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.