Dear Editor,
I have noted your apology to the Police Commissioner on the question of torture but cannot stop wondering how your reporter could have made such a mistake. That gives the police chief more ammunition for attacking your reporters on the grounds that they are not kind towards them.
However, errors in reporting are not uncommon, especially when some of the speakers at press conferences are themselves inarticulate and show clearly that they do not want to speak the truth when they waffle and murmur in their responses.
It is all good and well for the main participants to arrive with their written statements which they read perfunctorily, but then they show unease, lack of knowledge and marked dislike when they are asked to respond to questions.
The police chief is no exception. He has not been forthright in some of his responses and comes across as the powerhouse at such press conferences in the style of, ‘you take what we tell for we are the end-all in knowledge’.
Do not forget that in the past your paper was not invited to some police press conferences. Now in the current episode, if I am to take as accurate your reporting that the police chief said “The force is not about torture, if the police come to arrest you they have to use some degree of force,” the police chief is indeed and in fact acknowledging that the police do use force when making arrests. Do they have to? Clearly no.
Torture is in some aspects the use of force and because the police are a law onto themselves it is not unlikely that the use of force is overdone. What about warning persons that they are under arrest?
Why is it that when the police do arrest someone they treat them with such disdain, like throwing and tumbling them into the back of their vehicle?
Whether they are alive, dead or wounded, they are treated with extreme disdain and in the full view of many onlookers. Is that not another element of torture? I have vivid recollections of how they so treated Benschop’s wife.
You have reported that the police chief, “said that his comments on Thursday could not be interpreted as him speaking publicly on the matter, noting that he had not done so as yet.” Such a comment is hilarious. In North America, the police have an excellent relationship with the press.
In fact, they adore them in large measure and speak freely to them on site and at press conferences. If a question is posed that could lead to complications, the response is clear, as for example, “I cannot answer that question right now as further investigations are in progress and we would not like to complicate or interfere such actions”.
The defensive attitude and outlook of the police chief should be revamped and refurbished. Use the press as an ally. Issue press releases as a matter of course and promptly. Make a PR personfreely available at all times. Return phone calls. Avoid ducking and hiding and be truthful in responses.
Finally, admit that all three persons, to wit, Patrick Sumner, Victor Jones, and wanted man David Leander, also called David Zammet and ‘Biscuit’, were beaten and tortured by some unidentified ranks of the police force.
At least a partial truth display as opposed to the blatant proffered untruth.
Merai? Well that is another matter for another time.
Yours faithfully,
Carl Veecock
Editor’s note
As regards the error in reporting, the commissioner in his main presentation referred to police procedure and said that they do not torture people. There was no specific reference to the current case, but given the context, the reporter assumed that this was a denial that the three men had been tortured.
As for the statement that the men were tortured by army personnel, this information came from another police source but because of the juxtaposition in the report it could reasonably have been assumed by a reader that it came from the commissioner, hence our apology.
