This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/25/police-grave-danger-losing-trust
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Police in grave danger of losing trust | Police in grave danger of losing trust |
| (3 months later) | |
| How much more do we have to learn about the misconduct of police officers before we have a full royal commission to examine what has been happening and to set out rules for the future policing of our society? Changing evidence at Hillsborough, employment as a private army against the miners (and inventing evidence), using the identities of dead children, shooting an innocent man on the underground, trying to undermine peaceful protests, knocking a bystander to the ground (leading to his death), allowing undercover officers to go beyond acceptable bounds, and now (Editorial, 25 June) attempting to smear the Lawrence family and their supporters – and all the time with senior officers pretending that they knew nothing about what was going on. Surely, we have seen and heard enough to realise that the police, far from protecting a democratic society, are all too often acting like a law unto themselves? We need a police force we can trust. There is no indication at present that either the government or senior police officers understand the extent to which they are losing that trust. David Howard Church Stretton, Shropshire | How much more do we have to learn about the misconduct of police officers before we have a full royal commission to examine what has been happening and to set out rules for the future policing of our society? Changing evidence at Hillsborough, employment as a private army against the miners (and inventing evidence), using the identities of dead children, shooting an innocent man on the underground, trying to undermine peaceful protests, knocking a bystander to the ground (leading to his death), allowing undercover officers to go beyond acceptable bounds, and now (Editorial, 25 June) attempting to smear the Lawrence family and their supporters – and all the time with senior officers pretending that they knew nothing about what was going on. Surely, we have seen and heard enough to realise that the police, far from protecting a democratic society, are all too often acting like a law unto themselves? We need a police force we can trust. There is no indication at present that either the government or senior police officers understand the extent to which they are losing that trust. David Howard Church Stretton, Shropshire |
| • As organisations that have provided advice and support to the families of people who have died in police custody for many years, we are alarmed by the Guardian's report that campaigns run by bereaved families that we have assisted may have been targeted for covert police surveillance (Yard spied on critics of police corruption, 25 June). | • As organisations that have provided advice and support to the families of people who have died in police custody for many years, we are alarmed by the Guardian's report that campaigns run by bereaved families that we have assisted may have been targeted for covert police surveillance (Yard spied on critics of police corruption, 25 June). |
| Coming on top of allegations against special demonstration squad undercover officers of serious sexual misconduct, the stealing of the identities of dead children, the targeting of the Stephen Lawrence family, the suggestion that grieving relatives seeking the truth about the deaths of their loved ones may have been spied on, apparently to gather information to smear them in order to deflect attention away from police conduct, means the case for a judicial public inquiry into all of these revelations of police malpractice is now overwhelming. | Coming on top of allegations against special demonstration squad undercover officers of serious sexual misconduct, the stealing of the identities of dead children, the targeting of the Stephen Lawrence family, the suggestion that grieving relatives seeking the truth about the deaths of their loved ones may have been spied on, apparently to gather information to smear them in order to deflect attention away from police conduct, means the case for a judicial public inquiry into all of these revelations of police malpractice is now overwhelming. |
| Any information gathered and the way it was used must be subject to robust public scrutiny, and the Metropolitan police and their political masters must be held to account for the actions of officers. Deborah Coles and Helen Shaw Inquest, Estelle du Boulay Newham Monitoring Project Marcia Rigg and Samantha Rigg-David United Families & Friends Campaign | Any information gathered and the way it was used must be subject to robust public scrutiny, and the Metropolitan police and their political masters must be held to account for the actions of officers. Deborah Coles and Helen Shaw Inquest, Estelle du Boulay Newham Monitoring Project Marcia Rigg and Samantha Rigg-David United Families & Friends Campaign |
| • The police are continually asking for public support and help to reduce crime and bring criminals to justice. But in order to obtain that support the police must have the public trust. The public trust is difficult to lose where law enforcement is concerned, but once lost it is even more difficult to regain. In countries where the law enforcement arms of the state are untrustworthy, organised crime thrives and black-market economies flourish. The police, and the Met in particular, are in grave danger of losing that trust. And then we may find that the largest factor contributing to crime involves the police undermining themselves. Dr Todd Huffman Oxford | • The police are continually asking for public support and help to reduce crime and bring criminals to justice. But in order to obtain that support the police must have the public trust. The public trust is difficult to lose where law enforcement is concerned, but once lost it is even more difficult to regain. In countries where the law enforcement arms of the state are untrustworthy, organised crime thrives and black-market economies flourish. The police, and the Met in particular, are in grave danger of losing that trust. And then we may find that the largest factor contributing to crime involves the police undermining themselves. Dr Todd Huffman Oxford |
| • CCTV follows us everywhere, licence-plate recognition technology follows our cars, GCHQ reads our email and listens to our phone conversations, police spies monitor our attempts at protest, police "kettle" and photograph us when we nevertheless protest (How can we invest our trust in a state that spies on us?, 25 June). By what definition of a police state are we not already living in a police state? The fact that I hesitate to write my name under this email for fear of reprisal only confirms that self-censorship, the sign of living in fear under a totalitarian regime, is already starting to make itself felt. Colin Hall Dundee | • CCTV follows us everywhere, licence-plate recognition technology follows our cars, GCHQ reads our email and listens to our phone conversations, police spies monitor our attempts at protest, police "kettle" and photograph us when we nevertheless protest (How can we invest our trust in a state that spies on us?, 25 June). By what definition of a police state are we not already living in a police state? The fact that I hesitate to write my name under this email for fear of reprisal only confirms that self-censorship, the sign of living in fear under a totalitarian regime, is already starting to make itself felt. Colin Hall Dundee |
| • I would like to have a letter published in the Guardian registering my outrage at state interception of internet traffic and the creeping criminalisation of protest. While I still can. And assuming you receive this. John Cranston Norwich | • I would like to have a letter published in the Guardian registering my outrage at state interception of internet traffic and the creeping criminalisation of protest. While I still can. And assuming you receive this. John Cranston Norwich |
| • Chris Elliott, the readers' editor (Open door, 24 June), refers to the time after the first edition has been printed "when our email is not monitored". Not in Kings Place, perhaps, but very likely in Cheltenham or Fort Meade (NSA headquarters). Joseph Cocker Leominster, Herefordshire | • Chris Elliott, the readers' editor (Open door, 24 June), refers to the time after the first edition has been printed "when our email is not monitored". Not in Kings Place, perhaps, but very likely in Cheltenham or Fort Meade (NSA headquarters). Joseph Cocker Leominster, Herefordshire |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version