….Recommendation 10 of the MacPherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence suggests that the reports of investigating officers be made available to complainants against the police. That recommendation is subject of consultation and debate within the Home Office. The view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, supported by the Metropolitan Police, is that there is significant law supporting the view that such reports should not be routinely disclosed to complainants. It is vital that Investigating Officers feel they can be can be candid when preparing their reports. Any loss of candour would significantly detract from their value to senior officers who rely upon the insight, views and perceptions of investigators when reaching decisions. Such views are frequently subjective and need to be interpreted with care by an experienced person…..
…A matter I have considered is whether or not I should have the report redacted if it were revealed to you.It is 82 pages long and contains 349 paragraphs. Redaction would take some time and render the report meaningless
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Roy Clark in a letter to murder victim Daniel Morgan’s family
The (de Menezes) investigation is being led by IPCC Director of Operations Roy Clark
"The IPCC have forfeited the appearance of independence before a single statement has been taken by appointing a former Met officer of senior rank to investigate his former colleagues. This is not the way to create confidence in a new watchdog.
Alastair Morgan Press release 29/07/05
Eight bullets from a policemen's gun ended the life of 27 year old Brazilian electician Jean Charles de Menezes on Friday 22nd July 2005. Since then many of us have watched a tragic farce unfold. Police statements have been seen to be fabricated, and attempts to prove a "direct link" between Me de Menezes and the London bombings have proved unsustainable. An "intelligence" led operation has resulted in a tragic death, and already we have learnt that the cops have something to hide.
The matter has now been passed to the supposedly 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission, where, astoundingly, a former Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner will investigate his own former colleagues. How is this an improvement on the former system where investigations were at least headed by someone from a different force? And are we seriously expected to have faith in an investigation by someone who favours "redacting" reports to the extent that they are meaningless before the complainant gets to see them?
The CCTV footage from the Stockwell incident DOES exist, we learn from yesterdays Guardian. Its all with Nick Hardwick of the IPCC, and he says it is "very, very helpful" to the inquiry. So, why haven't WE seen it? No doubt Roy Clark has told Nick Hardwick that it needs to be "interpreted with care by an experienced person…..
After all, we know who the victim was, we know that the Met says it was cops what shot him, and even that they have given the cop who pulled the trigger an expenses paid holiday with his family. So, why can't we see what the footage shows?
The signs are ominous ..... Nick Hardwick has stated that:
""The IPCC independently investigates all fatal police shootings. In carrying out this investigation, the IPCC will ensure that nothing is done to hinder the urgent police priority of tracking down and bringing to justice those responsible for the recent London bombings and their vital work to prevent further outrages.”
Does he not see that the killing of Mr. de Mendezes is a "further outrage"? So too is the appointment of Roy "cover-up" Clark with his arrogant assertion that information should be rendered "meaningless" before the complainant receives it.
The killer of Daniel Morgan has never been brought to justice, Roy Clark paid a part in that.
Nick Hardwick's liberal reputation will not suffice when Roy Clark kills the inquiry, leaving de Menezes killer unpunished. All the indications are that we are about to witness the mother of all cover-ups, that the IPCC will be seen to be as big a sham as the PCA it replaced, and once again a victim's family will be left in the dark.
Justice for Jean Charles will not come from that quarter. We must join the family in the fight to ensure that the facts are brought to light, and that the Shoot To Kill policy is brought to an end.
Justice for the families of Jean Charles de Mendezes, Daniel Morgan and the United Families and Friends campaign! Their struggle is our struggle. Killer cops must be dragged into the dock.
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
Prejudice
01.08.2005 03:23
Quick answer, further to what I've written elsewhere about the impartiality or otherwise of the IPCC:
You can't see the footage because if it was publicly broadcast it'd prejudice any trial that might be brought against the officers. In practice, this would mean it'd be almost impossible to secure a conviction against them. Is that what you want?
It's not the job of the IPCC to release piecemeal evidence to the public just to satisfy their curiosity. If necessary, that evidence will be placed before a jury of twelve of your fellow citizens who hopefully haven't made up their minds before they enter the court.
Try to discover the reasons for an organisation's procedures before assuming it's something sinister.
Next.
Zorro
Well done
01.08.2005 07:50
Too many posts on Indymedia at the moment are based around preconcevied ideas about what occured in that train. As none of us know I wonder how some people "know"
Terence
Okay, so a troll and coplover don't like the post
01.08.2005 08:33
Well, blow me down with a feather, if it didn't come directly from the cops themselves.......
And, they're still at it, with the carefully worded claim that the immigration stamp was not in use "at that time" ..... in fact, Nick Hardwick had to say something about it (from Guardian piece op cit)
" Yesterday the IPCC said the Home Office should stop issuing "partial information" about Mr De Menezes.
"I think a lot of people would do better to shut up for the moment until our independent investigation has established the facts," Mr Hardwick said. "I myself ... won't speculate and I won't release partial information, and it would be better if other people did the same."
As the entire debate (and widespread kneejerk reaction) has been "informed" by misleading "information" released by the Met, including by its Chief Constable, the argument that we cannot see what happened in Stockwell Station is somewhat impoverished.
This investigation - (which despite what Nick Hardwick says is far from "independent") will drag on for years - and in the meantime the people of London will have to put up with a Shoot To Kill policy which says that "suspected suicide bombers" can be mowed down WITHOUT the police issuing any warning - in fact it says that if they do issue a warning, the "suspected suicide bomber" might detonate the bomb.
I'm sure Zorro is more than happy for more innocent people (or even people who know stuff the cops don't want them to know) to be gunned down while we wait for an inquiry that is flawed right from the outset.
The reasons that Zorro give have been undermined by the police themselves - I maintain that now the police have made these claims, we are entitled to see the evidence - we have a right to know whether the turnstile was vaulted by Jean Charles - or whether that was said in an effort to pervert what should, according to THEIR OWN claims, be a "course of justice" but won't be.
"Terence" has nothing of interest to say whatsoever.
ftp
"Killer cops must be dragged into the dock."
01.08.2005 08:37
Would these be the same "killer cops" who ran TOWARD a man they believed was a suicide bomber, ill repeat it for the importance - TOWARD him.
I'm not sure I could be that brave.
knows a lawyer
Sort it out trolls
01.08.2005 08:51
Now - do we KNOW what happened, or not? How have you managed to establish what the cops 'believed' (and how prejudicial is that?) without speaking to them. So far, all their statements have proved to be FALSE...... How do we know they haven't lied about what they believed? How do we know that they weren't trying to neutralise him, cos he'd seen something at the block of flats? Or that they hadn't been given a brief to "kill a muslim" to reassure the public that something WAS being done to protect their safety?
"I'm not sure I could be that brave."
It isn't very brave when you and a gang of your mates run towards an unarmed man bearing loaded guns, with a license to kill, is it?
The idea that the cops were brave under the circumstances IS prejudicial isn't it? Isn't it exactly what might swing the minds of a jury?
But all you cop loving trolls want the cops to get away with this, don't you?
ftp
Why ?
01.08.2005 09:18
Why because I pointed out how you made a bit of an arse of your self by writing an ill thought out piece that lacked research and knowledge. I would suggest you do a bit of basic reading on criminal law and then next time "Zorro" will not find it quite so easy to shoot you down in flames.
Leave your cop-hating ideas to one side and try writing a balanced piece next time
Terence
Ran toward the man
01.08.2005 09:22
This gets funnier and funnier, what are you suggesting that the man ran toward the cops. Or perhaps you think the man was chasing the police ?
Or maybe this was one of those secret false flag operations where a special Mossad team under the control of the Bilderburgers ambushed him to divert attention from the Israeli controlled US Army operations in Iraq ?
Laughing
Chill
01.08.2005 09:53
"How do we know that they weren't trying to neutralise him, cos he'd seen something at the block of flats? Or that they hadn't been given a brief to "kill a muslim" to reassure the public that something WAS being done to protect their safety? " .............. are just wacky.
I would hate to live in your world where you can suggest that British police would agree to an order to kill a random Muslim just to reassure the public. I don't always think the police here do a perfect job and I have had many arguments with them on demos and raves but I would never think that about them.
Is that what you really think. I feel for you.
Love and peace
Laura
Laura Czinski
I agree
01.08.2005 10:27
As soon as the bomb to kill policy ceases.
Asfal
Yawn....
01.08.2005 11:47
Except it IS independent, isn't it? Would you prefer it if we (and I mean "we" as in "Britain", before some numbnuts starts accusing me of being — or stating as fact that I am — a member of the police service or MI5) went back to the good old days of a neighbouring police force investigating all shootings by armed officers? Or perhaps we should have an 'independent' investigation by people like your good self, who clearly have no personal anti-police agenda and only want to establish the facts of the case. Perhaps we should just have the officers involved lynched, save on the paperwork and all that.
If you can think of a better way to invesigation alleged wrongdoing by the police than an independent probe by a branch of the civil service, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, don't criticise the system we have.
BTW, does anyone else find it amusing when anarachists and people who claim to hate the law and everything it stands for demand legal action in the courts under the law of the land? Or when they prattle on about 'international law' despite being against A) law and B) internationalism?
Or, best of all, when they go on at length about how important free speech is, but then scream "troll" and "coplover" at anyone who dares to pick holes in their swiss cheesey arguments....
A