Mr John WoodOct 25th, 2007 - 13:06:58

The evidence given by Cressida Dick seems to be saying that the
Met still believe that Mr de menezes 'may' have been Osman.

A classic delusional state of those guilty of tragic mistakes to
maintain their own internalised belief that their actions
were correct despite evidence to the contrary.

Report this comment

NeilOct 26th, 2007 - 13:04:14

Had I been on a tube train in which a bunch of armed men, at that stage there did not appear to be anything which identified them as Police Officers as that came later when they put silly little chequered hats on, I too would have tried to get off the train. I too would have reacted in a hostile manner had a bunch of armed thugs grabbed hold of me in an atmosphere which, according to the Police's own evidence, was 'pandemonium'. I fail to see how this can can be interpreted as evidence that anyone is a criminal of any kind. The Police Commander in this case, whose evidence seems to differ from most of the others, is either niaive or not telling the truth. Somehow, I suspect that if it is the former she would not be in this 'exalted' position, so perhaps it is the latter. Is this yet another example of the fashionable 'Save my own Skin' example we seem from offials of all kinds, from Government Ministers downwards? Nobody, it seems wants to to be blamed for anything, however catastrophic to the public.

Report this comment

FredaOct 26th, 2007 - 13:09:33

This woman Cressida Dick claims that suggestions she is telling lies are 'outrageous'. Mm, ...I don't think they are at all outrageous, but are too close to the truth for her own comfort.

Report this comment

Tom WelshOct 28th, 2007 - 13:42:28

Cressida Dick has told the court that:

1. She was never out of control;
2. She never ordered de Menezes to be shot.

These two statements are incompatible; one or other may be true, but not both. De Menezes was in fact shot, so either it was done on her orders, or it was done in the absence of an order from her. If a police officer is in charge of a team of armed men, and they deliberately kill someone without an order from their commander, how can the commander say she never lost control?

Dick also said that de Menezes 'was a victim of terrible circumstances'. No, DAC Dick, he was a victim of your armed policemen (if, indeed, they were policemen and not something more sinister). If you decide to turn loose a team of gunmen in a crowded city environment, then you are responsible for the consequences. All the consequences, whether you like them or not.

If I owned a dog, and the dog savaged and killed someone, I would be held responsible. How much more so when a highly trained, qualified, and paid police officer is supposed to be in control of an armed team that kills an innocent civilian?

Report this comment