"A spokesman for the Met said the force disagreed with the findings and
added: Whilst there is little doubt the meeting on August 14th 1998 took
place, there is little or no evidence to suggest that either of the
former officer's intentions in attending or arranging the meeting was in
anyway improper or that any of the information passed to, the then,
Acting Inspector Walton was used, or could have been used, to supplement
the Met's submissions to the Macpherson Inquiry or indeed that any
information relating specifically to the Lawrences or their campaign was
exchanged."
The quote above from the Metropolitan Police is in response to a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission regarding police conduct during the investigation into the inquiry in 1998 into the murder of Stephen Lawrence five years previously.
It is IMHO deeply disturbing when presumably with authority from the highest level the country`s largest police force controlled directly by the government, insofar as the Home Secretary is overseer, directly rubbishes an independent report compiled by what is supposed to be the public`s safeguard against unlawful or mis-conduct by increasingly voracious police activity. Something is far wrong. Either the Met is out of control or the IPCC is yet another quango unfit for purpose. But this is not a zero sum game. Perhaps both organisations need to be taken to the cleaners.
Just as disturbing is that Walton was allowed to resign in January, before the IPCC report was made public, thereby avoiding misconduct proceedings, The Times reported today. How many times have we heard this - a police officer avoiding proceedings and possible prosecution by retiring early? It amounts to falling on your sword without hurting yourself.
ReplyDeleteIf our guardians of the peace can ghet away with it, why shouldn't a career criminal 'resign from his' job to avoid prosecution for his latest heist?