Plebgate: ‘lying is good’, say the police.

15/10/2013

Remember when Andrew Michell, the then-Government Chief Whip in the House of Commons, was forced to resign in the aftermath of the “Plebgate” row, where police officers claimed he had called them “fucking plebs”. The insinuation was that Mitchell was a liar: after a meeting a year after the Plebgate affair with Police Federation representives from the West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire forces, Ken Mackaill, chairman of the West Mercia federation, said Mitchell’s position was untenable. He resigned a week later.

But it was later alleged that they lied about what went on in the meeting – which had been taped – in order to support their colleagues in London. They were accused of deliberately misrepresenting the meeting and calling Mitchell’s integrity into question. There are even murmurings about a conspiracy to get rid of Mitchell.

IPCC deputy chair Deborah Glass said on Tuesday (15 October) the officers should face disciplinary panels to decide whether they lied. She said:

“In my view the evidence is such that a panel should determine whether the three officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to support their MPS (Metropolitan police service) colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell, in pursuit of a wider agenda.

“In my opinion the evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment.”

If the IPCC has elected to investigate the case themselves, they would have the power to direct the forces to convene misconduct proceedings but have chosen not to exercise these powers. The Crown Prosecution Service is to review the relevant proof; but no officers are going to be prosecuted, are they? If the police can get away with murdering innocent bystanders (think Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson, or any victim of police brutality) what chance does Mitchell have? Very little. Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said at the weekend prosecutors would come to a decision on whether any officers or members of the public should be charged “as soon as we can”. I think we can all assume what that means.

Please comment on this story, it would be good to know what public opinion is about police dishonesty. There’s a Comment button below. 😉

Make_a_donation

Locations of visitors to this page


free web stat


Police given the green light to kill protestors

22/07/2010

16 months ago, Constable Simon Harwood of London’s Metropolitan Territorial Support Unit killed Ian Tomlinson at the anti-G20 protests… even though Tomlinson was not a protestor. He was an innocent bystander, passing by the area of the protest to go home and watch football on TV. Yet there is video footage of Constable Harwood shoving him viciously from behind. Tomlinson died minutes later, because of internal bleeding caused by the assault according to 2 separate post mortems.

Yet, 16 months later, the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service have decided that Harwood will face no disciplinary action. The authorities have decided, yet again, that the police can kill with impunity.

Remember Jean Charles de Menezes? He was the Brazilian electrician shot dead on the London Tube by police officers in the wake of multiple terrorist attacks, even though he had nothing at all to do with those attacks. Well, Tomlinson’s another one – an innocent man brutally killed by police officers. Neither Tomlinson nor Menezes had anything to do with crime, yet both were murdered. By the police. And the officers involved have been told that their actions were legitimate. In other words: the police can kill whoever they like, whether there’s a reason or not.

Take my advice: if you see a police officer anywhere near you, get the hell out of there as quickly as possible. Don’t stop, even if the police tell you to stop. And don’t let the police corner you, as they did Menezes and Tomlinson. Because the police will kill you, even if there are hundreds of witnesses present. Tomlinson’s murder was televised for fuck’s sake! No one is safe so long as these psychopaths are allowed to do what they want. Fucking murderers.

Oh, and before someone tells us that the CPS made their decision because of differences between medical opinions on the cause of death: there were 3 post mortems; 2 of them, including the PM ordered by the Met itself, found that Tomlinson died because of internal bleeding caused by the assault. There’s very little doubt that Tomlinson was murdered. But the CPS and its political masters refuse to put their hired hands on trial for their heinous crimes.


Smear campaign succeeds at last: Met top cop Dizaei jailed for “attempting to pervert the course of justice”.

08/02/2010

Ali Dizaei (left) and Waad al-Baghdadi


Today at Southwark crown court, London, Commander Ali Dizaei of the Metropolitan Police was sent to prison for 4 years after a jury found him guilty of misconduct in public office and attempting to pervert the course of justice. His alleged crime was false imprisonment and making up a story that he was threatened and assaulted. Dizaei is the most senior officer in recent times to stand trial.

Maybe you’re wondering why I’ve called this a smear campaign when a jury has found him guilty of the crime? Why do I doubt his guilt? Simple: this case bears all the hallmarks of a stitch-up. Dizaei has been an outspoken critic of the Met for a long time, and this court case follows other, failed, attempts to ruin him. And in my view the evidence against him just doesn’t stack up.

The case against him is as follows. In July 2008, Dizaei and his wife were sitting in a car outside Yas, a west end restaurant, talking to the restaurateur, when they were approached by a man named Waad al-Baghdadi. Baghdadi, a website designer, claims that Dizaei owed him £600. Baghdadi, and the prosecution, say that he wanted to talk to Dizaei about this debt. Dizaei didn’t want to discuss the matter, and told Baghdadi to leave the restaurant “or else”. A row broke out and Dizaei abused his position as a police officer to insult, threaten, assault and falsely arrest Baghdadi. Dizaei then invented a reason for the arrest, reporting that Baghdadi threatened him then stabbed him with the mouthpiece of a shisha pipe (a type of hookah). That’s the prosecution case, which the jury believed. Of course Dizaei disputes this: he claimed that Baghdadi did threaten then assault him, and had an injury to his stomach to back this up. His wife agreed, saying she felt “terrorised” by Baghdadi’s threats. And Sohrab Eshragi, the restaurateur and also a friend of Dizaei, also corroborated the commander’s account. Eshragi told the jury that Baghdadi was “a crook basically”, adding: “His history … everybody knows he’s not a good gentleman.” Eshragi said that, far from Dizaei intimidating Baghdadi by ordering him out of the restaurant, he had urged him to ask the web designer to leave because he feared a fight might break out.

The prosecution claimed they had CCTV footage to show that Dizaei was lying. But this footage showed only part of the incident, and it is impossible to verify from it if any threats were issued by either party. A police doctor testified for the prosecution, saying that the wound to Dizaei’s stomach was “probably self-inflicted”. But this was disputed by Dr Nat Cary, one of the country’s leading forensic pathologists who has worked on many high-profile cases including the death of Benazir Bhutto and the case of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller who died at last year’s G20 protest. Cary said the claim was based on a “fundamentally flawed approach” to forensic medicine. “He [Dizaei] alleges he has been poked with the shisha pipe,” he said. “In my view, that’s consistent [with the injuries].”

In the end it all came down to a question of who the jury believed: a police commander and his wife and a respected restaurateur… or Baghdadi. Surprisingly, they chose to believe Baghdadi.

No doubt you’re wondering why I believe Dizaei. After all, supporting the police isn’t something I’m noted for. And you’re right. I hate bent coppers; in my opinion any police officer found guilty of commiting a crime should be sent to jail for a very long time. But there’s a lot about this case, and about Dizaei in particular, that makes me feel he has been fitted up.

Ali Dizaei is no stranger to controversy. He has always been outspoken on the subject of racism in the Met, and is president of the National Black Police Association. In 1999, it was later revealed, MI5 thought that the Iranian-born officer (he holds dual nationality) was an Iranian spy! They reported these suspicions to the Met, which resulted in a protracted investigation. Some outrageous charges were made at this time – it was claimed for example that he consorted with prostitutes and used illegal drugs, on top of being “a danger to national security” – and he was suspended from 2001 to 2003. Of course there was no basis to any of these outrageous claims, and none of them appeared on the final indictment. Instead he was accused of just one rather minor offence, and in 2003 a jury cleared him unanimously of any wrongdoing.

Back then it was widely believed that he had attracted this trouble because of his connection with the National Black Police Association – no one knew about MI5’s ridiculous suspicions until the Guardian revealed all in 2007 – he worked as a legal advisor for the Association in 2001. And in 2008 this possible motive still existed. In September 2008, when he was suspended for the second time, he was involved in a huge race row that hit the Met. The assistant commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur – the Met’s third most senior officer – sued the force for discrimination and described his boss, the commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, as a racist. For such a high-ranking officer to make such accusations was highly embarrassing, and Dizaei was right in the middle of it – he was both Ghaffur’s main adviser and the president of the National Black Police Association. The Met employed all sorts of dirty tricks against Ghaffur, such as leaking allegations about his private life to the press; and they used similar tactics against Dizaei, a paper at the time claiming that he was a bigamist. It’s certainly not outlandish to suggest this latest development is more of the same.

This is all pretty circumstantial, I know. But it’s pretty believable too. And there’s one more factor, which anyone with any experience of police complaints will agree is very important. It is usually very difficult to make a complaint stick against even a low-ranking officer. If it is a case of your word against the cop’s, the investigators will fall on the officer’s side. If it’s just your word against that of a high-ranking officer and 2 witnesses, you don’t stand a chance. Yet the Independent Police Complaints Commission believed with Baghdadi. What the heck is that all about?

The IPCC chairman, Nick Hardwick, said after the verdict that Dizaei was a “criminal in uniform” who had behaved like a “bully”. But it seems to me that that description might better apply to some of Dizaei’s soon-to-be-ex-colleagues. It took them a while, but in the end they succeeded in getting rid of the pain in the ass. I wonder who they’ll take out next? It’s a relief to know that the police isn’t racist any more, don’t you think?

Note: Earlier I noted that Dizaei is the most senior police officer to have stood trial in the UK in recent times. This is true only because the UK is so weak when it comes to dealing with police forces that are out of control. On 22 July 2005, a Brazilian electrician called Jean-Charles de Menezes was shot to death on a london tube train by armed police directly because of orders given by Sir Ian Blair, then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The shoot-to-kill policy, called “Operation Kratos” was Blair’s invention. And after the shooting, Blair lied to the public, first suggesting that de Menezes was a terrorist, then claiming that de Menezes had tried to run after the officers identified themselves as police when in fact they had not identified themselves but had opened fire without warning, repeatedly shooting the man in the face when he was on the ground dying. In any democracy worthy of the name, Blair would have stood trial for his crimes. But in the UK, such men are rewarded for their criminality, incompetence and deceit. So yes, Commander Ali Dizaei is the highest-ranking police officer to have stood trial in recent times. He’s also the highest-ranking officer to go to jail for crimer he did not commit.

_gos=’c4.gostats.com’;_goa=354450;
_got=2;_goi=2;_goz=0;_gol=’Free hit counter’;_GoStatsRun();
Free hit counter
Free hit counter


IPCC blasts Met top brass over de Menezes… and still no one takes a fall!!

09/11/2007

The Guardian today reported the results of the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes:

The IPCC report criticized the Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, for trying to prevent the Complaints Commission from carrying out its investigation – it said that Blair’s actions were “of major concern” and “should never happen again” – but Blair is still refusing to quit;

The report blasted Commander Cressida Dick, police chief in charge of the operation, for failing to make sure that her instructions to “stop” de Menezes did not mean “shoot him repeatedly in the face”.  She won’t face disciplinary action… she’s been promoted;

Andy Hayman, described by the Guardian as “Britain’s top counter-terrorism police officer”, was savaged for telling the Met Commissioner that they’d killed a suicide bomber when he knew damn well that they’d actually assassinated an electrician.  His job’s safe too.

But these murderers can’t get away with it for ever.  The de Menezes family intend to go to the European Court to get justice.  And the inquest into the death is due to start soon-ish.

But it would be nice if the government would stop supporting these evil people.  How can they be allowed to continue policing us?


%d bloggers like this: