Stating The Bleeding Obvious
What is it that’s so bleeding obvious?
That the Met has lost its way. Never before have I known it to flounder and flap around like a fish out of water as they are at the moment under their current leadership, Sir Bernard Hogan-Who and his team of muppets. Even in the disappointing times under McNee (The Rubber Hammer) they were a more positive organisation than they are today.
Take the case of James Patrick. I’m not going to bore the pants off you by repeating everything, and James is currently waiting his Employment Tribunal, but just look at what’s already in the public domain about his treatment by the Met and the disciplinary matters that have arisen.
He was subject to Gross Misconduct proceedings, a review by an outside Force decreed this constituted no more than Misconduct. A process that hung over his head for 18 months or more was concluded in a hearing lasting no more than 10 minutes, you can read James’ views of this elsewhere.
James decided that be had no alternative but to resign, then whilst serving his ‘notice’ was served with further discipline papers alleging Gross Misconduct once more. James has now the left the Met, as you know, but has the disciplinary process been staid? No it has not. James now runs the risk of facing a disciplinary hearing after his resignation, possibly in his absence, and be added to CoP’s list of Struck-Off officers, with all the consequences of that. This seems to me to be driven by spite and revenge. The Met clearly don’t know how to handle a man like James, but is this any way for an ethical organisation to behave?
Take the case of the TSG6 as highlighted by Tessa Munt MP recently. She was covered by Parliamentary Privilege when she made her revelations but they were absolutely staggering, accusing senior members of the Met of criminal acts, and, once again, highly questionable behaviour by Directorate of Professional Standards officers. You can read the transcript or watch the video elsewhere. Is this any way for an ethical organisation to behave?
Call me picky but I can’t think of a single Freedom of Information request that I have submitted (in relation to James) where the Met has actually told me anything. On at least one occasion I truly believe that the Met has LIED to me.
Another FOI is delayed while they consider the Health and Safety implications of supplying me with a set of Minutes of a meeting.
In relation to another I have asked for a redacted copy of a letter sent to James by DPS. They have refused this request on the grounds of Personal Data. The only Personal Data this letter could contain is someone’s name, i.e. the author of the letter.
This from an organisation that has had a policy for over 10 years that officers will display their first name and surname on their uniform or name badge.
So Personal Data under the terms of the Data Protection Act doesn’t really float does it?
Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords have expressed their disapproval of James’ treatment at the hands of the Met. Is this any way for an ethical organisation to behave?
The Met briefed Counsel to oppose James at the first hearing of his Employment Tribunal, specifically to oppose Interim Relief, which, if granted, would have ensured a basic income continued up until his ET was settled one way of the other. A few thousand pounds. The Met spends millions on defending actions, paying compensation for something or other. There was a time when the Met would pay up without even questioning what it was for, but thankfully those days are over at least. All in all it has the smell of VINDICTIVE about the whole sorry saga.. Is this the way an ethical organisation should behave?
I find myself with three questions;
- Are the Senior Management of the Met and the officers of Directorate of professional Standards so out of control that they can treat their ‘underlings’ in this manner with impunity?
- Is this merely blind panic as they find themselves in a situation they don’t know how to deal with and haven’t got the balls to admit it?
- What on earth would happen if a PC/PS/DC/DS etc treated a member of the public, or even the criminal fraternity, with such venom and apparently a total lack of regard for Disclosure and the law in general?
It wouldn’t be a pat on the back and a quiet retirement I assure you, but then I’m stating the bleeding obvious again.
Posted from WordPress for AndroidLast Updated on