Talk:Jean Charles de Menezes/Archive 1

message: The statement in the first line of the article may be disputed. Has there yet been evidence that there were 'four attempted bombs' which did not explode? Certainly there were loud bangs - but I have not yet heard or read of definitive evidence that these were further bombs. May they not have been solely detonators, designed to add to the general confusion and panic? However, given that those responsible were photographed on CCTV they will probably be caught - hopefully not shot. Jeffrey Newman 16:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that evidence has now been produced to show that there were in fact similar explosives involved in the second attacks to those of July 7th but for some reason - as yet unexplained - they fortunately did not detonate. Jeffrey Newman 12:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuing my dialogue with myself - which in any case should move to another article - the issue of the 'explosives' has been raised again by the arrest of one of the 'bombers' in Rome and suggestions that there was no intention to cause loss of life. My caution is simply that over-eager police statements and actions were exposed in a number of IRA trials, but only years later. Jeffrey Newman 12:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four attempted bomb attacks 

message: This section seems to be somewhat rambling and needs a little more structure and contains a lot of quotations. I might take a look at this tomorrow evening if I have the time and no-one else has in the meantime, there's a lot of content there but it's not particularly easy to read. --Sully 22:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now had an initial stab at this, it still needs more editing and the list of supporters/critics of the Police's actions is getting a bit large so this will be probably need to be tidied up in some way as well. --Sully 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over police procedure 

message: This source is pretty clear that Menezes lived in a block of flats, not a house. Grace Note 03:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flats, not house 

message: I have removed some bits from the section on Shooting - if we can find proper information it can go back in but it does need a proper reference. In the first paragraph we said "He was pushed to the floor, restrained, and one of the police officers then shot him five times in the head..." as the next paragraph says "There are conflicting reports as to whether the undercover police properly identified themselves, attempted to restrain the man on the floor..." I have removed "restrained" and I don't think anybody makes it clear that he was pushed so I have moved that into the next paragraph. Andreww 08:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote below that text makes clear he was pushed and restrained - Xed 08:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the conflicting reports come from the police saying one thing and independent eyewitnesses saying quite another. As far as I can gather, he may well have tripped when entering the train, but then the police caught up with him, piled on top of him while ordering everybody out of the carriage, and shot him five times in the head while they had him on the floor. — Trilobite (Talk) 08:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that "bundled on top of him" is quite the same as restraining him - my aim in changing the text is to make clear what is not in any doubt, i.e. that he was on the floor, was shot five times (note that one eye witness gets this wrong) and that he  is dead, from things that are less clear and, no doubt, will be examined at length over the next few weeks. Andreww 08:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty simple (and more encyclopedic) to say "The police said they did not .... Witnesses said ..." instead of "He was ..." Use the latter format only for things over which there is no disagreement. --Dhartung | Talk 16:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The witness said the suspect was "bundled" before he was shot, the article says "pinned down". The is a large difference in meaning, "bundled" implies a disorganised way of keeping someone on the floor, "pinned" means an organised way to keeping someone on the floor. To me, "pinned" makes it sound like an execution which is still speculation at this point. - --Tom1234 14:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the phrase "pinned down" because none of the eyewitnesses quoted in the BBC article used the term pinned down, they all use "bundled" which holds a diferent meaning.
--Tom1234 15:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shooting

message: These other incidents of wrongful police shootings are not directly related. I suggest they be moved into a separate article (perhaps Innocent people killed by police in the UK?). Mirror Vax 19:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed a couple of days ago when the link to the Harry Stanley case was removed, my personal opinion is that mistaken shootings in recent years by the Met Police certainly are related (eg Harry Stanley) but links to the IRA shootings in Gibralter in the late 80s and shootings related to the troubles in NI probably aren't. The Harry Stanley case has been mentioned in some news reports so that lends itself to it being linked as well.--Sully 20:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had put the reference in to Gibralter.  Although different in sheer terms of time, location and force the operations appeared to be similar.  The three killed had been monitered for a long time and had acutally been turned away from the Gibraltar border at one point (rahter than being arrested).  de Menezes had been shot after being followed from his home, on to a bus and only challeneged in the station.  The three were shot repeatedly to stop them operating any sort of remote device on their person but turned out to be unarmed.  de Menezes was shot under a policy to shoot repeatedly to render the person completely immobile. Lucifer(sc) 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't object to links, I just don't think the text belongs in this article. It's a distinct subject. Mirror Vax 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this - they are relevant to this article, but not part of the article, so they should be given a separate page (category?) and linked. Robin Johnson 11:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Related incidents" 

message: So far, every person I've heard defending the police on this case is either stupid or ignorant of the facts. This should be fixed, so please spread the word of the following facts. You can do this either online (for example, replying to blog entries which people make about this matter, asking them to correct their words) or offline.
* The policemen were working as undercover agents, which means they weren't wearing uniforms. This was certainly the biggest reason why he chose to ran away. Furthermore, he had been attacked by a gang a few weeks before. Put yourself into his position and think about what you would have done if you saw a couple of armed guys shouting at you.
* They shot him when he was already pinned to the ground, and therefore didn't have any chance to activate any explosives. -Unsigned by Rbarreira
:RBarreira, the parlor-room debate part of me agrees with your viewpoint but the editor part of me says that this is argumentative and unneeded here unless it's in the form of well-cited and proveable facts to include in the article. If you think any of these facts aren't adequately represented in the article, be bold, edit it or reword it, and include cites. -Kwh 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those facts are already included in the article. Google news points to a lot of pages confirming them. Given the importance of this matter, I just wanted to tell people to be attentive to this kind of ignorance and to have the facts handy to reply to them. Anyway, anyone can delete this section from the discussion, I just thought this could be a good place to tell this to people. Rbarreira 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rbarreira, these 'facts' are pure speculation, were are not yet sure that the police were completely devoid of uniform, or that he was completely pinned down, subtle differences in wording mean quite different things. --Tom1234 15:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plain clothes armed police engaged on this kind of surveillence operation usually carry baseball style caps that they  don before challlenging anyone with their weapon drawn. The full facts of this case are not yet in the public domain. Jooler 20:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small but sincere request 

message: Although the witness reported five, it was eight, seven in the head.
As released by the police and reported by the BBC
A little less speculation and a bit more known facts please. I can link to a newspaper article that claims the 7 and 21 July attacks and subsequent events are the acts of Jewish Zionists and Mossad.  I haven't added it to any articles because it's bull.
:: It is quite clearly an MI6 operation.  Nothing is more a load of bull than the idea that it was "Islamic terrorists", such as "Al Qaeda".  
The link to the Guardian is weak in supporting the claim vis-a-vis the Israelis. The UK police have had a right to shoot to kill (as opposed to disable) for many many years.  The Association of Chief Police Officers decide the rules engagament, and for as long as UK police have had tactical firearms units they have been trained to aim for the head if they believe that they or the public are in extreme and imminent danger. Kratos is recent (post 11 September), and the police officers invloved in that work spoke to police and security forces all over the world, Israel just being one of many.  But it makes more sensational copy to cite a direct link with the Israelis (only) and claim that UK police trained with them. 62.252.0.7 01:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suspect that some of the shots were concurrent, and fired by more than one officer. Hence the witness heard 5 shots  although 8 were discharged. Jooler 20:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number Of Shots 

message: I am not sure that "executed people" is the right catogory for this, it's possibly POV and not accurate - even if the inquest returns a verdict of lawful killing he was not "put to death in pursuance of a sentence" (the OED definition). Can we find a better catogory? Andreww 07:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree and have removed it. →Vik Reykja 07:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Executed people?

message: Would you guys be interested in more background (biographic) information on the Brazilian man shot by police in the subway?  I have a couple of articles from the Brazilian press that give some information on his background, his family's reaction and the Brazilian government's reaction to the incident.  If you'd like, I can translate them, or just the relevant parts, into English and post the translations here, on this talk page, so that we can decide what, if anything, can be added to the article's section.  Unless of course you are satisfied with what is already in the article.  Just let me know.  In any case, I've added an entry to the news section of the Brazil Wikiportal that contains a couple of details about him that are not on this article.  If you wish, use it.  Regards, Redux 16:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the best place for biographical details would be the guy's own article, but sure, go ahead! -- Joolz 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's definitely notable -- innocent man shot "execution-style" by police thinking he's a suicide bomber. Alas, it's practically as notable as the attacks themselves -- it will probably have far-reaching effects on the British law-enforcement response to the attacks, and as been stated elsewhere, at least one cop may go to prison, and several careers are probably going to end prematurely. In any case the information on him (as well as the notability discussion) belongs in that article; I will copy this entire discussion there. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, this article is now on the front page via "In the news". I think your concerns are misplaced. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I'm glad about it too.  It's never nice to see other people's hard work VfD, and it's even worse when you realize that the VfD may have been unfair/unjustified.  Good work people.  Regards, Redux 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion copied from [[Talk:21 July 2005 London bombings]] 

message: Whoa! That's beginning to get pretty chilly... No wonder he was wearing a large jacket. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  17°C? 

message: Can we change the notes to be more like Windows 2000 or W. Mark Felt? You will need to use  and  - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: See the BBC article. 
: For Brazilians, the shooting by London police officers of 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes has turned conventional human rights wisdom on its head.
:"Here in Brazil it's common for the police to act violently, especially against poor and black people," says Maria Luisa Mendonca of the Network for Justice and Human Rights in Sao Paulo.
:"For us the police in England were always a model," she adds. "Human rights groups always studied how officers acted there. But not any more, after this situation."
:In recent years, UK police officers have even travelled to Brazil to offer training, as part of a scheme run by the British Council. 
also 
:In the Brazilian media, the killing has become the lead story, knocking a long-running government corruption scandal off the front pages.
::1) The corruption scandal was never "knocked out of the front pages". I've seen O GLOBO and FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO for the past days and such remarks are quite exagerated. It made the headlines - of course, but the MENSALÃO CASE (the corruption scandal) is there.
::2) To say that the British Police was always a model is a cliche (i.e.: "bias" as someone said here before), mainly attributed to Scherlock Holmes. I'm not sayin that they are not good - they are far better than many other police forces in the world. But let's not forget that the UK have an impressive dossier of miscariage of justice, and in the past years there has been cases of racism and unappropriate behaviour by some blach-sheeps at the British Police. I'm Brazilian, and I know that very well. --Pinnecco 10:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on Brazilian public reaction 

message: W/R/T this statement:
:"Initially suspected of being involved in perpetrating the 21 July 2005 London bombings, he was later found to be uninvolved."
Is there an official statement from the police that the operation was initiated because they thought JCdM was 'one of the four', or was the operation initiated because they saw him leaving the 'address of interest' and suspected him of being an additional bomber? I think the distinction is relevant, and this statement might need reworded. -Kwh 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for Suspicion

message: The quotes in the last paragraph of the Background section repeatedly use the word "both", but the only person that seems to be referred to is de Menezes. What's up with that? Could it be clarified to be less confusing without totally destroying the quotes?:
:That was becoming a very confusing paragraph. I reworded to avoid some of the complexity. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Both"? 

message: I've just added a few details about the body's return to Brazil in the Brazil Wikiportal ("In the news" section).  I expect that more will be added tomorrow, as the body arrives in the country and is laid to rest.  Feel free to visit and use whatever pieces of information you see fit in the article.  At your disposal for more details, Redux 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates in Brazil Wikiportal 

message: Is this the same as ? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. USP is a (rather famous) university; the other one is probably just a normal school (Google seems to find more than one school by that name). --cesarb 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I didn't know. I know virtually nothing about this area of the world. Have fixed my change! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about [[Escola Estadual São Sebastião]] 

message: Someone should incorporate both the turnstyle jumping and jacket discrepancies into the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1537613,00.html
:See under 'Pursuit and shooting'. Although the refs looked messed up now.--Tom1234 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New facts

message: I'm about to commit a bold edit on the article, rearranging a bunch of content for flow. Please read it fully and consider it carefully before reverting. I haven't actually removed any content that was not redundant, and only added or changed as necessary for style. There might be a few place where s and s are misordered that might need fixed. I think including only undisputed facts and not allegations or witness quotes in the 'Background' and 'Pursuit and shooting' makes things flow better; also, as events are clarified by the inquest, the background can be updated, and the fact that the facts were in dispute at the time will still be clear (from historical perspective). Give it a little while to grow on you. -Kwh 22:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was a good idea, and I helped it along by adding subsections -- that will discourage mixing information here and there. It also permitted moving the Immigration status section underneath. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Six months later, this article still needs some substantial work. Mainly, I suggest, it needs to be clear what the initial claims and beliefs were (he was wearing a "bulky coat"; he "jumped the turnstile"; etc.). Right now, the story is told as it happened but with very little reference to the incorrect police claims that made their actions seem reasonable and defensible initially. This is especially important, I think, now that a very similar incident has happened in the US with the Rigoberto Alpizar case, where initial claims by the police made the incident seem reasonable, but later investigation has revealed it to be an overreaction. --Tysto 20:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold edit 

message: Mirrorvax: I see you changed the heading to 'Discovery of innocence…' - I initially considered that as the section title, but thought it wrong for two reasons; innocence implies accusation and acquittal of a crime, and also innocence cannot be adjudged - a defendant can only be found not guilty at trial, which means that the accusation was unproven. I knew mistaken identity was imperfect, so I'm open to some different wording of this heading anyways... -Kwh 03:06, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't like either. I thought about Admission of uninvolvement as a more accurate way of putting things. The police didn't "discover" that he was uninvolved -- they failed to discover involvement. Putting it as a police admission also dovetails the public reation being combined into this section. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's why I changed it. From what is publicly known, this appears not to be a case of mistaken identity. Rather, he was followed because of where he lived and because he looked nonwhite. Mirror Vax 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of mistaken identity/innocence and public reaction 

message: I reinserted this case because it bears increasing similarity to the Menezes incident (with the major difference, of course, that the IRA really had planted a bomb). The incident was removed on the justification that it was military, not civilian police, but the case went to the ECHR and thus was subject to civilian oversight; I strongly suspect that a similar legal path may follow for the police in this case. Additionally, the question of detonators was the urgency which led to the SAS shoot-to-kill policy, which is uncannily similar to this one.
I did trim the text a little, as it wasn't all relevant. The incident deserves its own full Wikipedia article, probably. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAS/Gibraltar/IRA 

message: i would like for the article to state at the beginning how his name is pronounced. would add it if i knew the answer. SaltyPig 07:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Here is a BBC source for details. Anyone want to add this information? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funeral 

message: The article previously stated "They also said that that the style of the stamp on his visa had not been in use on the date indicated, implying it was forged." (I took this out.) The source was listed as this, but that source never implies the stamp may have been forged. Is there a source for the assertion? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
The statement was correct. The Home Office said "the stamp on his visa was not in use on the date indicated"  - this implies that it was forged. Jooler 20:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forged stamp on visa? 

message: Has the source of the image of the body on the floor of the train been confirmed?  It seems to have be taken from a strange angle for a CCTV camera.  Nobody else is present in the background - how soon after the shooting was this image taken?  Had the carriage been cleared?  Also has it been "cropped" for taste/decency reasons, or does the original image not show the head area (convenient for media reporting!)?  I would speculate that the image comes from a forensic examination some time after the shooting.
:Update - Thanks to User:kwh for the edit, replacing "CCTV image" with "photo".
::The photo was also on the front page of The Guardian a day after the leaked documents happened. In another newspaper (can't remember which) it showed a similar photo: it had pictures of the number markers that CSI's (forensics in UK) use when evidence is photographed. Hence, I think this would have to be a forensic's photo. 17:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of body on floor of train: confirmed as CCTV, handheld video or still camera? 

message: I have never heard this abbreviation used about the London police before - the abbreviation "the Met" is much more usual.  It's probably best abbreviated simply to "police" since it should be no surprise that it was the London police carrying out a shooting in London related to a London bombing, but if there's a need to abbreviate we should avoid making up a new phrase for it.  Unless this phrase has been common currency for years and I've just somehow missed it.  — ciphergoth 06:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
: I've already modified this assuming it had been written by a non-Londoner. I've never read or heard this usage in the press or on television in the last 10 years so I thought nothing of just editing this. --Sully 12:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still the Met. 'Metro police' sounds very much like an Americanism. -- Necrothesp 14:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro police 

message: I would certainly hope that there would be no bias in this article.
Unfortunately, as this is probably a major event, any bias present now will probably increase with the passage of time, and history will rewrite itself. In reporting any historical event, there are nearly always two viewpoints. Both viewpoints should be clearly and fairly put.       
Leistung 18:28, 21 August 2005
: I've tidied up where the tag is since whoever added it doesn't seem to care about neatness, in addition to that they haven't added anything to Talk. I personally don't believe it's biased. Any strong POVs have and are being reverted as they've come up. The person who added the tag needs to add something here otherwise it may well be removed again fairly quickly--Sully 20:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree. i consider a bias tag w/o immediate matching discussion on the talk page to be mere vandalism. i'm not an editor of this article, but i support removing the bias tag whenever it's added without sufficient follow-up by the user who added it. SaltyPig 20:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: I don't think this merits inclusion. Consider the source (The Sun) and the lack of any new attributable information. This is akin to a National Enquirer article (for us Yanks) stating that George Bush may be impeached, arrested, tried for war crimes in the Hague, and executed. It's tabloid. Let me know your thoughts. -Kwh 04:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:;Possible corporate manslaughter charges
:It was reported http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005380337,00.html that the Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and top officers may be charged with corporate manslaughter.
::It's too poorly sourced for inclusion, IMO. But boy, the other stuff in that article (I admit I'm not keeping up daily anymore) -- total yob operation top to bottom. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that charges may be brought against one or more officers, but nothing will happen until the conclusion of the IPCC report. Anthing else is pure speculation - and The Sun knows it. Jooler 06:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible corporate manslaughter 

message: There should be mention of this one incident overshadowing the bombings themselves.  One of the relatives of a person killed by a 7 July bomb made such comments, though I can't recall her name.  violet/riga (t) 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Dania Gorodi, sister of Mihaela "Michelle" Otto http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/23/nfam23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/23/ixhome.html . I also heard her interviewed on Radio 4 Jooler 22:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, and Hurricane Katrina has overshadowed this. Unfortunately, the public does not keep its interest up for long. We should never forget this young man who gave his life so that others might live. The truth as to whether police were correct in what they did, and should be applauded, or whether Jean Charles's relatives were right to complain about it should be determined. If this is forgotten about, it will certainly be swept under the carpet. Wallie 16:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overshadowing the bombings 

message: I totally disagree that "Britishism" (Londonisms??) should only be used. This article is for the world, and few people understand Britishisms anyway. London people talk in a special way, and use "sorted" in nearly every sentence. I prefer train to tube, for example. Everyone knows what a train is, but a tube is for toothpaste. Encyclopedias should minimize jargon and slang. Wallie 16:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic that you are complaining about Britishisms with a name like Wallie. Why not try making the same complaint (but re:Americanisms) on all the articles that use the term subway for underground railway, or sidewalk for pavement. Then come back here and you'll be sorted. BTW sorted can mean something else entirely unpleasant.  Jooler 22:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand "Britishism" as meaning that article contributors should write like they're Dickens characters or something. I don't see anything like that in the article. 
If there are media articles quoted, they will most likely be talking about what happened in the carriage on the tube, as opposed to what happened in the subway car, flat vs. apartment, metric units vs. "American Imperial", -ise vs. -ize, etc. The point isn't to put everything in Cockney rhyming slang, just if there's an AmE and BrE equivalent term on something, choose the BrE version. Per Manual of Style, "If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context. In other words, do not enforce American rules on pages about British topics or British rules on pages about American topics. In regards to pages about other cultures, choose either style, but be consistent." It doesn't mean add "sorted" to every sentence. -Kwh 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Londonisms 

message: Is it already known where he was working on the morning of the 7th of July and the day before that? 131.155.54.18 11:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was he working on the morning of the 7th of July? 

message: It would be good to have some authoritative guide as to pronunciation (if only so that there's no excuse for the media pronouncing "Jean Charles" as though it were French) ... There's already been one such request on this page, but it produced no response. My best shot at an IPA transcription is /ˈʒeã ˈʃarlez de ˈmenezez/, but I’d much rather go with someone who has a decent grasp of Portuguese (and who knows IPA)! Can anyone help?! Vilcxjo 00:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: I am considering removing this section, as I think it has nothing to do with this article. It might have been relevant, if Mr. Menezes was running away, as was reported earlier. But it is now established by the Close Circuit TV cameras that he wasn't. The only reason for keeping this section now, is to make Mr. Menezes look bad. He is not on trial here. Nor is anyone else. Any thoughts, please, before I do the necessary. Thanks. Wallie 08:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would stick this kind of info in a footnote - they are for more than just citations. Andreww 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed it now. The subject is Jean Charles de Menezes (7 January 1978 – 22 July 2005) was a Brazilian electrician living in Tulse Hill in south London, England. Menezes was shot and killed at Stockwell tube station on the London Underground by unnamed Metropolitan Police officers, who had mistaken him for a suspect in the previous day's failed bombings. Menezes had no explosives, had not been behaving suspiciously, and was later found to be unconnected with the attempted bombings.  Mr. Menezes's documentation has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Wallie 12:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration Status