Taking the Independent out of IPCC
The Guardian publishes the video of Ian Tomlinson being attacked, the Independent Police Complaints Commission aren’t happy.
And what kind of independent body is it whose first reaction to the Guardian’s evidence on Tuesday night was to call at our offices (accompanied by a City of London policeman) and ask for it to be taken off the website?
In more innocent times we’d be shocked. These days it’s more to be expected. You can see why the IPCC would be embarrassed enough to take a policeman down to the Guardian to help cover their tracks. They were taking every word of the police’s version of events at face value when the video came out showing the police as liars and the IPCC as shamefully credulous.
Maybe the P in IPCC needs changing from ‘Police’ to ‘Public’ if the organisation is to continue to get confused over just whose complaints it’s supposed to be investigating.
Merrick has some great comment and links on all of it. And there’s this, which is slowly being forgotten in the rush to nail one policeman:
This was not one bad officer taking the law into his own hands. This sort of assault was endemic that day. I saw it hundreds of times with my own eyes, and I was at the more peaceful climate camp protest, and left before it got kettled then attacked with dogs and batons in the evening.
[...]
Every single officer is behaving like the one who attacked Ian Tomlinson. It is not them acting on private motivations, they have clearly had orders to do it.
This one guy is being dished up as the fall guy for what was a widespread policy of police violence on April 1. It’s fortunate there weren’t more deaths or serious injuries.
And where’s the CCTV footage from that day? Where are the police spotter photos and videos? Lets see the official footage of policemen blocking ambulances.
Posted on April 10th, 2009 at 10:41am under Activism, Civil liberties, Crime and punishment
I’d get yourself down to the bookies sharpish Justin because it can’t be too much longer before someone comes on this site following the gutter press line on this story with the opinion, based purely on their personal opinion on what they think the protesters are about, that they either had it coming to them; deserved it; or they should have expected it simply because they were there.
I’d get yourself down to the bookies sharpish Justin. It can’t be too much longer before a contribution is made to this thread which follows the line of the gutter press suggesting, purely on the basis of personal prejudices of what they think the protesters may be about, that either they had it coming to them; deserved it; or should have expected it for being wrong about anything and everything.
So bad you had to say it twice…
Yes, we know how ‘Independent’ the IPCC will be. . .
The Independent Police Complaints Commission are to hold an independent inquiry into the independent actions of an independent police officer which may have been linked to the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson.
Mister Tomlinson died in the street on APril 1 during a G20 protest, shortly after being clubbed to the ground from behind by a Metropolitan Police Officer. Footage of the attack on Mr Tomlinson has been published by the Guardian.
Independent Police Complaints Commission spokesman Ian Dependence, speaking at a press conference this afternoon, said, “we have independently decided to launch an independent inquiry into these events. We will independently interview the officers involved – assuming that we can independently find out who they are. We will make independent enquiries into the circumstances that led to Mister Tomlinson’s untimely and tragic death. An independent autopsy will independently establish the extent that police actions were involved in the fatality. We will be very thorough and independent”.
Mr Dependence added, “once our independent investigations are fully complete, we will of course compile and publish a full report – which will say exactly what Jacqui Smith and Paul Stephenson want it to say”.
There’s a great piece on the register today about this, and about the way the police were restricting people taking photographs (whether or not they were legally allowed to do this may be open to debate, but they were).
As the register says beautifully about the ’surveillance state’…
So privacy activists will feel that the cops have been hoisted by their own petard this time, with professional and amateur snappers deploying video technology exposing allegedly heavy handed policing. “Cops with nothing to hide will have nothing to fear,” [El Reg]
Making one officer take the fall not only clears the institution, but makes it look good for being so brave as to sacrifice one of their own. It actually strengthens their credibility, even as it entrenches the corruption.
It’s what power does to defend itself. Pretend the methods weren’t policy but were a rogue few.
In Vietnam, American commanders declared ‘free fire’ areas where troops could kill at will, and issued minimum daily ‘kill ratios’. Yet the My Lai massacre was the only resulting incident seriously publicised, and the prosecution saw only a lowly Second Lieutenant convicted (to serve less than four years of house arrest).
The torture at Abu Ghraib was strategy already tested in Afghanistan, ordered from on high, but no officers were convicted.
I get the feeling of here we go again.
According to the Guardian, they’re now claiming there were no CCTV cameras in the area (One step beyond the de Menezes case, when they merely said the cameras that were there were malfunctioning). I find it hard to credit this claim, but can someone check? Perhaps take advantage of the Easter weekend to go around Cornhill and Threadneedle Street and photograph every camera they see? I’d do it myself, only I’m 400 miles away and at work.
Then again, it’s just occurred to me that the location of security cameras in the vicinity of the Bank of England could reasonably fall into the category of “information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”, whatever the ACTUAL reason for “eliciting” the data. They’ve got us all ways, haven’t they?
Will,
According to Channel 4 News, thw official story has now been amended from ‘there were no CCTV cameras’ to ‘the CCTV cameras were’nt working’, which is mightily convenient for them.
Scc, that’s just the headline. The actual story says something different: watch the interview (it’s about 3 or 4 minutes into the interview).
But yeah, mighty convenient either way.
Scc, that’s just the headline. The actual story says something different: watch the interview (about 3 or 4 minutes in).
But yeah, mighty convenient either way.
See No Evil.
And do remember, from The Times: “The IPCC told journalists at the start of the week that Mr Tomlinson did not have any bruising or scratches on his head or shoulders, but did not mention whether he had any other signs of injury.”
Thanks for fixing the link.
I find it more than a bit difficult to get used to how the html works here.
If I paste something, I think an additional quotation mark gets added to the code but most probably I’m just a bit useless.
That’s cool. I’ve never found a commenting system for this place that I’m entirely happy with to be honest. One thing to remember though is that if you just paste the URL without any html, the blog will automatically convert it to a link for you – saves the hassle.
I didn’t realise about the automatic conversion.
The first thing I normally try is just pasting a url but your preview function doesn’t show the url becoming active, which is why I tried the html.
Now I know.
Cheers
Will,
The article itself does say ‘Speaking to More 4 News, the IPCC confirmed Hardwick’s comment, saying that the CCTV cameras overlooking the incident were not working.’
Which is curious, since the IPCC didn’t confirm Hardwick’s comment, it contradicted it with something else. Anyway – whatever happens, the lack of CCTV footage is mighty convenient.
[...] the death, ensuing video footage which graphically shows an unprovoked attack by the cops and the IPCC, who really should be renamed the IPCU (Independent Police Cover-Up) . And there’s a small [...]
In a submission to Jonathan Porritt’s blog “Prosperity without Growth” on 3rd April I made reference to that week’s demonstrations in London by “rent-a-rabble”. As usual the media are now spotlighting the one or two less desirable actions of the police during their commendable attempts to control Professor Knight’s rabble and protect innocent bystanders, other peaceful demonstrators and property. The media choose to totally ignore the wonderful job that our police did and continue to do under very trying circumstances. Let’s not forget that although there are codes of conduct and rules governing their actions in response to the threats that these rabble pose to us all, they have a very difficult job to do that most of us would shy away from.
Accepted that there are likely to be one or two bad apples in any basket, the vast majority of our police do a thoroughly professional job. During the initial set of demonstrations and those that followed a few days later the police were subjected to incessant provocation for hours, ranging from deliberate physical violence with makeshift weapons to spitting, verbal abuse and shambling obstruction. Is it any wonder that one or two might lose a little self-control. Each individual policeman is, after all, a human being. Before condemning the two who were unfortunate enough to be directly involved in the spotlighted incidents, ask yourself how you would have reacted under the same circumstances. Let’s hope the inquiries that are underway will give proper consideration to the unwarranted provocation and disregard for personal obligations that were exercised by all parties involved, not only the police.
Regards, Pete Ridley