In the last few weeks I’ve thought a lot about the poor old Met. What has happened to it over the years? Where is it going? Why is it going there?
When I joined mid 72 I heard a lot, and I mean a lot, of tales about the bosses of the previous few years “going out to collect the rent”. Thankfully I never encountered it myself, and I’m still not sure, all these years later, what I would have done if I had. I absolutely know what I SHOULD have done, but life is not that simple for a young lad who wants to get in and see his 30. The closest I ever got to a boss being on the take was a Chief Superintendent who “took delivery” of a 56 pound bag of Curry Powder, I kid you not.
I have written before about how certain operations and enquiries most definitely DID get binned after a diktat from a faceless senior officer. I thought then, and I still think now, that was WRONG, Nowadays I would use the word UNFORGIVEABLE. There is no place in the Police Service for officers of ANY RANK who actively assist in covering up the crimes of others, especially when those others are politicians.
On the other side of the coin were the likes of Jack Tegan and Gene Hunt. Two characters quite accurately portrayed in my opinion. I worked for DIs and DCIs who just like the. I am absolutely certain that any of my ex Met readers could name at least two or three from that era.
They were certainly a challenge to work for, sometimes fun, sometimes bloody awful, but their whole raison d’être was to bang up villains. I can remember vividly, as a young buck on the Crime Squad being told on a Monday morning “off you go to Court lad, get some warrants and we’ll keep a few on their toes this week”. PACE saw the end of Search Warrants for “Diverse Stolen Goods”.
Maybe I should make it clear that I’m not talking about ‘fitting up’ anybody, rather than make the evidence fit the charge, these were bosses who would make the charge fit the evidence. If you were a bit short on evidence for what you’d nicked somebody for these were bosses who would look at the evidence you DID have and maybe advise a slightly different charge to the one you might have been thinking of.
No Fitting Up, no Gilding the Lily, no Verbals just good, practical coppering to avoid having to kick chummy out the front door or, worse, offer him a lift home, because your evidence was a bit short. Charge him something else instead that you DID have evidence for. I get the impression that PACE and the CPS aren’t overly keen on those tactics any more. The only people now that are subject to Fitting Up and Gilding The Lily seem to be cops, and I certainly don’t approve of that practice thank you.
So when I think about child abuse enquiries being kicked into the long grass, and Regan & Hunt and their unorthodox methods (they didn’t so much break the rules as play by different rules), given the choice I would take Regan and Hunt every day.
Villains got charged and sentenced in those days, they also had RESPECT.
I have no desire to be associated with any guv’nor that says “stop that enquiry now, the Yard says so”. Any senior Officer or, worse, politician, that interferes and halts or disrupts any investigation has sold their soul to the Devil, and I don’t want to work for them.
I joined the job to nick criminals, and by and large, that’s what I did. Never had the inclination to be a Rat.
If a certain well known Danish Brewery did Professional Standards Departments they MIGHT align with my version.
I would base it more or less on the model that existed in the Met in the late 90s under Sir Ian Blair. Heaven only knows what the current model looks like.
I’m not going to go into Resources and Budgets as I don’t understand Resource Allocation Formulae and I’m crap with Budgets, I’d just find a reason to spend it all. So I will leave it for others to establish Budgets and Staffing Levels etc. However many there are, INTEGRITY is key.
At the lower end of the spectrum I would have a series of Complaints Units covering one or more Boroughs, equipped and capable of recording all Complaints made in their Area and Investigating simple (as in not complex) Complaints. They would be empowered to investigate through to completion and issue a formal Result at the end, these results would include Not Proven and Not Guilty.
In the second tier, a centrally based unit capable of receiving Complaints referred upwards from the Area Units if they proved to be more complex than originally assessed. They would be RESPONSIBLE for Investigating all complex Complaints and allegations of Minor Crime. Once again they would be competent to pursue the allegation to the end and issue a Formal Result.
At the top end would be a centrally based, smaller unit, investigating Major Crimes and Corruption. Once again, investigating to the ultimate end and issuing a Formal Result.
Three things would be absolutely VITAL to maintain the confidence of Police and Public alike
No numerical Targets
Definitely no inappropriate use of Professional Standards to silence Whistleblowers or Witnesses.
A corporate willingness to accept that some of the officers subject to an investigation might actually be innocent, and they should not be afraid to find accordingly. To prove and demonstrate that an officer is Not Guilty should be a matter of pride and is equally important as proving guilt, possibly more so. In tandem with this would be the innovative practice of pursuing offenders found to have made malicious/vexatious complaints against officers, often in order to aid their defence in a Criminal trial. The Police Service has been absolutely rubbish at doing this for an eternity, and it would do wonders for morale if the practice were to be adopted.
The Public need reassurance that appropriate action is being taken at all levels, but I do believe that don’t, generally speaking, support unfounded witch hunts just for the sake of numbers.
Police Officers, and Public alike, need reassurance that appropriate action is being taken against Corrupt Cops.
To use the full weight of Professional Standards to crush Whistleblowers and the like does no one any credit, and I don’t believe that the Public expect or want that sort of behaviour.
Several examples of seemingly criminal conduct by professional Standards Departments have made their way into the public domain, courtesy of t’internet, in the last couple of years, and cases such as these do immense damage to Public Confidence. Investigations by Professional Standards should be exactly that – PROFESSIONAL. A good, quality investigation, fully complying with the legal requirements of Disclosure (We haven’t forgotten the TSG6 and others) and a balanced, properly compiled file at the end of it, a transparent result that is clear to follow.
I don’t believe that having the IPCC investigate everything is the way forward, as we need the Public and the Police to have confidence in the system, and not convinced that EITHER sector has confidence in the IPCC. However, there is no reason why Complaints etc can’t be investigated by another Force, the important factor must surely be that all investigations are proportionate, fair, and ultimately justifiable. I’m sure we can all quote examples of disproportionate disciplinary investigations, or nvestigations that appeared to have no justification. Take away the mystery, and the practice of using Professional Standards for inappropriate reasons, and I’m sure we’re beginning to arrive at something better.
Finally, the Management Information bit, publish comprehensive data which includes Allegation Withdrawn Not Proven and Not Guilty. Discontinued is not a result we can have faith in.
Possibly a website showing a League Table, OCU by OCU of the various category of investigations to help restore Public Confidence that the Force are taking it seriously.
I’m fully aware that not all of this is doable, but it’s My Model. My idea of how it could operate. The Model can be tweaked for individual Forces with regard to their size, or enlarged if Regions become the order of the day.
I have been retired 13 years now and I’m certain that the Disciplinary process has probably changed in that time, so if I’ve made any horrendous gaffs please let me know and I’ll go hide under the stairs, but nothing will ever improve if nobody ever demands change or suggests ‘improvements’. So these are my suggestions, a Starter For 10.
I can accept that my model may not be perfect. Hopefully it would be an improvement on what we have. Let it be a beginning and provoke discussion and suggestion. At the end of the day, both sides of the fence want the same thing don’t they? System that is open, fair, consistent, proportionate and accountable.
There’s my Model suggestion, anyone else want to suggest one?
Now that I’ve got your attention I have to confess that word should have been INFILTRATION.
I’m not very experienced at a Fiction writing, hardly any at all compared to some others in much higher office and their Expenses Claims. The utter drivel I am about to reveal to the world might be fact, it might be fiction or maybe just a plausible theory. I’ll leave you, my reader, to decide which it is.
I retired from the Met in 2002 so, quite rightly, I’m completely out of touch with the current goings-on and shenanigans, but before I left there was at least one successful infiltration (I say successful because it was more than a mere attempt) by a criminal enterprise. A member of said enterprise, who had no convictions, had applied, been accepted, undergone training, and been posted to a Police Station in uniform. That person was nothing less than a ‘Sleeper’ waiting to be activated and presumably pass on information to his/her associates outside of the Force.
That is shocking.
Fortunately, it was rumbled before any damage was done but I HOPE that it served as a Wake-Up call to the organisation and alerted them to what is possible.
Then a chance Tweet got me thinking.
@Alanw47 It almost seems as if the emasculation of our armed forces & police is at the behest of a sinister controlling foreign power.
My old mate Obbsie may have been joking when he tweeted but what if he is right? What if…… What if our government has been infiltrated? Depletion of our Armed Forces, that’s certainly happening. Would it benefit a foreign power? Putin and ISIS are the two that come easiest to mind, but yes it would/could.
Depletion of the Police Service – that’s most definitely happening. Would that benefit a malevolent foreign power? In certain aspects yes. Our ability to contain Civil Disorder is almost certainly already impaired. If Police numbers are reduced too far it cannot help but impact upon the Police’s Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism responsibilities.
The Fire and Rescue Service has been watered down by this coalition? Is this a benefit to a foreign power? In the modern era I’m not actually certain, but their attendance at a major Terrorist Incident would most certainly impact upon others elsewhere with appliances and crews being out of place with less cover available.
The National Health Service has suffered really badly at the hands of this government, even though the Tories lie through their teeth and try to deny it. Would this be a benefit to a foreign power? Quite possibly in at least two ways. Firstly our response capabilities (Ambulance, Paramedics, A&E Doctors & Nurses) have been diluted so we would possibly deal less well with the results of a major Terrorist Incident, their would also be knock-on consequences further down the chain. Secondly the ever-present spectre of Privatisation would be an attractive proposition to a foreign government to pick up contracts in the UK Health sector.
Other Public Sector areas have also been affected; Courts, Probation, Education, Coastguards etc etc. to be perfectly honest I have no idea if or how these would be of benefit to a foreign government, but the Public Sector as a whole has been CONSIDERABLY weakened by this coalition.
It may well be considered ludicrous to suggest that there could be infiltration at the very top of government but the incontrovertible fact is that our nations enemies, be they ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Argentina or Putin (maybe even the SNP???) , will have viewed the havoc wreaked upon our police, fire and ambulance services, the NHS and indeed our armed forces with a mixture of incredulity and delight.
I implore you, do not be complacent. Unlikely and fanciful as you might find it, Infiltration can happen, it has happened and COULD happen again, either in Government, Police or the Civil Service. Will it happen again? I have absolutely no idea, but I wouldn’t rule it out. If I was a foreign power I would certainly have considered it years ago. Look at some of the recent defectors to Syria; Humanitarian or Infiltrator/Sympathiser? Again, I have no idea, but we should be open to all possibilities.
Infiltration – Fact, Fiction or (Conspiracy) Theory? All I will say is that I truly hope it is not Fact.
I’ll let Chris have the last word
@Alanw47 Like something out of a Tom Clancy novel. On a serious note, the likes of Putin & ISIS must be delighted.
There can’t be a single person in the land that has not heard the monumental news that the Met will be investigated over (I think) 14 allegations relating to the alleged covering up of Child Abuse enquiries in the 70s. In particular, much has been made of allegations relating to Cyril Smith.
As an officer in London in the 70s I welcome such an investigation, but I’m far from confident about what the outcome will be.
On a personal level my conscience is clear. I don’t remember having any involvement with any Child Abuse allegations whatsoever, not even as the initial Reporting Officer. My corporate conscience is far less clear though.
Am I aware of any such enquiries being binned? Most definitely NO.
Could such enquiries get binned?
I have read allegations that officers were threatened with the Official Secrets Act and at least one allegation that an Investigating Officer was threatened by a Special Branch officer with a firearm. Allegations like those fill me with dread and shame. I have never heard the like of that before, but as for the general principle of binning certain enquiries, that DID happen.
It didn’t take very long before the edict was watered down but the end result was the same. Instead of being told to desist and stop all operations and enquiries the instruction quickly morphed into “if you want to conduct an operation against ‘cottagers’ etc you must display notices at the venues and inform the local press”. Guess what happened? Nobody was caught and other areas experienced an increase in complaints from the public as the problem was merely displaced. I am in no doubt whatsoever as to the reason for this ban – solely to do with WHO WE MIGHT CATCH, nothing else at all.
If any of you are members of a certain group on Facebook you can see examples of this happening all over the Met, and for basically the same reasons.
I have already seen one well-established tweeter comment this morning that if he were told to halt an enquiry he most definitely would not follow that instruction. I can’t argue with that because it’s absolutely the right approach, but London in the 70s was a much different place. The Police Force of the 70s was vastly different to the Police Service of 2015. As a Constable with maybe 5 years service, to be told by a faceless boss from Scotland Yard to discontinue an operation, that’s exactly what happened. None of us liked it, it’s just how it was, and I suppose you never really understand unless you lived through it. Much like the corruption of the 60s, I’ve only ever heard the anecdotes of that, and they make me shiver.
So, for all those reasons I welcome this investigation, but I fear, like many others, it is destined never to achieve its full potential. Many times the officers on the Front Line never knew the names of those at NSY issuing their edicts, just informed by local management that Scotland Yard has blocked it.
40 something years later I doubt there’s any paper records left. If they didn’t disappear without trace in the 70s, they may well have been disposed of by now under the Met’s own Retention Policy. Back-Record Conversion onto computer would be highly unlikely.
If there is anything left, I suspect that grinding sort of noise that I can hear may well be the hopper-fed cross-cut shredders being fired up, and ready for action.
Last week we had the keenly awaited report from Uncle Tom’s Flock of Sheep regarding Integrity and Corruption within the Police Service. It clearly didn’t say what a lot of people wanted it to say as it led to some really slanted reporting by the Media. As I pointed out last week, it included nuggets like “Police are committed to tackling Corruption”, “Corruption is not endemic within the Police” and “122 out of 125 previous recommendations have been adopted”. Instead we had headlines such as “Police told to review 2, 000 cases of alleged Corruption”, “Police need to do more to tackle Corruption” and “Hundreds of suspected corrupt police officers evade justice by RETIRING”
I guess Investigation Finds Police Acting With Integrity isn’t much of a headline.
Today we get the IPCC’s version of the situation and are treated to headlines like “Police Complaints at Record High” and “IPCC: Obviously The Figures Are Worrying”. Dame Anne Owers, chair of the IPCC, said that the figures were “obviously worrying”, and also cited concerns that some complaints were not being properly dealt with.
Let me make it clear, I’m not in favour of Complaints being ‘whitewashed’. I don’t believe or pretend that all Police Officers are faultless and all complaints are malicious. Professional Standards Departments are one of the few departments not to have had their budgets slashed. It is incumbent upon them to establish the Guilt or Innocence of all officers who have allegations made against them. Guilt or Innocence.
Apparently there were nearly 35,000 complaints made in 2013/14, some 35% up on the previous year. 35,000 complaints relating to a workforce of 128,000 (ish). One in four assuming that no officer received more than one complaint. Is that so very awful? Not brilliant or desirable, but we’re talking Complaints now, not Corruption. More than one allegation can be included in a complaint “case” and the police watchdog said some of the increase was due to the broadening of the definition of a complaint.
The highest number of complaints were regarding police neglect or failure in duty, followed by complaints about police being rude or intolerant. Neglect or Failure in Duty? At a time when the Police have never been under such immense pressure, increased demands upon Police resources combined with a planned and deliberate reduction in manpower levels. Is that such a great surprise? Less cops, more work to be done. Is it any great surprise that Failure in Duty should be the greatest cause for complaint?
IPCC. The I stands for INDEPENDENT.
How “Independent” is it to state that the increased number of complaints is “Alarming”. Would/Should an Independent Authority not look beyond the headlines for a possible or probable cause? Maybe it’s just too easy to kick the cops and ignore the reasons?
Now for the bits hidden away at the end of the IPCC report and beneath the headlines in the Press.
The 35,000 complaints made resulted in almost 62,000 allegations being made against Police a Officers and Police Staff.Of these 62,000 allegations, less than half of them warranted an Investigation. Of those, less than 4,000 were upheld.
When Society encourages more reporting of anything, unsurprisingly the number (in this case, recorded Complaints) goes up, but less than 4,000 of the 62,000 were substantiated.
So what’s the headline now?
Less Than 4% of Cops Break The Rules
Doesn’t have quite the same impact does it?
Time to stop the witch hunts, report complaints and discipline in a fair and balanced way and establish the TRUTH. I’m sure that’s want the Police and Public both want to hear.
Stop this constant kicking and just be fair and honest.
Incidentally, the figures used in the IPCC Report are very confusing. There are numerous tables at the end, the numbers contained within each table do not seem to tally with each other and no explanation offered. If I have missed something there please do put me right, I’d hate to have misinterpreted the data.
In a week that has seen 2 major documents released into the wild who are the winners and the losers? Are there any winners at all?
Well, there are certainly some losers.
In the 6 monthly release of manpower figures for the 43 Forces, the two outright losers are Durham and West Mercia Constabularies. Back in 2011 HMIC set each and every Force a Numerical Target for their Manpower, i.e a strength that they were required to attain by March 2015. According to the September 2014 stats (the latest available) HALF of the 43 Forces in England and Wales have Manpower levels LOWER than they are required to achieve by March. Durham and West Mercia currently have Manpower levels more than 10% LOWER than their target figure for March. WHY??
We know that there are more cuts to come, are these two Forces really just getting upstream of the game or is there something more sinister at work?
The biggest ‘winner’ is North Yorkshire with over 5% more than their March 2015 Target, so does this indicate some serious pain ahead for North Yorkshire, or is it 2 fingers from the PCC and Chief Constable? I do so hope that it’s the latter.
The only Forces whose Establishments were higher in September 2014 than March 2014 were (in no particular order)
The Met +651
Dyfed Powys +41
Thames Valley +55
and North Wales +31
So if you live or work in any of those 9 Forces (yes, just 9 out of 43) well done, lucky you. If you’re one of the 32 others then times are even harder than ever before, and destined to get worse.
Briefly, this report concludes that there is no evidence that corruption is endemic within the Police Service and that after HMIC’s reviews in 2011 and 2012 122 out of 125 recommendations have been adopted by Chief Constables. That’s a good thing isn’t it?
You wouldn’t think so if you saw the assorted headlines and the manner in which this document was reported.
Huge differences in the way it has been reported, and most of them negative.
I’m not immensely happy with the methodology adopted for such an important piece of work, but what’s new there? It consisted of an online survey of police officers and staff achieving 17,200 responses and fieldwork activity in all 43 forces took place between 2 June and 8 August 2014. During that time, our inspection teams spoke to more than 1,500 officers and staff – not a huge percentage, and ranks and grades of those consulted are not disclosed.
At the end of the day the press, as is their way, chose not to highlight the “Corruption is not endemic” headline cos there’s no story for them in that, but most went with a negative slant. The report also added that most officers and staff were “honest and professional”, but there wasn’t a huge amount of reporting of that either.
That’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from our press in the UK, and then they demand our sympathy when they are portrayed as the victims.
Oh well, must go now and find a journo to feel sorry for.
I’m sure they all felt very proud, they have survived 25 long weeks at Henditz, and as a special reward they get to Pass Out not on the Parade Square at Hendon but in a Car Park at West Ham FC.
The reason for this?
“This was only the second time the parade has been held in a public place. The break with tradition is part of the Met’s bid to open doors to it’s traditions and give members of the public the opportunity to take pride in their police service.” Totally admirable if I believed a single word of it.
I may just have the answer, remember Henditz, and it’s fantastic Parade Square?
Well, now it’s more like this
So maybe a Car Park in Upton Park suddenly seems more appealing??
MPS Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, said “…..Their family and friends should be extremely proud of them all. The parade recognises their commitment and I wish them every success for the future.
“The idea for holding the parades in public originally came from Toronto and as a public police it makes sense to hold the parade from time to time for all to see.”
Nothing to do with a chuffing great Building Site then Bernie?
And why West Ham?
Serious lack of judgement there by somebody I suggest. Does nobody do their homework any more.
Chris Hobbs (@obbsie) does, he does his homework and sometimes I get to see it, and thank you Chris for showing this particular piece:-
West Ham FC is owned by David Sullivan and David Gold.
David Sullivan has recently made it into headlines writ large for loaning £1million of West Ham’s money to a man called David Hunt. On the 4th May 2014 The Independent carried this headline:-
The wealthy co-owner of a Premier League football club made a £1m loan to a company controlled by David Hunt – three months after a High Court judge named Mr Hunt as the head of an organised crime network.
David Hunt – nicknamed “Long Fella” – was officially exposed last summer in a judgment by Mr Justice Simon after the crime boss brought an unsuccessful libel action against The Sunday Times.
A catalogue of damning claims emerged during the trial, including allegations that Scotland Yard viewed Mr Hunt’s gang, which had operated with impunity for more than 20 years, as “too big” and “too dangerous” to take on. During a covert operation codenamed Blackjack, the Metropolitan Police placed bugging equipment in a car showroom, which picked up an attack by Mr Hunt in which he had slashed the face of a man named Paul Cavanagh, who had upset an associate.
Mr Justice Simon also concluded that Mr Hunt had attacked and threatened to kill Billy Allen, a property developer, in 2006. He also ruled that Mr Hunt had engaged in money-laundering.
Two months after Mr Sullivan’s company made the loan to Mr Hunt’s firm, our sister newspaper The Independent revealed a secret Metropolitan Police report – codenamed Operation Tiberius…….The report by the Met’s anti-corruption team names four Met detectives “associated” with the syndicate, one of whom is high-profile and has given evidence to Parliament. Operation Tiberius reported that corrupt officers betrayed the Met by telling the Hunt syndicate about tracking devices placed on its vehicles, leaking information about police inquiries and carrying out checks on police intelligence databases.
I don’t normally have much time for the Daily Mail but they have previously reported this:-
As the Sunday Times revealed, three Met detectives are claiming that David Hunt, an East End businessman named by a judge last week as the head of an organised crime network, had used corrupt officers inside Scotland Yard to help him evade justice for some three decades.
Astoundingly, the Met had tried to throw the book at these three detectives who finally got onto his tail — one of whom, DCI David McKelvey, the former head of the crime squad in Newham, East London, had his career ruined and suffered a nervous breakdown as a result.
These detectives had warned Scotland Yard that Hunt had taken out a contract to kill them and that he had links to corrupt officers and council officials.
But instead, the three found themselves the target of what Mr Justice Simon called a ‘misdirected’ inquiry into baseless allegations of corruption — an inquiry which had ‘undoubtedly assisted’ Hunt in his efforts to avoid prosecution after he was arrested for blackmail, threats to kill and witness intimidation.
You can read much, much more in either or both of these items together with the Sunday Times, I apologise for the heavy use of Copy/Paste but they can tell the story so much better than I can.
David Charles Hunt appeared mild-mannered and courteous giving evidence at the high court. He felt crucified, he said, by the accusation that he was the head of a criminal gang whose associates included Terry Adams and Reggie Kray.
A series of police investigations, surveillance operations and intelligence reports on Hunt were referred to in evidence during the libel case.
One such intelligence report – Operation Houdini, dated 7 August 2006 – into Hunt, Terry Adams, the head of the Adams family, and two others, laid bare the alleged scale of Hunt’s activities.
So, to return to my Bollox, who on earth at the Met thought it was a good idea to enter into a contract with a businessman who has lent money to an alleged, if not proven, corrupter of police and head of a serious and organised crime syndicate? Was that really your finest hour? Were there no other football clubs available on that date. Wembley, Spurs, Arsenal? Any number of places in Norf Larndarn would have been more suitable and convenient I’m sure. Not Criminal but Naivety at its very best, surely?
I am in no way saying that the owners of West Ham United FC are engaged in any kind of criminal activity, but I do expect the Met to be scrupulous in its dealings with others. Mr Sullivan has seemingly entered into a business transaction with someone who has been labelled a crime syndicate boss, corrupter of police and allegedly ordered the killing of 3 police officers. Those are the allegations, I have no idea where the truth lies, but does it seem like an appropriate transaction for the Met to enter into.
David Gold seems to have no part to play in this as far as I can see, but he was previously married to a lady called Beryl Hunt. I have no idea if she is related to David Hunt or if it is a mere coincidence.
And someone made allegations that there was a paedophile ring operating within our Police Force the public, quite rightly, would demand a full and diligent enquiry to get to the bottom of it.
If we had lost a bundle of papers relating to corrupt Police Officers there would be a Public Outcry.
Allegations have been made, quite reasonably, about corruption, wrongdoing and misconduct that date back decades. There have been enquiries into some of these allegations, there are enquiries currently ongoing into others, and there will be enquiries into yet more.
They will cost a lot of money, but I am not proposing that they be abandoned.
If We Were All Journalists and someone made allegations that we were #Hacking peoples’ phones there would be, and have been, enquiries into these allegations and prosecutions arising from these investigations.
If We Were All Celebrities and several people made allegations that one or more of us had embarked upon a crusade of Indecency offences against girls, boys, women and men, as long ago as the 70s, there would be public outcry and a mass investigation. Some of us celebrities would grip the rail and get banged up for a few years, and that would be right and proper.
If We Were All Politicians and people made allegations that a sizeable number of us either were, or had been in the past, paedophiles and that it was being covered up by the establishment we’d be laughing.
Ministers including Nick Clegg and Theresa May have been rejecting calls for a full-scale public inquiry into historical child abuse, insisting a police investigation will be sufficient to get to the bottom of the claims.
David Camoron has supposedly ordered a fresh investigation to discover what happened to the missing dossier detailing explosive claims of a Westminster paedophile ring.
Mr Camoron said he understood mounting concerns about what happened to the dossier handed over to then Home Secretary Leon Brittan by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in 1983. He said: ‘That’s why I’ve asked the permanent secretary at the Home Office [Mark Sedwill] to do everything he can to find answers to all of these questions and to make sure we can reassure people about these events.’
Am I missing the point here? When the Police and/or the Home Office ‘lose’ the Operation Tiberius and Operation Countryman files, there is outcry, not only about the loss/destruction/shredding of the files but demanding an investigation into the actual content of the files. (Someone, somewhere knows what they say, trust me).
When Geoffrey Dickens’ dossier goes missing there is only a mild papering over the cracks with an investigation to try and work out what might have happened to them.
Is it just me, or is alleged paedophilia by our politicians, MPs, Cabinet Ministers, and the like, not FAR MORE IMPORTANT than what happened to a few files? The contents of those files are important I grant you, but if they have been destroyed, or merely ‘lost’ are we happy for that to be the end of it?
Come on Mr Camoron, grow a pair, save the country a whole heap of time and expense, and order a full-scale criminal investigation (Yewtree Style) into these allegations of paedophilia. You never know your luck, victims might just pop up and make statements just like they did with Saville, Harris and Hall etc. The dossier might just resurface somewhere. We might find a smoking gun.
Just because the suspects are/were politicians is no reason whatsoever to whitewash it.
I remember in the 70s we were ordered to STOP all operations against ‘Cottageing’ unless we had put a notice in the local newspaper and at the prospective venues warning folk of our operations “because we were likely to arrest politicians” amongst others. How is that right? Would the Senior Management of NSY taken such a liberal approach if we were likely to arrest Police Officers or School, Teachers or Doctors or Firemen in our operations?
I very much doubt it.
Stop being so hypocritical and just get on with it and do it properly, 7 detectives and an answerphone machine is a joke.
How many tecs are deployed on Yewtree? How many tecs are deployed on Op Alice? How many tecs are deployed on Op Weeting. How many tecs are deployed on Operation Ore?
Get a grip and just admit that MPs can be paedophiles too, then gain some much-needed respect by dealing with the allegations properly and sincerely.
I have never denied that there is corruption present within the Met, I know there is. I have, however, frequently disputed the scale of that corruption. Personally I do not think it’s as endemic as the Media would have you believe.
So, here’s a suggestion for you Sir Bernie and your Directorate of Professional Standards.
Corporately, you have repeatedly refused to tell me how much the disciplinary enquiry into James Patrick has cost the Met.
There has been another, becoming, high profile investigation into the TSG6.
I am willing to bet that both investigations cost many thousands of pounds. The enquiry into, the then, PC Patrick lasted approximately 18 months, and involved a Review of the evidence by an outside Force (although I accept they did not charge the Met for this Review). That HAS to have totalled some serious money.
Then, whilst PC Patrick was serving his period of notice, having had enough of your oppressive regime and resigned, your Directorate of Professional Standards served papers on him once more informing him that he was to be investigated for Gross Misconduct. This was despite the fact that he was within a few weeks of leaving your employ, and the Gross Misconduct allegations rely on the same Met Policies that were deficient in the original case.
The TSG6 involved (obviously) multiple officers, a Crown Court Case, a Civil Action, resultant disciplinary proceedings against DPS staff, the alleged tampering with personnel records and an Employment Tribunal. I doubt that little saga was cheap either.
I am sick and tired of reading in the press every week (or seemingly so) about this trial or that trial that has failed to allegations of MPS corruption. Investigations stalling because of alleged or perceived corruption. The public deserve so much better than that. PC Patrick was responsible for a decline in Public Confidence in the MPS? I don’t think so.
I have encountered this interference personally when a murder enquiry I was involved in was actually visited by an officer allegedly in the pay of a North London gang. On this occasion the SIO was wise to it and sent him away with a flea in his ear (and reported him). Various, subsequent, computer checks that we carried out did, unfortunately, have the effect of tipping off said detective as to who we might be interested in though, so I am no fan of corruption, definitely not.
So, Sir Bernard, Boris, Blair, whoever, here’s a radical idea for you.
However much money you are currently spending on investigating James Patrick, and others like him, for doing what they believe to be morally and ethically correct, please remember that this is PUBLIC MONEY that you are spending.
I am now a member of that public, and so are many like me. I truly believe that I speak for many when I say that that money can, and would, be better spent fighting the rotten core of corruption than victimising the few with the balls and integrity to stand up and be counted, and challenge wrongdoing and malpractice.
It may not be enough to fund the fight totally, but it would swell your anti-corruption budget enough to make a difference.
Even if it was only enough to fund the investigation and prosecution of one corrupt officer, isn’t that better than spending it victimising James Patrick and others like him?
You, the public, read these blogs and rants of mine. What do you think?
If you live and work in the UK, at, say, maybe somewhere like the Met for example, you could be what they like to call a ‘Whistleblower’. You can report wrongdoing, corruption, unacceptable practices, maybe even dodgy #Crimestats to your management, the bosses, those people that have taken the place of Leaders in the Met. In return you can get shafted, publicly maligned, bullied, humiliated, forced to the point of taking your employer to a Tribunal only to be deprived by them of all your income. I have it on good authority that things like that happen occasionally. Allegedly.
Or you could do it the Irish way. No this is not a Paddy joke, bear with me, read on.
Irish barrister Sean Guerin conducted an investigation into claims of corruption and malpractice in the Garda after allegations by Garda Whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe.
The report vindicates Sgt McCabe, but finds that Garda Síochána and former minister for justice Alan Shatter failed in their duties to properly investigate matters raised by Sergeant McCabe.
The report says that a comprehensive commission of investigation is “desirable in the public interest” to ensure “continuing confidence in the institution of An Garda Síochána and the criminal justice system”.
Responding to the report, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said that a root and branch analysis of the policy and practice of the administration of justice in Ireland is now needed. Mr Kenny said the Dail would debate the content of the Guerin report next week and he would welcome the contributions of all members.
“This is not just about politics, it is about getting it right for the people of our country, for the citizens, for the next generation, for everybody to have integrity, belief and faith in the Garda Siochana, in the accountability, in the transparency in the way it is run,” he said.
Sgt McCabe expressed his thanks to Fianna Fail leader Michael Martin for taking on his case and forwarding his file outlining his concerns over garda conduct to Taoiseach Enda Kenny.
Mr Guerin found that the “overall impression given by the internal Garda investigative process was that complaints or matters of concern were put through a process of filtration or distillation so that, by the end of the process, any matter of concern had been removed as a form of impurity, and only what was good was found to remain.” Maybe that sounds familiar to some of you, I don’t know.