Social Media, The State and Interception #TheRestIsSilence

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. So it would appear that the MPS and other forces may be in breach of RIPA and the Human Rights act. If they did not like what James was saying why did they not speak to him way back when he first started blogging – his posts quickly came to the attention of people in a position to complain and so I’m sure the Met were aware of him. By not speaking to him they have acquiesced and now are complaining because he is offering the posts in a book the sales of which are going to charity. Far from bringing the service into disrepute he has in fact enhanced its reputation only for the Met to bring itself into disrepute by its over the top heavy handed approach.

  2. So it would appear that the MPS and other forces may be in breach of RIPA and the Human Rights act. If they did not like what James was saying why did they not speak to him way back when he first started blogging – his posts quickly came to the attention of people in a position to complain and so I’m sure the Met were aware of him. By not speaking to him they have acquiesced and now are complaining because he is offering the posts in a book the sales of which are going to charity. Far from bringing the service into disrepute he has in fact enhanced its reputation only for the Met to bring itself into disrepute by its over the top heavy handed approach.

  3. I think I must agree with you Steve, if the Met perceived that there was a problem, regardless of how valid that view was, they had ample opportunity to speak to James formally/informally and nip it in the bud. In the absence of such a steer I feel it was quite appropriate for him to continue, but I guess events have overtaken us and now we await the outcome of what most see as completely unfair disciplinary proceedings. As an outsider it seems that James’ Human Rights have been trampled underfoot, but there are always two sides etc…..

    • I forget to mention Steve, that I also think that James did not bring the Met into disrepute, we both know that most of his frustrations were with ACPO and the Government. He actually comes across as a fiercely loyal Constable. That one will be interesting to watch too

  4. I think I must agree with you Steve, if the Met perceived that there was a problem, regardless of how valid that view was, they had ample opportunity to speak to James formally/informally and nip it in the bud. In the absence of such a steer I feel it was quite appropriate for him to continue, but I guess events have overtaken us and now we await the outcome of what most see as completely unfair disciplinary proceedings. As an outsider it seems that James’ Human Rights have been trampled underfoot, but there are always two sides etc…..

    • I forget to mention Steve, that I also think that James did not bring the Met into disrepute, we both know that most of his frustrations were with ACPO and the Government. He actually comes across as a fiercely loyal Constable. That one will be interesting to watch too

  5. iDeb8 says:

    Paul Peachey on Wednesday 05 Dec ’12 stated that:
    “..the Metropolitan Police said that Mr Patrick .. was under investigation because he failed to declare a business interest and ask permission from his superiors to publish the book.”
    (book: “The Rest is Silence” by: James Patrick).

    In other words, this was the reason he was under investigation, the reason he is facing a gross misconduct inquiry and the reason he’s been ordered not to communicate with the public?

    Yet in The Times, Fiona Hamilton on Thu 06 Dec wrote (para 8):
    “Ms Todner said that Mr Patrick .. had declared his book as a business
    interest and received permission for its publication.”
    (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3622085.ece)

    Both can’t be true. If The Times was correct, the original reason for silencing him has collapsed and a public apology is due to him and his family.

    Who lied – a well respected firm of solicitors or the Met management?

    If the Met, why did they initially try to tarnish the reputation of one of their own most energetic, loyal and enthusiastic police officers?

    Why was this slur never repeated in other papers after the 5th – was the Met put right pretty darn smartish?

    Yet they thought they’d get away with the lie – long enough at least to smear the good name of this honest & diligent employee?

    Aren’t there laws about this – is this how the Met demonstrates its duty of care as an employer? New recruits, please take note before signing up.

    • There are a few aspects of this case that make me uncomfortable, I await the outcome with interest. Personally I think that James has done nothing to diminish public confidence in the Police and am happy to go on record as saying that I think the reverse is true

  6. iDeb8 says:

    Paul Peachey on Wednesday 05 Dec ’12 stated that:
    “..the Metropolitan Police said that Mr Patrick .. was under investigation because he failed to declare a business interest and ask permission from his superiors to publish the book.”
    (book: “The Rest is Silence” by: James Patrick).

    In other words, this was the reason he was under investigation, the reason he is facing a gross misconduct inquiry and the reason he’s been ordered not to communicate with the public?

    Yet in The Times, Fiona Hamilton on Thu 06 Dec wrote (para 8):
    “Ms Todner said that Mr Patrick .. had declared his book as a business
    interest and received permission for its publication.”
    (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3622085.ece)

    Both can’t be true. If The Times was correct, the original reason for silencing him has collapsed and a public apology is due to him and his family.

    Who lied – a well respected firm of solicitors or the Met management?

    If the Met, why did they initially try to tarnish the reputation of one of their own most energetic, loyal and enthusiastic police officers?

    Why was this slur never repeated in other papers after the 5th – was the Met put right pretty darn smartish?

    Yet they thought they’d get away with the lie – long enough at least to smear the good name of this honest & diligent employee?

    Aren’t there laws about this – is this how the Met demonstrates its duty of care as an employer? New recruits, please take note before signing up.

    • There are a few aspects of this case that make me uncomfortable, I await the outcome with interest. Personally I think that James has done nothing to diminish public confidence in the Police and am happy to go on record as saying that I think the reverse is true

  1. January 25, 2013

    […] Social Media, The State and Interception #TheRestIsSilence […]

  2. January 25, 2013

    […] Social Media, The State and Interception #TheRestIsSilence […]

  3. February 25, 2013

    […] Social Media, The State and Interception #TheRestIsSilence […]

  4. February 25, 2013

    […] Social Media, The State and Interception #TheRestIsSilence […]

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: