Comments on: Why Ian Blair should not resign, and why perhaps he should

By: Andrew Milner

Andrew Milner — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:50:43 +0000

You can’t help feeling Sir Ian Blair’s inner circle was conspiring against him. The facts were known before the TV broadcast, but they let him make a statement which was known to be false and misleading. Is he such a tyrant that no one wanted to give him the bad news? Or is someone trying to force his resignation? Houston, we have a problem.

Owen replies: Maybe; or perhaps it was just a cockup. Either way, it doesn’t sound like a resigning matter.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:33:56 +0000

They are both really important points. The idea that the entire press corp and public believed a completely fictious version of events that benefitted only the police is very very important

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:03:29 +0000

if Sir Ian didn’t authorise the comments then why isn’t he searching for the people who did and firing them? Even the Telegraph is reporting on the dishonesty of the police on this. The death of a man is not a matter of semantics there is a basic question of decency here. As standard Sir Ian has failed.

Owen replies: I would like to think that it is because there are more important things to do that figure out how and why the press came to write these stories. It is much less important than, for example, the question of whether the shoot-to-kill policy was well-designed and properly implemented.

By: Ephems of BLB

Ephems of BLB — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:46:10 +0000

The Stockwell shooting and the police: mistrust the rush to judgement

Demands for the resignation of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, are culpably premature. We should all await the report of the independent inquiry.

…

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:56:00 +0000

I do remember Blair on television or the radio saying those things, or similar things

Separate sources have told the Guardian that by the afternoon of the shooting, senior officers had strong suspicions that the man killed was not a terrorist or connected to attempted attacks on London the previous day.

At his press conference Sir Ian told reporters: “This operation was directly linked to the ongoing terrorist investigation. Any death is deeply regrettable … as I understand the situation, the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1552281,00.html

But Sir Ian has also refused to accept any responsibility for those ‘briefings’

http://mywayofthinking.blogs.com/thoughts/2005/08/journalism_and_.html

Owen replies: Jeremy – right. The quote was in my original blog posting, above. That is all Sir Ian Blair said, as far as we know; and nobody has shown that he, or anyone authorized by him, said anything at all about heavy jackets, turnstiles, etc. But my point was that even if he had said all of that stuff, it isn’t clear that it would matter very much. Poor de Menezes was already dead. What Sir Ian said afterwards is fairly irrelevant – unless there is some evidence that he was trying to cover up the police’s mistake: that would be a serious matter indeed.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 20 Aug 2005 09:48:01 +0000

I don’t get why you think he would have been unlikely to say it if he knew it wasn’t true? All the other comments such as the heavy jacket etc, he knew not to be true… or he has staff that lied to him who should be fired? But no one has been fired for lying to him so he should take responsibility. The difference between the two versions was simply too great.

Owen replies: As far as I know (and correct me if I have this wrong) Sir Ian Blair did not say anything about a heavy jacket or vaulting the ticket barrier. That was all put together by the media, on the basis of witness accounts (and, one assumes, some off the record briefing by the police).

By: Iain Diamond

Iain Diamond — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:56:53 +0000

I have no issue with the fact that Sir Ian gave a public statement which later proved highly inaccurate. As you say it’s possible that members of his staff gave him bad information. However, I find very suspicous that the public only learned of the errors via leaked reports. It seems likely someone within his organisation has been trying to limit the damage done to MET’s reputation by withholding accurate information regarding killing. Even if the cover-up wasn’t lead by Sir Ian directly, the public are losing trust in him and the MET. At best the man can’t manage, at worst his guilty of corporate manslaughter. Either way he won’t be in the job much longer.