No it doesn't say that. The DI made the promises and the DCI claimed he didn't agree to it. He was accused of lying. Not proven. Accused. As most people are at some stage when giving evidence. No criminal charges were brought.
There is absolutely no way, unless you have read the statements or transcript etc that you can make a statement saying he lied. It was investigated and decided that he had no intent to deceive.
Well, this is where the parallel with Duggan comes in. There seems to be this grey area where you can claim any BS you like as long as it can't be proven that you intended to deceive.
I have read the IPCC report and it acknowledges that Kiyani sought approval from Tagg before making that offer. That means that either Tagg failed to make his refusal clear or Kiyani is lying. Either way Tagg would then be aware of the proposal. He claims he wasn't until almost a year later. There is evidence in email exchanges that Kiyani made the offer believing Tagg would get it authorised. However, Tagg then went on to have another misunderstanding with prosecution counsel, where he claims he told them that Kiyani had made that offer, but they say all he told them was that he hadn't authorised it so it was nothing to worry about. This is why the judge accused him of lying.
The problem with the trial wasn't so much the offer of immunity being made, it was that it wasn't properly processed or disclosed. Kiyani is at fault for making the offer prematurely, but Tagg is responsible for allowing him to do so, failing to act on it and failing to disclose it. All of which he denies and the IPCC have put down to misunderstandings. Surely, this level of incompetence deserves more than 'management intervention'.
Well, this is where the parallel with Duggan comes in. There seems to be this grey area where you can claim any BS you like as long as it can't be proven that you intended to deceive.
I have read the IPCC report and it acknowledges that Kiyani sought approval from Tagg before making that offer. That means that either Tagg failed to make his refusal clear or Kiyani is lying. Either way Tagg would then be aware of the proposal. He claims he wasn't until almost a year later. There is evidence in email exchanges that Kiyani made the offer believing Tagg would get it authorised. However, Tagg then went on to have another misunderstanding with prosecution counsel, where he claims he told them that Kiyani had made that offer, but they say all he told them was that he hadn't authorised it so it was nothing to worry about. This is why the judge accused him of lying.
The problem with the trial wasn't so much the offer of immunity being made, it was that it wasn't properly processed or disclosed. Kiyani is at fault for making the offer prematurely, but Tagg is responsible for allowing him to do so, failing to act on it and failing to disclose it. All of which he denies and the IPCC have put down to misunderstandings. Surely, this level of incompetence deserves more than 'management intervention'.
Again, without knowing the full facts it's impossible to really make a fair comment. The ipcc have investigated and put it down to misunderstandings. I wouldn't want someone sacked for that.
This is excruciatingly sad. This man became a national hero when he called for peace, and faith in the police, in the hours after the death of his son.
Now he is told his son's killers may never face justice because of the actions of a 'rogue' officer who is now retired.
The IPCC investigation, of course, is typically scathing...
...not if they stick to that line! What it might have done is prevent them taking the gun from the taxi.
Is that you confirming that there is no evidence what-so-ever that the gun was removed from the taxi by the police? If there was, these cameras wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference!
On that note, I'm glad the Met' are adopting the widespread use of cameras but I wonder what procedures are in place to ensure that the footage is maintained and stored properly?
I wonder how long it'll be before there's a story about how somebody's made a complaint against the police but the video footage has been "lost" or was "damaged"?
Personally, I'd like to see a system in place which makes it a criminal offence to fail to provide the footage when required, much like it being an offence to fail to display a car tax disc etc.
On that note, I'm glad the Met' are adopting the widespread use of cameras but I wonder what procedures are in place to ensure that the footage is maintained and stored properly?
I wonder how long it'll be before there's a story about how somebody's made a complaint against the police but the video footage has been "lost" or was "damaged"?
Personally, I'd like to see a system in place which makes it a criminal offence to fail to provide the footage when required, much like it being an offence to fail to display a car tax disc etc.
I heard on the TV that these cameras are not on continuous recording in any case. I believe the officer has to activate it first before it starts recording (if I recall correctly, only on emergency calls).
Whilst these cameras are good I can foresee that if it fails to operate correctly (say a genuine technical malfunction) a conspiracy will be called if the recording was to be relied on.
I heard on the TV that these cameras are not on continuous recording in any case. I believe the officer has to activate it first before it starts recording (if I recall correctly, only on emergency calls).
Whilst these cameras are good I can foresee that if it fails to operate correctly (see a technical malfunction) a conspiracy will be called if the recording was to be relied on.
That's exactly what will happen. Every other video system fails to work properly all the time, and this will have it's problems too, and that will be enough for cover up shouts.
On that note, I'm glad the Met' are adopting the widespread use of cameras but I wonder what procedures are in place to ensure that the footage is maintained and stored properly?
I wonder how long it'll be before there's a story about how somebody's made a complaint against the police but the video footage has been "lost" or was "damaged"?
Personally, I'd like to see a system in place which makes it a criminal offence to fail to provide the footage when required, much like it being an offence to fail to display a car tax disc etc.
Maybe a copy of every incident recorded should be sent to some independent body for storage, as well as the original stored by the police. That way, there will always be a back up, and no convenient loss.
With Duggan, if the footage of all the officers had been lost/damaged, it would have stretched incredulity beyond the limit of realism.
Maybe a copy of every incident recorded should be sent to some independent body for storage, as well as the original stored by the police. That way, there will always be a back up, and no convenient loss.
With Duggan, if the footage of all the officers had been lost/damaged, it would have stretched incredulity beyond the limit of realism.
Only if there was a conspiracy in the first place of course!
In view of what he said, it would make his version even more suspect than it is now.
But in the majority of cases, one copper losing the footage would probably be "benefit of the doubt" territory.
That is what I mean. You are suspicious because say the camera that he was wearing malfunctioned. It is only that camera that in this particular case would give a clue as to what happened. You would have had his point of view, you could see the movements Duggan made etc.
All the other cameras will be akin to the BBC footage. Showing something and people building stories around it that may not reflect what actually happened.
That is what I mean. You are suspicious because say the camera that he was wearing malfunctioned. It is only that camera that in this particular case would give a clue as to what happened. You would have had his point of view, you could see the movements Duggan made etc.
All the other cameras will be akin to the BBC footage. Showing something and people building stories around it that may not reflect what actually happened.
Sorry, I really don't get your point at all.
I've made mine quite clearly. There really isn't anything further to debate here.
I've made mine quite clearly. There really isn't anything further to debate here.
But there clearly is. It is you that said it would be suspect if V53's camera didn't work. What if it backed up what he told the Court? Something in Duggan's hand, the movements that he described?
It would only be suspect to the likes of you because you think that there must be something amiss if it failed to record. It could equally do the police no favour either if it backed up their version of events. But the latter probably would never cross your mind.
But there clearly is. It is you that said it would be suspect if V53's camera didn't work. What if it backed up what he told the Court? Something in Duggan's hand, the movements that he described?
It would only be suspect to the likes of you because you think that there must be something amiss if it failed to record. It could equally do the police no favour either if it backed up their version of events. But the latter probably would never cross your mind.
I think in view of what V53 alleged, and the subsequent findings of the jury, it would increase suspicion on the veracity of his assertions, yes. Not saying it would definitely be an indication of dishonesty on his part, but it would certainly increase suspicion.
I really don't know what your issue is here 1MJ1. Are you just looking for a pointless argument ?
I think in view of what V53 alleged, and the subsequent findings of the jury, it would increase suspicion on the veracity of his assertions, yes. Not saying it would definitely be an indication of dishonesty on his part, but it would certainly increase suspicion.
I really don't know what your issue is here 1MJ1. Are you just looking for a pointless argument ?
I'm done here.
I'm not looking for a pointless argument. I think it is rather interesting that you view a loss of footage as something suspicious when it could equally mean that the police rather had that footage because it would otherwise advance their case.
And that is part of the problem with these cameras. If they malfunction, suspicion is raised by a certain part of the population.
So we're on topic and we're relating to the Duggan case too to boot.
Maybe a copy of every incident recorded should be sent to some independent body for storage, as well as the original stored by the police. That way, there will always be a back up, and no convenient loss.
With Duggan, if the footage of all the officers had been lost/damaged, it would have stretched incredulity beyond the limit of realism.
Given how many officers will be using the cameras (something like 10k+ in the trial alone), and the cost of properly cataloguing, archiving and storing that many hours of footage, i suspect the room for error would be huge, as would the cost.
I also suspect that with the Duggan case most of the footage would never be released to the public at large, not for any nefarious purpose, but because it's generally not needed and much of the footage would probably be unsuitable to be released (video of someone being shot at close range, or of bloody bodies), so even if the footage was there and shown to the jury, we'd still get "it's a cover up" (as seems to be the case from some parties whenever a prosecution fails against a police officer, or a complaint isn't upheld by the IPCC).
But but but, what if they all downloaded it on to the same terminal and that terminal then went tits up and lost the lot?
But yes, I see your point and it's a perfectly reasonable one.
Knowing government IT the stuff would probably be downloaded to a machine in the station running 2 IBM deathstar* drives in raid-0 then copied over to a mainframe once a month (average life expectancy of an IBM deathstar being about 3 weeks:p).
Slightly more seriously, the sort of volumes of data involved with these cameras is going to make archiving the video a daunting task, as they're talking about 10,000 cameras just for the trial (with about 31k officers in the MET alone), so if the camera footage is going to be stored fully for any length of time it's going to require a huge amount of storage and almost certainly much better (or improved) data links to the stations, or a dedicated server at the station just to handle the end of shift uploads, prior to sending the files on to a more permanent and central system.
Not to mention indexing all the video files effectively, which is usually a wonderful time for errors to creep in due to things like typos or someone rushing to finish their paperwork when they're already running past the end of their shift on a busy day without a proper break.
*One of the Deskstar family of drives using an early glass platter from memory, they had an amazing failure rate with some people ending up with stacks of them acting as doorstops, as from memory IBM stopped even asking for them to be returned with some retail customers (that debacle was if memory serves a large part of the reason IBM sold off their hard drive business).
Comments
Well, this is where the parallel with Duggan comes in. There seems to be this grey area where you can claim any BS you like as long as it can't be proven that you intended to deceive.
I have read the IPCC report and it acknowledges that Kiyani sought approval from Tagg before making that offer. That means that either Tagg failed to make his refusal clear or Kiyani is lying. Either way Tagg would then be aware of the proposal. He claims he wasn't until almost a year later. There is evidence in email exchanges that Kiyani made the offer believing Tagg would get it authorised. However, Tagg then went on to have another misunderstanding with prosecution counsel, where he claims he told them that Kiyani had made that offer, but they say all he told them was that he hadn't authorised it so it was nothing to worry about. This is why the judge accused him of lying.
The problem with the trial wasn't so much the offer of immunity being made, it was that it wasn't properly processed or disclosed. Kiyani is at fault for making the offer prematurely, but Tagg is responsible for allowing him to do so, failing to act on it and failing to disclose it. All of which he denies and the IPCC have put down to misunderstandings. Surely, this level of incompetence deserves more than 'management intervention'.
Again, without knowing the full facts it's impossible to really make a fair comment. The ipcc have investigated and put it down to misunderstandings. I wouldn't want someone sacked for that.
Are certain people happy now?
Sounds like another whitewash. As per usual.
Well, maybe, but...
...not if they stick to that line! What it might have done is prevent them taking the gun from the taxi.
Is that you confirming that there is no evidence what-so-ever that the gun was removed from the taxi by the police? If there was, these cameras wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference!
Glad we got that sorted then.
Well you make your own stories up to accompany videos anyway.
On that note, I'm glad the Met' are adopting the widespread use of cameras but I wonder what procedures are in place to ensure that the footage is maintained and stored properly?
I wonder how long it'll be before there's a story about how somebody's made a complaint against the police but the video footage has been "lost" or was "damaged"?
Personally, I'd like to see a system in place which makes it a criminal offence to fail to provide the footage when required, much like it being an offence to fail to display a car tax disc etc.
I heard on the TV that these cameras are not on continuous recording in any case. I believe the officer has to activate it first before it starts recording (if I recall correctly, only on emergency calls).
Whilst these cameras are good I can foresee that if it fails to operate correctly (say a genuine technical malfunction) a conspiracy will be called if the recording was to be relied on.
That's exactly what will happen. Every other video system fails to work properly all the time, and this will have it's problems too, and that will be enough for cover up shouts.
Maybe a copy of every incident recorded should be sent to some independent body for storage, as well as the original stored by the police. That way, there will always be a back up, and no convenient loss.
With Duggan, if the footage of all the officers had been lost/damaged, it would have stretched incredulity beyond the limit of realism.
Only if there was a conspiracy in the first place of course!
That would have been the conspiracy !!!
Why? What if it showed something in favour of the police and they lost the footage? Hardly what you're implying then.
That is what I mean. Something goes wrong with the footage - it's a cover up.
One police officer losing the footage, yes probably an accident or oversight.
But all the officers present at the Duggan shooting, all recording, and all their footage subsequently lost or damaged. That was my point.
That would be enemy action on a grand scale. If you can't see that, there's really no hope for you.
Even if that officer was V53?
In view of what he said, it would make his version even more suspect than it is now.
But in the majority of cases, one copper losing the footage would probably be "benefit of the doubt" territory.
That is what I mean. You are suspicious because say the camera that he was wearing malfunctioned. It is only that camera that in this particular case would give a clue as to what happened. You would have had his point of view, you could see the movements Duggan made etc.
All the other cameras will be akin to the BBC footage. Showing something and people building stories around it that may not reflect what actually happened.
Sorry, I really don't get your point at all.
I've made mine quite clearly. There really isn't anything further to debate here.
But there clearly is. It is you that said it would be suspect if V53's camera didn't work. What if it backed up what he told the Court? Something in Duggan's hand, the movements that he described?
It would only be suspect to the likes of you because you think that there must be something amiss if it failed to record. It could equally do the police no favour either if it backed up their version of events. But the latter probably would never cross your mind.
I think in view of what V53 alleged, and the subsequent findings of the jury, it would increase suspicion on the veracity of his assertions, yes. Not saying it would definitely be an indication of dishonesty on his part, but it would certainly increase suspicion.
I really don't know what your issue is here 1MJ1. Are you just looking for a pointless argument ?
I'm done here.
I'm not looking for a pointless argument. I think it is rather interesting that you view a loss of footage as something suspicious when it could equally mean that the police rather had that footage because it would otherwise advance their case.
And that is part of the problem with these cameras. If they malfunction, suspicion is raised by a certain part of the population.
So we're on topic and we're relating to the Duggan case too to boot.
Given how many officers will be using the cameras (something like 10k+ in the trial alone), and the cost of properly cataloguing, archiving and storing that many hours of footage, i suspect the room for error would be huge, as would the cost.
I also suspect that with the Duggan case most of the footage would never be released to the public at large, not for any nefarious purpose, but because it's generally not needed and much of the footage would probably be unsuitable to be released (video of someone being shot at close range, or of bloody bodies), so even if the footage was there and shown to the jury, we'd still get "it's a cover up" (as seems to be the case from some parties whenever a prosecution fails against a police officer, or a complaint isn't upheld by the IPCC).
But but but, what if they all downloaded it on to the same terminal and that terminal then went tits up and lost the lot?
But yes, I see your point and it's a perfectly reasonable one.
Knowing government IT the stuff would probably be downloaded to a machine in the station running 2 IBM deathstar* drives in raid-0 then copied over to a mainframe once a month (average life expectancy of an IBM deathstar being about 3 weeks:p).
Slightly more seriously, the sort of volumes of data involved with these cameras is going to make archiving the video a daunting task, as they're talking about 10,000 cameras just for the trial (with about 31k officers in the MET alone), so if the camera footage is going to be stored fully for any length of time it's going to require a huge amount of storage and almost certainly much better (or improved) data links to the stations, or a dedicated server at the station just to handle the end of shift uploads, prior to sending the files on to a more permanent and central system.
Not to mention indexing all the video files effectively, which is usually a wonderful time for errors to creep in due to things like typos or someone rushing to finish their paperwork when they're already running past the end of their shift on a busy day without a proper break.
*One of the Deskstar family of drives using an early glass platter from memory, they had an amazing failure rate with some people ending up with stacks of them acting as doorstops, as from memory IBM stopped even asking for them to be returned with some retail customers (that debacle was if memory serves a large part of the reason IBM sold off their hard drive business).