IPCC tries to muzzle bad news.

[expat]

The Guardian reports that the Independent Police Complaints Commission's first action on seeing the Guardian's video footage of the policeman attackig the non-demonstrator who died was to go round to the Guardian offices (accompanied by a City of London policeman) and ask for it to be taken off the website.

Some "independence".

[AtW]

Some "independence".

I can see some good sense in this action - once they were made aware of such incident they should have asked police officer who did it to come forward on his, this is a very good test for them to see if police officer does so on his own without knowing there is video evidence.

[expat]

I can see some good sense in this action - once they were made aware of such incident they should have asked police officer who did it to come forward on his, this is a very good test for them to see if police officer does so on his own without knowing there is video evidence.

I'm guessing here but somehow I don't think that's what they had in mind!

[Sockpuppet]

Well what's the point.

Everyone seems to think that copper is guilty without a trial so how about we just flog him on the spot now.

[sasguru]

Under what law was it possible to demand that?

[expat]

Well what's the point.

Everyone seems to think that copper is guilty without a trial so how about we just flog him on the spot now.

How about we actually investigate fairly and seek knowledge, understanding, and justice? Difficult I know.

[AtW]

I'm guessing here but somehow I don't think that's what they had in mind!

So you think IPCC would go like this to a newspaper known to be against establishment and demand to supress evidence just like that? IPCC might be toothless to take real action, but they are certainly ain't that stupid.

It's a crowd situation FFS, there are always witnesses, London is covered with CCTV and plenty of cameras were there - it was obvious that it was matter of time for such evidence to come forward, however for investigative purposes it would be better if the accused had a dillemma when they would not know exactly what the investigation have on them (until trial starts).

[AtW]

How about we actually investigate fairly and seek knowledge, understanding, and justice? Difficult I know.

There are rules for that - posting single item of evidence outside of context should not happen until the accused and his lawyers get a chance to review it and then go to trial.

The only excuse for publishing is when it's in public interest. In this case it seems that investigation was already under way so publishing this video would only make it harder for justice to be served.

[expat]

Under what law was it possible to demand that?

I don't know. Presumably the IPCC didn't quote a law, just asked them to comply. If they needed a law, there is probably lots of good stuff in one or more of the 4 Terrorism Acts enacted in the UK in the last 10 years. S.76 of the Counter-terrorism Act 2008 would certainly suffice. That's the one that makes it a terrorism offence to photograph police constables.

[AtW]

I don't know.

When you investigate something that is likely to lead to criminal charges you don't want evidence to be published willy nilly until proper time - in court.

Video evidence is the worst - it would make jury selection harder, you don't want such things to be published as it would give defence lawyers extra ammunition.

Isn't that obvious?