We are, therefore we err …

• Home
• What Is A Nation?

Comment at end

“I think, therefore I am” (Descartes)

13th December, 2008

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES

Yes, it was tragic.

Yes, there were mistakes made by the Police.

Yes, it shouldn’t have happened.

Yes, the family are angry and upset, as would we all be.

BUT

No, the Police did not leave their HQ that morning with the aim of killing an innocent man.

No, it does not prove that we live in a “Police State”.

No, the Police should not have told us and the terrorists there had been a “shoot to kill” decision.

No, the Police did not over-react if they believed the man was a terrorist.

And why such ‘independent’ rags as The Independent feel they have to devote several pages to this story is beyond me.  Unless, it is to prove that they “think, therefore they are”.

[Don't worry, I haven't actually BOUGHT a copy of the Indie! This information - on their lengthy coverage - is from early morning Radio 4's run-down of today's newspaper content.]

More thinking please, Indie and less re-playing of old theories of what others thought – “therefore they were ...”

If this is too subtle for some readers, let me explain:

A TALE OF TWO BLAIRS

I believe The Independent is on a mission. A mission to prove personal and political corruption of Tony Blair & Sir Ian Blair (the former MET Police chief.) The police’s role in the De Menezes case under political direction, adds ammunition to their guns. And their guns are aimed at Blair, Tony first, then Ian. This, even though both of them are already face-down in the gutter, largely victims of the press and civil/human righters.

From the beginning of the Iraq invasion the Independent “views”paper sought to prove that Tony Blair was at least misguided by ‘wrong thinking’ over Iraq.  Perhaps, they argued, he was influenced by his religious beliefs, of which he spoke little although it was always part of what he was and is. Perhaps he was influenced by an onerous and unprincipled desire to “suck up” to America. Perhaps he was driven by a simplistic view of “good and evil” as referred to here in Defeat: Why America and Britain Lost Iraq by Jonathan Steele (They haven’t lost, as history will show, but that analysis does not sell books, does it?) Quote: ‘Blair, in a clearly detached mood, exclaimed, ‘‘But the man is uniquely evil, isn’t he?’‘ in a reference to Saddam.’

I, as you might expect, don’t agree with any of Blair’s opponents “perhapses”. They can multiply exponentially, and no doubt will, and I am still unlikely ever to accept them.

Why? At least four reasons:

1 JOURNALISTS ARE NOT ELECTED TO RUN THE COUNTRY

I have come to understand that the Iraq invasion was, despite the consequential murder by insurgents of thousands, a good thing, the right thing to do. Journalist are not elected to make these decisions, politicians are. The actual practice of politics is for elected politicians. Journalists are not at the cutting edge of decision-making much as they like to think they are. They, like me, have opinions but not power. It is time they got off their high horses. You can break a lot of bones when you don’t know how to ride properly.

2 WE TRUST JOURNALISTS EVEN LESS THAN WE TRUST POLITICIANS

Oddly enough, I trust elected politicians to make the right decisions as far as they humanly understand them. I used to trust journalists and newspapers to balance their output. Not any more. And America’s Time magazine reports inaccurately here where they fail to point out that the Police guilty verdict on November 2007 was on breaching health & safety laws, NOT murder, as they imply by their headline and the tone of their article.

3 TO ERR IS HUMAN

If mistakes were made over Iraq and over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, to err is human. Ergo, if they erred, they are human.

4 TONY BLAIR IS NOT AN EVIL MAN

In fact I believe that he is a GOOD man. Probably one of the most principled and honest politicians we have had serve our country.

AND AS FOR SIR IAN BLAIR & THE POLICE?

They had an impossible task in June, 2005. A day after a second failed terrorist attack in London and three weeks after the 7/7/05 attacks which had left 52 dead and hundreds injured, if they had failed to stop a third perceived attack, the Police and government would have been under attack by all of us.

With all the outpouring of sympathy and empathy towards the de Menezes family, and of course they deserve a certain amount of balanced sympathy, this story has been over-inflated by those who wish to make political points on civil rights and police/political powers.  Would the de Menezes family have received as much care and attention over this unfortunate incident if it had happened in Brazil? I doubt it somehow. Not all countries’ journalists enjoy the freedom to pursue a political agenda dressed up as principled if semi-detached superiority of judgement and immature idealism (still strangely attractive to the naive.)

Walk a mile in the shoes of those entrusted with democratic power and upholding the law, Indie.

SIR IAN BLAIR, former MET Police Chief

• Sir Ian Blair on lack of support from Mayor Boris Johnson
• Ken Livingston on Boris Johnson, the Tory mayor’s ousting of Sir Ian Blair – because he was “TOO inclusive”
  
• Wikipedia on Sir Ian Blair

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES inquest

• Jean Charles de Menezes: Brazilian commentators noted that incidents such as Menezes’ killing are more typical of a developing country such as Brazil than a developed nation like the UK.^[22] The level of Brazilian protest raised criticism with some British commentators who noted that extra-judicial executions by the police in Brazil are far from rare.
• Guardian “Open Verdict” on de Menezes. So, jury decides, “not lawfully killed”
• Independent on de Menezes inquiry

COGITO & SOLIPSISM

• Philosophical thoughts on “I think therefore I am“
• More prosaic interpretation of the ‘cogito’ – perhaps even nearer Descartes’ original meaning
• Wikipedia on cogito with further links to scholastic interpretation

TONY BLAIR

• Tony Blair: Reaction from The Independent to his ‘feral beasts’ speech, June 2007 when he singled out the Independent for criticism. The list of comments proves he was right. They knowingly assert that all sorts of evil goings-on were down to Blair and Blair alone, from David Kelly’s “murder” to the deaths of thousands in Iraq. How weak-minded and susceptible to brainwashing are these commenters in their swallowing of the Independent’s political stance.
• The Independent’s Andrew Grice, May 2007 with a more nuanced and empathetic look at Blair on the announcement of his date of retirement as PM. So, they don’t ALL always get it wrong.  Sometimes the Indie’s reporters cease opining and actually report.
• The Independent’s relentless pursuit of Tony Blair over the Honours debacle was shameful, imho. Are they pursuing Damian Green too, while Police are investigating him? Don’t be silly.  Today, in a co-incidental link to the cogito, a Labour MP suggests in The Guardian, the Indie’s partner-in-disparagement, that solipsism has consumed his fellow parliamentarians. The Guardian too has been the avowed enemy of Mr Blair in their Left angles on Iraq, the Honours debacle and other matters. They have traduced Mr Blair personally on numerous occasions. And now, Labour MP Gerald Kaufmann is driven to pointing out that perhaps the House of Commons is somewhat unhinged in its reaction to the Damian Green affair. Those who were content to see the previous prime minister dragged to the Tower for his pre-judged “crimes” now scream in indignation when one of their own number is questioned. The corrupt Police state? But of course!
• Blair on “palaver” if he had admitted to his practising catholicism while PM (with many links to Tony Blair story)

---

---

Tags: 1. Tony Blair, 7/7, corrupt british police, i think therefore i am, inquiry, jean charles de menezes, july 2005 terrorism, met, police, police state, shoot to kill, sir ian bliar, the Guardian, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press, we are therefore we err