Is The End Game Finally In Sight?

For months and even years now, ex PC James Patrick fought the law, and the law won.  Whistleblower Extraordinaire, he exposed an undeniable truth, that CrimeStats were being routinely fiddled by a variety of people within the Met, and for a variety of different reasons, no doubt.  Undeniable because 100s and thousands of us KNEW that he was telling the truth because we have lived through it, it was the ‘norm’.

At the end of the day it cost him his livelihood, it cost him his tranquillity, it cost him (in a manner of speaking) his reputation, because he now has a Disciplinary Finding of Guilt, which won’t exactly act as a reference if he ever decided that he wanted to rejoin the Police Service.  In all the ways that matter, though, it has enhanced his personal and professional reputation immensely.

So, after a while Parliament conducted and enquiry/investigation into #CrimeStatsGate which culminated in yesterday’s news headline criticising the Met for its treatment of James.  Bernard Jenkin MP told parliament ex-Met PC James Patrick was the victim of “monstrous injustice” and was “hounded” from his job..  Quite strong words really, don’t you think?  Just because they are uttered with the benefit of Parliamentary Privilege doesn’t make them any less true.

“Mr Patrick had said crime figures had been manipulated and sexual offences were under-reported by 22-25%.”    Errrrmm and how much have reports of Sexual Offences gone up by now?  Surely there can’t be a connection?  Can there?

 

To illustrate the enormity of James’ actions I will reproduce a selection of verbatim quotes from the transcript of PASC’s meeting yesterday;

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): Although I am now a proud member of the Public Administration Committee, I was not a member when the report was done. Does my hon. Friend agree that PC James Patrick’s actions were both courageous and in the public interest, and that he has done a great service to this country in ensuring that this matter is highlighted, as the Committee has done?

Mr Jenkin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth emphasising that under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, PC Patrick should have been afforded some protection. I will come to the position of whistleblowers later in my remarks………………………………….We found strong evidence that the police have under-recorded crime, particularly sexual crime such as rape, in many police areas. There remain wide disparities in no-crime rates—that is, where police decide that a crime did not take place—following reports of rape, for example. In January 2014, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, on behalf of the Rape Monitoring Group, released a compendium of statistics on recorded rapes in each force over the previous five years. I invite right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues to look at the table showing how wide the variation is among different forces across England and Wales in their no-criming of rape. According to the figures, in Lincolnshire, for example, 26% of all reported rapes were no crimed in 2012-13; by contrast, in Merseyside, only 4% were. The national average was 11.9%…………………………….The main reason for misrecording was the continued prevalence of numerical targets………………

Our official police witnesses, most notably the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, were somewhat defensive and seemed unready to acknowledge that their statistics were inherently flawed. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe told us that the accuracy of data on rape and sexual offences was

“a lot better than it was, if we took it back five to 10 years.”  [Well that’s alright then]……………..

even the Metropolitan Police Commissioner agrees that

“there is clearly something that PC Patrick raises that we need to get to the bottom of.”

Despite that, I can only describe the treatment of my constituent James Patrick as shameful. By doing his duty and raising the issues, he showed the highest commitment to the core policing values, but as a result he became the victim of the most monstrous injustice. He was in effect hounded out of his job, following a long period of harassment by the Metropolitan police command chain, which, I dare say, used and abused the disciplinary process to get rid of him. It does the police no credit that a whistleblower should be treated in such a way. He was, for example, accused of a conflict of interest for publishing a book about the misuse of police recorded crime statistics, even though the proceeds were paid to a police charity. In an LBC radio programme in December last year, Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said that he would meet PC Patrick. He never did so.

There is much, much more in the PASC document, but I think the above will suffice.  I had never encountered Bernard Jenkin before James’ problems, but in the limited contact I have had with him he strikes me as being one of a rare breed, a decent and honourable politician.  I just hope that I am not proved wrong.

So, Dear Reader, if you’re still with me at this point, just how despicable was James’ treatment at the hands of the Met?  You decide.

This should make you smile James:-  A new entry in Oxford English Dictionary perhaps; INTEGRITY – James Patrick, The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles:

Just a thought

 

The Balance Of Probabilities

Balance of probabilities is the standard of proof required in all civil cases (and Disciplinary Hearings). It basically means that to win you need to convince the judge/Chairperson that your case is 51% likely to be true. i.e. your story only has to be slightly more plausible than the other side’s story.

This can be contrasted with a criminal case where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, which is very near to 100% certainty before the defendant can be found guilty.

What the hell is he blathering on about? I hear you ask.

Well he’s blathering on about Ex PC James Patrick’s series of ‘Cathartic Blogs’.  James has had a bit of ‘Unfinished Business’ and he’s now taken the opportunity to dump all that baggage, free himself from the shackles, and hopefully move on, rebuilding the lives of himself and his family.

But allow me to be mischievous for a minute and take a peek at James’ blogs;

The first one was

Withholding Evidence From Parliament

In this blog James alleges that a Senior Police Officer Suppressed Evidence On Crime Figures
The Commander of the Directorate of Professional Standards refused permission to present Parliament with evidence of the manipulation of police statistics.  Commander Gibson apparently refused James’ request to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee to provide evidence of ‘number fudging’.  Why was that do you think?

Next we have

Use of Temperature in Interviews

in which James relates how  Met Police Using Degrading Interview Techniques:
The Directorate of Professional Standards are using high temperatures and dishonesty to pressurise police officers under investigation.

“In an interview room on the 21st floor, adjacent to the entrance of the male changing rooms, me and my Federation Representative found ourselves in a box room, where the temperature exceeded 28 degrees.”  “The interviewing officers, a Constable and Sergeant from the Directorate of Professional Standards told me that there was a “heating fault which had been reported”, ”  There is a witness to this, the Federation Representative.

“Later in the year, a family member made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Met police, asking what heating faults had been reported and resolved in that room, a month either side of my interview. The Met responded, after an internal review – first having missed the statutory deadline for reply – stating that no heating faults had been reported or recorded during the entire period. This was confirmed a second time, to my legal representatives, in December 2013.”

I have read the relevant Freedom of Information request, and the Met’s response.  James’ account is accurate, they recorded no heating fault despite the assurances of the DPS officers conducting the interview.

#3 goes like this

Deliberately Witheld Disclosure

Police Whistleblower Accused Of Fraud After Discovering Witheld Documents:

Written records of management meetings, which the Met denied had taken place, were discovered and spurious accusations of dishonesty were made by officers involved after the alarm was raised.  The events contained within this blog just left me speechless, a rare occurrence I can assure you.  Did James offer to repay the money at the first opportunity having been asked so to do. Yes!!  Did he commit any wilful, dishonest act in order to bring about this over-payment?  Seemingly not.

#4

‘Pissing Off’ Superiors

Police Officer Put ‘Noses Out Of Joint’ By Exposing Sham Crime Figures:
Crime statistics whistleblower went to Parliament after a meeting in Scotland Yard in which he was told that he risked ‘pissing off’ superiors by continuing to report his concerns about the recording of sexual offences. So James risked pissing off ‘superiors’ by exposing the truth? How does that work then? Surely these so-called ‘superiors’ should be big enough and ugly enough to survive the TRUTH? Wouldn’t you think?

#5

Procurement Fraud

 Metropolitan Police Covered Up Smartwater Procurement Fraud:
Scotland Yard breached its own procurement procedures yet found itself innocent, while senior officers delivered briefings saying they were covering up potential offences by the force.  With James’ consent I have discussed this with a retired Auditor of some note. He/She more or less agrees with James’ take on the situation and points out that at the very least there is a clear Conflict of Interests, and that it is not the first time that the Met has had similar issues.

Finally;

Conflict and Intimidation

Met Police Used Scare Tactics Against Whistleblower And Family:
After he had given evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee about the manipulation of police crime figures, uniformed officers were sent to the family home to ‘rattle their cages’.  Having lodged grievances against one or more members of the DPS staff, James received this text one day “Can you let me know whether you are both ok and that you have received the email I sent you? James R and I have both tried to call you but got no reply. Simon Laurence has asked me to set up a welfare check to your home address if I don’t hear from you shortly”.

  “The Met requested that Essex officers attended my home, stating that they had tried to contact me several times, and were concerned about my welfare as there had been ‘developments’ in my working arrangements which may ‘have caused him some distress’. Uniformed officers, in a marked police vehicle, attended my home at quarter to nine in the evening, while my wife and I were watching television and our children were asleep upstairs”.

My reaction to this is short and blunt.  Please fill the Comments section below with any other instances where an officer facing Disciplinary Proceedings has been ‘fortunate’ enough to receive a Welfare Visit at his Home Address from a neighbouring Force at 9 o’clock in the evening?  Plenty of space available, fill your boots.

So, on the Balance of Probabilities, have the Met been Bang Out Of Order?  Have they pursued a Disciplinary matter diligently, or have they tried to use their power and might to wield the sledgehammer that would crack the walnut?  Don’t forget, Balance of Probabilities, not Beyond A reasonable Doubt.

I find the case proved and order that the Met pays ex PC James Patrick substantial financial compensation.

Court adjourned.

Corruption In The Met

Now, there’s a headline to grab your attention.

22Fir06.qxpNew-Scotland-Yard--London_web

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?

RetiredAndAngry’s Whistle-Blowing Policy

I sat down this morning to watch the video of the Greater London Policing and Crime Committee meeting from 13th May and to read the transcript of same meeting.

I very soon thought I was watching an episode of The Muppet Show.

There was somebody there impersonating the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolis.  He couldn’t have been a real policeman because he kept using posh twatty words like Inculcate;

“I think our procedure, and I accept you do not have this but when you get it you will see that actually by rewarding them, is to effectively inculcate them and to provide some support around them in terms of the process around it. In terms of bringing things forward and raising issues, that is one of those things that we constantly say. The rewarding as well is about being very clear on where the values of the organisation are, so being very clear with people about doing the right thing, the courage and integrity you need to step forward and say things that are wrong in your place of business. The reward per se, we have looked at things like, and I know some people talked about, “Do you commend everyone who blows the whistle?” It feels a bit like a gimmick, I have to say, that sort of thing. “

 

Roger Evans AM: I am surprised that you think that commending people for it is a gimmick. I suppose it would be if you commended everyone. If you commended people where they had found something really serious that you are pleased to have been told and been able to put right–

Craig Mackey (Deputy Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service): Absolutely, yes.

Roger Evans AM:– that seems to me to be entirely appropriate.

Craig Mackey (Deputy Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service): Yes.

Roger Evans AM: Does it happen? Do you have any examples?

Craig Mackey (Deputy Police Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service): No. At times people get rewarded and thanked for raising issues and other times they do not.

And then we have absolute pearls like this;

“I can think of some examples where the support has been right, they have raised an issue about their supervisor and the supervisor has gone, or moved, so they have been absolutely right in terms of that approach. I welcome views if  colleagues think there is a way of rewarding people for whistleblowing, or incentivising it.”

Does Mackey really think it’s as simple as moving a supervisor who’s been complained about?  What chuffing planet are you on?  Not the same one as me obviously.

Well, that looks like a bloody good, consistent policy then.

The full encounter can be found here, it’s a great read.

Which brings me on to the title of today’s piece.

RetiredAndAngry’s Whistle-Blowing Policy is this

I promote a system that encourages people to bring to the notice of their senior management or appropriate body  all examples of wrong-doing or malpractice without fear of repercussions.  I actively discourage the Blame Culture that pervades so many organisations.  Whistle-Bl;owing is not necessarily about dropping someone in the mire, it is about identifying something that is going wrong and getting it put right.  That does not necessitate any kind of witch-hunt either against the whistle-blower or the individual(s) identified in the Disclosure (if appropriate), it just involves Getting It Right, and Doing It Right.

Is that so very difficult to comprehend Mr Mackey?

Stating The Bleeding Obvious

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;

  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?
  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?
  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?

 

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

The Met Re-Launches Operation Own Goal

Back in the beginning of February I asked the Met for the cost of the James Patrick Disciplinary Enquiry.  Their reply, you may remember, was

Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) investigations are not
routinely costed by the MPS. The investigation into PC James Patrick has
accordingly, not been attributed a cost. Furthermore, should a member of
staff endeavour to calculate the cost of this investigation, there is
insufficient information held by the MPS to undertake this calculation.
For example, police officers are required, each day, to complete a duty
state. The duty state records the activities performed by a police
officer. This record does not contain sufficient detail to allow the time
spent by a police officer on a particular investigation to be calculated.
This is largely because police officers tend to be involved in more than
one investigation at any given time and the duty state does not record
each activity performed by an officer and attribute this activity to a
particular investigation. Moreover, it should also be noted that no record
of duties exists for members of police staff.

I did not believe them and so I requested that they carried out a Review of their response.  The response to their Review was this

The information requested is not held by the MPS.  Even discounting costs
that are not connected to staff time, this information is not held.

Furthermore, the MPS response explained that information recorded on duty
states does not contain sufficient information to identify time spent on
the investigation to which your request relates.  It follows that the MPS
are unable to provide the total number of hours expended on the
investigation.

Well you can imagine that I wasn’t very pleased to see that as the direct result of a Freedom of Information request the Met had been able to state the current AND PROJECTED costs of the McCann enquiry.

Now I see in the press, also as the result of a Freedom of Information request, the Met can tell the press that it has cost them £5.9 million to guard Julian Assange.

I can see that I’m going to have to point that little anomaly out to the Information Commissioner before he finishes assessing my Appeal against the Met response.

Incompetence or out and out lies? Whichever, I’ve reached the stage where I don’t believe a single word that comes out of The Centre.

It’s difficult for me to view this as anything other than yet one more Own Goal.

MPS – just be honest and open with me and tell me how much it has cost. Is that really too much to ask?

It really is time that #TeamMet had a new manager. David Moyes is free.

#Justice4PCPatrick–The Update

As many of you will know Friday saw a small campaign launched, designed to raise the profile of James Patrick’s concerns about his treatment by the Met.

Within a very short space of time I managed to rustle up 50+ retired or former Met Police officers, all of whom were concerned about James’ treatment to stand up and be counted and append their names to an open letter which was sent to the media and assorted politicians. 50+ people who, a few days ago, didn’t know James or weren’t necessarily familiar with the full details of his case.

I know she’s going to kill me for this, but I really must (and want to) thank Sharon Birch for stepping in and volunteering to draft the letter, collate the addresses to send it to, send it off and monitor any replies.  She did a fantastic job and I probably couldn’t have done it without her.  Although I’ve only ‘known’ her a few days now I think I will quite happily call her ‘friend’.

Anyway, the disappointing bit is that, at the time of writing, not one of the news agencies has picked it up and run a story on it, not even James’ local rag or national papers that have shown an interest previously.  I don’t know why, maybe there were too many other more important news items to justify them publishing it. Who knows? Is it just a little bit sinister that not one of them showed any interest?

But there was some good news.  Through the strenuous efforts of a friend contact was made with Baroness Jenny Jones who picked up on it and she’s going to write/talk to Boris about James’ case and she publicly described the Met’s stance as perverse and biased. She also managed to get confirmation from the Met Fed that they will be funding his Discipline Hearing if it goes ahead, and she then put out a Tweet asking for any HR lawyers who might be willing to advise or act for James at his Tribunal. Not free of charge yet, but it’s a start.

Whether it be from Jenny Jones or our other activities some lawyers have come forward and other folk have contacted us to give us details of lawyers who might be able to assist.  This information has all been passed on to James.

My final update for today concerns donations. I’m not going to beat you round the head, doing a Geldof, I’m just going to mention one kind donor, a member of the public,  on Friday.  The identity of that person will remain confidential as will the amount, what is noteworthy is the message that came with it (yes I have got the donor’s written consent in triplicate to include it);

Hi there, massive apologies for not replying sooner. I’ve just read Alan’s blog and wanted to let you know that as much as I respect James’ wishes to not benefit by blowing the whistle, I don’t see why he and his family should be punished for it either. I want the money I have donated to go to James, to be used in any way he needs, whether that’s going towards his mortgage, food, bills, studies, fags, I don’t care. His honesty, for the sake of us the public, has cost him his job and his treatment at the hands of the MPS has been shameful. Please assure him I want him to use the money for him and his family, I give it freely to them with my undying gratitude and respect.”

I have already thanked that donor individually and it is not my intention to embarrass them, just to highlight the fantastic attitude that exists in certain quarters.

If you are reading this and you are a retired Met officer who has not already added your name and you would like to, please get in touch and we’ll add your name to any future mailshots that we might do. Nothing specific is planned at the moment but who knows what the Met might do next that we’ll want to write about. 50 is a good number but there are THOUSANDS of us out there, come and join us, or spread the word.  We are also grateful for any support from Constabulary officers, but for obvious reasons the emphasis must be on retired.

I think it is quite inconceivable that the Met SMT wouldn’t have heard about what was happening on Friday, and I’m not saying that they should have been quaking in their boots, but even Bernie the Ostrich cannot deny that there is growing support out there from people who’ve been there. done it, walked the walk, and KNOW what has been happening.  There is also incredible support from some politicians and MANY members of the public. And we don’t like the attitude that the Met is showing to one of it’s own. Sadly this seems to be the SOP now for dealing with anyone who challenges the organisation.

It needs to end.