Dirty Pigs

One of my favourite exchanges in the Simpsons, is when Lisa poses the rhetorical question, "who will police the police,' and Homer replies, "the coastguard?"

Anyone who has ever had any dealings with the police will know that they are less than honest.

Indeed if they were not the police and were to appear before the courts and act in the way that they do, in all liklihood they would be charged with perverting the course of justice and tampering with witnesses.

Now obviously this sometimes works in the defendents favour, because in a trial you get the police turn up and regurgitate the same version of events - that they have cooked up in the canteen - but in general the process acts against justice - not least because magistrates are essentially police groupies.

Readers with a long memory will recall how the police reacted to the verdict that Harry Stanley was killed unlawfully, when police shot him dead for carrying a table leg in the street. They threatened to effectively go on strike - certainly to work to rule.

And it appears that this form of police militancy goes wider.

Today the lawyers representing the family of Mark Saunders challenged the practice of police officers confering before answering questions about their actions. The judge did not fully agree with them, but the response from the Police Federation was as per usual militant and pretty nonsensical. Their spokesman said this:

""Conferring is not colluding. To suggest otherwise is as insulting as it is inaccurate and does nothing to reassure members of the public that the police are there to defend and protect them. There is a huge difference between colluding and conferring.""

What Mr Davis does not explain is how it is reasuring to the public that the police are defending and protecting them when they are potentially acting disonestly and more seriously opening potential witnesses, namely dissenting officers, to bullying and intimidation.

And let's not forget the recent statement by Cressida Dick, the officer 'in command' of the operation that ended in Jean Charles de Menezes being shot nine of ten times in the head on the tube. She claimed that there was nothing wrong with the operation (ignoring the fact that a man who was nothing to do with terrorism was shot dead) - of course she used the usual police defence for incompetance and corruption that they have a 'very difficult job'.

And no doubt they do - but quite how this justifies illegal and pernicious activity is not clear.

The Mark Saunders business also highlights another flaw in the British legal system.

If any 'normal' person had attempted to raise this question at a trial, their barrister would advise them not to (on account of judges not wanting to hear stuff about human rights or the law). Yet some rich city lawyer goes a bit nutty and starts taking pot shots with a gun, and suddenly a judge is forced to consider as a matter of law a practice that has perverted the course of justice for years.

Interestingly the reason this confering is not challenged, is because if the police were not allowed to get their story straight beforehand, and therefore give a fuller and less patial view of events to the IPCC, is because if they aren't allowed to, they would refuse to co-operate. Which to me suggests that there is a distinct lack of discipline in the police force.

But then saying that is like advising you as to the best way to suck eggs.

peace:)