CS Gas at Peaceful Protest

close
more_vert
keith a K
keith a Feb 13, 2011 16:15:54
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
You presume no officers comment on cases they're not involved in, nor do they have undue influence that prejudices the investigation.
What I am saying is that the police who are speaking to them are the police who should be speaking to them. i.e. the people investigating, not just casual callers popping in for a cuppa and an attempt to influence.


Merrick wrote:
- Only one complaint in 290 is independently investigated.

- Thousands of complainants appeal against local police investigation of themselves, but over 80% of the appeals fail.

- The IPCC is financially incentivised to rely on police resources.

- As the other article I posted says, the IPCC looks to the police for its approval ratings rather than complainants.

This cosiness is demonstrated by the way the IPCC repeated the police's false, misleading and dubious claims about Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes, etc. (when the Guardian posted the Tomlinson video the IPCC and police together went round to their offices to try to get them to take it down).

Well I'm not sure if you're suggesting that an IPCC deal with every single complaint or not. I would have thought it would be financially draining for an organisation to deal with the likes of "I didn't like the tone of his voice" type minor complaints that are likely to make up a significant amount of complaints.

As for the high profile examples you mention, they're a different kettle of fish entirely. And if the IPCC are being 'cosied up' like that then it re-inforces my view that a background in housing and such-like is not the ideal preparation.

M Merrick
Merrick Feb 13, 2011 19:41:04
Replying to keith a

keith a wrote:
What I am saying is that the police who are speaking to them are the police who should be speaking to them. i.e. the people investigating, not just casual callers popping in for a cuppa and an attempt to influence.
how do you know that?

how do you also know that those who come in on legitimate business don't attempt to influence other things whilst there?

How do you know that they don't unduly influence the case they're involved with?

keith a wrote:
Well I'm not sure if you're suggesting that an IPCC deal with every single complaint or not. I would have thought it would be financially draining for an organisation to deal with the likes of "I didn't like the tone of his voice" type minor complaints that are likely to make up a significant amount of complaints.
I tihnk many on the business end of dubious policing do not have any faith in the complaints process. I think it seems plausible that a lot more than 0.8% of complaints warrant investigation. I think the police investigating themselves will have a bias in favour of the police. The fact that they are several times more likely to be exonerated than when independently investigated supports that.

keith a wrote:
if the IPCC are being 'cosied up' like that then it re-inforces my view that a background in housing and such-like is not the ideal preparation.
Why not? People retrain in all kinds of things - the only background that should exclude an independent investigator is one in the police.