Have we had this? IPCC say they "may" have misled journalists

[SardineQueen]

just putting it out there

After JC Menezes you'd think they'd be more careful about this sort of thing.

This is an extract from the article you linked to

But it said: "However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged, as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.

It clearly says they made the verbal statement "before any documentation had been received" This statement was made in reaction to the press being aware of and asking questions about the case straight after it had happened. As i said earlier it is unlikely that the officers involved had even been interviewed when this statement was put out.

This is not a case of the police just going round shooting people and telling lies.

As for this incident causing all of the violence that followed - I just don't accept that it was anything more than an excuse for alot of people.

Good point nancy.

The Police haven't covered themselves in glory although their job must be very difficult and in some parts thankless but until they start coming out against their own bad apples the public's perception of them isn't going to improve real soon.

SQ is right when she is highlighting these cases of murder by heavy handed Police because as an organisation they need to learn lessons from them.

Deploying Police in the areas they actually live in might highlight their good work and make them accountable for the bad work they do too.

FGS he was drug dealing yardie.

And a waste of space.

The most concerning thing about this is surely what it tells us about the way the IPCC operate. The seem to be two possible scenarios.
Scenario 1: The IPCC at a very early stage (before ballistic and other evidence collected, before all witnesses interviewed) have formed, and verbally communicated the view that police were returning fire.
Scenario 2: The IPCC were told by the police that they were returning fire, and at a very early stage the IPCC accepted this as fact and verbally communicated it to journalists.

The entire purpose of the IPCC is to carry out a thorough and impartial review of evidence in cases where questions have been asked about police conduct. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they can perform this role, when it appears they have pre-judged critical aspects of the case at such an early point in their investigation.

The bottom line is....??

Who do we trust?

Lipslave - v.good points. Surely the IPCC should be saying nothing at all until they have investigated fully, so as to avoid giving incorrect or incomplete information?

SQ - of course it bothers me, I think it bothers most people.
What also bothers me is how quickly people are prepared to say that the police are at fault. Too soft, too brutal, they kettled, stood back and did nothing. A chap on Question Time last night summed it up really well 'if the police had used more robust measures against the initial riot in tottenham last Saturday and stopped the whole thing in its tracks, we would be sat here now having a discussion about police brutality'. And he is right.

I know that is slightly tangential to what you are saying, but the whole issue needs looking at together IMO.

The IPCC has a reputation for having a terribly cosy relationship with the police. The families of pretty much everyone who has been killed by the police feel extremely let down by the IPCC, which treats them with disdain and screws up the investigations. The IPCC is supposed to hold the police to account, but we see the same tragic 'mistakes' made again and again and a-bloody-gain - not just shootings of innocent people such as Harry Stanley and Jean Charles de Menezes but deaths in police custody in very suspicious circumstances. 'Ooh, the man just so happened to stab himself with a kitchen knife while under arrest....' And they get way with it! Cover stories so thin everyone can see right through them, but everyone in officialdom pretends it's somehow plausible.

I'm sure most ordinary coppers are fairly decent but they suffer from appalling incompetent buffoons being put in charge, such as Ian Blair and Andy Hayman.

"Surely the IPCC should be saying nothing at all until they have investigated fully"

And that is what led to the demonstration. Not lies. The family of the dead man wanted answers and felt they weren't being told anything. The police said they had to await the outcome of the investigation but this wasn't acceptable to them. The IPCC saying 'nothing at all' would have been construed as secrecy, a cover-up, closing ranks. I fail to see how anything the IPCC could have said or not said on that day would not be turned on the police by someone.

No, I don't think so, Cogito. If you had heard that someone in your family had been killed by police and that he was being accused of having shot at police, you would also want answers.

The IPCC should be independent; if they are not, or if they see their first duty as being to protect/cover up for the police, that would bother me a lot. It would be interesting to know who is in the IPCC.

But I am also bothered by the fact that the media often take up a story and run with it before they check their facts.

The media coverage and social network rumour mill, I believe, should be bothering us at the moment. What starts as a chance remark, a misreporting or a bit of gossip can be whipped up into a massive storm in a matter of minutes. There were stories on Saturday that a 'policeman assaulted a girl' in the original demonstration. There's an investigation about that as well but do people wait to see if it's true before acting? No.... They assume, like yourself, that the police are a bad lot, go on the rampage first, ask questions later.

No, I don't assume that the police are a bad lot!

Whenever something comes to light about police brutality, or MPs fiddling their expenses, or people who live on benefits not wanting jobs, what I assume is that this is one example of something that the media have picked up on, and which is interesting, or criminal, or shocking - but that the vast majority of police, MPs, people on benefits are normal human beings.

If he didn't want to get shot, he shouldn't have had a gun.

Really?

If a criminal reaches for what might be a gun then I damn well expect the officer to shoot him - in self defence.

But people seem to be saying that a police officer has the right to execute anyone who has (or might have) a gun. That is another thing entirely.

I've been posting in favour of capital punishment recently and most of you think I'm barbaric. At least I would require a court and a jury.

Thanks for starting this thread SardineQueen.
IF it doesn't bother people, it should. Because it could happen to any one of us. When institutions lie to cover their arses by blaming the victim, then said institutions/organizations are no longer legitimate and we are no longer living in a democracy.
An incident like this can't be brushed under the carpet (try as they might).
The lying is worse than the crime itself.

China is finding this out. After the recent bullet train crash, where the stupid government crushed and buried the train before the cause of the crash could be investigated, Chinese people are beginning to get very, very antsy.

If you can't trust your police and government, then they're not legitimate.

Sakura: I do not think there is any evidence yet of deliberate intent. The error is admitted, but the precise cause has not been identified.

The pressure for immediate information is also a factor, as noted above.

Even if this error had not occurred, I do not see it would have reduced the likelihood of disturbance - in fact, it may have made it more likely (shot in possible exchange of fire - though wrong - is probably less inflammatory than just shot).

I do hope that op Withern covers the release of information to the press and identifies what happened and why. At the moment though, I hope we have all learned the perils of theorising ahead of the facts.

I find it interesting that some people want to look at each incident in isolation rather than looking at the organisation as a whole.

The police have a track record of this stuff, and a lot of other wrongdoing. It is no bad thing to ask whether there are problems within the institution as a whole. Whenever these things happen the "a few bad apples" argument comes out. Like with Stephen Lawrence, the struggle for all of those years that they had to find out the truth of what had happened, and in the end the police (after years) was announced "institutionally racist".

Here we have a situation where as lipslave points out nicely, something has definitely gone wrong. We know that there were relationships between the police and the press, with money changing hands. Here the press have been told the wrong thing. Is it too much to wonder, given the background, what has happened here?

We don't yet know what "this stuff" is in this case, let alone whether it is part of anything more widespread or deliberate. I hope it will come out in proper investigation, but it is premature to ascribe causes and motivations.

If any part of this was down to a news company continuing to run police sources illegally, then it is a very serious situation indeed. But we are far from knowing if there is any suspicion this may be the case.

It matters an enormous amount that this error occurred. Yes OK we're all human and make mistakes, but not being absolutely clear about whether or not a policeman had been shot at by a man who was killed by police is an unforgiveable mistake.

At the bottom line, it is no wonder that relationships between some communities and the police are at a dreadful low. If you feel the police will do you over, whether you're innocent or guilty, and then lie to cover their own arses, then what incentive is there to be innocent in the first place? None, you're a mug. If you feel the police are untrustworthy and won't protect your interests above their own, then they become an oppressive enemy and a target.

that's an extremely good point you make there, Onager.

Quod, you too.

I'm pretty sure an eyewitness said that both occupants of the taxi were on the floor when the shooting took place. So he was already under arrest. Shot twice while on the ground is justified isn't it? Like De Menezes, who was shot while being restrained by a policeman.

I know this thread is about the IPCC, but I think this article is relevant as it's about policing: www.ongo.com/v/1594314/-1/7D495C8013D962FF/cameron-faces-obstacles-in-bringing-in-us-police-chief-bill-bratton-to-head-met

Cameron wants Bill Bratton, a former US police chief to become the new head of the Met.

Apparently he was successful in cutting gang crime in New York, but there are still areas where you can't stop at the traffic lights for fear of being robbed ...

What worries me is that he is used to police using guns. How is he going to adjust his mindset to sending police into dangerous situations without guns? Or are they going to be introduced? (god help us!)