The police watchdog is to investigate an alleged cover up...

Llamaman said:
Jean-Charles de Menezes, "Plebgate", and other occasions where the police have knowing lied in official statements prove there is still a fundamental problem with the police believing they serve themselves not the community.
Click to expand...
both are highly complex and unique. The inquest did not conclude the police lied. Likewise with Plebgate it wasn't some big conspiracy going on either. Much more focussed by individuals.

I'm not some police apologist, but considering the number of interactions and cases let's keep it into perspective.
 
I only caught part of the dissection today on R2, but it appears that one of his accusers, stating dates, of abuse,
Teddy was actually out of the country negotiating our entry in to the EEC as it was then (I think it was).
The other point raised was that he had a personal protection officer from very early on, I guess from the time he became party leader (mid 60's)
to the day he died. ( mid 2005)
So either its a fabrication on someone's part or the PPO was some way involved...
Make of that what you will.
 
Unique, maybe, but the common theme running throughout is the Police deliberately briefing against people - dishonestly so - in order to "spin" the narrative for their own benefit.

De Menezes - even before they knew the full picture of what happened, police spokespeople were encouraging the media with 'off-the-record' stories of the gates being vaulted, de Menezes refusing a police order etc. They then also lied under oath to the inquest to justify the killing, repeating the statements contradicted by eye witnesses and ultimately rejected by the jury and IPCC investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ficers-claims-warning-Brazilian-rejected.html
The bungling Commander got 'punished' with a promotion to Deputy Commissioner and a Queen's Police Medal.

Plebgate - although the alleged incident appears to have taken place, the media story and incident "transcript" was sourced from an officer who wasn't there. But more seriously was the Police Federation's action where THREE senior officers walked out of a meeting and outright lied about what had just been said inside, unaware that Mitchell had recorded the whole thing. The recording and its transcript is in the public domain.

It's a pretty sorry affair when a (former) Minister of State does not trust the Police to tell the truth. It is an absolute disgrace when he's proved right.

And you can say it's down to certain individuals, but if that's the case, why are the 'bad apples' not routed out? Why were the 3 officers not subject to any disciplinary action? The forces circled the wagons and adopted a siege mentality. Why are officers suspected of misconduct (Like PC Harwood) allowed to resign rather than face sanction, thus allowing them to rejoin the Police (and kill people*) later?

I'm sure the majority of the police are, individually, fine people. But as an organization there's something fundamentally wrong with the way it holds itself accountable.


(*) Allegedly.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I only caught part of the dissection today on R2, but it appears that one of his accusers, stating dates, of abuse,
Teddy was actually out of the country negotiating our entry in to the EEC as it was then (I think it was).
The other point raised was that he had a personal protection officer from very early on, I guess from the time he became party leader (mid 60's)
to the day he died. ( mid 2005)
So either its a fabrication on someone's part or the PPO was some way involved...
Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
Indeed, as I mentioned earlier the journalist was detained under immigration law recently. Which seems to suggest to me that it is still a current activity as otherwise why would they pickup on her activities to stop her. The question I have is on whose authority is that being run. Who are they protecting to warrant this. This story has barely started.
 
dejongj said:
Indeed, as I mentioned earlier the journalist was detained under immigration law recently
Click to expand...
I did catch a little something about that, but the significance escaped me at the time ;)
dejongj said:
This story has barely started.
Click to expand...
It looks very much that way doesn't it?
 
Llamaman said:
Unique, maybe, but the common theme running throughout is the Police deliberately briefing against people - dishonestly so - in order to "spin" the narrative for their own benefit.

De Menezes - even before they knew the full picture of what happened, police spokespeople were encouraging the media with 'off-the-record' stories of the gates being vaulted, de Menezes refusing a police order etc. They then also lied under oath to the inquest to justify the killing, repeating the statements contradicted by eye witnesses and ultimately rejected by the jury and IPCC investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ficers-claims-warning-Brazilian-rejected.html
The bungling Commander got 'punished' with a promotion to Deputy Commissioner and a Queen's Police Medal.

Plebgate - although the alleged incident appears to have taken place, the media story and incident "transcript" was sourced from an officer who wasn't there. But more seriously was the Police Federation's action where THREE senior officers walked out of a meeting and outright lied about what had just been said inside, unaware that Mitchell had recorded the whole thing. The recording and its transcript is in the public domain.

It's a pretty sorry affair when a (former) Minister of State does not trust the Police to tell the truth. It is an absolute disgrace when he's proved right.

And you can say it's down to certain individuals, but if that's the case, why are the 'bad apples' not routed out? Why were the 3 officers not subject to any disciplinary action? The forces circled the wagons and adopted a siege mentality. Why are officers suspected of misconduct (Like PC Harwood) allowed to resign rather than face sanction, thus allowing them to rejoin the Police (and kill people*) later?

I'm sure the majority of the police are, individually, fine people. But as an organization there's something fundamentally wrong with the way it holds itself accountable.


(*) Allegedly.
Click to expand...
I agree, and especially with your statement that

I'm sure the majority of the police are, individually, fine people. But as an organization there's something fundamentally wrong with the way it holds itself accountable.
But the problems don't stop there. Ultimately, Mitchel lost his civil action because - for some reason - the judge decided that, on the balance of probabilities, Mitchell must have lied and the police officers must have told the truth because he said one thing and no less than five police officers had said something entirely different, and each one of them remembered EXACTLY the same thing. Also, the judge didn't seem to get it that "Pleb" isn't a Mitchell word, it's a police word used by many of them when talking about lesser mortals, i.e. non-police.

How can this happen? Simple. The judges are part of the system and have lost their way.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly.
How often do you hear a Cliff Richard track on the radio now? And that investigation came to nought.
Click to expand...

yup, it really didn't work that bit of PR spin. no air play before and no air at after
 
# It's so funny
how we don't talk tour anymore #
 
Oh dear, really?
I can't stand the bloke, but do you seriously think he needed PR spin of any kind?
His back catalogue probably raked him in more money than you can imagine, not to mention the non-musical merchandise; and he could still fill stadiums even at his age before that particular shytstorm.

Now you might not like the bloke.
I don't.
But if you think he deserved that kind of a bending over in the full media glare with thus far no charges, no evidence and no apologies, you're an even bigger ignoramus than I took you for.
 
Daftest conspiracy theory I've heard in ages.

"Hey Mr Agent - I'm fabulously wealthy and have a benign public reputation. Use your contacts at the Police to get my house stormed by police investigating a child abuse allegation, because that's bound to sell more records."
 
Llamaman said:
Daftest conspiracy theory I've heard in ages.

"Hey Mr Agent - I'm fabulously wealthy and have a benign public reputation. Use your contacts at the Police to get my house stormed by police investigating a child abuse allegation, because that's bound to sell more records."
Click to expand...
Agreed, if there was a conspiracy then it's hard to imagine that he was involved in it.

But, there are unanswered questions about the police conduct on this raid. Why did an organisation that normally does everything possible to avoid telling the press anything (for obvious and good reasons) tell the press about this raid in advance and ensure that they would be present?
 
Garry Edwards said:
But, there are unanswered questions about the police conduct on this raid. Why did an organisation that normally does everything possible to avoid telling the press anything (for obvious and good reasons) tell the press about this raid in advance and ensure that they would be present?
Click to expand...
The claim I've heard from the Police is that somehow the press got wind of the raid (sadly, most likely a dodgy copper sold it) and then threatened to blow the investigation if they didn't get live coverage.
 
viv1969 said:
Oh dear, really?
I can't stand the bloke, but do you seriously think he needed PR spin of any kind?
His back catalogue probably raked him in more money than you can imagine, not to mention the non-musical merchandise; and he could still fill stadiums even at his age before that particular shytstorm.

Now you might not like the bloke.
I don't.
But if you think he deserved that kind of a bending over in the full media glare with thus far no charges, no evidence and no apologies, you're an even bigger ignoramus than I took you for.
Click to expand...

no not really, it was a joke. someone took their too serious pill this morning :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top