Sean Rigg – still no answers?

Sean Rigg, 1968 - 2008

As I have pointed out before despite over 1,000 people dying in police custody or due to police action since the late 1960s if the police officer who the DPP recently said had assaulted Ian Tomlinson was charged with manslaughter it would have been the first time this has ever happened in Britain. Ask yourself the simple question - what is the statistical possibility that these over 1,000 human beings who died in police custody or as a result of police action were all killed lawfully? They include Blair Peach killed (according to the police’s own investigation) by a TSG member at an anti-racism demonstration in 1979, Jean Charles de Menezes shot with 3 bullets in the brain 5 years ago, Sean Rigg and Joy Gardiner who died in police stations and Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, East London, was shot in the head and the hand by the Met officers in 1999 carrying a chair leg in a plastic bag which the two officers thought was a sawn-off shot gun.

The family of Sean Rigg who died in custody in Brixton Police, London on the 21st August 2008 are still looking for answers and accountability from the Police who we pay from our taxes to protect us, not to kill us. I reprint in full the invitation from the United Campaign against Police Violence (join them on Facebook) to a vigil to commemorate the second anniversary of his death.


Brixton Police Station

SEAN RIGG 1968-2008 - Second year memorial vigil and meeting this Saturday
21 August 2010:

Second Year Memorial Vigil Outside Brixton Police Station 5pm

Followed by a Public Meeting 6-8.30pm

The Karibu Education Centre, 7 Gresham Road, Brixton, London SW9 7PH.
(Directly opposite Brixton Police Station on Gresham Road)

On 21 August 2008, our brother Sean Rigg was arrested by police, “restrained” and transported to Brixton police station in the back of a van. He was removed from the van in a collapsed state and died a short while after whilst in the station yard. He never entered the custody suite door.

The events leading to his death raise suspicion and concern. Although a mental health service user, Sean was fit and healthy with no illicit drugs or alcohol found in his body at the time of his death. The Independent Police Complaints Commission's (IPCC) report completed in February 2010 is, in the family’s opinion, “Heavily biased in favour of the police”, despite the obvious suspicious circumstances surrounding Sean’s death. A catalogue of errors in the investigation has caused the family to lose faith in the British judicial process following a DEATH IN CUSTODY.

For two years the family have vigorously enquired and campaigned in an attempt to find out the truth of what really happened on the night. Currently the family’s legal team are preparing for the inquest, scheduled for 2012.

Justice and Change will be hosting an open floor discussion where they and other families will talk about their experiences of injustice. The family campaigns include Christopher Alder, Brian Douglas, Roger Sylvester, Ian Tomlinson, Blair Peach and Jean Charles de Menezes amongst others, who have lost loved one’s in police custody – all have lost faith in the British Judicial System. What has really changed in the last 30 years?

Come listen and discuss your views about the controversial topic of DEATHS IN CUSTODY and the lack of accountability.

Other supportive death in custody campaign organisations, such as INQUEST, Newham Monitoring Project (NMP), Black Mental Health UK (BMH UK) and United Campaign Against Police Violence (UCAPV), will speak about the current issues and explore what can be done do to bring about awareness and change.



Family solicitor Anna Mazzola said: “It is now two years since Sean died and his family are no closer to getting answers to fundamental questions such as: why didn’t the police and NHS Trust respond to pleas for help from Sean’s mental health hospital? What happened to Sean in those crucial minutes between him being arrested and arriving in a collapsed state at Brixton police station? Why haven’t they been able to access key CCTV footage from the night? It is devastating for the family that they should have to wait until 2012 for a full inquest and deeply worrying that until that time the policies and failings which led to Sean’s death will remain unremedied.”

Deborah Coles of Inquest said: “Sean’s family’s disquiet about the lack of impartiality and independence of the investigation process and the serious delay in holding an inquest have once again resulted in a lack of confidence in the investigation mechanisms following deaths involving the police. The recent decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the death of Ian Tomlinson follows a litany of cases where the police have not been held to account for unlawful use of force and further anger and mistrust about how the state responds to such deaths.


Sean Rigg's family

“Sean Rigg was another black man who has died after being restrained by police officers. INQUEST’s monitoring of deaths in custody following police contact has highlighted how a disproportionate number of people from black and minority ethnic communities have died following the use of force. INQUEST will continue to work with his family and raise the serious issues his death raises at a parliamentary and policy level. There must be non means tested public funding for the family to be represented at the inquest in the same way that police lawyers will be paid for out of the public purse and the inquest must be held as promptly as possible given the serious family and public interest in scrutinising the events leading to the tragic death of a vulnerable man.”

Patrick Ward of United Campaign Against Police Violence, said: “The treatment of the family of Sean Rigg smacks of a justice system chasing its tail to cover up a scandal. Now the family are told to wait for the inquest in 2012, when no doubt the judicial system will seek other ways of proving its 'innocence'. We must unite at events like this to coordinate our continued campaign for justice for all those who have died at the hands of those who claim to protect us.”



The Campaign will also be hosting a private screening of the film “SUS” - a true and chilling account of one man's brush with the police in 1979 - written by Barrie Keefe who also wrote “The Long Good Friday”. Unfortunately due to limited seating, this will be by invitation only. However, SUS will be out on DVD 6 September. See the film’s website for upcoming screenings

www.susthemovie.com

Family Solicitor: Anna Mazzola, Hickman and Rose - amazzola@hickmanandrose.co.uk

See also;

Remember Sean Rigg

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2009/08/remember-sean-rigg.html

Death of Ian Tomlinson

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2010/07/ian-tomlinson.html

A death in London – Jean Charles de Menezes

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-in-london.html

For more on Policing and Civil Liberties issues see “Plod Blogs” in my Blog sidebar.

Death of Ian Tomlinson

Ian Tomlinson being treated by Paramedics - Scotland Yard wrongly claimed on their website that police were pelted with rocks and glass as he was being treated - They later took down the claim

There is outrage in the UK that yet again there is one law for the public and another law for the police. An official decision to bring no charges against the policeman who struck Ian Tomlinson minutes before he died at the G20 protests came under intense scrutiny as it emerged that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had backed a prosecution for manslaughter.

Yesterday on the 22nd July, on the fifth anniversary of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) presented their report into the death of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller killed in the City of London as he tried to make his way home past the police during the G20 protests on 1 April 2009.

Ian Tomlinson (1961/62 – 1 April 2009) was a British newspaper vendor who died in the City of London, London's financial district, during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests on his way home from work. A first post-mortem indicated that he had suffered a heart attack because of coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes.


Ian Tomlinson walking past the police before he was struck

His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian Newspaper obtained video footage, taken by an investment fund manager from New York, showing that Tomlinson, who was not a protester, had been struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. The footage showed no provocation on Tomlinson's part, who at the time was walking along with his hands in his pockets. Dressed in a bright yellow reflective jacket, black uniform and helmet, Pc Harwood’s identity number was covered up and he had a scarf across the lower part of his face.

Let us now pause and toy with a remarkable statistic. Despite over 1,000 people dying in police custody or due to police action since the late 1960s if the police officer who the DPP said had assaulted Ian Tomlinson was charged with manslaughter it would have been the first time this has ever happened in Britain. Ask yourself the simple question - what is the statistical possibility that these over 1,000 human beings who died in police custody or as a result of police action were all killed lawfully? They include Blair Peach killed (according to the police’s own investigation) by a TSG member at an anti-racism demonstration in 1979, Jean Charles de Menezes shot with 3 bullets in the brain 5 years ago, Sean Rigg and Joy Gardiner who died in police stations and Harry Stanley, 46, from Hackney, east London, was shot in the head and the hand by the Met officers in 1999 carrying a chair leg in a plastic bag which the two officers thought was a sawn-off shot gun.


Ian Tomlinson being helped by a member of the public just after he was assaulted by PC Simon Harwood circled in the background. Police initially claimed they went to his assistance when he became ill and they had no previous contact with him

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, acknowledged there was evidence that the officer, named as PC Simon Harwood, assaulted Tomlinson minutes before he died. But he said there was no realistic prospect of conviction because of "sharp disagreements" between pathologists. He said the police officer captured on film striking Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in London will not face criminal charges over his death because of conflicting opinions about the cause of death. Dr Freddy Patel conducted the first post-mortem on Mr Tomlinson's body and ruled he had died of a heart attack. That was contradicted by two subsequent post-mortems, which both found that the 47-year-old died of internal bleeding caused by a blow to the abdomen.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) also said it could not bring an assault charge because such a charge must be brought within six months, and it had taken 11 months to reach a decision. A charge of misconduct in public office was also considered, but rejected. But a direct challenge to the CPS also emerged tonight from Dr Nat Cary, the second forensic pathologist who examined Tomlinson's body. He told the Guardian prosecutors made a factual error in dismissing a charge of actual bodily harm. He said his report contained clear evidence that Tomlinson suffered injuries sufficient to support a charge of ABH. But the CPS dismissed the injuries as "relatively minor" and thus not enough to support a charge of ABH in its written reasons given to the family.

Cary, speaking for the first time about the case, told the Guardian: "I'm quite happy to challenge that. No the injuries were not relatively minor. It is a flawed approach. He sustained quite a large area of bruising. Such injuries are consistent with a baton strike, which could amount to ABH. It's extraordinary. If that's not ABH I would like to know what is."

The CPS said Patel's findings would provide a jury with enough reasonable doubt that the attack by the officer contributed to the death, and as a result they would acquit. By coincidence Patel today faced a disciplinary hearing at the General Medical Council for allegedly conducting four other autopsies incompetently. He could be struck off and the Home Office has suspended him from its approved list.

See details in the Daily Telegaph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/7904804/G20-riots-profile-of-Dr-Freddy-Patel.html


A police cordon during the G20 summit protests. Thousands of protesters had been "kettled" by cordons as Tomlinson was trying to make his way home.

But another entirely strange aspect of this tragic case emerged today. Pc Simon Harwood, 43, retired from the Met a decade ago on ill health grounds while facing a misconduct hearing for an alleged road rage incident. The officer was working for the Met during the 1990s when he was accused of a road rage incident while off duty, but retired on health grounds. He then rejoined the force as a civilian computer worker, before moving to Surrey Police as a Pc after passing a medical and vetting process, during which it is understood that he made a full disclosure of his background. He moved back to the Met in November 2004 and later given a place in the force's controversial Territorial Support Group (TSG) unit. The TSG are referred to by other police officers by their nickname “The Filth” as they have a fearsome reputation as “hardmen” even within the police service and officers who have “aggression issues” are often taken off front line policing and assigned to the TSG. One commentator asked why PC Harwood was facilitated in rejoining the service, a very good question which deserves a very good answer. Was he a brother Mason, perhaps?

Let us think how it would have happened if it was the other way around? If a police officer had been assaulted by a protestor and died minutes later. Would there have been “mistakes” in collecting evidence which meant charges were time expired? Would they have waited 16 months to decide not to prosecute? The police are paid from our taxes to protect us not to kill us. They must operate with our consent and within the Law and they must be held accountable.

The DPP decision in the Ian Tomlinson case is a whitewash which destroys confidence in the police and in the Rule of Law. No matter how much the Police talk about a new era of policing and enshrining the right to protest, the establishment has once again have allowed police officers to kill an innocent man.


The Guardian obtained this footage of Ian Tomlinson at a G20 protest in London shortly before he died. It shows Tomlinson, who was not part of the demonstration, being assaulted from behind and pushed to the ground by baton-wielding police.

See also;

Jean Charles de Menezes

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-in-london.html

Remember Sean Rigg

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2009/08/remember-sean-rigg.html

Ian Tomlinson on Wikipedia

For an update (May 2011) on the Ian Tomlinson case see;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2011/05/any-justice-still-for-ian-tomlinson.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

Vigil for Ian Tomlinson

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2009/11/tuesday-candlelight-vigil-to-remember.html

TUESDAY: Candlelight vigil to remember Ian Tomlinson

Ian Tomlinson walking past the police before he was struck

There will be a Candlelight vigil to remember Ian Tomlinson at Royal Exchange by Threadneedle Street, London, EC3V 3LL on Tuesday 1st December 6pm - 7.15pm.

The United Campaign against Police Violence would like to encourage all our supporters to come along to this vigil for Ian Tomlinson on Tuesday. It has been called by the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign. It is important that we keep Ian’s memory alive and continue the fight for justice, I hope as many people can come as possible.

Speakers include:

Ian’s family

Samantha Rigg David - Sean Rigg Justice & Change Campaign

Deborah Coles – INQUEST

John McDonnell MP


A still from the Guardian video shows Tomlinson in the moment before he was struck, with an officer behind him holding a baton

The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign said: "Ian died in tragic circumstances, an 'innocent passerby' trying to get home, after a police assault at the G20 protests on April 1st 2009. Eight months on, our family are preparing for our first Christmas without him and still waiting for justice. "We have been grateful for public support this year and would like an opportunity to hold this public memorial gathering to remember Ian, with our friends and supporters around us. We ask that those who attend please wear black as a mark of respect and remember that this is peaceful event. "


Ian Tomlinson remonstrates with police after being pushed to the ground, minutes before he died.

PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE COMING so we can estimate numbers and please send messages of support - a number of these will be read out at the vigil.

"RSVP to iantomlinsonfamilycampaign@gmail.com"

Background;

Ian Tomlinson (1961/62 – 1 April 2009) was a British newspaper vendor who died in the City of London, London's financial district, during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests on his way home from work. A first post-mortem indicated that he had suffered a heart attack because of coronary artery disease, and had died of natural causes.

His death became controversial a week later when The Guardian obtained video footage, taken by an investment fund manager from New York, showing that Tomlinson, who was not a protester, had been struck on the leg from behind by a police officer wielding a baton, then pushed to the ground by the same officer. The footage showed no provocation on Tomlinson's part, who at the time was walking along with his hands in his pockets.


Ian Tomlinson being treated by Paramedics - Scotland Yard wrongly claimed on their website that police were pelted with rocks and glass as he was being treated - The later took down the claim

After The Guardian published the video, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began a criminal inquiry from which the police were removed. A second post-mortem, ordered by the IPCC and Tomlinson's family, indicated that Tomlinson had died from an abdominal haemorrhage, the cause of which remains unknown. The officer in question has been interviewed on suspicion of manslaughter. A third post-mortem was conducted at the request of his defence team, the results of which have not been released.

The incident has sparked debate in the UK about what appears to be a deteriorating relationship between the police and the public, about the extent to which the IPCC is truly independent of the police, and about the role of citizens in monitoring police and government activity.

See also;

Jean Charles de Menezes

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-in-london.html

Remember Sean Rigg

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2009/08/remember-sean-rigg.html

Ian Tomlinson on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson


A police cordon during the G20 summit protests. Thousands of protesters had been "kettled" by cordons as Tomlinson was trying to make his way home.

Bend it like Andy

You may remember the case of the Policeman who came over all shy? He was a former Chief Constable, a Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) when he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset. Yes, this sensitive soul was Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard who was responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror. In December 2007 he decided to retire immediately from his £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

His decision to step down was another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues at the time rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard. Ian Blair has since gone and Sir Paul Stephenson has taken over with a stated mission to regain squandered public trust and return Scotland Yard to the basics of policing. As such he is in the tradition of respected reforming commissioners such as Robert Mark and Paul Condon but it has to be asked if the stables need to be shovelled out with such frequency is the design wrong? Just how bad the stables still are can be garnered from this report in the Observer;

"Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators. A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods..."

"Sources have told the Observer that some detectives had fallen into the habit of withdrawing hundreds of pounds at a time from cashpoints. Other officers appear to have filled in blank receipts from restaurants to account for cash payments."



Hundreds of Metropolitan Police Officers have been investigated for fraud after widespread abuse of corporate credit cards was revealed. Indeed those who have cards withdrawn equates to 1 in 11 of all Scotland Yard’s plain clothes officers, so there is definitely something badly wrong with the Yardie’s culture of entitlement and basic honesty.

Now you would think Shy Andy would have stayed shy having failed to give an account of himself but no sireee, you would indeed be wrong. For in the greatest transformation since Ernest Saunders cast off incurable dementia Andy “I don’t want to give evidence” Hayman has triumphed over his shyness and then some! For one thing he has appeared in the columns of The Murdoch Times as a “security correspondent” giving his opinion on all and sundry to do with policing, Law and Order. Now those of us of Hibernian origin remember that throughout the Northern Ireland conflict the Sunday Times always had security correspondents who pedalled British Security Service disinformation and smears, all the time quoting unamed “Security Services”. Never mind most of their “splashes” were wrong, no retractions, apologies or corrections were ever forthcoming.


Community Policing

Well Shy Andy continues in this proud tradition of Murdoch Press Integrity, giving forth with his “expertise”. The Government crisis committee that deals with events from flu epidemics to terror attacks was condemned by him as a “nonsensical system.” He said the Cobra committee dragged people away from their real jobs when dealing with a crisis. Mr Hayman, who was head of counter terror operations during the 7/7 bombings in 2005, gave details of Cobra in his book The Terrorist Hunters. He was particularly critical of the shambolic operations of the committee, which he revealed meets in a fortified cellar beneath Whitehall. Senior officials who are dealing with the immediate aftermath of a major event are suddenly dragged into a meeting with politicians, he said. “There's a bomb attack and all hell breaks loose. Everyone scrambles — emergency services, police, intelligence agencies, Government departments — and rushes around trying to deal with it. But within an hour we're pulled off the job and summoned to Cobra.”



He says the meeting room is stuffy and often senior officials wander lost beneath Whitehall trying to find it. He adds: “Of course a meeting should be called to co-ordinate the response, and the role of senior people is to detach themselves from the detail and plan ahead. But in my experience, Cobra fails to do that. The first time I attended, I was in awe. There were more knights there than at King Arthur's round table.”

He said politicians are often plunged into meetings on issues they know little about. Speaking about the 7/7 attack he says: “Take Alistair Darling, who was then Transport Secretary. He was on my case all the time, telling me the Underground needed to be reopened. And I kept asking: Do you want me to secure the crime scenes and get the evidence to prosecute the terrorists, or do you want me to get the traffic moving?'”


7/7 attack on The Tube

Speaking in the Times (where else!) to publicise his book he said: “Sometimes the meetings worked but more often they didn't. People would jockey for position in front of influential ministers, squabbling over places at the table. At times Cobra appeared to be little more than a stage for those looking to impress.” Mr Hayman calls for Cobra to be replaced with a committee made up solely of operational officials.

Well now the publication of the book The Terrorist Hunters by Andy Hayman has been blocked by the Attorney General. Baroness Scotland stepped in at the last minute to obtain an injunction preventing The Terrorist Hunters from hitting the shelves today. The book focused on the struggle against Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London Underground which killed 52 people.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/08/walktalk.html

It also looked at the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko and gave a behind-the-scenes glimpse of top-level political and intelligence work. An advisory notice highlighting the injunction, granted by an unnamed High Court judge, was circulated to news-paper editors at 11.45 last night. Further details of the reasons behind the injunction cannot be published for legal reasons linked to continuing criminal proceedings.

Thousands of copies of the 372-page book were delivered to bookshops nationwide ahead of its publication today. Large sections of the book, co-written by former BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore, were also serialised in The Times. Sources close to the publication said it was vetted by officials at the Cabinet Office, MI5 and MI6 but no copy was passed to Scotland Yard.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has complained that he was not given a preview of its contents. He told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority last week that he was reluctant to give the book more publicity. But Sir Paul said members of the force's watchdog might like to consider whether senior officers should be allowed to publish such books. He said: “I find it surprising as commissioner that I have no right on this occasion to have access to the book before it is published. It is troublesome and it does not help good conduct.”

One senior police insider said: “There is quite a lot of anger in the Met about the book's contents. No one else's memories of some of the events he describes are the same."

Anyway I leave the final word on Shy Andy to one of his former colleagues in the Blue Brotherhood who left this comment on an Evening Standard article;

“Oh Please! I am no supporter of the current status quo, but we really don't need any advice for Andy Hayman as part of his campaign to publicise his book. This light-weight individual was, by common agreement, one of the most ineffectual heads of counter-terrorism we have had in recent years. He left the post hurriedly with an enormous cloud over his head, so his comments should be taken with a shed full of salt.”

Oh Dear!

"Righteous Kill" poster at Stockwell

Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest on the 23rd September 2008 stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place. And, Oh dear, here was the poster on the wall behind them!

Here is what the Advertising Standards Authority said, as reported by the BBC;

"A film poster sited at Stockwell Tube station during the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest could have caused serious offence, a regulator has ruled. The poster for Righteous Kill was displayed at the station where Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

Its tagline read: "There's nothing wrong with a little shooting as long as the right people get shot."

The Advertising Standards Authority said it breached guidelines on decency. "We understood the siting of the poster at the station was unintentional, but nevertheless considered that the text had the potential to cause serious offence in that location," the ASA said in its adjudication. It added that the poster, which also featured stars Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, breached rules on social responsibility."

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-in-london.html

A Death in London

Jean Charles de Menezes


Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest today stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place.

They filed through the ticket hall, down the escalator and onto platform two where Mr de Menezes had planned to take a northbound Northern line train. The jurors barely exchanged a word and coroner Sir Michael Wright did not speak throughout the 10-minute visit. The silence was only broken when a train full of passengers thundered through the station without stopping at the platform.

While Northern line trains were not stopping at the station, the Victoria line continued to operate as normal. On their way in and out of the station a court official pointed out the points the jurors were passing on their printed itinerary. The second day of the inquest into the death of the electrician on 22 July 2005 was set aside for a tour of key locations in the ill-fated police operation.

A convoy of coaches left the Oval cricket ground where the hearings are taking place with a police escort. The coroner travelled with the jury in the front coach, followed by legal teams travelling with the de Menezes family in the second and a media bus bringing up the rear. The visit to Stockwell was scheduled for an off-peak time on the 23rd December 2008 to minimise disruption for commuters.

In his opening yesterday, the coroner told of the confusion which existed before two firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman who had been on the run since attempting to detonate his bomb on the Tube the day before. Two weeks earlier, British-born al Qaeda bombers had succeeded in blowing up three Tube trains and a bus on a day of carnage in the capital.

Jurors have been told how firearm officers made a split second decision to kill the suspect. Sir Michael told the court that they had been convinced Mr de Menezes was Osman who was carrying out a second suicide bomb attack and could only be stopped by an "instant kill".

The coroner emphasised Mr de Menezes was entirely innocent.


Jurors at Stockwell Tube


----------------------------------------------------------------


From DaithaiC 16th October 2007


The Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station, London, on July 22nd. 2005. Bizarrely the Met(as the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard are commonly known) is being prosecuted under English Law not for Murder or Manslaughter but under Health and Safety legislation for failing to protect the health of Jean Charles de Menezes and members of the public who were exposed to danger in the operation. Indeed.

The details revealed so far in court are of a 27 year old electrician peacefully going to work unaware he was being trailed, not being intercepted as a possible suspect, getting on and off two buses, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and a light jacket with no baggage or possibility of concealing anything on his person, going routinely through station barriers and pausing to pick up a free newspaper, taking his seat on a tube train.



There he was held without challenge by a police officer who immobilised him by holding his arms around him in a vice like grip whilst his two colleagues fired 7 special "124 grain" dum-dum style bullets into his head at point blank range. The details of this killing have appalled and dismayed the public in equal measure and common sense would suggest these feelings will not be addressed by a prosecution under "Health and Safety" legislation - this being somewhat beyond satire. I think we can take it as read that if you kill somebody wrongly you have not protected their "Health and Safety."

Scotland Yard have real issues to answer about the apparent ineptness of the operation and about the large amount of uncorrected disinformation disseminated afterwards from the Commissioner downwards that this innocent persons' killing was "related to the ongoing terrorist situation", that he behaved suspiciously, ran away from officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and was wearing "bulky clothing". As none of this was true, where did it come from?

Hindsight is a great teacher, it is always a pity we don't have it beforehand, but there is another side to this sad story. Fifteen days previously on the 7th July 2005 4 suicide bombers had detonated 3 bombs on the Tube and one on a London bus. They killed 52 people (and themselves) in the biggest mass murder in peacetime Britain. The roll call of the dead is heart rending encompassing a typical cross section of Londoner's going about their day, young and old from every continent, colour and religious persuasion including a 19 year old Muslim girl on the threshold of her life. Of the 4 "brave" martyrs one was a 19 year old Jamaican Muslim convert who lived near me in Aylesbury and who took 26 lives on a Piccadilly Line train between Russell Square and King's Cross. What did a 19 year old know about life and what sort of crypto fascism justifies this cruel obscenity towards people you do not know but look in the eye before killing and maiming them? Maimed indeed for as well as the dead there were over 300 injured, some who lost limbs and eyes and some who will never live independent lives again.



I was in London that day and for a number of days afterwards spent afternoons and evenings helping people cope with the transport disruption. Two things were palpable. one was the great determination that London would not be brought to its knees by what happened, there was the quiet unseen courage of the Tube and Bus drivers who climbed into cabs at dawn the next morning and in their own way said "let's Roll!". The sense of determination was shared by the public who displayed stoic courage by insisting on going about their everyday business and not being terrorised even if it meant walking halfway across London to work.

Nerves were of course there under the surface but they had recovered somewhat when exactly 2 weeks later on the 21st July 2005 there was almost a carbon copy attempt of 4 suicide bomb attacks on the transport system in London by fanatics equally determined to destroy their fellow unknown human beings. This second attempt nearly succeeded and only failed because they had made a small error in the formulation of the homemade but deadly explosives they attempted to detonate. This second attempt was a great shock to the system, to the morale of Londoner's and no doubt to the security services who felt they had bottomed out all the leads and had stabilised the situation.

Now along with all of London they were looking into the abyss and not knowing what they were looking at or where the next threat would come from. What is happening and how many more are out there? - was the general public feeling. It was Jean Charles de Menezes great misfortune that he lived in a block of flats which was also the address of Hussain Osman, one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before and he was not entirely dissimilar in appearance given the limited identification information the police had to go on.

No doubt these court proceedings and further inevitable investigations will draw their own conclusions and I'm not attempting to anticipate them, but I make two observations of my own.

One is that society as a whole is not pacifist. We expect that the welfare of all is protected and logically that means we assent to people killing on our behalf. So we agree an Army is maintained and we expect it to kill and its troops to accept the possibility they will also be killed in combat. If an embassy is besieged, if a plane is hijacked or if a deranged gunman walks down the street killing at will we expect somebody to deal with the threat on our behalf. And if a suicide bomber is apprehended before he can blow us up we expect they will be killed. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005, the Met, a civilian police force had called in all the help it could get from the Defence and Security services and was trying to cover an impossible number of bases not knowing where the next threat was or where it would come from. Wherever fault lays in this sorry story it does lay with the three armed officers acting under orders who entered a Tube train to stop what they thought was Hussain Osman detonating a bomb.

The second point is who those of us who live and work in London felt that morning. Shamefully, I can remember my reaction was "Good on them, they got one!" and I can tell you in feeling that I was in a majority of, well, everybody. For at that stage, below the surface, there was a palpable sense of fear about town. And that is the point of the sheer obscenity and ruthless cruelty the suicide bomber. It desensitises all of us and for the sake of our protection makes us accept in our heart that which we would not normally accept in our head.

That desensitivity is something we all must fight against because otherwise the bomber has won and that must and will never happen. In this case it means we must, however difficult it may seem, try to do two things. Respect the memory of Jean Charles de Menezes and the grief of his family and respect the courage of the Police Officers who, out of a profound sense of public duty, did the unthinkable on all our behalves.

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

A Policeman's Lot?

Shy Andy

If you have the misfortune to be arrested by the police in England you will be read the following statement:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

The implication is clear, that an innocent person wants to proclaim their innocence and speak in their own defence. Indeed under the same Act (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) a judge in their charge to a jury may instruct them to draw an unfavourable inference from a defendant’s refusal to testify or their refusal to make a statement to the police.

Consider then the contrast in the case of Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror, who has decided to retire immediately as the £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

His decision to step down is yet another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues have rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard.

This is where the Yardies live - A Male Gang obsessed with guns and "Respect"

Channel 4 News claimed Mr Hayman was in very close contact with the complaints commission official, who worked for the watchdog's communications department. The pair's exchanges came when the commission was drafting its report into how the Met handled the aftermath of the shooting of Mr de Menezes in South London in July 2005. Channel 4 alleged the “communications risked compromising the integrity and authority of the IPCC inquiry”. The female official at the centre of a row which led the Met's anti-terror chief to quit is named today as 36-year-old Nicki Redmond. She received hundreds of calls and texts from Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman while on the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating the Stockwell shooting. After leaving the commission, Ms Redmond was at the centre of a probe into alleged "inappropriate contact". Ms Redmond worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission while it was compiling its damning report into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station.


Andy Hayman with "friend" Nikki Redmond

The UK's former top anti-terror officer is to be given "advice" after breaking the police code of conduct following the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. A report said Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public. Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has ruled he should not face disciplinary proceedings but should be advised about future conduct.

In a statement, the IPCC said: "On 6 November, the MPA recommended that Mr Hayman receive advice because he had broken Code 5 of the Police Code of Conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties.

"After taking legal advice, the three IPCC Commissioners, who oversaw the investigation, have decided to accept the MPA's recommendation." The IPCC also said it would pursue the MPA's recommendation that it undertake an "in depth" review of the lessons to be learnt from Mr de Menezes's death.

Mr Hayman, a 48-year-old married father of two, has been caught up in two internal investigations this year. The first was sparked after complaints that information about a series of anti-terror raids in Birmingham last February was leaked to the media in advance. Mr Hayman's telephone records for the months before and after the raids were scrutinised and he was cleared of any blame. Investigators did, however, find details of the hundreds of “unexplained” calls between Mr Hayman and the complaints commission official. She has now left the police watchdog and works for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

In a separate inquiry, Yard auditors raised concerns over the £15,000 spent by Mr Hayman on drinks, restaurants, hotels and foreign travel. He strenuously denied the expenses allegations and vowed to clear his name when details of the financial probe emerged last month. Mr Hayman vigorously rejected the claims but, after a reported fiery meeting with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair decided to take early retirement. He issued a statement saying the “unfounded allegations” had taken their toll. The former Norfolk chief constable will spend the next four months on paid leave before officially retiring in April. By then he will have served 30 years in the police and be entitled to a full pension.

In a statement, Mr Hayman said the time was right to leave the high-profile job after a string of hurtful accusations. “This role requires total commitment in both time and effort and has a considerable impact on your personal life, your family and friends,” he added.


Sgt Heidi Tubby

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: 'Andy Hayman has been at the forefront of the police's work to protect our country from the terrorist threat. “I am very grateful for his immense contribution to counterterrorism and to British policing.” Mr Hayman was awarded a CBE last year for his outstanding work after the London bombings of July 2005 and for his role in rounding up the failed July 21 gang. He is said to have impressed Tony Blair and leading Government figures with his calm demeanour and factual briefings to the Cobra emergency security committee that month.

Last year he made a humiliating apology to two brothers arrested and later released after a high-profile anti-terror raid on their house in Forest Gate, East London. One of the men was shot during the operation which involved a search for a “chemical device”. No such device was found.

In December last year, Hayman was found to have been in command of an "unlawful" investigation into one of his own colleagues, Ali Dizaei, who was then a Met police superintendent. Hayman was in overall command of an operation that included tapping Dizaei's phones, something the investigatory powers tribunal declared unlawful. The investigation took four years and cost £4m, but ended with Dizaei's acquittal on corruption charges at the Old Bailey. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair admitting it had caused "considerable damage" to relations between the force and its black officers.


Ali Dizaei

He was instrumental in government attempts to extend the period for which terror suspects can be held without charge to 90 days. MPs were unconvinced by the proposal, and Tony Blair's government suffered its first Commons defeat over the issue in November 2005.

So who is this shrinking violet who is resigning because he finds the “unfounded accusations” hurtful. Well as the former Chief Constable of Norfolk and Head of the Anti-Terrorist squad he probably doesn’t meet the normal profile of a sensitive soul. Mr Hayman joined Essex Police in 1978 where he served as a uniformed officer and in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). In November 1998 Mr Hayman was appointed Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and given responsibility for drugs, crime and complaints investigations. In this role he commanded Operation Trident an investigation into drug-related murders in the capital. In September 1999 he was appointed Director of the Anti-Corruption and Complaints Investigation Department, which became the Directorate of Professional Standards, responsible for discipline and anti-corruption.

From April 2001 to December 2002 he was Deputy Assistant Commissioner, retaining responsibility for professional standards and assuming extra responsibilities as deputy to the Deputy Commissioner.

So as a former Chief Constable, Commissioner responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) why has he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset? The assumption of the Law in England is that innocence seeks to proclaim itself and be heard but Andy Hayman has made a decision to resign, to not square up to the allegations made and to not answer them. Is this the behaviour and example expected from a senior police office honoured with a CBE and the Queen’s Police Medal, paid generously over 30 years from the public purse and expected to be held accountable to that same public for his actions.

Indeed is this the same silence which would draw an “unfavourable inference” if you or I were being questioned by Andy Hayman’s erstwhile colleagues or appeared in court on the basis of evidence presented by them?

The Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station, London, on July 22nd. 2005. Bizarrely the Met(as the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard are commonly known) is being prosecuted under English Law not for Murder or Manslaughter but under Health and Safety legislation for failing to protect the health of Jean Charles de Menezes and members of the public who were exposed to danger in the operation. Indeed.

The details revealed so far in court are of a 27 year old electrician peacefully going to work unaware he was being trailed, not being intercepted as a possible suspect, getting on and off two buses, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and a light jacket with no baggage or possibility of concealing anything on his person, going routinely through station barriers and pausing to pick up a free newspaper, taking his seat on a tube train.

There he was held without challenge by a police officer who immobilised him by holding his arms around him in a vice like grip whilst his two colleagues fired 7 special "124 grain" dum-dum style bullets into his head at point blank range. The details of this killing have appalled and dismayed the public in equal measure and common sense would suggest these feelings will not be addressed by a prosecution under "Health and Safety" legislation - this being somewhat beyond satire. I think we can take it as read that if you kill somebody wrongly you have not protected their "Health and Safety."

Scotland Yard have real issues to answer about the apparent ineptness of the operation and about the large amount of uncorrected disinformation disseminated afterwards from the Commissioner downwards that this innocent persons' killing was "related to the ongoing terrorist situation", that he behaved suspiciously, ran away from officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and was wearing "bulky clothing". As none of this was true, where did it come from?

Hindsight is a great teacher, it is always a pity we don't have it beforehand, but there is another side to this sad story. Fifteen days previously on the 7th July 2005 4 suicide bombers had detonated 3 bombs on the Tube and one on a London bus. They killed 52 people (and themselves) in the biggest mass murder in peacetime Britain. The roll call of the dead is heart rending encompassing a typical cross section of Londoner's going about their day, young and old from every continent, colour and religious persuasion including a 19 year old Muslim girl on the threshold of her life. Of the 4 "brave" martyrs one was a 19 year old Jamaican Muslim convert who lived near me in Aylesbury and who took 26 lives on a Piccadilly Line train between Russell Square and King's Cross. What did a 19 year old know about life and what sort of crypto fascism justifies this cruel obscenity towards people you do not know but look in the eye before killing and maiming them? Maimed indeed for as well as the dead there were over 300 injured, some who lost limbs and eyes and some who will never live independent lives again.

I was in London that day and for a number of days afterwards spent afternoons and evenings helping people cope with the transport disruption. Two things were palpable. one was the great determination that London would not be brought to its knees by what happened, there was the quiet unseen courage of the Tube and Bus drivers who climbed into cabs at dawn the next morning and in their own way said "let's Roll!". The sense of determination was shared by the public who displayed stoic courage by insisting on going about their everyday business and not being terrorised even if it meant walking halfway across London to work.

Nerves were of course there under the surface but they had recovered somewhat when exactly 2 weeks later on the 21st July 2005 there was almost a carbon copy attempt of 4 suicide bomb attacks on the transport system in London by fanatics equally determined to destroy their fellow unknown human beings. This second attempt nearly succeeded and only failed because they had made a small error in the formulation of the homemade but deadly explosives they attempted to detonate. This second attempt was a great shock to the system, to the morale of Londoner's and no doubt to the security services who felt they had bottomed out all the leads and had stabilised the situation.

Now along with all of London they were looking into the abyss and not knowing what they were looking at or where the next threat would come from. What is happening and how many more are out there? - was the general public feeling. It was Jean Charles de Menezes great misfortune that he lived in a block of flats which was also the address of Hussain Osman, one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before and he was not entirely dissimilar in appearance given the limited identification information the police had to go on.

No doubt these court proceedings and further inevitable investigations will draw their own conclusions and I'm not attempting to anticipate them, but I make two observations of my own.

One is that society as a whole is not pacifist. We expect that the welfare of all is protected and logically that means we assent to people killing on our behalf. So we agree an Army is maintained and we expect it to kill and its troops to accept the possibility they will also be killed in combat. If an embassy is besieged, if a plane is hijacked or if a deranged gunman walks down the street killing at will we expect somebody to deal with the threat on our behalf. And if a suicide bomber is apprehended before he can blow us up we expect they will be killed. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005, the Met, a civilian police force had called in all the help it could get from the Defence and Security services and was trying to cover an impossible number of bases not knowing where the next threat was or where it would come from. Wherever fault lays in this sorry story it does lay with the three armed officers acting under orders who entered a Tube train to stop what they thought was Hussain Osman detonating a bomb.

The second point is who those of us who live and work in London felt that morning. Shamefully, I can remember my reaction was "Good on them, they got one!" and I can tell you in feeling that I was in a majority of, well, everybody. For at that stage, below the surface, there was a palpable sense of fear about town. And that is the point of the sheer obscenity and ruthless cruelty the suicide bomber. It desensitises all of us and for the sake of our protection makes us accept in our heart that which we would not normally accept in our head.

That desensitivity is something we all must fight against because otherwise the bomber has won and that must and will never happen. In this case it means we must, however difficult it may seem, try to do two things. Respect the memory of Jean Charles de Menezes and the grief of his family and respect the courage of the Police Officers who, out of a profound sense of public duty, did the unthinkable on all our behalves.