I don't think most people want to believe that a police officer would lie but it's a reality that it happens not often but still happens. If you want to get statements from a group of witnesses and they ask to confer before giving it then would you be a little bit worried? It's not that you are accusing them of lying and thinking it's all about cheating but people do lie sometimes and if they are allowed to confer that's just going to increase the worry that they are colluding about something. I must have missed what is the reason for officers being allowed to confer before giving statements?
Witnesses who know each other no doubt discuss what they saw with each other before statements are taken. In most cases they are never all taken immediately after the event. With the Police, their notes have to be recorded straightaway, and they need to cover the events.
Discussing it brings stuff to the mind that you maybe forget.
With witnesses, the Police are trained to get what they know.
If I recall one officer in the Duggan case made 7 statements! That shouldn't be necessary. That was because he refused to be interviewed, and he wasn't adequately answering the questions asked of him.
There's a big difference between remembering something you previously omitted, and remembering something quite differently to how you remembered it before. The allegations you speak of only follow the latter, and apply to everyone.
There's no good reason why police officers should not have statements taken from them individually like any other witness.
In many cases they write their own statements, but if they deal with something together, they need to ensure they get as much recorded as they can.
It is the same process as a Police Officer interviewing a witness. They will get a lot more out of them than if they were asked to write their own statement.
Witnesses who know each other no doubt discuss what they saw with each other before statements are taken. In most cases they are never all taken immediately after the event. With the Police, their notes have to be recorded straightaway, and they need to cover the events.
Discussing it brings stuff to the mind that you maybe forget.
With witnesses, the Police are trained to get what they know.
I accept that potential benefit but what I'm trying to say is that no one apart from you knows if you are a truthful person or a liar and if you ask for time to confer before answering questions then it makes people wonder if you might be getting a lie straight with collaborators. If a group of people that you've arrested ask for time to confer before answering any questions you have for them what would you be thinking? They could be innocent and wanting to clear up anything they've missed in their recollection but they might be guilty and they only want time to confer to make up a story and make sure everyone knows what to say. I'm interested how it works right now do officers have to make their own notes first without conferring and then give a statement with conferring? I'm asking because I wanted to know if there would be any problems with preventing any conferring whatsoever and then just looking to other officer statements when there is any holes to see if they have mentioned it but after all the statements are given.
Discussing it brings stuff to the mind that you maybe forget..
It also, as we have seen more than once makes you 'remember' things that never happened. Because others are claiming it is so. Others who may well have an agenda. (Clearly what happened in the Sean Rigg and Blair Peach cases). Here in the Duggan case, officers remembered fact upon fact which was wrong. It is really quite disturbing that materials 'facts' which weren't true were 'remembered' by so many.
Assuming it wasn't thrown at all and you know that, what are you most likely to get away with?
a) I saw it thrown after the second shot.
b) I saw it thrown but I can't remember when.
c) I didn't see it thrown but it must have been.
I imagine it must have been tempting to try to concoct a story in which someone saw it being thrown, perhaps around b) above. That's why I wonder if someone would have said that had they not conferred. But the logistics of telling such a lie would be hugely complicated and risky. As it turned out the inquest would have exposed it. They made the right choice with c).
Personally I'd say option B would be the most reasonable. In a fast paced situation such as this, it is well within the realms of possibility that had any officers seen a gun thrown, they might not be able to recall the exact moment that it was thrown. Surely even you can see that if you want people to believe that a planted gun was actually thrown, everybody involved would say that it was, not that they did not see it?
Isn't that why every relevant witness is called to give evidence?
Not entirely sure about Inquests, but certainly in criminal cases witnesses aren't called on relevance. Witnesses are called based upon disagreements of the accuracy of their statement between the defence and prosecution. If a statement is agreed to be accurate by both sides then it will be agreed material and will form the evidence given to the court but the witness won't need to be cross examined. If a witness is called to be cross examined it is so that their account can be queried, and ultimately discredited.
Conferring on statements after such an incident should not happen. Again, the police want to be treated better than anyone else. They want it to be automatically assumed (before any independent investigation) that their actions are necessarily beyond reproach.
'Anyone else' is allowed to confer before statements or interviews, though admittedly suspects can be arrested which can prevent them conferring with others. Victims and witnesses don't write their own statements, they are interviewed by a police officer who is trained to extract that information, and some police officers are more qualified than others.
DP says he is unaware of any stories being significantly changed after conferring. Well this is one of them. Many officers 'remembered' in their statements consistent facts which were untrue. The same 'facts' which were simply wrong.
And then we have situations like Sean Rigg where there looks to have been collusion in the statements to the point of absolute lies running along the lines of perverting the course of justice.
If DP is unaware of such things happening, then he doesn't know much about many controversial cases.
The claim of the officer quoted that officers will just refuse to answer questions and give 'no comment' interviews is pretty worthless. Because that is effectively what they do now. They refuse to be questionned, giving written statements instead.
All this is mind, dishonest collaboration in this way is done by a tiny minority and is rare, as terrible as it is. Surely you as an intelligent person believe that making changes that penalise the majority based upon the actions of a tiny minority, is lazy and simplistic? By majority I don't just mean police, I mean everybody involved in a case because the quality of police officer evidence will suffer.
All this is mind, dishonest collaboration in this way is done by a tiny minority and is rare, as terrible as it is. Surely you as an intelligent person believe that making changes that penalise the majority based upon the actions of a tiny minority, is lazy and simplistic? By majority I don't just mean police, I mean everybody involved in a case because the quality of police officer evidence will suffer.
I do not believe it will suffer. I believe that if police actions have led to a death, then that dead person should also be entitled to due process as well as the police.
It is simply not true that 'quality of police evidence' will suffer. Collaboration in statements can also lead to errors.
The police argument is that they shouldn't be treated as suspects. In the case of Sean Rigg, there were several officers who should have been treated as suspects right at the beginning and interviewed under caution (in fact I would argue they should have been arrested pretty much immediately). Suspects are, of course given the protection of due process. While innocence is presumed, it is simply unacceptable that is should automatically be assumed no crime occurred. This appears to be what the police want and it IS demanding to be treated better than anyone else.
In the Sean Rigg case the 'mistakes' were meaningful. They involved how long the deceased was restrained on the ground (the officers claimed it was momentary - the video evidence shows it was several minutes).
To claim this is being unfair to the majority is trite. There are many rules in place designed to stop corruption/unlawful behaviour by the minority to which the majority must also adhere.
I accept that potential benefit but what I'm trying to say is that no one apart from you knows if you are a truthful person or a liar and if you ask for time to confer before answering questions then it makes people wonder if you might be getting a lie straight with collaborators. If a group of people that you've arrested ask for time to confer before answering any questions you have for them what would you be thinking? They could be innocent and wanting to clear up anything they've missed in their recollection but they might be guilty and they only want time to confer to make up a story and make sure everyone knows what to say. I'm interested how it works right now do officers have to make their own notes first without conferring and then give a statement with conferring? I'm asking because I wanted to know if there would be any problems with preventing any conferring whatsoever and then just looking to other officer statements when there is any holes to see if they have mentioned it but after all the statements are given.
As for arrested people conferring, that is clearly a no no, because they are suspects. The Police Officers are witnesses, and are the body tasked with evidence gathering, therefore they have to get everything they can.
They use the same methods to get evidence out of individual witnesses.
If we are going to treat Police witnesses as suspects in every case, then they have to have the same rights as other suspects.
In minor incidents that two or three officers dealt with, they get together afterwards, and go through what happened, and make their notes up in their books, and then their statements are typed up later from those notes. That is a daily occurrence, and in my experience something that is taken seriously, and done properly, although I know of cases where people have done wrong, and tried to cover it up. That's always going to happen at times, because people are involved.
You cant possibly isolate every officer after every incident, and get someone else to take a statement off them before they have a chance to speak to each other, and it's not necessary.
"You cant possibly isolate every officer after every incident, and get someone else to take a statement off them before they have a chance to speak to each other, and it's not necessary."
No-one is suggesting that.
Currently the suggestion is that it should be in shooting cases and where there has been a death.
As for giving police officers the same 'rights' as suspects. The problem is, they currently have more. The issue here is that they don't think that in any circumstances they should be treated as suspects at all. They want virtual immunity.
The argument is that if they aren't allowed to confer, they'll give 'no comment' interviews. Thing is - they ALREADY refuse to be interviewed, giving prepared statements instead. If they wish to give 'no comment' interviews, then that is fine. They can do that - as can anyone. They should be told however, that should they face any criminal investigation, adverse inferences can be drawn from their silence - as in any other citizen.
"You cant possibly isolate every officer after every incident, and get someone else to take a statement off them before they have a chance to speak to each other, and it's not necessary."
No-one is suggesting that.
Currently the suggestion is that it should be in shooting cases and where there has been a death.
As for giving police officers the same 'rights' as suspects. The problem is, they currently have more. The issue here is that they don't think that in any circumstances they should be treated as suspects at all. They want virtual immunity.
The argument is that if they aren't allowed to confer, they'll give 'no comment' interviews. Thing is - they ALREADY refuse to be interviewed, giving prepared statements instead. If they wish to give 'no comment' interviews, then that is fine. They can do that - as can anyone. They should be told however, that should they face any criminal investigation, adverse inferences can be drawn from their silence - as in any other citizen.
If there are grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, they can be treated as suspects, otherwise, why should they? As it happens, the person firing the gun is pretty much dealt with as a suspect. They are isolated, have their weapon, and clothing seized etc. Everyone accepts that, but when you decide you want to deal with every Officer in the operation as a potential liar, and suspect, then they are within their rights to act like one.
The purpose of the debrief is to gather all the evidence, and everyone gives their account, you don't have a load of people saying no comment.
They then give their statements. If anyone wants extra information, they can provide an additional statement to cover that. They are trained to write statements. However, if individuals are then going to be interviewed, there are suspicions about why, and whether they are suspects or not. If they are, then they should be treated as such, with all the rights that entails.
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous lilly-livered claptrap.
They 'can be treated as suspects'. The problem is they aren't - even when there are very clear grounds.
The issue here is that the police don't want to be treated as suspects under any circumstances. They want to be able to act with impunity - with immunity.
There should be absolutely no issue with barring conferring of officers once there has been a death in custody. None whatsoever. It's utter nonsense to claim that there would be. Moreover, ensuring there is no conferring does not in itself mean treating officers like suspects. The fact that they seem to think it does is very very telling.
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous lilly-livered claptrap.
They 'can be treated as suspects'. The problem is they aren't - even when there are very clear grounds.
The issue here is that the police don't want to be treated as suspects under any circumstances. They want to be able to act with impunity - with immunity.
There should be absolutely no issue with barring conferring of officers once there has been a death in custody. None whatsoever. It's utter nonsense to claim that there would be. Moreover, ensuring there is no conferring does not in itself mean treating officers like suspects. The fact that they seem to think it does is very very telling.
Your very clear grounds are different to most peoples though.
Deaths in custody cover a massive range of circumstances, and everyone involved is unlikely to be around at the same time, so there is no getting together for most of those anyway.
You're the one who wants them treating like suspects, but without the safeguards by the sound of it. If they give statements, why should they then be interviewed further? other witnesses aren't, unless there are grounds, and then additional statements are taken if necessary. Police Officers can write their own statements.
I'm sorry but that is ridiculous lilly-livered claptrap.
They 'can be treated as suspects'. The problem is they aren't - even when there are very clear grounds.
The issue here is that the police don't want to be treated as suspects under any circumstances. They want to be able to act with impunity - with immunity.
There should be absolutely no issue with barring conferring of officers once there has been a death in custody. None whatsoever. It's utter nonsense to claim that there would be. Moreover, ensuring there is no conferring does not in itself mean treating officers like suspects. The fact that they seem to think it does is very very telling.
How exactly would you make that work, for example a person is arrested and held in a cell and interviewed , he is dealt with by arresting officers , custody officers , interviewing officers . He is then released and dies of a heart attack several hours later , it is still investigated as a Death after Police Contact, how do you make sure none of the officers at that station talk to each other about it suspend them all ?
Your very clear grounds are different to most peoples though.
Deaths in custody cover a massive range of circumstances, and everyone involved is unlikely to be around at the same time, so there is no getting together for most of those anyway.
You're the one who wants them treating like suspects, but without the safeguards by the sound of it. If they give statements, why should they then be interviewed further? other witnesses aren't, unless there are grounds, and then additional statements are taken if necessary. Police Officers can write their own statements.
Evidently, they can't. That seems to be the problem. They want to write their statements as a team. That is wrong. As I said before, I don't see why they shouldn't have their statements taken from them, individually, by interview like every civilian witness has to. Are IPCC investigators not as well trained in extracting information as police officers?
How exactly would you make that work, for example a person is arrested and held in a cell and interviewed , he is dealt with by arresting officers , custody officers , interviewing officers . He is then released and dies of a heart attack several hours later , it is still investigated as a Death after Police Contact, how do you make sure none of the officers at that station talk to each other about it suspend them all ?
You seem to think that 'talking to each other' is the same as being in a room writing up statements together.
Evidently, they can't. That seems to be the problem. They want to write their statements as a team. That is wrong. As I said before, I don't see why they shouldn't have their statements taken from them, individually, by interview like every civilian witness has to. Are IPCC investigators not as well trained in extracting information as police officers?
They should be allowed to provide written statements. I have no problem with this. (Indeed, suspects are allowed to do that). Indeed, they have to provide statements - as they were police officers at the scene.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is get together in a room and all produce the SAME statement.
They should be allowed to provide written statements. I have no problem with this. (Indeed, suspects are allowed to do that). Indeed, they have to provide statements - as they were police officers at the scene.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is get together in a room and all produce the SAME statement.
I wasn't aware suspects were allowed to do that. Are witnesses?
Having their statements taken by a trained interviewer would address the alleged problem of 'gathering all the information' and preclude the need for writing their statements together.
Both suspects and witnesses can have solicitors draw up statements - yes.
Suspects don't have to do even this. But they are quite within their rights to get a solicitor to draw up a statement and then refuse to answer any questions.
The point is clearly about the problematic question about police officers shutting themselves away for hours and discussing what their statements should contain.
Which is very far removed from discussing it in the locker room.
The point is clearly about the problematic question about police officers shutting themselves away for hours and discussing what their statements should contain.
Which is very far removed from discussing it in the locker room.
But totally honest officers could sit together and write statements and those statements be more informative and correct for it, two dishonest officers could meet in the loo and in 30 seconds say "you say this and I will say that and we are both covered "
Maybe if conferring is allowed the idea might be to allow an independent witness to sit in the room whilst it happens to make sure it is only accuracy they discuss and not embellishment.
Evidently, they can't. That seems to be the problem. They want to write their statements as a team. That is wrong. As I said before, I don't see why they shouldn't have their statements taken from them, individually, by interview like every civilian witness has to. Are IPCC investigators not as well trained in extracting information as police officers?
There is a difference between discussing the incident, getting all the information, and then writing the statements. You only put in your statement what pertains to you.
Where are you going to get all these people from to take every statement a Police Officer makes?
The IPCC? How many staff have they got? Why should the Police not write their own statements?
The only people who think it is wrong are those who think the Police lie about everything they do, which in real life is not what happens.
They should be allowed to provide written statements. I have no problem with this. (Indeed, suspects are allowed to do that). Indeed, they have to provide statements - as they were police officers at the scene.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is get together in a room and all produce the SAME statement.
In this case they haven't all produced identical statements, which is why you, and a few others, have made such a meal of it.
Where have I suggested that safeguards existing for suspects should not apply to police officers?
This is absolute bull.
Most of what you say is bull. You have a mindset of corruption, and are unable to see things as they are in the real world because of your prejudices.
As witnesses, they don't need safeguards. They just provide a statement. However, if after doing that the IPCC want to interview them, the reasons need to be clear, and if there are any suggestions they are unhappy with the statement, we are getting into suspect terrirtory, where different rules apply.
The only people who think it is wrong are those who think the Police lie about everything they do, which in real life is not what happens.
I have to disagree with that it's not just people who think the police lie about everything. I think it's wrong because although I think almost all officers are legit and wouldn't make up a story between them but there are a few officers who would and I think reasonable moves should be made to try and limit the amount of corruption allegations. I certainly don't think the police lie about everything in general though maybe a few officers from time to time but that's it. The public don't really know whether an officer conferring with others is actually legit or whether they have been unlucky and came across a dodgy one.
Comments
Witnesses who know each other no doubt discuss what they saw with each other before statements are taken. In most cases they are never all taken immediately after the event. With the Police, their notes have to be recorded straightaway, and they need to cover the events.
Discussing it brings stuff to the mind that you maybe forget.
With witnesses, the Police are trained to get what they know.
In many cases they write their own statements, but if they deal with something together, they need to ensure they get as much recorded as they can.
It is the same process as a Police Officer interviewing a witness. They will get a lot more out of them than if they were asked to write their own statement.
I accept that potential benefit but what I'm trying to say is that no one apart from you knows if you are a truthful person or a liar and if you ask for time to confer before answering questions then it makes people wonder if you might be getting a lie straight with collaborators. If a group of people that you've arrested ask for time to confer before answering any questions you have for them what would you be thinking? They could be innocent and wanting to clear up anything they've missed in their recollection but they might be guilty and they only want time to confer to make up a story and make sure everyone knows what to say. I'm interested how it works right now do officers have to make their own notes first without conferring and then give a statement with conferring? I'm asking because I wanted to know if there would be any problems with preventing any conferring whatsoever and then just looking to other officer statements when there is any holes to see if they have mentioned it but after all the statements are given.
It also, as we have seen more than once makes you 'remember' things that never happened. Because others are claiming it is so. Others who may well have an agenda. (Clearly what happened in the Sean Rigg and Blair Peach cases). Here in the Duggan case, officers remembered fact upon fact which was wrong. It is really quite disturbing that materials 'facts' which weren't true were 'remembered' by so many.
It should not happen.
Personally I'd say option B would be the most reasonable. In a fast paced situation such as this, it is well within the realms of possibility that had any officers seen a gun thrown, they might not be able to recall the exact moment that it was thrown. Surely even you can see that if you want people to believe that a planted gun was actually thrown, everybody involved would say that it was, not that they did not see it?
Not entirely sure about Inquests, but certainly in criminal cases witnesses aren't called on relevance. Witnesses are called based upon disagreements of the accuracy of their statement between the defence and prosecution. If a statement is agreed to be accurate by both sides then it will be agreed material and will form the evidence given to the court but the witness won't need to be cross examined. If a witness is called to be cross examined it is so that their account can be queried, and ultimately discredited.
'Anyone else' is allowed to confer before statements or interviews, though admittedly suspects can be arrested which can prevent them conferring with others. Victims and witnesses don't write their own statements, they are interviewed by a police officer who is trained to extract that information, and some police officers are more qualified than others.
All this is mind, dishonest collaboration in this way is done by a tiny minority and is rare, as terrible as it is. Surely you as an intelligent person believe that making changes that penalise the majority based upon the actions of a tiny minority, is lazy and simplistic? By majority I don't just mean police, I mean everybody involved in a case because the quality of police officer evidence will suffer.
I do not believe it will suffer. I believe that if police actions have led to a death, then that dead person should also be entitled to due process as well as the police.
It is simply not true that 'quality of police evidence' will suffer. Collaboration in statements can also lead to errors.
The police argument is that they shouldn't be treated as suspects. In the case of Sean Rigg, there were several officers who should have been treated as suspects right at the beginning and interviewed under caution (in fact I would argue they should have been arrested pretty much immediately). Suspects are, of course given the protection of due process. While innocence is presumed, it is simply unacceptable that is should automatically be assumed no crime occurred. This appears to be what the police want and it IS demanding to be treated better than anyone else.
In the Sean Rigg case the 'mistakes' were meaningful. They involved how long the deceased was restrained on the ground (the officers claimed it was momentary - the video evidence shows it was several minutes).
To claim this is being unfair to the majority is trite. There are many rules in place designed to stop corruption/unlawful behaviour by the minority to which the majority must also adhere.
As for arrested people conferring, that is clearly a no no, because they are suspects. The Police Officers are witnesses, and are the body tasked with evidence gathering, therefore they have to get everything they can.
They use the same methods to get evidence out of individual witnesses.
If we are going to treat Police witnesses as suspects in every case, then they have to have the same rights as other suspects.
In minor incidents that two or three officers dealt with, they get together afterwards, and go through what happened, and make their notes up in their books, and then their statements are typed up later from those notes. That is a daily occurrence, and in my experience something that is taken seriously, and done properly, although I know of cases where people have done wrong, and tried to cover it up. That's always going to happen at times, because people are involved.
You cant possibly isolate every officer after every incident, and get someone else to take a statement off them before they have a chance to speak to each other, and it's not necessary.
No-one is suggesting that.
Currently the suggestion is that it should be in shooting cases and where there has been a death.
As for giving police officers the same 'rights' as suspects. The problem is, they currently have more. The issue here is that they don't think that in any circumstances they should be treated as suspects at all. They want virtual immunity.
The argument is that if they aren't allowed to confer, they'll give 'no comment' interviews. Thing is - they ALREADY refuse to be interviewed, giving prepared statements instead. If they wish to give 'no comment' interviews, then that is fine. They can do that - as can anyone. They should be told however, that should they face any criminal investigation, adverse inferences can be drawn from their silence - as in any other citizen.
If there are grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, they can be treated as suspects, otherwise, why should they? As it happens, the person firing the gun is pretty much dealt with as a suspect. They are isolated, have their weapon, and clothing seized etc. Everyone accepts that, but when you decide you want to deal with every Officer in the operation as a potential liar, and suspect, then they are within their rights to act like one.
The purpose of the debrief is to gather all the evidence, and everyone gives their account, you don't have a load of people saying no comment.
They then give their statements. If anyone wants extra information, they can provide an additional statement to cover that. They are trained to write statements. However, if individuals are then going to be interviewed, there are suspicions about why, and whether they are suspects or not. If they are, then they should be treated as such, with all the rights that entails.
They 'can be treated as suspects'. The problem is they aren't - even when there are very clear grounds.
The issue here is that the police don't want to be treated as suspects under any circumstances. They want to be able to act with impunity - with immunity.
There should be absolutely no issue with barring conferring of officers once there has been a death in custody. None whatsoever. It's utter nonsense to claim that there would be. Moreover, ensuring there is no conferring does not in itself mean treating officers like suspects. The fact that they seem to think it does is very very telling.
Your very clear grounds are different to most peoples though.
Deaths in custody cover a massive range of circumstances, and everyone involved is unlikely to be around at the same time, so there is no getting together for most of those anyway.
You're the one who wants them treating like suspects, but without the safeguards by the sound of it. If they give statements, why should they then be interviewed further? other witnesses aren't, unless there are grounds, and then additional statements are taken if necessary. Police Officers can write their own statements.
This is absolute bull.
How exactly would you make that work, for example a person is arrested and held in a cell and interviewed , he is dealt with by arresting officers , custody officers , interviewing officers . He is then released and dies of a heart attack several hours later , it is still investigated as a Death after Police Contact, how do you make sure none of the officers at that station talk to each other about it suspend them all ?
Evidently, they can't. That seems to be the problem. They want to write their statements as a team. That is wrong. As I said before, I don't see why they shouldn't have their statements taken from them, individually, by interview like every civilian witness has to. Are IPCC investigators not as well trained in extracting information as police officers?
You seem to think that 'talking to each other' is the same as being in a room writing up statements together.
It's not.
They should be allowed to provide written statements. I have no problem with this. (Indeed, suspects are allowed to do that). Indeed, they have to provide statements - as they were police officers at the scene.
What they shouldn't be allowed to do is get together in a room and all produce the SAME statement.
I wasn't aware suspects were allowed to do that. Are witnesses?
Having their statements taken by a trained interviewer would address the alleged problem of 'gathering all the information' and preclude the need for writing their statements together.
You don't have to sit down together to confer
Suspects don't have to do even this. But they are quite within their rights to get a solicitor to draw up a statement and then refuse to answer any questions.
The point is clearly about the problematic question about police officers shutting themselves away for hours and discussing what their statements should contain.
Which is very far removed from discussing it in the locker room.
But totally honest officers could sit together and write statements and those statements be more informative and correct for it, two dishonest officers could meet in the loo and in 30 seconds say "you say this and I will say that and we are both covered "
Maybe if conferring is allowed the idea might be to allow an independent witness to sit in the room whilst it happens to make sure it is only accuracy they discuss and not embellishment.
There is a difference between discussing the incident, getting all the information, and then writing the statements. You only put in your statement what pertains to you.
Where are you going to get all these people from to take every statement a Police Officer makes?
The IPCC? How many staff have they got? Why should the Police not write their own statements?
The only people who think it is wrong are those who think the Police lie about everything they do, which in real life is not what happens.
In this case they haven't all produced identical statements, which is why you, and a few others, have made such a meal of it.
Most of what you say is bull. You have a mindset of corruption, and are unable to see things as they are in the real world because of your prejudices.
As witnesses, they don't need safeguards. They just provide a statement. However, if after doing that the IPCC want to interview them, the reasons need to be clear, and if there are any suggestions they are unhappy with the statement, we are getting into suspect terrirtory, where different rules apply.
I have to disagree with that it's not just people who think the police lie about everything. I think it's wrong because although I think almost all officers are legit and wouldn't make up a story between them but there are a few officers who would and I think reasonable moves should be made to try and limit the amount of corruption allegations. I certainly don't think the police lie about everything in general though maybe a few officers from time to time but that's it. The public don't really know whether an officer conferring with others is actually legit or whether they have been unlucky and came across a dodgy one.