Why we'll never get the truth...

[sparks]

You'd have thought that an 'incident' that may have had a good deal to do with sparking off the riots that has led to thousands of arrests, draconian sentences and widescale damage would be adequately investigated wouldn't you?

 

After all, surely it is in the interests of everybody to show openess in order to prevent a re-run next time a similar 'incident' happens?

 

Well it appears that some seem bent on another collision course!

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17843690

 

The police watchdog for England and Wales is calling for new powers to make officers attend interviews if they witness a fatal shooting by colleagues.

 

The demand comes as the Independent Police Complaints Commission revealed that it had not been able to interview any of the 31 officers present at the shooting of Mark Duggan last August.....

 

"The best way to get evidence immediately after an incident is to carry out an interview. If they are not willing to do that, and by and large their lawyers advise against it, we'll get the statements, but not the interview.

 

"It's not to jump in and criminalise officers who may not have done anything wrong, but if officers need to be held to account, we need to have a way of doing so."

 

And why is this not happening?

 

After all, we have to give interviews on threat of arrest, don't we?

 

The Police Federation has previously stated it would only allow officers to be interviewed if it had categorical assurances that officers were being interviewed as witnesses and not suspects.

 

Of course we'll get to hear how the guy was killed, won't we?

 

The IPCC says its inquiry into the shooting of Mr Duggan will not be completed until autumn of this year. The findings will not be published until the inquest into Mr Duggan's death has taken place.

 

Despite it's obvious flaws, that's reasonable isn't it?

 

Last month, the north-west London coroner Andrew Walker announced that the inquest would not take place until January next year at the earliest - and he told the Duggan family there was a chance it might not take place at all.

 

This is because of evidence which the IPCC may have but cannot show the coroner - if it did, it would break the law, and it cannot even say which law it would be breaking.

 

So why the confusion?

 

There has been widespread speculation that this material is phone intercept evidence. This is covered by section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

 

Matthew Ryder QC, a barrister specialising in surveillance issues, said the law covering phone tapping was very restrictive.

 

"No-one is permitted to know the existence of an intercept and no-one is allowed to use evidence from an intercept and no one is allowed to know the content of an intercept," he told The Report.

 

"The only people allowed to know are a prosecutor or potentially a judge."

 

So by putting out mere speculation, a proper investigation is prevented...

 

Nice to live in a 'democracy', not a police state isn't it!

 

(I bet 'the 31' are p*ssing themselves laughing at how they can act with impunity!)