In some jobs you can get sacked for losing a USB stick with a couple of spreadsheets. In other lines of work you get promoted for supervising the summary execution of a random, slightly dark skinned tube traveller. If you pull the trigger and meet later with your mates to give an account of the incident at variance from the evidence of every other witness you get a bit of gardening leave on full pay and return to work without a stain on your reputation. With the generous pension arrangements, good starting salary and opportunities for lots of overtime it’s not surprising that a lot of people find police work an interesting and rewarding career.
Another bonus is that when you do blow the head off someone you can rest safe in the knowledge that the state will circle the wagons to protect you. Sir Michael Wright who presided over the inquest into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Metropolitan Police prevented the jury from reaching the verdict of unlawful killing. When the de Menezes family rightly withdrew their cooperation from the planned farce Wright agreed with the killers’ lawyers that news of this be kept secret. The jury returned the only verdict available to them that would show their censure of the killer cops. They supplemented the open verdict with a series of responses to questions which indicated their scepticism about the police version of events.
Cressida Dick who had supervised the execution told the inquest: “If you ask me whether I think anybody did anything wrong or unreasonable on the operation, I don’t think they did.”
In living memory Ken Livingstone would probably have held the opinion that a police execution and officers presenting evidence contradicted by everyone else might have been a bit more than wrong or unreasonable. Not anymore. According to the Daily Telegraph he “hailed Ms Dick as a “potential” Metropolitan Police Commissioner and added that she was one of the “most talented” officers he had worked with.” If that is talent what does incompetence look like? Three, four or five innocent dead people?
Livingstone’s remarks were made in an interview to BBC radio the morning after the verdict. His mission at the moment seems to be to defend the reputation of Ian Blair, former top London cop and if that means helping killers get off the hook without even a loss of pay he’s up for it.
The estimable Gareth Pierce offers a much more realistic judgement. In her comments on the BBC quoted in the Telegraph she says: “Ms Dick was responsible for 25 “serious and catastrophic” failures which contributed to the killing.
She dismissed Mr Livingstone’s claim that little more was known about the incident as a result of the inquest and said the restrictions on the verdicts which the jury was permitted to consider were “extraordinary”.
“Left to their own devices to write their own verdict, I’m quite sure the jury would have said ‘The police killed him, every person who had a role in it played their part and these are the areas where we think there was gross negligence or worse’.”
An inevitable compromise of getting elected as mayor of a city is that you have to work closely with the police and take some responsibility for policing policy. That’s one thing. Another thing completely is to leap to the defence of a group of people who have reasserted the state’s right to kill and cover up. That’s what Ken Livingstone has done.
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to charliemarks Cancel reply