Last Updated on February 7, 2016 by RetiredAndAngry
It only seems like a moment ago that the Police were being criticised for the manner in which they investigated and recorded crimes and how they treated or regarded the victims of those crimes.
There are any manner of ‘anti’ articles in the press, disclosures by officers, dodgy recording practices, unrealistic targets. The whole thing was a mess.
A review was conducted by our good friends at HMIC, which led to Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Uncle Tom Cobblers, telling the BBC that the under-recording of sexual offences was of particular concern and more sex crimes would be reported if victims felt they could trust the police.
“The police need to institutionalise a culture of believing the victim. Every time,” he said.
Believe the victim
So we did, our Police Forces did what (sarcasm alert) the nice man in the fancy uniform told them and believed the victims. This led to an immense number of fresh and historical allegations, mainly in relation to sexual abuse, being reported. The man at the top said “believe the victims” so they all got investigated.
At this point I would like to make it quite clear, that I am not saying “believe the victims” is the wrong policy. That is up to the people at the top of the greasy pole to decide.
Every allegation provoked an investigation, or so it seemed. Some could be conducted quickly and simply, some others took months, a year, or more. Some involved suspects who were dead, or dying. Is that wrong? Believing the victims necessitates an investigation, so no, I guess it wasn’t wrong.
Now we get to the bit that, quite honestly, confuses me.
Any of you who have been reading this pile of crap for a while will know that I am no fan of Sir Bernard Hogan-Who, but I do think he’s between the rock and the hard place at the moment.
Fast-Forward a couple of years and the media seems to be full of predictions concerning his future, or lack of one, at the Met.
Because his Force believed the victims and investigated crimes, much to the concern of certain journalists and revered publications.
A series of articles with particularly lurid and ugly headlines have been emerging, such as;
The man who shames the Met: A General called him ‘that wretched man’ but that’s just the start of the charge sheet against top cop behind bungled prosecutions of Leon Brittan and Lord Bramall
I shall no doubt be struck down by a bolt of lightning for saying this, but the media should butt out and leave Hogan-Who to get on with with contending with May’s Mayhem. Regarding the first article above, I didn’t realise Paul Gambaccini was a respected journalist and commentator, I thought he was someone from over the water who had a contract with the Beeb to play music on the radio. I don’t suppose his arrest under Operation Yewtree, the subsequent investigation and the fact that it was discontinued due to insufficient evidence has clouded his opinion of the Met one iota, do you?
If I have an opinion at all (that I would like to share) it is this:- instead of playing Where’s Wally, the elusive Sir Tom Winsor should come out fighting and remind the world that the Police in ANY Force are believing the victims and investigating the allegations because he told them to. It is not for me, or the media, to question or disagree with that.
The final item on the list above, which is far from complete, is an absolute outrage, a vile piece of filth that completely rubbishes victim ‘Nick’. I have no idea if ‘Nick”s allegations are true but they sure as hell don’t need to be rubbished in a national newspaper in that fashion. Can you imagine the outcry that the Mail would stir up if a Police Officer made the equivalent statements?
Gambaccini and the Mail can crawl away back into the dark, dank, putrid hole they came from and in a day or two I shall return to slagging off Hogan-Who, but just for today I feel a bit sorry for him, but I’m sure it will soon pass.
It just gets better and better