Clarification needed on coroners powers to restrict inquests
Discussion
davidball said:
Snowboy said:
There is also an argument that we (the public) do not have any right to know the details or internal repercussions of a failed police op.
There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
I disagree. I think it is crucial that the public know the details and internal repercussions of a failed police op. How else is the public to know that lessons have been learned from the mistakes and measures/procedures ammended to minimise a recurrance.There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
The public does need to know. We cannot hold the police to account unless we know the details of what they do. Policing, like government in general, should operate by consent and with as much openness as possible. Only such secrecy as is truly needed for current or future operational reasons is justifiable.
Breadvan72 said:
The public does need to know. We cannot hold the police to account unless we know the details of what they do. Policing, like government in general, should operate by consent and with as much openness as possible. Only such secrecy as is truly needed for current or future operational reasons is justifiable.
I agree.I think that in the DeMenzez case there are very few details that aren't operationally sensitive.
That's why I agree with an open investigation of Hillsborough because there is nothing that needs to remain secret.
Snowboy said:
La Liga said:
he public give the police their consent to shoot people on their behalf. They are entitled to know as much as possible (without compromising intelligence, tactics etc) information relating to when an innocent person is shot.
Maybe.Sir Robert Peel's Nine Points of policing
•The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
•The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
•Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
•The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
•Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
•Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
•Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
•Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
•The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
•The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
•Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
•The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
•Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
•Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
•Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
•Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Snowboy said:
There is also an argument that we (the public) do not have any right to know the details or internal repercussions of a failed police op.
There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
The MPS's press statements said merely that: "HIS CLOTHING AND BEHAVIOUR ADDED TO THEIR SUSPICIONS." From Stockwell Two.There is an argument that says that the police management should defend their team until any sort of inquest is complete.
There is an argument that says they weren't lying; they were just saying what they believed at the time based on all available evidence.
Stockwell 2 also stated: "22/07/2005 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTING
MEDIA COVERAGE FROM EYE WITNESSES
IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF THE SHOOTING, CIVILIAN WITNESSES GAVE THEIR ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE MEDIA. THESE ACCOUNTS MISTAKENLY DESCRIBED MR DE MENEZES AS WEARING UNSEASONAL CLOTHING, RUNNING AWAY FROM THE POLICE, JUMPING THE TICKET BARRIER AND ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY IN OTHER WAYS. IT IS APPARENT THAT SOME OF THE WITNESSES CONFUSED POLICE OFFICERS WITH MR DE MENEZES."
Witnesses saw 'Charlie 2' and 'Charlie 12' jump the barriers, approximately one and a half minutes after Mr de Menezes passed through using his Oyster card after picking up a Metro newspaper. It's an understandable mistake, and it was those witness descriptions that misinformed the media initially.
Streaky
GC8 said:
Of course it isnt wrong, its a quote from Robert Peel!
I don't think any site out there (that I've seen) can directly attribute those exact words to Peel.I think XCP may have been referring to the wording of the attestation oath and the common sense approach of prioritising incidents in which there is a risk to life, and then property, ahead of anything else.
Citizen09 said:
I don't think any site out there (that I've seen) can directly attribute those exact words to Peel.
This one does:http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/laworder/9points...
RH
I think that Streaky is being too soft on the Met. Its media stance after the shooting of de Menezes was unduly bullish and misleading.
I also disagree with the suggestion that the details of that incident were almost all operationally sensitive and so should not be discussed in public. It was of the highest importance that a cock up of that mammoth scale be investigated fully and openly.
I also disagree with the suggestion that the details of that incident were almost all operationally sensitive and so should not be discussed in public. It was of the highest importance that a cock up of that mammoth scale be investigated fully and openly.
Those of you who do not think that transparency of police conduct and performance is crucial should listen to the BBC File on 4 report entitled "Rochdale Abuse: Failed Victims?" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rg231).
The self-congratulating words of the police officer at the beginning of the report become more and more nauseous as the revelelations unfold. Police and social services failed to act on the serious abuse of young girls over a number of years, to the extent that the families of the abused refused to cooperate with the police when the police were finally forced to act. An experienced, well respected female police officer felt she had to resign the force and blow the whistle on the whole debacle that has ruined girls lives. The CPS does not escape critism either. I urge you to listen to the podcast. It convinced me (if I needed any further convincing) that we cannot trust the police, social services or CPS to own up to their mistakes and cockups.
Full public inquiries into such failures should be a matter of course and should be enshrined in law.
The self-congratulating words of the police officer at the beginning of the report become more and more nauseous as the revelelations unfold. Police and social services failed to act on the serious abuse of young girls over a number of years, to the extent that the families of the abused refused to cooperate with the police when the police were finally forced to act. An experienced, well respected female police officer felt she had to resign the force and blow the whistle on the whole debacle that has ruined girls lives. The CPS does not escape critism either. I urge you to listen to the podcast. It convinced me (if I needed any further convincing) that we cannot trust the police, social services or CPS to own up to their mistakes and cockups.
Full public inquiries into such failures should be a matter of course and should be enshrined in law.
Edited by davidball on Wednesday 22 May 08:09
That may be the case.
But posts like that come very close to blaming the police rather than the criminals.
You seem to want an enquiry to show how the police failed.
I wonder if it might show that the police did all they could within current laws and capabilities.
I think it's a shame that the police seem to get the blame for everything.
I wonder if those angry family members should be asking what they could have done too?
But posts like that come very close to blaming the police rather than the criminals.
You seem to want an enquiry to show how the police failed.
I wonder if it might show that the police did all they could within current laws and capabilities.
I think it's a shame that the police seem to get the blame for everything.
I wonder if those angry family members should be asking what they could have done too?
Even allowing for the distorting effect of hindsight, there are reasonable grounds for saying that the police response to the cases in Rotherham, Oxford and elsewhere was deficient. Similarly, we can now see that the police mishandled Hillsborough and de Menezes, and made things worse by telling fibs about the mistakes made, particularly in relation to Hillsborough. I am in general opposed to the blame culture, and there are such things as honest mistakes, but inquiries into what went wrong can serve the useful purpose of helping to get it right in the future.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff