Cynical? moi?

[chickenfeet]

So the CPS has decided that no individual officers should be prosecuted over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes but the Met is to be prosecuted for Health and Safety violations. I'm not surprised that there aren't any individual prosecutions. It's damnably difficult to get a conviction against a police officer and the CPS was no doubt under considerable pressure not to prosecute. I'm very suspicious of the H&S charges though. What purpose do they serve? It seems pretty clear that the IPCC has concluded that the Met was massively incompetent and then that senior officers tried to cover up what happened. If the government isn't prepared to accept and act on the IPCC report then what is the point of having such a body?

So what purpose is served by an H&S prosecution? I submit that the purpose is to buy the government a year or two during which it will be impossible to release the full text of the IPCC report and therefore give the government an excuse not to act on it. After all suppose there is a trial and the Met gets convicted and fined. The taxpayer picks up the bill for the fine which then gets paid into the treasury anyway! We won't learn anything that we wouldn't have learned with the release of the IPCC report but the government will have won some more time for inaction. It's not like they've been rushing this thing. The CPS has already had the report for 6 months and Menezes has been dead for a year. You can bet if Menezes had killed a cop they wouldn't have taken a year to decide whether to bring charges. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. I foresee the usual official reaction when the Met is convicted two years from now. "Procedures have been changed to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate event and no useful purpose would be served by disciplinary action at this late stage."

It seems pretty clear that the government would rather save face than fire the callous, incompetent and malicious bastards responsible for a completely unnecessary killing.

Comments

[unblinkered.livejournal.com]

Health and Safety????? Whose????? *boggle*

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

It's an offence for an employer to conduct operations in a way that puts the general public at risk.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Which is completely bizarre in this instance. For the Police to conduct operations with a full view of health and safety would restrict their activities so much - no speeding cars, then; no chasing people down the street (though I am not sure they do that any more); we could go on.

I must say though that your cynicism is resplendent. It hadn't occurred to me, but having read your post, I am sure you are right.

It amazes me that they can't just say "we got it wrong". And will we ever know if they will get it right next time? Particular after the Forest Gate debacle. (But they apologised for that, didn't they?)

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

But they apologised for that, didn't they?

Not really. They apologised "for any hurt caused", which I think is more of a "I'm sorry you feel that way" than an "I regret my actions" apology.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Actually, I thought it was more of a "well, the PR guy says I have to sit here and say this so we don't have a riot" kind of apology.

It is interesting how quickly things get forgotten, really.

* conceives an invasion of Lebanon as a cover for Labour Party's difficulties *

Actually - and seriously - I was astounded that Tony Blair said in an interview yesterday that no one in the Labour Party had done anything wrong in the "cash for peerages" scandal - before the police have finished investigating.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I was astounded that Tony Blair said in an interview yesterday that no one in the Labour Party had done anything wrong in the "cash for peerages" scandal

I wasn't as he also said that there was nothing wrong with giving peerages to party donors as they were "working appointments" not "honours". Presumably the next Chief of the Defence Staff willl be appointed from among party funders too. Blair's been living in his little cocoon of sycophants so long that he has lost all touch with reality.

Labour's simulated outrage at the arrest of Levy does make an interesting contrast with their support for the police in almost every other circumstance but I think ultimately it's all of a piece. They really do believe that some pigs are more equal than others.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Levy dismissed his arrest as "theatrical" and "heavy handed" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5177768.stm

There was a short letter in the Independent in response to this which just said "Welcome to Blair's Britain, Lord Levy"!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think the best answer would be to hit Levy and Blair with an ASBO prohibiting them from meeting with anyone who had ever given money to the Labour Party. Should be easy enough to get them in the slammer after that.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Now, that is a really great idea!

[unblinkered.livejournal.com]

Doesn't make me boggle any less....who is the general public in this case: the bystanders in the tube station or Menezes himself? Or am I being waaaaay too literal about this? Gah!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think there are only two possible explanations:

1. The CPS felt the Met's performance was so egregious that some charges had to be laid but lacked the balls to bring serious charges.

2. It's, as I suggested, a delaying tactic aimed at winning time for the Met and the government.

I suspect the latter.

The "sensibleness" of the charges are irrelevant.