Diana Lamplugh – A fearless campaigner

Paul and Diana Lamplugh in 2000



Sometimes we have no right to expect somebody to be brave. Sometimes the awfulness of an event should crush a person’s spirit and we have no right or expectation to believe they will ever recover. Such was the blow which befell Diana Lamplugh on a sunny July day in 1986. Her daughter was, Suzy Lamplugh, the 25-year-old London estate agent who went to meet a client known only as "Mr Kipper", and was never seen again.





Police search for clues after Suzy's disappearance in 1986



Suzy's body was never found. She was declared dead in 1994, and finally, in 2002, the police named a convicted murderer and rapist, John Cannan, as her likely killer, but they neither obtained a confession, nor brought him to trial. Cannan denied involvement. A year later, after a severe stroke, Diana was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and spent the rest of her life in care. Her husband, who survives her, visited her daily. The great sadness is in her final years Diana lost all memory of Suzy, whose name she kept alive by founding The Suzy Lamplugh Trust which campaigns to improve personal safety, particularly on public transport. It is an important campaigning organisation which has increased awareness and changed attitudes and Diana’s contribution was to ensure that from the evil of Suzy’s disappearance good would flow. She died peacefully today and this statement was issued by The Suzy Lamplugh Trust which she founded.





Suzy Lamplugh



“Diana Lamplugh OBE died peacefully in her sleep this morning after suffering a second massive stroke. This followed the first stroke in 2003 and a nine year battle with Alzheimer’s.



After the disappearance of her daughter, Suzy, in 1986, Diana and her husband, Paul, founded Suzy Lamplugh Trust and for over sixteen years she was the powerhouse behind this well-known national charity for personal safety. She received her OBE in 1992.



Paul Infield, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, said:



“Diana was one of those people who contributed energy, focus and commitment to everything she did. With her husband, Paul, she was tireless in establishing, through the Trust, the concept of and discipline for personal safety – now a household expression – as a positive life skill for people of all ages and occupations. All responsible organisations now have a personal safety policy.







“Her message is as relevant today as when she started campaigning following Suzy’s disappearance. Whilst she will be sorely missed, the trustees and staff of the Trust are determined that our work will continue to fulfil Diana’s vision of improving people’s personal safety by giving them the knowledge and skills to enable them to live life to the full – avoiding aggression and violence.”



A charismatic speaker and tireless campaigner, Diana led the Trust in successfully campaigning for changes in law and procedures regarding safer working practices; safe travel in minicabs; safer travel on trains and safer stations; safer car parks; the treatment and sentencing of sex offenders; helping vulnerable young people and victims of crime; protection from stalking and harassment, treatment of young offenders and many others. She received for her work Honorary Doctorates from four Universities.



It is a credit to the groundwork she laid during the early years that the Trust – which celebrates its 25 Anniversary this year – continues to be a well- respected and active charity, continuing and expanding the work that Diana started.”



"Diana will be sorely missed by her husband Paul, her children Richard, Tamsin and Lizzie, her seven grandchildren, as well as the rest of her family and friends."



In 1999, Libby Purves wrote this of Diana’s legacy:



“….the Trust is a national asset, its influence nationwide, its renown and awards international…..the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has made us feel less, not more, afraid.”







I had met Diana Lamplugh and felt the full force of her campaigning zeal. For many years I looked after (amongst other stuff) the finances of an Area of the British Transport Police. It was due to have an inspection by the HMIC – Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. This provides the quality assurance for the Police Service in England and Wales. I was asked to provide an overview of the budgeting process and how resources were prioritised. So about a week before the “Inspection” I met the Inspector’s Staff Officer who did the prelimary fact-finding. So a week later I was ushered in to meet the Inspector and present my piece. This being the Police it was somewhat formal, indeed to the point of reminding me of a Court Martial where I was the defendant!



I sat alone and facing me was a table with three people behind it. The Inspector who was a former Chief Constable in full formal uniform with his baton and cap on the table, his Staff Officer similarly attired and a middle aged lady with glasses, none other than Diana Lamplugh as the civilian member of the Police Committee. Well I got into my stride and emphasised our view that when a passenger bought a ticket part of what they were buying was an expectation of a safe journey. I outlined the budget drivers, our partnership approach with the Police, the resources and support we made available to them over many years (far more than elsewhere in the industry), our integrated control centre with the Police and our drive for increased efficiency and maximising visible front line policing.







It was all going well, probably too well when I was mugged by Diana. “Well Mr. C” she intoned in her quiet but insistent voice “that is all very well but as we speak there are hundreds of foreigners arriving at Waterloo Station (then the Eurostar Terminus) not speaking a word of English and being prey to every mugger and pickpocket in London. And at a time like that you want to cut the Police Budget. It is madness I tell you! Madness!” With the suggestion of my putative insanity ringing in my ears I argued back making the point that we were actually looking for more bangs for our bucks tackling bad practice and we wanted more resources devoted to what passengers were telling us was important to them. After an hour my session with HMIC was over and I left exhausted feeling I had done at least 15 rounds. To compound my feeling I knew Diana was at a reception with our Managing Director later that evening and I was imagining the conversation “Well Denis, he seemed nice enough in an Irish sort of way but what he was proposing was MAD, MAD I tell you!” Strangely I must have got my points across for when the HMIC report was published I was commended in it and received a letter of thanks from the Area Commander. Indeed, what was even stranger was I was the only Finance Officer commended and I was the only one who didn’t actually work for the Force!



As for Diana I remember her passion and insistence that personal safety came first. Not for her the quiet consensus or the reliance on CCTV so loved of the Police as “evidence”, to Diana that was irrelevant to her what was important was the passenger’s security first and foremost. With her evangelical zeal and singular focus she reminded us and society at large what our duty of care really was and she both set the agenda and stimulated the debate.







To have found such strength from the horror of her daughter’s abduction and murder required real courage and bravery and these were qualities Diana Lamplugh had by the bucket load. This makes even sadder her decline in her final years which robbed us of such an effective advocate. It should also be remembered that she was supported in those years by her Solicitor husband Paul who was very much a co-partner with Diana in setting up the Trust in their daughter’s name and driving forward its agenda. She will be sorely missed but the campaign and work she started continues.



Diana Lamplugh OBE, Personal Safety Campaigner, died 18th August 2011, aged 75.



This is the site of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust which will continue Diana Lamplugh’s work;



http://www.suzylamplugh.org

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

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.