Are they trying to be helpful?

It's really not clear whether the unnamed police sources who "back" Sir Ian Blair in this Guardian article are trying to help him or stab him in the back.

While those who talked to the Guardian support Sir Ian, they fear his departure may be the only way for the force to get back on track. "All the really important things begin to look in jeopardy because the future is so uncertain," said the senior source. "I do question if the authority of his office has been irrevocably damaged."

Kettle backs Blair

Martin Kettle is such a hopeless blairite that he can't help backing Sir Ian. Kettle is one of those people who almost always gets it wrong. He claims that

The conviction of the Met puts us all in greater danger

As one poster puts it:

Kettle seems to have become habituated to defending the indefensible.

Other posters just take his argument apart:

Kettle has here contributed one of the most poorly reasoned and ill-informed articles seen on CiF, and that is quite an achievement. To pick a few of the more egregious errors:

2. "The police genuinely thought De Menezes was a suicide bomber." No, they did not. They did not know who he was, or what he was doing. There was total confusion and incompetence, but they killed him anyway.

This should really be the last word on the subject.

(half) The truth comes out

Yesterday the Guardian was spinning to the Defence of Andy Hayman, who apparently misled both the public and Met Commissioner Ian Blair over the identity of the man killed by police at Stockwell. Blair reminded us today that he had said before that if he had lied he wouldn't be fit to hold office, but he has full confidence in Hayman. Hmmm...

On the Iraq dossier, John Scarlett was the fall guy with the bungee rope. Scooter Libby did it even better. Hayman takes the fall and Blair gets away with it. Hayman gets away with it. Win - win.