Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

Posts Tagged ‘JCdM’

[Health & Safety] More Lessons In Killing For The Met

Posted by Lex Fear on April 5, 2009

I don’t think I want to be safe anymore. I don’t think I want the police to “protect” me from terrorists, anarchists or active protesters.

I’m not a member of the above groups, which means, being an innocent subject of the UK, my life is at risk when the security services are targetting the above groups.

Once again, security services were on high paranoid alert, itchy trigger fingers, or in this case, itchy baton hand.

And if we are to believe that the slaying of Jean Charles de Menezes was an honest, sincere mistake, WHAT BLOODY LESSONS WERE LEARNED?

I feel sorry for Ian Tomlinson’s widow and family. I feel sorry for the grueling smear and dirty tricks campaign that is about to befall them.

You know the drill by now, check the boxes which apply:

It will probably take about 3-4 years, and in the end they may be lucky to win a simple breach of the Health & Safety at Work Act against the Met, along with a “Sorry” and “Lessons have been learned”.

After all, if they can get away with shooting an innocent man, they can get away with shoving one too.

Advertisements

Posted in Anti-Terrorists, Copland, Doublespeak, Fact Erosion, Holding Actions, Justice & Mercy, Londonland, Minitruth, Opinion, Protest, Realpolitik, Smear Campaigns, Untouchables, WhatTheyDontWantU2C | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

[‘Accidents’ Happen] Propaganda Still A Threat To The UK

Posted by Lex Fear on December 23, 2006

“I thought it was only the mafia that referred to killing people as “accidents”…”

Sorry, but I just couldn’t let this one go…

Met Chief’s Terror Plot Warning

I really am fed up with the kind bull that Sir Ian Blair spews. The latest article by the BBC says it all:

“Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair claims the UK is facing an unparalleled and growing threat of a terrorist attack.

However, he said there was “no specific intelligence” about an imminent attack but the threat was “ever present”.” – BBC News (cont.)

Is it just me that questions the logic of that statement? There is “no specific intelligence” but the threat is “ever present”. Does this sound a little Orwellian to you? It should. Either there must be specific intelligence, or there is no threat, you can’t just say that it’s ever present. It’s like saying there is a threat of a meteor crashing into earth- there are small bits of meteors crashing all the time. As for a large one, yes it could happen, but we don’t go around warning each other everyday or living under the cloud of the threat.

“Sir Ian also said he was “confident” of being cleared of misconduct over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

And he defended an anti-terror raid in Forest Gate, claiming the shooting of a man during the raid was an accident.” (cont.)

I thought it was only the mafia that referred to killing people as “accidents”. As far as accidents go, I hope I don’t end up a police “accident” as I’m running for the tube one day (yet another reason not to use the tube).

I don’t know about you but I am just not comfortable with that term “accident”. It makes it sound like something less significant. Let’s not forget, a man lost his life here, an innocent man who happened to be of the wrong skin tone.

I’m sure if Mr De Menzes by some miracle had survived 6 shots fired into his forehead at point blank range, he would have a different take on the incident.

The commissioner criticised the length of the inquiry, adding: “It’s difficult to understand how an organisation can take 13 months to investigate what I did or did not say on one particular day.”

I must congratulate the commissioner on a clever and great example of deflecting responsibility. Why else would an organisation take 13 months to investigate what you said? There’s a PR tactic that you may have heard of, it’s call disinformation. The only reason there could be any difficulty in establishing facts is differing accounts. The delay, commissioner, is with you and the Met.

Posted in Absolute Power, Anti-Terrorists, Copland, Doublespeak, Duh!, Fact Erosion, Justice & Mercy, Little Hitlers, Londonland, Minitruth, Pharisees, Propaganda, Realpolitik, Smear Campaigns, Uncircumcised Philistines, WhatTheyDontWantU2C | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

[Cover-Ups] Test Case For Legalised Murder Under Terror Laws

Posted by Lex Fear on September 19, 2006

It turns out the execution shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes was a test case for the Met.

“It is not about diminishing the tragedy of Charles de Menezes’ death. We see it as a test case, not only for policing in London but for the police service nationally.” – Commander Moir Stewart

Gosh! Really? So did De Menezes know he was just being volunteered for a test case? What determines if the ‘test’ is successful?

The way I see it for The Met, if this ‘test case’ is successful, they have a license to shoot anyone they like in the head, so long as it is in the name of terror. If unsuccessful, the public at least has the assurity that if they do get murdered killed they can make a Health & Safety claim.

Tags:

Add to del.icio.us

Posted in Absolute Power, Anti-Terrorists, Copland, Doublethink, Fact Erosion, Justice & Mercy, Little Hitlers, Londonland, Minitruth, Opinion, Pharisees, Propaganda, Smear Campaigns, Uncircumcised Philistines | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

[Smear Campaigns] Cleared Terror Suspects

Posted by Lex Fear on August 5, 2006

The Daily Express reported yesterday that Mohammed Abdul Kahar (the cleared suspect shot in a terror raid last month) has been questioned over child-pornography allegations.

“Mohammed Abdul Kahar (right) – wounded in the shoulder as armed officers stormed his home – was arrested when he went to a police station with his solicitor…

…Kahar, 23, was interviewed over images allegedly found on a computer at his house in Forest Gate, east London, in June…

…The brothers were arrested after a tip-off that a cyanide bomb was stored in their house. No trace was found and the men were released without charge…

…They had planned to sue the Metropolitan Police and insisted that the shooting was either deliberate or reckless.” – The Daily Express

This scenario should seem familiar because it was only April when another innocent terror suspect, Jean Charles De Menezes was cleared of rape allegations.

“DETECTIVES are investigating claims that Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes carried out a rape three years ago…

…A woman has come forward claiming the electrician, who was mistakenly shot dead by anti-terror police at Stockwell tube station last July, attacked her in London…

…The de Menezes solicitor Harriet Wistrich said the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is handling the probe into the 27-year-old’s shooting, asked her several weeks ago whether a DNA sample could be taken for the rape investigation…

…”I pointed out that a sample could not be taken without the consent of the family or by order of the Court”…

…A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said today: “The victim of a rape in the West End of London more than three years ago contacted us earlier this year and provided the name of an alleged suspect.” – The Sun

I find it interesting that the Metropolitan Police were keen to release details of alleged sexual offences for both of these victims of over-zealous terror law enforcement. It’s also interesting that both victims/families had raised a media storm, and were or are considering suing and making claims against the Met.

Is this a new PR damage limitation procedure? I wonder how long it will be before we see a quiet press release clearing Kahar of these charges?

Tags:

Add to del.icio.us

Posted in Absolute Power, Anti-Terrorists, Copland, Fact Erosion, Londonland, Morals & Ethics, Propaganda, Smear Campaigns, Uncircumcised Philistines | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

[Police State] Killing Now a Breach of Health & Safety at Work Act

Posted by Lex Fear on July 27, 2006

“Are the Met now going to issue us guidelines on how not to look like a terrorist, in order to prevent us coming to a similar fate?”

(Raw text, sorry but no links could be restored)

The killers of Jean Charles De Menezes in Stockwell Tube station last summer will not be prosecuted. Instead, their employers will be prosecuted for a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Reassuring for the employees of the Metropolitan Police Force I’m sure, not so reassuring for the rest of us.

We’ll never actually know what was going through the minds of the killers of Jean Charles De Menezes as he boarded the tube one morning in July, however what we do know is that they made there decision prima facie. They looked at his clothing, his ethnicity, his actions and determined that it somehow qualified for a potential terrorist and so had to be ‘stopped’ before he potentially blew anyone up.

The fact that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute any officer involved in the killing should worry us all. What does insufficient evidence mean? It means that it cannot be proved that the officers who shot De Menezes committed an act of murder or manslaughter. For murder or manslaughter to be proved it would have to be determined beyond reasonable doubt that they did not believe they were killing a terrorist. In other words, they were unable to distinguish a terrorist from an innocent civilian.

“In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other related offence.” – Stephen O’ Doherty – CPS

Therefore, if a police officer, prima facie, observes your clothing, your ethnicity and your actions and comes to a belief you are a potential terrorist, he can shoot you in the head, on site, then claim that he genuinely believed you were a terrorist. After all, how are you going to disprove someone’s beliefs?

Are the Met now going to issue us guidelines on how not to look like a terrorist, in order to prevent us coming to a similar fate?

“However I have concluded that the operational errors indicate that there had been a breach of the duties owed to non-employees under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, by the Office of Commissioner of Police and I have authorised a prosecution under that act.” – O’Doherty

Considering this ruling, perhaps the family of De Menezes will now have to take a different approach (no win no fee accident compensation) to getting justice.

Tags:

Add to del.icio.us

Posted in Absolute Power, Anti-Terrorists, Bollotics, Copland, Doublespeak, Little Hitlers, Londonland, Minitruth, Opinion, Propaganda, Realpolitik, Uncircumcised Philistines, WhatTheyDontWantU2C, Xenophobia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »