Sir Ian Blair

Originally posted by znsho
Tell that to the 5-year old child and his parents.

Since I can do neither, that's not much use.

Originally posted by Zadadka
Since I can do neither, that's not much use.

Take my comment intellectually, not literally.

Originally posted by znsho
Take my comment intellectually, not literally.

Very well.

Thankfully, I don't have to; I have children, three boys, so I have at least half a clue as to how empty just about any words would explain away my child being shot to death by those that are here to protect us.

But then again, I'm not here arguing / justifying on a case by case basis, nor am I disputing that charges should probably have been brought against the two officers in the de Menezes case.

But I still maintain that in the absence of such prosecution, be that a satisfactory outcome or not, I see no reason for Blair's removal from post other than to satisfy someone's political pandering.

Originally posted by Zadadka
Very well.

Thankfully, I don't have to; I have children, three boys, so I have at least half a clue as to how empty just about any words would explain away my child being shot to death by those that are here to protect us.

But then again, I'm not here arguing / justifying on a case by case basis, nor am I disputing that charges should probably have bee ...[text shortened]... no reason for Blair's removal from post other than to satisfy someone's political pandering.

I agree with you. Why, then, is a murderous police officer back on duty with a fire arm?

Originally posted by znsho
I agree with you. Why, then, is a murderous police officer back on duty with a fire arm?

That I can't answer directly.

To get any sort of answer to that question, I think we would first need to learn why the CPS have not been obligated to indicate why those officers (and others historically, as you indicate) have not been prosecuted, despite each having interviews under caution on and following "the day" regarding the potential charges against them as detailed in Stockwell One (in this instance).

Without an answer, we can only assume the aforementioned collusion & perjury, or, otherwise, that these cases are considered collateral damage.

The former can only be guessed at, but the latter is certainly my suspicion.

I don't condone this in any way, shape or form, but I do recognise that the miraculously low numbers so far would likely encourage that mode of thought from a militaristic viewpoint...that is, amongst individual SO or similar armed units, and if amongst them, then certainly amongst their direct operational seniors.

What the Stockwell Enquiry should have done (IMHO) is to make opaque areas such as the CPS decision, which, as can be quickly judged by the content, could only have been politically motivated.

Having accepted such an easy leap of faith, it is similarly easy to see why Ian Blair is then the offered as "compensatory collateral damage".

Glad we saw eye-to-eye...thanks for joining in 🙂