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 Android
A very high proportion – perhaps even 90% – of rape victims exhibit at least one “vulnerable/’protected’ characteristic” (were just young, had been drinking or had already been targeted by their assailant and plied with drink, etc) and are therefore less likely to have their allegations taken seriously and so survive unscathed or succeed in court etc.
So a clear danger obviously exists that an as high, or even higher, proportion of these disadvantaged victims could become a ‘soft’ target, a target for a second time, for persuasion/’advice’ not to pursue charges – especially if crime figures will improve as a direct result.
Enough of a danger to merit a precautionary investigation anyway.
Would no such investigation over the years ever have unearthed specific cases of secondary targeting by officers – officers whose superiors had incentives, in the form of promotion or bonuses, to favour the quickest retraction of already-doubted allegations within the allowed 72-hour crime-recording limit?
Research indicating that rape victims, already distressed and newly vulnerable, have been persuaded to withdraw allegations, has existed and been available for years.
So the statement by the MPS, if not a bare-faced lie, must at least point to blind negligence:
“The MPS have not been made aware..of specific cases where officers were targeting vulnerable victims to persuade them to drop allegations”
This must surely be untrue. The clues have all been there to see and investigate..
———————————————————-
16 Apr ’07
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2007/04/rape-police-women-victims
“More than half of the men accused of raping women who had been drinking*, where the cases were ‘not crimed’, had a history of sexual offences against women”
“A third of suspects whose victims were under 18* were not investigated, but had histories of violent offending”
“The attrition rate [the rate of cases being not-crimed, not detected, or not pursued by the victim] is abominable,” comments Assistant Commissioner John Yates”
“most attrition takes place with us in the police”
———————————————————-
16 Apr ’07
http://www.beatrixcampbell.co.uk/tag/association-of-chief-police-officers
“In 87% of the cases analysed, victims displayed more than one* of these vulnerabilities”
“men who like raping women target those who won’t engage police attention or confidence.”
“many women told researchers they had been encouraged to quit by police officers”
“patterns of attrition differed depending on the type* of vulnerability involved.”
———————————————————-
05 Dec ’09 Dr Rodger Patrick
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html
“..demonstrates that senior officers are directing and controlling widespread manipulation of crime figures”
———————————————————-
26 Feb ’13
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/26/police-failed-investigate-sex-attacks
“Women reporting sexual assaults would be questioned repeatedly by a detective about whether they had consented to sex. They were encouraged to withdraw their complaints, which boosted the unit’s sanctioned detection rate.”
———————————————————-
12 Jul ’13
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/teesvalley/10543322.Research_highlights_problem_of_vulnerable_rape_victims_not_receiving_justice
“Rape cases involving vulnerable victims* are the least likely to progress through the criminal justice system”
“there has been a continual decrease in the overall proportion of such crimes reported to police resulting in a conviction and a high number of cases that ‘drop out’, suggesting a justice gap for victims”
“victim vulnerability*, which is identified as an aggravating factor in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, is in practice deemed to undermine victim credibility leading to a large ‘drop out’ in rape cases”
———————————————————-
I strongly suspect the MPS FOI response/statement is a lie. You can probably tell this just from the way their lips remained wriggling long after previous FOI lies had been nailed.
Even an Ostrich would choose to wear a tin-foil hat as a distraction if their lips wriggled so meaninglessly, forced to struggle so much with their contents.
====================================
* drink, age > examples of vulnerable (‘protected’) characteristics
Re: “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.”
Despite the blanket optimism regarding the police expressed by Grandma A, B & C, I believe another bald lie has wriggled to the surface..
The question:
On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers
were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop
allegations?
“..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable
characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health,
or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable
victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them
back out of the allegation”
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4041
– See Q11)
The answer:
“The MPS have not been made aware, by PC Patrick or any other person, of specific cases where officers were targeting vulnerable victims to
persuade them to drop allegations. If any cases are identified where this
is a factor, the matter would be referred to the Directorate of
professional Standards for investigation. If you are aware of any specific
cases where this has been raised, I would be grateful if you could furnish
the MPS with the detail so that this can be reviewed.”
(https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/when_did_the_met_discover_that_o#incoming-525142)
The unconvincing innocence:
A date was requested. A blanket denial was provided. To avoid giving a date, a pretence is made that rape victims exhibiting vulnerable characteristics have never been targeted, that no evidence of such targeting exists and so has never been presented to the MPS, on any date.
If a rape victim has ever been persuaded to recant, they were selected for persuasion not because they were seen as exhibiting vulnerable characteristics – and so their claims would be the easiest and quickest to expunge to improve figures. Oh no. The selection wouldn’t be targeted and certainly wouldn’t be linked to better crime stats.
The subtext is that, by admitting a date, such targeting would reveal its purpose: fiddling rape figures. However, by asserting the MPS is unaware, has never been aware, no-one has ever provided evidence on a particular date worth deeper investigation, it also admits never to have investigated if such targeting has occurred – which smacks of negligence, not innocence.
After all, there’d be no point looking unless evidence of specific cases existed which gave reasonable suspicion of such targeting. Enough to merit a cautionary investigation anyway..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21586786
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/04/police-behaviour-sex-attacks-women-change
The ostrich is a bird with remarkable survival skills. By peering intently at sand grains, it avoids the eyes of inquisitve predators. This habit may have helped them survive if it left some predators nonplussed or confused, distracted by, or attracted to, movement elsewhere instead. Could this eye-avoiding behaviour be favoured as advantageous by evolution?
To answer your questions:
1) 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?
Answer – Yes. But then the entire police force is out of the control of the government, as Home Secretary Theresa May has admitted to a Parliamentary Question from Lord Maginnis.
2) 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?
Answer – No. This is not blind panic, but typical of the criminal behaviour of police officers of all ranks.
3) 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?
Answer – Police officers of all ranks habitually commit crimes against members of the public all the time with impunity, because we do not have the rule of law in Britain. Only criminals appear to be treated with respect by the police, probably because the police are in cahoots with them.
I’m not sure I can agree with all of your comments Grandma, but we’re each entitled to our own opinions