Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: an official police memorandum on the Stockwell shooting

Most Secret 	Memorandum from Cressida DickSucker to all firearms
officers
Earlier today the CPS issued their whitewash report into the Stockwell
shooting. This turned out better than we could have expected. Slipping
Ken MacDonald that extra kilo of hash last month really helped, but in
any case we'd already taken steps to ensure that the self-styled
Independent Police Complaints Commission didn't look into the real
reason I ordered that Brazillian jerk to be shot. That'll teach him
to mess around with my niece. What a fortunate coincidence it was that
he lived in that particular block of flats.
The prosecution under Health & Safety legislation is an added bonus.
Really boys, you couldn't make it up. What this means is that dozens
of you will now be able to clock up overtime while you sit around at
court waiting to give evidence, no individual will be held accountable,
and the entire charade will be funded out of the public purse, which
will undoubtedly please our lawyers, Bircham Dyson Bell, who will
likewise make millions out of the case.
Now that we have been given carte blanche to murder innocent members of
the public - which in effect we had anyway - we can step up our
campaign to eliminate undesirables. I have attached a separate list of
scumbags to be taken out over the next twelve months, including rogue
imams, that little tosser Pete Docherty, selected high profile junkies
(but NOT Kate Moss) and various critics of the Metropolitan Police
including a number of so-called civil rights lawyers.
The one regretable aspect of the Stockwell case is that the officers on
the scene didn't take a leaf out of our American colleagues' book.
Next time please ensure that you plant a firearm on the body. That will
dispell any notion in the minds of the public that the victim may have
been truly innocent.
Signed Cressida DickSucker

 wrote in message 
news:1153208056.3...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

LOL, Absolutely brilliant, Alex !   ;)) 

 reason I ordered that Brazillian jerk to be shot.
The IPCC was set up not by the police but by act of Parliament. The
prerequisite qualification for a Commissioner is that he shall not have
any police background.
The onus is surely on those who have no confidence in it to show why
and to suggest positive recommendations for its replacement.
Rest of rubbish unread

and to suggest positive recommendations for its replacement.
If you've been following this debate ...I'd be interested to know
whether you think there should be an urgent change in the law so that
before a police gunman shoots another person, he is required to make a
personal assessment of the imminent threat posed by the suspect and
that the legal onus should be upon him to prove his 'honest belief' to
a court BRD, not for the court to disprove it.
-- 
"Blair's inner circle and its ferocious grab for power":
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1747772,00.html
"In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order,
Tony Blair's Government has quietly and systematically taken power
from Parliament and the British people. The author [Henry Porter]
charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that reveals the
danger of trading freedom for security":
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece

 a court BRD, not for the court to disprove it..
However, since you ask!
First of all a court doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is a forum
and a set of procedures under which evidence is quietly and coldly
examined to establish in a criminal context, innocence or guilt.
I see no real reason as to why when a police officer has to defend
himself in court he should be treated any different to anyone else.
Under present arrangements therefore, just like anybody else, he enjoys
presumption of innocence and no obligation to prove anything. It is for
the prosecution to prove guilt. The CPS apparently thinks there is not
a reasonable chance of meeting this test and has advised as such. The
door remains open to any person who feels that the CPS judgement is
wrong to go and place the matter before a magistrate or district judge,
make a prima facie case and seek a summons.
That option remains open for ever even after the long awaited IPPC
report is made publically available when present legal procedures are
completed.

 Rest of rubbish unread
That is undoubtedly your honest opinion, but until you've been trampled
on by the police and seen the results of the whitewash of their
watchdogs you can't begin to understand what it's like. The Challenor
case in the 1960s is a good example; although there was no so-called
police watchdog then, the reaction was just the same. Total whitewash.

completed.
Why don't you just answer the question I asked Mel? is it that you
don't understand it or you are quite happy that innocent civilians can
be killed by police gunmen without any accountability?
I already know the answer. 
You're a waste of space Mel. Get used to it.


police watchdog then, the reaction was just the same. Total whitewash.
-- 


 police watchdog then, the reaction was just the same. Total whitewash.
There wasn't an IPCC in 1964.
Why don't you come more up to date?
The fact is we live in a society. Societies can only exist when it all
boils down to trust in each other. 99% of the time this trust is not
misplaced. Most people more or less get on with the tasks life has
thrust upon them.
We've only had an IPCC a couple of years. It was set up in response to
public concern regarding procedures for handling complaints against the
police by members of the public. It has hardly had the time to get
things too much wrong yet already there are those like yourself who on
the basis of one report to which very few have had access are already
seeking to erode public confidence in it.
If the IPCC is already as corrupt as you seem to suggest then we should
seriously consider taking it back to the drawing board. Indeed if the
police forces (note the plural) of this country are as corrupt as you
and others suggest then we should consider abloishing them.
Is that what you advocate? Would that make you happy?
Just what is your beef?

The Challenor case is no different from anything that has happened
since. In that instance the instigator was quietly nutted off, three
junior officers were thrown to the wolves, and in the inquiries that
followed the people Challenor had framed were treated as though they
were guilty men who had got off on technicalities. The instigation of
the PCA and now this so-called independent commission has done nothing
to alter that mindset.
Some people are regarded as unworthy of belief under any circumstances
while police officers are never in the wrong, or if they are it's
purely a technical matter with no individual at fault.
Although it was an American case the best example is the Rodney King
incident. If there had been no video of this gratuitous assault King's
assailants would never have been put in the dock, and even when they
were a jury refused to convict.
The IPCC appears to have done a reasonably competent job but that was
sabotaged by the CPS, and if the CPS had made a half-hearted
prosecution the trial judge would have done the rest as she did in the
James Ashley case. And I rest mine.


 James Ashley case. And I rest mine.
I think you ought!