22Jul05 Jean Charles De Menezes Stockwell tube train murder

[insidejob]

Mark,

I don't believe that C Dick was directly responsible for the de Menes murder. She was duped. But she's getting the medal to keep her mouth shut.

I think the police operatives on the day were duped, But alongside them were SAS personnel under secret direction from MI5. Dick gave the order to arrest De Menes while MI5 told their operatives to kill him. This is why there were leaks from the police and the dispute with Chief Constable Blair who was trying to keep the truth from coming out.

[fish5133]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Who was responsible for awarding Dick this honour? Is it a state secret? Can we get an answer from them? at best it's a reward for gross incompetence at worst it's a blood gong for silencing someone who knew too much. What MUST the Menezes family make of this? doesn't bear thinking about!

[Mark Gobell]

Jean Charles de Menezes: shoot to kill in Stockwell

Five years ago police killed a 27 year old Brazilian electrician on a tube train in south London. Simon Basketter looks at what the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes reveals about the British state

It took 30 seconds for the police to kill Jean Charles de Menezes. The cover-up took a little longer. At 10.06am on 22 July 2005 Jean Charles sat down on a tube train in Stockwell, south London.

One police officer held him down while two others fired seven hollow tip bullets into his head and one into his neck. Three other bullets missed.

Jean Charles had left his block of flats in Tulse Hill that morning.

Surveillance officers, including some from military intelligence, were watching the flats, looking for alleged terrorists. They did not know which flat he had been in.

Officers followed Jean Charles onto two buses and down into Stockwell tube station. Other armed officers, who did not know whether Jean Charles was a suspect, brandished their weapons as they made their way down to the platform.

Rachel Wilson, who was sitting opposite Jean Charles, initially thought the plain clothes cops were lads “messing around”. She said, “Only when I saw blood, I realised it was not the case. Then I thought they were terrorists.”

Another witness, Anna Dunwoodie, was sitting two seats away from Jean Charles when he was shot. She says the police were in a “state of panic” and that “things felt like they were a bit out of control”.

She watched in horror as the men ran into the carriage with “lots of guns”.

She told the inquest into Jean Charles’ death, “I think it was the man, who I now know to be a surveillance officer, [who] really seemed to be frightened or hyped up when he was calling the other men.”

She added that she felt “pressured” into making a hurried statement to police afterwards.

The surveillance officers said they did not identify Jean Charles as a terror suspect before he was shot dead. The firearms officer who fired the shots, officer C12, said they did – and that he was prepared to tackle terrorists who were intent on “mass murder”.

He said Jean Charles’ behaviour had been “in keeping with a man acting suspiciously, with being a potential suicide bomber”.

This referred to the fact that Jean Charles “appeared agitated” – with good reason it turned out.

Jean Charles had briefly run on the platform to catch the train. Several bulky white men wearing, variously, a suit, jeans and a tracksuit, chased him, waving guns.

Within 15 minutes of his death, an explosives expert had confirmed that Jean Charles was not the “suicide bomber” the police had claimed he was. His wallet and mobile phone showed his true identity.

Dozens of other officers later admitted that they knew within hours that Jean Charles was innocent.

Yet the police in general – and Metropolitan police chief Ian Blair in particular – claimed for a further 24 hours that Jean Charles had been involved in a terror plot.

Blair, as head of the Met police, later explained that he had not lied but had been “almost totally uninformed”.

Cressida Dick was deputy assistant commissioner at the Met and the senior officer in charge of the operation that killed Jean Charles.

She insisted that none of the officers involved in the execution-style slaying had done anything wrong.

The killing took place the day after a failed bombing attempt in London and two weeks after the 7/7 bombings.

As the truth emerged, there was much talk of the “difficult atmosphere” in the run-up to the shooting.

That atmosphere doesn’t explain why, in the investigations and inquest that followed, police officers altered their evidence. Evidence was tampered with or removed. Photographs were altered to make Jean Charles look more like the suspected suicide bomber. Witnesses were intimidated.

There were four investigations into Jean Charles’ killing. Much was revealed – but much was not.

An inquest gave an open verdict over his killing. The Independent Police Complaints Commission produced two reports, one of which was kept secret for years.

The Metropolitan Police was fined £175,000 after a health and safety trial convicted it of “endangering the ­public” and having failed “to provide for the health, safety and welfare of Jean Charles de Menezes” – a disgusting understatement.

While malicious lies about Jean Charles appeared in the press, Ian Blair was busy attempting to block inquiries into the shooting.

Jean Charles’ real identity was known by 3pm. By 4.30pm, assistant commissioner Andy Hayman had told journalists that Jean Charles was not one of the 21 July bombers.

But at 5pm Hayman told a meeting of senior police officers that they should give the opposite impression.

He said, “There is press running that the person shot is not one of the four bombers. We need to present that he is believed to be.”

Rampaging police officers with the intent to kill gunned down an innocent man. Yet no officer at any level has been either disciplined or prosecuted for involvement in the slaying of Jean Charles. The opposite has happened.

Cressida Dick was promoted. Andy Hayman was awarded a CBE. Ian Blair became a Sir in 2008 and is now in the House of Lords.

Blair himself has admitted that police could kill again. “It’s still happening out there,” he said. “There are still officers having to make those calls as we speak. Somebody else could be shot.”
The link to death squads

Members of military intelligence from the Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR) carried out the flawed surveillance of Jean Charles de Menezes.

The SRR ran death squads in Iraq, targeting supporters of the resistance to the US-British occupation of that country.

When the SRR was formed in 2005 it incorporated a secret unit of the British army that had supplied names, addresses and photographs of Catholic targets to Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

This led to the murder of at least 30 Catholics.
Police engineered panic to aid the cover-up

On the afternoon of the shooting, Evening Standard newsboards announced that a “bomber” had been shot dead on London’s tube.

Met police chief Ian Blair said, “As I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions.”

In fact the police released “incorrect information”, as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) politely put it.

The media used this “information” to run stories saying that Jean Charles was a so-called illegal immigrant – which, as well as being completely irrelevant, was a lie.

Newspapers claimed that he was wearing a bulky jacket, apparently leading police to think he was concealing a bomb. It was a lie.

They said there were wires visible from his jacket – a lie. It was claimed he had jumped over the ticket barrier – again, a lie.

The Independent newspaper wrote that Jean Charles was “the author of his own misfortune”. The Guardian newspaper was concerned about the impact of the killing on the public, rather than Jean Charles.

“The biggest mistake was not to properly prepare the public for the sustained campaign of violence facing the country,” it said.

“Even when Mr Menezes was thought to be a bomber, witnesses were shocked by the ferocity with which he was killed. More should have been done to prepare the public for the forceful response needed to protect them.”

The smears were endless. The Sun newspaper said that Jean Charles had raped a woman. His body was exhumed, against the wishes of his family, and his DNA showed that he had not.On 15 July 2005, seven days before the killing of Jean Charles, the government announced that “armed police officers could be given more aggressive shoot to kill orders, telling them to fire at the heads of suicide bombers.”

After the 7/7 bombings in London, and as the “war on terror” dragged on, the state created an atmosphere that facilitated the slaying of John Charles.

Secret service

Prior to 7/7, the government brought in the Israeli secret service to train firearms officers. They developed Operation Kratos – which advised that suspected suicide bombers must be shot in the head.

The police said this was necessary to stop hand movement. But John Charles was on the ground pinned down by police when he was shot, so unable to move his hands.

According to one of the officers who shot him, “Everything I have ever trained for – threat assessment, seeing threats, perceiving threats and acting on threats – proved wrong.”

Yet the killing didn’t reflect a failure of the system, but a success.

Jean Charles’ death is told as story of a regrettable but unavoidable incident. The official tale is one of “confusion” and “chaos”, with police doing their best to prevent a terrorist outrage in difficult circumstances.

According to this account, tense situations produce regrettable consequences. But to view the death of Jean Charles this way is to is to concede that there is something fundamentally right with the police and the justice system.

The problem for our rulers in admitting to “miscarriages of justice” – whether that is people wrongly convicted or those who die at the hands of the police – is that it shines a light on the nature of the state.

Institutional racism can help us to understand much of this, but it is worth noting that you don’t have to be black, Muslim or even Irish (or a Geordie bouncer) to have a massive wrong inflicted on you by the state.

The institutions of the state are there to protect the rich and the state wants a monopoly on arms. The state can bomb and invade abroad and, as a last resort to exercise its power, it needs the same force at home.

The Labour Party, even those on the Labour left, failed to condemn the killing of Jean Charles. Ken Livingstone, then mayor of London, blamed the 7/7 bombers instead of the police.

“The police acted to do what they believed necessary to protect the lives of the public,” he said. “This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the terrorists bear responsibility.”

There is a bloody line that runs through the carnage of imperial adventures in the Middle East to the carriage of a tube train in south London. If push comes to shove, the British state has a shoot to kill policy to defend the system. This is not a “mistake”, nor is it defensible.

Lack of professionalism wasn’t the problem for the officers who shot Jean Charles. They did what they were meant to do – execute to protect the state. The problem is that they are meant to do it at all.

Source

[Mark Gobell]

Don't give up, Mrs Tomlinson

As I learned after the killing of my cousin Jean Charles de Menezes, it is important to keep on fighting for justice

o Patricia da Silva Armani
o guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 July 2010 21.30 BST
o Article history

Two days ago, my family gathered at Stockwell tube station at 10am, as we have every year since 2005, to mark the exact moment when my cousin Jean Charles de Menezes was killed by the police. Jean was shot seven times in the head by officers while sitting in a tube carriage, on his way to work.

Despite two lengthy reports by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, an Old Bailey trial that found the police guilty of "catastrophic errors", and an inquest verdict that found the police lied about the circumstances that led to Jean's death, no officer has been held accountable.

This year as we gathered, our hearts were also with Ian Tomlinson. Everybody knew the decision on Ian's case was due and there was a sense of unease. We knew the sickness and anxiety Ian's family would be feeling after waiting such a long time, and that they would still be hopeful for justice even after the bitter disappointments they have faced.

We wondered about the significance of the CPS choosing the fifth anniversary of Jean's death to make its announcement. We dared to hope that it would use this date – such a painful reminder to us of injustice – to do the right thing by another family. We thought the CPS would announce a decision to prosecute.

So when we heard no officer would be charged for the incident that led to Ian's death, an already difficult day was burdened with more deep sadness. But we were also worried about the future. Because every time a police officer is allowed to get away with a criminal act it gives the police force as a whole a sense of entitlement that they are above the law and increases the chances that similar deaths will occur. The CPS decision spoke volumes about the brazen dismissive attitude of the state towards accountability for deaths in custody. To release their decision on the five-year anniversary of Jean Charles death was like sticking two fingers up at us all and saying "we don't care what grieving families or the public think, we'll do what we want and you can't stop us".

But we can. And one day we will. For this reason our message to the Tomlinson family is, don't give up. Don't accept the police's lies, don't accept the CPS's cowardice or the Independent Police Complaints Commission's ineptitude. The coming years will be hard, we cannot pretend they won't be. Perhaps harder than today when the media and public eye is on you. There will be times when you are just left alone with your feelings of injustice having exhausted the legal avenues and political processes. And in that moment you will want to know that you did everything within your power to get the truth out about what happened to Ian, and to challenge the idea that police officers are above the law. Nothing will bring Jean or Ian back to life, but by fighting you can keep Ian's memory alive and help to stop this kind of tragedy happening again.

And to the public we say this. We could not have come so far in our campaign without you. Every email, letter, telephone message gave us strength to carry on in those difficult days. The Tomlinson family need your support today. We urge everyone who felt outraged about the death of Jean Charles and the death of Ian Tomlinson to take those feelings of injustice and translate them into political action. Write to your MP, support the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign, organise events in your community to discuss the issues of police accountability, write to the press, act and act now. Together we must put an end to the culture of police impunity which corrupts our justice system.

Patricia da Silva Armani was speaking to Yasmin Khan, a co-ordinator of the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign

iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk/.

[TonyGosling]

Counter terrorism officer sues Met over De Menezes 'cover-up'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030680/De-Menezes-cop-sues-Me t-cover-up.html
Saturday 27th August 2011
Ongoing: A new inquiry over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes has been opened as the Met gets sued

A Christian counter-terrorism officer involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is suing the Metropolitan Police over allegations that senior officers tried to cover-up vital evidence.
He says his faith compelled him to blow the whistle and he is now claiming thousands of pounds for loss of overtime pay and promotions after Special Branch bosses allegedly sidelined him.
One allegation involves anti-terror officers perverting justice by replacing a chief inspector with another to give more favourable evidence at the 2008 inquest into de Menezes’s death.
An inquest jury returned an open verdict into the shooting of the 27-year-old Brazilian who was mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005 – rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully.
The detective sergeant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, first made his concerns known after he gave evidence under a codename at the inquest.
Two more serious concerns were reported about issues within the Met Police’s counter-terrorism department, known as SO15, last December that form the main part of his tribunal case.
He is also suing for religious discrimination and loss of earnings.
A senior source said: ‘The allegations are about such a sensitive subject that top brass are very worried about what could come out in a tribunal.’
‘As this has been going on for such a long-time he was moved to another department and believes that his career was stalled because he spoke out.’
Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground Station in South London after police mistook him for bomber Hussain Osman.
He was killed on July 22, 2005, the day after Osman and three fellow terrorists had gone on the run after trying to bomb the Tube in a follow-up attack to the July 7 London bombings which killed 52 and injured 977.
The jury at the inquest on the Brazilian electrician rejected the account of police marksmen, branding them ‘liars’, and sided with Tube passengers who said the officers failed to issue a warning before opening fire.
They returned an open verdict, which was the most strongly critical option available to them after the judge instructed them there was insufficient evidence to rule that de Menezes was unlawfully killed by police.
The Crown Prosecution Service ruled out criminal charges against anti-terror officers in 2006 and after the inquest in 2009. The Met was instead fined £175,000 under health and safety laws.
The Independent Police Complaints Commision has investigated one of the detective sergeant’s claims finding no evidence to support the allegation.
An IPCC spokesman said: ‘We received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 January 2011, as a result of an allegation made by a detective sergeant to the Directorate of Professional Standards in December 2010. The allegation had also been the subject of employment tribunal proceedings.
‘The IPCC independently investigated the allegation, examining statements given to the Employment Tribunal and interviewing key people involved. The decision to call the DCI was made by counsel on the basis that he was better able to answer the questions.
‘The investigation found that there was no evidence to support the Detective Sergeant’s allegation.’
A Met spokesman said: ‘The Metropolitan Police Service can confirm that it has received two employment tribunal claims from a Detective Sergeant lodged at London Central employment tribunal offices.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030680/De-Menezes-cop-sues-Me t-cover-up.html


and this is a classic


MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2005

On the Job, on the Square

In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level - Bob Dylan
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.co.uk/2005/08/on-job-on-square.html

It seems to me much of the speculation concerning the Stockwell atrocity still plays a version of Blame the Victim: What did Jean Charles de Menezes know that made him a target? Who did he know? If he wasn't a terrorist, what else was he that would provoke plainclothed Special Forces to restrain him and pump seven bullets in the back of his head?

Sometimes - often - it's in that direction the truth lies. (Poor Nick Berg, for instance, didn't simply get unlucky.) But I don't think so this time. This wasn't a hit to take out a Brazilian contract engineer. If it were, I imagine it would have been done either much more quietly, or with the foresight to plant damning evidence in his flat.

The very bloody and public murder seems a demonstration, but of what, and to whom? If there were a motive - if it wasn't just a bizarre sequence of tragic events (and anyone who's lived long enough should concede that such things happen, too) - then it has nothing to do with the unfortunate de Menezes. It must reside elsewhere, in a place that may seem to us like madness.

This is a British story, and Britain is a land that hasn't forgotten how weird it is. Drive a modern highway in southern England for any distance and you'll pass standing stones, ancient mounds, chalk figures and crop circles. More so than in the so-called "New World," secularism seems like a thin and flaking coat of paint slopped on some very old and strange things. This extends to crime stories, as elements of the occult often arise on British police blotters, but they just as often fade away, without resolution.

I think of The Guardian headline from last June, Children trafficked into Britain for sacrifice rituals; a BBC story from January, 2005: Dead sheep found in "occult star" ("the sheep were found on Sampford Spiney on Dartmoor with their necks broken and their bodies in a pattern sometimes associated with the occult"); and from last July: Occult link to drowned councillor. ("Detectives investigating the death of a Cornish parish councillor have confirmed they are looking at possible links with the occult. They believe 56-year-old Peter Solheim, from Carnkie, was interested in black magic.")

In 1996, a young environmentalist named Nicholas Gargari plunged screaming to his death from a cliff in the East Sussex town of Lewes. The walls of his home were found papered with torn Bible pages, and scrawled upon them was the message "God help me I have been cursed." (Though reputedly not in Gargari's hand.) Detectives learned from his friends that, shortly before his death, he had received a "cow's heart pierced with nails and a fetish entwined with a lock of human hair." Suspicion fell upon Gargari's unlikely friendship with a Satanic fascist named Alex Smith, who "attended the inquest and sat grinning at the bereaved sister and mother, displaying his inverted cross tattoos,and protected by a burly looking body guard." Under cross examination regarding his Far Right ties, Smith became verbally abusive, and needed to be physically ejected from the courtroom. Gargari's death could not be ruled either a murder or a suicide, and the Coroner recorded an open verdict.

In the same town of Lewes, six years earlier, a local scandal of sorts broke when it was revealed that a Satanist named Rosemary Barratt worked as a secretary inside Lewes Police Intelligence Unit. Barratt "had long fostered a deep interest in severe sado-masochistic sex, having relations with literally dozens of magical masters," seeking painful degradation while possessed by a spirit named "Absolon." Local Wiccan sources alleged that two police officers were members of a dangerous Satanic group conducting rituals atop limestone cliffs. The Chief Constable for Sussex, Paul Whitehouse, "refused to state whether he personally knew of Satanists inside his force, though he "did point out that it was not an offence to be a member of this type of organisation."

But before we go too far down that road, we should take a step back and examine another legal occult organization, because it's hard to talk seriously about the British police force without talking about Freemasonry. Unfortunately, for many people, it's hard to talk seriously about Freemasonry at all.

In his Inside the Brotherhood, Martin Short details the story of Chief Inspector Brian Woollard, whose distinguished career included 14-years with Special Branch attached to the Bomb Squad, royal protection, and armed personal detective to Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Woollard's career effectively ended when he was posted to London's Fraud Squad. As Short writes, "it was there that he first sensed the power which Freemasonry seems to have over law enforcement in London."

Assigned to commercial fraud, Woollard was assigned a sensitive inquiry which involved tape recorded conversations describing police officers do favours for fellow Freemasons. Handing Woollard the case, his supervisor, whom Short calls "Grimm," said "I don't know which lodge you're in." When Woollard replied he belonged to no lodge, Grimm appeared surprised, and told him to complete the task in a week.

The recordings showed evidence of blackmail, and Woollard sent the tapes off for forensic testing. Grimm was apoplectic that the names of "innocent policeman" might be produced in court, and subjected Woollard to the tightest scrutiny of his career. Soon there was so much distrust the two officers could no longer work together, and Woollard moved to another section of the Fraud Branch. (Months later, he heard the case he left in Grimm's hands was closed with a decision of "no further action.") He was handed a case of public sector corruption involving inflated payments to building contractors, and soon found his work obstructed by police officers in his own department who belonged to the same lodge as subjects of his investigation in the building works department.

Woollard persisted until he was moved right out of the Fraud Branch, and was replaced on the corruption case by a Freemason. He was ordered by a Masonic supervisor to have a psychiatric evaluation regarding his delusion at seeing Masons everywhere. He was demoted to uniform, even though he hadn't had one for 20 years, and assigned to a station where all five officers above him in the chain of command were Freemasons. When some newspapers picked up the story of his humiliation by the Masonic fraternity, Woollard found his case files disappearing from a locked administrative room overnight. One long-serving, sympathetic constable reported that "everyone knew the theft was part of a Masonic plot to discredit Woollard."

Masonic plot. There are two words to get you laughed right out of the respectable Left, Right or Middle. But as it often goes with things many people find hilarious, when you peel away the ridiculous crust, there's not a great deal to laugh about.

In The Arcana of Freemasonry, Albert Churchward writes that "Freemasonry in all its degrees, from the first to the thirty-third, is the old Eschatology of the Egyptians - or the doctrine of final things":

The casual brother does not trouble his head about these things; the majority look upon Freemasonry merely as a sort of Brotherhood for social intercourse and charity. Up to a certain point these views are correct.... But there is a higher view. Freemasonry means much more than this. In Freemasonry we have many mysteries, handed down to us from remote ages.... This knowledge can be obtained only in one way, and that is by mastering the old writings of the Egyptians and the glyphs of the Stellar Mythos people...because by that, and that alone, can the origin and meaning of all that is attached to the term "Brotherhood of Freemasonry" be found.

The corruption and compromises Brian Woollard discovered could be said to be those of the "casual brothers." Petty crimes, unconcerned with Set and Horus and the doctrine of final things. But speculative Freemasonry is the core of the Craft, and its infusion of all layers of British authority presents opportunities for a different order of criminal behaviour.




In its investigation of David Myatt and the occult-fascist axis, the magazine Searchlight quotes a bulletin from Combat 18 which attempts to disavoy the encroachment of Satanists upon British neo-Nazism. "The Fuhrer would turn over in his grave," it reads. "Satanists are dirty scum who use this bs as a front for child molestation." The bulletin also called for the boycott of another Satanic fascist and Myatt associate, Stephen Cox, "alleging that he peddles illegal child porn movies."

Searchlight continues:

Cox, a close political ally of Myatt, runs the fraternity of Balder, another Satanist group, formed in 1990. Like the Order of Nine Angles, the Fraternity of Balder is dedicated to Aryan living and offers physical and mental training alongside an extensive political and Satanist library. During the 1980s Myatt lived alongside Myatt in Church Sutton and worked as a teacher.

Balder, which emphasizes male-bonding rituals, is the public face of Cox's Satanism. A more secret and sinister organisation is the Fraternitas Loki.... According to its own propaganda: the new order succeeding Ragnarok will not arrive without intervention of the Dark Twin: the ambivalent, bisexual, resourceful, daring and handsome Loki."

Its literature reveals the underground nature of its activities. "Unlike other matters in Balder the Fraternitas Loki is quite covert as was the case with the original Black Order of the closing years of WW2 and the esoteric war of post 1945 - a subterranean reality and unknown to all but a few.

Cox's portal to his more respectable front, the Arktion Federation, can be found here. The home page contains the "Important Notice" that, "although our work is concerned solely with European spirituality and heritage," Arktion is neither political nor racist. "If you read or hear of anything by an individual or group contradicting these facts please do not worry: it is merely an infantile and malicious lie by sad and sick minds. We pray they may recover from their illness and see the light of truth and human fellowship."

A link to the Fraternity of Balder - called the "Jarls of Baelder" - and information pertainting to the Fraternitas Loki is on the top menu.

Most interesting is Cox's lengthy biography. Along with "teacher," "author" and "philosopher," is listed "Freemason." And quite an accomplished Freemason he is:

[O]n the Summer Solstice of 1991 he was initiated into British Freemasonry in his Mother Lodge within the Masonic Province of Berkshire in the United Grand Lodge of England. Since then he has worked his way through the various officerships of the lodge to rise to have the honour to become the Worshipful Master of his Lodge in 1999-2000 (which is always a one year appointment in any lodge). In year 2000-2001 he served his Lodge as the Immediate Past Master. And then in 2001-2002, and again in 2002-2003 and for the 3rd., year 2003-2004 was appointed its Assistant Director of Ceremomies (a monthly duty), and its Preceptor of the Class of Instruction (a twice monthly duty).

He has written and delivered to the Class a number of unique lecture papers on the symbolism, mysteries, history and spiritual philosophy of different aspects of the three degrees of Craft Masonry with regards to the Emulation Ritual. He has also written a book of guidance for Stewards and newly raised Master Masons. He offers private tuition and meetings for officers of the Lodge to assist them in their progress and for newly made Masons and Stewards. Free tours of the Berskhire Masonic Centre and its lodge rooms and temple, with an introduction to Freemasonry, its history and symbolism are given by him to his students and friends from around Europe.

In October 2003 he was elected by the Lodge members to be Master Elect to serve as Worshipful Master of his lodge for a 2nd. time (for the year 2004-2005).

This suggests the hypothetical situation of a Masonic policeman being asked to investigate his own lodge's Satanic "Worshipful Master."

The Order of Nine Angles' A Gift for the Prince states that "human sacrifice is powerful magick":

The ritual death of an individual does two things: it releases energy (which can be directed, or stored - for example in a crystal) and it draws down dark forces or "entities." Such forces may then be used, by directing them toward a specific goal, or they may be allowed to disperse over the Earth in a natural way, such dispersal altering what is sometimes known as the "astral shell" around the Earth. This alteration, by the nature of sacrifice, is disruptive - that it, it tends toward Chaos. This is simply another way of saying that human sacrifice furthers the work of Satan.

...

There are three methods of conducting an involuntary sacrifice: 1. by magickal means (e.g. the Death Ritual); 2. by some person or persons directly killing the sacrifice(s); 3. by assassination.

I haven't forgotten Jean Charles de Menezes. Nor that a motive to his killing, if there is one, most probably resides in a place that would seem to us like madness.

What we see in British Freemasonry is an occult organization with a political inclination towards the Right and even Far Right, with deep roots in both the Satanic and the law and order fraternities. One has the motive, the other has the means.

Perhaps sometimes, the occult elite's horrification of their dumb, useless eaters doesn't require the elegance of programmed assassins and useful idiots. Perhaps sometimes, it's as simple as walking up to a man and shooting him seven times in the head. Because random acts of violence are now public policy. And what energies are released by that? Which dark entities are drawn down?

Sometimes, all it takes is a handshake.

[Frazzel]

Daily Mail 27th Aug 2011
Counter terrorism officer sues Met over De Menezes 'cover-up'

Last updated at 1:00 AM on 27th August 2011

Ongoing: A new inquiry over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes has been opened as the Met gets sued
A Christian counter-terrorism officer involved in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes is suing the Metropolitan Police over allegations that senior officers tried to cover-up vital evidence.
He says his faith compelled him to blow the whistle and he is now claiming thousands of pounds for loss of overtime pay and promotions after Special Branch bosses allegedly sidelined him.
One allegation involves anti-terror officers perverting justice by replacing a chief inspector with another to give more favourable evidence at the 2008 inquest into de Menezes’s death.
An inquest jury returned an open verdict into the shooting of the 27-year-old Brazilian who was mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005 – rejecting the police view that he was killed lawfully.
The detective sergeant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, first made his concerns known after he gave evidence under a codename at the inquest.
Two more serious concerns were reported about issues within the Met Police’s counter-terrorism department, known as SO15, last December that form the main part of his tribunal case.
He is also suing for religious discrimination and loss of earnings.
A senior source said: ‘The allegations are about such a sensitive subject that top brass are very worried about what could come out in a tribunal.’
'As this has been going on for such a long-time he was moved to another department and believes that his career was stalled because he spoke out.’
Mr de Menezes was shot seven times in the head at Stockwell Underground Station in South London after police mistook him for bomber Hussain Osman.
He was killed on July 22, 2005, the day after Osman and three fellow terrorists had gone on the run after trying to bomb the Tube in a follow-up attack to the July 7 London bombings which killed 52 and injured 977.

Memory: Anger is still prevalent over the death of de Menezes
The jury at the inquest on the Brazilian electrician rejected the account of police marksmen, branding them ‘liars’, and sided with Tube passengers who said the officers failed to issue a warning before opening fire.
They returned an open verdict, which was the most strongly critical option available to them after the judge instructed them there was insufficient evidence to rule that de Menezes was unlawfully killed by police.
The Crown Prosecution Service ruled out criminal charges against anti-terror officers in 2006 and after the inquest in 2009. The Met was instead fined £175,000 under health and safety laws.
The Independent Police Complaints Commision has investigated one of the detective sergeant’s claims finding no evidence to support the allegation.
An IPCC spokesman said: ‘We received a referral from the Metropolitan Police Service on 4 January 2011, as a result of an allegation made by a detective sergeant to the Directorate of Professional Standards in December 2010. The allegation had also been the subject of employment tribunal proceedings.
‘The IPCC independently investigated the allegation, examining statements given to the Employment Tribunal and interviewing key people involved. The decision to call the DCI was made by counsel on the basis that he was better able to answer the questions.
‘The investigation found that there was no evidence to support the Detective Sergeant’s allegation.’
A Met spokesman said: ‘The Metropolitan Police Service can confirm that it has received two employment tribunal claims from a Detective Sergeant lodged at London Central employment tribunal offices.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030680/De-Menezes-cop-sues-Me t-cover-up.html#ixzz1WQiK4Hjf

[TonyGosling]

Menezes chief inspector sacked after 'boasting on dating site he had sex with 14-year-old boy'
Senior officer named as 46-year-old John Duffy
Bragged that he had used cocaine
Used uniform to try and seduce people online
No evidence that he did have sex with teenage boy
Duffy was in charge at Stockwell station when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot
By Rick Dewsbury - Daily Mail - 15th November 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061684/Scotland-Yard-chief-in spector-John-Duffy-sacked-sex-boy-14-boast.html
A Scotland Yard chief inspector has been sacked after boasting that he had sex with a 14-year-old boy, it was revealed today.
John Duffy, 46, claimed online that he carried out the depraved sex act on a teenage stranger he met through a gay dating website.
He also bragged that he had taken cocaine and used his position as a uniformed officer to try and seduce people online.
Duffy was caught out after a shocked user of the website reported him to the police. He was arrested at his home in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on suspicion of sexual assault in June last year.
Last week it was revealed that a senior inspector from the Metropolitan Police had been sacked after an internal investigation. The officer was not named but he has now been revealed to be Duffy, the Sun reported today.
Duffy was in charge of the scene at Stockwell Tube Station where Brazilian electrician John Charles de Menezes was wrongly shot dead by police in 2005. The 27-year-old had been suspected of being involved with the failed London bombings the day before.
Last week it was revealed that Duffy had used his position to advertise himself online in an attempt to meet sexual partners while in uniform.
He was arrested at his home last year but a criminal investigation by Kent Police was dropped because there was not thought to have been enough evidence.
However, the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards launched an internal investigation with supervision from the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Duffy was sacked last week after a two-day hearing in which he was found guilty of gross misconduct.
'There was no evidence he did have sex with a boy. It was all a fantasy, but an unhealthy one,' a source told the Sun.
IPCC commissioner Mike Franklin said: 'Police officers, by virtue of the powers vested in them, hold positions of authority and trust in our communities.
'Those who discredit their role cannot expect to continue to serve the public and, as in this case, they should be dismissed.'
Commander Peter Spindler, director of professional standards at the Met, said: 'Officers and staff may believe that what they do online, whether on duty or off-duty, is either anonymous or doesn't have any impact on others.
'This is not the case. The Metropolitan Police Service will pursue any allegations regarding improper online activity as vigorously as any wrongdoing offline.
'We expect our employees to behave professionally, morally, ethically and with the utmost humility and integrity in all areas of their lives. Anything short of this will not be tolerated.'
A IPCC spokesman said: 'The breaches relate to claims made to members of the public on an interactive dating website that he was a serving police officer and that he had committed criminal offences including drug-taking and a sexual offence.
'He was also found to have used his position as a uniformed police officer to have advertised himself online in an attempt to meet sexual partners while in uniform.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061684/Scotland-Yard-chief-in spector-John-Duffy-sacked-sex-boy-14-boast.html

[fish5133]

Not sure I can believe that story. Says a lot about the calibre of people there are in high places. Another error of judgement --this time its backfired on him rather than some other poor blighter

[Mark Gobell]

Part of the Jean Charles de Menezes script is lifted straight out of the Die Hard: With A Vengeance movie script.

See here

[TonyGosling]

It appears "possible that some people may have committed offences" Scotland Yard's head of counter-terrorism told MPs when she updated them on the state of the investigation into the material seized from David Miranda in August.

Assistant commissioner Cressida Dick also said that the Metropolitan police were looking at the "potential" that terrorism offences had been committed involving communicating information about members of the intelligence services.

Dick was responding to questions form the Commons home affairs select committee about whether there was an active police investigation into the Guardian over the disclosure of the GCHQ/NSA mass snooping documents.

Earlier Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, had told MPs he did not know whether or not there was active Met investigation into the Guardian and he had not received "any knock on the door" so far.

Dick said that the police were continuing with their examination of the "large amount of material" which was seized from Miranda, who is the partner of the former Guardian journalist, Glenn Greenwald, when he was stopped at Heathrow airport in August. Dick confirmed that the material was being examined to see if Official Secrets Act or terrorism offences had been committed.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/03/terrorism-offences-poss ible-committed-david-miranda-material

Cross posting here with Edward Snowden NSA GCHQ criminal surveillance leaks
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=166208#166208

[TonyGosling]

One of those rare 'coincidences' that makes one wonder....

UK-ECHR: The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes: Oral hearing 10 June 2015: Alleged failure to conduct effective investigation into fatal shooting of person mistakenly identified as suspected terrorist: communicated (link): "The applicant is a relative of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistakenly identified as a terrorist suspect and shot dead on 22 July 2005 by two special firearms officers in London." See: Statement of facts (pdf).See also: No charges to be brought against officers who shot Jean Charles de Menezes (Statewatch database) and Justice4JeanFamily Campaign (Statewatch database)
https://twitter.com/StatewatchEU/status/583607843212894208

Britain's former top female police officer who was in charge of the operation that led to Jean Charles de Menezes' death receives CBE from the Queen
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002554/Britain-s-former-femal e-police-officer-charge-operation-led-Jean-Charles-Menezes-death-2005- receives-CBE-Queen.html
Former British police officer Cressida Dick, 54, has been awarded a CBE
Served with Met Police for 31 years and in charge of specialist operations
She quit the force last year and took up a secretive role at Foreign Office
Received honour from the Queen at Buckingham Palace ceremony today
By EMMA GLANFIELD FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 15:16, 19 March 2015 | UPDATED: 16:13, 19 March 2015
Britain's former top female police officer who was in charge of the operation that led to the death of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes has been awarded a CBE by the Queen today.
Cressida Dick, who quit Scotland Yard to take up a job in the Foreign Office last year, received the honour during an investiture ceremony at Buckingham Palace in London.
The 54-year-old wore her Metropolitan Police uniform as she collected the honour from the monarch, who wore a dusky rose dress........

[TonyGosling]

European Court of Human Rights – family to challenge UK government failure to prosecute police officers: background briefing on the broader context of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes
4 June 2015
http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/european-court-of-human-rights-chal lenge-10-june-background-briefing-on-the

09.15 Wednesday 10 June 2015
before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg

"This case in the European Court of Human Rights shines a spotlight on the issue of police accountability and the inequality and injustice that prevails.

A democratic society needs a criminal justice system that ensures scrutiny and accountability of the police and ensures that prosecutions for human rights violations are brought in appropriate cases. Public confidence in the police is fundamental to democratic policing and must not be undermined by any suggestion that the rule of law does not apply equally to all citizens including those in uniform.” case in the European Court of Human Rights shines a spotlight on the issue of police accountability and the inequality and injustice that prevails.

A democratic society needs a criminal justice system that ensures scrutiny and accountability of the police and ensures that prosecutions for human rights violations are brought in appropriate cases. Public confidence in the police is fundamental to democratic policing and must not be undermined by any suggestion that the rule of law does not apply equally to all citizens including those in uniform.”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director, INQUEST who will be attending the hearing in Strasbourg alongisde the family and their lawyers.

The failure to bring any criminal prosecutions against police officers responsible for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, by Metropolitan police officers on 22 July 2005 raises significant questions about how the state and its agents are held to account for killing its citizens.

Prosecutions are extremely rare after a death in custody, even where an inquest jury has returned a finding of unlawful killing. This has been and remains one of the most contentious issues in relation to the approach of the criminal justice system to deaths in all forms of custody.

INQUEST has longstanding concerns about the way in which the criminal justice system deals with deaths in and following police contact and the need to improve the effectiveness and transparency of the investigation processes and the mechanisms for holding the police to account.

In our experience, the approach of the investigation conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service is from the outset, to treat the death as anything other than a potential homicide, and that is the first issue with which bereaved families have to struggle. What we see in the handling of these cases is a familiar malaise: an institutionalised unwillingness and reluctance to approach these deaths as potential homicides which infects the entire process, from the investigation conducted by the IPCC through to the deliberations of the CPS on the outcome of the investigation. From the outside, it appears that this malaise serves only to encourage a culture of impunity, to send a clear message to police officers: that deaths can occur as a result of their acts or omissions and they will not be called to account. The perception is created that the police are ‘above the law’.

INQUEST has worked on a significant number of cases following the use of lethal force, from fatal shootings to deaths following the use of dangerous or excessive and unlawful restraint, where police officers have not been subjected to criminal or disciplinary charges. A disproportionate number of people from black and minority ethnic communities have died following the use of lethal force.

There has never been a successful prosecution for manslaughter or murder in any case in the UK, even where an inquest jury has returned a finding of ‘unlawful killing’. Since 1990 there have been 995 deaths in police custody or following police contact and 55 fatal shootings by police officers. Whilst the number of deaths involving the use of force by the police is a small proportion of the total number of deaths in custody, these deaths have often been the most controversial.

Since 1990, there have been 9 unlawful killing verdicts/findings returned by juries at inquests into deaths involving the police and 1 unlawful killing finding recorded by a public inquiry, none of which has yet resulted in a successful prosecution.

There are a significant number of other cases which have not resulted in unlawful killing findings or prosecutions, but which nevertheless raise serious and significant concerns about human rights violations and potential criminal conduct on the part of police officers.

The fact that there are rarely prosecutions either for individual acts or systemic organisational failures following the use of lethal force has caused considerable public disquiet and anger and contributed to a lack of trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. At its core are concerns that the rule of law does not apply to the police for abuses of power in the same way as it does to an ordinary citizen and that they are able to avoid scrutiny and accountability. This has further undermined legitimacy of the police with the inevitable conclusion that they are not accountable to the rule of law.

This highlights a crisis in confidence in the ability of the UK criminal justice system to hold police officers accountable. The impunity of the police undermines public confidence and trust and frustrates the prevention of abuses of power, ill treatment and misconduct. This is an issue that has also been the subject of repeated parliamentary scrutiny and inquiry and critical comment at a national and international level.

As the European Committee On the Prevention of Torture have reported:

‘The existence of effective mechanisms to tackle police misconduct is an important safeguard against ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. In those cases where evidence of wrongdoing emerges, the imposition of appropriate disciplinary and/or criminal penalties can have a powerful dissuasive effect on police officers who might otherwise be minded to engage in ill-treatment.’

A democratic society needs a criminal justice system that ensures scrutiny and accountability of the police and ensures that prosecutions are brought in appropriate cases. Public confidence in the police is fundamental to democratic policing and must not be undermined by any suggestion that the rule of law does not apply equally to all citizens including those in uniform.

You can contact the Justice 4 Jean Family Campaign on 07931337890 or 07709656251. Interviews with the family can be arranged at request.

Birnberg Peirce solicitors' legal briefing is available here.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Were last week's Brussels Attacks in the minds of these 17 judges today as they threw out JCdeM's family's claim at the European Court?
Appeal was based on Crown Prosecution Service 'reasonable chance of a conviction' test being unlawful
Was that the best avenue to have taken?
Was the family bamboozled by the lawyers?
Police State upheld by European Court of Human Rights
Disgusting
Pathetic
Unjust
Wrong
A child of 5 can see it why can't the London media?

[TonyGosling]

European Court rubber-stamps police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes
By Chris Marsden
31 March 2016
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/31/mene-m31.html

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled in defence of the police officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005.
In doing so, the ECHR has endorsed the state murder of de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician, and its political cover-up by the British state.
Judges in Strasbourg ruled by a majority of 13 to four that the UK had not violated article two of the European Convention of Human Rights protecting the right to life, stating, “The decision not to prosecute any individual officer was not due to any failings in the investigation or the state’s tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts. Rather, it was due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation, a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute.”
Anyone familiar with De Menezes’ killing will understand that there was every possibility of a successful prosecution, but this was blocked.
The death of Jean Charles was the result of Britain’s “shoot-to-kill” policy adopted in secret two years earlier in high-level discussion between top police officers and the Labour government of Tony Blair. Part of “Operation Kratos”—repressive legislation adopted on the basis of the “war against terror”—it gave Scotland Yard authority to deploy armed squads and, if necessary, to deliver a “critical head shot” to suspected bombers.
The policy was first employed against an innocent man, without any evidence of his posing a threat.
Jean Charles was shot dead at Stockwell underground station more than a decade ago, on July 22, 2005, after he was mistakenly identified as a suicide bomber. This occurred just two weeks after the July 7 London bombings in which 56 people died, and the day after failed bombings on three London underground trains and a London bus. Two of the terrorist suspects lived at the same block of flats as Jean Charles in Scotia Road, Tulse Hill.
When de Menezes left for work, he was followed by surveillance officers who thought he was one of the suspects because he had “Mongolian eyes”. The officers made no attempt to detain him on his journey until he had boarded an underground train at Stockwell, some 26 minutes later. Only there, and without warning, did plainclothes, armed CO19 police officers grab Jean Charles, pin him to the seat and pump 11 bullets at point blank range into his body—seven directly into his head.
In the immediate aftermath of his slaying, the police mounted a campaign of disinformation to back up their assertion that de Menezes was a suicide bomber. They claimed he wore bulky clothing to disguise a suicide belt, and that when challenged by police officers he evaded arrest by jumping a ticket barrier at the station and running onto a train. This was a tissue of lies. Jean Charles wore light summer clothes, and walked at a leisurely pace into the underground station—even stopping to buy a newspaper.
An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report in 2006 said De Menezes had been killed because of avoidable mistakes and identified a number of possible criminal offences that might have been committed by the officers involved, including murder and gross negligence. But in July 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service ruled that no officer could realistically be prosecuted because it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that police believed Jean Charles was not a suicide bomber.
Stephen O’Doherty, from the CPS’s Special Crime Division, said, “The two officers who fired the fatal shots did so because they thought that Mr. de Menezes had been identified to them as a suicide bomber and that if they did not shoot him, he would blow up the train, killing many people. In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those beliefs.”
The identity of the man who supposedly misidentified Jean Charles to the firearms officers was never revealed. Referred to as “Frank”, and later identified as a soldier on secondment to the undercover surveillance unit, he had supposedly compared Menezes to the CCTV photographs of the bombing suspects from the previous day and felt he warranted further attention.
The CPS statement insisted that there had been “errors in planning and communication” and that “no individual had been culpable to the degree necessary for a criminal offence.” But as the Socialist Equality Party wrote, “The CPS has recommended a prosecution in numerous instances where there is neither an admission of guilt nor a certainty of conviction. Its refusal to do so in this case is political.”
A successful prosecution was brought in 2007 against the Metropolitan Police under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for De Menezes’ death, due to failings in the operation’s planning and implementation. The Met was fined a paltry £175,000 plus £385,000 costs, but the judge issued a rider absolving the officer in charge of the operation of any “personal culpability.”
At an inquest that was finally held in 2008, the jury returned an open verdict after rejecting the official account of events, but only after being advised by the coroner that it was not open to them to return a verdict of unlawful killing.
In 2009, the family brought a civil action in damages which resulted in a confidential settlement in 2009. The details of the settlement are covered by a confidentiality clause, but press reports suggest the compensation is in the region of £100,000—just a third of the £300,000 they were seeking.
The ECHR challenge was brought in January 2008 by Patricia Armani Da Silva, De Menezes’ cousin. Birnberg Peirce argued for Da Silva that the CPS decision not to prosecute was based on an assessment that there was less than a 50 percent chance of conviction, which was too high a bar and not compatible with Article 2 of the European Convention.
The case was heard in the grand chamber of the ECHR as one potentially affecting interpretation of the European convention. The ECHR ruling means that the decision taken by the CPS—based on their claim that there was not enough evidence to prosecute anyone—does not breach human rights laws.
Patricia da Silva Armani, speaking for Jean Charles’ family, said, “We had hoped that the ruling would give a glimmer of hope, not only to us, but to all other families who have been denied the right to justice after deaths at the hands of the police.
“We find it unbelievable that our innocent cousin could be shot seven times in the head by the Metropolitan Police when he had done nothing wrong, and yet the police have not had to account for their actions.
“As we have always maintained, we feel that decisions about guilt and innocence should be made by juries, not by faceless bureaucrats and we are deeply saddened that we have been denied that opportunity yet again.”

[TonyGosling]

Who Will Tackle Killer Police?
APR
2016 Wednesday 6TH posted by Morning Star in Features
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-3de8-Who-will-tackle-killer-polic e

The de Menezes case shows how hard it is to hold fatal state force to account, writes MARY-RACHEL McCABE
THE family of Jean Charles de Menezes last week lost a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the decision not to charge any police officer for his fatal shooting.
De Menezes was shot dead by police on July 22 2005, just two weeks after the July 7 bombings and one day after further attempted suicide bombings in London.
In a botched surveillance operation on the residence of one of the suspected bombers, officers followed de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician who had no connection with the bombings, into Stockwell Tube station and onto a train, where they pinned him down and shot him seven times in the head.
Following the fatal shooting, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) passed a detailed report to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the body responsible for prosecuting criminal cases in England and Wales.
The report found that de Menezes had been killed because of mistakes that could and should have been avoided.
It made a series of operational recommendations and identified a number of possible offences that might have been committed by the police officers involved, including murder and gross negligence.
The CPS ruled out instigating murder or manslaughter charges against individual officers involved in the shooting because it concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a “realistic prospect of conviction.”
The only conviction incurred by the police as a result of the shooting has been under health and safety laws — in 2007 the Met was fined £175,000 plus £385,000 costs for breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in the course of the operation’s planning and implementation.
In 2008, after the coroner ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing, an inquest jury returned an open verdict on the basis that they did not accept the police’s claim that de Menezes was lawfully killed as part of an anti-terrorism operation.
The jury dismissed police claims that they had shouted a warning before shooting de Menezes, or that he had moved towards the police when challenged.
The application brought by the de Menezes family to the ECHR sought to make changes to the law to ensure that the police are brought to account for committing fatal offences.
The family argued that de Menezes’s right to life had been violated by the CPS’s decision not to prosecute any individuals in relation to his death.
Their first argument was that, in considering whether to bring a prosecution for a life-threatening offence against a state agent, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) applies too high a threshold.
Under the current test, the DPP must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a “realistic prospect of conviction” — in other words, that it’s above 50 per cent.
This often means the DPP decides not to proceed with prosecutions of police officers involved in fatal shootings.
The second argument put forward by de Menezes’s family was that the test for self-defence in British criminal law is contrary to the right to life.
The test for self-defence has two parts; first, the officers who shot de Menezes had to show that they had an honest belief that he posed an imminent threat and, second, that the force they used was reasonable in the circumstances.
Britain’s subjective test for self-defence means that, in the instance of a mistaken shooting by a police officer faced with a threat to him/herself or others — such as apparently occurred in the shooting of de Menezes — it does not matter that the officer’s belief may be objectively unreasonable.
However strange the officer’s belief may be, and however weak the grounds on which it is based, the officer is legally permitted to act on that belief, provided the force that s/he uses is proportionate to the threat perceived.
The de Menezes family argued that the first part of the self-defence test should be amended so that the officer must have a good reason, in the circumstances as he or she perceives them to be, for any belief that there is an imminent threat.
But the Grand Chamber of the ECHR last week dismissed the family’s application, concluding that, while the facts of the case are “undoubtedly tragic and the frustration of Mr de Menezes’s family at the absence of any individual prosecutions is understandable,” there was no violation of de Menezes’s right to life.
In particular, the court found that all aspects of the authorities’ responsibility for the fatal shooting had been thoroughly investigated and so it could not be said that the authorities had failed to ensure that those responsible for de Menezes’s death had been held accountable.
The judgment concluded: ?“The decision not to prosecute any individual officer was not due to any failing in the investigation of the state’s intolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts; rather, it was due to the fact that, following a thorough investigation a prosecutor had considered all the facts of the case and concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute.”
Since 1990 there have been 1,015 deaths in police custody or following police contact and 58 fatal shootings by police officers in Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yet in no case has any police officer been convicted of a criminal offence, even where an inquest jury has returned a finding of “unlawful killing.”
Deborah Coles, director of Inquest, said that the ruling would serve to “further undermine the confidence of bereaved families in the processes for holding police to account.”
She added: “At its core are concerns that the rule of law does not apply to the police for abuses of power in the same way as it does to an ordinary citizen and that they are able to avoid scrutiny and accountability. This serves only to create a culture of impunity which frustrates the prevention of abuses of power, ill treatment and misconduct.”
Eleven years on, and still no police officer has been disciplined for the killing of de Menezes, let alone prosecuted.
Last week’s ruling sadly represents the end of the road for his family, and it appears that no-one will ever be held accountable for de Menezes’s death.
The lack of successful prosecutions of officers at any level in the Met for the killings of de Menezes and others such as Mark Duggan and Azelle Rodney has grave consequences for public trust in the police.
It may be that a radical overhaul of the way in which these cases are investigated is needed, given that the existing judicial system has proven to be inadequate for the families of those who have been killed.
Finding a solution to the current lack of accountability will not be easy, but until we have a justice system in which the police are seen to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and punishment as ordinary citizens, public confidence in the service is likely to remain low. ??
Mary-Rachel McCabe is a pupil barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. She tweets @MaryRachel_McC
Related Tags:

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Jean Charles - working on the underground?
Had he been talking about his suspicions the bombs had been planted under the trains?