What The Flying **** Does The Met Think It’s Doing?

I should think you’ve all heard by now the latest sorry chapter in the James Patrick saga.

More Disciplinary proceedings. Why?

I know what for. Appearing on BBC’s The One Show and giving a radio interview on Five Live without the Job’s authority. Under the circumstances, who would actually have granted that authority?  Yes, I know James is still a serving Police Officer and as such is still subject to the discipline regs etc until the day he ceases to be employed by the Met, but is this really Gross Misconduct? Is this really a sackable offence?

I have frequently used the word VINDICTIVE in relation to the way in which the Met have pursued James. I have heard other people use the same word, and then this evening I read a Channel 4 news item that suggested that the Met wanted to sack James rather than allow him to resign in order to put him on the newly formed list of officers who have been “Struck Off”‘

Now that’s VINDICTIVE.

I have received a lot of messages from serving and former Police Officers, all of whom have supported James, and offered various kinds of help and/or advice, but one thing rang out loud and clear.

This is a course of conduct designed primarily to shut James up.  Demoralise him. Starve him. Isolate him. Screw with his future career prospects. It took DPS 18 months to prepare his last Disciplinary case, are they really going to get one ready in under 3 weeks? That would be a first.

An element of revenge is also incorporated I am sure.

The Home Office Document entitled “Home Office Guidance, Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures” contains the following;

2.3 The misconduct procedures aim to provide a fair, open and proportionate method of dealing with alleged misconduct. The procedures are intended to encourage a culture of learning and development for individuals and/ or theorganisation.
2.46 The investigation into the complaint must be proportionate having regard to the nature of the allegation and any likely outcome (see also IPCC statutory guidance).

Twice the word PROPORTIONATE was used. Is what has happened to James Patrick in the past couple of days PROPORTIONATE? I suggest not.

I have heard from two previous Police Whistleblowers. It didn’t end well for either of them. Both describe a series of events more or less mirroring James’ experience. One even got to the point of contemplating suicide but, thankfully, retreated from that particular course of action.

I have lost count of the number of former officers that have contacted me who are willing to testify that James is telling the truth about #crimestats and recount their experiences of how it’s done. If you want their details James I’ll pass them on to you.

Not one of these people has said that James is wrong, not one has said that James is not telling the truth, and not one person has ever contradicted my use of the word ‘honourable’ in respect to James.

James has his next appearance at the Employment Tribunal soon and after that he will no doubt make some decisions as what to do next.

Now James has to learn some new skills. First he has to learn some Employment Law and how to present his own case to the ET, but also has to learn to survive the onslaught that the Met are heaping on him. They are surely trying to crush him. Aren’t they?

I’m sure James is strong enough to overcome, but spare a thought for his family. Do they deserve this? I served the Met for 30 good years and held my head up high, but I am ASHAMED of what they have become. I no longer recognise them as the same organisation I was part of.

James has previously been accused of undermining public confidence in the police service. Well I would dare to say that this with-hunt combined with other, well-publicised issues has led to the Metropolitan Police itself undermining public confidence in the Police Service, across the entire country.

James can hold his head up high.

Can Sir Bernard Hogan-Who?

Just what is the Met trying to achieve?

Posted from WordPress for Android

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “What The Flying **** Does The Met Think It’s Doing?

  1. Just posted this comment to James site, awaiting his moderation:-

    James

    And so it continues.

    Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe must surely have been instrumental or at least made aware that further Gross Misconduct matters were being considered.

    “On 9th April 2014 you breached the MPS Media Policy and direct instructions provided to you by appearing on the BBC programme ‘The One Show’ without the appropriate authority.

    You also participated in a radio interview with BBC Radio 5 on the 10th April 2014 without the appropriate authority also in breach of the MPS Media Policy and direct instructions”.

    He surely cannot claim he knew nothing of the new proceedings. As such, surely it was improper of him to permit the LBC conversation to proceed as he was aiding and abetting the alleged breach? Agent Provocateur springs to mind. (a person employed to induce others to break the law so that they can be convicted).

    The comedy of errors continues, and it would be a comedy if it wasn’t so vindictive, unjust and a blatant immoral attempt to silence you once and for all.

    What a joke then, to read CC Nick Gargan’s piece in the Guardian on Tuesday 22 April
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/22/police-leadership-criticism-politicians-undermining-service?CMP=twt_gu

    To paste the first few paragraphs of the article:-

    Gratuitous criticism will not help the police to improve
    Politicians’ sweeping condemnation of police leadership may bring short-term political gain, but it will undermine the future of the service.
    “I was stung by the words of Bernard Jenkin MP, chair of the public administration select committee at the launch of its police crime statistics report earlier this month. “Poor data integrity reflects the poor quality of leadership within the police”, he said. Not “the poor quality of some leadership,” nor even “the poor quality of leadership of some within the police”. Instead Jenkin dismissed police leadership at a stroke. It has become the height of fashion to dismiss police leadership. And the place where it is most fashionable to do so seems to be Westminster, and Whitehall”.

    Nick may well be one of the “Good Guys”, but sadly there are all too many examples of ACPO ranks whose conduct and attitude is well deserving of the criticism.

    Your case James is a perfect example of what is wrong with policing today. A lack of probity, honesty and moral compass, replaced with greed, pernicious deception and downright corrupt behaviour by high ranking officers who should be setting exemplary standards.

    When looking for reasons why public confidence in policing has plummeted, look no further than the ACPO ranks. Rank and file officers are forced to compromise their professional integrity carrying out ACPO and SMT strategies that are not in the public interest.

    And when someone dares to blow the whistle with the truth, look at how they form a cordon of defensive and attacking strategy. It reminds me of Custers last stand, with the police Chiefs formed in a circle protecting their jobs, pensions and fiefdoms with their obfuscation, denial and deceit. We all now how that one ended up.

    My continued best wishes to you and your family James.
    Kind regards

    Steve Bennett
    Retired West Midlands Officer
    Author of the Thin Blue Line UK Blog
    http:\\thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com

  2. Yes, and “All the way through, the Met Police have tried to intimidate James Patrick for raising legitimate concerns. But they have lost and cannot acknowledge that they have lost” Bernard Jenkin MP
    http://www.channel4.com/news/police-whistleblower-faces-dismissal

    Nick Gargan in the Grauniad on Tuesday:
    “I was stung by the words of Bernard Jenkin MP, chair of the public administration select committee at the launch of its police crime statistics report earlier this month. “Poor data integrity reflects the poor quality of leadership within the police”, he said. Not “the poor quality of some leadership,” nor even “the poor quality of leadership of some within the police”. Instead Jenkin dismissed police leadership at a stroke.”
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/apr/22/police-leadership-criticism-politicians-undermining-service

    Can His Gargoyleness give us ONE name of a serving member of the police top brass who he feels deserves not to have been included in the Jenkin ‘dismissal’ who HAS demonstrated leadership – in relation to PC James Patrick, for example?

    Q85 Chair: “we want them to tell the truth and what they really believe to be the truth, rather than to satisfy their commanders and their commanders’ commanders”
    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4041
    * REALLY believe to be the truth *

    Police oath of attestation..
    “I..do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve..with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people..”
    * ALL people * (ie: police employees NOT excluded)

    Assuming good leadership in the police doesn’t YET exclude exposing internal rather than only external injustice, why is it that, in a leadership position, with a responsibility to the truth, applied equally to all people, to speak truth to power, independently, without fear or favour, NO current member of ACPO has the brass ones to state that a serious injustice is being done before their eyes to PC James Patrick?

    Nick, when WILL the first serving ACPO member you regard as unfairly tarred by Bernard Jenkin stand up and demonstrate the independence with which s/he upholds justice and state, as Jenkin did, that they
    “..do not believe that the Metropolitan police service has treated him fairly or with respect and care”?
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-04-10a.441.1&s=crime+prevention

    If it takes one honest police constable to persist until the damage implicit in fiddled figures is exposed – for example, the deliberate damage to rape victims, in particular those with vulnerable characteristics, who are unfairly persuaded to withdraw allegations and so lose their statutory care (emergency contraception, STD/HIV prophylaxis, post-traumatic psychologic support or intervention, etc) in order merely to benefit a management promotion by artificially lowering recorded rape numbers – then what will it take before one ACPO member claiming rugged independence in their leadership skill set, can demonstrate how rugged they really are and stand as tall as PC Patrick, and publicly criiticise the injustice of his treatment by their employer – even, if necessary, to the face of Bernard Hogan-HowDareYou himself?

    You could start the ball rolling, Nick – we’re told you’ve got leadership potential..

  3. But you won’t, will you Nick? You can’t, can you Nick? Not ONE ACPO member in a top leadership position will DARE to will they Nick?

    Their job, mortgage, career, promotion, bonus and pension all trump the truth don’t they? They all trump exposing a simple clear injustice don’t they?

    Because, unlike PC James Patrick, they don’t really value the truth enough, come hell or high water, to expose an awkward injustice.

    Those in ACPO who haven’t yet spoken out, in the way Bernard Jenkin MP has, and criticised the unjust treatment of PC Patrick, have explicitly – gradually, in small steps, little by little, yet explicitly – joined the grinding machine that the police leadership has become.

    Those forming the top police management hierarchy present their Nick Gargan (and he’s hardly the worst) Janus face to us, the public, spouting only the positive gung-ho mouthings of the hierarchy while the ruling aspect of their other Janus face looks up in supplication – to the machine.

    It’s you ACPO, the machine hierarchy, who condone the suppression and silencing of honest voices within the ranks, claiming Leveson as your excuse for injustice.

    It’s you ACPO, the machine hierarchy, who condone the bullying of those not in the upper ranks across the social media, insisting dissent harms your standing.

    It’s you ACPO, the machine hierarchy, who condone the unjust blind application of rules when clearly a travesty of justice, let alone common sense.

    Despite the request by Bernard Jenkin at PASC in January and again by James recently on LBC radio to His Bernard Hogan-Howness to veil the machine face for once in favour of justice, the machine blunders on – with the inactive connivence of each ACPO member.

    It is these serving ACPO sheep who have yet shown no independent leadership in this matter, despite knowing in their hearts that they’ve succumbed to the machine and complied in its denial of a clear injustice.

    Don’t come bleating to us about how hurt your feelings are. Just demonstrate the independent leadership.you trumpet for those now in ACPO.

    Then you may gradually force the machine to present a face more becoming to service by the public and for the public.

    PS: Please also see http://effiemerryl.blogspot.co.uk

  4. Pingback: What The Flying **** Does The Met Think It&rsqu...

Please Feel Free To Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s