A Very Threatening Event

The Murdoch Times is in no doubt as to the potential serious consequences of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. It was, as the inquiry will no doubt determine, a "terrible error"; and it has "devastated his family".

Worst of all, the killing "threatens to sap police morale at a critical time in the war on terror" and "threatens to become a cause célèbre among human rights activists". It is a very threatening event indeed, make no mistake about it.

The family may be troublesome, for a start. There have been complaints. In an access of Latin emotionality, six thousand people turned out for de Menezes' funeral. Fortunately, the family are being given some perspective on the matter by British officials and police chiefs. Blessed are they that mourn, for the angels of Blair shall comfort them.

Then there is the small matter of the suspects' story on the day of the shooting. Sir Ian Blair said that the killing was "directly linked" to the bombing attempt of 21 July. The police said that the victim lived in a house which they had under surveillance, that he wore "a dark bulky jacket" which roused their suspicions, and that when eventually challenged (having been allowed on and off a bus, suspicious clothing and all), he vaulted over the ticket barrier and started to run. Thus was public protection implemented with extreme prejudice.

As we all know, it has since turned out that, although Sir Ian Blair said the killing was "directly linked" to the attempted bombing, no such link existed. And, as it now turns out, there was also no bulky dark jacket to rouse police suspicions, though the uncharitable might suspect a dark complexion may have done the trick. Also, the victim did not vault over the ticket barrier. He may simply have been running to catch his tube train.

Well, no wonder it's threatening police morale. The unarmed units must be wondering whether, when similar circumstances arise next time, a yellow fluorescent vest and a pointy blue hat will be enough to save them from their colleagues' protective zeal. Not only that, but "it will outrage the family if [de Menezes] was killed because of apparently suspect behaviour and the misfortune to live at an address linked to terrorism." That damn family again. First devastation, then outrage; have they no perspective on the matter at all? Don't they know the stress our boys are under?

Still, mustn't grumble. We must look on the bright side. We must soldier on, putting our best foot forward. We must keep our nose to the grindstone, our shoulders to the wheel, and our eyes peeled for traitors with rucksacks or without. "Blair said that the public should also appreciate the bravery of the officers, who surrounded a suspect they thought might blow himself up," and who have risen to the beweaponed heights of their profession despite their evidently somewhat fragile grip on reality. "As one officer said yesterday: 'They’ve done a good job for their country.'"

Here, I regret to say, I must differ from the officer quoted in the august Murdoch Times. The officers who arrested the real bombers, if such they are, have done a good job for their country. Arresting people is advantageous in that, if they are the right people, one can question them, and if they are the wrong people, one can let them go. Blowing people's heads off is disadvatageous in that, if they are the right people, one cannot question them, and if they are the wrong people, one has done rather less than a good job for one's country. One has, in fact, committed an error. One has, in fact, committed an error at the very least, even before one starts to lie about it.