LONDON CITY

>In message , at 16:29:21 on Fri, 29
>Jul 2005, Mike Mann remarked:
>
>>> >> >> So the question remains, is the opinion of those who were there at
the
>>> >> >> time better or worse than that of an armchair critic who only has a
few
>>> >> >> garbled reports of what happened to go on?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Well, its fairly obvious that the opinion of those who were there at
the
>>> >> >time was wrong.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, it was wrong with hindsight.
>>> >
>>> >So you accept that the opinion of the armchair critics is better after
>>> >all? Glad youve changed your mind.
>>>
>>> No, my opinion on whether they are entitled to criticise what happened
>>> on the day (what the police saw or knew) hasnt changed at all. They
>>> dont have the information, and are merely speculating.
>>
>>We most definitely do have information: that the police killed a perfectly
>>innocent person. Surely you cant seriously be arguing that we dont have
>>the right to criticise that?
>
>You can criticise it, but from a very weak position. You dont have the
>information which led the police to suspect he was a bomber. You have
>speculated what that information might be, but in fact you have no idea.
>
>>We dont yet live in a police state where criticism of police killing is
>>forbidden.
>
>Indeed. But neither do you have the right for your criticism go
>unchallenged.

>Bob man wrote:
>
>> I just wonder why you are so keen to continually criticise the police for
>> this killing but not so keen to criticise the nutters who murdered 52
>> innocent people on 7th July. Maybe you dont have all the information?
>
>What peculiar logic! The subject of this thread is the killing of Mr de
>Menezes, so Im discussing that killing, as are other contributors.
>
>If the subject of the thread were the bombs of 7th July, Id probably be
>condemning the bombers. Surely you dont think that one cant criticise
>one group of people witout having, at the same time, to list the other
>hundreds of groups of people in the world who also deserve criticism?

>Well, most people who post here are reasonably intelligent. Sometimes
>they dont think too straight but thats another matter. So if none of
>us can come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where the
>police conduct was excusable, the lack of information about secret
>intelligence does not let them off the hook.

> In message , DHP
> writes
>
>>Well, most people who post here are reasonably intelligent. Sometimes
>>they dont think too straight but thats another matter. So if none of
>>us can come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where the
>>police conduct was excusable, the lack of information about secret
>>intelligence does not let them off the hook.
>
> I dont think anyone would seek to excuse what happened, but one key
> factor has not (AFAICS) been mentioned in this thread: after spending a
> night at a house associated with the terrorists

> heading for just any tube station, he was heading for Stockwell tube
> station, from whence three of the would-be bombers had set out only 24
> hours earlier.

>
> I suspect that it was the realization that he was heading for Stockwell
> tube, and so the understandable fear of a further bomb attack, that turned
> mere surveillance (of the house and of the bus journey) into the need for
> immediate action at the tube station.

>
> Thereafter, the details are murky, but it certainly appeared that Menezes
> was not only evading arrest but heading for an actual tube train.

>If this was because of the visa issue, it is quite likely that his fear of
>discovery and deportation blocked from his mind the sheer folly of what he
>was doing, and how it would be perceived by the police.
>
> In other words, much though we like to point the finger of blame, in this
> world it is sometimes still the force of circumstance - cruel fate, call
> it what you will - that leads to the greatest tragedies.
>

>
>Paul Terry wrote in message
>news:yFdtGAFR7m6CFAUI@main.machine...

>> I dont think anyone would seek to excuse what happened, but one key
>> factor has not (AFAICS) been mentioned in this thread: after spending a
>> night at a house associated with the terrorists

>He spent the night in his own flat which he shared with his cousins, this
>flat just happened to be one in a block of flats that the police were
>watching.

>Mr de Menezes was not
>> heading for just any tube station, he was heading for Stockwell tube
>> station, from whence three of the would-be bombers had set out only 24
>> hours earlier.

>After taking a 3 mile bus journey, he did attempt to take a tube at
>Stockwell, as hundreds of people would do every day.

>But it was not surveillance of a house.

>> Thereafter, the details are murky, but it certainly appeared that Menezes
>> was not only evading arrest but heading for an actual tube train.

>How was he evading arrest?

>You really have bought all the initial spinning.

>Even the police dont now agree with many of your points.

> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:05:16 +0100, Roland Perry
> wrote:
>
>
>>In message , at 16:29:21 on Fri, 29
>>Jul 2005, Mike Mann remarked:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>So the question remains, is the opinion of those who were there at the
>>>>>>>>time better or worse than that of an armchair critic who only has a few
>>>>>>>>garbled reports of what happened to go on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, its fairly obvious that the opinion of those who were there at the
>>>>>>>time was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it was wrong with hindsight.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you accept that the opinion of the armchair critics is better after
>>>>>all? Glad youve changed your mind.
>>>>
>>>>No, my opinion on whether they are entitled to criticise what happened
>>>>on the day (what the police saw or knew) hasnt changed at all. They
>>>>dont have the information, and are merely speculating.
>>>
>>>We most definitely do have information: that the police killed a perfectly
>>>innocent person. Surely you cant seriously be arguing that we dont have
>>>the right to criticise that?
>>
>>You can criticise it, but from a very weak position. You dont have the
>>information which led the police to suspect he was a bomber. You have
>>speculated what that information might be, but in fact you have no idea.
>>
>>
>>>We dont yet live in a police state where criticism of police killing is
>>>forbidden.
>>
>>Indeed. But neither do you have the right for your criticism go
>>unchallenged.
>
>
> Well, most people who post here are reasonably intelligent. Sometimes
> they dont think too straight but thats another matter. So if none of
> us can come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where the
> police conduct was excusable, the lack of information about secret
> intelligence does not let them off the hook.
>

>In message , DHP
> writes
>
>>Well, most people who post here are reasonably intelligent. Sometimes
>>they dont think too straight but thats another matter. So if none of
>>us can come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where the
>>police conduct was excusable, the lack of information about secret
>>intelligence does not let them off the hook.
>
>I dont think anyone would seek to excuse what happened, but one key
>factor has not (AFAICS) been mentioned in this thread: after spending a
>night at a house associated with the terrorists

>Mr de Menezes was not heading for just any tube station, he was heading
>for Stockwell tube station, from whence three of the would-be bombers
>had set out only 24 hours earlier.
>
>I suspect that it was the realization that he was heading for Stockwell
>tube, and so the understandable fear of a further bomb attack, that
>turned mere surveillance (of the house and of the bus journey) into the
>need for immediate action at the tube station.
>

>He did no such thing. He happened to be sleeping in a different flat in
>the block the police were watching

>because one flat may have had some peripheral connection with the
>terrorists

>(not enough of a connection for it to be a high priority for raiding,
>you will note).

>>I suspect that it was the realization that he was heading for
>>Stockwell tube, and so the understandable fear of a further bomb
>>attack, that turned mere surveillance (of the house and of the bus
>>journey) into the need for immediate action at the tube station.

>I hope you are wrong about that, because if that was the police
>thinking, it is as far from rational assessment as you can get, and
>much closer to blind unthinking panic.