Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IPCC. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 April 2009

THE QUICK AND THE DEAD: UPDATE II

With the second autopsy on Ian Tomlinson, the one demanded by his family, but according to the IPCC press release 'instructed' by the IPCC, revealing the cause of death to be 'abdominal hemmorhage', that is, internal bleeding, and the PC who struck Tomlinson and shoved him to the ground scheduled to be questioned regarding his manslaughter, I wonder if Dr. Freddy Patel, who carried out the first autopsy, blaming Tomlinson's death on a 'heart attack', as part of the 'innocent bystander police tried to aid before anarchists attacked them with bottles' cover up story, should now also be investigated as an accessory after the fact. If he ignored the true cause of death, in order to protect either an individual policeman or the police service itself, such charges should be automatic, only who would make them? But bringing such charges might encourage him to say who it was from the coroner's office who decided the autoposy would be held in secret, without the IPCC present, because there were no suspicous circumstances.

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

THE QUICK AND THE DEAD: UPDATE

No sooner did I write, in 'The Quick and the Dead' (here) about the propensity for CCTV evidence to fail to exist when members of the 'justice' system are being investigated, than the claims of Nick Hardwick, head of the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission was shown to have been lying when he said there 'was no CCTV footage' in the area, around Royal Exchange Passage, where Ian Tomlinson was assaulted by police, leading to his death.

Last Thursday Hardwick told Channel 4 news "there is no CCTV footage – there were no cameras in the locations where he was assaulted." Although it is pretty easy to disprove this claim, since there are cameras in the area and photographs of them have been published, it took the IPCC until after the Easter holiday to begin cleaning up their covering up, with statements implying Hardwick had been referring to 'footage' when he said 'no cameras'.

However they were at a loss to explain how, if, as they had claimed when they issued their immediate clearance of the police in that assault, that they had looked at 'many hours of CCTV footage' how Hardwick could have been so sure there were no cameras. The assumption must be that the relevant footage from the cameras in Royal Exchange Passage will not be looked at until after it has been 'accidentally' wiped in the 'normal course' of business.

Meanwhile, more footage of the police attacking a woman during the vigil being staged to mark Tomlinson's death also shows that, having penned a small group of protestors, a tactic calculated to create, if not preserve, disorder. Someone who appears to be a photographer is shown being stopped from leaving the inside of the cordon, while another man trapped inside is talking to a WPC and then is shoved from behind by another PC.

A woman sees that attack, and begins protesting to a cop, calling the police 'scum'. She has a carton of juice and a camera in her hands, and makes no move to attack anyone, but the PC, wearing heavy gloves, gives her a back-handed slap in the face, then, as she continues to remonstrate with other offices, turning away from him, draws his baton and smashes her in the back of the legs. His identification number is, of course, covered up: but video taken by another participant identifies him clearly enough that the police have had no choice but to suspend him too.

With the police making massive arrests of people allegedly planning a possible protest that might have led to some disorder at a power station...the conditionals being the key point...the ultimate effect of the G20 may be to clarify exactly what the attitude of law enforcement is toward the people who are being increasing disenfranchised by economic collapse, and see the keepers of order acting to protect those who manage to avoid such disenfranchisement.

Thursday, 9 April 2009

THE QUICK AND THE DEAD: 'Terrorism' In Britain

It is instructive that British police can assault innocent bystander Ian Tomlinson, a homeless alcoholic working as a paper-seller, leading to his death by heart attack moments later, and immediately begin releasing a series of lies aimed at covering up their culpability, but no one is held to any immediate account. While it is cause for immediate resignation when Bob Quick, the head of the anti-terrorist squad, decides to play Bozo the clown and expose his unit's top-secret plans to public cameras.

The fact that another policeman, John Dougal, was convicted yesterday of causing the death through dangerous driving of a teenager whom he hit in his police car chasing a car moving at 94mph, driving without lights or siren (so not to give away anything to the car he was pursuing) all of this while his night shift after working a full day as an electrician, merely made this a telling trifecta, marking the path of the transformation of Britain into a police state: a state where the citizens exist by the grace and favour of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, the sort of thing that C Wright Mills said made 'reflective citizenship' impossible.

The Tomlinson assault and its immediate cover-up is reminiscent of the case of Jean-Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian electrician murdered at Stockwell tube while on his way to work, and raises a few similar questions, and some of a different nature. Incompetance, of course, was also a major factor in the Menezes killing: the surveillance officer missed IDing him because he'd left his post to pee, communications between different units didn't function, operational 'go' words were misundertood. There was also the institutional concept, as articulated first by Ben Hecht and Charles McArthur in The Front Page, of 'production for use'. The officers had their guns, and had to use them. The traffic officer had his high speed car and had to use it. The riot police have their batons and dogs and horses and have to use them.

In light of that, we need to ask what is the basis for the police assumption that anyone on the streets is a protestor, and worse, that any protestor is a violent terorrist? Did no one remember the effects of penning the crowd in Oxford Circus in 2001? The workers penned in for six to eight hours while trying to get back to their jobs after lunch? The tourists trapped on their way to the tube, unable to exit despite displaying their air tickets and passports to the police? The effects of dehydration and heat prostration on that summertime crowd? Tomlinson's killing, and the tactics of corralling which caused it, did not exist in a vacuum.

But the more telling effect of 'kettling' may well be on the police themselves. Like a rugby team in the locker room before a match, or football supporters in the pub for four hours before the match, they are psyching themselves up for conflict, and after six hours on containment, there is aggro bursting to get out.

Given that, why are the police allowed to disguise their identities? In man who hit and shoved Tomlinson wore a balaclava, no warrant card or other ID number was visible on his clothing, and that appears to be the case with the other officers present. This goes back at least to the days of the miners' strike, although then the police were also trying to disguise the fact they were using soldiers to beef up their ranks.

The case has now been referred to the 'Independent' Police Clearance, oh sorry, Complaints Commission, which means no officials need speak about it while it is under 'investigation'. But rest assured, had not spectator footage been available, showing Tomlinson (who may have been struck previously, if the time sequence with the eventually-released Channel 4 footage is right) meandering away, trying to get home, leaning on a bollard, with his back to advancing police dog handlers. One cop, to his right, gives him a slight push as a dog runs into his back. At this, another comes up from his left, whacks him with his truncheon, and shoves him face first to the pavement. He lies on the ground, apparently remonstrating, then gets up and groggily continues, trying to get back to his shelter.

When deMenezes was gunned down, the police immediately spun the story for the gullible press: he had jumped the ticket gates, he was wearing a heavy coat which might have concealed a bomb, he had run from police, the police had identified themselves before firing; all of which were quickly shown to be lies.

When the current 'I' PCC investigation comes out, will the media remember to ask where the police's own CCTV footage from Cornhill is, and check to see how it's edited. It is interesting that we now live in a society where our every move is monitored, yet when that surveillance might work against those in the 'justice' system, it miraculously disappears. Remember, in the Menezes case, all the CCTV cameras in and around Stockwell tube just happened to have 'malfunctioned' simultaneously. By strange coincidence, the judge, 'Sir' Stephen Richards, who handled the Menezes family's case against the police, was himself accused of twice exposing himself to a woman on a commuter train. He elected to have his case heard before a judge, not a jury, and where that judge admitted he was taking his colleague's word over the member of the public, in what boiled down to 'she said, he said', he at least had the grace to say it was only because he laacked 'corroborative evidence'. That evidence, of course, might have been found on the CCTV tapes from Waterloo, except when the police finally got around to checking those cameras, delayed because of their 'heavu case load', they 'discovered' the tapes had been erased, as scheduled, the day before.

Finally, why was the BBC 'not interested' in the spectator footage when the Guardian offered it to them? And why is the story now being buried underneath Quick's resignation. One hopes the raid on the 'possibly aligned to Al Queda cell' produces more results than the one on the Plymouth 'bomb factory' where a family was planning to unleash 'terror' during the G20'; all of them have been released, without charge, to a chorus of silence from the media. They were too busy checking the video to see what Bob Quick's papers said.