The killing of Jean Charles de Menenez.

A couple of points

One is that we have read conflicting reports - the one I read only made reference to the armed unit arriving seconds after the man passed thru the barrier, and not of any other missed opportunites to apprehend the suspect.

The other is that we have both put together differing "what might have happened" scenarios from versions of ths story we have read. Both these scenarios should be accepted "as is" and not as statements of truth.

We do not, and I suspect never will, know exactly what happened that day and who had what decisions to take.

Anyway. I've made a decision. I'm going out for a walk.

 

I'm not saying it's a FACT

I just never saw it. I've seen the one from the guy who claimed to hear the shots loads of times.

 

Who me?

or Tony?

 

Who me?

or Tony?

 

But the guy doing the surveillance didnt see him come out of the building because he was apparently taking a piss at the time. How can he positively identify someone he didnt even see leave the building?

 

That can't be right though can it Acky

If no one saw him leave the building then how did they know he left the building? And in all this mess there is one thing that we do know. The man that was shot did come from that building. So, someone must have seen him leave it unless you're suggesting the securiy services randomly shot a bloke on the tube and as luck would have it they later found out he lived in a building they had under surveilance.

Before you use an argument see if it makes some sense.

 

RE: Who me?

Tony. Both times.............

 

RE: That can't be right though can it Acky

Where did I say that no one saw him leave the building?

I didn't.

I said the guy in the surveillance van didn't see him leave as he was taking a piss (and he'd turned the video camera off). Another copper followed him to the bus stop, so obviously someone saw him leave. My point was that if no one can positively ID the guy, how do you then give the order for him to be shot?

 

Apparently, Apparently, Apparently

We all thought what we heard originally was the truth, now we think that the latest revelations are the truth. He's apparently illegal, apparently legal, apparently jumped the barrier or not, apparently a policeman, apparently a passenger, apparently got shot at point blank, .... then along comes new revelations leaked by... er the same people who brought us Big Brother.........apparently.

 

Whenever I hear "ITV News".................

.....I think of the time they doctored the Battle of Orgreave footage.

 

RE: Whenever I hear "ITV News".................

Yep, and countless other incidents during the strike! Media coverage edited to suit!

 

RE: Apparently, Apparently, Apparently

At the time of the incident, given the information that was being given, I thought the cops had no choice but to act the way they did, however I have to say that if the information that is now emerging is true (and that's still a big if), then the police have really fecked this up in a big big way and the repercussions could be severe, particularly if it means the idiotic liberal left now get their way and undermine the armed police (who it must be stressed exist to try to save lives) to the detriment of public safety.

Ne' mind, at least the lottery win secured by the brazilian's family (and their lawyer, who I see has had more screentime in the last few days than Davina McCall) on the day he was killed has increased by a few more noughts......so it wasn't all in vain.