Public Confidence
The Independent reveals yet another example of really bad behaviour by the police - in this case two officers who inadvertently left an offensive and abusive voicemail for a young woman who had complained of domestic violence.
Now everybody makes mistakes, but the police have more power over people than many other jobs and professions, so it is important that the public can have confidence in the way that the police go about their work.
Yet time and again there are examples of completely unacceptable behaviour which seem not to get taken all that seriously by senior police management - investigations seem to drag on for ever, officers are often allowed to resign instead of facing disciplinary action and even when action is taken it seems to amount to little more that a slap on the wrist.
So the police have their work cut out, if you ask me, because this kind of behaviour is worse than just a few bad apples - it speaks to me of an unhealthy culture within the police force and a real problem with holding individual officers to account for their behaviour.
Police officers 'called teenager a 'f******' slag' after she made a domestic violence complaint
West Midlands Police have confirmed officers have been placed on restricted duties while they investigate the claims
By HEATHER SAUL
Two police officers are under investigation after an abusive voicemail message was left on the phone of a woman, calling her a "f****** slag" and a "b****" after she had made a complaint of domestic violence.
Alex Faragher, 19, from Sutton Coldfield, has lodged an official complaint about the incident which she said happened last month during an inquiry into an alleged assault.
The teenager, who works as a wedding caterer, has handed police a recording of the expletive-strewn message in which two men can be heard claiming she is "giving us the runaround".
The message said: "F*****g b****, I specifically said: 'You are not going to give us the runaround are you?'
"'‘No, I want to press charges,' she said."
In the voicemail, a man can also be heard saying: "F*****g slag" and: "The only other thing we can do is go back and f****** draft the statement ourselves and just get the b**** to sign it".
Ms Faragher told The Birmingham Mail: "If I had spoken about them like that I would have been arrested by now and prosecuted.
“They were due to come to my house to take the statement. I told them I would be out with my dad after 6pm.
“They turned up after 6.30pm and tried to call me and mistakenly didn’t hang up. I picked up the conversation they then had in the police car that was recorded as a voicemail. I could not believe what I was hearing.
"These two people were supposed to be coming out to help me and instead I received abuse."
The chief executive of national domestic violence charity Refuge, Sandra Horley, said she was appalled but not surprised at the content of the voicemail message.
Ms Horley said: "We know that negative attitudes about women who experience domestic violence persist within the police.
"Far too many women are disbelieved, ignored and denied protection. In the worst cases, women and children are killed after the police fail to fulfil their duties.
"The police need to get the basics right."
Confirming that two officers have been placed on restricted duties in non-public-facing roles, Rachel Jones, commander of Birmingham North Police, said: "West Midlands Police received an official complaint on 24th January in relation to an allegation of gross misconduct involving two police officers from Sutton Coldfield police station.
"Due to the serious nature of the allegations the matter was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who have determined that the complaint will be investigated by West Midlands Police Professional Standards Department.
"I have visited the complainant personally to explain what action is being taken as well as apologising for any upset caused as a consequence of the officers’ alleged conduct.
"Across the force we expect the highest standards of professionalism from all officers and police staff.
"This complaint is being professionally and robustly investigated and the force will take necessary action against officers if appropriate."
Additional reporting by Press Association
Police Culture (23 October 2013)
Here are two interesting articles which have something to say about standards of behaviour by the Police.
The first from the Independent considers a four year legal battle which culminated in two officers being sacked for wrongly arresting a man - Kyle McArdle - and using a Taser on him no less than five times.
The McArdle case seems to have involved a real struggle of wills between Merseyside Police who kept clearing their officers of any wrongdoing - and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) who kept challenging what must have looked to them like a 'whitewash'.
I presume that during this four year legal battle the two officers were represented by the Police Federation (the police trade union) - but the IPCC prevailed in the end and justice was served with the two officers finally being dismissed for gross misconduct.
But what does it say about the way in which the Police deal with such matters - because it seems clear that if the IPCC were less determined and resolute that the two officers who have now been sacked - would still be out on the streets of Merseyside going on with their duties as 'normal'.
The second article in the Times is from David Davis - a former shadow home secretary - who makes two key points - the first being that what is needed is an even tougher regulator in the shape of a 'beefed up' IPCC, not a new regulatory body - and the second that police officers should routinely be wearing cameras and microphones to record exactly what they are doing.
Hear, hear.
Two police officers sacked over using Taser on innocent man five times
Kyle McArdle was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds after he was spotted urinating in an alley
By PAUL KEAVENY
Two police officers have been sacked after they wrongly arrested a man and Tasered him five times.
The pair were only dismissed after a drawn-out legal battle which saw them twice cleared by their own force and after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) upheld two complaint appeals.
Kyle McArdle, 26, was detained by officers from Merseyside in December 2009 when he was spotted urinating in an alley off Elliot Street in Liverpool city centre.
He was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds, including three times in drive-stun mode - where the weapon was pressed against his chest, leg and upper abdomen.
The arresting officers said he was violent and the Taser was needed to restrain him.
Taser barbs were also removed from Mr McArdle's chest in contravention of Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) guidelines which say they should only be removed by a medical professional unless there is an "operational necessity". The officer who took them out said he feared Mr McArdle would remove them himself and use them as weapons.
Mr McArdle, 26, was charged with assaulting two of the officers but was found not guilty at a Magistrates' Court hearing.
He said: "After three Merseyside Professional Standards Department investigations and nearly four years since the original complaint, I'm very happy that it went to a misconduct hearing. I would like to sincerely thank the IPCC for upholding my appeals. I feel that justice has now been done and I can get on with my life."
After he was cleared by magistrates, Mr McArdle made a number of complaints, including that multiple use of the Taser in the confined space of a police van was disproportionate.
But Merseyside Police recommended the officers receive only "management advice" about their lawful use of powers.
Unhappy that the force had not properly addressed his complaint about the extent of force used against him, Mr McArdle appealed to the IPCC.
The appeal was upheld and the IPCC recommended Merseyside Police re-investigate, this time considering if the use of the Taser would be justified had the victim been lawfully arrested.
Merseyside Police then asked its lead Taser instructor to examine the case.
The officer concluded that the force used was "necessary, proportionate, reasonable and in line with the officers' training and Acpo guidance".
A second appeal, which was also upheld, was lodged with the IPCC, which found that the officers should have been served with notices for gross misconduct and interviewed under caution.
The IPCC also said that insufficient weight was given to Mr McArdle's version of events and the evidence that supported his account.
That evidence included CCTV footage which did not support the officers' claims that Mr McArdle had been violent and needed to be restrained.
The IPCC also said it was concerned that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor was uncritical of the officers' use of the weapon and relied solely on their version of events.
Following the second upheld appeal, Merseyside Police held a misconduct hearing for two of the officers, which began on September 30. It ended with the dismissal of Pcs Simon Jones and Joanne Kelly after gross misconduct was proven.
A third officer, a sergeant, had already been dismissed from the force for an unrelated matter.
IPCC Commissioner James Dipple-Johnstone said: "To enjoy public confidence it is important police officers only use force, including Taser, as a last resort; and then only at the minimum level necessary for the threat they actually face.
"The IPCC recognises that there is public concern over the considerable increase in Taser use - not only in the number of officers using it but also in circumstances where it would not have been used previously - and the significant rise in complaints that has accompanied that.
"Incidents such as this do nothing to alleviate that public concern.
"While we welcome the robust action eventually taken by the force in response to our appeal findings, it is a concern that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor lacked objectivity and presented as fact the officers' version of events without challenge.
"It is important that, when things do go wrong, complaints are addressed thoroughly and responded to robustly. We hope the force will take on board learning from these events for the future"
Police culture needs root-and-branch reform
Hear, hear.
Two police officers sacked over using Taser on innocent man five times
Kyle McArdle was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds after he was spotted urinating in an alley
By PAUL KEAVENY
Two police officers have been sacked after they wrongly arrested a man and Tasered him five times.
The pair were only dismissed after a drawn-out legal battle which saw them twice cleared by their own force and after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) upheld two complaint appeals.
Kyle McArdle, 26, was detained by officers from Merseyside in December 2009 when he was spotted urinating in an alley off Elliot Street in Liverpool city centre.
He was put into the back of a police van and hit with five Taser rounds, including three times in drive-stun mode - where the weapon was pressed against his chest, leg and upper abdomen.
The arresting officers said he was violent and the Taser was needed to restrain him.
Taser barbs were also removed from Mr McArdle's chest in contravention of Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) guidelines which say they should only be removed by a medical professional unless there is an "operational necessity". The officer who took them out said he feared Mr McArdle would remove them himself and use them as weapons.
Mr McArdle, 26, was charged with assaulting two of the officers but was found not guilty at a Magistrates' Court hearing.
He said: "After three Merseyside Professional Standards Department investigations and nearly four years since the original complaint, I'm very happy that it went to a misconduct hearing. I would like to sincerely thank the IPCC for upholding my appeals. I feel that justice has now been done and I can get on with my life."
After he was cleared by magistrates, Mr McArdle made a number of complaints, including that multiple use of the Taser in the confined space of a police van was disproportionate.
But Merseyside Police recommended the officers receive only "management advice" about their lawful use of powers.
Unhappy that the force had not properly addressed his complaint about the extent of force used against him, Mr McArdle appealed to the IPCC.
The appeal was upheld and the IPCC recommended Merseyside Police re-investigate, this time considering if the use of the Taser would be justified had the victim been lawfully arrested.
Merseyside Police then asked its lead Taser instructor to examine the case.
The officer concluded that the force used was "necessary, proportionate, reasonable and in line with the officers' training and Acpo guidance".
A second appeal, which was also upheld, was lodged with the IPCC, which found that the officers should have been served with notices for gross misconduct and interviewed under caution.
The IPCC also said that insufficient weight was given to Mr McArdle's version of events and the evidence that supported his account.
That evidence included CCTV footage which did not support the officers' claims that Mr McArdle had been violent and needed to be restrained.
The IPCC also said it was concerned that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor was uncritical of the officers' use of the weapon and relied solely on their version of events.
Following the second upheld appeal, Merseyside Police held a misconduct hearing for two of the officers, which began on September 30. It ended with the dismissal of Pcs Simon Jones and Joanne Kelly after gross misconduct was proven.
A third officer, a sergeant, had already been dismissed from the force for an unrelated matter.
IPCC Commissioner James Dipple-Johnstone said: "To enjoy public confidence it is important police officers only use force, including Taser, as a last resort; and then only at the minimum level necessary for the threat they actually face.
"The IPCC recognises that there is public concern over the considerable increase in Taser use - not only in the number of officers using it but also in circumstances where it would not have been used previously - and the significant rise in complaints that has accompanied that.
"Incidents such as this do nothing to alleviate that public concern.
"While we welcome the robust action eventually taken by the force in response to our appeal findings, it is a concern that Merseyside Police's lead Taser instructor lacked objectivity and presented as fact the officers' version of events without challenge.
"It is important that, when things do go wrong, complaints are addressed thoroughly and responded to robustly. We hope the force will take on board learning from these events for the future"
Police culture needs root-and-branch reform
By David Davis
It’s not only their mindset that must change. Officers should be wearing cameras and microphones too
When doubts first emerged about the police account of the Andrew Mitchell affair, Andrew expressed concern about the police forces investigating themselves. I told him I thought we could rely on the police investigating officers to do a proper job of identifying their own bad apples.
I now think I was wrong. My doubts were strengthened by Monday’s Police Federation statement, which made no attempt to apologise to Andrew and which tried to disguise deliberate misconduct as innocent misjudgment.
West Mercia Police’s whitewashed inquiry into the conduct of three Police Federation officials was a disgrace. When those officers go before the Home Affairs Select Committee today, I suspect the questions will be tougher. Unfortunately, though, this is merely the latest in a long list of police investigations set up to seek the truth but conducted as clumsy cover-ups.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel found serious flaws in the police investigation of the incident which killed 96 Liverpool fans. Notes which reflected badly on South Yorkshire Police were deleted from more than a hundred statements.
When Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly identified as a suicide bomber and shot, the Met tried to prevent an external inquiry, refused to hand over documents and even lobbied MPs to try and influence the investigation.
Then in the case of Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in 2009, the first statement from the Met made no mention of any assault on him and made exaggerated claims that police officers were pelted with missiles while trying to resuscitate him.
However, the problem extends beyond police conduct of formal investigations into their alleged wrongdoing. There are suggestions of a culture of cover-up, and a worrying trend of police smearing innocent people to cover their own mistakes.
After his death, de Menezes was the victim of a character assassination based on claims he was an illegal immigrant high on cocaine. When police raided the home of suspected terrorists in Forest Gate, London, but found no evidence of terrorist activity, it was a similar story. One man was shot in the raid. The press were briefed that his brother was responsible. It later emerged that a police officer fired the bullet accidentally. Another suspect was accused of possessing child pornography. No charges were brought. Most infamously of all, an undercover police officer was allegedly ordered to find “dirt” to use against relatives of Stephen Lawrence.
The problem is serious, but it is not new. In 1975 the Birmingham Six were sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing pubs, only to be acquitted after police were found to have fabricated evidence. The Bridgewater Four, convicted of killing a paperboy, were later freed on the same grounds.
The consequence not just of the Andrew Mitchell affair but of the dozens of misdemeanours stretching back decades is that the public no longer trust the police to investigate themselves. If the police are in the dock, they cannot be judge and jury too.
So what is the solution? I am not convinced by Sir Hugh Orde’s idea for a new police ombudsman. I worry that it would take too long to reach conclusions and would lack the powers needed to expose wrongdoing.
What we need is not a new regulator, but a tougher regulator. Earlier this year a parliamentary inquiry concluded that the Independent Police Complaints Commission “has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt”. The Government should respond by giving the IPCC the powers and resources to outrank and overrule every chief of police in the land — to become a British “Untouchables”. Never again should a police force be able to delay or frustrate an IPCC investigation.
However, while a tougher IPCC would ensure rigorous investigation of police misconduct, identifying such misdemeanours after the event is not enough. Nor is this a problem that can be solved by the Government’s recent Winsor-inspired reforms. The issues are bigger than pay, paperwork and pensions. This is a crisis of ethics.
Britain needs root-and-branch reform of policing culture, a feat beyond the powers of even a powerful independent regulator. The Government should appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the conduct of the police. The lessons about what behaviour is expected from a British police officer should be instilled from Day 1.
Of course, the commission should not limit its focus to new recruits. In recent days, as the truth about Andrew Mitchell’s meeting with Police Federation officials has emerged, it has been senior officers who have responded with a series of implausible denials. The mindset of the whole officer class should not be off limits.
Technology can help too. The police put millions of innocent people under surveillance in order to catch a tiny minority of wrongdoers. Perhaps now it is time to make officers wear a camera and microphone while on duty. When they tried this in California, use of force by police officers dropped by two thirds in a year. This technology could also help to defend police officers who have vexatious claims made against them.
But we need more than one or two good ideas: we need a whole new coherent approach. Regrettably it appears that the Mitchell case is merely a high-profile example, not an isolated one. The decline in public trust in the police is a serious threat to the ability of the vast majority of decent officers to do the job they signed up for, catching villains and protecting the public. A full scale Royal Commission and then root-and-branch reform is the minimum necessary to give those officers back the trust, confidence and power to do the job that society demands.
It’s not only their mindset that must change. Officers should be wearing cameras and microphones too
When doubts first emerged about the police account of the Andrew Mitchell affair, Andrew expressed concern about the police forces investigating themselves. I told him I thought we could rely on the police investigating officers to do a proper job of identifying their own bad apples.
I now think I was wrong. My doubts were strengthened by Monday’s Police Federation statement, which made no attempt to apologise to Andrew and which tried to disguise deliberate misconduct as innocent misjudgment.
West Mercia Police’s whitewashed inquiry into the conduct of three Police Federation officials was a disgrace. When those officers go before the Home Affairs Select Committee today, I suspect the questions will be tougher. Unfortunately, though, this is merely the latest in a long list of police investigations set up to seek the truth but conducted as clumsy cover-ups.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel found serious flaws in the police investigation of the incident which killed 96 Liverpool fans. Notes which reflected badly on South Yorkshire Police were deleted from more than a hundred statements.
When Jean Charles de Menezes was wrongly identified as a suicide bomber and shot, the Met tried to prevent an external inquiry, refused to hand over documents and even lobbied MPs to try and influence the investigation.
Then in the case of Ian Tomlinson, who died at the G20 protests in 2009, the first statement from the Met made no mention of any assault on him and made exaggerated claims that police officers were pelted with missiles while trying to resuscitate him.
However, the problem extends beyond police conduct of formal investigations into their alleged wrongdoing. There are suggestions of a culture of cover-up, and a worrying trend of police smearing innocent people to cover their own mistakes.
After his death, de Menezes was the victim of a character assassination based on claims he was an illegal immigrant high on cocaine. When police raided the home of suspected terrorists in Forest Gate, London, but found no evidence of terrorist activity, it was a similar story. One man was shot in the raid. The press were briefed that his brother was responsible. It later emerged that a police officer fired the bullet accidentally. Another suspect was accused of possessing child pornography. No charges were brought. Most infamously of all, an undercover police officer was allegedly ordered to find “dirt” to use against relatives of Stephen Lawrence.
The problem is serious, but it is not new. In 1975 the Birmingham Six were sentenced to life imprisonment for bombing pubs, only to be acquitted after police were found to have fabricated evidence. The Bridgewater Four, convicted of killing a paperboy, were later freed on the same grounds.
The consequence not just of the Andrew Mitchell affair but of the dozens of misdemeanours stretching back decades is that the public no longer trust the police to investigate themselves. If the police are in the dock, they cannot be judge and jury too.
So what is the solution? I am not convinced by Sir Hugh Orde’s idea for a new police ombudsman. I worry that it would take too long to reach conclusions and would lack the powers needed to expose wrongdoing.
What we need is not a new regulator, but a tougher regulator. Earlier this year a parliamentary inquiry concluded that the Independent Police Complaints Commission “has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt”. The Government should respond by giving the IPCC the powers and resources to outrank and overrule every chief of police in the land — to become a British “Untouchables”. Never again should a police force be able to delay or frustrate an IPCC investigation.
However, while a tougher IPCC would ensure rigorous investigation of police misconduct, identifying such misdemeanours after the event is not enough. Nor is this a problem that can be solved by the Government’s recent Winsor-inspired reforms. The issues are bigger than pay, paperwork and pensions. This is a crisis of ethics.
Britain needs root-and-branch reform of policing culture, a feat beyond the powers of even a powerful independent regulator. The Government should appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the conduct of the police. The lessons about what behaviour is expected from a British police officer should be instilled from Day 1.
Of course, the commission should not limit its focus to new recruits. In recent days, as the truth about Andrew Mitchell’s meeting with Police Federation officials has emerged, it has been senior officers who have responded with a series of implausible denials. The mindset of the whole officer class should not be off limits.
Technology can help too. The police put millions of innocent people under surveillance in order to catch a tiny minority of wrongdoers. Perhaps now it is time to make officers wear a camera and microphone while on duty. When they tried this in California, use of force by police officers dropped by two thirds in a year. This technology could also help to defend police officers who have vexatious claims made against them.
But we need more than one or two good ideas: we need a whole new coherent approach. Regrettably it appears that the Mitchell case is merely a high-profile example, not an isolated one. The decline in public trust in the police is a serious threat to the ability of the vast majority of decent officers to do the job they signed up for, catching villains and protecting the public. A full scale Royal Commission and then root-and-branch reform is the minimum necessary to give those officers back the trust, confidence and power to do the job that society demands.
'Plebgate' Haunts Police (15 October 2013)
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has issued a very blunt statement about the conduct of three Police Federation representatives - in which the IPCC effectively accuses these police officers of lying and providing a deliberately false account of a meeting they held with Andrew Mitchell MP in October 2012.
Here is the IPCC statement in full which also refers to a previous investigation carried out by West Mercia Police (i.e. the police investigating themselves) - which concluded that the three officers had no disciplinary case to answer.
Now the IPCC is an independent body and for it to challenge the motives, honesty and integrity of three serving police officers and the Police Federation - is a very serious matter indeed and goes to the heart of whether the public can have confidence in the Police when parts of the service behave in this way.
So it will be interesting to see how the Police and the Government respond to what the IPCC has had to say.
"IPCC disagrees with findings of West Mercia investigation into conduct of Police Federation representatives over a meeting with Andrew Mitchell MP"
Oct 15, 2013
"This investigation, which was supervised by the IPCC, sought to establish whether Police Federation representatives from West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire forces, provided false accounts of a meeting they held with Andrew Mitchell MP in October 2012 in order to discredit him. The investigation, which began in January 2013, concluded in July 2013 and the IPCC was provided with the report in August 2013."
Deborah Glass, IPCC Deputy Chair said:
"This investigation, which was supervised by the IPCC, sought to establish whether Police Federation representatives from West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire forces, provided false accounts of a meeting they held with Andrew Mitchell MP in October 2012 in order to discredit him. The investigation, which began in January 2013, concluded in July 2013 and the IPCC was provided with the report in August 2013."
Deborah Glass, IPCC Deputy Chair said:
"The allegation against the officers is that they deliberately misrepresented what Mr Mitchell had said during a meeting in his constituency office on 12 October 2012 when they gave media interviews immediately afterwards. The context is extremely important. On that day - the week after the Conservative Party conference at which Federation members were seen wearing 'PC Pleb' t-shirts - it was well known, and must have been well known to the officers, that Mr Mitchell was under pressure to resign his post as Government Chief Whip.
"It was clear that the parties had very different agendas for the meeting. Mr Mitchell saw it as an attempt to clear the air, while the officers focussed on Mr Mitchell's "version of events" - i.e. what happened in the Downing Street incident on 19 September when Mr Mitchell was alleged to have called police officers "f***ing plebs". The officers repeatedly point to the "discrepancy between the two accounts" and the integrity implications this has - not on Mr Mitchell, but on the MPS officer. They repeatedly assert that as a result of Mr Mitchell's account the Metropolitan Police officer's "integrity is no longer intact". Yet despite their apparent enthusiasm for reporting their MPS colleague for lying, in fact none of the officers do so, but immediately tell the waiting media, in effect, that it is Mr Mitchell's integrity which is in question.
"The investigation by West Mercia Police concluded that although the Police Federation undoubtedly contributed to the pressure on Mr Mitchell and his decision to resign, none of the officers had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. The investigating officer concluded that while the federation representatives' comments to the media could be viewed as ambiguous or misleading, there was no deliberate intention to lie.
"I disagree. In my view, the evidence is such that a panel should determine whether the three officers gave a false account of the meeting in a deliberate attempt to support their MPS colleague and discredit Mr Mitchell, in pursuit of a wider agenda. In my opinion the evidence indicates an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naïve or poor professional judgment.
"In the media and political climate of the day I do not consider that the officers could have been in any doubt about the impact of their public statements on the pressure being brought on Mr Mitchell. As police officers they had a responsibility to present a fair and accurate picture. Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account that he provided to them did not fit with their agenda.
"Although Mr Mitchell has made his views about the officers' conduct clear he has chosen not to make a formal complaint, therefore the power to direct misconduct proceedings is not open to me in this case. But bearing in mind the role of the IPCC in supervising this investigation and the public interest, I believe it is important to put my disagreement on record, and to set out the evidence so that the public can judge for themselves."
Ends
Weasel Words (23 October 2013)
Did you hear the 'apology' of the three police officers - Inspector Ken MacKaill, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones - who were caught out misrepresenting the former Government Chief Whip - Andrew Mitchell - following a meeting in his constituency office in October 2012?
Here are the weasel words issued in a joint statement by the three men who were representing the Police Federation (police trade union) at the meeting with Andrew Mitchell:
“The reputation of, and public confidence in, the police service is of immense concern to each of us.
We acknowledge the investigation's criticism relating to our poor judgment in talking to the media following the meeting with Andrew Mitchell, for which we take this opportunity to apologise.
We would like to emphasise – as we did to the investigation – that in no way did any of us ever plan or intend to mislead anyone about what occurred during this meeting or otherwise.”
Now anyone who has listened to or read the transcript of the October 20122 meeting - which Andrew Mitchell secretly recorded - would agree that the final sentence of statement is, quite simply, untrue.
When the three police officers came out of the meeting to address the waiting media - which had handily been put on alert by the Police Federation - they completely misrepresented what Andrew Mitchell had said to them only minutes earlier.
So, to say now - having been exposed - that their actions were not planned or intentional simply beggars belief, if you ask me.
The reason that all of this matters, of course, comes down to the question of whether or not the public can have confidence in the Police - to tell the truth and not fit people up which is what appears to have happened to Andrew Mitchell.
For example, I read the testimony of the armed police officer who shot and killed Mark Duggan - a known criminal - whose death was used by anti-social elements in London and elsewhere as an excuse for widespread rioting and looting last year.
I wanted to believe the officer that he held an honest belief that Mark Duggan presented a real and direct threat to his life - as he was about to be arrested by the Police - which is why he shot and killed Mark Duggan in an act of self-defence.
Why would a Police Officer want to shoot and kill a perfectly innocent person? - I asked myself, rhetorically.
But you could ask yourself the same question over the Andrew Mitchell affair where it is becoming increasingly clear that various members of the police service - have not been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
