Posted By J Knight Descarte, I also feel we need to focus on the underlying causes; given the briefing those holding the triggers had and the pressures they had been put under by their superiors it may well have been unjust to blame them. If the officers who pulled the trigger had been the sole people in the dock I would have seen it as letting the entire Met culture & management off the hook. They shouldn't have shot him, but they also shouldn't have been told to, John

Posted By Gary IMD(UK) I have to say, in my opinion, Rob T speaks volumes and certainly echoes my thoughts! Everyone will have their beliefs, etc, however, hindsight is such a wonderful thing. IF we knew then, what we know now, then yes, I'm sure it would be different. Put yourself in the Police Officers position. Are you seriously, after tracking this guy, given 24 hours earlier, there was a failed attempt to blow up tubes and buses, going to give him the benefit of the doubt... and risk being obliterated yourself, with countless others? A perfect world, eh? ... If only! And yes, I too blame the bombers, as you have no defence against their beliefs and actions. Harsh world we live in! Take care!

Posted By Rob T That's funny Graeme I didn't know that you were actually there when it happened. As someone who used to work in the media could I just remind you not to believe all you read in the press (especially the Grauniad!).

Posted By Graeme Rob Funny that i was refering to the OFFICIAL IPCC report with regards to the not wearing of a heavy jacket or back pack or infact running.... The only gaurdian reference or in fact general media reference i have used was the one refering to blair very near the start. yes well all know the media people do talk crap most of the time, as is quite evident here So find your dummy and put it back in....then i will call you a taxi for one

Posted By Phillipe Jez Could they not have taken this action in the open and not in a tube train. They must have had plenty of opportunity to take this action in the open and disable him permanently? From what I recall they tailed him for a while in the open, why wait until he actually got on a train, that is the bit I find hard to understand, actually allowing him to get on a train in the first place, a suspected bomber...seems a bit of poor judgement if you ask me by allowing him to get that far in the first place and potentially detonate a bomb. Shoot to kill is always going to have it's problems. You could argue there is a war on terrorism and innocent people will get hurt as a result, but the police must be 100% sure they are killing the person they are supposed to be killing and not an electrician/plumber/ from Brazil in the country illegally trying to better himself.

Posted By Rob T Graeme, it seems like you have some political axe to grind here. May I just say that I attended one of the "incidents" underground in London as an H&S Advisor, within hours of the event. Unlike you I've actually witnessed the aftermath and as such I think I am entitled to express a view which hasn't come from chatting to my mates in a pub.

Posted By Graeme Of course you did...thats why you have only mentioned it now after 50+ posts that you had first had experience, and that you have been shot at several times etc etc god you do get about Sure your not at school? As it happens i was 3 streets away when tower 2 collapsed....as you will understand thats pretty damn close, infact close enough to hear the bodies hitting the ground for 30 minutes before it fell....so yes equally as qualified as you to talk about 'pub banter'

Posted By Gary IMD(UK) John, '...and since they shot him it does seem to me like you are saying that was the right thing to do'. In the circumstances, and without the benefit of hindsight, yes. But that is nothing like saying... Well both Gary & Rob want him shot! Take care! PS. I'm sure the Mod's must be having a well earned rest today, after spending all weekend trawling the threads! Not a snippet from them today!

Posted By J Knight Gary, I didn't say you wanted him shot, just that you thought he should have been, I suppose I could have added 'in the circumstances', John

Posted By Gary IMD(UK) John, Then perhaps we agree at last! It will always be an emotive subject and scapegoats will always be found. Unfortunately, the Terrorists just feed off of the publicity. Take care!

Posted By Dave Wilson Can I just say before my post I have very deep sympathy for the relatives of this unfortunate chap. Put another slant on this. I have been on the other end of the gun looking down the barrel, on a number of occasions, with one up the spout, and the safety catch is flicked off and I am was prepared to shoot and if necessary to kill in the line of duty as I felt my life and others of my patrol were under immediate threat, however never did as the situations got resolved. Would I have pulled the trigger if I had thought this chap had a bomb about him and was ready to let it off, dam right I would! Its difficult to criticise if you have never been in that situation. If and its a big If what if this was a suicide bomber and blew himself up along with 20 others and the Officers had a shot and did not take it - we would be villifying the Met. I am not trying to excuse what was done as it was completely and utterly wrong but the HASAW Act! come on. The issue here is about the Met PS not having correct procedures inplace to give 'direction' to the armed officers, in the military in situations like this we had a 'yellow card' rules of engagement and you were authorised to use this type of force in the circumstances as they presented, if you followed them then everything was OK. Did the met have them, I cannot for one minute think that they didn't, maybe well be proved wrong.

Posted By Jez Corfield Phillipe You are right, the ideal situation is to stop the suspect in the open, and get him to strip whilst officers keep him in their sights at a safe range, this is a well practised and smooth drill for the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) who do this regularly and safely. The problem, and the management failing, is that the officers who could do this (SO19?) arrived too late - in that he was already in the station, he was being tailed by intelligence officers, who may not have been armed (or authorised), and therefore couldnt do the stop. The armed officers arrived so late he was already on the train - their options are then limited, their rules of engagement for potential suicide bombers will have been to shoot to kill, as we saw with tragic consequences. Not the fault of the officers, but of the systems and command structure. Jez

Posted By RA This thread has a lot of conflicting views, but basically one innocent man was killed whether be it in the line of duty, the Constabulary/MI5 must stand up and take it on the chin. Information GIVEN to these officers resulted in this death and the family of the victim desrve justice. Look at Northern Ireland, how many of the Chiefs have stood in the dock- it is always the foot soldiers that the blame is thrown at. An additional note- I think using Israel as a good example during the current situation could stir up a lot of feelings that are not for this forum. RA

Posted By Merv Newman I think it is well known to regular readers of this column that Rob T has been shot at a number of times. At one time his job was to ensure H&S for people liable to be shot up and/or bombed. (I'm saying this for your Rob, hope you don't mind if I blow your cover) So if any of us have an inkling of the mindset of those who are likely to die within the next few seconds if they don't get it right - I'll bow to Rob. My personal feeling, from an extremely remote point of view, is that those doing the shooting had intelligence that the person they were following was a probable terrorist and, probably, carrying a bomb. And probably intending to set it off in an underground train. They waited, following him and confirmed the third part. He boarded an underground train. They then followed orders to stop him. And found themselves in close, bodily contact with a (probable) bomb. Which could have been detonated by any action or gesture of the bomber. I'm sure he struggled and resisted physical arrest. I would suggest that there was a high degree of panic and the people concerned took action to protect themselves from immediate death. This action resulted in the death of a totally innocent person. I can understand. I cannot condone. However, I believe that the case should be considered at the level of "corporate manslaughter" Management placed those officers in a, for them, life threatening situation. They took action, influenced by faulty intelligence and poor management policy and direction, to protect their lives and the lives of others. We should not, I feel, condemn or criticise them. Someone, at a much higher level, requires to be hung (deleted) out to twist and dry in the wind. Merv

Posted By Vincent Hearn Just thought I'd add some thoughts... As I recall, the last time the Met Police were prosecuted under H&S Legislation (The two Commissioners (Old and new)John Stevens was one, can't remember the other, could have been Iain Blair) due to risk assessment not being suitable and sufficient (Constable falling through a skylight whilst in pursuit of a suspect) it was thrown out!! If Mr Menezes was a terrorist, and activated a bomb and the police didn't do anything with a high loss of public life, would they still have been prosecuted under S3 due to an omission ie the public not being in the employer's employment? Seems the Police can't win, but whilst I understand the rationale of using HASAW, it does send some awkward messages to an already sceptical public about H&S.

Posted By SAF Curious to know what a 'terriorist' looks like? Not so long ago anyone with an irish accnt was deemed to be a potential 'terrorist'.... Food for thought

Posted By snt I would like members to note that a new dimension has been introduced to Health and safety At Work Act. Every police and institutional crimes can be classified under this act. For a start, who is at work? On whose premises was the act committed? Who is at fault, metropolitan police or the London Underground? If this case is proven, the London Underground would be liable for not protecting their passengers's safety and not issuing permit to enter to the London Police. Secondly, the Police can be liable for entering a premises without authorisation.

Posted By snt You dont have to look foreign or be a muslim to be a terrorist, it is all stereotyping.

Posted By Rob T Strangely it was a prominent Muslim who said - most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim. I don't think stereotyping comes into this argument about whether H&S laws are meant to deal with a shoot to kill policy which by definition means that someone somewhere will not be safe. That's the stupidity of trying this under safety laws!

Posted By Bob Shillabeer I have read most comments put on the forum and am quite honestly amazed how the moderator is allowing openly blatent comments such as the Gon Toting metstoomtrouper to be published. In my experience ther are no gun toting met stoormtroupers and one must remember what these officers were facing. On July 7 2005 52 people were blown away by four terrorists while going about thier normal business, two wweks later another attempted attack was foiled by the incompetence of the bombers. Add to this the very high tension these officers were under and thew fact they belived the individual they were following was a potential terrorist who actually went onto the underground and the risk to public lives and thier own lives they accted in the unfortunate manner that led to the death of an innocent man. What if the man was a terrorist and was carrying an explosive device which resulted in several deaths would this not have been abreach of the officers' duty and a breach of the Mets' duty to the unfortunate innocent membeers of the public, in short a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. The bacckground is well known and has been discused by experts and so called experts for almost a year. Now the CPS decides there is insufficient evidence to procecute anyone under other legislation so they drop back to the good old HASAW Act; by the way one cotributor said the procecutions were under section 3 and section 33, section 3 yes it is possible but not under section 33 as this section simply lists the offences under the Act and you cannot be prosected for a breach of an offence!! Please moderators stop political bias and lunatic comments even if somewhat understandable being publish. My last comment is the over riding purpose of this forum is to allow professional comment reflecting professional matters and standards not ranting of possibly justified people. PS I was in London on that day and used the tube from Paddington shortly before the attack and was about 100 yaerds from the location of the bus explosion and saw the faces of many Londoners and commuters to understand the terror they felt so please treat this issue with professional respect and quiestion the validity of charges under the HASAW Act to the case and not rantings of idiots.