Something Is Rotten In The State Of Britain

Nicked from Facebook, it is definitely not mine, but the ramifications of Craig Mackey’s actions, or lack of, just rumble on and on, and the smell is not very palatable.

Like many, I made a formal complaint against the behaviour of Craig Mackey. The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. This individual locked himself in his car as Pc Keith Palmer was stabbed to death by the animal Masood at the gates of the Palace of Westminster. Like many I have just received a reply to that complaint. It has left me slightly uncomfortable.

Apparently according to the Police Reform Act 2002, I do not have standing to make a formal complaint about this matter and therefore they are not recording my correspondence as a complaint about the Acting Commissioner.

The Act specifies who can make a complaint and in what circumstances. Section 12(1) provides that a complaint may be made by the following people:

a. A member of the public who claims the conduct took place in relation to him/her;

b. A member of the public who claims to have been adversely affected by the conduct, even though it did not take place in relation to him/her;

c. A member of the public who claims to have witnessed the conduct;

d. A person acting on behalf of someone who falls within any of the three categories above.

In my opinion my complaint was justified under b and d above.

b. I have been adversely affected by the conduct of Mr Mackey. Also

d. The complaint was lodged on behalf of Pc Keith Palmer

I am also told:

Section 12(5) further provides that:

…a person shall be taken to have witnessed conduct, if, and only if–

(a) He/she acquired their knowledge of that conduct in a manner which would make them a competent witness capable of giving admissible evidence of that conduct in criminal proceedings; or

(b) He/she has in their possession or under their control anything, which would in any such proceedings constitute admissible evidence of that conduct.

In my case I based the reason for my complaint on the evidence, given on oath, by Mr Mackey to the Westminster Inquest. I can only assume that Mr Mackey was telling the truth during these proceedings. Therefore, in my opinion section (a) above is relevant to my complaint.

The truth is, whilst making the complaint, I fully expected it to be kicked into touch. Not because it was not warranted. But because it does not suit either the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police or the Mayor of London’s Office. Imagine if you would, that instead of Keith it had been some member of some ‘special interest’ group who was chased and murdered whilst a police officer remained locked in his car………..

But the thing that really surprised me is the inclusion of the following:

‘Well, members of the jury, it’s clear from the evidence of Sir Craig that there was, as I say, nothing that he could have done to have stopped Masood. PC Palmer was under attack practically as soon as Sir Craig saw the attacker. What Sir Craig did was sensible and proper and was intended to protect others in the car with him. None of them, as I have said, had any means of protecting themselves or of resisting an attack, and even if he had got out of the car, it is clear from the CCTV evidence that he would not have reached PC Palmer before Masood had inflicted the fatal wound. Indeed, it’s very likely that Masood would have been past the car even if Sir Craig had got out of it. It’s also clear that after Masood had been shot, Sir Craig did not flee the scene: his first instinct was to get out in New Palace Yard, as we saw on the footage when he opened the car door. However, he was told by an officer to leave, and for good reason’.

This statement is the comment made by the Coroner during his summing up at the Inquest. At the time a great many people queried why the Coroner made such an overt defence of Mackey.

It should be remembered that the purpose of an inquest is to answer four questions:

1 Identity of the deceased

2.Place of death

3.Time of death

4. How the deceased came by his/her death

Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted. It is not for the inquest to ascertain “how the deceased died” or “in what broad circumstances”, but “how the deceased came by his death”, a more limited question.

The Coroner’s defence of Mackey had no place in the Inquest. There was never any doubt as to who caused it. The complaint against Mackey was in relation to his behaviour, or lack of behaviour, as a police officer at the time. The complaint was very much along the lines of that made in 2015, against several police officers who failed to get out of their patrol car to assist a Tesco security guard with a violent shoplifter. A complaint which led to the justified sacking of one police officer. I can see absolutely no difference between that incident and the issue around Mr Mackey’s behaviour.

But as out of place as the comment was at the Inquest, it is it’s regular appearance in the official responses from the likes of Cressida Dick (Commissioner of Police) and the Mayors Office for Policing and Crime that worries me. It appears that this statement was a deliberately structured ‘key’ designed to aid in the release of Mackey from his predicament. Prepared and pre-empted, in my opinion, even before the end of the Inquest.

The real cancer that is killing the police service resides in the top floors of the Yard and other Police HQs around the land. Yes, there are many Chief Constables and senior officers who still hold true to the traditional values of policing. But they are growing fewer in number. Seeing how the system has rallied around to protect one of its own, many genuinely good senior officers must be tempted to avail themselves of such patronage.

There is corruption in the police. It stinks of politics…….

That is all

Last Updated on

Dear Media, Why Do You Hate Us So?

Are you really the right hand men of an incompetent government, intent to bring the Police Service, and others, to their knees? Or is it just that it looks that way?

Newpaper headlines are almost always slanted to make our Police Service look incompetent, violent or corrupt.  Even when the events being reported occur abroad, that fact is omitted from the banner headlines, so that the reader might reasonably assume that was in uk

Shooting of unarmed white man shown in police body camera videoCALIFORNIA

White female police officer charged with manslaughter after shooting unarmed black man Tulsa

Death of unarmed black man Terence Crutcher, shot by police with his hands up, sparks protests and official investigationTulsa

The list goes on.

Even when relaying the news from this country the headlines don’t always describe the reality, or omit an alternative scenario.

Snapchat video captures moment ‘a police officer repeatedly punches a suspect in the head five times’ – when one reads the whole article it is actually mentioned that the suspect was actually biting the officer’s leg and that was why he was being punched.  The article also contained the information that the whole incident had been investigated by the Aforce’s Professional Standards Department who adjuged that the amount of force used was in fact reasonable.  Not the impression given by the banner headline though is it?

Then there’s our old friend corruption. ALL cops are corrupt, didn’t you know?  Well at least that’s what the press would have us believe.

Scotland Yard launches ‘bent cop’ probe after 13 unsolved murder files lost – except that when one reads the whole article it includes this

The Met said they have no evidence the files, all dating back to the 1980s, have been destroyed by corrupt police officers, but added: “This is kept under constant review.”

Not quite such a strong story now is it?  The Met is a HUGE organisation and storage of its paper files must be a total nightmare. It is more probable that they have simply been lost/mislaid/misfiled.

The Met can’t find 13 files, who knows where they are?”  is not such an attention grabbing headline is it?

SOME officers are corrupt, but not very many.  Decent officers won’t and don’t tolerate corruption.  I am absolutely convinced that the Met, along with every other Force, would absolutely love to rid themselves of corrupt officers.  A little thing called EVIDENCE is what keeps getting in the way.  Many Forces have prosecuted and/or sacked corrupt officers when they have the EVIDENCE, but it’s a bit tricky without.

So, members of the press, if you have any EVIDENCE of Police corruption produce it and I’m 100% confident that it will be investigated and the appropriate action taken, if not, please stop labelling cops as Corrupt when you can’t prove it.

It’s no better than me saying that all journos are bunging Police Officers and Prison Officers for information.  I’m sure it goes on but do you ALL do it?  No, probably not.

Stop acting like the government’s paid bullies and try employing more accurate and responsible headlines.

Some while ago I wrote this,  it seems that the Press are playing their part very well.

Last Updated on

Crikey, Surely The Met Hasn’t Grown A Pair

In 1993 a young lad, Stephen Lawrence, was tragically murdered by a gang of racists.  That much we know and we have known it for a long time.  It seems clear to most that the investigation into that murder was flawed and almost certainly derailed by the corrupt actions of one or two officers. However, I have never experienced a Murder Squad that did not want to solve whatever murder they happened to be investigating, whoever the victim was. Race, gender or Social Standing did not come into it.  There was a body in the morgue and their job is to identify the killer(s) and prosecute them.  I have never experienced anything different to that.

Just less than two years ago (some 20 years after the murder) it was alleged by a former undercover officer that the Met had been involved in ‘spying’ on the Lawrence family.

In the late 1990s it is alleged that (then) DI Richard Walton used undercover officers to facilitate this ‘spying’ in an effort to gain intelligence to help the Met defend itself against allegations that they had failed to properly investigate the initial murder.  The illustrious IPCC mounted an investigation into the involvement of Mr Walton.

After 19 months of rigourous investigation they deemed that there was ‘a case to answer’ against (now) Commander Richard Walton.  19 months. 

When it became clear that Commander Walton was on the verge of retiring, which he is perfectly entitled to do, before neither the IPCC nor the Met had actually instigated disciplinary proceedings then Stephen’s father Neville leapt up demanding that Mr Walton’s retirement be blocked.

To the Met’s eternal credit they declined to follow this course of action.  Commander Ealton has now, I believe, retired after completing his 30 years service.  He says that the IPCC always knew of his retirement plans but still took nearly two years to conduct their investigation.  I’m quite certain that they would be highly critical of an officer who took almost two years to conduct an investigation.

I have met Richard Walton a couple of times when he was a D.I.  He struck me as a decent, conciencious and efficient officer, but @obbsie knows him much better than I do.

The Lawrence murder has proved to be tragedy and a travesty on so many different levels.  There are lessons that we need to learn most definitely, but I’m not happy being branded Institutionally Racist by somebody who doesn’t know me.  That label has been aplied to every single Met officer for years now, and the majority of people outside the Police Service don’t even understand the significance of it.

I have sympathy with the Lawrence family for their loss, the same as I would have sympathy for anybody else in their situation, but this constant witch hunt just has to end.  SOME of the offenders HAVE now been brought to justice. There have been Reviews and Reviews into the Reviews, surely in 2016 it is time to draw a line and build for the future?

Surely there are also lessons to be learnt by the IPCC also?

Last Updated on