"“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” "

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao 12th March 2009

""We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system."

Timothy Geithner US Secretary of the Treasury, previously President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.1/3/2009

Thursday, August 02, 2007

22/7 Sir Ian Blair told lies from the start to the IPCC

Stockwell 2 report. Sec 1:4 Page 4
"At 10:50hrs, in a telephone conversation, the Commissioner (Sir I Blair) told Nick Hardwick, the Chair of the IPCC, “we’ve now shot somebody, I think dead, who refused to respond to anything that we were asking him to do”. He added “I’ve got three more potential suicide bombers out there..."

Soon after this conversation the Commissioner wrote to Sir John Gieve, the
Permanent Secretary at the Home Office which confirmed the shooting and telling him that he had warned off the IPCC.

At this time .....

1. Sir Ian Blair had been told of the shooting and that the man was he thought dead ,a reasonable assumption with 7 - 13 bullets in his head fired at point blank range. It is evident that he had also been told that the dead man, "who refused to respond to anything that we were asking him to do" which was a lie he was happy to retail in the full knowledge it was a lie or to leave the truth of the statement personally untested.

2. The number of wanted "potential suicide bombers" was now down from 4 to 3, Nick Hardwick could therefore reasonably assume that the dead (?) victim of the Met's sharpshooters was one of the potential suicide bombers.

Would it be unreasonable for Nick Hardwick to assume that the Commissioner when talking to the Chairman of the IPCC and the most Senior Home Office official had checked and verified personally the accuracy of the information provided to him ?

Presumably a lowly News desk Editor would ask of his informant supplied with the same information on the day would have demanded further proof, of death, identity, method, photographs etc.,

That the Commissioner was only speaking to an audience of one is not important , it must surely be his duty to ensure that all information he provides is both accurate and has his personal authority to substantiate it.

Either the Commissioner is lying - which is certainly true, despite his repeated and implacable denials in public today, or he is massively incompetent and believes any fucking thing his officers tell him.

Either way he should go.

As for Hayman and Clarke, it has long been evident that they are stupid, incompetent, dishonest racist liars ad should have been sacked years ago.

1 comment:

sam_m said...

"Would it be unreasonable for Nick Hardwick to assume that the Commissioner ... had checked and verified personally the accuracy of the information..?"
Yes it would be unreasonable. The Commissioner has flunkies to do that for him and if they hadn't on a matter as grave as this they should've been out the door without a reference.
Andy "Crikey" Hayman should've been sacked for it and for his evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and for the Forest Gate debacle.

Ian Blair should go for his lack of control over his command and for his whinging it would have been alright if only they'd killed "the right man". Fine attitude for the leader of a death squad but wholly inappropriate for a Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
There may be the "right circumstance" where the use of lethal force is necessary but there's no "right man" to kill.

These bastards have only got their jobs to lose. For Jean Charles de Menezes it was his life.

Do I sound angry?!!!

(C) Very Seriously Disorganised Criminals 2002/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 - copy anything you wish