Police Spies Tried To Smear The Family Of Stephen Lawrence.

[anotheoldgit]

Why has it taken 20 years for this whistle-blower to come forward?

/// The whistleblower is one of several to come forward to reveal deeply suspect practices by those ordered to infiltrate political protest groups from the 1980s onwards. ///

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347028/How-police-spies-tried-smear-family-Stephen-Lawrence.html

[Sqad]

I think that the Stephen Lawrence case is just one part of a book highlighting police indiscretions and it may have have taken a long time to think of writing the book, writing it and "spilling the beans."

You are hardly likely to "squeal" whilst working for the ultra secret unit........

[ummmm]

And you wonder why this case hasn't had a line drawn under it?

[Gromit]

The Police had a corrupt relationship with Clifford Norris. He was a well known local criminal protected by the police probably because he informed on his rivals. When Norris' son became a suspect, the Police bent over backwards to help Clifford.

That is why lines of inquiry were ignored. Witnesses were not interviewed and why the original investigation was so dismally poor. They didn't want to find the killer of Stephen Lawrence.

My guess as to why this is only just coming out now, is that theofficer involved may have only just left the police force. A serving officer would probably be suspended and his valuable pension threatened.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// My guess as to why this is only just coming out now, is that theofficer involved may have only just left the police force. A serving officer would probably be suspended and his valuable pension threatened. ///

That say much for the credibility of this whistle-blower, who was so 'public spirited' that he chose to wait until he was safely pensioned off before spilling the beans, if that is indeed the actual reason for the delay.

[jim360]

I don't see that it affects his credibility necessarily. Money is too important to most people and he could have been risking a lot of it, with no guarantee of clawing it back. Imagine if he blew the whistle earlier and no-one believed him? Then he'd be stuck without a job, or a pension, or any cover from selling the story... and would be labelled a troublemaker for life. Many whistleblowers end up distrusted and it's a very risky decision to make. In general people prefer inertia and stability, even if it's stable corruption. All of that "mustn't rock the boat" stuff?

Of course, he may well be lying. But that's no more likely just because he waited a while to say anything. It's possible that he had to wait until he felt safe to do so. As no he has his pension at least, so if people don't believe him it doesn't matter.

[woofgang]

When considering whistleblowing, pension is important but there are other things too, especially if you have a family and are in a social community allied to the people that you are going to whistleblow on or you think that the people you are going to whistleblow on may have influence over aspects of your life and that of your family. I can see why this person waited until he (do we know its a he?) was well clear. He also may have thought that the stink would come out without any need to whistleblow.

[Gromit]

Whistleblowers tend not to be thanked for their efforts and in many cases they lose their jobs and livelihoods. It would definitely be a factor in deciding to spill the beans.
If that is the case in this instance, then you can understand why someone would do it after they had retired from that job.
It doesn't really affect his credibility. If it happened, it happened. They fact that we eventually learn about it is important. He could quite easily have never disclosed it.

[FredPuli43]

Put yourself in his shoes.Would you have gone straight to the press as soon as this happened? And what do you think the consequences would have been?

[LazyGun]

I have no idea why it took him so long. Fear of being seen by colleagues as simply a squealer, fear of losing job/pension, all sorts of reasons potentially. I do not think it necessarily effects his credibility, although obviously it would be to everyones benefit if whistleblowers could feel more confident coming forward.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that in the US there are large financial rewards available to whistleblowers - sufficient to have a comfortable life going forward ( at least in the finance,corporate and banking sector). I think we should consider implementing that sort of scheme over here....

[woofgang]

even then LG, social and "other" matters might be sufficient to dissuade them.

[FredPuli43]

In the US,the IRS offers informers a percentage of the tax recovered in consequence of the information the informer or whistle-blower gives. The US government is not quite so keen on other whistle-blowers, it seems.

[LazyGun]

@Woofgang I am sure that is true - but at least it would remove the impediment of the fear that the loss of livelihood would bring.

If such a scheme would have encouraged earlier responses from the CQC whistleblower for instance, and potentially many others from within the NHS, judging by the number of settlements with gag orders they have made that would have definitely been in the public interest.....

[woofgang]

LG yes I agree. What NHS settlements with gaga orders? have you got a link please?

[woofgang]

ha, gag orders, not gaga!!

[LazyGun]

@Woofgang There are reports of around 50 gag orders being imposed by the NHS.Anecdotal evidence from friends and colleagues within the DoH and Monitor suggest it is higher than that....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/12/nhs-chief-denies-cover-up-gagging

A friend of mine was herself subject to the most extraordinary measures in an attempt to prevent her going public with her concerns as a doctor working within mental health care.

I am a big fan of the NHS - but this culture of secrecy and closed ranks that has developed has always been a cause for concern, and now it seems to be completely out of hand......

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// It doesn't really affect his credibility. If it happened, it happened. They fact that we eventually learn about it is important. He could quite easily have never disclosed it. ///

Like I said "it doesn't say much for the credibility", he could be lying, as has already been pointed out, so why is it important that we now know about the alleged actions of the police spies?

[Gromit]

It confirm what we already suspected. The police were more interested in discrediting the murder victim rather than catch killers. That is rather appalling.

[LazyGun]

He certainly could be lying, thats true. This issue forms the basis of the "Dispatches" programme on tonight, I think.

@AoG you said this
"Like I said "it doesn't say much for the credibility", he could be lying, as has already been pointed out, so why is it important that we now know about the alleged actions of the police spies?"

I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make - it must surely be extremely important to democracy, to public confidence in the police, and for the police force to retain its authority and its ability to police with consent that allegations of underhand or illegal tactics by the police are investigated as soon as they become public?

And historical allegations are equally important, especially when linked to such a high profile case as the Lawrence case.

I mean - are you trying to argue that it is unimportant or unnecessary that we know when the police carry out such tactics?