Monday, 6 June 2011

Well, Isn’t This Interesting?

The authors of a campaign encouraging people not to "snitch" in murder cases and serious shootings are today revealed as former police informants desperate to use their experiences to force reform of witness protection schemes.
Well, well, well. This is, of course, this campaign.
The campaign was widely reported to be the work of gangsters scaring communities into silence, but The Independent can reveal the leaflets were in fact created as a subversive reaction to the perceived "abandonment and isolation" of a group of police informants.
Curiouser and curiouser…
They said they understood why "stop snitching" was described as "sick" by some media and "irresponsible" by police. Thusha, who was shot in the chest in a shop in Stockwell in March, may never walk again.
But they said their motivation was to expose failings with witness protection – which they said was like being in "a mini Guantanamo" – and argued that only a shock campaign would lead to proper exposure and reform.
And their beef is..?
"In the end I didn't testify and people got off with murder," said John, who went straight to police after witnessing the aftermath of a murder. He entered the witness protection programme after signing a statement saying that a youth, whom he saw stashing a gun, admitted to him he was involved in the killing.
He said he refused to testify after police told him he did not qualify for the programme because he was a foreign national. By this time, his signed statement and real name had been revealed to the defendants, who were part of a well-known criminal gang.
/facepalm
The force involved said the Crown Prosecution Service had deemed him to be an unreliable witness and denied all his claims, particularly that John's nationality had anything to do with the decision to exclude him from the witness protection programme. John has lodged a civil action.
John now lives on benefits in a new town under a false name.
That, at least, could be put down to him not being the whiter-that-white concerned citizen he told the 'Indy'. But this one's a little more disturbing...
Another member of the group, Gavin, worked at an import company and tipped off police that a customer was smuggling drugs. When officers were caught trying to break into the customer's building, things unravelled rapidly.
Gavin, who now has a new family that knows nothing of his past, said: "I was told by the police a mole in their own department had fingered me to the gang as the snitch and told I should leave as soon as possible. I had to go into hiding. I lost everything – my life was ruined."
Naturally, the Met aren't about to 'fess up:
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said the witness protection programme was "absolutely vital in helping make a stand against criminals" and "had a successful record that has resulted in many witnesses agreeing to give evidence".
The civil cases are going to make very interesting reading, I think...

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have personal experience on both sides of this. Our CJS needs to be understood as merely the trough at which rich votaries and their familiars feed. Victims are inconsequential as they contributive no money to the pot. Witnesses are actually a cost, and thus to be discouraged.

Even quite petty criminals engage in witness intimidation and more or less nothing is done to stop them - indeed cops regularly blunder in this area. No one wants the real situation revealed as it makes a mockery of the idea anyone in the system gives a damn, and would require money be taken away from judges, lawyers and so on to ensure real protection for witnesses. Plod is also not happy with the idea of witnesses not be scared to come forward because this would give them a lot more work to do.
I wouldn't put my family through it again, and am still traumatised by what happened to people who came forward in one of my cases (which included me and some mates working unpaid hours to protect them).

JuliaM said...

"No one wants the real situation revealed as it makes a mockery of the idea anyone in the system gives a damn, and would require money be taken away from judges, lawyers and so on to ensure real protection for witnesses."

That's a pretty depressing thought...

Bobo said...

"Our CJS needs to be understood as merely the trough at which rich votaries and their familiars feed. Victims are inconsequential as they contribute no money to the pot."

Nail. Head. Right there.

Bobo said...

Actually, try this:- substitute 'Political System' for 'CJS'; and 'voters' for 'victims'. Still rings 100% true, dunnit?

Hey, kids! How many spheres of social and political life can YOU make Allcoppedout's statement applicable to?