Met Plod commisionar

[EFLImpudence]

In a ruling, judges in Strasbourg concluded there had been a thorough investigation into Mr De Menezes’ death, which “concluded that there was insufficient evidence against any individual officer to prosecute”.

There would be insufficient if it had gone missing or CCTV was not working, wouldn't there?

 

[Notch7]

There would be insufficient if it had gone missing or CCTV was not working, wouldn't there?

The ECHR also said:
was not due to any failings in the investigation or the State’s tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts,

Ie, they didnt find any collusion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

They didn't find any.

The ECHR cannot say we think the evidence was destroyed and people are lying but we can find no evidence of it.

 

[ellal]

IRA didn't blow themselves up in order to kill as many people next to them. This most certainly was something new on our soils.. They also often sent a warning to the cops. Terrorism yes, but not the same as ISIS inspired terrorism.

Ah, so one improvised IED is different to another improvised IED?

Maybe you could explain that to the victims, because I'm sure they'll be pleased to know whether or not the perpetrator died alongside them or not!

And as you say a warning was 'often sent'....

However a warning was also not often sent, so the element of terror was still there.

Care to tell us how many victims there have been of Islamic terror attacks.
And how many there were in relation to the Northern Ireland 'troubles'?

Edit: Btw, it certainly wasn't unprecedented on 'our soil'...Remember the 'deaths on the rock'?

 

[ellal]

They didn't find any.

The ECHR cannot say we think the evidence was destroyed and people are lying but we can find no evidence of it.

Just like the police never say someone is 'innocent'.

They always say there is 'insufficient evidence'!

 

[Notch7]

They didn't find any.

The ECHR cannot say we think the evidence was destroyed and people are lying but we can find no evidence of it.

So if they dont have any evidence, or proof it was destroyed who does?

 

[EFLImpudence]

No one - but we are allowed to say we are suspicious. The ECHR probably is not (allowed).

 

[ellal]

So if they dont have any evidence, or proof it was destroyed who does?

I guess then that you also don't believe that the CPS has recently halted dozens of rape cases because of non disclosure/destruction of evidence by the police either?

 

[Notch7]

Just like the police never say someone is 'innocent'.

They always say there is 'insufficient evidence'!

So what you are saying is, there is no proof of a cover up, you are just making allegations, although your post stated it as fact.

 

[EFLImpudence]

There are quite a lot of instances in the US of police killing people "unnecessarily".

They do not seem to be prosecuted even when it has been recorded and posted on line.

 

[Brigadier]

No one - but we are allowed to say we are suspicious. The ECHR probably is not (allowed).

"probably" (in your opinion).

 

[Brigadier]

They didn't find any.

The ECHR cannot say we think the evidence was destroyed and people are lying but we can find no evidence of it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Please clarify what you have in mind.

 

[JohnD]

Who might I believe, Ellal or European court of human rights.

Yes, you are welcome to believe that they found insufficient evidence. That's widely agreed.

What a shame that the evidence from the numerous CCTV cameras was somehow missing.

That's one way that evidence was not found.

 

[Notch7]

Yes, you are welcome to believe that they found insufficient evidence. That's widely agreed.

What a shame that the evidence from the numerous CCTV cameras was somehow missing.

That's one way that evidence was not found.

So you are saying, it is suspicious that potential cctv footage wasnt available as evidence.

Not the same as somebody claiming a 'cover up' as fact.