Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jean Charles De Menez had traces of cocaine in his blood.

Dillinger4 said:
It clearly has no bearing on him being shot.


How do you know?(Serious question). People have been campaigning for a very long time for complete details to be made public at inquests and investigations. (Me included) Now they are at long last being made public people are complaining.
 
chymaera said:
How do you know?(Serious question). People have been campaigning for a very long time for complete details to be made public at inquests and investigations. (Me included) Now they are at long last being made public people are complaining.

The problem is the reporting of it.
 
chymaera said:
How do you know?(Serious question). People have been campaigning for a very long time for complete details to be made public at inquests and investigations. (Me included) Now they are at long last being made public people are complaining.

I apologise in advance for answering your question with a question, but could you give me *ANY* hypothetical reason for

A) why this might be relevant in this case.

And

B) Why this information is leaked to the public without *ANY* explanation of of *ANY* way it can be relevant to the case?
 
I don't know, I might end up agreeing with chymaera on this one.

If the trial is in open court then the media should be able to report everything.

Having said that, I certainly hope this is not being used by the defence to justify the shooting !
 
TAE said:
Having said that, I certainly hope this is not being used by the defence to justify the shooting !

Even if it is not, having this released into the public domain will have a bearing on the case now.

This kind of stuff can't ever really be retracted.
 
They say that it could have made him paranoid and anxious.

.....so does trying to use public transport in London :rolleyes:
 
I'm not very experienced in these matters ... but I thought cocaine makes you confident.
 
The Doctor said:
Just heard this on C4 news.

Can I be the first to say - so what!

FFS :mad:
No doubt 99.9 per cent of the journalists writing about it have had a little snort within the past 24 hours as well. Fucking hypocritters.
 
Stobart Stopper said:
No doubt 99.9 per cent of the journalists writing about it have had a little snort within the past 24 hours as well. Fucking hypocritters.

Probably quite a few coppers as well. But nobody will accuse them of being 'edgy' or 'paranoid'
 
Stobart Stopper said:
No doubt 99.9 per cent of the journalists writing about it have had a little snort within the past 24 hours as well. Fucking hypocritters.

I would dare say if you tested everyone going through that station on the day he was shot 25% of people would have tested positive.
 
chymaera said:
How do you know?(Serious question). People have been campaigning for a very long time for complete details to be made public at inquests and investigations. (Me included) Now they are at long last being made public people are complaining.


Please can you explain what bearing having cocaine in his blood system has on being shot by the police.

Cheers awfully.
 
The Doctor said:
Please can you explain what bearing having cocaine in his blood system has on being shot by the police.

Cheers awfully.

I notice a conspicuous absence from this thread after I asked the very same question.
 
The Doctor said:
Please can you explain what bearing having cocaine in his blood system has on being shot by the police.
Which raises the question why it was read out in court at all. Does anyone here know this for sure?
 
Dillinger4 said:
I apologise in advance for answering your question with a question, but could you give me *ANY* hypothetical reason for

A) why this might be relevant in this case.

And

B) Why this information is leaked to the public without *ANY* explanation of of *ANY* way it can be relevant to the case?


A) how the fuck would I know?


B) It hasn't been leaked, it has been reported.

Do you want full and frank inquest and investigations or not?
An emergent property of ALL facts being disclosed at an inquest is there may be ones people don't like.
 
chymaera said:
A) how the fuck would I know?


B) It hasn't been leaked, it has been reported.

Do you want full and frank inquest and investigations or not?
An emergent property of ALL facts being disclosed at an inquest is there may be ones people don't like.

ALL I am saying is that I just don't think such potentially damaging information should be publicly released without a very very VERY good reason. And if this reason exists, it doesn't seem to have been communicated with the smear.
 
Dillinger4 said:
ALL I am saying is that I just don't think such potentially damaging information should be publicly released without a very very VERY good reason. And if this reason exists, it doesn't seem to have been communicated with the smear.


You are in favour of censorship?
 
Jean Charles De Menez had traces of cocaine in his blood.


Haven't we all?:D Seriously, this is not relevant to anything when people in Brazil can pass a coca plant and crunch on a leaf to pass the time of day:D In London cocaine is everywhere and relevant to nothing, they found traces on the police toilets in Charing Cross station when they did a test.
 
Back
Top Bottom