« Previous | Main | Next »

July 22, 2005

Eddie Mair | 12:47 UK time, Thursday, 2 August 2007

will be our main news, we think - focussing on this report from the IPCC.


  1. At 01:10 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Mr Foxtrot-Oscar wrote:

    Who are the IPCC?


  2. At 01:13 PM on 02 Aug 2007, b carbury wrote:

    If you are head of an organisation do you say "right ,tell me what is happening but do not tell anything that might upset me".

  3. At 01:20 PM on 02 Aug 2007, b carbury wrote:

    If you are head of an organisation do you say "right ,tell me what is happening but do not tell anything that might upset me".

  4. At 01:29 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, isn't it? What are they doing on the underground?

  5. At 01:32 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Joe Cool wrote:

    From the link:
    "The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has concluded its investigation into complaints made by the family of Jean Charles de Menezes that after he was shot dead by Metropolitan Police Service officers on 22 July 2005. "

    Pity the grammar checker had not been engaged.

    If anyone had the good sense to ask me, my recommendations would be:

    1 Don't release any comment until all information has been accumulated and evaluated.
    2 Tell the media ony the facts. In this instance: "A man has died of gunshot wounds. Please do not speculate, a full statement will be released as soon as possible."

    "No comment" should not be reserved for use by rogues.
    "I don't know, yet." has the ring of honesty about it and should not be feared by a spokesperson.

  6. At 01:44 PM on 02 Aug 2007, witchiwoman wrote:

    Have just read a 'who knew what when' type piece on the Guardian site and am absolutely appalled. How could Hayman think that lying so flagrantly was at all acceptable? Did he truly think this wouldn't be found out? Its either arrogance or stupidity and both are extremely worrying in someone that holds such a position.

  7. At 02:36 PM on 02 Aug 2007, DI Wyman wrote:

    woah....and there was me thinking the 'cowboys' weren't going to get told off.....

  8. At 02:40 PM on 02 Aug 2007, JimmyGiro wrote:

    The overall gist of the recommendations from the IPCC report is for the improvement of communication.

    Which is fairly rich considering the panel have taken nearly 2 years to summarise a cock-up.

  9. At 04:12 PM on 02 Aug 2007, mac wrote:

    Wasn't the 'advantage' of shooting him that he was Brazilian?

    That way everyone concluded 'That's what they'd do to Moslems'

    The right and the police were very happy with that, 'cos it 'showed 'em' and they don't get everywhere from Bradford to Brick Lane torn apart like that.

    It reminds me of Hillsborough. 'Let 'em in, it'll serve 'em right'.

    They, the police, did it at Brentford before WW2. They deliberately crowded people in 'cos they were fed up with crowd behaviour there. Result: 15 or so deaths and a compliant crowd.

    Jobs done.

    PS I type so slowly I don't have time for the Guardian these days but what does that bloke on the tube who so mis - described things say these days?

  10. At 06:27 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Rachel G wrote:

    But you didn't lead with it did you... rant continues in Glass Box.

  11. At 05:18 PM on 03 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    mac @ 9, it seems entirely likely that the men who actually shot him had no idea that he was Brazilian. In fact their information was almost certainly that he was an armed Islamist terrorist: their over-reaction indicates to me that they were frightened, as well as hyped-up. "The book" may say that if he had a bomb strapped to him, shooting him repeatedly in the head would prevent him from setting off that bomb, but it does rather seem that looked at dispassionately, it didn't look much as if he were trying to set off any bomb. They just didn't take the time to *look*.

    To blazes with the conspiracy theories, frankly. Given a choice between conspiracy and incompetence, I'll back incompetence every time. It's just so much more likely that some members of a large group are human and fallible than that all of that group are inhuman monsters *with a common cause*. I simply don't believe that in a group of more then ten, not one of them would blow the gaff on a conspiracy that not all of them supported absolutely, and I simply don't believe that all the police are paranoid idiots with a political agenda. (As with "all tories" are this that or the other, when it's absolutely clear that "all tories" is a semantic null because the tories most certainly do not have everything in common -- sometimes it looks as if they don't have *anything* in common...)

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.