People who have committed criminal offences, or have been a party to the commission of offences, usually do lie about it - or at least refuse to tell the truth about it. No surprises there. And if those people happen to be police officers, exactly the same applies - they lie about it. Again, no surprises. As usual, the only surprise is that anyone could possibly imagine that policemen who have been naughty will tell the truth about what they have done.
I think its more their cohort lying to save a colleague. Rightly or wrongly, you agree to certain things when becoming an officer and its right to expect the adherence to rules, regardless of who it is...however...at what point does this become officious officer who we all the complain about
Top barrister denies perverting course of justice during Chris Huhne speeding case (From Streatham Guardian) and is this no surprises or surprise then too Pete or don't you want to comment on it like before…. perhaps witness B saw it from 150 yds away….
With respect mate, that is one genuine sweeping generalisation. On the one hand you can trust most coppers most of the time, then you reckon that they will all lie to save a colleague, and you seem to infer that they lie knowing that their oppo has done wrong, even something criminal.
I can't really see what this has to do with the matter in hand. Is the inference that the police may lie on occasion, but the legal profession is no better? If so, so what?
whats not relevant that those who put themselves on a pedestal within the legal system lie and guess what the public lie too……. if this isn't relevant then id say 75% of the posts within this thread are not relevant
Slippery slope it seems to me as an argument. Your argument up until now has been that the police are not lying. (I haven't been following the case closely enough to have a conviction one way or the other). Now your argument seems to be that other people lie. The only inference can be, if that is relevant, that you now think the police may have been lying, but so is everyone else. Or are you saying that the police are not lying, but everyone else is? It's not clear (as far as I can see). I just find it strange that the police would not wish to cooperate fully with the IPCC, if the latter would be able to exonerate them on the basis of the testimonies they gave it.
The way I've read it is that all the officers involved were asked to provide witness statements and some then were asked to provide further written statements in relation to queries raised by the IPCC investigation team. The IPCC then thought, sod that, we want to interview you and ask you the same questions and the officers quite rightly said, erm, no. Seems reasonable to me. "Refer to me written statement"
Why? Bloody mindedness? If you've got nothing to hide, you cooperate surely? Unless.... unless.... The reality is, the cops hate the IPCC, don't they? It's just like the BBC series Between The Lines (which was, it must be said, an absolutely excellent series...) The IPCC is there to give the police a hard time on behalf of the public, when that is required. I suspect the Force despise the IPCC.
Whilst they may be within their rights to refuse it doesn't look good. Imagine a member of the public saying that to the police, I think it would be interpretted as a hostile act.
newspapers, mis quotes, hearsay, misunderstanding of procedure, non understanding of law, ……………….and now a fooking tv programme….brilliant.
are you for real………….the majority of interviews are now no comment! obviously they submit a written statement written by their free lawyer……always quite funny to ask what a particular word means...
Andy, you seem to be defending the actions of these officers at all cost. Most of us recognise that the police do a difficult job in difficult circumstances but mistakes will happen and when they do honesty is the best course of action. It would seem there are resonable grounds to believe that may not have happened in this case.
