I have just read the news article in the News Forum regarding 'Police operations against terrorists and serious criminals risk being undermined by the health and safety conviction of the Metropolitan force in the Jean Charles de Menezes case, senior police chiefs have warned'

I can not see why this should be the case.

This was a tragic case where the police procedures were not adequate to protect an innocent person.

Surely this conviction is positive in that it holds the police accountable and will make them rethink their policies and procedures.

It also forms a baseline with regards to the police being accountable for the Health and Safety of the public during their operations including the target.

What do other members think ?

I agree. These protections of the public have to be in place, just as protections of police officers have to be in place. One set of protections should not have presedence over the other. They have to be balanced.

John Jones

P.S. I keep asking myself these questions: What if Mr Menezes was my son? What if one of the approaching police officers was my son? These are difficult questions that beg no easy answers.

Hi John

Once more a good balanced view. I really think the issue is about command decisions and communications. In the cold light of day it is simple to mull over issues that had to be addressed in real time and I would imagine under extreme pressure. I would hope the Health and Safety decision will be people review their training and ethical decision making policies in order to ensure those people who are put in this very difficult position are both equip and supported to carry out their role. It is in this case more important to share the mistakes with others in order that we can learn and ensure the same mistakes are not made again. Unfortunately in many cases due to litigation people are not willing to share such information openly. A bit of a catch 22 situation