It's not likely that another piece of damning evidence on police brutality will surface again. We have also seen, as the events unfolded, how such graphic proof isn't really enough to convince some of the authorities on the seriousness of the matter. Worse, red herrings were laid out by people at the top to distract attention from the real issue.

Having said that, can I ask what sort of evidence will be required in future to prove that one suffered at the hands of the police? How 'serious' must the incident be before it warrants attention?

This recent 'squat' fiasco has also thrown up an interesting conundrum. That come hell or high water the police will be innocent and scot-free until well and truly proven guilty. The rest of us will be guilty and punished until well and truly proven innocent.