The usual Sunday press attack on the police can be found in this weeks Sunday’s Observer.
This one starts with a bizarre look at a traffic officers uniform, then acknowledges the courtesy and professionalism of two traffic officers who had the author’s untaxed vehicle impounded.
This is followed by a comment on legal aid costs for Strathclyde police and then runs through the usual list of failings irrespective of whether they are proven or not before ending with a question regarding Freemasons?
Plebgate is in there along with Hillsborough and Orgreave all issues that have yet to be decided, along with The Birmingham six and the Guildford four both of which are clearly thrown in to remind readers of past events and to link them with more current issues – creating that connection in the readers mind. Leveson also merits a mention asking whether Rebekah Brookes was running New Scotland Yard?
Hillsborough is now subject of an IPCC investigation and the truth of what the police did or did not do will emerge and so it should; if the senior police officers on the day made decisions that led to the loss of so many lives and then covered them up they deserve to be exposed and dealt with.
Orgreave is also subject to an IPCC investigation and so again the truth regarding police actions will emerge from that.
The commissioner has started a full investigation into Plebgate which now includes the interviewing of 800 police officers. What separates Plebgate is the fact that it is much more immediate and Andrew Mitchell’s recent video release has already been subject to a review by SKWALKER which asks some pertinent questions which are not even mentioned by Kevin Mckenna in his Observer article
Going back to the article it is somewhat strange that it is not open to comments – apparently for legal reasons – in effect giving Kevin McKenna and the Observer a free go at the Police.
It is a predictable and quite boring article which in my opinion adds nothing to the debate and is at least a week late. If comments were allowed then I could have said this there but they are not so I am saying it here.