Round-up of the best initial coverage of the Daniel Morgan independent panel report

6 thoughts on “Round-up of the best initial coverage of the Daniel Morgan independent panel report”

1. Thank you for this David.

   Is there a way of counting all the hits from the various sources in order to contrive a kind of “whogivesashitometer”?

   I fear that we few, we merry few readers here and there may be a dwindling cohort of zealots who actually find all the lies to be corrosive of society and that everyone else is off to the pub… or maybe the kitchen….

   Reply

2. I would hazard the argument that ‘institutional corruption’ more than ‘institutional racism’ explained the failings of the MP to bring the killers of Stephen Lawrence to book when they have should have.

   Some S.E London officers colluded with organised crime (father of one of the killers) to protect the guilty with some evidence of case sabotage.

   Reply

   1. That is an interesting angle John. Thanks. By many definitions, institutional racism would itself be a form of institutional corruption.

      Corruption at an individual level may imply “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (as Transparency International define it) and potential offences (perhaps under the Bribery Act, or otherwise). I suspect this is one of the reasons some commentators have rejected the idea of widespread “corruption” at the Met, because there may not be private gain for many indeed most of the individuals actors involved in the many investigations and inquiries.

      But institutional corruption is more diffuse and does not necessarily involve criminal offences, but rather behaviour that advances the narrow interests of the institution while subverting its purpose. People may act legally but unethically, due to perverse incentives and inadequate regulation, in a way that defeats its purpose.

      Some interesting discussion of the term in a US healthcare context here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306114/

      Reply

      1. Thank you, Andrew, for the analysis and useful link.

         As you point out, institutional corruption, as I think is meant by, and is relevant to, the Morgan Inquiry, can have and usually will have a broader meaning (analytic basis) than malfeasance of individuals (including not only the direct receipt of bribes or ‘retainers’, but also straying into the grey area ‘of rub my back and I will rub yours’ within an organisation).

         That said, where such malfeasance is endemic and tolerated (even if by negligent omission/oversight more than through encouragement or agency) within an organisation – as it apparently was in the Met in the 80’s and 90’s – it can be classed as institutionally corrupt on that simple basis.

         In that light, and to support such an asertion, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/19/corrupt-met-officers-protected-family-of-stephen-lawrence-murderer, provides evidence of the significant criminal influence that Clifford Norris had on police in the early 90’s across the area of SE. London where Stephen Lawrence was murdered.

         I took the opportunity today to re-read some of the MacPherson Report, which did address the issue of corruption and collusion and the influence of Clifford Norris in particular on the Lawrence investigation. It recognised its impact within the context set, however, by that the Inquiry was bound more to a criminal standard of proof in relation to corruption compared to one based on balance of probabilities that it applied in relation to ascribing acts and practice to institutional racism.

         Its justification of that term as an explanatory concept underpinning the failings of the Lawrence Inquiry, as summarised at 6.45 of its report, I did not find that convincing or persuasive, other than at a superficial level, but discussion of that would require another post.

         Just pose a thought, however: if Daniel Morgan had been black, how different would things have been in terms of police investigation and outcome?

         I have felt for a long time that his case was a precursor and/or template for the Lawrence failure.

         Reply

3. The Channel 4 News report, in conjunction with the background presented by the New Stateman piece, is devastating. How can Assistant Commissioner Ephgrave stand there in all seriousness and say that Cressida Dick didn’t hamper the enquiry when it took two years just to release the basic information and there were further unnecessary delays before they had full access to the Holmes system. Nor did he answer the first question about whether corruption still existed in the Met, despite promising to “come to that question in just one second” before repeating his prepared apology for the past and weak defence of Cressida Dick. According to him the delays were because releasing the information was complicated. The words blood and stone spring to mind.

   Unfortunately for him his prevarication shows that the Met is still more concerned with its public image than it is with public justice. Precisely the charge made by the investigating panel. Shameful.

   Reply

4. For a chilling look at institutional corruption in the Met you could do no better than read the article by James Doleman in the Byline Times entitled “The Silencing of Nick Cook”.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.