Skip to content

The Curious Case of Constable James Patrick

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Hello again,

This is getting boring now. Yet another blog about James.  Well, this sorry saga has crept along just a little bit more since I spoke to you last.  As you know I asked the Met how much James’ Disciplinary Enquiry had cost to date.  They replied and said that they didn’t know because they don’t routinely ‘cost’ such things.

Well, unless the world is spinning backwards, they always used to so why wouldn’t they now?  They normally want to know the cost of every paperclip and biro.

So I appealed, asked for an Internal Review of their response.  The reply I eventually got to that was;

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:
·        Uphold the original decision
The information requested is not held by the MPS.

By now I had the hump, so I fired off a complaint to the Information Commissioner. After just over a week I have only had an automated response to indicate that they have received my communication, so who knows, maybe they’re beavering away on it as we speak, but they haven’t had the courtesy to supply me with a case reference number, so we shall see.

In the secound of my double-barrelled attacks I sent an FOI request to the Force that conducted the review of evidence in James’ case and recommended that it be downgraded from Gross Misconduct (Sackable) to Misconduct (Not Sackable).  I asked them this;

“I have reason to believe that officers from your Professional
Standards Department recently carried out a review of a
Disciplinary Enquiry being conducted by the Metropolitan Police
Service against one of its own officers for an alleged offence of
Gross Misconduct.
I am in possession of the officer’s rank and name if you require
Could you please tell me the total cost of the review carried out
by your Force and whether or not that amount was invoiced to the

Not an unreasonable request, and to the credit of the Force concerned they replied in a prompt and efficient manner.  Their reply was this;

“Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within xxxxxxxxx Police;  however, from the information provided , we have been unable to identify any  information. “

Perplexed by this I phoned them up and asked if that meant they hadn’t been able to identify an invoice, or they hadn’t been able to identify a cost for the review.

I was utterly amazed when (after speaking with her ‘colleague’ the lady at the Freedom of Information Office said “I have been told to tell you that we cannot find any information at all in relation to your request”

So now I’m left asking myself “ Who did this bloody review, where are their notes, how long did it take and how much did it cost?”  There has to be a paper trail from the Met to xxxxxxxxxxx Police asking for the review in the first place.  Or is this a late contender for the 2014 Melton Mowbrays?

Something, somewhere is not right and hasn’t been for a long, long time now.

There is a big difference between Gross Misconduct and Misconduct, both in the consequences and the manner of behaviour alleged.  A review was conducted and the charge reduced accordingly as the result of that review, but where is it?  The Force that conducted the review can find no information (or so I’m told).

Transparency and Ethics at their very best, but who is guilty, and what are they guilty of?

Enjoyed the post? Share it?

10 thoughts on “The Curious Case of Constable James Patrick”

  1. Me – wicked..?!

    – the one thing I’d love to hear BHH say in front of a group of angry bloggers with fingers ready, on their sharp-toothed mice (..and his pulse)

  2. Just a thought but, if the Masons in ACPO have pulled out their unique topknot, the one they once fastidiously hid from others – wouldn’t that have had the same effect as a lobotomy?

    It’s possible – when people criticised them for giving the honest 99% of officers a bad name by overly covering up for each other – that they misinterpreted this as bad ‘mane’ and innocently took inappropriate corrective action.

    This is the only rational explanation I’ve so far come across via google, I’m afraid.

    As Sherlock once said, “..when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

    Anyway, I hope you’ll allow your great blog to be used to keep hitting some of those in the Yard pretty darn hard between their 3rd eye – at least until some transparency is restored to it – although ethics may take a bit longer..

    1. Don’t get me started on Freemasons, that would take up several blogs by itself. If my little blog causes just a little bit of discomfort at Hogan-Who Towers then I will be a happy man, but I suspect that they just ignore and dismiss it.

  3. The curious case just became curiouser..

    Who says Lewis Caroll wrote fiction, anyway?

    It’s so hard to locate MPS policy announcements these days..

    You first try googling ‘pc patrick review cost’ then ‘who really reviewed the pc patrick fiasco’ and ‘who told the FOI office to say’ or ‘did an external force ever review anything’ then ‘whose face can be worth saving that much’ or ‘does it matter what we say as long as he gets the written warning’ etc etc

    I just never realised the MPS was so much in the pocket of this Govt that even their lies would come to resemble those habitually told by the Tory nudge-nudgers..

    What’s going on?

    1. I honestly have no idea what’s going on but if my little blog can cause even a small amount of discomfort at NSY then my labours will not have been in vain. I have no intention of giving up until transparency and ethics are restored. It’s time that BHH’s Senior Mismanagement Team realised that bullying and untruths will not restore public confidence.

Comments are closed.

Verified by MonsterInsights