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