Police Complaints and the IPCC

My idea is to overhaul the police complaints system and by so doing, restore public trust and confidence in British police services, particuarly the appalling Nottinghamshire Police 'Service'.

At present complaints against the police have to be made to a 'Professional Standards' Directorate (PSD) or if made directly to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; the complaint is then forwarded to the relevant PSD for 'investigation' before the complainant has any right to appeal. Sadly, following the De Menezes whitewash and many other well-documented cases in the UK, the public have come to see the IPCC has nothing more than paid apologists for the police.

The system is fundamentally flawed and favours the police at every stage because police officers cannot be trusted to 'investigate' their fellow officers and almost always arrive at a conclusion that favours the police. If the police complaints procedure was radically changed to create a fair system that is not biased to the police, then public trust in the police/IPCC could be restored.

The proposal therefore is that all complaints against the police be handled entirely by the IPCC from the very outset and the police should only assist the IPCC in an administrative role by providing access to documents, evidence and to interview the officers who have been complained about  and this should be done in an impartial manner by all concerned.

The IPCC is not 'independent' and in its current guise resembles just another institutionally corrupt New Labour quango with a remit to cheat the public of anything remotely resembling truth and justice. The IPCC is perfectly capable of dealing with complaints against police officers from the outset and if the police object to the change in the complaints system, this will prove that they want to maintain the current biased system and retain the IPCC as mere puppets for public relations purposes….

There is widespread anger against the police in Britain and the New Labour years were a disaster for police and public relations and public trust has collapsed. By overhauling the current system to hand power and responsibility for police complaints to the IPCC, then the public would understand that the coalition government is deeply serious about changing the legal system in Britain. This in turn would cause public trust and confidence in the police and IPCC to grow. It is also imperative that IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick is replaced because he was and remains a New Labour supporting flunkie with a love affair for the police and which he has demonstrated by his actions at the head of the IPCC.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to overhaul the police complaints system and by so doing, restore public trust and confidence in British police services, particuarly the appalling Nottinghamshire Police 'Service'.

At present complaints against the police have to be made to a 'Professional Standards' Directorate (PSD) or if made directly to the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission; the complaint is then forwarded to the relevant PSD for 'investigation' before the complainant has any right to appeal. Sadly, following the De Menezes whitewash and many other well-documented cases in the UK, the public have come to see the IPCC has nothing more than paid apologists for the police.

The system is fundamentally flawed and favours the police at every stage because police officers cannot be trusted to 'investigate' their fellow officers and almost always arrive at a conclusion that favours the police. If the police complaints procedure was radically changed to create a fair system that is not biased to the police, then public trust in the police/IPCC could be restored.

The proposal therefore is that all complaints against the police be handled entirely by the IPCC from the very outset and the police should only assist the IPCC in an administrative role by providing access to documents, evidence and to interview the officers who have been complained about  and this should be done in an impartial manner by all concerned.

The IPCC is not 'independent' and in its current guise resembles just another institutionally corrupt New Labour quango with a remit to cheat the public of anything remotely resembling truth and justice. The IPCC is perfectly capable of dealing with complaints against police officers from the outset and if the police object to the change in the complaints system, this will prove that they want to maintain the current biased system and retain the IPCC as mere puppets for public relations purposes….

There is widespread anger against the police in Britain and the New Labour years were a disaster for police and public relations and public trust has collapsed. By overhauling the current system to hand power and responsibility for police complaints to the IPCC, then the public would understand that the coalition government is deeply serious about changing the legal system in Britain. This in turn would cause public trust and confidence in the police and IPCC to grow. It is also imperative that IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick is replaced because he was and remains a New Labour supporting flunkie with a love affair for the police and which he has demonstrated by his actions at the head of the IPCC.

Abolish the Metropolitan Police

The Metropolitan Police has become a self serving gang of thugs.  Their agenda is overtly political.  They protect their own through the practice of omerta, the code of silence they have copied from the mafia.  The Met is frankly to big to be answerable to anyone and should be abolished and replaced by smaller, borough based forces answerable to the Borough Councils.

Why is this idea important?

The Metropolitan Police has become a self serving gang of thugs.  Their agenda is overtly political.  They protect their own through the practice of omerta, the code of silence they have copied from the mafia.  The Met is frankly to big to be answerable to anyone and should be abolished and replaced by smaller, borough based forces answerable to the Borough Councils.

Is there justice in the UK

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him

Why is this idea important?

The Crown Prosecution Service will tomorrow make its long-awaited announcement about whether a police officer will face criminal charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson.

After Tomlinson died at the G20 protests in London last year, video obtained by the Guardian showed that an officer had attacked him, undermining the authorities' initial version of events.

His family will be informed on Thursday morning if criminal charges will be brought over the death, the CPS has confirmed.

The possible charges include manslaughter, assault and misconduct in public office. Or, the CPS may decide not to bring any charges.

Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, had been walking home from work through the protests in the City on 1 April 2009 when he was struck from behind by a member of the Metropolitan police's territorial support group (TSG).

In deciding whether the officer should face trial, CPS lawyers have examined the video footage along with other documents and witness statements. The high-profile nature of the case means the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is believed to have been involved in deciding whether charges should be brought.

Starmer is expected to announce personally whether any charges will be brought.

If the CPS successfully prosecutes the officer over Tomlinson's death he would become the first British police officer ever convicted for manslaughter committed while on duty. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

The Tomlinson family have been critical of the time taken for the CPS to reach its decision. A criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission was completed in August 2009. The CPS has been asking investigators for extra work and inquiries to be carried out since the IPCC handed over its file of evidence.

The officer struck Tomlinson with a baton and shoved him to the ground shortly before the newspaper seller collapsed and died. The officer's badge numbers were covered and his face concealed beneath a balaclava.

Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets and his back to the officer when he was struck. No police officer went to his aid and it was left to a bystander to lift him to his feet. He stumbled about 100 metres down Cornhill, clutching his side, before collapsing a second time.

Police initially led Tomlinson's wife and nine children to believe he died of a heart attack after being caught up in the protest. In statements to the press, police claimed attempts by officers to save his life by resuscitation were impeded by protesters.

The IPCC did not launch its criminal inquiry until six days after Tomlinson's death, when the Guardian gave the watchdog a dossier of evidence including video footage and witness statements that contradicted the police version of events.

Before then, City of London police were allowed to run the inquiry with some supervision from IPCC investigators. After watching the video of the attack a senior City of London investigator told the family that Tomlinson's assailant could be a member of the public "dressed in police uniform".

The Tomlinson family say they were led by the CPS to believe that a decision would be reached by Christmas 2009.

They fear a cover-up and in March Tomlinson's widow, Julia, attacked Starmer's handling of the case. "Why did he say there would be a decision around Christmas? Why are we still waiting? My kids need to move on from this. They're left without a dad now and their lives have been turned upside down over the last year, especially the four girls. He doesn't seem to realise the pain we're going through.

"We feel like there was a cover-up from day one and we didn't see it because we were nervous about the police. Now a year on it still feels like all of that is still going on. If it had been someone on the street, a civilian, who had pushed and hit Ian just before he died and it was all caught on video, surely something would have happened by now. The officer needs to go before a jury. Let them decide what should happen to him