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.

Freedom from Police Brutality

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Why is this idea important?

What has happened to this country?

We need to repeal the law that allows the police to behave like cowboys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

Photographers are *still* being harrassed by police – 2nd August.

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

Why is this idea important?

Despite the coalition's efforts in this area, the police still don't get it: they are our public servants, paid for by taxpayers, and not the Stasi in some police state or other.

This article describes how a photographer was treated by police in Hackney, London, on 31st July 2010 – well after new guidelines had been issued:

(It's also really annoying that you can't cut & paste things to/from this site, by the way!)

You need to remind the police – YET AGAIN – of the law in this area and how they are meant to be implementing it in the public interest, not in their interest – or ignoring the law for no reason at all!

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

Ethical and impartial accountability of the police

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.

Why is this idea important?

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.

CREATE AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS ( USA LIKE ) TO INVESTIGATE POLICE – SCRAP IPCC

THE ONLY WAY TO STOP POLICE ABUSE IS TO EMPOWER A BODY TO SERIOUSLY INVESTIGATE AND ACT ON ABUSE AND CORRUPTION IN THE POLICE

I AM A MAGISTRATE-APPLICANT WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT MOST CID ARE "007 WANNABES " THAT WANT TO IN REAL LIFE ACT OUT THEIR FANTASIES AND THAT THE POLICE ARE ABUSIVE AND CORRUPT

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS  WHICH SUPPOSEDLY INVESTIGATES COMPLAINTS INTERNALLY BLAG THEIR WAY OUT EVERY TIME AND LIE TO THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

THE POLICE HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED – IN THE USA THE POLICE TREMBLE AND RESPECT THE IAD – IN THE UK THEY LAUGH AT THE IPCC THAT " SEVERELY CRITICISES " THAT THEY PUT A BULLET THROUGH THE HEAD OF A BARRISTER IN LONDON

THE IPCC IS USELESS AND SHOULD BE SCRAPPED

Why is this idea important?

THE ONLY WAY TO STOP POLICE ABUSE IS TO EMPOWER A BODY TO SERIOUSLY INVESTIGATE AND ACT ON ABUSE AND CORRUPTION IN THE POLICE

I AM A MAGISTRATE-APPLICANT WORCESTER MAGISTRATES CIRCLE 2007

IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT MOST CID ARE "007 WANNABES " THAT WANT TO IN REAL LIFE ACT OUT THEIR FANTASIES AND THAT THE POLICE ARE ABUSIVE AND CORRUPT

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS  WHICH SUPPOSEDLY INVESTIGATES COMPLAINTS INTERNALLY BLAG THEIR WAY OUT EVERY TIME AND LIE TO THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

THE POLICE HAVE TO BE INVESTIGATED – IN THE USA THE POLICE TREMBLE AND RESPECT THE IAD – IN THE UK THEY LAUGH AT THE IPCC THAT " SEVERELY CRITICISES " THAT THEY PUT A BULLET THROUGH THE HEAD OF A BARRISTER IN LONDON

THE IPCC IS USELESS AND SHOULD BE SCRAPPED

Police complaints to be completely dealt with outside of police influence

Currently, police complaints are still largely considered by local police, with just a report going to the IPCC.  Furthermore, the IPCC seem to try to protect the police rather than the public, and most of them have police connections.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, police complaints are still largely considered by local police, with just a report going to the IPCC.  Furthermore, the IPCC seem to try to protect the police rather than the public, and most of them have police connections.