Time For The IPCC To Get a Name Change.

On Thursday August 7th the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) published their report into complaints of the police using excessive force at the G20 Climate Camp. Having read the report I think it's high time the IPCC dropped the word Independent from their title or changed their name to something more appropriate. Perhaps to something like the Intentional Police Cover-up Committee.

While the media, led by the BBC, have claimed that the report strongly criticises the police if you go through the report, which can be read here; http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Bishopsgate_Report.pdf it soon becomes clear that the IPCC have conducted their investigation in such a way as to make sure that the only action they are able to take against the police is to offer a strongly worded rebuke. The main problems with the report are;

• The IPCC received around 40 complaints about the polices use of force at the Climate Camp but only decided to investigate one in the hope that it is representative of the others. They have justified this by arguing that because the complaint included the possibility that the polices actions may have caused a woman to suffer a miscarriage it was the complaint that would cause the highest degree of public concern. However as the woman did not know she was pregnant at the time of the incident it is impossible to prove whether or not she did suffer a miscarriage. Likewise because the woman was involved in what the report describes as a scrum between the police and protesters it is impossible to prove which specific, if any, blow led to her vaginal bleeding. By comparison the complaints the IPCC chose not to investigate included two incidents where police officers were filmed punching protesters full in the face. Therefore it seems that the IPCC have deliberately chosen to only investigate the complaint that was the least likely to uncover evidence of police misconduct.

• In the report the IPCC claim that the polices use of short riot shields have only been in use "in response to events at the G8 Summit in Scotland in July 2005" and are not mentioned in the polices national public order training program. This is a factual inaccuracy so severe that it could be described as a blatant lie. The idea of using short shields began in the Brixton and Toxteth riots of the early 1980's when police officers unable to get their hands on traditional long shields picked up dustbin lids and began using them to deflect missiles. The tactical use of so called short shield serials has been featured in national police public order training manuals since the mid-1980's and their use is now so widespread that it is considered the first choice solution in public order situations. Prior to the Gleneagles summit short shield tactic were extensively used at J18, Mayday 2000, 2001, 2002 and the anti-Iraq war protests along with various football riots.

• The IPCC's report was released just 21 days before the start of the summer Climate Camp at a time when a number of first time campers were making their final decision whether to attend or not. Therefore releasing a report that draws attention to Climate Campers being beaten up by the police while concentrating on the gory details of the very personal nature of the vaginal bleeding suffered by the complainant could be seen as an attempt to discourage people from attending Climate Camps in the future. In that case it would appear that far from rebuking the police the IPCC actually seem to be rewarding them for their violent conduct.