Campaigns set up as a result of deaths in police custody often call for the officers involved to be suspended pending investigation. Although, ten times out of ten this has not the case.
If an allegation is made against a teacher by another member of staff or a student, that teacher is then suspended pending investigation, this is the case with social care. So why the double standard for police? Especially, given the fact that they are providing a public service and have a duty of care. Restrictive duties implies that you are suspected of wrongdoing, so much that you are a liability on the streets (for now) and can only be an asset in a desk capacity. If an officer is seen as a liability is the streets than why not suspend him as he/she is a reflection of your institution and you know what they say about the company you keep. In order to restore public faith in an institution that serves the public, an institution who continue to deny to the state an acceptance of responsibility, they must draw the line and take the necessary steps to restoration by making a statement. The word ‘statement’ is only used because evidently it is not procedure to suspend an officer(s) pending investigation after such an incident. That being the case only a statement can be made and an example set, not only to prevent but to also restore that public faith. The neither confirm nor deny policy is just that, a policy and not a law. What does this mean? It means that the Met police or the IPCC do not have to confirm whether or not an officer involved in a death in his/her custody has been suspended because there is no law that states that they have to disclose that information to the families of the victims or the public.