Forum menu
OK, so you didn't follow the case then? How the IPC misled the public, they were forced to change tact because they were caught.
A bit patronising MSP if you don't mind me saying so.
The fact that they ****ed up does not necessarily mean that they were trying to "clear the officers involved". Especially when the vast weight of evidence suggests the exact opposite, including the fact that the 31 officers involved as witnesses will not speak to the IPCC. Not really the actions of those having their backs covered for them is it?
The trouble with this sort of thread is its easy to wile away the day making up all sorts of conspiracy theories, but the reality usually is a lot more mundane, i.e. someone somewhere has dropped a bollock and then tries to cover it up because the consequences of that bollock being dropped are so dire.
But hey, lets not let reality or facts get in the way of a bloody good whinge.
Incidentally, are you still convinced that 9/11 was carried out by the US government?
i.e. someone somewhere has dropped a bollock and then tries to cover it up because the consequences of that bollock being dropped are so dire.
almost certainly several people - each of which in isolation would not have led to the killing but when taken together do
Quite so TJ, but its a bit chicken and egg, it leads to a culture like that, which then goes into a downward spiral of covering backs, which ultimately is corrupt and so on. But if anyone thinks thats unique to the Police come and work in my company for a few days. You never get a call from anyone saying "I've dropped a clanger can you help me", its always "I've received this product from you and it was damaged when I got it" etc etc etc. No real difference, apart from the fact hopefully no one dies.
So this RIPA stuff, there's evidence that was obtained using covert methods, that influenced the police's actions/operation, and they aren't allowed, by law, to disclose this to the inquest or IPCC?
That doesn't seem very fair, either on the bloke's family, who can't be told the full reasons behind the polices actions, or the police, who might have been justified in what they did but aren't allowed to show why.
TACK.
I loved the comments from an UKSF officer a while back who was involved with training some Met firearms officers, his words were effectively that the officers were special forces walts who considered guns to be toys.
The problem with the police force is that they don't get as many intelligent graduates as the forces, they don't have the same culture of educated officers.
So this RIPA stuff, there's evidence that was obtained using covert methods, that influenced the police's actions/operation, and they aren't allowed, by law, to disclose this to the inquest or IPCC?That doesn't seem very fair, either on the bloke's family, who can't be told the full reasons behind the polices actions, or the police, who might have been justified in what they did but aren't allowed to show why.
It (RIPA part 1 refers to product from phone taps carried out in the UK and not all covert methods such as surveillance and probes which can be evidential, it's not evidence because under UK law it cannot be used in court, furthermore it basicaly cannot be disclosed to anyone bar a few exceptions these being broadly police, hmrc, box, etc questions can't be asked about it in court and other restrictions about it are also in place.