Yates (once of the Yard) is now a standard Bahrain thug cop

We learned today that Yates was so economical with the truth in front of Parliament over Ms Wallis’ job application that most of us would consider him to have lied.  He can also be seen on Channel 4 News lying that the resistance in Bahrain is about criminals in the villages attacking unarmed police.  For a place with “no crime” Bahrain has a vast police force in addition to a very large military (both massive for somewhere with a population of about one million, half of which is expat).

I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video in which the unarmed police sport assault rifles and (towards the end) another throws a petrol bomb.

I find it extremely disturbing that anyone like Yates could hold senior office in the Met.  After 8 years the IPCC is now merely addressing the problems of senior figures retiring before disciplinary action as something they can do nothing about..  It is more likely Yates was appointed for his ability to bullshit in cover-up than any reforming ability.  Is this a mere continuation of his role at the Met?  He is now condoning an oppressive regime, though we  would be unlikely to fully support the opposition, some of which is crude, sexist and backward-looking in its fervor – though also full of splendid people.  Some years back the Bahrain Government denied there were any prisons in the country, let alone torture.  There was a massive jail near Jaws and 10% of my students had suffered torture.  Yates is now a mouthpiece for the current lies.  I find it intolerable senior service with the Met has produced such a monster and wonder how many more there are.

Advertisement

Reviewing Akers For Contempt of Court Sums Up Our Barking Legal System

When Sue Akers gave her evidence I wondered whether she was allowed to say what she did.  I’m in no doubt she should have been able to say it.  What are you supposed to tell Leveson – something like ‘Fuck off Judge, this is on camera and your inquiry isn’t important enough for me to tell the truth’?  I take it what’s said there is under oath – which has something about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Any review should be on Clarke, Stephenson and Yates who have clearly been economical with the truth.  If everyone was out running after terrorists as claimed, they could have farmed out the necessary enquiry.

Apart from anything else, what Akers said is just the kind of evidence that can be put to cross examination in any later trial and any effect it then had on a jury under direction could be made the right one.

Without people like Sue Akers being able to tell the truth as they are finding it, what is the point of Leveson and should it be adjourned until all future criminal proceedings have passed?    What a farce – the AG should be considering whether this is an attempt to suborn witnesses through intimidation of law.