|
|
Talking points for man shot dead
By: altf4 on: 24.07.2005 [21:02 ] (8451 reads)
Picture of the man shot by "police"
|
|
(4494 bytes) [nc]
|
|
TALKING POINTS FOR MAN SHOT DEAD
Urgent Release For All Press
Talking Points for man mistakenly killed by UK police. The following
points should be emphasised in your reports:
The dead man is to be referred to as the "suspect" and never the "victim". The intent of these talking points is to cast suspicision onto the dead man and direct any criticism away from the police.
He was not Caucasian. Preferably he was of Asian or Arab appearance.
Do not just mention that he was (mistakenly) taken for a suicide bomber, but describe suicide bombings in detail. Especially the aftermath. The intention should be to frighten the reader.
Remind the reader what would (never say "might") have happened if the suspect "had" been a suicide bomber and the police had "not" shot him. Exaggerate.
Imply that he had a rucksack of the same colour, size, and design as preferred by real suicide bombers.
Blame the terrorists for his death and be sympathetic towards the police at all times.
When describing the man use imagary drawn only from the CCTV pictures of the real bombers. Conjour up the image of a suicide bomber.
Mention but do not discuss his innocence. Mention it only when necessary.
Belittle the suspect. Describe him in negative terms as poorly dressed, unshaven, and nervous, but also as a physically intimidating man, burly, agile, fit, dangerous.
It should not be written that he "failed" to obey police as failure may be construed as meaning that there was some other possible reason for his not stoping than presumed guilt. Avoid passive associations by describing his actions only with action words commonly associated with guilt such as "refused" or "resisted".
Give conflicting eye-witness accounts of the actual moments of the shooting so as to protect officers.
One witness thought he saw a "bomb-belt" on the suspect. Quote this witness extensively and as often as possible. Offer no speculation or implication that he may have been mistaken (which of course he was). Use his observation as if it was the sworn testimony of an expert in suicide bombings requiring no further comment.
The police began following the suspect after he left an apartment in the same block in which another apartment was under surveillance. Use this in such a way as to connect him to the bombers (by describing the apartment block as a "house", for example). Do not speculate that the police may have followed the wrong man.
Bury the information that the real bombers are still on the loose by mentioning some vague arrests but do not give details as those arrested in the early days of such crises invariably turn out to be innocent.
Avoid mention of the suspect's family (especially if it turns out he had a wife and kids) but report in depth on how sorry the police are. Use words like "regret" and "tragic".
Assert that the way in which the suspect "dived or fell to ground" was cause for suspicion in itself. Never connect this to the simultaneous shouting by armed police for every one to "get down" as this may contradict prior assertions that he refused to obey the police.
Report it as if "the regulations" required the police to shoot him.
Report that there will be an internal enquiry as if this is a magnanimous police gesture as opposed to mere routine. Report on the process but not the substance of the enquiry, and phrase process descriptions in terms of thoroughness, accountability, and above all sufficiency. Avoid mention of previous police-shootings that have resulted in public enquiries.
Don't mention the war.
Generate debate on the circumstances in which the police *should* shoot to kill, and avoid moral or legal issues. Frame the debate in terms of terrorism only and dismiss mistaken-identity arguments as left-wing or liberal.
If the suspect turns out to be non-muslim you should still continue to question muslim clerics on matters related to terrorism.
If the suspect does turn out to be muslim connect muslim sympathy or sorrow over his death with radical extremism.
Use the tiniest flaw in the suspect's character (drugs, fare-dodging, infidelity, etc) as ultimate justification. For example, "If he hadn't have been deaf, he would have heard the police and still be alive today..."
Utterly groundless speculation is allowed to be presented as fact only when it results in a positive image for HMG.
All other topics, speculation, criticisms of the police, or discussions, are forbidden.
sent by altf4
by stopwar on 24.07.2005 [21:53 ]
|
|
|
have been Government Guidelines sent to the BBC. If you see any BBC reporting since the start of the Iraqwar conflict and in particular since The Hutton Report, it bears similar hallmarks.
Why are we surprised. This is "news management" - the central tenet of New Labour, as introduced by Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell.
|
by eureka on 25.07.2005 [00:02 ]
|
|
|
There has been no remorse whatsoever displayed by the police, and all other government spokespeople that I have seen. I suppose they are somehow trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility for this cold-blooded killing.
One remembers clearly the government's outcry at the disappearance of the english lady, Margaret Hassan, in Iraq who was married to an Iraqi, and who from all reports was doing a fantastic job but the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and possible murder, did not bear the signature of the Iraqi resistance.
Isn't this man's unwarranted killing at the hands of the british police, not the terrorists as the London mayor is somehow suggesting, deserve some form of redress?
Here was a young man in the prime of his life who was murdered through no fault of his own, despite all claims to the contrary, at the hands of the police and so far no meaningful attempt on the part of the british government to repatriate his family for their loss?
This government along with the american government has repeatedly claimed to be spreading democracy and freedom to Iraq. Aren't they practicising what they are preaching at home? at least in respect of people of colour and muslim descent?
It will be most interesting how things will materialize from here onwards.
Peace
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [00:20 ]
|
|
|
People have been talking this through a lot on the UK Indymedia site. Normal police wouldn't (I hope) have made such a ghastly mistake. It was almost certainly special ops folk who followed this young "foreigner" from his home in a block of flats. They were certainly in plain clothes and he would have no idea they were acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police.
Blair changed the policy!!! Was such a change put to MPs first? If so, were the implications explained to them?
I don't know why ordinary coppers don't go on strike against the "shoot to kill" policy - which is in any case against the law in a country that doesn't have capital punishment.
|
by adil_nazeem on 25.07.2005 [01:32 ]
|
|
|
Bfore days of Internet I used to believe EVERYTHING BBC,CNN had to report on Gulf War 1 etc. Not any more.The USA AND BRITISH govt are real criminals.
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [01:39 ]
|
|
|
I used to think your ideas were too extreme. The events of the last two-and-a-half weeks have caused me to think again...
|
by eureka on 25.07.2005 [03:45 ]
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. I happen to know that the majority of british people were against this war from the outset, unlike the americans; that is why my criticisms were directed at the british government and not the british people. We can only pray and hope that justice will be served.
|
by xJlM on 25.07.2005 [04:20 ]
|
|
|
Probably better than half of the US was against the Iraq war long before it started. I went to an antiwar protest in October of 2002, before the war had even starteed. The government here doesn't even listen to the common people or the ones who will do the fighting and dying. They serve their own agenda (and that of Israel, of course), and say to hell with the taxpayers.
|
by Mike-Malaysia on 25.07.2005 [05:40 ]
|
|
|
I know you have on occasion cast your critical eye over the brit establishment, but I can see from some of your other posts that you still have some kind of faith in the Lady Brittania. In fact I have pointed this out to you before dear stopwar. Do you still retain such faith now stopwar?
If so I'd love to know why.
|
by hellsbells on 25.07.2005 [11:05 ]
|
|
|
Where have I heard that one?
(Fawlty Towers?)
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [11:27 ]
|
|
|
Nope! How can I, now that the establishment are all rushing round defending a policy that results in murder.
After "Red Ken" praising the police, we now have "Sir John". Yes... John Major - not surprising after "The Oval" was apparently targeted.
ht tp://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535727,00.html
It's now up to the people. They did it over Thatcher's poll tax. That threatened democracy. But in the space of two weeks our society has clearly become a police state. That's not somewhere I particularly want to be. But will wait awhile, and see what happens next.
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [12:12 ]
|
|
|
message for you on new thread "Measured Force"
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [12:15 ]
|
|
|
Latest article is entitled:
"Victim had an expired visa"
ht tp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713753.stm
I suppose at least they called him a victim!
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [16:36 ]
|
|
|
Someone has now pulled together all the discrepancies in reporting and pictures - and put them togeyther on one big web page. Impressive! And very thought-provoking:
ht tp://www.declarepeace.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/londonbomb.html
|
by stopwar on 25.07.2005 [16:50 ]
|
|
|
on the day of the bombings, again relating ripples from the Plame case to the current problems:
ht tp://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg00629.html
|
by Tet on 26.07.2005 [16:57 ]
|
|
|
How do you sell earthquake insurance to people where no earthquakes occur?
How do you make an industry pay hundreds of millions of d0llars to counter the statistical probability of death less than .0001% while at the same time pay out nothing to counter statistical probabilities of death that are much greater?
All you need to do is sell the perception of risk being much higher than it actually is. When there is a high perception of risk, people are much more willing to spend money or take action against this threat even when other threats are much greater.
Britain is about to be sold something to counter this risk of execution, when in fact money should be spent elsewhere to help lower risks that are much greater. Now how can Britain be assured of catching these bombers without killing innocent bystanders?
Will it be more cameras in the tube and in other mass transit systems? Will there be a traceable ticketing system put in place to monitor movement of the sheep in Britain? Will you need to prove your identity in order to purchase a ticket for the tube or other transit system?
The Brits are about to get tagged or branded in order to prove what Shepard they belong to. The sensibilities of the Brit are about to allow their pockets to be picked. If you don't spend money to prevent something that will never happen, more completely innocent brown people will certainly be killed. Sit tight and in another month or so your benevolent government will come up with the answer to prevent this from ever happening again. Peace.
|
by stopwar on 26.07.2005 [21:11 ]
|
|
|
Tet earlier mentioned the Kent State killings, which set me thinking. There was a deliberate policy of vilifying the victimes afterwards. Why? The extract below might explain:
"Most people consider themselves to be decent human beings. But imagine you have a harmful thought about someone and enjoy it, or imagine getting a good feeling out of seeing someone else hurt. Both of these are dissonant with “I am a good person.” How do we deal with such facts about our inner life? A little psychological courage allows us to face such thoughts and feelings honestly, admit weaknesses in ourselves, and look for genuine reasons why such feelings and thoughts occur. But it is all too easy to slip into self-justification.
A classic example of this mentioned by Aronson is the study done after the killing of the students on the Kent State campus during the Vietnam War. People in the area (and elsewhere) believed all sorts of rumors to justify the dissonance between their self-image (“I am a good person who does not believe in killing innocent people”) and the fact that they wanted to justify the shooting of the students. The students shot were supposedly covered with lice, they all had syphilis, etc. All the rumors were false but they made people comfortable by reducing dissonance."
ht tp://www.manitowoc.uwc.edu/staff/awhite/dan00.htm
Aronson's book "The Social Animal" is still in print.
|
by stopwar on 26.07.2005 [21:20 ]
|
|
|
"There is credible evidence that there was a pre-existing government plan for the National Guard to open fire on the students as a desperate step to put an end to the student movement against the war in Viet Nam. But many believe the public hearings held, were a whitewash and coverup.
No person was ever convicted of committing these state-executions at Kent State on May 4, 1970. The U.S. government may be gearing up to reinstate the draft again due to its pending defeat in Iraq and its failure to recruit sufficient numbers of young people into its "volunteer army". Will we see repeats of the Kent State killings by the government as the "war on terrorism" mirrors the war in Viet Nam?
We are already seeing them in the "volunteer army", aren't we? There is one lesson we can learn from the Kent State killings and every war the U.S. government has conducted: Noone should have any lingering question about what the U.S. government is capable of doing to its own people.
Les Blough, Editor
© Copyright 2005 by AxisofLogic.com
ht tp://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17320.shtml
|
by Tet on 26.07.2005 [23:36 ]
|
|
|
I often wonder what kind of world we'd be living in today had only someone shot back. Peace.
|
by stopwar on 27.07.2005 [00:15 ]
|
|
|
If just one had fired back, it wouldn't have made much difference. If they had all returned fire... it could have brought the Vietnam war to a premature end, or it could have seen a lot more student bodies vilified by the media.
But weren't these 1970 "hippy students". The times of "Flower Power", "Make Love not War", and so on? The Buddha and Jesus were both about non-violence, and they both would have approved. A pity your govt wasn't more spiritual, but with Nixon in charge that would have been unlikely...
One student was trampled to death in the UK by a police horse three years later. As far as I am aware, no action was taken on that occasion, either. I think I remember reading that George Galloway was present at that demonstration; I'm sure he would have been very angry about the recent killing of Menezes.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
