Dumb animal... CO19 pose for the cameras.

An image that's splashed all over the UK media. A CO19 cop taking part in a major operation that did nothing at all to end some farty little tantrum by some mid-life crisis candidate who failed his driving test.

The media helpfully points out this bobby is wearing a balaclava to hide his identity to protect him on undercover work. Clever lad obviously, I mean, its not like he is doing it just to look hard and pose for the telly or anything is it? But wait a minute... so why's he just wearing a t-shirt under his Batman utility kit? A t-shirt that shows off his very distinctively recognisable tattoos on his left arm... oops.

Incidentally, some saying these guys were SAS badged as cops. Maybe. But really, does it matter? A tooled-up prick with a gun, no legal accountability and a mandate to kill is still a tooled-up prick with a gun, no legal accountability and a mandate to kill whether he is SAS or CO19.

MORE VICTORIES AGAINST POLICE OPPRESSION FOR GLASGOW ACTIVISTS

MORE VICTORIES AGAINST POLICE OPPRESSION FOR GLASGOW ACTIVISTS

SOURCE: Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 225 February/March 2012

‘The law is simply and solely made for the exploitation of those who do not understand it or of those who, for naked need, cannot obey it.’ Bertolt Brecht

The last two months have again seen significant victories in Glasgow in the fight against police repression, vindicating the relentless political campaigning led by Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! members and the Glasgow Defence Campaign.

After a full year of protests and court pickets, on 12 December 2011 FRFI supporter Joey Simons was finally acquitted on all five charges issued against him following his arrest on a demonstration against student fees on 9 December 2010. Supporters packed the District Court over the four days of the trial as the shameless lies of five Strathclyde police officers were systematically exposed. The defence’s case was political throughout, underlining the consistent record of police harassment in the lead-up to the arrest.

Speaking outside the court, a GDC representative stated that the victory was ‘a significant setback for the attempts to criminalise political protest being led by the Crown Office and Strathclyde police. Throughout the past year we have stood firm inside and outside these court rooms in order to assert the right to protest and organise in the face of the cuts and attacks on the working class. The criminals in this case are all those officers who chose to perjure themselves – and yet none will face consequences for doing so. We would ask what type of justice system is this when such abuses of law go unpunished?’

The following day, the case against four activists from Unity – a group in solidarity with asylum seekers – was suddenly dropped by the Procurator Fiscal on their arrival at the Sheriff Court. The activists had been arrested after blockading the gates of the UK Border Agency reporting centre in Glasgow during a protest over the dawn raid and detention of single mother, Funke, and her five-year-old son Joseph. This was another important victory.

The most significant development involves the ongoing trial of another FRFI member, Dominic O’Hara, relating to his arrest in January 2010 at an anti-cuts demo. For the first time in Scotland, the use of kettling tactics by police is being challenged and a legal debate will take place on 1 March after Dominic’s defence asserted that his human rights had been breached on the day of his arrest. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland will be forced out of the shadows to justify its aggressive tactics.

The importance of waging a political defence is clear: between August 2010 and April 2011, 14 charges were issued against members of FRFI in Glasgow. So far, 12 of these have been fought and won, the single guilty verdict resulted in no sentence and the final charge has now embroiled the Crown Office and Strathclyde police in a major legal challenge.

No to political policing!

Joey Simons

‘Despite these verdicts, today is not a cause for celebration...How can I celebrate when I know that this day could have come 18 years ago if the police who were meant to find my son’s killers had not failed so miserably to do so...The fact is that racism and racist attacks are still happening in this country and the police should not use my son’s name to say that we can move on.’ Doreen Lawrence

On 3 January 2012, two white men were convicted of the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in southeast London nearly 19 years ago. The convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris are, however, only a partial victory for all those, most notably Stephen’s parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, who campaigned so long for justice for their son. In doing so, they exposed entrenched police racism, culminating in the McPherson Report of 1999. Given the complete shambles of the original police investigation, marred from the very start by racist prejudice, corruption and sheer incompetence, it is extraordinary that there have been any convictions at all; the jailing of two of Stephen’s killers was made possible only by forensic advances since 1993 which allowed microscopic samples of blood, hair and fibres to link the two men to the scene of the crime and a 2003 change to the law that allowed Dobson, in the light of this new ‘compelling’ evidence, to be prosecuted again, having been cleared of the murder in 1996.

Racism and incompetence

But there is little cause for celebration. At least three other men involved in Stephen’s murder – James and Neil Acourt and Luke Knight, whose vicious racist fantasies were revealed on undercover video in 1994 – still walk free. That travesty is a direct result of the original, botched police investigation. From the moment police left Stephen lying in a pool of blood at an Eltham bus stop without attempting resuscitation – they were too busy asking his traumatised friend Duwayne Brooks if he and Stephen had provoked the attack – they had little interest in finding the suspects. Within 48 hours, nine different sources, including two police informants, had named five white suspects, a local gang of well-known racists with a record of violence. Four had been seen the night of the murder washing blood off themselves. A surveillance team failed to record the removal of bags potentially containing evidence from the suspects’ homes. Meanwhile, the police treated the Lawrence family as if it was they who were under suspicion. No arrests were made for two weeks until the Lawrences met Nelson Mandela on 6 May and he stated that, as in apartheid South Africa, ‘black lives are cheap’. By then it was too late. By July, the CPS had decided that there was not enough evidence to charge any of the men. An internal police inquiry in December 1993 concluded that the ‘investigation has been progressed satisfactorily and all lines of inquiry correctly pursued’.

But the campaign for justice, led by Stephen’s parents, had tremendous resonance, and over the years anger was growing that no-one had been convicted. At the inquest into his death in 1997 jurors took the unusual step of concluding that the black teenager was unlawfully killed ‘in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths’. That verdict emboldened the Daily Mail, of all papers, to publish the following day its iconic ‘Murderers!’ front page, naming the five suspects with the challenge: ‘If we are wrong, let them sue us’. Within months, the McPherson Inquiry into the failures surrounding the investigation into Stephen’s death was set up. At its first sessions in Elephant & Castle, south London in 1998, Doreen Lawrence stated that ‘no black person should ever trust the police’ – a point borne out when the Met used CS spray against the massive crowd of mainly black people who had thronged to the hearing. Over a year of investigation that included travelling around the country to ask people about their experience of the police, the Inquiry team concluded not only that the original police investigation had been deeply flawed, but that the police, as well as other areas such as housing and education, were deeply riven by ‘institutional racism’. The Inquiry made 70 recommendations for change.

But nothing changed

Nearly 13 years on, following the Dobson and Norris convictions, the police and government commented smugly that ‘institutional racism’ had been rooted out. But the anger that exploded on the streets of England in August 2011 gives the lie to their complacency. Young people cited police harassment and racism, and particularly the use of stop-and-search, as the main fuse for their frustration. In 1999-2000, a black person was five times more likely to be stopped than a white person; now the figure is seven times, and black people are four times more likely to have their DNA stored on the police database. Alongside this has gone a massive stepping up of harassment of Asian communities since 2001, under the guise of ‘fighting terrorism’. 300 black people have died in police custody since 2000 – no police officer has ever faced any charges for these deaths. Around 96 racist murders have taken place since that of Stephen Lawrence; in at least 15 unsolved cases, family and friends blame police racism and indifference. These include the cases of Surjit Singh Chhokkar, stabbed to death in Scotland in 1998; Kamal Raza Butt, racially abused and called ‘Taliban’ before being beaten to death by a gang of youths in July 2005, and Lahkvinder ‘Ricky’ Reel, whose body was found in the Thames after he was racially abused in 1997.

The legacy of the Stephen Lawrence case must be, not McPherson’s well-meaning findings, but the lesson of Stephen Lawrence’s family that the only way to oppose and expose police racism is to organise, to fight back and to never give up.

Cat Wiener

See also: ‘Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: police racism exposed’, FRFI 143, June/July 1998;

‘The murder of Stephen Lawrence: a stinking shambles of police racism and corruption’, FRFI 144 August/September 1998

‘Ten years after McPherson: British police racist as ever and with more power’, FRFI 208, April/May 2009.

LESSONS FROM THE OCCUPIED 6-COUNTIES AS BRIT STATE PREPARES FOR CLASS WAR ON POOR

Lessons from the north of Ireland as British state prepares for class war 

SOURCE: Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 225 February/March 2012

On 20 December 2011 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) published a report entitled The rules of engagement, which argues that serious consideration should be given to the use of plastic bullets and water cannon and, where necessary, lethal force. The British state is preparing for class war and social unrest and, in doing so, will be relying on its experience in suppressing opposition to its rule in Ireland.

The report was commissioned by the Home Secretary following the August uprisings in English cities. It recommends the establishment of a national framework for resolving public disorder, with new rules of engagement supported by ever more sophisticated communication after fatal or controversial incidents, backed up by an ‘all source hub’ intelligence gathering with a greater emphasis on ‘advanced software analysis’ and social media monitoring. The report also states that: ‘in extreme circumstances, where life is threatened, their commanders must also be able to use extraordinary measures’.

Sir Denis O’Connor, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary states: ‘if we don’t raise some of these awkward issues, then we are not giving people the chance to prepare for a future where we’re slightly more assured as to what will happen. Some new rules of engagement are necessary so the police can protect the public in confidence.’ These new rules of engagement will be dependent upon the balance of political forces at the given time; critical to this will be the role of the media and the need to control public opinion.

Anyone who for a minute considers that plastic bullets are not lethal weapons should look at the history of their use in the occupied north of Ireland. In 1970, when rubber bullets were first introduced by the British Army in Ireland, they were presented as not only harmless but humorous. The Guardian’s Simon Winchester described the ‘charming press officer’ of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, showing off the ‘soft and squidgy things’. Winchester reported how oneObserver journalist was overheard saying ‘firing bullets made with rubber. Soon they’ll be lobbing grenades full of confetti, and guns that fire rose petals. You can’t take this sort of thing seriously at all.’1 Within three years rubber bullets had killed three people, including an 11-year-old boy, Francis Rowntree, and had caused countless injuries, including blinding. These deaths and injuries were said to be down to the unreliability of rubber bullets, which from 1973 to 1976 were then phased out in favour of the ‘safer alternative’ – the plastic bullet. These deadly weapons would go on to kill a further 14 people, including nine children; hundreds more people have been injured.

Clara Reilly of Relatives for Justice in Belfast stated: ‘What the British government did was keep coming up with all these schemes to try to cow the nationalist community into submission, and plastic bullets were used as a political control mechanism. Seven people were killed by plastic bullets during the hunger strike of 1981. Something like 60,000 bullets were fired over a few months.’2

As the struggle for political status escalated to hunger strikes which would lead to the deaths of ten men in Long Kesh prison, the level of terror on the streets intensified as the British army and police went on the rampage. On 13 May 1981 14-year-old Julie Livingston died after being shot in the head with a plastic bullet in the Stewartstown Road area of West Belfast. The bullet was fired by the British army from a distance of seven yards. They claimed that there was a riot going on following the death that day of IRA hunger striker Francis Hughes. This was not true and at her inquest the jury agreed that Julie had been an ‘innocent victim’.

A few days later, on 19 May, 11-year-old Carol Ann Kelly was shot by a plastic bullet fired from a distance of less than ten yards from a British Army land rover, as she was returning home with a carton of milk in Twinbrook, West Belfast. Again, the army press office claimed that there was rioting in the area as hunger strikers Raymond McCreesh (IRA) and Patsy O’Hara (INLA) had died that day. This lie outraged nationalist Ireland. Carol Ann Kelly died on 22 May 1981. The same day in Derry Harry Duffy died after being shot in the head by a plastic bullet by the British army, who yet again claimed that there had been a riot in the area at the time.

On 31 July 1981, as the hunger strike continued, Peter Doherty died, having been struck a week earlier by a plastic bullet as he stood in his kitchen in the Divis Flats area of West Belfast. On 9 August Peter McGuinness was hit in the chest with a plastic bullet on the Shore Road area of Belfast and died of his injuries. There was no riot in either area. Lily Fitzsimons, a founder of the Relatives Action Committees and leading campaigner for the fight for political status has stated: ‘We knew an enormous amount of support existed within the community, but many people were afraid to come out on to the streets because of the terror which was being inflicted on the community by the army and the RUC.’3

That the British police should raise the spectre of plastic bullets and water cannon, and the sanctioning of lethal force in such a way, gives us an indication of the current debate among the ruling class and how it intends to deal with the crisis. Preparation and plans are already underway and police forces across Britain are being systematically trained in public order control. The new movement in Britain must understand and learn from the experiences of the nationalist population of the north of Ireland at the hands of the British state, if serious effective opposition is to emerge.

Paul Mallon

1          Simon Winchester, In Holy Terror, Faber 1974, p88.

2          Interview with author, Belfast, 24 November 2006.

3          Interview with author, Belfast, 11 December 2006.

BRIT POLICE KILL WITH IMPUNITY: ‘INQUESTS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS UNACCEPTABLE’

The News Line: Feature http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/7424Thursday, 5 April 2012‘INQUESTS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS UNACCEPTABLE’

Family and supporters of Azelle Rodney protest outside the offices of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in December 2005.

Human rights organisations said yesterday that legislation enabling inquests into those who have died in police custody or been killed at the hands of the police to happen behind closed doors is unacceptable.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) yesterday published the report of its inquiry into the Justice and Security Green Paper in which it states that ‘it does not accept that the Government has made out the case for extending closed material procedures (CMP’s) to inquests’.


The Justice and Security Green Paper, if it became law would mean that Inquests into cases where people had died at the hands of the police would happen with out even the family of those who had been killed being present.

Human Rights organisation Inquest supported the JCHR report stating: ‘The report roundly rejects the government’s proposals to introduce closed procedures at inquests, which would mean families and their legal representatives being prevented from hearing or challenging evidence concerning how their relative died.

Inquests said that the JCHR were clear that:

‘ • The Government has not adduced ‘any evidence’ to demonstrate the need for change, let alone sufficient evidence to justify the need for such fundamental changes as are proposed.

‘ • There are ‘serious doubts’ as to whether using CMPs in inquests could ever be compatible with Article 2’.

(Article Two of the Human Rights Act 1998 is entitled ‘Right to life’. It says: ‘Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.)

‘ • Coroners have been resourceful and pragmatic in addressing issues of sensitivity short of holding a CMP.

‘ • There is scope to produce greater consistency of practice between different inquests.

‘ • Reform of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) is needed.

Inquest continues: ‘Throughout the report the Committee agrees with INQUEST and the INQUEST Lawyers Group evidence and concludes the section on inquests by stating:

‘ “We endorse the suggestions made to us by INQUEST and the INQUEST Lawyers Group as measures falling short of the introduction of closed material procedures into inquests which would address some of the Government’s concerns in the Green Paper”.

Helen Shaw, co-director of INQUEST said: ‘It is abundantly clear that there is no need for such sweeping changes to the law.

‘The fact that the government was unable to produce a shred of evidence to support these proposals is testament to that.

‘The Committee has recognised that current practice at inquests adequately serves the public interest for transparency and scrutiny of contentious deaths whilst also protecting the interests of national security.

‘We also welcome their endorsement of our suggested approach to improving national guidance to coroners presiding over these complex inquests.

‘The remaining anomaly in relation to intercept evidence can be resolved by government taking this opportunity to amend RIPA as we suggested in our evidence and was noted by the Committee.

‘This same suggestion was made both by the Metropolitan Police Service in their response to the Green Paper consultation and also last week by the IPCC in response to the furore about the Mark Duggan inquest.

‘The Committee has clearly stated that the government’s proposals for greater secrecy are not necessary.

‘Over and above everything else, it is vital that a bereaved family is able to understand fully why their relative died.’

In Inquest and Inquest Lawyers Group’s submission into the Justice and Security Green Paper they refer to the case of Azelle Rodney, gunned down by the police in 2005.

They state: ‘Mr Rodney’s killing by the Metropolitan Police Service in April 2005 is the first police shooting case which is unlikely to ever be examined at an inquest.

‘In August 2007, Andrew Walker, Deputy Coroner for the Northern District of Greater London was told that he would not be able to see all the material in this case and that the family were also prevented from seeing it.

‘The coroner was told by those acting for the Commissioner (and who had of course seen the closed material) that the fact that the obligation to disclose all core documents could not be complied with.

‘He also said that witnesses could not be openly questioned about certain core documents meant that it was ‘plain and obvious’ that for an inquest to proceed would be ‘unfair’ and would fail to discharge the requirements of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘Instead, Sir Christopher Holland has been invited by the Lord Chancellor to conduct a public inquiry which is taking place in a new framework, pursuant to the (not yet in force) provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that enables ministers to suspend an inquest in favour of an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.’

Inquest and Inquest Lawyers Group’s submission continues: ‘The terms of reference of the inquiry are to inquire “how, where and in what circumstances Azelle Rodney came by his death on 30th April 2005” and to “make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate.”

‘The Azelle Rodney Inquiry (ARI) was formally opened on 6 October 2010.

‘During the opening of the Inquiry counsel for the Home Office, James Eadie QC, stated that the Azelle Rodney Inquiry had been set up under the Inquiries Act 2005 so that it could receive all relevant material where an inquest could not.

‘What this statement omits of course is that while the inquiry team can see sensitive material which a coroner is not allowed to see, the family are no better off in such an inquiry as they appear to be barred from seeing certain classes of sensitive material, which will therefore only be considered in secret, subject to any contrary ruling by Sir Christopher Holland.’

In the Summary of Inquest and Inquest Lawyers Group’s submission to JCHR inquiry into the Justice and Security Green Paper they state: ‘The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ (JCHR) inquiry into the Government’s Justice and Security Green Paper asks about the compatibility of the proposals with the “UK’s constitutional tradition of open justice and fair hearings and its international human rights obligations in relation to the same”.

Inquest and the Inquest Lawyers Group view is that the introduction of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) into inquests would, particularly in the context of the UK’s obligations under article 2 of the ECHR, be wrong in principle and an unnecessary, disproportionate measure.