What happened: Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

[William the White]

Well I haven't got the time or the patience to grapple with Hobo's bizarre slide into an outstanding display of ignorance on a few wider issues.

Anyway, the front page of the Times today reads: 'De Menezes jury condemns police'. It is imortant to note that this is the overall conclusion of the inquest.

Again - non polemically - it makes me uncomfortable that the coroner did not allow the jury to take this decision.

I'm not sure why it makes you feel uncomfortable - the decision could never be theirs to make. Juries aren't given free rein to decide whatever the hell they like. As laypeople, they're not in a position to make legal judgment - that's always the role of professional judges giving their directions. The jury is there essentially as a fact-finding machine.

As Prufrock hinted at a while back, if juries were given complete freedom over these matters, it would be very difficult for them to deal properly with the appeals of an emotional family, for example.

The first thing that came to mind, although not being a lawyer man, this might be bollicks, was that perhaps it is because the case has been so publicised, and the coroner felt there has been a lot of misinformation in the news and the newspapers which could sway the jury to a vote which wasn't based purely on the evidence at the hearing? PB?

I'm bizarre? really, and theres me thinking jury's (of which I have sat on two) where there as the judge said on both occasions to decide the verdict based upon "facts and evidence" presented to us! We had to decide which of the "facts and evidence" we believed to be true! The biggest thing pushed at us both times was the need not to be emotional nor consider our own personal, gut reactions but work with what we had been given and TBH neither case was easy and took quite a long time to work through.

I have no objection to Mosques nor temples or synagoges or whatever, nor to people settling in this country following our laws and intergrating with sociaty. I am saying that people from oversea or home grown, hell bent on destroying our way of life should be dealt with in a ruthless efficient way.What do you mean by this? People can only be dealt with by law, or by people breaking the law as vigilantes. Are you opposed to people being tried and sentenced? Or, even, being found not guilty???

People quote the shining light of the human rights act regular ok lets look at examples then

Hijackers take over a foreign plane land at a UK airport, already having commited crimes against their own country by their actions so some smart ass lawyers block atempts to send them back to face whatever justice they would be dealt because we would be infringing their Human rights! instead we have to pay to bang them up and for the upkeep of their famileys.

When did this happen? Give us the particular case.

Preachers spout off in places of worship praising terror acts and encourageing others to follow, we pay them state handouts, have tapes and records of these sermons do we deport them? no! Why? because they are wanted in other coountrys after being connected to other acts and we are infringing their human rights by sending them back to a country whose justice system works differently to ours.

If 'works differently' means that these countries use torture, false imprisonment, or other abuses of human beings, it is absolutely right that we should subject no one to them. If there is evidence that people are inciting murder we have laws we can enforce - and have - against them. Nothing to do with human rights acts.

We have schools across the country where the teaching is aimed at the destruction of our way of life, encouraging youths to join up and fight the way of life both we and they live in. these places are known to the authorities, do we close them down and send the teachers and youths who may be UK born away to the place and life style they so crave to be a part off do we hell because of human rights it would never get by any court.

I don't know of any evidence for this. where are these 'schools'? Names? Addresses? What do you mean by 'schools' in this context? It is obviously true that there are a significant number of groups - and mosques - that advocate various kinds of opposition to british society. some do this to the point of extreme violence in advocacy. a small number make plans to put this into practise. and a very small number do it, and cause appalling heartbreak. They can, and will, be charged with crimes, rightly, tried, and, if found guilty, sentenced. No human rights legislation prevents this happening. And people born and raised in this country are our citizens - there is nowhere else they can be sent. Nor should there be.



If you think these views make me racist then I 'm sorry but you totally misunderstand i'd have no problems banning or locking up BNP activists either.

[Verbal]

An earlier post by MWCIEC:

Well, I think the judge was right to conclude that a an unlawful killing verdict was inappropriate in this case, as he was within his discretion to decide. An unlawful killing verdict can only be found when it is thought that an individual is guilty of murder or mansluaghter, and the judge felt that this was not supoorted by the evidence. It's not a whitewash - why would it be in the coroner's interests to assist a 'cover up'

In terms of the verdict, I defer to the legal eagle's above knowledge. If the bold bit up there is true then I think in no way could unlwaful killing be given, due to the fact the individual was not at fault in this operation, it was the Met. They failed to I.D Menezes as not a threat early enough, they as a unit dispatched the shooters...

If anyone is culpable it would have to be someone up in the chain of command who gave the executive decisions, but even then it is tough. The officer who killed JCDM could have been any one of the officers in the unit, it just happened he was the one given the responsibility of 'finishing the job' so to speak.

Lets not forget the furore around London public transport at the time and the atrocities which had occurred previously, leaving some one with the choice 'killing a terrorist and saving scores of lives' or killing an innocent man. Think about it...we could debate which one is the right one to choose for days, and probably still get nowhere near an answer.

The police had less than half an hour to make that choice. Envy them I do not.

[Prufrock]

An earlier post by MWCIEC:

Well, I think the judge was right to conclude that a an unlawful killing verdict was inappropriate in this case, as he was within his discretion to decide. An unlawful killing verdict can only be found when it is thought that an individual is guilty of murder or mansluaghter, and the judge felt that this was not supoorted by the evidence. It's not a whitewash - why would it be in the coroner's interests to assist a 'cover up'

In terms of the verdict, I defer to the legal eagle's above knowledge. If the bold bit up there is true then I think in no way could unlwaful killing be given, due to the fact the individual was not at fault in this operation, it was the Met. They failed to I.D Menezes as not a threat early enough, they as a unit dispatched the shooters...

If anyone is culpable it would have to be someone up in the chain of command who gave the executive decisions, but even then it is tough. The officer who killed JCDM could have been any one of the officers in the unit, it just happened he was the one given the responsibility of 'finishing the job' so to speak.

Lets not forget the furore around London public transport at the time and the atrocities which had occurred previously, leaving some one with the choice 'killing a terrorist and saving scores of lives' or killing an innocent man. Think about it...we could debate which one is the right one to choose for days, and probably still get nowhere near an answer.

The police had less than half an hour to make that choice. Envy them I do not.

Summed up perfectly IMO

[Montreal Wanderer]

LOL that would be so funny if they did not hide behind the human rights act and sod all can be done with them!

which bits of the international declaration of human rights do you disagree with, hoboh?

this was agreed by the united nations after the horrors of nazism and acts as a law that enables, for instance, the trials, at the hague, of ethnic cleansers/murderers/racist killers...

it is, theoretically, applicable worldwide, though, alas, in practice less so. But I am very happy that such a bold assertion of the rights of human beings should be integrated into our laws...

which rights do you think should be withdrawn, and why?

The Universal Declaration of Human rights is something I know a bit about. It is a declaration adopted by the General Assembly sixty years ago last week. As such it has no legal application whatsoever, although it does have moral force and some argue it has become part of customary international law. It was the first of three parts to an international bill of rights. The second part is the various conventions (such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and its Optional Protocols) which are binding on those countries which signed them. The third part is the means of implementation which would include international criminal courts, sanctions, and even military intervention. The European Convention of Human Rights is also binding on member states, and the UK Human Rights Act within the UK.

IMHO, instruments such as these are essential to a free society. Setting aside such individual protections, as we did for a short time in Canada following 9/11 means that the terrorists are winning. Fortunately here our Supreme Court struck down parts of legislation that allowed the authorities to ignore habeas corpus, the public's right to know, etc. because of the terrorist threat. We must never let the threat of terror turn our societies into dictatorships.

[Lord Kangana]

Am I not right in saying that the US is a non-signatory of some (if not all) of the conventions you mentioned above Monty?

[Prufrock]

Am I not right in saying that the US is a non-signatory of some (if not all) of the conventions you mentioned above Monty?

Well they sign bugger all else!

Also can someone explain why the changeover takes so long in America? All it seems to do is give the outgoing president the chance to give mass pardons to any ally who has fecked up, and to allow him to push 'midnight rules' through?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Am I not right in saying that the US is a non-signatory of some (if not all) of the conventions you mentioned above Monty?

Yes, because of the cold war philosophies the UN was unable to come up with a single Convention on human rights as had been intended. The US would not accept the social/economic rights (it was the era of McCarthy) while the Soviet bloc rejected the civil/political rights. The result was two conventions which did not open for signature until the 1960s. The Soviet bloc declined to sign the civil/political rights until much later. The US has still not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since these two covenants there have been a number of other conventions which nations do or don't sign. For example the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was open for signature in 1966 - but the US did not ratify it until 1994, 25 years after the Russian Federation and the UK signed. The US has still not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979. And so it goes on.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Am I not right in saying that the US is a non-signatory of some (if not all) of the conventions you mentioned above Monty?

Well they sign bugger all else!

Also can someone explain why the changeover takes so long in America? All it seems to do is give the outgoing president the chance to give mass pardons to any ally who has fecked up, and to allow him to push 'midnight rules' through?

It's intended to allow for an orderly transition, although the cynic might accept your view I suppose.

[Prufrock]

Am I not right in saying that the US is a non-signatory of some (if not all) of the conventions you mentioned above Monty?

Well they sign bugger all else!

Also can someone explain why the changeover takes so long in America? All it seems to do is give the outgoing president the chance to give mass pardons to any ally who has fecked up, and to allow him to push 'midnight rules' through?

It's intended to allow for an orderly transition, although the cynic might accept your view I suppose.

I suppose i can see the idea of hoping it makes for a smoother transition, but can there not be some sort of regulations on pardons and laws. Aparently Bush has whacked in a load of things to the Code of Federal Regulations, which carry the same force as law, without having to consult Congress, and apparently will take months for Obama to overturn. All presidents do this and the mass pardoning in their last few weeks and it just strikes me as odd.

[Lord Kangana]

I believe Clintons outgoing staff removed (or disabled) all the W's from the computers before hand-over. So its not all bad.

[Prufrock]

I believe Clintons outgoing staff removed (or disabled) all the W's from the computers before hand-over. So its not all bad.

If that's true it's brilliant. Because of his name, or to make internet use very tricky?

[Lord Kangana]

His name.

[Prufrock]

His name.

Thought as much, though t'other is an added bonus. I really really hope thats a true story.

[Montreal Wanderer]

His name.

Thought as much, though t'other is an added bonus. I really really hope thats a true story.

It did happen though I'm not sure the actual culprit was ever unearthed.

Houston Chronicle -- Jan. 23, 2001, 11:19AM
Hey, buddy, can you spare a W?
Reuters -- WASHINGTON -- Call it the strange case of the missing Ws.

President George W. Bush has lost his middle initial from many computer keyboards at the Old Executive Office Building in the White House complex. In an apparent prank carried out by departing Clinton administration staffers, Bush aides discovered that dozens of computer keyboards were missing the "W" key. Bush aides said today that the W was marked out in some cases but often the key had been removed -- and sometimes taped on top of doorways -- or damaged with the spring broken.

The new team was studying whether any of the keyboards could be salvaged, but it appeared in many cases they would simply have to be replaced. In the West Wing, the computers seemed not to have been vandalized. "I have my W," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Bush made a big deal out of his middle initial during campaign rallies, often holding up the middle three fingers of his hand to form a W. He is often popularly referred to as "Dubya." Bush's middle name is Walker. He would joke to crowds that if his Democratic presidential rival, Al Gore, was so smart, why did every Internet address start with a W. "And not just one W -- three Ws!" he would exult.

Bush aides were working to repair or replace the keys.

[Prufrock]

His name.

Thought as much, though t'other is an added bonus. I really really hope thats a true story.

It did happen though I'm not sure the actual culprit was ever unearthed.

Houston Chronicle -- Jan. 23, 2001, 11:19AM
Hey, buddy, can you spare a W?
Reuters -- WASHINGTON -- Call it the strange case of the missing Ws.

President George W. Bush has lost his middle initial from many computer keyboards at the Old Executive Office Building in the White House complex. In an apparent prank carried out by departing Clinton administration staffers, Bush aides discovered that dozens of computer keyboards were missing the "W" key. Bush aides said today that the W was marked out in some cases but often the key had been removed -- and sometimes taped on top of doorways -- or damaged with the spring broken.

The new team was studying whether any of the keyboards could be salvaged, but it appeared in many cases they would simply have to be replaced. In the West Wing, the computers seemed not to have been vandalized. "I have my W," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Bush made a big deal out of his middle initial during campaign rallies, often holding up the middle three fingers of his hand to form a W. He is often popularly referred to as "Dubya." Bush's middle name is Walker. He would joke to crowds that if his Democratic presidential rival, Al Gore, was so smart, why did every Internet address start with a W. "And not just one W -- three Ws!" he would exult.

Bush aides were working to repair or replace the keys.

Sweet mother mary of nazareth

[Verbal]

His name.

Thought as much, though t'other is an added bonus. I really really hope thats a true story.

It did happen though I'm not sure the actual culprit was ever unearthed.

Houston Chronicle -- Jan. 23, 2001, 11:19AM
Hey, buddy, can you spare a W?
Reuters -- WASHINGTON -- Call it the strange case of the missing Ws.

President George W. Bush has lost his middle initial from many computer keyboards at the Old Executive Office Building in the White House complex. In an apparent prank carried out by departing Clinton administration staffers, Bush aides discovered that dozens of computer keyboards were missing the "W" key. Bush aides said today that the W was marked out in some cases but often the key had been removed -- and sometimes taped on top of doorways -- or damaged with the spring broken.

The new team was studying whether any of the keyboards could be salvaged, but it appeared in many cases they would simply have to be replaced. In the West Wing, the computers seemed not to have been vandalized. "I have my W," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Bush made a big deal out of his middle initial during campaign rallies, often holding up the middle three fingers of his hand to form a W. He is often popularly referred to as "Dubya." Bush's middle name is Walker. He would joke to crowds that if his Democratic presidential rival, Al Gore, was so smart, why did every Internet address start with a W. "And not just one W -- three Ws!" he would exult.

Bush aides were working to repair or replace the keys.

Seet mother mary of nazareth

[Prufrock]

Bad Verbal!!!!

[Verbal]

had to be done.

[William the White]

LOL that would be so funny if they did not hide behind the human rights act and sod all can be done with them!

which bits of the international declaration of human rights do you disagree with, hoboh?

this was agreed by the united nations after the horrors of nazism and acts as a law that enables, for instance, the trials, at the hague, of ethnic cleansers/murderers/racist killers...

it is, theoretically, applicable worldwide, though, alas, in practice less so. But I am very happy that such a bold assertion of the rights of human beings should be integrated into our laws...

which rights do you think should be withdrawn, and why?

The Universal Declaration of Human rights is something I know a bit about. It is a declaration adopted by the General Assembly sixty years ago last week. As such it has no legal application whatsoever, although it does have moral force and some argue it has become part of customary international law. It was the first of three parts to an international bill of rights. The second part is the various conventions (such as the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and its Optional Protocols) which are binding on those countries which signed them. The third part is the means of implementation which would include international criminal courts, sanctions, and even military intervention. The European Convention of Human Rights is also binding on member states, and the UK Human Rights Act within the UK.

IMHO, instruments such as these are essential to a free society. Setting aside such individual protections, as we did for a short time in Canada following 9/11 means that the terrorists are winning. Fortunately here our Supreme Court struck down parts of legislation that allowed the authorities to ignore habeas corpus, the public's right to know, etc. because of the terrorist threat. We must never let the threat of terror turn our societies into dictatorships.

Thank you for the correction/clarification. I whole-heartedly share your final sentiment...

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thank you for the correction/clarification. I whole-heartedly share your final sentiment...

I'm the literary executor of the man who wrote the first draft of said document - I'm afraid I correct things like that without thinking - possibly I should think a little more and be less pedantic! At least we are on the same side in this thread.