The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 42: 18 August 2005

[Please note that information emerged which is discussed in the 21 August Media Review which substantially modifies the following comments.]

SHOOT-TO-KILL UPDATE

Mystery solved. Yesterday we were wondering how the head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, came to give a completely misleading account of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, when he must have known that the facts would soon be in the public domain.

The most plausible explanation at the moment is that he believed that he could keep the facts out of the public domain. Indeed, he may not have given up this hope until the documents we discussed yesterday were leaked to ITV News.

That is the front page story in the Guardian: 'Met chief tried to stop shooting inquiry'. It is also a page 6 story in The Times.

Both the Guardian and the Independent (paid-for access) are cautious in their response.

In contrast, the Telegraph editorial is harder on the police chief:

Sir Ian may well have been unaware of the true situation when the statement [about Jean Charles de Menezes] was issued [on the day of the shooting]. But, even if that is the case, why did he allow the claim about jumping the ticket barrier to go unchallenged for so long, together with specious "explanations" for this non-event put about by official sources?

The Telegraph front page is completely given over to this much harder story: 'The 10 questions that put Met chief's job on the line'.

Almost half of the Telegraph front page story is given over to members of the de Menezes family, the solidarity campaign and the family lawyers. In contrast, the Guardian front page only has a statement by Harriet Wistrich, the lawyer for the de Menezes family, and that is tucked away at the very end of the story. In the continuation of the story into page 2, we also hear from Alex Alves Pereira, a cousin of Mr de Menezes.

The FT also has a harder story: 'Met chief faces calls to quit over shooting' (page 2). It includes two important points:

Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat member of the home affairs committee, said: "He [Sir Ian] would do himself a lot of good if he could show some contrition and make some public acknowledgement of just how badly it's all been handled. If he continues to bluster his position will become untenable."

The Home Office pointedly refused to offer Sir Ian its full backing yesterday. Although Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said in an interview before the report was leaked that the public should be "very proud" of the way the Metropolitan police responded to the bombings, the Home Office said it would be inappropriate to comment on Sir Ian's future until the full report was published.

The Times editorial, Questions for the Met, makes point alluded to in the Telegraph editorial above, but more clearly:

Soon after the killing, the BBC quoted security sources suggesting that Mr de Menezes was in Britain illegally, his student visa having expired. This was taken as constituting good reason for him to run away when challenged. Yet the police would have known by then that he had not acted suspiciously. Why, then, was this information leaked? And why did the police allow the inference to go uncorrected?

Out of the British 'quality' papers, it looks like the Telegraph has the most reasonable response to the revelations of the last few days.

A SATIRICAL NOTE

Here is part of the FT's Notebook satirical column for today:

Lessons from a leak

This is a public service announcement. London Underground passengers used to believe that to be shot repeatedly by anti-terrorism police it was necessary to:

a) wear a padded jacket that might conceal a bomb belt

b) vault a ticket barrier as if fleeing

c) ignore all requests to stop.

Leaked evidence to the inquiry into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes has led to a revision of this advice.

Pending clarification, it is reasonable to assume armed police may kill you if you are:

a) in the wrong place

b) at the wrong time.

Before Mr Menezes was identified as an innocent Brazilian electrician, the public formed a view of his killers that included these traits:

a) professional

b) resolute

c) well-informed

Pending clarification, the following characteristics may be substituted in popular perceptions of the officers:

a) panicky

b) confused

c) trigger happy.

As a general point, it should be noted that the more police operations come to resemble military activity, the more police will resemble soldiers. The core competencies of soldiers, as defined by one US army officer, exclude keeping the peace but include:

a) breaking things

b) killing people.

Note that the crucial race factor is omitted.

JNV welcomes feedback.