itself. Fingerpointing may occur, but what Tony Blair did here was to reaffirm their public stance to give those who are just listening and reacting to the unravelment will find reason once again to justify their belief in the system and it's leaders.

Police officers from the team involved in the fatal shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes did not believe he posed 'an immediate threat'.

Senior sources in the Metropolitan Police have told The Observer that members of the surveillance team who followed de Menezes into Stockwell underground station in London felt that he was not about to detonate a bomb, was not armed and was not acting suspiciously. It was only when they were joined by armed officers that his threat was deemed so great that he was shot seven times.

Sources said that the surveillance officers wanted to detain de Menezes, but were told to hand over the operation to the firearms team.

The two teams have fallen out over the circumstances surrounding the incident, raising fresh questions about how the operation was handled

observer.guardian.co.uk...

Amazing, 2 teams have fallen out over who knew what on that day. They should both know the same thing surely?

The more information that comes out about this case the more in the wrong the police look.

Originally posted by anniejhops
I would think it is pretty common for this kind of support as they would not want to look like they were wrong in their policy. I do not think Ian should resign over this. It was a terrible mistake that occured during a highly emotional and fearful time in London.

1. In this government having the support of the Prime Minister is the kiss of death. Phoney B. has leant his support to everyone who has been caught doing something they shouldn't have - and every one of them has received the order of the boot within a fortnight at most.

2. The point on which "Sir" Ian should resign is NOT the action of the officers - but his OWN actions. He gave out false information at news conferences - obviously without bothering to check its credibility. He failed to correct false information even after he admits he knew it was false. And he is responsible for the culture inside the Metropolitan Police, which appears to be such that for nearly a day, either out of fear no one DARED tell him what had really happened - OR out of sloppiness no one BOTHERED to tell him what was going on.

3. It should also be noted that this guy has previously thrown all the weight he could muster behind the introduction of ID cards in the UK - and the events of the last few weeks have proved beyond reasonable doubt that not one of his reasons was valid, and that contrary to his judgement, bringing in ID cards would involve massive expense whilst doing nothing except - possibly - creating a false sense of security.

The man is NOTHING, in my opinion, but a self-promoting liability.

Have a good day

PaulZ

This is the most unacceptable scum posing as a liberal who has been found out lying over and again
Thankyou De Menezes, your one great act in life was being shot through the head 7 times
By bastard forces under the control of liars and creators of spin and falsehood
You left a great residue, Charles
You exposed these false flaggers for what they are

[edit on 21-8-2005 by dh]

Originally posted by dh
This is the most unacceptable scum posing as a liberal who has been found out lying over and again
Thankyou De Menezes, your one great act in life was being shot through the head 7 times
By bastard forces under the control of liars and creators of spin and falsehood
You left a great residue, Charles
You exposed these false flaggers for what they are

[edit on 21-8-2005 by dh]

What an awful troubled sad life you must lead. Presumably you would like to get rid of the bastard forces and liars. How ? A bullet a bomb....hmmm...I wonder where that attitude leads !

Sounds like the 'vote of confidence' given by football (soccer) Chairmen in their team managers just before they stick the knife in and sack them forty-eight or so hours later...

But really - don't you think Blair should come back from his holiday and sort this mess out?

Bush has the "full support" of tony as well.. and i would buy a used car off either of the little $%#$%!!!

Originally posted by malcr


What an awful troubled sad life you must lead. Presumably you would like to get rid of the bastard forces and liars. How ? A bullet a bomb....hmmm...I wonder where that attitude leads !

Not at all and I apologise to all for a forcibly expressed opinion
Personally I'm a pacifist but can get angry at the forces that are playing this game
I won't be positioned as a potential asian guy out with a backpack Asthey would like to paint us

[edit on 22-8-2005 by dh]