On August 4 last year, unarmed Mark Duggan was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in North London. To date, no one has been charged with any offence.
If by chance you have never heard the acronym IPCC, it stands for Imbecilic Police Complaints Commission. Don't let anyone kid you the I actually stands for Independent. On April 26, the IPCC issued this statement which criticises the BBC for broadcasting a film that could potentially prejudice the investigation, which is of considerable public interest. The public interest bit is understandable, but what investigation is this, exactly?
We know the following:
Mark Duggan was in the back of a mini cab when specialist armed police from Operation Trident descended on him, and within seconds he was shot dead.
We were led to believe initially that there had been an exchange of fire.
Then we were told there was no exchange of fire, but that Duggan had been armed.
Then we were told he was not armed.
Conclusion: a police officer shot and killed an unarmed man.
As only two shots were discharged, the identity of that officer is known to the IPCC - and should as a matter of public interest, public policy and not least of public safety, be known to us.
What is this officer doing now?
Has he been suspended - on full pay as usual?
Is he still at work?
Is he still carrying a firearm as part of his duties?
It is bad enough that none of these questions appears to have been answered, it is intolerable that it appears also that no inquest is to be held as things stand, and that there were no less than 31 police officers present at the scene, and not one of them has been questioned by the IPCC.
This begs the question, what has the IPCC been doing, how can it claim to have been investigating anything when it has not questioned any of the most important relevant witnesses?
Last month it was revealed that no less than 18 Metropolitan Police officers and one civilian staffer were being investigated over charges of - bore, bore - racism. In practice, this means, for the most part, name calling. How can they investigate officers for calling black men names yet not investigate them for killing one? So what is the solution?
Obviously the system has to be changed, in the future, but what can and should be done now?
Clearly a man has been killed, we must assume, unlawfully. There are 30 witnesses and a perpetrator involved. If these 30 witnesses refuse to give honest witness statements, then clearly they are committing the offence of perverting the course of justice, and probably misfeasance in public office, because it is a criminal offence to withhold information about a serious crime from the police without an extremely good reason. Protecting a brother officer (or brother Freemason) does not qualify as an extremely good reason.
All these men should be arrested, in fact they should have been arrested months ago.
Failing that, they should each and every one of them be dismissed from the police forthwith and with no pension rights. Will this happen? Later today, we will have a new London Mayor. If the Metropolitan Police don't make it happen, then he should.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com