None of this changes the fact that the police actively conspired to fabricate evidence in order to discredit a serving cabinet minister, leaked the official logbook to the press, openly lied about subsequent meetings with him etc. It isn't even proven that he did use those words, it's just a 'balance of probabilities' judgement which means that he hasn't proven his case to a sufficient standard to support a libel verdict. The fact remains that this is a deeply disturbing incident which says a lot about the degree of impunity with which the Metropolitan Police felt they could act.

Technology may have an answer for policing the police and eliminating false reports. Body camera recording devices.

If all police know they are being watched at all times, the way they conduct themselves will improve.
If all citizens know that they are being recorded in their interactions, they too will improve their behavior.

For all the money being spent on stuff like armored cars, and riot gear, an investment in body cameras seems to me to be the best way to encourage more civil behavior and greater accountability.

Sassenach wrote:None of this changes the fact that the police actively conspired to fabricate evidence in order to discredit a serving cabinet minister, leaked the official logbook to the press, openly lied about subsequent meetings with him etc.

No, it doesn't, and I said as much.

It isn't even proven that he did use those words, it's just a 'balance of probabilities' judgement which means that he hasn't proven his case to a sufficient standard to support a libel verdict. The fact remains that this is a deeply disturbing incident which says a lot about the degree of impunity with which the Metropolitan Police felt they could act.

By the standards of the law applied, I'm afraid it was 'proven'. Not only was Mitchell's claim for libel against the Sun lost as you say above, but Rowland's counter case for libel against Mitchell was won. This means that Rowland's case was proven to the standard, and as that was against Mitchell saying that Rowland was lying about what Mitchell said.

When a judge says "I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb." and finds against Mitchell on both counts, then the only route to clear him is to appeal the verdict. I suppose he could, but I think it's an even more risky path for him

Yes, members of the police acted in an outrageous manner. One was imprisoned, others were sacked. The Fed reps are a bit different because they may now be able to argue that they didn't mislead as much now that we have a legal outcome that casts doubt on Mitchell's honesty, and there is also a suggestion that there's a witch-hunt there as they've gone through multiple investigations. But they did admit they mislead on the nature of the discussion.

Also, I want to be clear on what you are saying here: Is it an accusation that the Met Police as a body is to blame, or that certain police officers are?

(the three Fed reps are from other forces, West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire, but they reflect more on the Fed than their forces, surely?)

But the core fact is that Mitchell has been found to have said those words. Had he not kept doggedly pursuing it, he would probably be in a better position today (and not just financially).

rickyp wrote:Technology may have an answer for policing the police and eliminating false reports. Body camera recording devices.

If all police know they are being watched at all times, the way they conduct themselves will improve.
If all citizens know that they are being recorded in their interactions, they too will improve their behavior.

For all the money being spent on stuff like armored cars, and riot gear, an investment in body cameras seems to me to be the best way to encourage more civil behavior and greater accountability.

I do agree. One of the problems I have seen with the police is that they have hidden their id numbers and refused to identify themselves when at major public order events, so making it harder to hold them account for any transgressions.

It may not be the only answer (and I can see a case that it can be a problem for officers - if they observe a crime in progress, there would be extra incentive for a criminal to attack the officer and remove/destroy the evidence), but broadly making sure that the police are more consistently accountable for their actions would be a step forward. A shame in this case that in reality the policeman who ended up in a libel trial was not at fault, and it was the politician and other police officers who between them made it a massive deal.

Also, I want to be clear on what you are saying here: Is it an accusation that the Met Police as a body is to blame, or that certain police officers are?

What I'm saying is that the fact that certain police officers felt comfortable in behaving this way in such a high-profile case implies a culture of impunity in the Met Police where they feel they can get away with anything. It makes you wonder what else they've been lying about in cases where the victims didn't have friends in the very highest of places. Yes, they got caught in the end, but why would they take the risk in the first place if they weren't confident that they wouldn't be brought to account ? This is the most worrying aspect of this case, although I could hardly say it's surprising given the number of people who have been killed by the Met in recent years without any coppers being successfully prosecuted for it.

rickyp

Technology may have an answer for policing the police and eliminating false reports. Body camera recording devices.

If all police know they are being watched at all times, the way they conduct themselves will improve.
If all citizens know that they are being recorded in their interactions, they too will improve their behavior.

For all the money being spent on stuff like armored cars, and riot gear, an investment in body cameras seems to me to be the best way to encourage more civil behavior and greater accountability

.

On the other hand, when a grand jury has video evidence like they do with Eric Garner, and fail to indict (forget convict) then maybe body cameras won't be that much of an improvement.
This guys makes the case that body cameras won't have the effect I think they might. Laws and process have to change...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/postevery ... /?hpid=z10

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6271660

A series of reports on city PDs in the States are finding common problems.

Remember the guy who pepper sprayed all those kids protesting tuition increases in California at UC-Davis? He got fired (I know, shocking, right?) and cost the University a million dollar settlement, but he's also getting 38K in workman's comp due to work related stress!

http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/pike-uc-reach-38059-workers-comp-agreement/

You just can't make this stuff up.

"You make officer baby mad!" Bwah hahahahah!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/05/1355204/-Cartoon-Protect-and-serve?detail=hide

A little more seriously, the NYT had pretty good editorial today on what's going on with the police in the City, which has been getting an enormous amount of attention locally. Yes, they are acting like babies, and yes, it's easy, and maybe even fun, to mock them, but there are bigger issues here.

Call this what it is: a reckless, coordinated escalation of a war between the police unions and Mr. de Blasio and a hijacking of law-enforcement policy by those who do not set law-enforcement policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/opinion/no-justice-no-police.html

There's a reason we don't let cops make law enforcement policy:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/nypd-officer-hurt-while-messing-with-squad-car.html

OK, sorry. While that is Darwin award worthy, it is unfair and unkind. But, still, there is a real reason that cops don't make law enforcement policy: it is the first step toward a police state, and is by definition, un-American. Hate the politicians as much as you want, but they're our politicians, and they make our laws. Cops work for them, not the other way around.

The start of this thread was a story about how cops were protesting a crack down on fixing tickets for friends and family. They were marching saying, "It's a courtesy not a crime." Well, no, it turns out it's a crime. But this complete ignorance is symptomatic of a larger, "we're special and the rules don't apply to us" attitude among our current force.

I spend a lot of time in East Harlem and there is a police station on Park Avenue and private cars were always parked in the crosswalk in the area around the station. All day and all night long. Here's a picture I took (click on it to see the full image):

These are all private cars, but with materials inside the windshield that identify them as belonging to cops. Sure, parking in NYC is tough, but that viaduct is Metro North Railroad, and there's a station 5 short blocks up the street and a subway stop a few blocks away in the other direction. It's not like there isn't another choice, and if they're in uniform, cops ride transit for FREE. Any normal person would take the subway or train! But if laws don't apply to cops, cops make up their own rules, and that's a serious, serious problem.

There is a long history of corruption in the City police force, which has largely been stamped out over the past 20 years; a citizen can no longer get out of a traffic ticket by handing a $20 to the officer along with his license. But the idea that those that enforce the law are themselves above the law, or at least the minor laws, is still alive and strong. The Mayor and his commissioner need to stamp this insubordination out right now. Clean house in a brutal way, a way that leaves absolutely no doubt who's in charge.