(MPA) Statement: chair of MPA Boris Johnson

"It is with deep regret that that at 7.30 am this morning I accepted the resignation of AC Bob Quick. Bob understands fully that the security breach which occurred yesterday was a serious issue for which he has taken personal responsibility. Bob has had a long and distinguished career and has made a huge contribution to British policing, particularly in the last year developing the national counter terrorism capability."

G20 protests: police behaviour "disproportionate and provocative" say Greens

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has described the tactics used by the Metropolitan Police at yesterday's G20 protests as "disproportionate and provocative."

Throughout today, reports had been coming in from Greens who had been involved in the protest.

One party member involved said she had "returned shaken and appalled at the policing tactics employed at the G20 protests."

Like many others, she described the way lines of police officers had kept groups of peaceful demonstrators "penned-in" for hours without access to water or toilets. She said:

"It is only thanks to my NUJ press pass that I managed to (eventually) escape the terrifying crush imposed by aggressive police. By that point I had spent at least two hours rammed in with other peaceful rotesters, bursting for the loo and battling against a resurgence of a phobia of being trapped in tight crowds."

Another Green Party member involved in the demonstration said: "In thirty-one years of active participation in peaceful street demonstrations I have NEVER before been close to the threat of being trapped by police."

Darren Johnson AM commented today: "A number of activists have already fed-in similar experiences and I agree that this is completely inappropriate policing tactics. While they need to act swiftly to tackle any violence it is wrong and totally counter-productive to treat the vast majority of wholly peaceful protestors in this way."

This morning Jenny Jones AM, who had acted as an official observer with the police but who was denied the opportunity to go and observe where she wanted to, was promised a full opportunity to question the Metropolitan Police about their tactics.

Meanwhile Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP was receiving reports from people who had been at the Climate Camp, including the following allegations against the police:

* That no warning was given to the camp that they were about to be contained - so, for example, families with babies and children were not given the opportunity to leave.
* That when the police attacked the camp to take away the sound system and move people on, no warning was given and nobody was given the opportunity to leave of their own accord.
* That when the police entered the camp a second time, people were sitting down with their hands in the air being very passive - but the police dragged, kicked, punched and hit people with shields to move them away from the area and disperse them.

At around 2 o'clock this afternoon (Thursday) an armed police unit reportedly raided a convergence centre on Earl's Street. The officers, who did not have a search warrant, claimed they were acting under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Caroline Lucas commented: "There seems to be a good deal of evidence that the police used tactics that were inappropriate.

"The law on preventing a breach of the peace should not be used as an excuse to deny people a right to demonstrate in a peaceful and law-abiding manner. And it definitely shouldn't be used as an excuse for mass detention of demonstrators who, in many cases, just wanted to go home."

She concluded: "I think the police should provide evidence of the basis on which they are apparently using anti-terrorism legislation to act against peaceful legitimate protesters."

MPA: Londoners are vital in helping to maintain community confidence in policing

The Metropolitan Police Authority firmly believes that anyone arrested by the police and held in custody has the right to be treated well and have access to good facilities.

But who guarantees this?

Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs) make unannounced visits to police stations to provide an independent check that detainees are treated in accordance with their rights and entitlements and ensure their welfare is maintained.

ICVs are ordinary members of the community who, working in teams in their local boroughs, call at police stations unannounced and write short reports about their visits.

Their recommendations can require the police to make improvements for the welfare of detainees, and the work they carry out plays a valuable role in maintaining public confidence in this important area of policing.

To raise awareness of the scheme amongst Londoners, the Authority has commissioned a 30 second radio advert which broadcasts on Choice FM (96.9FM) from Monday 23 March.

Listen to the MPA advert: http://www.mpa.gov.uk/partnerships/icv/radioadvert

Torture in London and a hell of a lot of angry questions

The Metropolitan Police has been ordered to pay £60,000 damages to a terror suspect after admitting in the High Court that arresting officers subjected him to violent assaults and religious abuse.

Their defence crumbled when lawyers for the Met conceded that Babar Ahmed from Tooting in London was the victim of gratuitous violence by territorial support group officers during the dawn arrest at his home in December 2003. One of the police officers involved could face criminal proceedings and Mr Ahmad was never charged with any offences arising out of his arrest.

In August 2004 he was detained at the request of the US government and has been held at Long Lartin prison since whilst he waits for a decision on whether his extradition to the US would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. The officers who carried out the 2003 arrest had been briefed that Mr Ahmad was believed to be connected to al-Qaida and was the head of a south London terrorist group.

Call me crazy...but what on earth is going on in this country and with the human rights law that New Labour enacted when it came to power? When did it ever become acceptable either before or after the Human Rights Act 1998 to torture a suspect in custody? when did it become acceptable to hold someone in prison for five years without charge? When did it become acceptable to extradite someone to a country or regime that condones torture? How is it that we can't send people back to places like Jordan or Saudi without a stinking fuss but we are happy to send them to Guantanamo for the US to violate?

Just as importantly, why is our own police force of the opinion that it is acceptable for its officers, its protectors of society to torture suspects in its custody? How is it with the amount of surveillance technology available in interrogation rooms that officers managed to perform torture without immediate restraint or protest from fellow officers? Why is it that a police force that is habitually accused of and rife with institutional racism allowing this kind of behaviour against ethnic minorities from its officers? Why are we making the same mistakes with Islamic terrorists that we made in the 60s, 70s and 80s with the IRA? Why are we giving terrorists substance to their cause greater than they had to start with?

Why will the Metropolitan police not apologise for their appalling behaviour in this instance?

Answer the questions honestly and the only soul destroying conclusion that can be drawn is that when the dust settles, the actions of these representatives of our state renders us no better than those who seek to destroy us...and that makes me spit with anger and rage!!!

'What about the victims?' - Inquest and Liberty hold parliamentary meeting on Government plans for secret inquests

Inquest and Liberty held a parliamentary meeting today on the secret inquest provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill. Chaired by Frank Dobson MP, parliamentarians were addressed by Susan Alexander, bereaved mother of Azelle Rodney who was shot dead by the Metropolitan Police in 2005, Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest and Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty.

Politicians from across the political spectrum heard that despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in Iraq or the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.

Susan Alexander said:

"The secret inquest provisions in the Bill are not significantly different from the clauses that the Government withdrew last year from the Counter-Terrorism Bill, at least from my point of view. They could still prevent a jury and me from seeing key evidence and having it properly tested in Court.

The inquest into Azelle’s death will not undermine the work of the police in protecting the public from serious crime, but the public interest will be badly damaged if the truth of what happened is obscured and all the lessons of this case cannot be learned.”

Helen Shaw, Co-Director of Inquest said:

"INQUEST remains fundamentally opposed to these proposals. They amount to a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in England and Wales; are fundamentally flawed; unsupported by evidence; disconnected from legal principles and have come about without any consultation with stakeholders. The proposals will completely undermine the stated aim of government to put bereaved families at the centre of the reformed inquest system and will damage public confidence in the Coroner Service as a whole."

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

“What happened to all that rhetoric about rebalancing justice in favour of victims? This flawed policy forgets that the only point of an inquest is providing answers for bereaved families and the wider public. It is perfectly possible to protect sensitive material within an open jury system. Everything else is just politics.”