The conviction of the Metropolitan Police under a Health & Safety charge established that none of the higher echelon gave an order to shoot Mr Charles de Menezes. Therefore the two policemen who murdered Mr de Menezes either acted illegally without authority or,have such wide ranging discretion to open fire when they wish. Which scenario is it? If they do have wide ranging powers perhaps the Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair would fully inform the public what the police rules of engagement are? (If he knows!!)

R.Allely, Cardiff, Wales

A Man died whilst on a train and all the talk is about Suicide Bombers.
You'll be talking about WMD's in Iraq next.
We left the UK for Spain in 2002, we are so glad we did!! we got away from all the 'Spin'.

Believe me or not, the rest of europe, of which the UK is a member, but doesn't take part (ie. not in the Euro) are laughing their heads off...Blair, Georges puppet etc.
How many UK troops have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan by Friendly Fire.
Please the Uk people wake up to what is going on around you

Tony Edge, Alicante, Espana

What is more important: Cameron's call for the Commissioner to quit, or the evidence in this case? The Times, like the rest of the British media, has reported this story very badly.

After the first few days it was reasonable to assume that the charge against the police was to do with Mr de Menezes having been wrongfully killed. But the piece yesterday suggested that the prosecution was about the danger which was caused to the public by the police having allowed de Menezes to board the train. It seems that, according to the prosecution, Mr de Menezes should have been stopped, if necessary killed, on his way to the tube station.

Similarly, we shall never understand the report that Commander Dick thought that, in retrospect, she would not have acted differently, even though she issued an order to "stop" Mr de Menezes, by which she meant "challenge", and he was then killed.

John Passmore, London,

Somebody needs to take responsibility otherwise the police have no restraints on shooting anyone in future and then to say they thought it was a terrorist. Just because somebody looks middle eastern they become a fair target, that can't be right.

jane, Exeter,

If Mr De Menezee hadn't been an illegal immigrant he wouldn't have been there in the first place. Perhaps if he had gone through the proper legal immigrant procedures there would have been more information availbale about him and he may not have had so much reason to have looked so furtive.

John Ralph, Worcester, England

Nu Labour have very short memories. Home Secretary Blunkett was most enthusiastic over the sacking of the Chief Constable of Humberside when the mis- handling of criminal intelligence which may have saved the lives of the two girls in the Soham murder case came to light. Notwithstanding that the errors referred to had occurred before the Chief Constable concerned had taken over tenure of the force. cut no ice with the Home Office and the well liked and respected Chief Officer had to fall on his sword. Then he was not as close to Tony Blair as the Commissioner of the Met., was he?

El-Cid., Hull., East Yorks.,

Whilst undoubtedly errors were made on that day the firearms unit had a duty to protect the public by elimination of a very real threat that had already almost bought the capital to its knees. Hard decisions were made and an innocent life was lost. However had the coin been on the other side and a bomb actually detonated and the police officers killed, would we now of been hailing them heroes posthumously. The real message here is that the terrorists claimed another life by proxy, there are no winners in what could effectively be called war. However it is welcome that we question these incidents and analyse the outcome and bring to light actions that were unlawful/wrong and try to eliminate them happening again. My heart goes out to the Menezes family and the officers involved. Lets us hope peace can prevail.

Sid, Stoke on Trent,

ken says;“I think this is disastrous. If an armed police officer believes they are in pursuit of a terrorist who might be a suicide bomber and they start making these sort of calculations based on this, how is this going to be seen? Am I going to be hauled off to court?"

you think thats disastrous ? "might be a suicide bomber ?"
well just shooting anyone who in their opinion(not information)
happens to fit their idea of a so called suicide bomber is even more disastrious.
ask Mr de Menezes family.
front line officers needent be making split second decisions if they have the right intelligence before hand.

H Greenaway, Nottingham, england

Livingstone has completely missed the point. The verdict is an indictment of the shambolic administration of the security operation. If the case had not been brought, and in the absence of a proper public enquiry, the same state of affairs would continue to be the norm. Now the force will be obliged to review its procedures, equipment capabilities and training.

Contrary to what the Mayor says the outcome will drive improvement in the management of this vital service and by so doing will give its officers increased confidence in the competence of their superiors. This prosecution has done the public a service.

David, Oxford,

Having worked with Brian Paddick for a number of years I always thought that he was a man of honour. However I am sickened to see him kicking Sir Ian Blair when he is down. What happened to Sir Ian could so easily have happened to Brian Paddick.

CJ, Bromley, Kent

This has been a tragic case of mistaken identity, but why are we persecuting the police for doing their duty in protecting us. Everyone appears to be ignoring the fact, that if de menezes had been compliant when the officers approached him then he would not have been shot, he must carry partial blame for his own death. As far as these officers were concerned they were dealing with a suicide bomber, who may have been about to detonate a device. They did what they had to do in a situation, which came so soon after a devastating attack on innocent civillians, this verdict may end-up costing more lives in future as police and those in charge will be to scared to make any decision in case it is the wrong one.

Les, Southport, England

Blair should realize that as of now he's time is up. It would be a good idea to leave with grace. Not being informed about the incident for up to 24hrs is not a reasonal excuse to shift the blame. All that shows is a man who lacks controll. However he has done some justice for the country over the years but this still doesn't justify the fact that a man's life was taken simply becasuse they just didn't think.

Zainab Balogun, clapham,

He is very Nulab-all political correctness but no successful results.

R James, Clifton, UK

(Strange, how a perfectly normal comment hasn't been posted after more than seven hours; but anyway here it goes again.) Mr Livingstone's comments are themselves disastrous, and could almost as easily be used to support the death penalty: "mistakes are always going to happen." The police should learn from this verdict that they simply cannot shoot down people who they're not 100% certain are about to commit a bombing. And that, if they happen not to be 100% sure, that's their responsibility. The concern should be about improving the competence and level of organisation put into investigations, not about future over-cautiousness.

Pedro Gomes, Dundee, UK

Let us understand what running toward a suicide bomber feels like or appreciate the sense of controlling your own fear of dying at the same time as trying to act in a contolled way toward a perceived fanatical assassin.

Moreover, perception is everything. The smallest amount of information, confusion or doubt makes the difference to a good or bad outcome. For the Tories to jump on this is desperate. When they are eventually returned to power they will be doing and saying the same things as the current Government. By example, the shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland and the cover up of the then Thatcher Government. Unlike this case that was no mistake and it was no mistake to obstruct John Stalker. Are these the high ethical standards by which Tories judge the current Government?

Ian, Toronto, Canada

It's Corporate Manslaughter. The Police did not merely endager the public. They killed a man.
If they are guilty of a criminal breach of health and safety laws, and that breach resulted in a death .... ..

I don't see the point in issuing a fine to the police. Won't it be paid for by the Taxpayer?

Tom, Nottingham,

So - shooting an innocent man going about his business, getting on a bus and tube train is not a catastrophic failure ? Must have been quite deliberate then !

God help anyone getting on a bus or train in London as it seems the Met think these are indicators of criminal intent.

trevor, Thetford, England

I Wonder if the heads of the police forces in Rio and Sao Paulo are asked to resign when their police officers go into to favallas and shoot innocent men, women and CHILDREN.

Leave Blair alone to get on with the job of protecting the public going to work on a tube everyday.

fred, London,

The issue isn't as one way as ypoour editorial comments suggest. The Country was in a state of shock and anxiety after the July bombings.

It was a time when we all had to co-operate and be vigilant. However unfortunate and sad that a young life was lost the Police should not be pilloried in this way at a time when we most needed them.

John Charlesworh, Sleaford, Lincolnshire, UK

Fortunately, the decision of the court cannot be countermanded by Ken Livingstone or another politician. The point is that the judgment has been handed out at a properly convened court of law. What Mr Livingstone, the Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair are saying is irrelevant. In fact what they are saying is showing them up in the most shocking light; they are trying to say that the police are not accountable to abyone whatsoever. I doubt whether any council tax payers would see it in quite the same light.

The judgment of the court is there foe all to see and it would be better if Sir Ian Blair and Ken Livingstone studied what had happened in the court case to try to improve the police service in whatever way they could. That would have been the moral and ethical thing to do; not saying ill judged things about how do we deal with terrorism? We already know how we have dealt with terrorism, by letting the police rush out and shoot an innocent man. Now wiser counsels must prevail.

Donald Hedges, BA(Hons), Dip Eng Law(Open), Southampton, Hants

For once, I agree with Ken Livingstone.

Mike Woodman, Bradford, UK

He Should go! Those cops at stockwell acted like a wild west posse - completely out of control! They lack training, which undoubtedly was denied them, by their seniors.

Brosi, London, UK

'Officers on the beat' - Jesus Ken just how thick are you.

Martin, Reading, UK

It is always a good rule of thumb to disagree with anything and everything that Livingstone says. There couldn't be a better endorsement for gettingrid of Blair.

ed lancey, London,

Several years ago Livingstone used to complain about the police, I think when he had some trouble with them himself, now he seems to be Blair's best friend and I wonder what suddenly caaused the change of heart ?. As for Ian Blair ,he is too arrogant and need to get of his high horse and resign immediately to allow someone competent to take over.

Patrick, London, UK