(Right Click here to download Audio - MP3)
Harry Stanley is a name we're not overly familiar with.
Harry's story though, does have a number of links to recent events in the London
underground. Harry liked a drink and liked it even more if he was sharing it
with his family and friends. But one night in September 1999 Harry became a
victim of death by cop.
Harry's brother was a bit of a handy man and when one of the legs on Harry's
kitchen table became a little wonky, Harry asked his brother to have a look at
it. A few days later Harry and his brother met in a pub in Hackney, East London
and shared a few drinks as they admired the repair work. A finer table leg would
not be found on any other table in Harry's home.
However not all drinkers at the pub that night were Harry's friends. Indeed it
seems the family man did have his enemies, one of whom rang the Metropolitan
Police and told them an Irish terrorist was about to leave the pub and was armed
with a shotgun. As 46 year old Harry left the pub, two of London's 'finest'
confronted him and opened fire. Within minutes Harry was dead, his wife a widow,
his children fatherless and his grandchildren without their pop. Harry's death
by cop was about a brutal as it gets. Until we read about Charles Menezes.
By all accounts Charles liked a laugh, a drink and being with his relatives and
friends. Perhaps like Harry, who was also an immigrant and spoke with a
different accent, Charlie was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But I
don't think so. There are some parallels between the deaths of these two
innocent men that we need to consider and which others seem to want to gloss
over. The first is the social milieu in which these events took place.
At the time Harry was shot dead by two policemen, there was a climate of fear
abroad in the English community. In Harry's case a series of so-called
'terrorist' attacks in April 1999 had been found to be perpetrated by a lone
bomber, David Copeland. Although Copeland had been caught and jailed the British
police, ably abetted by politicians, were maintaining the line that without CCTV
surveillance 'terrorist' attacks would continue. If we fast forward to the last
dead man, Charles Menezes, we have to ask, "how come they can show us the CCTV
pictures of the supposed bombers yet any footage of the execution style killing
of an innocent man is not given the light of day?" Why is it that when it suits
vested interests, pictures are used to try and instil fear in us yet when those
same pictures may prove a little difficult to defend, they mysteriously
'disappear'?
When Harry died his violent and cruel death, the two police officers were
suspended and as a result, 80 police downed their guns. However, what we must
remember is that only about 7% of police in London are armed. The ordinary
'Bobby' on the beat is unarmed, although they do carry 'chemical restraints' and
a rather deadly baton. The original inquiry exonerated the two officers but
Harry's widow wasn't satisfied so she persisted and finally in June this year
the two officers were arrested and charged with murder, manslaughter and a raft
of other charges.
In the face of these serious offences, what did the powers that be have to say?
After the new inquest into Harry Stanley's death found enough evidence to lay
charges, the Assistant Commissioner of London Metropolitan Police, Steve House,
said, "These officers were asked to make a split-second life and death decision
as a result of the armed policing duties they had volunteered for. … We continue
to offer appropriate welfare support to both officers and fully understand that
this is a very difficult time for them, their families and colleagues." Notice
how this comment is almost word for word identical to that being offered by Tony
Blair and his police chief, Sir Ian Blair in the wake of the execution style
killing of Charles Menezes.
What Charles and Harry have in common is that they were innocent. They were,
just like us, passers by in a world where violence has been normalised and where
the killing of innocent people is accepted by the vast majority as nothing
special. Charles and Harry were neither suspects nor dangerous until the social
circumstances in which they lived were used to transform them into something
they were, most definitely, not. Violent, criminals.
The death of Charles is not receiving the attention it deserves. Rather than
trying to explain what happened Prime Minister Blair said, "I understand
entirely the feelings of the young man's family, but we also have to understand
the police are doing their job in very, very difficult circumstances and I think
it's important that we give them every support." In effect what he does here is
turn the blame away from his party's policies and the actions of the police, and
reconstructs the dead man as a victim of circumstance. He most certainly was
not!.
Charles Menezes left his flat last Friday and was tailed for some distance
before he entered the tube station. As he walked to the bus stop and got on a
bus he was unaware of his impending death. He got off the bus near Stockwell
Station and as he was walking towards the tube station a group of men started
shouting and running at him. Only a few weeks earlier Charles had been the
victim of bashing by white Londoners and no doubt when he saw a mob of men
charging towards him his experience motivated him to run. Perhaps he thought he
could safely disappear into the crowd at the station. Maybe he thought the
public nature of the tube platform would discourage his would be assailants from
attacking him. Maybe he thought the CCTV would deter them. His decision, when
viewed according to the way he may have experienced the recent events in his
adopted home city, seems to make some sense.
Fleeing down the escalator and jumping the barrier would appear, in this
scenario to make perfect sense. His first thought would have been to get away.
He sees an open train door and makes a last dash for it. He glances over his
shoulder and sees his pursuers closing in. This backwards glance puts him off
balance as he lunges for the door. According to eyewitnesses he grabbed hold of
an upright inside the carriage as he fell at exactly the same time as the first
officer grabbed his jacket. Both fell to the floor as a second officer lunged at
them. All three fell to the ground and perhaps the last thing Charles saw was
the shock on the faces of the commuters as seven shots shredded his brain.
Harry Stanley and Charles Menezes never knew each other but both play a
significant role in the unfolding future of the so-called 'war on terror'. The
execution style death by cop of Charles Menezes cannot be convincingly defended
by any means. There were ample opportunities for him to have been apprehended
quietly and away from the public gaze. We must ask why his death was so public.
Perhaps the message his death was meant to send was aimed not at the terrorists
but at us. Perhaps we are the ones who really need to be afraid because it seems
that plain clothes officers now have the right to shoot to kill and then ask
questions. The men who shot Charles were not your average copper on the beat and
so far it seems they are above investigation.
While some argue that an execution death by cop like that of Charles Menezes
could never happen here, the evidence proves that Australian police have a long
record of putting our own Harry Stanleys in early graves. The unanswered
question is, "who will be our first Charlie?" I suggest you pray to your god
that it's not your loved one.