Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Jean Charles De Menezes

The British media's moral confusion over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes by Metropolitan Police officers executing Operation Kratos continues to startle.

A perfect example of this deadly bewilderment is a piece by Peter Taylor in today's 'Guardian' entitled 'The terrorist who wasn't'.
The fact that the president of Brazil is currently on a state visit to the UK can be assumed to have nothing to do with its timing.

Taylor's piece is an introduction to his BBC Panorama program on the shooting entitled 'Stockwell: Countdown to a Killing', to be broadcast this evening. Whilst at least attempting far more balance than is ever achieved by the slavering right-wingers of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, Taylor manages to repeat all of the tropes concerning the very sad and unfortunate events of July 22 2005 - "The young Brazilian was innocent"; "It was a disastrous case of mistaken identity";"The law applies to all citizens, including police officers. There are no special cases".

Taylor also refers to de Menezes' family in Gonzaga, Brazil. Apparently there is now a sign at the entrance to the village which bears the legend, "Land of Jean Charles de Menezes. Victim of terrorism in London. Here we value life."
Thankfully, the de Menezes family never seem to have crossed the path of the Rio de Janeiro Police Department.
There is a perfectly valid case to be made that JCDM was a victim of terrorism; not police terrorism, but the terrorism perpetrated the day before, in which, of course, he played no part. It was in the pursuit of the individuals responsible for those acts that SO19 killed him by mistake.
His blood lies as much upon the hands of the Islamists as upon the hands of the Metropolitan Police.

However, Taylor's article predictably contains no reference to an inconvenient fact about this case which our media always ignores; that Jean Charles de Menezes was a criminal.

His visa had expired, and he was therefore in the country illegally. At the time of his death, he had no right to be here. In its baldest terms, he was a criminal killed during the commission of a crime. The Home Office has confirmed that his passport carried a false stamp showing that he possessed 'indefinite leave to remain'.

So not only was he a visa over-stayer, he was also complicit in forgery.

These circumstances are absolutely irrelevant to any and all questions which must be asked about the execution of Operation Kratos. Although Kratos was devised to deal with the threat of suicide bombing, a practice alien to British culture, that same British culture demands that if the civilian volunteers of the police service break the law then such breaches must be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted and punished.
That's what we do; it's our thing.
Call it the rule of law; and the same rule of law should also enable proper critique of how JCDM came to live for so long as a criminal in a country he had no right to be in.

The British government has encouraged illegal immigration and temporary migrancy for years through the Inland Revenue's issue of CIS4 cards without confirmation of the applicant's immigration status. If JCDM held a CIS4, he would have been residing here illegally while paying tax legally; as good an example of Blair and Brown's Through the Looking Glass approach to immigration policy as one could ever hope to see.

JCDM's mother Maria Otone de Menezes is quoted by Taylor as saying that "Jean couldn't earn a decent wage because people here are poor". There is no reference to the outburst of Brazilian ultranationalism that she indulged in upon her arrival in the UK, that 'Brazilians should not be treated how my son was treated - they should be treated with respect wherever they go'. The BBC later provided a perfectly satisfactory explanation for its removal of those words from its own web report of her arrival.

His father Matozinho quotes JCDM as saying, 'I'll send you everything I earn from my job in London. And after I have been working there for a few years, I'll come back to Brazil and live here'.

So he was good to his parents. So what? In some parts of the world, it's big business.
According to the shadowy International Organisation for Migration, migrant remittances are an industry which in 2003 was worth $100 billion. Some would say that's indicative of the First World's economic power; I would prefer to describe it as a perfect example of the Third's cultural poverty. Third World cultures like Brazil's are unable to generate anything other than subsistence level incomes for their citizens, so they migrate - and what incentive do Third World governments have to make improvements when there's a share of $100 billion involved in maintaining the status quo?

But how many British taxpayers know that the money the state demands from them by naked duress is used to facilitate the same remittances racket? That the so-called Department for International Development actively encourages migrants to Send Money Home?
Home is clearly where the heart is; but, pace Maria Otone de Menezes, those who pay the pipers should be allowed to call the tunes.

A generation of Brits have grown up thinking that the world is one big happy place, and that every other nation carries its nationality as lightly as we do. The twin ideologies of multiculturalism and globalisation have proved themselves far more effective in the destruction of nationhood than either communism or fascism; globalisation kills them through their pockets, while multiculturalism delivers the coup de grace to their souls.
Given that the mass migration of people and the subsequent downward arbitrage of Western wages is critical to globalisation's operation, hopefully the comments of Maria Otone de Menezes should remove any doubt as to the undesirability of pursuing such ideologies to their ultimate conclusions.
The actions of Blair and Brown in permitting the world to view this country, our country, my country as a giant cash machine to be used and abused for its own convenience have only reinforced this dangerous undermining of cultural and national realities.
British taxpayers should be aware that James Gordon Brown has as much to gain from lax immigration policies as Anthony Blair. Blair is the happy clappy, multi-culti 'We Are The World, We Are the Children' face of mass immigrationism; Brown is not so cuddly.
His interest is in ensuring his record as an economic manager before acceding to the highest office. And what better test is there for an economic manager than keeping down inflation?
And guess what - in June 2005 the Governor of the Bank of England acknowledged recent mass migration's role in keeping inflation down. Pity that the earnings of citizen electricians had to be undercut by Brazilian illegals in the process, but there you go.
They could have followed other policies; for the clearest failure of their policy was that JCDM seemed to think nothing of abusing our law for his own advantage.
A far more humane immigration policy would have been one where some official knew that JCDM had not left the country when he should have; where that official was making every effort to find him; and once found he had been deported.
He might not have been in a position to send remittances back to Gonzaga; but it would have been one that might have enabled to see his 28th birthday.
Hopefully that thought keeps at least one or other of The Downing Street Gang awake at night.
But, without wishing to seem discompassionate, and regardless of all other factors, it now seems that the payment of compensation to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes is likely to be made.
If so, then he continues to support them from beyond the grave. And it's unfortunately likely that the sums involved would be likely to be far more than they would ever be able to earn in Brazil; a lottery win.
As a British taxpayer whose laws were run roughshod over by the late Jean Charles de Menezes; whose fellow citizens' earnings were undercut by him; and who's likely now to have to fund compensation to his survivors without being consulted on whether this is a good, wholesome or even legal course of action; I have some questions.
1. Why have I never read any criticism of the July 21 bombers from either the de Menezes family or their supporters?
2. Jean Charles de Menezes' residence in the UK was a crime. Couldn't the legislation enabling the recovery of criminal proceeds be applied to any compensation payment, partially reducing the loss to the taxpayer?
3. What is the immigration status of Gesio d'Avila, the Brazilian workmate of JCDM's referred to by Taylor?
4. What is the immigration status of JCDM's London-based cousin Patricia, also referred to by Taylor? Did she know JCDM was here illegally? Has she been questioned about her knowledge of his crimes?
5. What is the immigration status of JCDM's other London-based cousin, the vocal Alex Pereira?Did he know JCDM was here illegally? And has he been questioned about his knowledge of JCDM's crimes?
6. Has Lula da Silva apologised to the Queen for a Brazilian citizen engaging in a consistent course of criminal conduct in the UK? Has he offered our authorities every assistance in tracking down those Brazilians who might have facilitated his crimes?
7. Has Lula offered an immediate enquiry into the case of Craig Alden, the British victim of what appears to be a ghastly miscarriage of justice in Brazil?
8. And lastly, and with the greatest relish, we reach the case of Rafael Lanz.
On August 23 2005, the BBC reported that Lanz, a Brazilian IT consultant living in Cambridge,
"said the shooting had strengthened his thoughts on leaving the UK - a move first considered after the start of the Iraq war.

"I don't want to live in a country where the government is simply unaccountable," he said. "I would like a real public inquiry".
Given that Lanz harbours such reservations about us and our way of life, I'd like to know if he's gone yet; and if not, why.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think prefer the UK in its pre-22 July clothes: Immigrants abusing the system, underming the economy, and not being executed.

Anonymous said...

Also, I may say that there is surely a difference between the actions of individuals, such as JCDM and the terrorists of the day before... and actions of the state and its agents. Brazil was not responsible for JCDM's transgressions in the same way that we were for the proper conducting of Operation Kratos.

Fuller explanation of this at my (aptly named) Devil's alternative

Simon Hodges said...

Taylor's article predictably contains no reference to an inconvenient fact about this case which our media always ignores; that Jean Charles de Menezes was a criminal.

You seem to be suggesting that de Menezes, by overstaying his visa, somehow deserved to be knocked off. It seems this has very little relevance to whether he was wrongly identified as a terrorist and shot, other than it increased the likelihood of this mistaken assumption due to the colour of his skin.

To use a phrase common to HMG "there is a debate to be had" regarding immigration but you are wrong to wedge it, like the Telegraph and Mail, into an examintation of the death of an innocent man.

Martin said...

Robert,

Both your comment here and your own piece operate on the assumption that a crime was committed on July 22 2005.

That is not clear by any manner of means. Assumed, yes; established, no. JCDM is regularly described as 'innocent'; are those who killed him not also innocent until proven guilty of any crime with which they might be charged?

Isn't that what the rule of law is supposed to be about?

You make quite a hyperleap in your second comment. I refuse to assume any part of any notional collective responsibility for the conduct of any operation of the state.

MFF,

Where have I said he deserved to be killed? Please, tell me where in the piece I have written anything that might be so construed.

No debate on immigration is required: action to limit it is required.

Garry said...

I have to say that I think you are guilty of conflating two seperate issues here.

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot for reasons which had nothing to do with his immigration status. He was shot because he was suspected to be a suicide bomber. I presume you do not dispute that this could just as easily have happened to a British citizen. That he was apparently an illegal immigrant is a coincidence and not therefore relevant to the central dicussion. It could have happened to anyone.

The immigration issue is a serious one, but it is entirely seperate to a discussion about Operation Kratos. By conflating these issues, you run the risk of being seen as an apologist for an unjustified killing. As already noted.

Anonymous said...

Both your comment here and your own piece operate on the assumption that a crime was committed on July 22 2005.

I've re-read both and I'm not sure that's a fair reading... although my use of the word "murders"' should perhaps have been, simply "killers".

Au contraire, my 'hyperleap' depends on precisely the fact that no crime has been committed by the agents of Operation K. If they had broken the law, they would have transgressed the rules we, as a collective, had made for eveyone to follow. If they had committed a crime, it would be they who are responsible and we would punish them accordingly.

|It is the fact that these events were allowed to happen within the law that makes us all responsible, not just the agents, our agents, who pulled the trigger.

Martin said...

Curious,

I wrote that,

"His visa had expired, and he was therefore in the country illegally. At the time of his death, he had no right to be here. In its baldest terms, he was a criminal killed during the commission of a crime. The Home Office has confirmed that his passport carried a false stamp showing that he possessed 'indefinite leave to remain'.

So not only was he a visa over-stayer, he was also complicit in forgery.

These circumstances are absolutely irrelevant to any and all questions which must be asked about the execution of Operation Kratos. Although Kratos was devised to deal with the threat of suicide bombing, a practice alien to British culture, that same British culture demands that if the civilian volunteers of the police service break the law then such breaches must be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted and punished.

That's what we do; it's our thing"

If other people elect to read things which aren't there into what I've written then that, with all due respect, is not my problem.

Robert,

You write that,

"my 'hyperleap' depends on precisely the fact that no crime has been committed by the agents of Operation K. If they had broken the law, they would have transgressed the rules we, as a collective, had made for eveyone to follow. If they had committed a crime, it would be they who are responsible and we would punish them accordingly.

It is the fact that these events were allowed to happen within the law that makes us all responsible, not just the agents, our agents, who pulled the trigger".

Again, it's not yet been whether these events took place within or outwith the law.

Criminality is not established until assessment of evidence by a jury, and even that is subject to appeal.

You're running too far ahead of events. If prosecutions are ordered, let them proceed, and then we can determine if a crime's taken place.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

JCDM was living on a prayer. It was that the authorities would not catch up with him and send him back to his wonderful homeland, where he was presumably deliriously happy.

Had the police attempted to check on the individuals who lived in the JCDM house, they might have been more than a little preturbed to find no record of him.

I am sorry he got shot, but shit was happening that day.

As for his family being compensated, well perhaps he can have all those taxes and national insurance contributions that he paid, which in his case amount to zero.

Garry said...

g-gnome - The problem for me is that you start by saying that the "media's moral confusion over the shooting...continues to startle". I fail to see in what way any of the points you raise are relevant to the morality of the shooting.

He was innocent, in that he was innocent of any crime which would warrant his being shot repeatedly in the head. When he was unjustifiably shot repeatedly in the head, it seems to me that there was no moral confusion. It was wrong.

Are you saying there is some ambiguity about the morality of shooting him? That is, as far as I can see, what you've written.

Martin said...

Curious,

Your previous comment didn't refer back to my opener.

Morality is, of course, entirely subjective. Was it 'moral', in the truest sense of the word, that JCDM got iced in the mistaken belief that he might blow up another bus on Tavistock Square? No, of course not.

However, we live not in a moral but a secular civil society. Such societies have laws. JCDM consistently broke those laws for his own advantage. Our media seem to suffer from mass collective amnesia about that fact. To my eyes, and this may be entirely subjective, that constitutes moral confusion.

Further up the thread, 'My Fist of Flounce' wrote, 'To use a phrase common to HMG "there is a debate to be had" regarding immigration but you are wrong to wedge it, like the Telegraph and Mail, into an examintation of the death of an innocent man'. If he had followed either newspaper's coverage, he would know that those two are amongst the worst offenders. My belif is that those who pay to put them out on the streets are frim believers in the promotion of mass immigration. Why? Perhaps because mass immigration is perceived as being 'good for business', keeping labour costs down. There might even have been Brit sparkies earning less because of JCDM.

What's 'moral' about that?

Anonymous said...

Weird comments above: I'm delighted to live in a city where hundreds of thousands of hardworking people such as Mr De Menezes are happy to provide services at an affordable price. I'd rather we had free borders, but tolerating harmless migrants who improve my quality of life seems like a step in the right direction.

(and no, I'm not worried about my own job in this context. I already compete in a global market and don't rely on archaic residence laws to protect me from more efficient competition).

PDF

Neil Harding said...

Considering the taxes he paid, wasn't De Menezes helping the average Briton, rather than costing us. You call him a criminal, which seems harsh considering all he has done, is work hard, pay his taxes and send some of his OWN hard earned money back to his family. Surely we should be encouraging 'criminals' like this to come here?

Martin said...

Anonymous,

You describe commenst here as 'weird'; why?

The affordable services that hard-working criminals like Mr. De Menezes provide undercut the earning capacity of native citizens.

Your quality of ife might be improved; but the QoL of some other citizen in the sort of job whch is affectd by migrancy is lowered right off the reel.

And the residence laws might be 'archaic', sure; but archaic types like me like them that way. It would be even better if they were actually enforced sometimes.

Call me a rule of law bigot.

By the way, you can take it from me that your job's never as safe as you think.

Neil,

You assumed he paid taxes.

Proof, please?

You think I'm him harsh for calling him a criminal.

Well, that's what he was.

A forign national who requires a visa to enter the UK commits a crime if they overstay it. That's what he did. That's a crime, so he was a criminal.

He was also complicit in forgery. Another crime.

If he earned his money as a consequence of crime (which he did), then the money he earned might also have been earned by British citizens with NI numbers, and Gordon Brown might have been able to collect a bigger sum from them than from him in order to prop up our (snooze) 'world-class public services'.

Anonymous said...

I'm Brazilian and with my faulty Englsih I'd like to answers the question you post and offer you my two cents:

1. Why have I never read any criticism of the July 21 bombers from either the de Menezes family or their supporters?

Because Brazilian people, Brazilian government and Brazilian institutions didn't give any support to the invasion of Iraq. There is a direct link between Madri/ London bombing and the fact that Spain and UK sent their troops to support US operation. Jean wasn't killed by any bomb, but by eleven bullets shot in 30 seconds, from a special gun, not allowed to police forces, special bullets, executio alike, because whoever killed Jean thought they were killing a muslim. Jean's mother told that when she saw the news about someone killed in London, she thought of the pain of the mother because to her, its an universal feelings that mothjers suffers because of their sons, no matter the reasons. His mother show a kind of feeling that you don't share for your next. And now you quote her words to justify your mean arguments.

2. Jean Charles de Menezes' residence in the UK was a crime. Couldn't the legislation enabling the recovery of criminal proceeds be applied to any compensation payment, partially reducing the loss to the taxpayer?

Compensation is what the law indicates in the case when the state acted wrong. You saw no crime in July 22... Jean was killed and you saw no crime. There's what his family is interested, in justice, in prove that a crime was commited.

3. What is the immigration status of Gesio d'Avila, the Brazilian workmate of JCDM's referred to by Taylor?

The same immigration status of the majority of workers in the world: they are working hard in foreigners lands for listen to this kind of comments. You want know if he was born in Europer, or perhaps his grandfather was born in Italy, or if he has married to one of your sister... Immigration laws are not based in the universal rights that people can not be discriminated based on age, sex, beliefs, nationality... perhaps your very Law is against the European Human Rights or other superior law... pehaps some laws are unlawful...

4. What is the immigration status of JCDM's London-based cousin Patricia, also referred to by Taylor? Did she know JCDM was here illegally? Has she been questioned about her knowledge of his crimes?
5. What is the immigration status of JCDM's other London-based cousin, the vocal Alex Pereira?Did he know JCDM was here illegally? And has he been questioned about his knowledge of JCDM's crimes?

4 and 5 - Their cousin is concerning to fight for justice. They are still in the country to fight for justice. Or you want to work for them and sign yourself as a support and them they can leave to Brasil while you are going to pursue Jean's justice?

6. Has Lula da Silva apologised to the Queen for a Brazilian citizen engaging in a consistent course of criminal conduct in the UK? Has he offered our authorities every assistance in tracking down those Brazilians who might have facilitated his crimes?

Lula should ask England why Brazilian are treated different from Americans, for instacne, when we come to this country. He should have asked the Queen why Brazilian has to pay school to be allow into this country, has to show cash to walk as a tourist, has to endure humiliation of all forms every time we walk into the airport, when some other nationals don't.

7. Has Lula offered an immediate enquiry into the case of Craig Alden, the British victim of what appears to be a ghastly miscarriage of justice in Brazil?

The guy is question was acused of sexual abuse of kids. I don't know if he was innocent or not. He had a fair trial and he was judged and found guilty. Jean didn't have a trial, and wasn't even informed he was going to face the death penalty. As I said, I don't know if he was innocent but usually in Brasil a paedophilie is not condemned unless there is plenty of evidences. usually evidences come from the victims. Maybe it was not the case, still a president can not overrule the court decisions.

8. And lastly, and with the greatest relish, we reach the case of Rafael Lanz.
On August 23 2005, the BBC reported that Lanz, a Brazilian IT consultant living in Cambridge,
"said the shooting had strengthened his thoughts on leaving the UK - a move first considered after the start of the Iraq war.

If he hasn't leave it's because he may have met some English people that. contrary of you, are good people, and treat him as a brother. You see, you are a minority in your own country. Most people in UK are very worry that the police was out there killing people without warning, killing people they were supposed to arrest. They were worry that the prime minister was saying "you have done a good job" when he decided not to criticize the shoot to kill police that was not decide but the parlament nor anybody represent the democratic society. People were worry that, as in America, the war-on-terror is use and abusing the civil liberties. They were worry that a man has been killed not because he was overstaying his visa, but because he was boarding an underground. Not because he was an allien, but because he was a public. Not because he was sending money to his parents, but because he was going to fix a fire alarm, so someone could be saved when need an alarm. Not because he was breaking the law, but because he was doing anything criminal when he was killed. Unless you want to pass a law that say that every illegal immigant who overstay a visa should be shot down on street. Unless the penalty for be an illegal immigrant (if he was, I don't know) is the death penalty.

You should be shame that a country who introduce the harbeas corpus and abolished the death penalty allow the police to kill someone that they are send to arrest. If it was not Jean but a suicide bomber not in possession of a bomb, still the police should arrest, not kill. Not shoot-to-kill. Or change the laws and then perhaps we are going to sell our work power in another country.

Martin said...

Leila,

If we don't change our laws, you'll move?

Darlin', you're breaking my heart.

Anonymous said...

I cant belive Im reading this tripe. Just because someone was in a country "alledgedly" illegally (and lets face it, those that say he was here illegally also lied about the circumstances of his death) - doesnt mean it was OK for him to DIE! I mean, jsut how dead did they want him - 8 times! There are thousands of Brits who are in countries all over the world illegally - is it OK for them to die? I have an English friend who works in America, who's visa expired 8 years ago. Does that mean if he's killed thats OK then? Complete and utter idiocy. YOURE A MORON

Unknown said...

You sounds me like a fucking nazi. Idiot.

Anonymous said...

dear evil's kithen,
Thanx for explaining the,perfectly reasonable, connection between'criminality'and execution. I've been calling/visiting my local police station,attempting to avoid this fate,by confessing to my criminal past:-music copying;late payment of council tax;recreational drug use in my teen years, to name but a few.
I am now in a real quandary. I realise i may be shot at any time for these crimes against society,but have now been told to'go away'under threat of arrest for 'wasting police time'.
I don't know what to do,as this is yet another to be added to my growing list of crimes.
I would shoot myself but this would probably only lead to people like you,not only having a go at me but also my grieving family.
Please help.
Yours in desperation,
Moronio Twatus,
Cloud Cukoo Land(just up the road from you,i assume)

Anonymous said...

The FACT remains....if he wasnt here then he'd be alive and flaunting the law else where no doubt.

Anonymous said...

you seem to have a hidden agendum in your article. it seems you're more concerned with immigration violations than the fact that a man who had no connection to the events of that or the previous days events has been shot dead. with every passing day of the inquest it seems the police have been more than exaggerating in some cases and underplaying in others with the truth, and that in several other formal enquiries relating to the incident they may have perjured themselves in order to vindicate their position. you seem to have overlooked these possible conflagrations of the law. personally i think you're a typical narrow minded individual who's trying to disguise his prejudice in some vague and irrelevant legal semantic argument in order to vent some of that unjustified fear ignorant types like yourself have of legal and illegal immigrants.

Anonymous said...

As a former member of the Immigration Service who used to conduct investigations and covert surveillance of suspected illegal immigrants, there are a few points which have not been made:
1. De Menezes appears to have been complicit in obtaining a forged Home Office stamp to remain in the UK.
2. He would have known it was a forgery - or if it was got for him through an intermediary, wouldn't have questioned it too carefully.
3. In my 8 years dealing with illegals, I noted how aware they were of their surroundings and how sensitive they were to being followed. Illegals will sometimes take basic anti-surveillance measures and will behave suspiciously simply because they are always looking over their shoulders.
4. To police officers already on a high state of alert, the behaviour of a jumpy illegal could easily have looked like the behaviour of a terrorist.
There is no death penalty for overstaying or forgery. De Menezes came here on a 'student' visa. Yeah yeah - the standard scam for youngsters to get into the UK and work. He was basically here to work illegally and send money home.
He was therefore unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and to act suspiciously when he thought (correctly) he was being followed/watched. He died for the sum total of his actions. Had he been safely home in Brazil, no one would have died that day.
I am most sorry for the police officers, who, doing their duty, acted in what they believed were the best interests of the other train passengers and who have been condemned for what they did. They did not go out that morning hoping to kill someone. They believed when they entered the train that they might be called upon to die in the line of duty if a bomb detonated.
They are brave men who deserve our sympathy, along with all those who died at the hands of the terrorist bombers that year and along with DeMenezes - the last victim of the terrorists.
Now let's watch the unseemly scramble as the DeMenzes family all look to get millions in compensation for their illegal entrant son/brother - without ever acknowledging his criminal acts.

Anonymous said...

Well said. I will never bote Labour again ever in my life

Anonymous said...

Police officer has no right to mistake, I am sorry but when you dealing with life, weapon and a thin line between life and death, you have no right to mistake. When you commit yourself to this kind of "job" you should do it perfectly, be highly prepared.
Yes, illegal immigrant are looking over their shoulders, that why most of them pay taxes/insurance knowing they will get nothing back. I've heard/read about many british that feel very comfortable about not paying any tax and on top of that get all benefits they can get.
And most of the terrorist have "the stamp" in their passport. What a law!
We live in a sick society, generally speaking! While european are illegally shooting wild animal in the rain forest and saying it their fault they cannot protect it, european shot an immigrant that maybe was illegal that they thought was a terrorist and say it his fault.
Sorry if I sound confused, I am confused. Excuse my barrier language. Sorry, if I sound immature I am only 13 doing my homework about Latin America.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...