No Compensation for De Menezes

A Moment Of Sense

2006-03-12T20:21:00.000Z

The Sunday Times today reports on advice given by a Treasury counsel named David Perry to Special Branch.

Perry is reprted to have advised that,

"...the police do not have any duty of care to the public. They are thus not liable for damages for killing an unarmed person and failing to shoot the real bomber, as in the scenario".

So there might be no compensation for De Menezes after all.

Why Should The Queen Apologise?

2006-03-03T09:23:00.000Z

From the pen of Richard Kay, the Daily Mail's gossip columnist, on March 2:

"The Queen is set to come close to apologising for the fatal shooting of electrician Jean Charles de Menezes during next week's state visit of the Brazilian president to London.

I understand the move is expected to come in a speech at a Buckingham Palace banquet to welcome Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to Britain...

It is not thought that the Queen will refer to Mr. de Menezes directly by name, but that she will make general remarks about the tragedies which rocked Britain last July. "The key word officials have been talking about including is 'innocent''', I am told. "The speechwriters want her remarks to convey the idea that good relations between two countries can be forgesd as a result of common tragic circumstances"...

Th state visit comes at a critical time in relations between London and Brazil after months of tense diplomacy over the de Menezes shooting. The Crown Prosecution Service will have to decide whther to prosecute officers involved in the killing of the 27-year-old Brazilian...

Buckingham Palace said: "The Queen's speeches on these occasions are the responsibility of the Foreign Office"'.

Proclamations of the innocence of Jean Charles de Menezes by the 'Daily Mail' are now tediously predictable; but hopefully at least a fraction of the 'tense diplomacy' focussed on the Brazilian government's aggressive posture over this shooting, when that country's subject was deliberately breaking the law by his very presence here.

Did they even know where he was when he died?

And if they did, did they inform us that they believed one of their citizens was breaking our law?

And seeing as Her Majesty seems to be getting into the apologies business, one would have thought that those of her own subjects who were falsely imprisoned for years by her realm's apparatus, such as Gerry Conlon, Annie Maguire and Paddy Hill, would be more fitting beneficiaries of her good grace.

Even if they do have Irish accents.

It Seemed Reasonable Enough At The Time

2006-02-08T20:44:00.001Z

On January 21 2006 I wrote on this blog, in relation to a report that the De Menezes family was unhappy about being denied access to the report into his death, that,

"It would be unprecedented for the family of any British national killed by the police to have access to such a document until the Crown Prosecution Service had determined whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought. Why should Brazilians in Brazil enjoy greater rights under British law than Brits in Britain? "

It seemed reasonable enough at the time I wrote it, of course - but the Independent Police Complaints Commission does not agree with me.

One looks forward to the relatives of all those murdered on 7/7 receiving a similar degree of access to all files pertinent to that investigation.

Justice for Craig Alden

2006-01-26T08:39:00.000Z

Craig Alden (left), a British citizen currently imprisoned in Brazil, has committed himself to committing suicide by starvation.

This is a chap who really hasn't been treated with respect wherever he's gone.

Alden, a voluntary worker from Cambridgeshire who bothered to set up a orphanage for Brazilian street kids (a perfect example of foreigners doing the jobs natives won't do), was sentenced to 48 years imprisonment in 2002 after allegations of child abuse were made against him. The sentence was later reduced to 11 years on appeal, a reduction of scale which speaks volumes for the competence of the trial judge.

According to Sarah Maas, a spokeswoman for Fair Trials Abroad,

"It appears he had no chance to prepare his defence and his lawyer does not seem to have done much of a job to support his case".

This will be Alden's second hunger strike, having called off his first in December.

It seems that his real crime was to have crossed the Brazilian authorities; and the nature of the testimonials that he has received are eloquence itself.

Craig Alden - British citizen in Brazil engaged in charitable work, helping the most wretched of a wretched society. He gets involved in a dispute with the authorities, and ends up being imprisoned for 48 years.

Jean Charles de Menezes - a Brazilian citizen in Britain deliberately breaking its law for his own advantage, killed in a case of mistaken identity.

The Brazilian authorities refuse to permit Alden to serve his sentence in the UK, the British authorities offer money to De Menezes' survivors.

It's a funny old world, innit?

The Daily Mail's Continued Lies of Omission

2006-01-21T08:59:00.000Z

In a report in the Daily Mail of January 20 entitled 'Family's fury as dossier on shot Brazilian is kept secret' (not apparently online), relating to the 'failure' of the British authorities to send the De Menezes family a copy of a highly sensitive dossier which might yet result in a prosecution, Stephen Wright and Ben Taylor wrote that,

"The family of the innocent Brazilian shot dead by police spoke of their disgust last night after they were barred from seeing an official report into his death".

Lie By Omission Number One -

Jean Charles de Menezes was an economic criminal who abused British law for his own purposes. Although he was not involved in any activities relating to Islamist terror, he was not by any manner of means 'innocent'.

Lie By Omission Number Two -

It would be unprecedented for the family of any British national killed by the police to have access to such a document until the Crown Prosecution Service had determined whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought. Why should Brazilians in Brazil enjoy greater rights under British law than Brits in Britain?

Of course, the family want 'justice' - but if today's paper is anything to go by, they're already getting a gold star service from the British taxpayer. One can't help but wonder whether the family of Harry Stanley were all treated so well.

Send Stephen Wright mail to let him know what you think.

Prosecution, Yes - Compensation, No

2006-01-18T19:29:00.000Z

The enquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes is now complete, and all papers are being passed to the Crown Prosecution Service to determine if legal action should be taken against the officers involved in the shooting.

The late criminal's irritatingly gobby (Brazilian) cousin, Alex Pereira, is quoted by the BBC as saying,

"Those who came with guns all had an intention to kill. There's no way to forgive them".

Pereira is the sort of foreigner who readily induces The Lanz Effect. And his precise immigration status seems to be a closely guarded secret.

It has always been my position that the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes should have been thoroughly investigated, and anyone who believes in the rule of law should welcome any prosecutions which might result from it.

But by the same token, that same law cannot be abused in order to enrich the survivors of a person who deliberately broke that law for his own advantage for every second that he was here.

And if Pereira has a problem with police officers carrying guns in the country in which he has been permitted to live, he should be grateful he doesn't live in Tanzania.

Muggings Of One Sort Or Another

2006-01-09T10:46:00.000Z

Mourners at a Mass to celebrated JCDM's birthday have foiled a mugging.

Oddly enough, I had thought that by working here illegally, mugging British people was precisely what the late sainted Jean Charles de Menezes had been doing.

Congratulations To the BBC

2005-12-10T08:07:00.000Z

Compare and contrast the following reports from the BBC, ITN and the Daily Telegraph.

Their report is the only one that which does not describe Jean Charles de Menezes, a criminal, as ‘innocent’.

It is gratifying to find at least one British media outlet which exhibits an understanding of the rule of law.

Why I Write This Blog

2005-12-03T10:32:00.000Z

If you search 'Jean Charles de Menezes' against 'illegal immigrant' on Yahoo!, you get 456 entries.

If you search 'Jean Charles de Menezes' against 'illegal alien', you get 107 entries.

If you search 'Jean Charles de Menezes' against 'innocent', you get 84,500 entries; a level of returns hardly proportionate to the full facts of his case.

A Letter From The BBC Relating To Its Reporting Of Maria Otone de Menezes

2005-11-29T09:22:00.000Z

is now upon The G-Gnome Rides Out.

Dum Dums for Dummies

2005-11-16T08:47:00.000Z

The Daily Telegraph is engaged in a classic piece of ashes-raking this morning, its aggressive immigrantophilia seeking to crank up outrage over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes like the engine of a Tin Lizzy.

It has a report today entitled 'Police used 'dum dum' bullets to kill de Menezes' (hat tip - Tim Worstall).

It seems that JCDM was offed with hollow-pointed 'dum dum' ammunition which according to the Telegraph's John Steele, is 'banned in warfare under international convention' ; as fatuous an observation as one can recall seeing, given that the police were not engaged in warfare under inetrnational convention at the time they popped the innocent Brazilian electrician.

Little Steelie may be being a bit over-enthusiastic when he notes, "It will re-ignite controversy around the shooting"; I'm sure he'd really love it to, were it not for the fact that he notes their use by police in the UK is entirely legal.

So no marks for the Telegraph - bunch of dum dums.

The Passionate Love of Junior and Zeca

2005-11-07T07:47:00.000Z

or whether they will go mano a mano, so to speak, put a significant dent in Brazilian productivity on Friday night.

They are characters in a soap opera called 'America', which seems to serve no purpose other than to foster the idea that it's somehow OK just to barge your way into someone else's home and take their money.

Gay rights are big in Brazil; and judicial activism has been deployed for the purpose of acknowledging the solidity of gay relationships, even where the gays concerned would prefer to be thought of as defining their relationship in terms of 'friendship and an affinity of political ideas'; thereby blocking their path to control of a municipality.

So will Junior and Zeca eventually make out in Miami? Perhaps - but then again, they will be able to do so without fear of being gay-bashed, and not getting the respect with which they should be treated as Brazilians wherever they go.

Ariel? Non. Mercury? Si!

2005-10-28T08:48:00.000Z

In Greek mythology, Hermes (later Mercury to the Romans) was the messenger of the gods.

He was also a notorious teller of half-truths, and a wilful disrupter of the communications he was supposed to faithfully convey.

The name of the BBC's in-house journal is 'Ariel', probably the puckish pun of some long-forgotten middle-ranking licence-fee pensioner. Given the nature of the BBC's continued coverage of the Jean Charles de Menezes case, and its apparent bias, perhaps the publication should change its name to 'Mercury' instead .

The BBC website has posted a report of a news conference posted by Sir Ian Blair yesterday, entitled, ''Shoot-to-kill' not being widened'. There is no mention anywhere in this report of de Menezes' own criminality.

Instead, he is referred to as a 'Brazilian electrician', not once but twice - thereby deliberately airbrushing out of the British public's perceptions an aspect of this saga critical to whether they will be compelled by their law to compensate the survivors of a foreign criminal killed by their police in a misguided attempt to protect their fellow citizens.

Who does the BBC fucking well work for, us or them?

Indeed, Alessandro Pereira, de Menezes' impertinet bastard of a cousin, has clearly been so well-schooled in the culture of rights, and what he can get from the citizens of another country, that he has the overweening arrogance to say, predictably slavishly reported by the BBC,

"Sir Ian Blair should stop trying to justify this policy - and instead provide answers to all the questions we have about his role in the death of my cousin."; and,

"This sort of policy does nothing to make the people of London feel safer or have more confidence in their police."

The temerity of a Brazilian, a citizen of a corrupt, backward, third-rate nation whose principal products seem to be illegal aliens, whoremongers and murder, lecturing the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on what he should be doing to make the streets of London safer is unbelievable. Let us proffer to him the advice that I now wish I had proferred to his compatriot Rafael Lanz, and wish him God speed - or should that be 'vaya con dios'?

Something Fishy This Way Comes

2005-10-26T19:26:00.000Z

Five Brazilian illegals have been nabbed, working at a fish processing factory in Fraserburgh.

Hopefully its managers and owners are in irons, and La Policia Grampiana will treat the Brazilians with the respect with which Brazilians should be treated wherever they go.

And I do believe I've been kippered by the BBC...more shall be said about this on The G-Gnome Rides Out...

The Trouble With Harry

2005-10-23T15:08:00.000Z

The 'Sunday Times ' reported today that after two separate inquests and two separate police investigations, the widow of Harry Stanley is teaming up with Alessandro Pereira, the I'm no doubt sure perfectly legal immigrant cousin of the sainted Jean Charles de Menezes, to keep fighting the alleged 'shoot-to-kill' policy of the Metropolitan Police.

Stanley was shot by the police in 1999, in circumstances which have probably been investigated as far as they possibly ever could.

The article's author, Jonathan Lessware, makes an interesting observation, saying,

"De Menezes, 27, a Brazilian electrician, was shot dead in a bungled shoot-to-kill operation in July after being mistaken for a suicide bomber".

One would have thought that if the police were mounting a 'shoot-to-kill' operation that day, it could only be described as being fabulously successful, given the comprehensive nature of De Menezes' icing.

Although the overall reportage of the De Menezes case is so poor that one could almost believe that mortally ill infants were cured by the passage of Jean-Charles' shadow, Harry Stanley was, I'm afraid, a slightly different kettle of fish, a thug and armed robber; probably not the best company his family want to keep if they do not want his halo untarnished.

And so the madness within British justice continues - the families of two criminals, one of whom was foreign, feel no compunction in using the law and the courts to get what they feel they deserve when their relatives had no respect for that law while they were alive.

On a lighter note, the 'Sunday Herald' reported today that Brazil is holding a referendum on banning the sale of guns. That sounds like a good idea, given that a Brazilian dies from gunshot wounds every 15 minutes.

One wonders what sort of condition their laws on compensation for wrongful death are like...or if it's as easy to sue the cops there as it is here...

Oh Do Shut Up, Nanny Melanie!

2005-10-18T07:19:00.000Z

In a confusing and virtually unreadable article which tries to argue that the Code Napoleon is superior to Magna Carta, entitled 'Protecting a liberal society', Melanie Phillips, in-house nanny at the 'Daily Mail' (where bloody else?), writes,

"The distressing fact is that, faced with an unprecedented threat from terrorism, it is hard to see just who we can rely on.

The police hardly inspire confidence after pumping bullets into the head of an innocent Brazilian electrician whom they mistook for a suicide bomber."

Criminal Brazilian electrician, more like .

The BBC Strikes Again

2005-10-16T15:17:00.000Z

This has taken rather longer than it should have to post, so many apologies for the delay.

As previously advised, I made three complaints to the BBC during the last week of September concerning its coverage of the de Menezes case. The subject matter of today's posts concerned reports by its Home Affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore on 27 and 28 September. One can almost imagine the weary irritation whith which my good servant Kenneth MacEachen picked up his dictaphone, thinking,'Oh for fuck's sake, not that crank Kelly again...'

'Our Ref 12122398

29 September 2005

Dear Mr. Kelly,

Thank you for your telephone calls of 27 and 28 September, regarding the Six O'Clock News on BBC ONE (sic).

I was sorry to learn you are unhappy that you watched two reports on two separate occasions about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes which did not mention his immigration status.

I would like to explain, however, that the choice of news stories to report in our programmes, and decisions on the amount of information we can include in those reports is frequently very diificult. Editorial staff have more news reoprts than can be fitted into the time available. Their choice of what to include and in how much depth has to be selective and no matter how carefully such decisions are made, they are always aware that some people may disagree with them. Unlike newspapers, news programmes do not have the luxury of the inside pages or specialist sections that enable newspapers to carry a wide range of reports.

I recognise the strength of your views on this matter. Accordingly, please be assured your comments have been recorded for the benefit of senior management and the programme makers. The BBC always welcomes all feedback, as it helps us to make decisions about future programmes or policies.

Thank you again for your interest in the BBC and for taking the trouble to contact us.

Yours sincerely.

Kenneth MacEachen

BBC Information'

Memo to BBC Information -

1. Don't patronise the licence-payers - it really pisses them off.

2. Don't confuse 'selectivity'with 'objectivity'.

3. Don't ever, ever use 'editoral pressure' as an excuse for not telling the whole truth.

A Response from The BBC

2005-10-02T18:31:00.000Z

On September 21, Huw Edwards, the anchor of the BBC Ten O'Clock News, referred to Jean Charles de Menezes as as 'innocent Brazilian' on air.

I immediately called the BBC's Audience Response line to complain. Late last week, I received the following reply; it is reproduced as punctuated:

'Our Ref 12100558

23 September 2005

Dear Mr. Kelly

Thank you for your telephone call of 21 September, regarding the Ten O'Clock News on BBC ONE.

I was sorry to learn of your concerns about a report about the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. I understand you feel it was wrong of Huw Edwards to describe Mr. de Menezes as innocent, given his immigration status. I understand that Mr. de Menezes's visa had expired.

If I may explain, however, the term 'innocent' was applied to Mr. de Menezes to underline that, as has been confirmed by the Metropolitan Police, he was not guilty of those crimes for which he was suspected by the pursuing police officers on the morning of his death. We do not believe that viewers would have been seriously misled by the use of the term.

However, I understand you feel the word should not be used when describing Mr. de Menezes and I recognise the strength of your views on this matter. Accordingly, please be assured your comments have been recorded for the benefit of senior management and the programme makers. The BBC always welcomes all feedback, as it helps us to make decisions about future programmes or policies.

Thank you again for your interest in the BBC and for taking the trouble to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Kenneth MacEachen

BBC Information'

Well, they weren't recorded quickly enough, because I've made two other complaints on the same point since the date of that letter.

And whatever happened to BBC English - 'those crimes for which he was suspected'? Egad.

Mail Kenneth your thoughts on his reply.

Welcome to Glaivester Readers!

2005-09-28T19:09:00.000Z

And thanks to the man himself for the kind link.

Coming Attractions

2005-09-28T19:07:00.000Z

I have requested formal replies to three separate complaints I have made to the BBC in relation to its coverage of the de Menezes case, all within the last seven days.

Stay tuned.

The Stately Progress of Maria de Menezes

2005-09-28T19:02:00.000Z

is being duly recorded by the BBC.

And so far, amidst the de Menezes' family's aggressive calls for 'justice' and 'explanations', and descriptions of the kind of bespoke justice they believe is their due, nobody seems to have asked the questions to which I want an answer -

1. Did they know their relative was a criminal in this country?

2. If they did, why haven't they been questioned for conspiracy to break the UK's immigration laws?

The Daily Mail's Problem With The Rule of Law: Monday

2005-09-28T18:11:00.000Z

The Daily Mail, the newspaper to which this Gnome awarded the The Innocence of Jean Charles de Menezes League Cup for the highest number of gratuitous references to the late criminal as being 'innocent' in any one week, appears to have a profound problem understanding the concept of 'The Rule of Law'.

The Rule of Law makes the demand that one can only be described as innocent if one has not offended against the law, a condition which, given his contempt for the United Kingdom's immigration laws, the late Jean Charles de Menezes would clearly have been unable to satisfy.

Over the past three days, the Mail's habit of referring to the innocence of JCDM has come back with a vengeance, after a lull of several weeks. There have been three references in three days, which will be recorded separately. None of the materials are available online, unfortunately: however, I have no interest in undermining myself by misrecording them.

The number of these references leads one to think that this is a deliberate editorial decision; and if that is the case, one hopes that it is one that has been made by the editor and not imposed from the corporate level.

The first appeared on Monday September 26, in a column written by its most prominent innocence-monger, the Aberdonian Peter McKay. Well, it's sort of a column - more like an odd collection of bits and pieces that seem to have grabbed his attention over the course of the last seven days.

In a sub-headed column entitled 'Sir Ian Blah' McKay wrote,

"Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair says he considered resignation after one his anti-terrorist teams executed an innocent Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, in Stockwell station and allowed untruths about the young electrician, to the effect that he ran from them, jumped a station barrier and wore a bulky jacket which could have hidden a bomb, to circulate for two days".

One does not recall whether McKay summoned the same level of outrage when a fellow journalist from the North East of Scotland, Alan Buchan, was earlier this year charged under the Public Order Act for publishing an intemperate editorial on the possibility of an asylum detention centre being built near the Silver City; an unconscionable assault on press freedom by the forces of political correctness. It has since been reported that Buchan's prosecution will not be proceeding, which means all those of us in Scotland who express opinions in the public domain can now breathe a little more easily.

However, old McHackey never seems to miss a chance to defend the honour of Jean Charles de Menezes, who definitely did commit a crime here.

The Daily Mail's Problem With The Rule of Law: Tuesday

2005-09-28T18:02:00.000Z

On Tuesday September 27 Stephen Wright, the Daily Mail's 'Chief Crime Correspondent' wrote a Page 25 three-quarter page piece about the de Menezes case entitled, 'Police knew within five hours they had shot the wrong man'.

The first two paragraphs are as follows:

'Scotland Yard chiefs knew within five hours of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes that officers had killed an innocent man, the Daily Mail can reveal.

They established by mid-afternoon on the day of the shooting that the dead man was a Brazilian with no terrorist links'.

Pace the absence of terrorist links, one might have thought that the Mail would have found at least some space to record the full facts of the case, of which one of the most central is de Menezes' own criminality.

The Daily Mail's Problem With The Rule of Law: Wednesday

2005-09-28T17:47:00.000Z

Today, Wednesday September 28, we have been treated to another Stephen Wright classic.

In a Page 35 three-quarter page piece entitled 'Utter Confusion - Catastrophic blunders led to shooting of an innocent man', Wright writes,

"Sir Ian Blair faces disturbing questions about the police shooting of the innocent Brazilian who was mistaken for a suicide bomber'.

This is now three times in three days that the same leading British newspaper has deliberately misrepresented the legal status of Jean-Charles de Menezes, a matter of the most profound importance should its readership be required to indemnify his family through legal process.

Send its editor in chief Paul Dacre mail to tell him what you think.

The Sunday Times Joins the Innocence Gang

2005-09-18T14:40:00.000Z

In an article for today's Sunday Times' entitled 'SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police', Robert Winnett writes,

"TWO senior SAS soldiers who trained many of the firearms teams now serving in Britain’s police forces have warned of their concerns about the officers’ skills and psychological suitability for the job.

The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often “gung ho” and unfit.

The soldiers believe members of the Metropolitan police team that shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian, on the London Underground in July would have been among those they trained, although they are not certain. "

Ways of life cannot be preserved in amber. The dangers of the times we live in, which re themselves the consequence of unmandated political decisions, will mean that one day the United Kingdom's police services will all probably have to be fully armed. When that day unfortunately comes, one would certainly hope that all officers will not only be trained how to use firearms but also to have a proper respect for their lethality.

Any incident where a police service uses lethal force against anyone must be properly investigated - the rule of law demands it.

But if anyone has been 'gung ho' in the run up to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, it has been Tony Blair, who started his gung-ho abolition of the UK's borders by eliminating embarkation controls within a year of his election; a process which continues to this day, a crisis in demography which he and his associates have manufactured and which may yet lead to native citizens and loyal, law-abiding immigrants being forced to compensate the family of a man who lived here for his own advantage, and who deliberately spurned our laws.