IPCC guidance on collecting evidence on police actions

[davidball]

So the IPCC (pcc is a better term since its independence has been woefully inadequate) has published guidance on achieving best evidence in death or serious injury matters involving police actions. The first recommendation - key policing witnesses (officers directly involved in the incident):

"Should be separated as soon as operationally safe to do, so as not to confer, or unintentionally influence each other’s accounts"

I particularly dislike the watery phrase "unintentionally influence". I suggest "collude" is a better word.

Nor should they:

" ... view their own body-worn video before offering an initial witness account, so that those accounts recall what officers experienced during the incident – rather than what they saw or heard on the video."

This has been a long time coming but do not hold your breath. This is only "guidance" and police forces are free to ignore it. Even so the fact that the IPCC (who are happy to allow the police to investigate themselves - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pxng0 ) have been forced to address the issue of witness collusion is a positive step.

[davidball]

You forget Lal Liga I am only offended by the opinions of people I respect. Your childish taunts only serve to boost your fragile ego.

I have called for separation of officers many times because the present situation is unhealthy and suspicious. Those like you who resent these criticisms must be feeling very uncomfortable. Do not worry. The IPCC is a toothless animal which is used to deflect meaningful actions being taken against police officers. I wait to see what comes of the IPCC guidance.

Meanwhile I am interested in why it appears to be the taxpayer who has to pay the compensation awarded to victims of police malpractice and not the officers themselves. A request about this under the Freedom of Information Act is in order.