Why a digital blasphemy trial is a waste of time
On the morning of August 19, 2015, the young journalist, whose name has not been released to protect her identity, woke up in a dark hotel room in central London and began to compose her thoughts.
She’d already begun to share them with the world via Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, in part because her new job had given her access to the information.
Her first thought was that she’d had enough.
Her second: She was done.
“I felt I needed to be accountable to the world,” she said.
After writing and tweeting for hours, she posted the first word of the story on Twitter, which she had posted the previous day, just as the country was in the midst of a brutal summer riot.
A few hours later, she went to the press gallery, where she had waited for news from the British police, and was told that the matter was closed.
That was the beginning of a series of revelations that, if they had gone viral, would have exposed a much darker, and, in the case of British police officers, much more sinister, aspect of the country’s policing culture.
That same day, another journalist, Alex Sexton, posted a tweet about the British investigation.
“We have to do this.
This is how we are going to fight this.
We will do it.
And we will win,” Sexton wrote.
His tweet was retweeted more than 5,000 times.
A week later, police officers in London were involved in a shooting at a protest against the killing of Michael Brown.
That shooting led to riots across the country.
A year after the riot, a police officer shot and killed another protester outside a police station in London, a young man named Mohammed Abu Jamal, who was in a car with a woman and child.
In January 2018, an officer shot dead another young man who had run over a police vehicle, killing him.
In February 2018, a British police officer in the city of Coventry was accused of shooting dead a 16-year-old boy.
Police Commissioner Mark Rowley announced a six-month inquiry into the police shooting deaths of three young men, a 12-year old boy and a 14-yearold boy, and the shooting death of the 16-yr-old, as well as the shooting of an 18-year–old man in the streets of London.
The inquiry was announced in June 2018.
Police officers were found to be at fault for the deaths of the three young boys.
The investigation into the shooting deaths is still ongoing, but, after months of investigation, Rowley and his team concluded that the shooting incidents had been carried out by police officers.
This, however, does not mean that the police were completely innocent, or that the officers had committed the shooting without provocation.
Rowley has not commented publicly on the allegations, and he has not made any public statements on the issue since then.
What does the inquiry tell us?
What Rowley said is that the two young men in the car were unarmed, but that a policeman was not required to shoot the three men to stop them from attacking the police.
“The facts are as follows,” Rowley told the House of Commons in March 2018, in response to a question from Labour’s Caroline Lucas.
“Two men are shot in the vicinity of the station, one of them is killed.
A second man, who is shot at the police station, dies at the scene.
A third man is arrested, who subsequently becomes seriously injured.”
Rowley then told the Commons that “a third man, the man who is arrested at the station,” was shot and died later at the hospital.
“All of this took place without the use of a firearm.”
But it was Rowley who said that the young men who had been shot had been unarmed, and that “the two police officers who are at fault are not justified in shooting the men.”
Rowleys response is problematic because it suggests that Rowley had not understood the nature of the circumstances that led up to the fatal shooting of the two men in a police car, or how a bullet had struck them.
As Rowley himself wrote in the House, the incident occurred at a “police station” that “does not exist anywhere in Britain.”
Rowles comments about the shooting at the Coventry police station do not tell us much about the circumstances of the shooting that occurred.
In his statement, Rowleys police officer said that “I had been standing in the road and I was going to give chase” to a car.
“My colleague and I were in the process of giving chase when the car I was in started to move,” the officer said.
“He said he thought we were going to collide with the car and that I should try to turn around.
As I turned around, I saw a white car driving away from us.
I was at the back of the car when the vehicle turned around and I heard two gunshots.”
Rowes response is puzzling because the officer who fired the first