CS Gas at Peaceful Protest

close
more_vert
keith a K
keith a Feb 13, 2011 20:01:15
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
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?

Because surely they'd risk losing their jobs. How many people would be prepared to do that in this day and age?

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.[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree. The 0.8% you quote is misleading. That refers to IPCC involvement, not any investigation. The rest - the minor complaints - are investigated by the police force concerned. As I understand it the only ones that aren't investigated is where it is extremely minor and the complainant agrees that it should be resolved with advice.

And whilst I understand why you say "the only background that should exclude an independent investigator is one in the police" sometimes it takes a poacher to catch a poacher. I would have thought that some knowledge of policing would be essential somewhere along the line.


Edit: Cos I pressed send before I'd finished!

M Merrick
Merrick Feb 14, 2011 11:45:38
Replying to keith a

keith a wrote:
Because surely they'd risk losing their jobs. How many people would be prepared to do that in this day and age?
Like anyone, they think their side is the right one and so want a good outcome for them. As such, they are biased in their thinking about others from their side, and many are not above exerting undue influence or acting in a consciously dishonest way.

Especially if there's a cosy relationship between the police and the IPCC and a personal familiarity, it is very easy to ask what's happening and express an opinion in a way that prejudices a case.

Police lie and go against their sworn duty all the time. I have been involved in several dozen court cases and around many more, well into three figures. In the majority of cases police have exaggerated and misled with their evidence, and on numerous occasions given false testimony.

The police response to the cases we all know about such as Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes should be enough to show anyone what happens when they've done something wrong.

keith a wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree. The 0.8% you quote is misleading. That refers to IPCC involvement, not any investigation.
In what way is that misleading? I've made clear, that's the oes that are independently investigated.

keith a wrote:
The rest - the minor complaints - are investigated by the police force concerned.
Doesn't that bother you? Thousands of complainants appeal against local police investigation of themselves, but over 80% of the appeals fail and even though the complainant believes the police are not fit to investigate themselves, they almost always get to do it anyway. With predicatable results.

keith a wrote:
I would have thought that some knowledge of policing would be essential somewhere along the line.
Knowledge of policing and what the police are supposed to do and what they're not allowed to do should be a prerequisite, absolutely. That doesn't mean someone who has actually done the job.

[/quote]And whilst I understand why you say "the only background that should exclude an independent investigator is one in the police" sometimes it takes a poacher to catch a poacher.[/quote]

That's just nonsense in this context. The fact that the police exonerate themselves several times more often than when they're independently investigated points towards that. Should people only be magistrates if they've got criminal convictions?

This is a matter of justice, and for justice to work it has to be clearly fairly administered. This system clearly does not do that. The police investigating themselves is like MPs deciding their own pay rises and sorting out their own expenses.