Jean Charles de Menezes

[LewPaper]

I think the time's now come to draw a line under this very sad and unfortunate incident. It was a mistake, a terrible, ghastly one granted, but still a mistake; something we all do every day, though thankfully without these dire consequences.

Certainly if it's found necessary further enquiries should be conducted, but out of the public gaze. To do so only gives rise to glib sound-bites in interviews, general face-saving and excuses instead of reasons and does nothing to assist any inquiry to come to a genuinely honest and unbiased result.

Why not conduct it like an autopsy? Let those empowered to do so do the job and publish the result.

[LewPaper]

Oh dear Gourmander, you really do ask for it don't you?

As far as jno is concerned I don't 'attack' those who disagreee with me at all - ever. I look forward to hearing different observations on the same subject.

It's when someone complains, belly-aches, whinges or whines over something they THINK I said when I get annoyed. Not only annoying, but it wastes everyone's time in reading and correcting it. Don't look any further than your ludicrous posting.

Incidentally I must apologise for calling you a ****head. I now realise you can only DREAM of reaching such heights of intelligence.

[Quinlad]

Lew, I see what you're saying. No-one likes a media circus and it must be hard on the family.

BUT... almost as important as justice being done is justice being seen to be done. Without that, people lose faith in the criminal justice system. That's why we hear about transparency and openness.

You might think it's somehow more sensitive and unbiased to conduct enquiries away from the public gaze, but the opposite is true. How would anyone trust the conclusions of an enquiry conducted behind closed doors? You'd hear words like whitewash and cover-up. Far from drawing a line under anything, that would prolong it.

If any further enquires are needed they need to be done as openly as possible. That's the very least that the guy and his family deserve.

[LewPaper]

That's a very good point Quinlad and one I must admit escaped me when posting it.

I still feel for the family, but as you rightly implied it's so dangerous setting a precedent or worse, passing laws based on just one genuine case when other far less reputable cases could benefit unfairly.

The benefits of debate and discussion - priceless.

Thanks Quinlad

[Miss-Ladybug]

The main point still remains the same, i wont even bother to argue with people who disagree or think that a man who, in his mind, in this twisted split second, in a difficult situation none of us will be in, made what (at the time) was the right decision.

If he hadnt shot, and Menezes was a lethal terrorists, everyone would be in uproar over why he didnt shoot.

End of.

[Quinlad]

Yeah! Better to be safe than sorry. The police should be free to shoot any foreign-looking people carrying bags. Or males running near tube stations. Or people who look a bit dodgy.

If they don't shoot and that person turns out to be a terrorist, everyone would be in uproar.

The police should never be accountable if they're trigger-happy but well-intentioned. It's a split second decision and they have a difficult job.

End of.

Good grief.