What, no corrupt cops in Dulwich / Stephen Lawrence bribery thread?

[laptop]

At work, no time to extract the juicy quotes, but there are many in this Gillard and Flynn magnum opus: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...at-expose-a-corrupt-relationship-7537762.html

 

[Belushi]

Where's detective boy to reassure us that it was just a few bad apples back in the 1970s and couldn't possible happen in the modern Met

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where's detective boy to reassure us that it was just a few bad apples back in the 1970s and couldn't possible happen in the modern Met

Off somewhere throwing a few fuck up the cunts, no doubt.

 

[butchersapron]

BBC exposed him for this stuff in 2007.

 

[laptop]

Aye, spotted now that it's all extracted from The Untouchables.

Apart from one bit about a Crown Prosecution brief called Martin Polaine - which will surely be in the revised second edition, out this month?

Nevertheless...

 

[DaveCinzano]

The Ellison Review is due to be published tomorrow...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...e-murder-report-police-corruption-allegations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lleged-police-corruption-to-be-published.html

(Cross-posted)

 

[butchersapron]

Being published right now.

Two quick responses from @lucymanning :

New report finds the original Macpherson report into Stephen Lawrence murder wasn't told about police corruption held by the Met.

&

The Stephen Lawrence Review says potential for a public inquiry to discover more may be limited due to chaotic records held by Met Police.

 

[butchersapron]

How handy (same source):

Claims of smears against Lawrence family, report says no records to support it, however most destroyed. No 1 interviewed backed smear claims

 

[butchersapron]

Report appears to conclude a public inquiry is required as it was unable to conclusively say anything itself - although the obstruction looks pretty bloody clear to me.

 

[butchersapron]

Stephen Lawrence review said if original inquiry [that's macpherson remember)]had known extent of undercover policing would have deplored it & Met risked public disorder

Lawrence report says was a Met Police spy in Lawrence family camp who then helped the Met Police's case against the family at Inquiry.

(still manning, as no one else seems to have managed to snag a copy yet)

 

[butchersapron]

Right, here's the report - looks rather large.

 

[butchersapron]

For skim readers, you want the summary and then the blue boxs dotted throughout.

 

[butchersapron]

Term of reference
1.
Is there evidence providing reasonable grounds for suspecting that any officer associated with the initial investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence acted corruptly?

Findings

Assuming that Neil Putnam is available and willing to give evidence, the answer must be yes as regards John Davidson. Other than Mr Putnam’s potential evidence, the material available which suggests that Mr Davidson may have been corrupt in the Stephen Lawrence investigation remains ‘intelligence’ and not ‘evidence’.

In regard to other officers the answer is no. However, there are still some potential lines of enquiry that may be capable of providing such evidence

 

[ddraig]

cheers

 

[DaveCinzano]

Despite a certain amount of backtracking by Peter Francis (a man threatened with prosecution for unauthorised disclosures, lest we forget), it's not exactly a clean bill of health.

Bob Lambert organised for an SDS spy (N81) within one of the groups campaigning on the Lawrence murder to meet with an ex-Special Branch officer on the MPS Review Team, acting DI Richard Walton.

• We find the opening of such a channel of communication at that time to have been ‘wrong- headed’ and inappropriate.
  
  
• The reality was that N81 was, at the time, an MPS spy in the Lawrence family camp during the course of judicial proceedings in which the family was the primary party in opposition to the MPS.

 

[DaveCinzano]

• The meeting was apparently sanctioned at a high level of SDS management. Mr Lambert has claimed that he was asked to arrange it by senior management within the SDS.We also note that the file note he made was sent to the Detective Chief Inspector acting at the time. From a later file note that he made in September 1998, it would also appear that Special Branch Operations Commander Colin Black was aware of the meeting.
  

 

[DaveCinzano]

It gets better:

On or around 14 September 1998, Commander Black (Special Branch) noted that he had decided to establish a “correspondence route” for Special Branch briefings to go to Detective Sergeant Barry McDowell at CO24 for DAC Grieve. Commander Black described this as “both tactical intelligence around the Lawrence Inquiry and broader work on race crime”.

NB Butter-wouldn't-melt John Grieve is also something of a pal of Bob Lambert's.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Curious...

The additional element of Mr Francis’ claim, as clarified to us, was that the tasking came primarily from his DCI, N86, who he alleges also exhibited apparent racism.This allegation has some degree of potential support from N78’s description of witnessing a possibly racially motivated incident involving N86. DCI N86 vehemently denies those allegations and we are unable to make any conclusive finding on the point.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Public enquiry announced by Home Sec.

Be interesting to see what the remit is.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Doreen Lawrence on the Met:

You just can't trust them

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-03-06/stephen-lawrence-corruption-inquiry-report/

Do you think the message is getting through finally? That no amount of spin, no number of teddy bear-faced cuddly coppers doing SRS FACE press conferences, and not yet more fresh coats of paint on the whole stinking, rotting barrel, is going to rehabilitate the Met's reputation?

That there is prima facie evidence that cohort after cohort of the Met's senior leadership has marched through the ranks and individually been involved in graft or noble cause corruption, or known about it and did nothing, or been prepared to cover it up once the pan was boiling over.

That there are no pairs of clean hands.

That there are no good apples.

That there are no boss cops who can be trusted.

 

[Pickman's model]

That there are no pairs of clean hands.

That there are no good apples.

That there are no boss cops who can be trusted.

corrected for you

 

[butchersapron]

The CPS just took the time to let everyone know this today:


CPS @cpsuk
Police and prosecutors can provide victims with support they need, as well as voluntary services

 

[ddraig]

will Doreen return her whatever thing she got from the state back in disgust and protest tho...

 

[butchersapron]

She can do what she wants and doesn't need you wagging your finger at her. FFS.

 

[laptop]

I expect she'll be raising the issue in the House of Lords, silly ddraig.

 

[ddraig]

She can do what she wants and doesn't need you wagging your finger at her. FFS.

really!? thanks boss

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Wonder how long before evidence of police spies targetting the Hillsborough families campaign (perhaps also including toxic News International smear complicity) leaks out ?

 

[DaveCinzano]

Wonder how long before evidence of police spies targetting the Hillsborough families campaign (perhaps also including toxic News International smear complicity) leaks out ?

Today we had this:

Hillsborough campaigners phone lines may have been channelled through a centralised “tapping unit”, a leading lawyer said yesterday.

Elkan Abrahamson has lodged a series of complaints with the police watchdog over the worrying claims.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) confirmed it has received three referrals about officers spying on campaigners following the tragedy that saw 96 Liverpool fans lose their lives.

Mr Abrahamson, of Broudie Jackson and Canter, said the firm has received strikingly similar accounts of family members picking up the phone to make a call, only to hear an ongoing conversation between other Hillsborough campaigners in a different part of the country.

He said: “We’ve had a few separate complaints of phone tapping.

“It involved a family member picking up the phone only to hear two other family members speaking elsewhere.”

He demanded that allegations of police officers spying on Hillsborough families was included in the public enquiry announced by Home Secretary Teresa May on Thursday after a report found Scotland Yard had spied on murder victim Stephen Lawrence’s family [...]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...borough-families-police-phone-bugging-6789509

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, the Echo has been very focused on this. You can just smell what's coming when you read their stuff ...

Edited to add: don't let me derail this though ...

 

[DaveCinzano]

Note - of course - the now ever-present reference to NCND:

The Metropolitan Police, and other forces, has refused to deny or confirm they took part in surveillance of Hillsborough families.

This was emphasised in Herne 1, which outlines the history of SDS and the ‘use of covert identities’; and again in Herne 2, which specifically looks into the claims of Peter Francis (and my, what a coincidence it was released - without any particular forewarning - on the same day that the Ellison Review was published!)...

In fact the most recent Herne report covers the topic in great detail, citing case law and everything:

This report has been necessarily abridged and will not breach the principle of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) and therefore will not confirm or deny if Peter Francis was an undercover police officer.

(p70)

Yet in Herne 1 there is no equivocation - he even gets a codename!

In a video interview provided to the Guardian by the former SDS Officer N43, he described how it was common practice to weave ones own memories into that of the child he had based his covert identity upon. N43 stated that he was unhappy about using a child’s details and he felt that he was stamping on their memory. N43’s legend was also typical of the backstopping created by the SDS officers at the time.

Significantly, N43 has claimed that he had no choice, either he used the identity or he would have had to have left the unit. It is absolutely clear that the use of identities of deceased children was an established practice that new officers were ‘taught’. It was what was expected of them, and was the means by which they could establish a cover identity before they were deployed. Whatever their views are now about this practice, this was not done by the officers in any underhand or salacious manner - it was what they were told to do.

(p10)