Is The End Game Finally In Sight?

You may also like...

29 Responses

  1. ideb8 says:

    Conservative Chair of select committee in effect – and oh so politely – accuses the Home Office and the Government of LYING

    Home Office Minister, Norman Baker
    “Last year, before the Select Committee’s inquiry began, the Home Secretary commissioned HMIC to undertake a detailed inspection of crime recording in every police force.”

    Bernard Jenkin, PASC Chair
    “HMIC was not specifically tasked with that responsibility until after our inquiry started. There has been some retrospective interpretation of what HMIC was asked to do, as HMIC was tasked to do that only after our report got going. I understand why everyone is a bit defensive about what our inquiry started to uncover, and the Government want to be seen to be ahead of the game, but I honestly believe that he is inadvertently misleading the House”

    NOT specifically tasked..
    AFTER our inquiry started..
    RETROSPECTIVE INTERPRETATION..
    ONLY AFTER our report..
    DEFENSIVE about what our inquiry started to uncover..
    Government want to be SEEN TO BE ahead of the game.,
    I honestly believe that he is inadvertently MISLEADING THE HOUSE

    (the added word “inadvertently” is what passes for politeness in Tory circles..)

    The Tories are liars. The honest ones not only know this. They admit it. They even say so in public. They see that defensive lies by Govt must no longer wash..

  2. ideb8 says:

    Future Whistleblowers, look on the works of Norman Baker and despair.

    Andrew Turner, MP
    “which Metropolitan police body was responsible for the treatment of the person involved, leading to his departure?”
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2014-10-16a.141.0#g166.2

    Home Office Minister, Norman Baker
    “I am not in a position to go into the case of PC James Patrick in great detail..”

    WHY NOT?

    PC Patrick is an ex PC, he doesn’t parrott for the Met. He never did. He has no outstanding case against the Met. No legal considerations justify such slippery reticence.

    Norman, why don’t you ever go into it in some (if ‘great’ is too onerous) detail?
    Why don’t you ever go into it in ANY detail?

    Because, Norm, you continue to cover up for the perpetrators. And you’ll persist until they get away with it – Scot free – won’t you?

    So your hollow words about upholding the truth and your retrospective actions, poorly designed to be seen to be ‘ahead of the game’, merely show the Govt still has no genuine interest in protecting or promoting those who still take the trouble to speak it.

  3. ideb8 says:

    Future Whistleblowers, look on the works of Norman Baker and despair.

    Andrew Turner, MP
    “which Metropolitan police body was responsible for the treatment of the person involved, leading to his departure?”
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2014-10-16a.141.0#g166.2

    Home Office Minister, Norman Baker
    “I am not in a position to go into the case of PC James Patrick in great detail..”

    WHY NOT?

    PC Patrick is an ex PC, he doesn’t parrott for the Met. He never did. He has no outstanding case against the Met. No legal considerations justify such slippery reticence.

    Norman, why don’t you ever go into it in some (if ‘great’ is too onerous) detail?
    Why don’t you ever go into it in ANY detail?

    Because, Norm, you continue to cover up for the perpetrators. And you’ll persist until they get away with it – Scot free – won’t you?

    So your hollow words about upholding the truth and your retrospective actions, poorly designed to be seen to be ‘ahead of the game’, merely show the Govt still has no genuine interest in protecting or promoting those who still take the trouble to speak it.

  4. ideb8 says:

    Yes, do like your closing thought..!

    An updated entry in the Oxford English Dictionary perhaps?
    INTEGRITTY – James Patrick, The quality of being honest, having strong moral principles and facing your tormentor (dementor..) on LBC with true grit.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/whistleblower-confronts-met-chief-9264234.html

  5. ideb8 says:

    Yes, do like your closing thought..!

    An updated entry in the Oxford English Dictionary perhaps?
    INTEGRITTY – James Patrick, The quality of being honest, having strong moral principles and facing your tormentor (dementor..) on LBC with true grit.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/whistleblower-confronts-met-chief-9264234.html

  6. ideb8 says:

    Integrity shock – it’s not enough – only integritty has a chance

    “This has infected the heart of government itself. There are lots and lots and lots of good, ethical people who hate what is happening. I know ethical police officers who have talked about resisting political pressures, and it’s difficult. They may be scandalised and even suffer personally at the hands of those who realise their career ambitions by cynically playing the numbers game.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/12/police-officers-fiddling-crime-statistics-england-wales-figures

  7. ideb8 says:

    Integrity shock – it’s not enough – only integritty has a chance

    “This has infected the heart of government itself. There are lots and lots and lots of good, ethical people who hate what is happening. I know ethical police officers who have talked about resisting political pressures, and it’s difficult. They may be scandalised and even suffer personally at the hands of those who realise their career ambitions by cynically playing the numbers game.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/12/police-officers-fiddling-crime-statistics-england-wales-figures

  8. Keira says:

    I’m not sure that this counts as the last word, Alan.

    At the moment anyone who has followed this story has only heard one side (Mr Patricks) while other parties (and there are a few) have kept their counsel about this issue.

    Supporters of Mr Patrick, like yourself, do yourself no favours by cherry picking the aspects of the case that support your case (Mr Patrick Good (Hurrah!) – Metropolitan Police Bad (Booo!)) while conveniently ignoring other aspects (and, again, there are a few) which don’t support that view.

    For example, in this case, you have chosen the parts of Mr Jenkin’s speech that suit your case, while ignoring the parts which don’t. As Mr Jenkins told the Commons; the most shameful aspect of this case has been the lack of support from the Police Federation.

    I suspect that if you unpick the decisions of the Police Federation a very different picture of Mr Patrick’s story (i.e. the views of his colleagues) will begin to emerge. Until now, those views have not been heard.

    It’s like hearing a case solely on the evidence and submissions of the defence.

    This may be the last word from the supporters of Mr Patrick (I doubt it) but we have yet to hear the full facts.

    Just because some parties in this matter have remained silent, it doesn’t follow that the only one speaking is telling the whole story.

    • You are quite right Keira, I made a deliberate decision not to clutter up my blog with a verbatim transcript of Mr Jenkin (and others’) statements, but it is a publicly available document and readers are at liberty to seek it out and establish the full context for themselves. Speaking for myself I would welcome statements on this issue from both the Met and the Metropolitan Police Federation on the case of Mr Patrick, to date I have yet to see a comprehensive explanation from either party. There is a perfectly valid reason why I have not criticised the Federation more, but you would be unaware of that reason, and I don’t see that I have a requirement to share that with someone who appears to ‘hide’ behind a disposable email address.

  9. Keira says:

    I’m not sure that this counts as the last word, Alan.

    At the moment anyone who has followed this story has only heard one side (Mr Patricks) while other parties (and there are a few) have kept their counsel about this issue.

    Supporters of Mr Patrick, like yourself, do yourself no favours by cherry picking the aspects of the case that support your case (Mr Patrick Good (Hurrah!) – Metropolitan Police Bad (Booo!)) while conveniently ignoring other aspects (and, again, there are a few) which don’t support that view.

    For example, in this case, you have chosen the parts of Mr Jenkin’s speech that suit your case, while ignoring the parts which don’t. As Mr Jenkins told the Commons; the most shameful aspect of this case has been the lack of support from the Police Federation.

    I suspect that if you unpick the decisions of the Police Federation a very different picture of Mr Patrick’s story (i.e. the views of his colleagues) will begin to emerge. Until now, those views have not been heard.

    It’s like hearing a case solely on the evidence and submissions of the defence.

    This may be the last word from the supporters of Mr Patrick (I doubt it) but we have yet to hear the full facts.

    Just because some parties in this matter have remained silent, it doesn’t follow that the only one speaking is telling the whole story.

    • You are quite right Keira, I made a deliberate decision not to clutter up my blog with a verbatim transcript of Mr Jenkin (and others’) statements, but it is a publicly available document and readers are at liberty to seek it out and establish the full context for themselves. Speaking for myself I would welcome statements on this issue from both the Met and the Metropolitan Police Federation on the case of Mr Patrick, to date I have yet to see a comprehensive explanation from either party. There is a perfectly valid reason why I have not criticised the Federation more, but you would be unaware of that reason, and I don’t see that I have a requirement to share that with someone who appears to ‘hide’ behind a disposable email address.

  10. ideb8 says:

    You are quite right Keira, some of his colleagues have not been heard.

    Why not?

    They’ve not been heard throughout the period (over 2 years) in which JP was trying to alert his bosses & the Govt that crime figures are being fiddled, victims of rape persuaded to withdraw their claims, rapists therefore free to rape someone else, decisions based on fraudulent figures used to misdirect scarce manpower during the riots, etc.

    Did his silent colleagues judge these claims false?

    If true, why weren’t his colleagues ever heard loudly corroborating them?

    Or were they merely annoyed he’d spoken out & so peevishly withheld any support?

    Many retired officers confirmed the claims by JP are true and even many not-yet-retired officers communicated their agreement, even if only sometimes privately. But all expressed fury at his unjust treatment.

    Why have his colleagues, in particular, not been heard in support of JP against what Bernard Jenkin MP describes as the “monstrous injustice” against him by his employer?

    “He was in effect hounded out of his job, following a long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain, which, I dare say, used and abused the disciplinary process to get rid of him”

    You are quite right Keira, some of his colleagues have not been heard.

    I suggest the colleagues whose views you’ve chosen to represent have not been heard for a completely different reason to any you are trying to insinuate.

  11. ideb8 says:

    You are quite right Keira, some of his colleagues have not been heard.

    Why not?

    They’ve not been heard throughout the period (over 2 years) in which JP was trying to alert his bosses & the Govt that crime figures are being fiddled, victims of rape persuaded to withdraw their claims, rapists therefore free to rape someone else, decisions based on fraudulent figures used to misdirect scarce manpower during the riots, etc.

    Did his silent colleagues judge these claims false?

    If true, why weren’t his colleagues ever heard loudly corroborating them?

    Or were they merely annoyed he’d spoken out & so peevishly withheld any support?

    Many retired officers confirmed the claims by JP are true and even many not-yet-retired officers communicated their agreement, even if only sometimes privately. But all expressed fury at his unjust treatment.

    Why have his colleagues, in particular, not been heard in support of JP against what Bernard Jenkin MP describes as the “monstrous injustice” against him by his employer?

    “He was in effect hounded out of his job, following a long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain, which, I dare say, used and abused the disciplinary process to get rid of him”

    You are quite right Keira, some of his colleagues have not been heard.

    I suggest the colleagues whose views you’ve chosen to represent have not been heard for a completely different reason to any you are trying to insinuate.

  12. ideb8 says:

    Yes, if every colleague approached by, or who has approached, Alan has supported the allegations re dodgy crime stats, the colleagues whose views Keira has chosen to represent were probably not heard for the ‘completely different reason’ that they were among those complicit in the “long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain” – and most likely included:

    DI James Raphael
    PS Iain Martin
    DCI Iain Raphael
    PS Ross Gibbings
    Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne
    Inspector Mike Rawsthorn
    Detective Superintendent Simon Laurence
    Detective Chief Superintendent Simon Letchford
    Commander Allan Gibson
    Commander Peter Spindler
    Commander Ephgrave

    (http://jamesp79.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/withholding-evidence-from-parliament, http://retiredandangry.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/how-do-you-find-james-patrick-guilty-or-not-guilty/comment-page-1/#comment-973)

    The views of far more colleagues, in support of JP and in agreement with the allegations, are definitely not represented by Keira. These 63 (mostly) ex-Met officers, for example, wished openly to express their anger at the vindictiveness exhibited by their previous employer:

    1 Alan Wright ex Met
    2 Sharon Birch ex Met
    3 Stephen Birch ex Met
    4 Pat Brennen ex Met
    5 Helen Bradburn ex Met
    6 Brian Adamson ex Met
    7 Willie Mohan ex Met
    8 Chris Glossop ex Met
    9 Stephen Southwell ex Met
    10 Pauline Weddle ex Met
    11 Paul Jefford ex Met
    12 Adam Watts ex Met
    13 Steve Dennis ex Met
    14 Charles Walker ex Met
    15 Peter Oldham ex Met
    16 Phil Herdman ex Met
    17 Ian Templeton ex Met
    18 John West ex Met
    19 Peter Neale ex Met
    20 John Piggot ex Met
    21 Neil Frame ex Met
    22 Jackie Hastings ex Met
    23 Mike Pannett ex Met
    24 Eric Halfhide ex Met
    25 Karen McGarry ex Met
    26 Frances Wallace ex Met
    27 Colin Biggar ex Met
    28 Robert Southgate ex Met

    29 Mark Cook ex Met

    30 Andrew Holland ex Met

    31 Mark Wood ex Met
    32
 Frank Jennings ex Met
    33 Helen Bradburn ex Met
    34 John Barron ex Met
    35 Lobby Thornton ex Met
    36 Karen Dunnett ex Met

    37 Christopher Pengelly ex Met
    
38 William Sharpe ex Met

    39 Ian Giles ex Met

    40 Maurice McPhillimey ex Met
    41 
Colin Greenlees ex Met

    42 Doug Vieweg ex Met
    43 Ian McDonald ex Met

    44 Karen Gilmour ex Met
    45 Stephen Blue Hake ex Met
    46 Richard Hutchinson ex Met
    47 Ian Maw ex Met
    48 Peter Burnell ex Met
    49 Paul Baker ex Met
    50 Steve Bennett ex West Midlands
    51 Clive Bishop ex Met
    52 Pete Plumb
    53 Paul Shinnick ex Met
    54 Michael Platts ex Met
    55 Hamish Boyd ex Met
    56 David Pengelly ex Met
    57 Chris Hobbs ex Met
    58 Steve Highton ex Met
    59 Mark Acford
    60 Cameron McCann ex Met
    61 Geoff Beale ex Met
    62 W.Glyn Thomas ex PS54″C”
    63 Duncan Reid, ex Met 30yrs

    (http://effiemerryl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/in-support-of-police-whistle-blower-pc.html)

    • I think that makes a point Keira

      • Keira Cunningham says:

        Thank you all that have responded so far.

        I am not so much as anti Mr Patrick as pro hearing more than just the one side of the story, and pointing out that there are gaps in Mr Patrick’s account doesn’t mean he is totally wrong.

        A Conservative MP has made a strong attack on the integrity of the Police Federation and singled out their behaviour as the most shameful aspect of this case – their silence in light of this attack indicates that we (or at least me) don’t yet know the whole story in this affair.

        A truth is no less true because it is inconvenient and the elephant in the room in this affair is the silence of the Fed.

      • Quite right Keil, I for one would love to hear the Fedeation’s explanation. Maybe they’ll provide one one day.

  13. ideb8 says:

    Yes, if every colleague approached by, or who has approached, Alan has supported the allegations re dodgy crime stats, the colleagues whose views Keira has chosen to represent were probably not heard for the ‘completely different reason’ that they were among those complicit in the “long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain” – and most likely included:

    DI James Raphael
    PS Iain Martin
    DCI Iain Raphael
    PS Ross Gibbings
    Assistant Commissioner Simon Byrne
    Inspector Mike Rawsthorn
    Detective Superintendent Simon Laurence
    Detective Chief Superintendent Simon Letchford
    Commander Allan Gibson
    Commander Peter Spindler
    Commander Ephgrave

    (http://jamesp79.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/withholding-evidence-from-parliament, http://retiredandangry.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/how-do-you-find-james-patrick-guilty-or-not-guilty/comment-page-1/#comment-973)

    The views of far more colleagues, in support of JP and in agreement with the allegations, are definitely not represented by Keira. These 63 (mostly) ex-Met officers, for example, wished openly to express their anger at the vindictiveness exhibited by their previous employer:

    1 Alan Wright ex Met
    2 Sharon Birch ex Met
    3 Stephen Birch ex Met
    4 Pat Brennen ex Met
    5 Helen Bradburn ex Met
    6 Brian Adamson ex Met
    7 Willie Mohan ex Met
    8 Chris Glossop ex Met
    9 Stephen Southwell ex Met
    10 Pauline Weddle ex Met
    11 Paul Jefford ex Met
    12 Adam Watts ex Met
    13 Steve Dennis ex Met
    14 Charles Walker ex Met
    15 Peter Oldham ex Met
    16 Phil Herdman ex Met
    17 Ian Templeton ex Met
    18 John West ex Met
    19 Peter Neale ex Met
    20 John Piggot ex Met
    21 Neil Frame ex Met
    22 Jackie Hastings ex Met
    23 Mike Pannett ex Met
    24 Eric Halfhide ex Met
    25 Karen McGarry ex Met
    26 Frances Wallace ex Met
    27 Colin Biggar ex Met
    28 Robert Southgate ex Met

    29 Mark Cook ex Met

    30 Andrew Holland ex Met

    31 Mark Wood ex Met
    32
 Frank Jennings ex Met
    33 Helen Bradburn ex Met
    34 John Barron ex Met
    35 Lobby Thornton ex Met
    36 Karen Dunnett ex Met

    37 Christopher Pengelly ex Met
    
38 William Sharpe ex Met

    39 Ian Giles ex Met

    40 Maurice McPhillimey ex Met
    41 
Colin Greenlees ex Met

    42 Doug Vieweg ex Met
    43 Ian McDonald ex Met

    44 Karen Gilmour ex Met
    45 Stephen Blue Hake ex Met
    46 Richard Hutchinson ex Met
    47 Ian Maw ex Met
    48 Peter Burnell ex Met
    49 Paul Baker ex Met
    50 Steve Bennett ex West Midlands
    51 Clive Bishop ex Met
    52 Pete Plumb
    53 Paul Shinnick ex Met
    54 Michael Platts ex Met
    55 Hamish Boyd ex Met
    56 David Pengelly ex Met
    57 Chris Hobbs ex Met
    58 Steve Highton ex Met
    59 Mark Acford
    60 Cameron McCann ex Met
    61 Geoff Beale ex Met
    62 W.Glyn Thomas ex PS54″C”
    63 Duncan Reid, ex Met 30yrs

    (http://effiemerryl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/in-support-of-police-whistle-blower-pc.html)

    • I think that makes a point Keira

      • Keira Cunningham says:

        Thank you all that have responded so far.

        I am not so much as anti Mr Patrick as pro hearing more than just the one side of the story, and pointing out that there are gaps in Mr Patrick’s account doesn’t mean he is totally wrong.

        A Conservative MP has made a strong attack on the integrity of the Police Federation and singled out their behaviour as the most shameful aspect of this case – their silence in light of this attack indicates that we (or at least me) don’t yet know the whole story in this affair.

        A truth is no less true because it is inconvenient and the elephant in the room in this affair is the silence of the Fed.

      • Quite right Keil, I for one would love to hear the Fedeation’s explanation. Maybe they’ll provide one one day.

  14. Paul Potter says:

    Hi James,

    Would you have time for a chat. I too have gone through a very similar experience with the MPS which led to my resignation in January.
    I would very much like to speak to you to discuss this

    Kind Regards

    Paul

  15. Paul Potter says:

    Hi James,

    Would you have time for a chat. I too have gone through a very similar experience with the MPS which led to my resignation in January.
    I would very much like to speak to you to discuss this

    Kind Regards

    Paul

  16. coastx says:

    MALICIOUS INTERDICTION

    1 commandeers civil rights to aggrandize uncivil encroachment upon
    targeted individuals,

    2 is both strategic and tactical effecting presentation that is long term
    and rapidly deployed in a localized area,

    3 in the absence of probable cause, makes use of pretext as the basis of
    an ambitious campaign to coerce capitulation on any number of
    civil/protected rights,

    4 penetrates county offices to develop official documentation to justify
    setting aside constitutional rule of law with subsequent manifestation
    of powers of ordinarily unlawful rendition,

    5 is unrelated to any actual or real provocation or enticement to conflict on the part of the targeted individuals and may in fact be motivated largely by third parties seeking retaliation, those who may gain personally from the ensuing damage, or just to make an example of targeted individuals,

    6 is sustained in perpetuity networked with individuals that form the
    malicious interdiction cohort,

    7 formulates an unlawful/unconstitutional administrative routine that
    sets a precedence for at will rendition inclusive of SKIRTS; in this example,
    pretext interdiction develops and practices the skills necessary for asset
    resourcing paraphilia, sadopaedophilia and kidnapping for torture, and

    8 establishes territorial supremacy of one group over another, in
    particular malicious interdiction coerces change in conformity with
    the will the primary mechanism of which is corruption of public
    administration via locally and nationally syndicated fraternal
    brotherhood cartels.

  17. coastx says:

    MALICIOUS INTERDICTION

    1 commandeers civil rights to aggrandize uncivil encroachment upon
    targeted individuals,

    2 is both strategic and tactical effecting presentation that is long term
    and rapidly deployed in a localized area,

    3 in the absence of probable cause, makes use of pretext as the basis of
    an ambitious campaign to coerce capitulation on any number of
    civil/protected rights,

    4 penetrates county offices to develop official documentation to justify
    setting aside constitutional rule of law with subsequent manifestation
    of powers of ordinarily unlawful rendition,

    5 is unrelated to any actual or real provocation or enticement to conflict on the part of the targeted individuals and may in fact be motivated largely by third parties seeking retaliation, those who may gain personally from the ensuing damage, or just to make an example of targeted individuals,

    6 is sustained in perpetuity networked with individuals that form the
    malicious interdiction cohort,

    7 formulates an unlawful/unconstitutional administrative routine that
    sets a precedence for at will rendition inclusive of SKIRTS; in this example,
    pretext interdiction develops and practices the skills necessary for asset
    resourcing paraphilia, sadopaedophilia and kidnapping for torture, and

    8 establishes territorial supremacy of one group over another, in
    particular malicious interdiction coerces change in conformity with
    the will the primary mechanism of which is corruption of public
    administration via locally and nationally syndicated fraternal
    brotherhood cartels.

  1. October 17, 2014

    […] For months and even years now, ex PC James Patrick fought the law, and the law won. Whistleblower Extraordinaire, he exposed an undeniable truth, that CrimeStats were being routinely fiddled by a …  […]

  2. October 17, 2014

    […] For months and even years now, ex PC James Patrick fought the law, and the law won. Whistleblower Extraordinaire, he exposed an undeniable truth, that CrimeStats were being routinely fiddled by a …  […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: