Row over 'blank' CCTV tapes at station Rosie Cowan and David Hencke Tuesday August 23, 2005 The Guardian "Sources close to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes last night dismissed suggestions that CCTV tapes of vital moments before he was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station had been wiped." ... "Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that senior tube sources had challenged claims that cameras on the platform were not working, but said police had returned tapes to them saying they were blank. The paper quoted a senior transport union official as saying at least three of the four cameras on the platform were working, and said station staff were amazed and furious when told the tapes were blank. "It is most unusual to say the least," the official said. Neither Scotland Yard, nor the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is conducting an inquiry into the shooting, would comment." ... "CCTV could provide crucial clues to Mr De Menezes' behaviour. Leaked reports from the IPCC inquiry suggest a series of police errors, with Mr De Menezes not doing anything to arouse suspicion. Sources at the RMT union, which represents tube workers, were puzzled by claims that the CCTV had failed."
Focus: Executed: Anatomy of a police killing The real story of how an innocent man was shot by police is only now beginning to emerge. Jonathan Ungoed-Thomas investigates the accusations of incompetence and cover-up "Although the police soon admitted they had killed an innocent man, it was only last week that a proper account of what happened emerged. Leaked documents from the investigation into de Menezes’s death revealed a shockingly different version of events to the original ac- counts, including those apparently sanctioned by the police. The documents show de Menezes was behaving normally when confronted; he never ran from police; he did not leap a barrier at the station; he was not acting suspiciously; and he was already being restrained by an officer when he was shot. To compound matters, it also emerged that Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, tried to block an immediate inquiry into de Menezes’s death by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Late last week relatives of de Menezes accused Blair of misleading the public. “The police knew Jean was innocent. Yet they let my family suffer,” said Alessandro. “For three weeks we have had to listen to lie after lie about Jean and how he was killed. The police even went to Brazil. Yet they still didn’t tell us the truth.” Instead of facts, the police offered money: de Menezes’s parents claim they were offered possible compensation of £560,000, although this is denied by the police. The dead man’s mother angrily described it as “blood money”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
Netanyahu Changed Plans Due to Warning AP | July 07 2005 JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said. http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/070705new_netanyahu.html
I agree but that is not my point, which was technical response trying to complete your comment correctly stating that some video cameras are only fakes, others are in fact broken because of limited funds for maintance - I noted that some cameras, reported as broken, in fact are not, but only recorded information that is embarrassing to the people who own the camera. - This applies to all owner, for example a store owner whose on camera recorded him giving a "kick-back'" payment. I.e. the number of "not working" cameras is less than reported - a correction to your "technical" comments.
especailly as you said "please" I would like to answer (I always try to anyway) but not sure what your question is, but will try to answer anyway: I would expected people paid to maintain cameras would say something like: We do our best, but with staff we have (on funds provided) we can not check every one each day. It was in good working conditions when last checked, if the monitors would only be more vigilent and reporrt defects specifically and promptly we could do a better job (or if more adequate funds were provided, of course). No. I too think not. If "them" is still referring to the people "paid to maintain the cameras," I think that even if true*, they would claim / state someting like: "We achieve 78% up time, despite the lack of adequate staff and support funds. ..." etc. (Don't you agree?) ------------------------------------- *that a large proportion of our cameras never work,
