The Unlawful Killing of one man’s Human Rights
Words, just words….. don’t you feel as though the world we are all living in is run by people who use words to wriggle and squirm their way through reality? Listen to our parliament, there the carefully chosen words are used to evade and avoid any responsibility for what is actually going on in the lives of ordinary people. We are faced with financial catastrophe but are assured that the individuals who brought the catastrophe into our lives are the men to solve the problem. Are they really? Do we actually believe that those who seek to sit at the top of social responsibility, those who have both governed and opposed, those who have overseen one disaster after another, are the people of experience we need? Why is it that this ‘experience’ is so prized and hoisted aloft when it is no more than some tattered and discredited flag of convenience. This is a democracy so we are allowed to ask but with that right is it not so that we also have to accept responsibility ourselves? We are the voters after all! We put them there.
So what exactly have we put in place of government? The answer is, in my opinion, that we have placed a management practice in place of ethics and put cynical men trained in rhetoric in charge of morals. If you do not understand what is being said here then get the dictionary out, it is the last hope you have: to actually master the words used to deceive you. What this means in reality, and you all know this is true, you can feel it in your hearts, is that whenever there is a disaster out come the business managers to use a form of words that make it seem as though we have just survived an unforseeable act of nature rather than a contrived cock up of management.
Let us look at the business managers who are currently managing the case of an extra judicial public execution of an innocent man going about his lawful business. You are all students so let’s assume you know exactly what I mean by extra judicial…. well maybe you’re an art student, maybe your a business studies student, perhaps you are not studying law, so I will explain that term. Extra judicial means that no legal process was entered into before the act of execution was undertaken. There was no court, there was no hearing, there was no opportunity for a man to disprove an accusation of guilt (our judicial system being built on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty) before being publicly executed.
So here are the words of the Metropolitan Police (temporary) Business Manager:
“…..for somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is something the Metropolitan Police service deeply regrets.”
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-verdict
Note the word lose here. Not taken away, not stolen, not robbed of but lost, to lose. The importance of this word is that when you lose something you are in some way culpable. If you loose your keys then it has not happened at the agency of someone else, YOU have lost them. So to John Charles de Menezes for it would appear that, according to the business manager, he has been somewhat careless, he has lost his life.
Let us also remember that the Metropolitan Police Business Management Unit were looking for a verdict of “Lawful Killing”. This is to say that the people in charge of our police wanted the extra judicial public execution of John Charles de Menezes to be established in law as a lawful and legal action. Once so established that would mean in future people could be publicly executed beyond the rule of law and merely at the behest of a management decision, political or otherwise.
Personally I feel I have to question the suitability for high public office of anyone who sought a verdict of lawful killing in this case. Do we really want such minds running our society? On an intellectual basis alone such a position simply does not have any merit whatsoever.
The Capital Punishment (Amendment) Act 1868 banned public executions. Our legal system, as previously stated, rests on the presumption of innocence and the need for guilt to be proven in a court of law before any state sanction may be taken.
The problem in this case lies with the police officers who shot de Menezes, they are most definitely innocent and are not guilty of unlawful killing, there is no doubt about this. In this case the focus has been on the innocent, de Menezes and C11 and C12 and not on those guilty of the crime; the management who instructed the process that led to this man’s death. I believe that the senior manager, Cressida Dick, said that in her opinion the management had done nothing wrong. If she did make that statement, and in my opinion she did, then she lives in an alternate universe where the extra judicial public execution (yes I most certainly will keep pushing this label) of an innocent man is nothing wrong.
You see the officers who fired the shoots were following their orders under the clear impression that they were dealing with a man about to explode a bomb. Now take a step back and imagine that you are in the moment where you are faced with a man who you believe is about to blow himself up, kill a whole load of passengers and yourself into the bargain. Imagine you are in that moment and tell me if you think that you will a) shoot him dead or b) follow procedure or even c) spend time pondering the issue. You see those officers were agents of the management system, they were the representatives of decisions made or not made by the senior management team controlling them. The individuals responsible for the extra judicial public execution of John Charles de Menezes must surely be found in that management team…… but we have all been deliberately focused on the officers……. that is why the coroner could not allow a verdict of unlawful killing. The wrong people were being tried by the coroners jury.
So who are the management team responsible?
The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, offered her “deepest sympathy” to the family.
“What we have learned from the accounts of the tragic events that day reminds us all of the extremely demanding circumstances under which the police work to protect us from further terrorist attack,” she said.
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-verdict
Note the use of words here, the point at which this article started. It appears that what the government have learnt is how demanding the police role is. The home secretary also raises that tattered flag of “…further terrorist attack.” I don’t actually see any concern whatsoever about extra judicial public executions, do you?
You see, in my opinion, the management of our political system, the management of our police service and the management of our public services is all handled by business managers more concerned about their jobs and salaries than the core duties they are meant to perform. Do not think for a moment that Harringey Council Social Services is an exception, it is most certainly the rule and it follows the example, as do the police, set by our elected politicians in government. When has a business management ever been held to account for its actions?
“The Bhopal disaster of 1984 was an industrial disaster that was caused by the accidental release of 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) from a Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL, now known as Eveready Industries India, Limited) pesticide plant majority (50.9%) owned by Union Carbide located in the heart of the city of Bhopal, in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
The BBC gives the death toll as nearly 3,000 people dead initially and at least 15,000 from related illnesses since, while Greenpeace cites 20,000 total deaths as a conservative estimate. It is now accepted that at least 8,000 people died initially.
According to the Bhopal Medical Appeal, around 500,000 people were exposed to the leaking tables. Approximately 20,000, to this date, are believed to have died as a result; on average, roughly one person dies every day from the effects. Over 120,000 continue to suffer from the effects of the disaster, such as breathing difficulties, cancer, serious birth-defects, blindness, gynaecological complications and other related problems.”
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide
Unlawful Killing of everyones’ Human Rights, that is the result when ethics in government are replaced by business administration systems. As far as I am aware the directors of Union carbide have never been made responsible for their actions and the people who suffered remain living on a toxic nightmare. Sounds familiar eh!
Jack Adams
Project Leader
HumanRights TV
Empowering the Voice Seldom Heard.
HumanRights TV is always looking for volunteers to work in the most exciting new distribution
vehicle of its time. If you want to know more then info@humanrightstv.com
Category: Politics, Student News
About the Author (Author Profile)
I am Italian, from Florence. I am doing a MA at Soas, but on part time basis. At the moment I'm looking for a job...Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
