This is outrageous. Earlier today we wondered if a lawyer reading a summary of a #spycops statement without anyone questioning what was said. @PeterSalmon7 has been over the full statements & found the #SpyCopsInquiry is glossing over important facts [thread]
This morning the #SpyCopsInquiry said officer HN339 'Stewart Goodman' was 'involved in a road traffic accident... which necessitated the involvement of his supervisors... [&] suspects this may have been a catalyst for the end of his deployment' [23:12]
The mention of the 'road traffic accident' was immediately preceded by the statement that, apart from flyposting, 'Goodman' was not involved in any other criminal activity while undercover. This is a lie. His own statement says he was driving drunk & wrote off his car. 
Instead of maintaining cover, 'Goodman' told the uniformed officers at the scene that he was a #SpyCops officer. Instead of arresting & charging him, they drove him home. He was later charged & attended court with his manager Phil Saunders.
'Goodman' is confident that he went to court under his false name, that his manager Saunders had briefed the magistrates, & that he pleaded guilty & was fined.
ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
ucpi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
The #SpyCopsInquiry summed all this up as 'not involved in crime... involved in a road traffic accident'. Without wading through his 27 page statement we'd never have known. How much more is in the 1000s of pages of documents that are only published after officers are dealt with?
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
