ZEITtruth…

FLEET STREET EDITORS’ OPPOSITION TO STATUTORY REGULATION IS BASED ON PRINCIPLE, NOT REALITY

What a difference a year makes. Well, eighteen months or so anyway. Back in the summer of 2011, the nation was simmering with rage at the discovery of a myriad of sordid abuses taking place at the News of The World. The public and policymakers alike, roundly denounced the now defunct publication, with the chorus of indignation reaching such a volume, old Lord God himself - Rupert Murdoch - was forced to intervene. Within the press, The Guardian lead the righteous charge for reform but columnists across all the major newspapers were exhorting the need for change. However, following the recent publication of the Leveson Report into press ethics, the establishment (with the laudably notable exception of The Guardian) has now closed ranks, displaying a haughty intractability to change, seemingly forgetting quite how gruesome  some of its members' abuses actually were.

As 2012 draws to a close editors from all newspapers are now decrying the possibility of reform and regulation (unthinkable a year ago), by clinging on to the notion that Leveson’s proposals – if backed or underpinned with statute – constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the freedom of the press. Whilst it is true that legislation in the manner proposed by Leveson would constitute a legal encroachment into press freedom - the like of which hasn’t occurred for hundreds of years – this is true in principle only. The de facto ability of the press to lawfully investigate and construct stories is not put under any pressure or restriction by Leveson’s proposals. Instead, a method of effective accountability (the Press Complaints Commission have hitherto been as ‘effective’ as the FSA at holding its industry to account) has been suggested, charged with the potency of the full force of law, which would allow recourse for normal members of the public to take action in the event that they suffer unjustly at the hands of the press. The press may argue that the libel courts are already there; but such a supposition is pathetically selective, as the financial cost of entering libel courts and using libel lawyers means they are simply not there for ordinary members of the public - like the members of Milly Dowler’s family. All the more for an offence which is not libel; or for the protection of a right – privacy – which is not enshrined in any piece of legislation. But the press are loathe to accepting this; instead arguing that the de jure ‘principle’ of press freedom outweighs the need for effective sanction against actual abuses by insalubriously motivated editors and hacks. A simple de jure versus de facto separation; it’s funny how those in the morally-wrong always seem to rely on the de jure argument, being unable to confront the de facto truth.

Take The Spectator for example. The magazine’s editor, Fraser Nelson, has been arguably one of the most vocal detractors from the idea of press regulation. So much so, he has vowed to ignore any regulatory arrangement that is statutorily based, saying ‘I refuse on principle’. In an interview reported by The Daily Telegraph, Nelson described how press freedom is a core tenet of The Spectator’s constitution and how any moves against it would ‘betray everything The Spectator has stood for since 1828.’ He goes on to cite two articles that the magazine published concerning this: one from 1828 and another from 1833. It is perhaps to his own good fortune that Mr Nelson is not a lawyer; as his ability to cite relevant and recent precedent is somewhat lacking. It is highly unlikely that the issues of press conduct associated with phone hacking surfaced in the 1820s in quite the way that they did in 2011. Similarly, defences of press freedom from state intervention in the editorial sense is one thing; defending the right of the press to conduct its affairs in a way that renders it supra-legal, is quite another.

Nelson, along with many other editors who have joined suit, may actually have nothing to feel all too guilty about. After all, not every newspaper was implicated in as damning a way as some of the tabloids. But the adoption of this ‘principled’ stand on press freedom is so ignorant of the facts that have precipitated the present scenario; it can only be considered as grimly disingenuous at best, alarmingly cynical at worst.

Any reader of the Leveson report would understand that there is no intention to curtail the editorial freedom of the press. Leveson is not the first step towards a state-run propaganda machine – merely a much-needed first step in attempting to curtail putatively discredited conduct. And yet this is what many newspaper editors are insinuating, suggesting that their hands would be tied by statute to such a degree, their editorial freedom would be irreparably damaged, with democracy itself being the primary casualty. The editor of The Independent, Chris Blackhurst, was interviewed by the BBC and suggested that a statutorily backed system of regulation would compel him to have to ‘phone a lawyer’ before printing every story. The idea that Leveson would suddenly create a legal minefield that was otherwise non-existent is a complete nonsense, and Blackhurst will doubtlessly have had to phone lawyers in the past (if he gave even a modicum of a shit about libel), so he may already be well versed in such unspeakable inconveniences like consulting legal counsel. In future, if his reporters lawfully and ethically acquire facts to construct their stories, he may never have to speak to lawyers any more than he does now. If his reporters want to hack unsuspecting peoples’ phones, then yes, he may need to start beefing-up his roster of attorneys.

Following the ‘conference’ at Number 10 yesterday where nearly all The Fleet Street editors met the Prime Minister, the press was left to mull a considerable (and predictable) concession made to them by David Cameron. The Leveson report will need to be implemented ‘line by line’, but with the fig leaf of a statute-free underpinning. The press will now have to convene and try and decipher a way to replace the PCC with another self-regulating authority – based on the Leveson proposals. The Prime Minister has suggested this process should take ten days to two weeks maximum: a timetable with a harshness that is clearly symbolic. How the press reacts now is key. It will determine whether the newspapers are simply as avaricious and self-interested as many of us think; or whether they're as democratically motivated as many of them like to believe.

ZEITtruth…

ANDREW MITCHELL HAS HIS WORK CUT-OUT IF HE IS TO CONVINCE PARTY AND PEOPLE

The Prime Minister vociferously supported Andrew Mitchell at PMQs yesterday, as the Tory Chief-Whip faced another scathing examination from Labour MPs. The ferocity of the attack played into Mitchell’s hands; as it compelled Tory MPs who had hitherto been ambivalent towards his salvation, to rally together in rousing support of the Sutton-Coldfield MP (despite the 1922 Committee later providing a far more negative assessment of his actions in private). However, no matter how vocal the support he receives from his party in the main chamber - which claims he wasn’t behaving in an elitist and pompous manner in the much famed ‘Plebgate’ incident – his voting record does little to dispel the notion that Mitchell is an antiquated brand of Tory – the type that is more than capable of the odd alarmingly-flippant indiscretion, such as referring to serving Police-Officers as ‘plebs’.

Since 2001, Mitchell has only ever voted very-strongly on issues that represent the uber-traditional Tory agenda. Despite voting across a myriad of topics, it is no surprise that the Rubgy-educated former Royal Tank Regiment Officer, has only ever voted very-strongly on concerns of the strictly upper-class, such as: voting very strongly against the ban on fox hunting, against a more proportional voting system for MPs and against removing hereditary-peers for the House of Lords. If Mitchell claims not to be elitist, his voting record suggests otherwise, with his propensity to voice his intentions - very-strongly - manifesting itself only on expressly class-based subjects. On each of the three instances mentioned above, the principal motivation for voting has been the preservation of entitlement for the traditional land-owning classes. This is not to say that he hasn’t voted on other issues – some of which will support a liberal agenda – but never as strongly as he does on matters pertaining to the maintenance of the traditional class-system.

To his credit, Mitchell has worked extensively with youths in his constituency of Sutton Coldfield, and has a wealth of experience working in developing countries. Mitchell has worked in Africa for a number of years, beginning with his work at investment bank Lazard. His experiences in the continent lead him to become Minister for International Development, first in the shadow cabinet and subsequently in the Coalition government.

However, there is no doubt some speculation on whether Mitchell’s work in Africa is honourably intentioned – like much of the work that British companies do there – or if it is more akin to wanton post-colonial plundering, the like of which Mark Thatcher can claim to be a veteran. Rather worryingly, he has been a strong supporter of the CDC (formerly the Commonwealth Development Cooperation), who attracted widespread criticism following Private Eye’s disinterment of their shady dealings back in 2010. Mitchell has advocated widening CDC’s role, encouraging it to engage in higher-risk investments, even though accusations of CDC investing in over-valued companies in Nigeria are yet to be sufficiently explained away. However, aside from his treatment of CDC, it can be said that he has been a sensible (though not progressive) Minister for International Development; supporting the rights of oppressed people in Burma and taking a cautious yet pragmatic approach to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

But to critics on the Labour benches and on the Coalition benches alike, the real Andrew Mitchell is the man who said the words contained in the Police report published by the Daily Telegraph. Large parts of his voting record add fuel to this fire, as does his inability to bring to punish the widely discredited actions of the gloriously-imperialist CDC, in his role as Minister for International Development. His work is cut-out if he is convince the rest of the government and the country as to his egalitarian credentials, and following a sombre condemnation by members of the Tory 1922 Committee last night, it is unlikely that the ‘Plebgate’ affair will conveniently disappear. The fire that Andrew Mitchell saw his PM firmly douse at PMQs yesterday - could just as easily re-ignite in an instant.

ZEITtruth…

UK UNEMPLOYMENT FALLS BY 50,000; LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT RISES

Unemployment in the UK currently sits at 7.9% of all those economically active, according to figures released by the government today. The figures - utilising the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment – show the total number of people actively seeking work to be 2,528,000 for the quarter June to August 2012. This represented a fall of 50,000 from the previous quarter.

The government will be keen to emphasise this quarterly improvement in unemployment figures, as well as the 62,000 fall in youth unemployment achieved over the same period. However, of some concern is the number of people unemployed for 12 months or more, which has increased by 13,000 when compared to the last quarter.

The current levels of unemployment across the country are still lower than what was experienced at the height of the recession in the early eighties and again during the John Major’s government in in the early nineties. The number of JSA and benefit claimants is however markedly lower now than in previous recessions. Opposition to the government would be quick to point out that such a fall in the number of benefits claimant is no doubt down to the crippling austerity measures that have formed the mainstay of George Osborne’s economic policy. As the prospect of a triple dip recession looms, the relative lack of state intervention for nation’s unemployed – when compared to earlier recessions – may have an impact on the economy’s ability to drag itself out of the present lugubrious gloom.

Regional unemployment figures showed the North-East to have the highest unemployment rate in the UK at 9.9%. However, it‘s the nation’s capital that’s showing the most worrying signs of regression, with 10,000 more people now looking for work in London when compared to the last quarter. Many believe that the conclusion of the Olympics programme will have had a bearing on this figure.  

ZEITtruth…

JIMMY SAVILE’S ABUSE WAS DESPICABLE; BUT ITS A SHAME WE ALL MUST LIVE WITH

The sexual abuse of underage children by a person in a position of assumed stature is arguably one of the most viscerally loathed crimes by right-thinking members of the public. As more and more interminably scarred victims emerge reluctantly from the shadows, the chorus of indignation at a once-loved - even revered - public figure is reaching a deafening crescendo. Jimmy Savile is undergoing a kind of posthumous indictment that has rarely been seen before. Based on the testimony of witnesses who independently provided sets of facts displaying a chilling amount of consistency (over time and various locations), one is forced to say: Savile’s reputation is receiving the desecration it deserves. But though the testimonies which have been published and broadcast in the last week have been unspeakably shocking, the most lugubrious aspect of the whole affair is the fact that many people who knew or worked with Savile (though often claiming ignorance of specifics) have said they were not surprised. We knew he was a bit weird right? So he was bound to have done something like this.

Savile was a man who had the dubious distinction of being an anachronism almost from the moment his popularity became widespread. He was unmarried, showed a conspicuous fascination with children, and lived a nomadic existence in a caravan that was generously described as ‘quirky’. His charity work (raising an eye-watering £40 million during his lifetime) was the sword of respectability which Savile could rely on to combat any salacious rumours that swelled around him. This was something so publicised, it almost served to censor the British public at source; curtailing the formation of negative or accusatory thoughts in the mind, before they could ever be spoken. 

The British are prone to elevating often morally-suspect individuals to a position of eternal imperviousness to criticism; whether it’s the drunken-racist Winston Churchill, or more recently, the monumentally entitled and self-serving Royal Family. Certain personalities become long-established pieces of furniture that adorn the living-room of the British psyche - and once they are in place, they can be neither moved nor critiqued. We in Britain may espouse sanctimonies of Muslims for their inflammatorily unflinching reverence of the Prophet Mohammed – but let’s be fair; we have created a few ‘Mohammeds’ ourselves. To criticise Churchill or the Royal family (particularly if you are an ethnic minority like myself) causes hateful and jingoistic rebuttals; similarly, criticism of someone like Savile would be met with the suggestion that the person dispatching the criticism is so cynical as to be unable to see joyous, unconditional philanthropy for what it really is. Unconditional philanthropy, or the notion of ‘greatness’ on the international stage: if you have achieved any of these things, it is likely that you can live out your life as indecorously as you wish without ever having to fear the wrath of the British public. Sadly, historical accuracy is not the victim most damaged by this folly; it’s the people who suffered heinous crimes in silence and anonymity, and have to live out the rest of their existence with the consequences.

When I look back at images of the ‘Carry-on’ -culture of Britain in the 70s, it is often difficult to find instances where sexism, racism and general unpropitious attitudes are not glaringly obvious. Savile’s seedy-uncle act was but one of a number of equally perverted personalities that graced prime-time TV screens across the nation. This was the era of Benny Hill chasing women half his age, vying for a quick grope; this was the era when Babara Windsor’s contribution to the then zeitgeist was providing cleavage for avuncular gawping; this was the era when Savile and Glitter could stand side by side on TV – both clutching an uncomfortable looking teen - and joke in a macabre fashion about ‘giving too many girls away’. I still find it shocking that this didn’t cause offence at the time and it is sad reflection on British popular culture that sexism and paedophilia appear to be crimes of a recent inception. All this from the country that was ‘Great’ and had spent the last two hundred years ‘civilising’ vast swathes of the planet. In 70s Britain, the hubris hangover of an empire-now-lost created a permissiveness of debauched attitudes, which parodied the depravity of the last days of Rome.

I find it impossible to believe that Savile’s abuse and exploitation of young girls was a unique crime in its occurrence. What has been a reprehensively consistent trait of the evidence regarding his abuse that has been disclosed thus far, has been the fact that most victims spoke of how Savile’s actions at the time were widely-known, and rather than being condemned or challenged, were merely joked about as a kind of quirky idiosyncrasy of a much-loved rascal. Savile’s lecherous and wanton designs were both allowed and enabled by the very people that should have been stopping them. I’m not talking about the authorities here – I’m talking about us, the British public.

Tolerance is a virtue that British people have long since prided themselves on. It is a tribute to the country that its celebrities can display a myriad of personalities, sexual preferences and ethnic backgrounds. But let us not forget that this is the Britain of today and we haven’t always been as tolerant as we purport to be – whether sincerely or not – right now. Also, we should never again underestimate the propensity for the ugliest traits in humans to manifest themselves, even in the people that we have long since adored.

The crimes that Savile has allegedly committed have left a tenebrous legacy to a career once so vaunted. The institutions that he worked for and with, will forever be tainted by the accusation (whether or not it can be proved) that they harboured and enabled a serial abuser. However, the most shameful revelation is that Britain and its people perpetuated a culture whereby it was impossible for Savile’s victims to come forward, and it was equally impossible for Savile’s sordid designs to be viewed as anything other than the jaunty mischievousness of a harmless old codger. This is a shame that we all must live with; the same way that Savile’s victims live with the haunting memories of his abuse.

ZEITtruth…

MILIBAND IS RIGHT TO CALL FOR THE SEPARATION OF BANKS - IS THAT ENOUGH?

  Ed Miliband announced his candidacy for the next General Election at the Labour Party Conference last Tuesday, with a recrudescent performance in front of a packed house at Manchester Central.

  The details on policy were sketchy and largely absent from vast swathes of the hour long speech, but in some respects this is understandable. Miliband spoke for over an hour without using notes, showcasing a rarely-before-seen jocular style that surprised many detractors.

  One policy he did proclaim vociferously – and to a rapturous reception – was the intention to separate high street banks from “casino style operations” (investment banks to the less acerbic amongst us).

  Separating the high-street and investment arms of banks is hardly a new idea - with ‘ring-fencing’ of high street banks being advocated in the Vickers Report in September 2011. Since then, several banks have begun the process of ‘ring-fencing’ their retail operations, with some looking to complete this ahead of the scheduled date of 2019 proposed by Vickers (being the commencement date of Basel III). However, the impact of rating-agency concerns for the non-ring fenced investment banks – which will no longer be able to comfort creditors by evidencing a recourse to unsecured deposits - has predictably lead to a period of lobbying by the banking sector, resulting in what Labour has described as a watered-down version of ring fencing, where the fences themselves are allowed to be ‘looser’. But even if – as Miliband promised a Labour government would deliver – ring-fencing was sufficiently tightened and legislated upon; will this really be enough to effectively avoid the catastrophic failure of the finance sector in recent years? Will this really be enough to ensure that the tax-payer will never again be forced to pick up the bill for banking profligacy?

  So far, neither Labour nor the Coalition have proposed going beyond the recommendations of the Vickers Report. There have been signals from the government that any Banking Reform Bill would incorporate recommendations from the Wheatley Review published last week, which sought to deal with the rampant criminality exposed during the Libor scandal. Wheatley stressed the importance of making Libor manipulation a criminal offence and declared that the BBA should be stripped of their Libor setting role. Wheatley’s gambit extended little further than the Libor investigation, and with respect to more systemic reforms in the way investment banks conduct themselves, both the government and Labour are ominously silent.

  To date, ring-fencing the high-street arm of a bank is has been touted as the most sure-fire way to stave off the need for tax payers to bail out failed banks in future. It has been suggested that separating retail and investment banks will make it easier to isolate problems in the event that a bank fails, with any state-intervention being focussed on the retail operation where the principal beneficiaries would be ordinary members of the public.

  Ring-fencing the high-street arm of a bank from the investment side requires the ring-fenced entity to be a separate subsidiary company. There should be a separate board of directors and the company should display an operational independence from the non-ring fenced entity, such that it would be able to list on the London Stock Exchange in its own regard. Furthermore, transactions entered into between the ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced entity should be at arms-length. There is no restriction however on ring-fenced entities receiving funding from its non-ring fenced sibling, providing that the transaction is at an arms-length.

  According to the Vickers Report, the ring-fenced entity should be subject to a number of restrictions on the kind of service it can provide to its customers – bringing its activities more into line with those of a ‘traditional’ high street bank, whose purpose should extend little further than taking deposits and making loans. It was recommended that there be an express prohibition on the ring-fenced entity engaging into several types of ‘risky’ transaction, including derivative transactions, or transactions where the bank’s regulatory capital could be exposed to counter party risk. However, there is no mention on a restriction or curtailment in this kind of activity for the non-ring fenced entity. Instead, it is suggested that increased ‘loss-absorption’ requirements (which include a requirement to hold more capital and ‘bail-in’ bond which would be used in the event of a bank’s collapse) for non-ring fenced entities will create an incentive to ‘monitor’ risk more closely. But there is nothing in the Vickers Report, nor has anything been mentioned since by the Coalition or most recently by Labour, which indicates a move to limit the amount of high-risk transactions the non-ring fenced entity can enter into – the type of transaction that got us into this mess in the first place.

  The ring-fenced entity, under the Vickers Report recommendations, is also required to maintain a loss-absorption provision, equating to between 10 and 17 per cent of risk-weighted assets - depending on the size of the bank. This is actually not a huge departure from the capital requirement ratio that Basel II had required all banks to keep; meaning that the ring-fenced entity can still lend money way beyond the value of deposits it takes. Yes, it may only lend the money for activities and services that fall within a stricter remit than the non-ring fenced banks, but there is still an incentive for it to acquire additional funding beyond its deposit base – though how it would do so is presently unclear.

  Though the ring-fenced bank is prohibited from operating in the secondary credit and debt markets, there has been no suggestion of a restriction from it seeking finance in a primary fashion from investment (or non-ring fenced) banks. This leaves us with a problem, one which resonates throughout the ‘reformed’ system and is yet to be addressed by either Labour or the Coalition. If the risk-loving and ultimately contagion-inducing activities of investment arms of banks are left relatively unabated, is it really possible to protect the ring-fenced sector?

  The Vickers Report stated that the banking activities that would comprise the ring-fenced sector presently account for between a sixth and a third of the £6 trillion UK banking market; the vast majority of market share is attributed to investment banks. It seems optimistic that merely securing and safe guarding a diminutive portion of the market will serve as effective mitigation preventing the entire system from collapsing. Furthermore, if the non-ring fenced system did collapse, it is highly unlikely that the ring-fenced sector could remain immune to its effects.

  Firstly, ring-fenced banks are likely to need funding – and presently there has been no mention that they will not be able to obtain this in a primary sense from a non-ring-fenced bank. Therefore, were it to be the counterparty on a loan with an investment bank typically engaging in ‘risky’ transactions, consumers’ deposits are still subject to a certain amount of undue risk, albeit once removed.

  Additionally, ring-fencing itself, is a complicated and perilous activity. The Vickers Report recommended that the ring-fenced bank should be a separate subsidiary company, but there is no mention of how the shares in the subsidiary should be held. Again, if it is permissible (and to date there has been little to suggest the contrary) for a non-ring fenced bank to hold a shareholding in its ring-fenced subsidiary, we are again presented with the possibility that the depositors of the ring-fenced banks could be exposed to undue amounts of risk – if the activities of the investment arm are left unchecked.

  The key point in all of this is that unless the risk-loving propensity of investment banks is not systematically tackled, it will persist; simply compartmentalising this gluttony for risk will not eradicate the widespread impact of its consequences.  Vickers suggested that the increased ‘risk-absorption’ requirements put on non-ring fenced banks would effectively lead to a curtailment in risk taking activity; but this proposition displays a certain amount of naivety. Investment bankers and shareholders of investment banks are loath to increases in costs or reductions in their bonuses and dividends. The increased costs associated with implementing a greater amount ‘risk absorption’ capital will inevitably lead traders and bankers to work any available capital even harder; meaning greater risk will need to be undertaken in order to generate the kind of profits they had become accustomed to in a ‘pre-reform’ environment.

  There has been much talk about the need to create high-street banks with a different ‘culture’ to their investment counterparts. But, effectively mitigating against contagion requires a change to the ‘culture’ of investment banks themselves.

  A year on from the publication of the Vickers Report – and following a woeful litany of subsequent scandals – the need for banking reform is greater than ever. Despite Ed Miliband proclaiming the need to split high-street from investment banks (and rightly so), there has been no mention of a detailed attempt to curb the risk-loving activities of the investment banks themselves. Separating banking arms will simply compartmentalise the toxicity of high risk, rather than effectively reduce or eradicate it. Obviously there is an imperative for banks and other investment entities to engage in risk in order to make a profit, but in the days before the bubble burst, traders and bankers took on unacceptable levels of risk.  If the high-risk transactions that investment-banks previously engaged in (and presently still do so in a largely unfettered manner) are left untouched by restriction or regulation - the risk of contagion still remains. Though a banking separation may cause the retail banking sector to become one-step removed from its more brazenly-avaricious sibling, it will never be impervious to the consequences of its licentiousness - unless such licentiousness is in fact curtailed. The lack of circumspection on this matter from all parties shows ominous signs for the future and once again, it could be that ordinary members of the public are left to pay for myopic policy making.

ZEITtruth…

PC HARWOOD'S SACKING FOR  MISCONDUCT IS A RETURN TO FORM FOR THE MET

PC Simon Harwood has been sacked from the Metropolitan Police for gross misconduct and actions which discredited the Police service, it was announced in London today. The verdict was handed down by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, in only the second instance Police disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in public since this was first permitted by statute in 2008. The panel stopped short of delivering judgement on whether PC Harwood’s actions resulted in the death of Ian Tomlinson, much to the fury and consternation of Tomlinson’s surviving family.

Harwood himself offered to resign on a number of occasions before today’s hearing but such proffers were refused. He is now unable to serve as a Police officer in any of the forces around the country.

Despite Harwood’s sacking, in the absence of any prospect of criminal sentence, the family of Ian Tomlinson may rightly feel that justice is yet to be served. He was recently acquitted of Tomlinson’s murder, but at the same hearing the judge ruled that his killing was unlawful. The hearing was marred by suspect medical evidence adduced in Harwood’s defence, which raised doubts as to the credibility of Harwood’s expert witness and ostensibly flew in the face of video evidence showing Harwood’s actions in the run-up to Tomlinson’s death, as well as the post-mortem which determined Tomlinson had died of internal bleeding. The verdict was hollow and farcical. It was met by a fierce torrent of incredulity and indignation.

Harwood is yet to be adequately punished for the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson and today’s hearing has done little to redress the injustice. Harwood joins a long list of officers who have committed acts of ‘misconduct’ such that, were the same actions to be committed by members of the public, they would have resulted in criminal prosecutions. Back in 2011, the BBC conducted an investigation into the treatment by the Police of their own officers’ misconduct and it was found that between 2008 and 2010 at least 489 officers that had committed acts of misconduct had been ‘quietly’ allowed to retire.

When these figures were published nearly a year ago there was a vociferous call for greater Police accountability and transparency. Since then there has been damning evidence of Police racism (recorded on an audio device during the riots last year); gruesome details of Police collusion in press corruption disclosed in the Leveson inquiry, and the controversial trial of the then PC Harwood for killing Ian Tomlinson. Add to this the disinterment of the cynical forgery of Hillsborough and it’s alarming that there haven't been any high-profile criminal prosecutions of Police officers. Despite conducting Harwood’s hearing in public, by simply dismissing him and omitting judgement on his role in Tomlinson’s death, the IPCC’s conduct displayed a depressing maintenance of form for the country’s Police force, with its evidently faltering capacity for self-sanction. The refusal to take accountability conveys an arrogant air of legal impregnability, one which is normally more befitting of Police forces in (let’s say) far less-democratic environments.  In the absence of any meaningful criminal prosecutions of Police officers, the message from the Met is simple: if you are a Police officer, you can be racist, take bribes, falsify evidence, commit fraud and even kill people, without ever facing the sort of criminal sentence you would expect as a normal person.

It is seldom doubted that on occasion the Police are necessarily afforded certain legal protections that the public are not. This does not however, create a licence for barbarism and thuggery as a corollary benefit. This licentiousness has allowed a man to get away with murder. Unless things change, he won’t be the last.