On Wednesday 5th May between 12.30pm to 2pm, the United Families and Friends Campaign (UFFC), the coalition of relatives and friends of those who have died in police custody, will be protesting outside of the Home Office to demand an independent public inquiry into the death of Christopher Alder in police custody.
The protest has been prompted by the government’s reaction to the BBC documentary ‘Death on Camera’, which broadcast CCTV footage of Christopher’s last moments on the floor of the custody suite at Queen’s Road police station in Hull. Home Secretary David Blunkett announced on the day after the broadcast that he had instructed the new Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which began work on April 1st , to review that circumstances of Christopher’s death. The United Families and Friends Campaign believes this was nothing more than government spin – an attempt to try and manage the negative publicity that ‘Death on Camera’ had generated. A review by the IPCC will consider only “lessons to be learnt” from the case and will not force the officers who watched Christopher die to answer the questions they have avoided over the last six years. We support the Justice for Christopher Alder Campaign’s demand that only an independent public inquiry can enable the truth to emerge. In the last two weeks, UFFC supporters have therefore been lobbying IPCC Chair Nick Hardwick, asking the IPCC to demonstrate its independence by referring the ‘review’ back to the Home Office.
Brenda Weinberg, UFFC chair and the sister of Brian Douglas, who died in police custody in south London in 1995, has said:
“The long struggle for justice by Christopher’s family, in the face of vigorous obstruction by Humberside Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Complaints Authority, has helped prevent the truth from emerging about why Christopher died. It has also prevented anyone from being properly held to account for their actions. A ‘review’ by the Independent Police Complaints Commission is a wholly inappropriate response to what has finally been publicly exposed by ‘Death on Camera’. Only a public inquiry can establish the truth.”
Brenda Weinberg, UFFC chair and the sister of Brian Douglas, who died in police custody in south London in 1995, has said:
“The long struggle for justice by Christopher’s family, in the face of vigorous obstruction by Humberside Police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police Complaints Authority, has helped prevent the truth from emerging about why Christopher died. It has also prevented anyone from being properly held to account for their actions. A ‘review’ by the Independent Police Complaints Commission is a wholly inappropriate response to what has finally been publicly exposed by ‘Death on Camera’. Only a public inquiry can establish the truth.”
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Time To Do Something About It !!!
04.05.2004 10:39
They lie to conceal the truth, by saying that a prisoner has been difficult while being arrested and had to be restrained for their safety and the safety of other members of the public.
Who is there for our safety from those police officers who believe they have the right to be JUDGE, JURY, and EXECUTIONER?
Those police officers who think they are entitled to dish out a beating to anyone they feel like knowing full well that the state will cover up their abuses.
On Wednesday I will be outside the Home Office shouting my head off so that people like myself who've been subject to police violence whilst in custody will get some justice of our own.
The families of those who've died in custody should never give up their fight for justice not ever.
Patrick
Patrick
Police Beatings in Custody
04.05.2004 11:33
The people who prevented the asian man from serious injury should have been credited for what they had done, not beaten by some baton happy police officers who by beating those who were assisting a victim allowed the actual skinheaded aggressor get away.
The two people who assisted the asian were then arrested for assault on the asian man who vigorously protested that they had anything to do with it and the asian man and myself had to go to Bow Street court to prove that both the passers by were innocent and were only preventing a serious injury which may have happened to the victim.
I was amazed when both were asked by the magistrate to sign a registar to keep the peace, even though the magistrate found there was no case to answer.
I noted that both refused to sign anything which could suggest that they had done anything wrong and as one stated in court "Why don't you look at the CCTV footage taken from Leicester Square to see what was really going on and how the police allowed the real aggressor who committed the assault on the asian man to get away, instead of trying to put the blame on two people who broke it up?"
The prosecution and the police then decided to drop the case against the two people in the dock, but asked the magistrate to have it left on file in case they wished to look at the case again.
When this was put to the two people in the dock by their solicitor, they refused and stated that they had only been on there way home when they saw this skinhead kicking an asian man on the ground and went to put a stop to it and had been stitched up for their trouble.
Both the accused were later released without conviction and proceeded to make a case against the police for compensation which I hope they were successful with?
Dougie Robertson