As per the instructions from Robin Grant, there’s a certain amount of suspicion these days that there’s a liar about. Quite where this came from I’m not sure. Would you regard someone who stated that a man jumped the ticket barrier, when he actually used his pass, as a liar? Or similarly, would you call someone who stated that a suspect ran from armed police who had identified themselves when he did not and they had not as a liar?
Or how about a senior policeman, perhaps the most senior in the land, who states that in order to protect the innocent members of our society it may be apt, possibly even necessary, to track an innocent man, wait until he sits down in the tube, grab him, fire 11 bullets from point blank range, seven to the head and one to the shoulder (3 miss from point blank? Who’s training these people?) on the grounds that he looked a bit different and the bloke monitoring the cameras needed a whizz?
Now a policeman who said that might not actually be a liar. But I’m not sure he ought to be a policeman in a civilised society.
Update. Telegraph leader:
This business has the makings of one of the worst blunders in the
history of the Metropolitan Police. The IPCC report must tell us
whether Sir Ian knowingly allowed his officers to mislead the public.
If he did, it is hard to see how he can remain in his post.
My prediction? (And I hope I’m wrong.) Retirement on spurious health grounds in a couple of months.
Guardian report:
Britain’s top police
officer, the Scotland Yard commissioner Sir Ian Blair, attempted to
stop an independent external investigation into the shooting of a young
Brazilian mistaken for a suicide bomber, it emerged yesterday.
Sir
Ian wrote to John Gieve, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, on
July 22, the morning Jean Charles de Menezes was shot at short range on
the London tube. The commissioner argued for an internal inquiry into
the killing on the grounds that the ongoing anti-terrorist
investigation took precedence over any independent look into his death.
According
to senior police and Whitehall sources, Sir Ian was concerned that an
investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission could
impact on national security and intelligence. He was also understood to
be worried that an outside investigation would damage the morale of
CO19, the elite firearms section working under enormous pressure.
"We did make an error, the IPCC should have been called in immediately," the police source said.
Later
that same day, after an exchange of opinions between Sir Ian, the Home
Office and the IPCC, the commissioner was overruled. A Whitehall
insider said: "We won that battle. There’s no ambiguity in the
legislation, they had to do it."
But
a statement from the Met yesterday showed that despite the agreement to
allow in independent investigators, the IPCC was kept away from
Stockwell tube in south London, the scene of the shooting, for a
further three days. This runs counter to usual practice, where the IPCC
would expect to be at the scene within hours.
If true, he’s toast. The only thing left is for him to decide the manner of his leaving.
Leave a Reply