ChatterBank0 min ago
Sir Ian Blair
Does anybody else think that Sir Ian Blair should either resign or be "pushed" now that the IPCC report has been released today?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dassie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I did but on reflection I'm not entirely convinced it should actually be him.
There were serious failings but I'm finding it hard to see what he could have been reasonably expected to have foreseen and fixed in the run up to the incident that would have prevented it.
Personally I find this the most shocking finding:
It was only the views of the surveillance team leader that were communicated
in relation to the identification of the suspect. The fact that two surveillance
officers believed that the person being followed was not the suspect should
have been communicated to the Designated Senior Officer as it may have
assisted her decision making
This is from the actual report - Earlier today the BBC news website was reporting the fact that 2 officers disagreed but that now seems to have been changed and I had to check this fact on the actual document.
Don't know why they changed that
There were serious failings but I'm finding it hard to see what he could have been reasonably expected to have foreseen and fixed in the run up to the incident that would have prevented it.
Personally I find this the most shocking finding:
It was only the views of the surveillance team leader that were communicated
in relation to the identification of the suspect. The fact that two surveillance
officers believed that the person being followed was not the suspect should
have been communicated to the Designated Senior Officer as it may have
assisted her decision making
This is from the actual report - Earlier today the BBC news website was reporting the fact that 2 officers disagreed but that now seems to have been changed and I had to check this fact on the actual document.
Don't know why they changed that
i've not followed this too closely, but i only have this observation.
hind-sight is 20-20. there may have been operational errors on the day but, my view is that in the climate of the time (less than 48hrs after the bombing) the police had no choice but to stop de-menezez if he was acting irregularly or they thought he was a threat - evidently their methodology was flawed and they will learn lessons. but - supposing they had held back and he WAS a suicide bomber .. imagine the carnage. in that event they would have been cricified for not acting ... a no-win scenario.
my thoughts are with the family of the victim at this time
hind-sight is 20-20. there may have been operational errors on the day but, my view is that in the climate of the time (less than 48hrs after the bombing) the police had no choice but to stop de-menezez if he was acting irregularly or they thought he was a threat - evidently their methodology was flawed and they will learn lessons. but - supposing they had held back and he WAS a suicide bomber .. imagine the carnage. in that event they would have been cricified for not acting ... a no-win scenario.
my thoughts are with the family of the victim at this time
I missed that Gromit
That's quite a different matter.
I also think we need to know much more about the misinformation that went about at the time - padded jackets and all that.
Regardless of any of it though it's clear he's lost the support of the community he supports so I'm not sure how he could continue to do the job properly.
That's quite a different matter.
I also think we need to know much more about the misinformation that went about at the time - padded jackets and all that.
Regardless of any of it though it's clear he's lost the support of the community he supports so I'm not sure how he could continue to do the job properly.
as I understand it, Lonnie, not only won't she go but Blair later promoted her. That is also a reason for him to go. There is room for argument over who exactly carries the can for this dreadful incident, the one got it all wrong on the night or the man at the very top. By promoting her, Blair indicated that it shouldn't be her. So it should be him.
Eleven Police Officers testified that a warning "Stop! Armed Police!" had been shouted at Menezez as he entered the train.
17 members of the public who were on the train and platform say they heard no warning. A recommendation from the IPCC that the officers be investigated for perverting the course of justice was not investigated further.
17 members of the public who were on the train and platform say they heard no warning. A recommendation from the IPCC that the officers be investigated for perverting the course of justice was not investigated further.
There has been much debate recently about whether Sir Ian Blair should stay or go. I think he is naive but not necessarily dishonest. Asking for the IPCC to be kept out initially stinks of a total lack of understanding of the procedures. Regardless of the arguments about whether or not he should be forced out by politicians, he has been very political and has involved himself far more than most people think he should have done in politics and may now have to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately public and official confidence has gone so he will need to do something very radical to win it back - and announcing the news of the developments in the Stephen Lawrence enquiry on the same day as the IPCC report is published seems far too co-incidental - especially since both his Cressida Dick's names have been promoted as being key to the new investigation. As a senior leader he seems to be very lacking in understanding about leadership roles and functions - sometimes a leader has to take (unfair?) blame for the good of the staff/troops and the organisation.
Do'es No One On Here Remember The CCTV Coverage Shown On TV. It Clearly Showed The Guy Looking Over His Shoulder's At The Police Whilst Still Running ! What's The Police Supposed To Think, After The Bombing's That Had Just Happened.The Brazilian Did'nt Want To Be Caught .As His" VISA HAD EXPIRED " Had He Stopped When Asked To Do So,He Would Still Be Alive Today. Why The Hell Anyone Want's To Be A "COPPER " I'll Never Know !!!!
Er no fagidill I remember seeing no such cctv footage and am pretty sure that if it existed the Met would have no qualms about showing it over and over again to reinforce their defence. Was this person in the cctv footage wearing a padded jacket and was it after he vaulted over the ticket machine per chance? Also his visa had not expired and as has been stated none of the 17 members of the public on the train and platform heard any warning.
Dassie, in answer to your question, I think he should resign as the public have lost faith in him.
Dassie, in answer to your question, I think he should resign as the public have lost faith in him.
The arrogance of a man in his position does not deserve the opportunity to tender his resignation. He should be sacked.
He dismisses all counts of responsibility.
He, and the met are guilty of:
Harbouring a frenzied killer.
Darkening the victims character.
Using technology in an attempt to justify their actions.
He dismisses all counts of responsibility.
He, and the met are guilty of:
Harbouring a frenzied killer.
Darkening the victims character.
Using technology in an attempt to justify their actions.
Regarding the cctv at the station, if I rember rightly, all of the cameras mysteriously ether had no film in, or was not working at that time.
Found this, I don't know, but if true ??
Jean Charles was not traveling on a forged visa � he was in the country legally, having returned shortly before from Brazil and having been stamped in at that time (6 month UK tourist visa is standard for Brazilians as for Americans, unless they are rejected at the port of entry, which he obviously wasn�t). As one of the more disgraceful pieces of disinformation in this case, the Home Office stated artfully and completely irrelevantly that there was a visa stamp in his passport that �was not being used� at the time. They most emphatically did not say that it was forged (it may have been a Home Office error), much less that he was in the country illegally (since he had just returned and been allowed in, he obviously wasn�t � even Jack Straw later admitted that he was in the country legally). Nor did he flee from the police or act suspiciously, or rape somebody in Britain several years before he was ever in the UK, etc. etc. The Police campaign of disinformation here only adds to the outrage.
Found this, I don't know, but if true ??
Jean Charles was not traveling on a forged visa � he was in the country legally, having returned shortly before from Brazil and having been stamped in at that time (6 month UK tourist visa is standard for Brazilians as for Americans, unless they are rejected at the port of entry, which he obviously wasn�t). As one of the more disgraceful pieces of disinformation in this case, the Home Office stated artfully and completely irrelevantly that there was a visa stamp in his passport that �was not being used� at the time. They most emphatically did not say that it was forged (it may have been a Home Office error), much less that he was in the country illegally (since he had just returned and been allowed in, he obviously wasn�t � even Jack Straw later admitted that he was in the country legally). Nor did he flee from the police or act suspiciously, or rape somebody in Britain several years before he was ever in the UK, etc. etc. The Police campaign of disinformation here only adds to the outrage.
Lonnie, I posted this last week.
Let's just nail the lie that Menezes was here illigally. It was stated by the Immigration office at this trial that:
"He went to Ireland in April 23, 2005, but there was no record of when he then came to the UK. As a person entering Britain from Ireland he would have had an automatic three month leave to remain which at the earliest would have run out on July 23, 2005, the day after he was killed.
So he was NOT HERE ILLEGALLY
Needless to say, people continued saying he was here illegally in the posts which followed.
Let's just nail the lie that Menezes was here illigally. It was stated by the Immigration office at this trial that:
"He went to Ireland in April 23, 2005, but there was no record of when he then came to the UK. As a person entering Britain from Ireland he would have had an automatic three month leave to remain which at the earliest would have run out on July 23, 2005, the day after he was killed.
So he was NOT HERE ILLEGALLY
Needless to say, people continued saying he was here illegally in the posts which followed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4725659.stm
Immigration officer , Paul Roach, gave evidence at the recent trial that he had a false immigration stamp in his passport.
Immigration officer , Paul Roach, gave evidence at the recent trial that he had a false immigration stamp in his passport.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank0 min ago
News1 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
