An open letter from JP to Sir Bernard Hogan-Who, James’s words say it so very clearly, I won’t even begin to paraphrase them.

Good luck James, and I hope your future is brighter now that you have achieved ‘Closure’ on your own terms


3 thoughts on “Closure

  1. By sacrificing his rook, queen & bishop, JP has surely, in one leap, totally exposed, in vivid relief, the Met legal department, as well as the DPS and the top brass pulling the strings, in the brightest of spotlights – as the mean, vile, inhuman, vindictive bullies we have an utter duty to vilify publicly over and over again until they’re sacked.

    If these “leaders” are happy – and now jumping gleefully at their spared expense – to destroy an honest whistleblower, his family, wife, two young children and his career, livelihood, income and prospects and maliciously block any interim relief or future compensation at an employment tribunal – then I’ve lost absolutely all respect for this police service and it’s leaders with their barren, empty, lying claims of upholding justice. They’re complete scum.

    Every single serving member of the Met should now feel ashamed of their employers and state that clearly – in any way possible – say flatly that they disagree with such abject bullying of a former colleague and utterly distance themselves from this vindictive campaign to undermine and ruin an honest and previously proud and loyal officer.

    Unless everyone states their utter repugnance, we are truly condoning evil.

    It doesn’t require a march, a strike or a riot. Just words pinned on boards perhaps:

    “I, me, my colleagues, we all agree that we are utterly disgusted by this shabby demonstration of injustice. It demeans us, our service, it brings us into terrible disrepute. We will not sacrifice our service by leaving justice to a management clearly no longer fit to recognise or administer it”

    • A Long Sentence Deserved By The Met

      We are utterly ashamed of the Met police top brass

      – that (1) they silenced this officer for 17 months – and charged him with gross misconduct, threatening his young family with loss of livelihood – all on false pretences, on a lie;

      that (2) they blocked his invitation to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee to give evidence, the evidence that he later gave at the Public Administration Select Committee, by invitation of its chair, his local MP, and after which The Times, in a leader on 21/11/13, praised him for having “performed an important service”;

      that (3) they deliberately intimidated his wife and young children by sending two officers to their home late on a Friday night in the dark just days after he gave the evidence, which terrified them;

      that (4), despite admitting there was truth in what he claimed and this being subsequently confirmed, instead of using his proven investigative talents to help identify and correct crime figure anomolies, they wasted them and continued to humiliate him by switching his work just to staring all day at CCTV output – all the lies, intimidation and vindictive demoralisation leading to his resignation, none able to be interpreted as anything other than attempts at constructive dismissal, at last successful;

      that (5), despite a rare external review confirming the gross misconduct charge was “unwarranted”, a written warning was still issued after a cursory 10-minute private hearing, without the prepared defence points even being heard;

      that (6) a barrister, acting on instruction by the Met, later persuaded his employment tribunal judge that the standard “interim relief” (temporarily continued salary) until the ET hearing, although intended to apply to all public service employees, shouldn’t apply to a police officer in his case – despite the intention already expressed to the contrary by Norman Baker MP (Minister for Crime Prevention);

      that (7), after listening on several occasions to his employer publicly discussing disputed issues relating to the employment tribunal case in a one-sided way – and finally speaking out against these prejudicial statements – the Met, no sooner had he done so, laid a second gross misconduct charge against him, this time (without irony) for communicating without permission to the media;

      that (8) the Met employed 2 barristers & a solicitor at a second, private, employment tribunal hearing to impress on him the risk he faced if he lost the case, as they would then make him pay their costs – expensive salaries and expenses etc – and, unable to afford legal help and so resorting to represent himself, he saw he really had little chance and little choice – and his family must be that choice:

      he had been boxed into a corner by a blind mindless machine, a machine with no thought for his young family or justice or even of its duty of care as an employer – this after the chair of the Public Administration Select Committee had said

      “we are indebted to PC Patrick for his courage in speaking out, in fulfilment of his duty to the highest standards of public service despite intense pressure to the contrary..We are calling for Her Majesty‚Äôs Inspectorate of Constabulary to investigate the Metropolitan police service in respect of the treatment of PC Patrick. We do not believe that the Metropolitan police service has treated him fairly or with respect and care”

      – so, at every opportunity, in every conceivable way, the Metropolitan Police, which is acting as a vindictive Kafka-esque machine, has misused, and continues to misuse, its rulebook to grind down the spirit of this ex-officer, proving without doubt to most fair-minded public observers that it is unfit as an employer, one which cannot be trusted to ensure staff in its employ receive either a fair hearing or anything resembling justice;

      so justice now demands that these – and other – vindictive and totally unacceptable actions by the Met against this young family are, in penance for bullying this complainant and depriving him to a state where he had to act on his own without help against your ruthless might, recompensed by an ex gratia payment contribution to this family you’ve so sorely stamped upon and tried to ruin and destroy – with deliberation and calculated malice – for what you see only as insubordination; and, as a machine, that’s ALL you see.

  2. PS: For stragglers

    The Police Federation provided no legal representation for JP for his future employment tribunal case against the Met.

    He faced fighting them himself, on his own.

    The Met employed a barrister at the first hearing to block “interim relief” – financial support – until the tribunal could take place.

    The Met then employed 2 barristers & a solicitor to impress on JP in a second, private, hearing the risk he faced if he lost the case, as they would then make him pay their costs, all their expensive salaries and expenses etc.

    He had no help in a private hearing, no advice,

    He saw he had little chance. Little choice.

    His family was the little choice he had left.

    The bullies blindly oiled their machine again, ready for their next spell at the bar.

Please Feel Free To Comment

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s