A quizzical eyebrow indeed, but it's not all quite as ridiculous as it seems. I think the real guilty party in all this is the guy taking a piss who didn't identify de Menezes properly - pound to a penny says he came back, saw the back of de Menezes' head as he walked away, panicked, and thought it safer to presume that he was one of the suspects than presume he wasn't.
Even at this point, however, de Menezes might have lived if it weren't for the second spectacular piece of crapness. The guy watching the flats radioed his bosses, who put a surveillance team on to de Menezes, who were unarmed. They followed him to the tube station - but were unable (weren't permitted?) to stop him entering themselves, so they radioed for armed support. This support arrived, but only after de Menezes had gone into the tube station.
So an armed team of anti-terrorist police have been told that a suicide bomber has gone into the tube - the rest is something of a foregone conclusion. Here's the odd bit though. From what I've read, the bloke holding de Menezes down was one of the surveillance officers - who seemed rather surprised when the suspect he had firm hold of was shot in the head.
Is it possible that two sets of orders were being followed? That the surveillance officers had simply been told to follow de Menezes and apprehend him if he was thought to be acting suspiciously, while the armed team (were they CO19 officers? I forget the lingo) had been directed to shoot de Menezes as he definitely was a suicide bomber? Either way, I still can't help feeling that it's the fault of the bloke not doing his job properly outside de Menezes flat whose largely to blame, closely followed by whoever took the decision to instruct the armed officers to shoot the suspect without any attempt whatsoever to establish whether he might actually be a suicide bomber (I appreciate that if they're not sure they couldn't stop and search someone but they could at least look at them and see they weren't carrying anything on them, or wearing anything big enough to conceal a device.)
Incidentally, I can't help being amused by the reports that a "cover-up" has gone on in relation to this business. It's not a very good cover-up, is it?
no subject
Even at this point, however, de Menezes might have lived if it weren't for the second spectacular piece of crapness. The guy watching the flats radioed his bosses, who put a surveillance team on to de Menezes, who were unarmed. They followed him to the tube station - but were unable (weren't permitted?) to stop him entering themselves, so they radioed for armed support. This support arrived, but only after de Menezes had gone into the tube station.
So an armed team of anti-terrorist police have been told that a suicide bomber has gone into the tube - the rest is something of a foregone conclusion. Here's the odd bit though. From what I've read, the bloke holding de Menezes down was one of the surveillance officers - who seemed rather surprised when the suspect he had firm hold of was shot in the head.
Is it possible that two sets of orders were being followed? That the surveillance officers had simply been told to follow de Menezes and apprehend him if he was thought to be acting suspiciously, while the armed team (were they CO19 officers? I forget the lingo) had been directed to shoot de Menezes as he definitely was a suicide bomber? Either way, I still can't help feeling that it's the fault of the bloke not doing his job properly outside de Menezes flat whose largely to blame, closely followed by whoever took the decision to instruct the armed officers to shoot the suspect without any attempt whatsoever to establish whether he might actually be a suicide bomber (I appreciate that if they're not sure they couldn't stop and search someone but they could at least look at them and see they weren't carrying anything on them, or wearing anything big enough to conceal a device.)
Incidentally, I can't help being amused by the reports that a "cover-up" has gone on in relation to this business. It's not a very good cover-up, is it?