Jody McIntyre - My Hero

‘Supervision’ is not enough; the IPCC must handle this investigation themselves

• By Jody McIntyre
• Notebook
• Friday, 17 December 2010 at 11:53 am

• 
  

Jody McIntyre (Photograph: Hamde Abu Rahme)

When yesterday’s headlines announced that the police would be ‘probing’ my official complaint to the IPCC, after being dragged out of my wheelchair by an officer at Thursday’s student demonstration, some kind of medical examination was the first thought that popped into my mind. But upon closer examination, it becomes evident to me that the IPCC have no interest in getting to the truth of the matter, let alone handing out some kind of justice.

Of course, I will be fully co-operating with the investigation, and will be offering my help in any way possible, but if the IPCC were intent on ensuring this incident was independently and fairly investigated, then they would manage the thing themselves. Instead, they have left the matter to the Metropolitan Police Service’s Directorate of Professional Standards, under their ’supervision’. Essentially, the police are being left to investigate their own actions. Sound a bit suspect?

IPCC Commissioner for London, Deborah Glass, said in yesterday’s statement – “There is no doubt that this footage is disturbing…” But why is this footage in particular disturbing? Surely it is no more disturbing than the footage the Metropolitan Police must be in possession of? Footage of what happened to Alfie Meadows? Footage of mounted police charging into crowds of students and school children?

The government certainly isn’t disturbed, calling for the police to be “more robust” at future demonstrations. This provoked shock throughout the country, with the suggestion of water cannons proving one step too far, even for Theresa May. But British forces have been using water cannons for decades in Northern Ireland, and far more dangerous weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, under the ideology of imperialism, they are the “unpeople”, and any amount of violence can be used to deal with them, without a second thought. By the sounds of the government’s increasingly threatening rhetoric, however, it seems that it won’t be long before we are treated to similar measures.

I am not the real victim of police violence; the cases of real concern are Sean Rigg, Ricky Bishop and Blair Peach. The real victims are all those who have died in police custody, but never got a front page story. Their families will never get justice, until this out-dated system is drastically reformed.

The IPCC may not consider the attack of a disabled man by police officers as sufficiently “serious” for them to investigate themselves, but, with 5000 complaints against the BBC, and 1000 complaints against the Daily Mail for their coverage of my story, it is becoming increasingly clear that the majority of the public thinks that it is.

Families fight on

Challenging my MP about the Tomlinson decision

Follow this link to see the correspondence between myself and my MP regarding the Tomlinson decision.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/topic.php?uid=177560675203&topic=17452

Sean Rigg

2ND YEAR MEMORIAL
In Remembrance of Sean Rigg Saturday 21st August 2010
Vigil outside Brixton Police Station 5pm sharp.

Followed by a Public Meeting, 6 - 8pm, The Karibu Education Centre, 7 Gresham Rd, Brixton, London SW9 7PH. (Karibu Centre is directly opposite Brixton Police Station on Gresham Rd)

Other Family Campaigns will be present as well as Death in Custody campaign organisations, who will speak about the curren...t issues surrounding this controversial topic, and what we can do to bring about CHANGE. There will be an open floor discussion.

Video clips of the second memorial

CPS Ian Tomlinson decisionSubject: TOMORROW: CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE REPORT INTO DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON THURSDAY 22 JULY, 1PM @ NEW SCOTLAND YARD T

Subject: TOMORROW: CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE REPORT INTO DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON

THURSDAY 22 JULY, 1PM @ NEW SCOTLAND YARD

TOMORROW: CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE REPORT INTO DEATH OF IAN TOMLINSON

Tomorrow, Thursday 22 July, on the fifth anniversary of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station, we expect to hear the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) report into the death of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper seller killed in the City of London as he tried to make his way home past the police during the G20 protests on 1 April 2009.

If a police officer is charged with manslaughter it will be the first time this has ever happened in Britain, despite over 1,000 people dying in police custody since the late 1960s. This should be seen as a step forward for those campaigning for justice.

But if it is a whitewash we don’t want them to get away with it. No matter how much they talk about a new era of policing and enshrining the right to protest, the establishment will once again have allowed police officers to kill an innocent man.

We want as many people to gather as possible to either celebrate a victory or step up our campaign for justice.

Gather at 1pm outside New Scotland Yard, 8-10 Broadway, Westminster, London SW1H 0BG.

This is short notice! Spread this message far and wide: phone, email, text, Tweet, Facebook, chalk on the pavements and bring your friends!

Attack on War Hero heard in court

http://fourfingercampaign.blogspot.com/2009/12/ever-wondered-what-happened-to-police.html

I said that I would be watching this case with interest.

I called Oldham to try and find out the results but they were very vague and gave me the run around by requiring me to ask the press office. The press office was not t their desk and has not returned my call.

I looked at the online newspaper that released the footage in the first place, but they had no information. So I called them and asked if they could make enquiries.

Lo and behold the following article has appeared:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292538/Three-police-officer-attack-Afghanistan-veteran-like-scene-Life-Mars.html

Three police officers 'attacked Afghanistan veteran like a scene from Life on Mars'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 5:06 PM on 6th July 2010

• Comments (0)
• Add to My Stories

Three policemen violently assaulted a soldier who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan in 'a scene worthy of the TV programme Life on Mars' as they tried to restrain him, a court heard today.

Mark Aspinall, 25, was on a night out with his military rugby team on a farewell tour before he was due to leave the army in September 2008.

But it was alleged when he became a drunken nuisance in a nightclub, he was 'frogmarched' by senior officer Sgt Stephen Russell, 34, PC Richard Kelsall, 28, and special constable Peter Lightfoot into the street.

Accused: Sergeant Stephen Russell, left, and Special Constable Peter Lightfoot

He was then 'launched' across the road in a scene worthy of the hit BBC 70's cop drama 'Life on Mars' starring Philip Glennister as Det Ch Insp Gene Hunt.

When Mr Aspinall remonstrated with the three officers from Greater Manchester Police, the jury heard that he was subjected to a violent assault while he was held down on the ground in the middle of a main road with his face being pressed into the tarmac.

But it was Mr Aspinall, a former Lance Corporal with the Royal Mechanical Engineers, who was arrested, charged and convicted of two counts of assaulting a police officer based on false witness statements, the court heard.

Mr Aspinall, who had been in the army for seven years, appealed, and during the hearing Lightfoot gave evidence under oath - denying that he had done anything wrong during the arrest.

But Mr Aspinall won his appeal and had his conviction quashed.

In the aftermath, new CCTV evidence emerged of the officers assaulting him as he lay in the street.

Mr Ian Unsworth QC, for the prosecution, told the jury, 'The acts of these three police officers were unjustified, unwarranted and, we regret to say, unlawful.

'On any view, they were acts unworthy of police officers whose primary function that night was to restore good order, not to cause it to break down entirely.

'This was a scene worthy of the television programme, Life on Mars. Unfortunately for the victim, this was real life.'

He added, 'The case for the prosecution is that these three police officers engaged in an act or acts of unlawful violence and then plotted to cover up by submitting false witness statements which they knew to be false and which they knew would be used to support a prosecution of their victim.'

He told the jury that Mr Aspinall had been playing rugby league for the army against Shevington Sharks, and had gone out drinking following the match in Wigan town centre.

'Victim': Mark Aspinall, pictured with his girlfriend, was allegedly subjected to a prolonged attack by the three men

Over the course of the evening, he had consumed a large amount of alcohol and by the end of the evening was drunk at the Walkabout pub.

Mr Unsworth said that Mr Aspinall was behaving in an 'aggressive, rude and completely unacceptable' fashion to staff at the pub as they tried to assist a girl who had fainted.

He was asked to leave, but once outside continued to make a nuisance of himself.

By the time paramedics had arrived, Mr Aspinall continued to be abusive and around 2.30am police were called.

The jury were shown CCTV footage of Mr Aspinall as he appeared to be thrown into the road by Lightfoot and Kersall, landing in the far lane.

In their original witness statements, the officers claimed that they had pushed the victim with their hands and that he had tripped and fallen over.

Mr Unsworth said, 'To describe this as a stumble or a trip is stretching the use of language to breaking point. There is clear evidence that he was launched.

'Let us be blunt, the CCTV evidence does not bear out the description given by the three officers in their statements.

'We suggest that each and every one of these defendants lied about that aspect of the incident.

'The similarity of their statements leads us to the inevitable conclusion that they had put their heads together to create an official version of events.

'Official, it may have been. Honest it was not.'

The jury were then shown CCTV of Mr Aspinall appearing to remonstrate with the officers in the middle of the road.

As the three uniformed officers moved towards him in a 'concerted and deliberate move to detain him', he turned to move away tripped and fell and was 'wrestled to the ground'.

Mr Unsworth said he showed little sign of a struggle yet Lightfoot, rubbed his face into the tarmac and knocked his head to the ground, while Kelsall appeared to punch or slap Mr Aspinall - prior to being bitten by the victim.

Russell restrained the victim's feet.

Mr Unsworth added, 'Sgt Russell didn't express his dissent. On the contrary, his statement made in this matter sought to vindicate and justify the behaviour of his junior officers and diluted or omitted their behaviour.

'He did not simply turn a blind eye. By his actions (or inaction) at the time and thereafter it is clear that he was integral to both the assault and to its aftermath.

'We suggest that these and other factors provide positive support or the contention that Sgt Russell wilfully encouraged the behaviour of his colleagues and so aided and abetted the.

'He may not have been the person who actually physically carried out the assauilt but he was part and parcel of a joint enterprise which did so.'

Russell, Kelsall and Lightfoot all deny assault occassioning actual bodily harm, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Lightfoot also denies one count of perjury.

The trial continues.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292538/Three-police-officer-attack-Afghanistan-veteran-like-scene-Life-Mars.html#ixzz0sz554Rtr

Ring leader is not!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/11/g20-protester-harvie-brown-cleared

Jury acquits G20 protester accused of being ringleader in clashes

Crown court clears Harvie Brown of violent disorder in case that challenged police version of events

• 
• 
• (80)
• Tweet this (30)

• Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 June 2010 19.00 BST
• Article history

Harvie Brown suffered several injuries after police tried to 'kettle' protesters during the G20 demonstrations in London Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

His bloodied face became the symbol of violent G20 demonstrators seemingly intent on attacking police. But the man whose angry remonstrations with police at the protests in April last year were relayed live on television news, and later emblazoned across newspaper front pages, was not the rioter he was depicted as.

A jury at Isleworth crown court in Middlesex took 30 minutes to clear Harvie Brown, 31, of violent disorder this week, in a case that challenged the police version of events and established that his injuries were probably inflicted by officers.

Brown was among several hundred protesters "kettled" by police near the Bank of England on 1 April last year. Attempts to contain anti-capitalist and green activists inside cordons led to angry confrontations and clashes.

Brown was caught between lines of baton-wielding police attempting to push the crowd back. Many at the front, including Brown, from Glasgow, were unable to obey the police orders as the agitated crowd behind them tried to surge forward. Many were struck with batons.

The court heard Brown's injuries – two head wounds and a broken tooth – could have been inflicted by police.

In court, Brown was accused of being the ringleader of an aggressive group of rioters, encouraging the crowd to attack police officers – a charge he denied. He faced three years in jail if found guilty.

Initial press reports suggested Brown was goading officers into a confrontation.

"I was shocked when I was released from the police station in the early hours of 2 April to see that I was plastered all over the newspapers and described as a violent agitator at the G20 protests," Brown said tonight.

"I was distressed that I was made out to be the aggressor. I was also very upset that the emphasis of the reporting, which I felt should have been on the demonstration against the causes of the financial crisis, had turned into a focus on what was described as anti-police behaviour."

Witnesses told the court that Brown spent much of the protest distressed and in tears, upset at police treatment.

Rhona Friedman, defending, said: "This was a prosecution that should never have been brought. Footage and photographs show that Mr Brown was repeatedly struck by police officers without resorting to violent retaliation. "Members of the jury were seen to flinch at footage of police officers deploying baton strikes against people in the crowd. When asked to decide who was guilty of unlawful violence and who was not, the jury could not have more clearly decided in Mr Brown's favour."

Despite initial claims by police about violence caused by protesters G20, there have been relatively few convictions for a demonstration of its size.

Seven people have so far been convicted of violent conduct, criminal damage and public order offences at or during the demonstration, including a handful who were identified as having taken part in the ransacking of a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland. A further five prosecutions are pending, while five have resulted in acquittals.

Prosecutors dropped charges in their largest case, which involved 11 members of the Space Hijackers, an anarchist group whose members arrived at G20 protests in a tank, dressed in police-style helmets and boiler suits. The activists, some wearing red stockings, were arrested and charged with impersonating police officers. They are suing the Met for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

Danny Major - The police turn on themselves.

The case of Danny Major has been brought to the attention of WNOW.

-------------


We are Major family,Danny Major was a police officer who was set up by other police officers for an assault one of them commited.Dannys dad also a police officer was given cctv footage that proves Danny is innocent,and the curupt officers lied in court and in their statments.The police are furios with us for getting this cctv footage.We have had our eyes truly opened and are shocked that the police would sacrifice an innocent officer rather than do the right thing and send the guilty ones to prison.They are more interested in saving the reputation of West Yorkshire police than the truth.Anyone reading this can GOOLGE Danny Major and see a small amount of what they have done to this man and his family.WE WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER give up untill the Major name is cleared.


--------------


I am so sorry to hear of your situation.

However, I utterly admire any who would stand against the wall of silence that too often occurs if misconduct takes place.

I have witnessed shocking behaviour from individual officers but for me the hardest thing to bear was the amount of officers that stood back and allowed it to happen and then by their inaction allow the misconduct to be justified.

"Evil is done by good men who do nothing."

It seems that Danny Major is a victim of this.

The WNOW campaign supports good officers by protecting them from spurious accusations. It seems that it is needed for such claims from within as well as without.

I will do some googling but if there is a way that I can support you, please let me know.

My thoughts are with you.

Zoe Mercer

------------------------------

More information can be found here.

http://www.freegordon.com/yhai//dannymajor.html

This case has made me realise that although many of the cases that the injustices that I have encountered must be hard to bear, it must be even more bleak if you are an officer yourself bearing the brunt of it.

The officers that criminalised me did not do so out of any personal reasons, they were merely protecting their own. (Although I understand this, it is not a condonable action still.)

The decision to sacrifice one officer over another is so much more calculated. There have to be personal reasons surely?

It is my impression that it is an extraordinary event no matter the severity of misconduct if an officer remonstrates in any way about the conduct of a colleague, let alone makes formal complaint.

The lack of such, should raise alarm bells, well it does in my mind at least.

In separate news, apparently it is an acceptable professional police standard for the police to put a man with mental health problems in a cell for 8 hours and then threaten to prosecute for several months only to drop the case due to no evidence.

All for giving them the finger with no witnesses.

The complaint result was utterly what I have come to expect. Inference of guilt without fair trial and cherry picking of facts in order to justify inappropriate use of powers. Absolutely no attempt to see the situation from the complainants point of view.

We will appeal.

Judicial Review Hearing

An hour has been allocated to hear the arguments for and against Judicial review with regard to the DVLA decision to revoke my husbands licence on the 14th of June.

We're not done yet :)

DVLA administer the punishment the Police could not.

Congratulations to the DVLA for revoking my husbands licence on medical grounds which are no way associated with, but 'discovered' after in depth perusal of his medical as a result of the Polices false allegation of Diabetes and Epilepsy.

It took a year and a single test that was not fit for the purpose.

Be warned, if you have ever told your doctor you are depressed, ever had a suicide attempt, used to have a drug problem no matter how long you have been in remission, have hayfever and take anti histamines in the summer or a plethora of other conditions, this could happen to you.

That is particularly scary when you consider that the DVLA have informed me that anyone can make an allegation, make up a condition based only on fiction, and that may trigger the Drivers medical unit into action. There are no consequences for doing so.

I won't go into detail about the how's and why's of the DMG's rational for the revocation, but we are not simply going to take the unfair decision.

Thanks to Scroobius Pip for his lyrics in the song, 'Get Better.'

'The system may fail you but don't fail yourself!'

So, we applied for a urgent consideration judicial review yesterday and the High Court in London.

Boy, that is not a process for the faint hearted!

I would really like to be a fly on the wall in that office when the paperwork drops on their desks :)

Ian Tomlinson Memorial

Despite the increase in anxiety following the Smellie result, I attended the Tomlinson memorial in London this morning.

The tone was generally sombre and I am glad to say sensitively policed.

I'm glad I went in the end.

On a side note, I signed the letter enclosed in this link on behalf of WNOW.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/01/delroy-smellie-g20-assault

The video was is eventful and I noticed that the press were interested in the more vocal among the group. Apologies for the camera work. I was a bit rubbish in that department.

What planet is he on?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/25/g20-smellie-fisher-assault-trial

The guy seems to be expecting credit for only using the back of his hand instead of his elbow. It doesn't even enter into his head using a non physical method of dealing with Ms Fisher.

"Asked about his suspension from duty last April, Smellie said he could not understand why he was not allowed to continue working. "It has been explained to me in a number of different ways but I still do not understand the reason for my suspension."

The man whinges on about being scared, to me he sounds paranoid and that frankly makes him dangerous in his line of work.

Lets not forget to point out that members of the group Smellie belongs to is voluntary. They choose to be there and perform those duties.

Am I missing some non disclosed danger here? Either from the little lady or those assembled to remember Ian Tomlinson, killed by the police the day before.

Oh and the pedant in me wonders why he is allowed to give a c/o address to the court. Can anyone do that?

Anyway, how this pans out will be interesting either way.

Remembering Ian

What follows is an email that I received from the Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign. I have signed and intend to attend the memorial on the 1st.



Dear Friend,

We are writing to ask for your support. Ian Tomlinson died following an assault by police at the G20 protests on April 1st 2009. A year later his family are still awaiting a response from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as to whether anyone will be charged for the assault and death of Ian Tomlinson.

The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign has drafted a letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions [head of the Crown Prosecution Service] to express concerns about their delay in reaching a decision. We are asking individuals and organisations to show their support by signing this.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could read the letter (which is both attached and also pasted below this email) and let us know if you would be willing to add your signature to it by replying to iantomlinsonfamilycampaign@googlemail.com

Please indicate if you are signing on behalf of an organisation or in a personal capacity and reply as soon as possible, no later than 5pm on Tuesday the 30th of March. The letter will delivered to the CPS on the 1st of April and circulated to the media.

Additionally we would like to invite you to join the Tomlinson family in remembering Ian on the anniversary of his death on Thursday 1st April 2010,11.00am (assemble 10.45 am), Cornhill by Threadneedle Street, London, EC3V. The family will be holding a minute's silence, saying a few words and laying flowers at the spot where Ian died.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of this email please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you

Estelle du Boulay [Newham Monitoring Project - 0208 470 8333]

on behalf of The Ian Tomlinson Family Campaign

www.iantomlinsonfamilycampaign.org.uk


------
LETTER FROM IAN TOMLINSON FAMILY CAMPAIGN

1st April 2010

To the Director of Public Prosecutions,

It has now been one year since the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests in the City of London on 1st April 2009.

Whilst we appreciate a fair and thorough investigation takes time, Ian’s grieving family has been left in limbo for a year waiting for a full explanation about the circumstances of Ian’s death. There is now very real concern as to whether the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) proposes to charge anyone in respect of the assault and death of Ian Tomlinson.

The CPS has been in possession of the provisional Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation findings since August 2009. We understand that these findings, at least in part will provide the basis for your decision on whether to prosecute anyone for Ian’s death. We also note that you, the Director of Public Prosecutions, went on public record in a Guardian interview on September 21st 2009 to say you hoped the CPS would reach a decision “within a few months”.

Delays in the investigation and charging decisions increase the suffering for families of victims leaving them unable to gain closure and move on with their lives. Families are greatly concerned not to prejudice the process and are therefore effectively silenced from expressing their views publicly about the death of their loved one. They are desperate to ensure any potential future legal proceedings are not undermined nor an excuse found to abandon any cases that might be brought. The Tomlinson family has endured a year of public scrutiny unable to respond to questions about Ian’s death, with little they can do but wait for the outcome of your decision. The delay however is now intolerable.

The policing of the G20 protest caused widespread public concern around use of excessive force by police officers. Proceedings against many protestors arrested on the day, as well as a number of reviews and investigations into the events of the day, have all been concluded. In the case of Ian Tomlinson, there is a heightened need for the statutory investigating body to be seen to be carrying out justice in a robust, transparent and timely manner to address public confidence. One year later the public, like the Tomlinson family, are still left with unanswered questions about how and why Ian died at the G20.

In the absence of any updates from the CPS, we have growing concerns about the investigation into Ian's death. There has been a complete lack of communication and transparency about the delay into concluding the investigation into Ian Tomlinson’s death that calls the CPS' credibility into question.

As we have already set out we do not wish to prejudice any investigation or potential proceedings but believe that either a decision or public explanation is due. We call on the CPS to fulfill its public duty regarding the investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson and respond to this letter immediately.

Signed

Smellie in front of the court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/22/policeman-g20-protester-baton-court



Policeman who hit G20 protester with baton mistook drink carton for weapon, court hears

Footage of demonstration in City of London shown at packed court, where sergeant says he 'acted in self-defence'

* Paul Lewis and Matthew Taylor
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 March 2010 23.01 GMT
* Article history

Sergeant Delroy Smellie

Sergeant Delroy Smellie has gone on trial accused of common assault by beating. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

A police sergeant twice struck a female G20 protester with a metal baton in what he said was "self-defence" after mistaking a carton of orange juice in her hand for a weapon, a court heard today.

Delroy Smellie, 47, a sergeant in the Metropolitan police, said he lashed out at Nicola Fisher, 36, in a "pre-emptive strike" during a confrontation outside the Bank of England on 2 April last year.

Smellie, a member of the Met's elite Territorial Support Group (TSG), went on trial accused of common assault by beating. He denies the charge, and his lawyers said they would argue he was seeking to defend himself and his colleagues.

The trial opened at a packed City of Westminster magistrates court and was shown video footage of the moment he slapped Fisher across the face before drawing his baton and striking her twice. Smellie showed no emotion as the footage played. The incident occurred during a memorial vigil for Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who had died the previous day after being attacked by another Met officer, also from the TSG.

Opening the case, Nicholas Paul, prosecuting, said Smellie had "lost his self control" during an "excessive and unjustified" attack on Fisher. "He went from level one to level five without considering the intervening steps," said Paul.

Paul showed district judge Daphne Wickham, who is trying the case without a jury, CCTV footage of the police operation and amateur footage of the clash between Smellie and Fisher that was posted on YouTube and handed to the Guardian.

He described the video as the core of the case against Smellie. The court also heard extracts of two interviews between Smellie and officials from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

The judge heard how Smellie told investigators that, after back-handing Fisher, he reached for his baton after noticing Fisher was holding an object.

The prosecutor said: "She had weapons in her hand and he perceived her as a threat." Fisher was in fact carrying an open carton of orange juice, which sprayed over Smellie when he hit her, the court heard.

The prosecutor said Fisher may have been aggressive, but Smellie's actions could not be justified. "Even if her behaviour was irritating and provocative when she was standing in front of Sergeant Smellie, it is plain from the footage and photographs … not in any way [was she] seeking to get involved in an attack.

Footage shown to the court started from around 2:30pm on 1 April, when TSG officers arrived near Royal Exchange to replace officers from City of London police, who had formed a cordon around protesters.

Paul said the "attitude and atmosphere" created by police changed upon the arrival of the TSG.

"There had been reports of people masking up and the unit to which Sgt Smellie was in charge was briefed to contain people within a cordon to prevent a breach of the peace and any other disorder such as had happened the day before," Paul said. "It was these instructions that informed Sgt Smellie's approach to the demonstrators that they dealt with."

The footage showed how moments before the alleged assault a demonstrator attempting to leave the cordon was pushed back by police, prompting an angry response from the crowd.

Fisher approached Smellie before being pushed away. As she moved back towards the officer, the footage showed him strike her with the back of his hand in what the court heard was a legal "clearance-swipe". But as Fisher began shouting "you hit a fucking woman" and moving towards him again, he took out his baton and hit her twice on the legs. The prosecutor said it was these final two blows that were at the centre of the case.

Earlier in proceedings, Wickham refused an application from the defence to get the case thrown out after the alleged victim – Fisher – did not turn up for the first day of the hearing.

Fisher, who had been due to give evidence, was described by the judge in pre-trial argument as having recently been "nervous, weary [and] unsure of whether the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] is part of the police".

Paul also indicated she may be fearful of the press coverage the trial would receive. From the defence, the court also heard Fisher may be suffering from depression.

While allowing the trial to proceed, Wickham refused, in the absence of Fisher, to accept as evidence a statement she provided to the IPCC on 16 April. The court heard Fisher, from Brighton, had been represented by Max Clifford and sold her story to a national newspaper.

A witness, photography student Beth Wilson, told the court she saw him "use his baton with force". "She didn't appear to be a physical threat to him," she said.

The trial is expected to last four days.

I hope this guy sues.

This guy is so couragous.

Clearly the Police officers involved were upset by him excercising his rights.

Yet again, another example of them overstepping their authority and punishing the man for not submitting to their 'authoriteye!' (You have to imagine that said in a Cartman style.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

However, This a clear example of how video footage give an insight into the situation.

If this man had not had video footage, do you think that he would have been released without charge?

I had a flight of fancy that someone might post a link of an officer being helpful and non intrusive after a stop such as this. I promise to post footage should I ever come across it and invite anyone reading to comment with a link if they find beforehand.

Deaths in Custody - Statistics

Inspired by my visit to Brixton Police Station, I got to wondering about a league table with regard to deaths in custody.

So I have made around 30 Freedom of information requests (Using www.whatdotheyknow.com ) to the police forces in England and asked them to provide the following information:

1) How many deaths in custody have occurred in the last 5 years?

2) Which station was responsible for each person who died? (Eg. Bromley: X deaths. Brixton: Y deaths. Etc.)

3) How many members of the public are served by the police stations where deaths occurred?

I am hoping that by dividing the number of people a station is responsible by the number of deaths in custody, I will be able to give each one a rating. This will mean that I can target those with unusually high ratings for campaigns.

Armed with this information, residents who live in the catchment area of the stations in question can ask their MP's to investigate on their behalf using www.theyworkforyou.com

You can tell that I am inspired by the accountability that is standard in the education system and I am even trying to work out how I can do a colour coded map of England to show these results.

I would like to point out that I understand that due to the nature of the job, there are likely to be deaths that are not suspicious. However, I do await the data with interest to see if my suspicions are justified.

I went to Brixton...

I went to Brixton this half term for a music event which meant that I was at a loose end for several hours a day.

I had no idea where I was when I took this picture through the window of my car.

It turned out that I was outside the infamous Brixton Police Station.

I think that there should be one of these outside every police station where an unexplained death has occured. It certainly had a strong emotional response from me and would serve not only to remember those who have died or suffered abuse, it would raise awareness.

I am considering getting a waterproof WNOW logo to add to this and maybe look up the legality of posting more.

Anyway, more photos...

Just a mile down the road.

This sounds very familiar and only a mile or so down the road.

They saw 'scum' in this family. I see another family who would not help the police if they were on fire.

How do they expect to police by consent when they so clearly alienate people based on prejudices?

Unless this incident is the direction modern policing is going in deliberately.

http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/content/bromley/times/newnews/story.aspx?brand=BMLYTOnline&category=news&tBrand=bmlytonline&tCategory=znews&itemid=WeED10%20Feb%202010%2014%3A10%3A41%3A693

Are things changing?

Will this make a difference? Or will the serial apologists use the bad apple excuse and continue to ignore similar corruption? Another angle is that the reason that his fellow officers have allowed this to happen is because of prejudice.

The behaviour described in reports fits my experience of the police. Then again, making stuff up about a person who has made their lives difficult (Even if it is with pesky concepts like truth, justice and freedom of speech.) rings true also.

As such, even when convicting one of their own, I am left wondering what the real story is.

It would be alot easier to come to a more sound conclusion if there was video footage of the incident.



Ali Dizaei sentenced to four years in jail

The most senior British police officer ever convicted was found guilty of arresting a web designer in a dispute over money

* The Guardian, Tuesday 9 February 2010
* Article history

Ali Dizaei

Met police chief Ali Dizaei, 47, who was convicted of 'fitting up' a web designer after a clash with him in 2008. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

The most senior British police officer ever convicted of corruption offences was starting a four-year prison sentence ­yesterday after a jury found he had tried to frame an innocent man and told a series of lies in an attempt to cover up his abuse of office.

Ali Dizaei, a commander with Scotland Yard, was convicted of falsely arresting a web designer in a dispute over money and then lying in official statements when he claimed he had been assaulted and threatened by the man.

Dizaei's 25-year police career will end with him being drummed out of the force in disgrace and almost certain to lose his pension after a clash in the street outside a restaurant which saw him abuse his authority as one of the Britain's top officers.

Nick Hardwick, chair of the IPCC, said: "Dizaei behaved like a bully … The greatest threat to the reputation of the police service is criminals in uniform like Dizaei."

Dizaei, 47, remained defiant and told the Guardian the case was "completely outrageous and a fit-up". He said that he had been pursued by the authorities, who had a "vendetta" against him.

Dizaei was an outspoken critic of the police on race, leader of the National Black Police Association (NBPA), and a key ­figure in a race war that erupted at the top of Scotland Yard in the summer of 2008.

He had been cleared of criminal charges in 2003 and returned to duty despite Scotland Yard having suspected him of serious offences. That inquiry was intensified after MI5 had suspicions that the Iranian-born officer was a danger to national security.

In the case that ended yesterday at Southwark crown court, the crown alleged that on 18 July 2008, Dizaei had clashed with Waad al-Baghdadi, who claimed the police commander owed him £600 for a website he had designed for him.

Dizaei arrested the 24-year-old then, using the special call sign given to him as a commander – Metro 35 – called for back-up to take his prisoner away. He claimed to have been assaulted and poked in the stomach with the mouthpiece of a shisha pipe. Dizaei filled out official statements and maintained his false account on the witness stand.

Baghdadi spent 24 hours in a cell and six weeks on bail before it was decided he would not face charges. Scotland Yard handed the case over to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which investigated Dizaei. He becomes the most famous scalp obtained by a watchdog that has faced questions about its effectiveness.

Last night Baghdadi told the BBC: "I've had a very, very difficult past two years of my life, trying to stand up to this man with all of his connections."

The jury were unanimous in finding Dizaei guilty of misconduct in public office and attempting to pervert the course of justice, deliberating for two hours and 31 minutes following a four-week trial.

Before he was sentenced, Dizaei told the Guardian that the case was a way of "bullying" him out of the police. "Nobody is going to bully me out of a job, not the director of public prosecutions, not the IPCC and not the Metropolitan Police Authority."

Dizaei said if he had been acquitted he would have returned to work and ­dismissed the case against him, saying this trial had proved more of a strain than his first, in 2003: "This is worse. It is purely a personal vendetta by the IPCC and CPS. The IPCC did not like the challenge I and the NBPA made to the way it dealt with our members. The CPS could never take the egg off their faces after the last time."

Sentencing Dizaei, the trial judge, Mr Justice Simon, said the length of the sentence had to contain "an element of deterrent" given the "grave breach of public trust and abuse of your authority as a commander in the Metropolitan police".

The judge accepted Dizaei was "an exceptional officer" who had received glowing performance reviews but said he had arrested Baghdadi for "an assault that never occurred".

Wearing a smart suit and glasses, the man once tipped as a possible head of British policing was sullen, simply picking up his overcoat as he was taken down to start a four-year sentence.

Scotland Yard's commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, accepted the case had ­damaged the reputation of British policing. "Bearing in mind his rank and disgraceful behaviour he should not be surprised at the severity of his sentence," he said.

Speaking outside court, Gaon Hart of the CPS said: "Mr Dizaei's corruption, which would have been deplorable in any police officer, was all the more so given his position. The public entrust the police with considerable powers and with that comes considerable responsibility."

Police/public relations.

Well, I had an interesting experience last night.

A neighbour who I only vaguely knew had an incident with her partner.

They both have alcohol problems and this type of incident was far from uncommon as far as I am aware.

My attention was brought to the situation when I heard a disturbance (Do you like the police speak there :) ) outside as the police took this ladies partner away.

We invited her into our home while the police finished up and she told me that he was being taken to Plumsted station which is some distance away especially in comparison to the local Bromley station.

I went out to ask the officers why he was being taken so far from his home as his partner was distressed about the aftermath and maybe having to go and meet him. I had my camcorder to hand so took it with me.

At first I was ignored, then I was mocked for the camera. Rather than responding to my query, they were hostile and demanded irrelevant information from me.

When it was clear that I was not cowed by the confrontational attitude, a burly Sergeant formally and forcefully introduced himself and in no uncertain terms told me that he would tell me no information other than the station they came from.

I found this very interesting because it may surprise some that I did not think that the Police were wrong to take the man away. What I did find disappointing was their lack of commitment to the bigger picture.

They knew that I had the lady in my home and it was obvious to any who looked that I had her interests at heart.

A little joined up co operation would have been in the ladies interests. However, I think that the crime targets that IG speaks of, certainly would have had it's crime number and a positive (from that targets perspective) outcome.

However, the Police could not help her due to her long seated mistrust of them, but Simon and I sat her down, gave her some hot food and tea and mainly listened. (She was afraid that her partner would blame her for his arrest but we let her know that the law had changed so that they could press charges even without her consent or cooperation. She was reassured by this somewhat.)

She thanked us several hours later, saying that she had never been offered support in that way, and we told her (often and copiously, you know what alcohol does to the memory :) ) that it really wasn't a problem.

I know that I would feel better with the police's support rather than hostility, that maybe we could together make a long term difference to this woman's life.

As it is, the police got a result and there is potential for further targets to be met. This is particularly likely if there is no follow up or referral for this couple until his court date. Let's face it, not one of the root causes for this issue was helped by his arrest.

It is this purely reactionary stance that police take that alienates the support of the community. Imagine how it could be if they actually got off of their superior high horses, tried to consider that maybe not all the people they come into contact with are scum and engaged with the community properly!

Do you think that if those officers who I met last night had the true public interest at heart, that their attitude would have been different?

08/02/10 Edit: The man was released without charge the next day.
Here is the highlights of the footage:

Inspector Gadget

Never let it be said that I do not try and approach an issue from various angles.

I have been reading a book by Inspector Gadget. Here's my review; if you are a card carrying member of the serial appologist brigade, you will love it. It will justify all those difficult situations like De Menezes, Sean Rigg, Tomlinson and on a less tragic scale, Bishop Blakes and my own experiences.

However, if you read this blog with any sympathy, it will have you seething. Three times I have said to myself that I will not continue to read this facist, arrogant neanderthal tripe. Now I have a pencil tucked into the book and I comment as I go along. I have snapped the lead several times but at least I can satisfy myself that I have done my best to understand the psychology of what I am up against.

Now Inspector Gadget has a blog. (I'm looking forward to the responses to my first comment :P)

I can't fault the man's buisness acumen in that he has got a shop selling his merchandise! I put aside my moral qualms about a public servant profiting from his position of public servant and my musings on whether he had declared his interests and asked permission from his employer. However, I continued to digress into the following train of thought: IG declares > Bigwigs in Cop heaven know > Bigwigs sanction?

But anyway, I put those thoughts aside and saw the merchandise (featured above) that I must have once it becomes available.

http://inspectorgadget.webs.com/apps/webstore/products/show/266379

I don't think IG is able to understand why I find this so wonderful, which just adds to it's deliciousness :)

DVLA take up the baton

Last year, my husband remonstrated with two Metropolitan police officers about their conduct. Their response was to illegally arrest him and submit false reports to the DVLA among other things.

Despite the criminal case being dropped due to no evidence, the impact of the malicious prosecution goes on through the DVLA.

The officers involved falsely informed that they had confiscated my husbands licence to drive on the grounds that he had epilepsy and diabetes. He does not have those conditions and they said nothing of it when they released him from the station and returned all of his possessions. (Including the supposedly confiscated licence.)

The first we heard of it was when the DVLA asked my husband to return a questionnaire on his epilepsy and diabetes.

He unequivocally refuted the allegations and explained to the DVLA the circumstances that led him to believe that it was malicious.

He agreed for them to speak to his doctor who stated that my husband did not have these conditions and that in his opinion, was fit to drive.

This was not enough for the DVLA who demanded that my husband attend their own physician, which after various threats of disqualification if impossible time constraints were not met, occurred after the Christmas holiday.

During that consultation, my husband was asked to provide a urine sample, but despite the doctors assurances that it was to check electrolytes and fluids, my husband was suspicious and refused on the grounds of his right to privacy. It had been ascertained without doubt that the allegations levied against him were disproved and now it seemed that the DVLA and their agents were trying to find an alternative way to disqualify him.

Lo and behold, a couple of days later, the DVLA has sent my husband another letter requiring him to submit to a drugs test.

We have contacted the DVLA, asking the legislation that would override article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which protects his right to privacy. Their response has led us to part of the Road Traffic Act 1988

which refers to disabilities. The Citizens Advice Bureau, Community Legal advice and the other legal references that we have access to have not been able to advise us on the legality of the procedures requested by the DVLA.

Please contact me if you have any relevant advice.

I worry that I am over cynical

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/11/met-officer-ali-dizaei-court

News from 08/01/09

Every day I see another story that makes me shake my head. I record them here in case I develop the amnesia that many members of the public seem to have.

However, more are opening their eyes every day and with enough of us we can change the status quo.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-criticised-over-cocaine-custody-death-1861072.html

90-year-old given black eye in row with police officer over parking ticket http://bit.ly/7ycXNG

Number of Kent police officers trained to use Taser guns set to almost treble Number of Kent police officers trained to use Taser guns set to almost treble http://bit.ly/5XUUy8

(Thanks to Copwatcher on Twitter for those last two)

And this one I have commented on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/jan/08/police-britain-armed-response?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Police and taking photographs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/jan/07/police-photography-public-space

Even the press are not immune to inappropriate policing.

Mikey Powell inquest recommendations

I am honoured that the Powell family have chosen to refer to the Four Finger Campaign in their recommendations following the inquest into Mikey's death.

Please go to www.whennooneswatching.org to read more on the national campaign. This is my personal account of my involvement.

The following video outlines the campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuNNUVTcvRY

Powell family makes Rule 43 recommendations

January 2, 2010 by Alison Leslie

from the Friends of Mikey Powell Campaign for Justice
2nd January 2010

The following are the recommendations under Rule 43 * put to the Coroner by the family’s legal representatives following the jury verdict on 18^th December 2009. These recommendations are compiled not only in relation to Mikey’s case but to other similar cases both in the West Midlands region and nationally.

* About Rule 43

Under Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules (as amended with effect from 17 July 2008) Where:

1. a coroner is holding an inquest into a person’s death;
2. the evidence gives rise to a concern that circumstances creating a risk of other deaths will occur, or will continue to exist, in the future; and
3. in the coroner’s opinion, action should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuation of such circumstances, or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances,

The coroner may report the circumstances to a person who the coroner believes may have power to take such action”.

Although the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has made a range of recommendations in this case, to which West Midlands Police have responded, the family submits that the following issues which have emerged in the inquest proceedings would properly form the basis of a Rule 43 report by the Coroner.

(i) Communication

3. The evidence has shown that the family members were not asked for any information about Mikey’s health or background until after the police van had left, and Inspector Guest spoke to them in the family home.

4. The family feels that they were not listened to adequately or at all during events at their home in Wilton Street, and that had they been involved, they would have been able to work with the police, and that this would have led to a more positive outcome. They consider that one reason for this was their race.