Corruption In The Met

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

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?

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

Open Letter To All Serving Police Officers

At the very least all Constables.

You will doubtless be aware that Constable James Patrick of the Metropolitan Police Service is less than one week away from his resignation date, having ‘blown the whistle’ on the way Crime Figures have been manipulated, certainly within the Met.

He has been hounded out of a job he loved, and I do mean loved, he was passionate about it, because he told the truth and showed the Met up, exposing their crooked practices.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe can say what the hell he pleases, but James was right and I, together with thousands of other retired Met officers, knows he was right.  I joined in 1972 and it was common-place then.  I can’t speak for your Force, I only have experience of the Met, but trust me everything James said to the Public Administration Select Committee and elsewhere was correct.

To validate James I will be giving examples shortly of the sort of practices went on that Hogan-Who and his senior management claim they know nothing about, even though Lord Stevens no less, acknowledges it.

The purpose of this letter is this.  I am fully aware that as serving Police Officers you may well feel that you cannot comment on this case.  I understand that.

You probably feel that you cannot openly express any support for James. I understand that too.

I’m not even going to ask you to agree that fiddling the figures goes on your Force.

I’m asking you for 25 PENCE.

James has told me roughly how much his legal fees will be for his Employment Tribunal, about the same as a House of Commons Barrista earns I believe.

But if every serving Constable in England could give at least 25 pence that will cover it.  All donations are anonymous.  We obviously see the details of who has sent it but those details remain confidential to us.  There are only 2 of us involved in raising funds James, I’m retired and the other man has never been a Police Officer, or civvie, so they’ll need a warrant to get anything at all out of us.

You don’t have to make a comment, you don’t have to go public, just quietly click on the link below and donate.

If you check back through my previous blogs you will see that 3 Peers of the Realm have publicly come out in support of James, and Baroness Jenny Jones is even skirmishing with Mayor Boris in an attempt to resolve the latest nonsense.

BREAKING NEWS – I have largely solved the problem of Paypal fees reducing the donations. For people who already have a Paypal Account, are willing to create one, the solution is this.

From within your opening screen (after logging in to your account) choose Send Money

Send it to the following email address

justice4pcpatrickAToutlookDOTcom (see what I did there?)

Enter the amount in GBP you wish to send

Click on “I’m sending money to family or friends” This option should be free of charges unless you pay by Credit Card and the money ends up in exactly the same account as if you had pressed the Donate Button.

A little more complicated and it only works for Paypal account holders but every fee that we can reduce is more for the Fighting Fund

I thank you

Please do it for James. #Justice4PCPatrick

THIS FUND IS NOW CLOSED

 

Thank you

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

If I Were Commissioner……

……….I wouldn’t be in Rome for a start, I’d have sent a deputy and would be seated in the Metropolis trying to address the myriad of crises the Met seems to be plagued with, mainly of their own making.

I’d also be ashamed, deeply ashamed, to be head of an organisation that appears to treat their staff the way it seems they do.

Public Perception. Two very important words for a large multi-discipline organisation that is seeking to rebuild its tarnished image. Two very important words that the Met seems intent on ignoring.

You can forget that I’m one of your army of ex officers Bernie, I am now the public, and my perception is that I am appalled at the treatment that appears to have been handed out to Constable James Patrick.  In fact I’m astounded that I could find myself in an appalled condition so many times in one week.

The first thing that appalled me was the publication of the Public Administration Select Committee report into #Crimestats.  Apart from confirming what some of us knew, and most of us suspected, that crime figures were being manipulated in the Met, it criticised the Met for its treatment of Constable James Patrick, the person who brought this to their attention.

PC Patrick then had his first appearance at an Employment Tribunal. Bearing in mind he’s pretty new at this, he found himself representing himself against a fully fledged Barrister employed by the Met and briefed to oppose James’ application for Interim Relief.  I’m no expert in Tribunals and Employment Law, but as I understand it, that would have protected James’ salary between his last day of employment and the full Tribunal hearing some time in September.  A few paltry thousand pounds.  Not much to pay out considering the atrocious waste of money elsewhere in the organisation. Unsurprisingly he lost that application, and had to go home and explain to his (innocent) wife and family the real consequences of that decision.

Wednesday saw his appearance on the BBC’s One Show programme.  I make no comment about PC Patrick’s contribution, others can judge that as they see fit.  What appalled me however was the effect this has clearly been having on his wife, she was distraught at one point, and why? What has SHE done that she has to suffer so?

The first appalling scenario for Friday was when James Tweeted that he had been threatened with further disciplinary action in light of his appearance on the One Show.  He’s tendered his resignation and had it accepted, so what?  Can you not take a little (justifiable?) criticism?

My jaw still hadn’t come up off the floor when James further Tweeted that minutes after the threat of further discipline he had been given the opportunity to terminate his employment earlier, be paid until his original end date, and the threat of further discipline would go away.  He accepted this kind offer.

The BBC reported this event and an unnamed spokesperson from the Met made this response;

The Met Police said they were open to criticism but had a duty to protect staff and the public from unwarranted criticism and to maintain public confidence in the police service.

Now this sounds very much like the charges laid against James in the very first instance, that he had damaged public confidence in the police service. So presumably the Met’s intention was to Fast Track a disciplinary hearing and dismiss him for Gross Misconduct before his resignation date.  It’s a pity they couldn’t be that efficient with his original case, dragging it out for approximately 18 months, for the actual hearing to last just 10 minutes. Or maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe the Met would like to put me right and tell me openly, transparently what their intentions were.  They haven’t been very open and transparent with me so far.

Am I the only person that thinks this is a bit like the Met sticking their corporate fingers up at the Public Administration Select Committee and saying “We run the Met, you don’t, we’ll deal with our officers our way. Keep out”? Or am I imagining that?

My third bout of being appalled yesterday was when it dawn on me, or least I suspect, that by terminating his employment with the Met earlier than anticipated will effectively rob him of his Appeal against the Disciplinary Findings. Or maybe I’ve got that wrong, if anyone can tell me better please?

Being appalled continued into the late evening when I was contacted by many (2 dozen or so) serving and retired Met officers who wished to express their disgust at the way the Met has treated James (or at least the way it has been reported) and wanted to know if there was a way they could contribute some money into a Fighting Fund for James. These are people who I don’t know, James doesn’t know them, but they are willing to donate towards the cost of Justice For James (#Justice4James looks quite good doesn’t it).  Humbling.

And finally, in the early hours of this morning, I was contacted by a Supervisor from within the Met. I won’t say who they are for obvious reasons, but I have told James and he has confirmed to me that he knows this person.  The exchange of views assures me that James hasn’t been deserted by everyone within the Met, some still care.

I am quite literally gobsmacked that the organisation can appear to treat one of its own this way (back to Public Perception). I have said it before, once James’ original disciplinary matter had been dealt with I am firmly convinced that the best way to approach the whole sorry #CrimeStats saga was to make James part of the Solution and not part of the Problem, but I guess it’s a bit late for that now.

Stay strong James, you have many ‘friends’.

NONE OF THE ABOVE WAS JAMES SPEAKING THROUGH ME. HE HAS HAD NO INPUT INTO THIS BLOG, IT IS ALL MY OWN THOUGHTS, MY PERCEPTION.

Met Police Stop Whistleblower’s Pay – Followed By Shock Exit Of Whistleblower

Met Police stop whistleblower’s pay – Channel 4 News.

 

PC James Patrick, who resigned from the force over his treatment at the hands of senior officers, is claiming constructive dismissal, saying he was victimised for speaking out. But, because of a “quirk of the rules”, police officers are denied the “interim relief” pay other people can draw while their employment tribunal cases are being heard, it was revealed this week.

Instead, PC Patrick will be forced to live without his salary from the date of his resignation on 6 June to the conclusion of his case, which is not expected to take place until as late as September, his local MP said during a Commons speech on Thursday. And Channel 4 News understands that lawyers acting for the Met pushed for the interim relief to be withheld from him during tribunal proceedings.

And then, just moments after reading the above I read this Tweet from James himself;

“I have just received a threat of further discipline from the MPS for speaking publicly on my treatment. Regrettably, I expected little else”

followed by

“Minutes after receiving the threat of discipline, I’ve been offered an earlier leaving date, with payment in lieu of notice. I’ve accepted”

Now I am certainly no expert on Employment Law and Tribunals but it does seem to me that the Met went in heavy-handed determined to deprive James of his income whilst he fought his ET, but that’s just my opinion.

It comes as no surprise to me that the Met have taken exception to James’ publicising his plight in a very public way on TV, but that’s no worse than a Force making a Press release about an officer that is has disciplined, frequently after an undertaking that there would be no Press Releases, e.g. Sgt Gary Watts recent dismissal.

Now they’ve ended up with a James released into the wild with a huge grudge, when it could have been oh so different. He could have been helping Bernie The Ostrich to sort out his #Crimestats muddle, but that’s not what Bernie wants.

And all this just DAYS after the Met was criticised in the PASC report for its treatment of James.  I’m glad it’s not a vindictive organisation.

Can I sit in on James’ Exit Interview please Bernie?

Social Media Is Not Without Its Risks

The dust hasn’t even settled on the James Patrick situation.  We haven’t heard the last of that yet

Now we have another absolute travesty of justice (justice?) or so it would seem.

It seems as though the wrong man has been sacked for being a Twitter user.

I’m not familiar with either of the Account Holders, but that doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

If the blog STOP STIGMA is to be believed, an Avon and Somerset Police Officer has been sacked for being Twitter User @TheBritishCop.

I don’t know the true identity of either person, nor if they are even known to each other, but I suspect not.

The full story, together with various links, can be found on the above blog.  The main problem, however, is that the Professional Standards Department of Avon and Somerset Police have allegedly conducted a disciplinary hearing and ignored the fact that the officer was not the correct one.

The head of A&S Professional Standards has allegedly been in communication with @TheBritishCop (who maintains that he is NEITHER this officer, nor even a member of Avon and Somerset Constabulary, but has for some reason omitted this vital piece of information from the disciplinary files.

If this is true then this is clearly an unacceptable situation.  Professional Standards Departments should behave in exactly that manner – PROFESSIONALLY.  They do nothing for the confidence of public or their officers if they, themselves, deviate from the straight and narrow.

Then today I find myself contacted by an officer from the Western bit of the UK who tells me that he’s under investigation AGAIN for his use of Twitter.  I have no idea what the specific issue is there but it’s making a bit of a nonsense of Police use of Twitter & other Social Media.  To be effective (in my opinion) a Twitter/SM account needs to be balanced between humourous and professional. If it’s too dry and stuffy people will disengage, but neither should it be discreditable in any way.

The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police recently made much of his Force being awarded a Gold Award by Investors in People.  How does that fit with (allegedly) sacking the wrong person.  Sacking has huge repercussions for the person being sacked, even when it’s the right person.  Imagine the effect if/when it’s the wrong person.

I implore Avon and Somerset to either justify their actions and convince us that they’ve actually disciplined and sacked the right person, or re-examine this case as a matter of urgency.  One way or the other it can’t be left hanging there, and public confidence needs to be restored before too much damage is caused. It’s out there, there’s nothing you can do about that.

Finally, I do think there’s a moral obligation on @TheBritishCop to put this right, but I also understand how he/she probably fears the same fate awaits him/her if reported to his/her Force, assuming he/she really is a cop.

Am I A Conspiracy Theorist Or Is There A Conspiracy?

I try not to be too much of a Conspiracy Theorist, but sometimes it’s easy to fall into that mode. But sometimes things happen that just lend themselves to ‘Conspiracy’.

I have thought hard over whether I should even write this blog, but I’ve decided that I should, the truth (Conspiracy or not) is too important to be ignored. My mind is a jumble at the moment so if this blog seems a little more disjointed than normal, please forgive me and bear with it.

Nobody can deny that there is a crisis in the Met at the moment. Bernard Hogan-Who (Bernie the Ostrich) is under fire from all directions. So what is he doing about it? Well one thing he certainly isn’t doing about it is leading his Force out of this crisis with their heads held high. The vast majority of the Met have nothing to be ashamed of and he knows it.

Two of Bernie’s highest profile problems of the moment (I would suggest) both involve Constable James Patrick.

Firstly we have the travesty that was his Discipline Hearing, for a so-called offence of Gross Misconduct that had to be downgraded to Misconduct after a review by an external Force. As you will be aware this centred on James’ blogs that he later consolidated into a book and sold, 100% of the proceeds going to charity.

You will find James’ own full version of the hearing here, and his Notice of Appeal here.

It was alleged that James had failed to register a Business Interest.

Now that the proceedings are over I ask you Met Police, why is it necessary to register a Business Interest if 100% of the proceeds are donated to charity, and the publishing of the book is self-funded? You have found him Guilty. Simply, where is the Business?

The Met alleged that by publishing this book James had damaged Public Confidence in the Met. Where is the evidence for this? If James’ book was so damaging, why did you not instruct him to remove it from sale? You found him Guilty yet you permitted a continuance of the ‘offence’ by not instructing him to remove it from sale.

James was not served a full Disclosure pack because there were documents in existence that weakened the DPS case against him, so they were withheld. James found these documents, one of them clearly states that the Met doesn’t actually have a policy on its officers and staff writing books. I have read it, it exists, yet you still found him Guilty of Misconduct.

The Met claims it does not know the cost of these proceedings as it doesn’t record such information. I don’t believe you Met. Years ago enquiries/investigations/operations were routinely costed if for no other reason than Management Information. Have we taken a step backwards? I simply don’t believe you.

The evidence was reviewed by an external Force, except that external Force has been unable to identify any information regarding that review. Did it even happen, or did the Met just claim that in order to save face?

Then there were the ‘Welfare’ visits. Were they really for his welfare? I don’t know, but I’ve never heard of that happening in the Met, not for someone facing Discipline, phone call from Line Manager maybe, but not visits from an outside Force.  The Met have the resources to go and visit themselves anyway if they really wanted to.

6,000 pages of evidence, 136 submissions by James and a Board in front of a Chief Inspector from an external Force that lasts 10 minutes max. Does that sound like a fair hearing, or does it sounds like a pre-ordained result.

There are other issues around James’ hearing which may or may not come out in the fullness of time, but suffice it to say he is angry and feeling very low and let down right now. He does not wish me to discuss them so I will respect that wish.

The second problem involving James is #CrimeStats.  What on earth is Bernie playing at?  I’m not suggesting that #CrimeStats warrants James receiving immunity from his pre-existing Discipline Issues, but all that has happened just makes it look like James is now being dumped on from an even greater height than before.  Where is the protection that a Whistle-blower should enjoy?  Bernie has admitted that James’ allegations contain a truth that should be heard, so why isn’t he hearing it? Why hasn’t he arranged for someone with loads of Scrambled Egg to sit down with James and take a proper debrief from him?  Have an enquiry by all means but why not include the man that kicked it all off? Answers on a postcard please Bernie.

Now we have the TSG 6.  I’m not going to dwell on that subject for very long, you can find the whole story here if you haven’t already read it.  I defy anyone to read that transcript and not form the opinion that DPS have acted unethically and most probably unlawfully. Their sanctions? Almost none. What kind of a message does that send exactly? Where can the integrity of DPS investigations be found after that little sage?

There are others who Tweet regularly (and they will know who they are) who have told me how they have been stitched up by Professional(?) Standards.  If this is true this must be a VERY worrying development.

Other officers, from other Forces to the Met have received similar, unacceptable treatments at the hands of the Professional(?) Standards Departments, although I fail to see how this could be a joined-up policy across the country.

Then we enter the world of shredding.  Has all this vital information regarding corruption been shredded? I have no idea, but Bernie hasn’t exactly denied it.  Personally I’m reasonably comfortable with the shredding, but I would be VERY uncomfortable if nothing could be found on the servers or the backups either. The Met ceased to rely on bits of paper years ago, but the servers get backed up regularly, as is best practice, so where is the information?

Several different Operation names have featured in the press recently, some of which are allegedly marked SECRET.  Who would have access to these SECRET files in order to leak them? Why hasn’t the Met gone stratospheric in an attempt to identify those responsible? Just who DID leak them and why?

Finally, I want to know just how willing this government is to tackle the subject of corruption.  I emailed a certain Mr Vaz recently after corruption became an issue in of the HASC sessions with Bernie.  I proposed to him a viable method for Police Forces around the country to demonstrate to their public the estimated levels of corruption within their Force and what they proposed to do about it.  SILENCE.  I left it a few days and then I tweeted him to ask him if he had received my email.  SILENCE.  I know at least one other ex-police Tweeter has received the same SILENCE from Mr Vaz.  It is simply not good enough, people are trying with the best intentions to solve problems and they’re not being listened to or taken seriously.

Whistle-blowers getting dumped on and corrupt officers going unhindered?  Please tell me that this is not where the Met finds itself today. Please?

I’m sorry this has been a bit of a disconnected rant, I sincerely hope that there is NOT a Conspiracy out there, and these are just the ramblings of an old fool and nothing more serious, but I do think we all deserve some answers, and soon.

The Curious Case of Constable James Patrick

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
it.
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
MPS?”

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?

And the Melton Mowbray For 2014 Is Awarded To……The Met

I don’t have many proud days in my life, but 3rd July 1972 was one of them, I joined the Met.  16 weeks later I passed out of Henditz Training School and that was another.  In 1995 I was presented with my Long Service and Good Conduct Medal by the Commish (it should have been 1994 but the Commish’s Researcher got the dates muddled up and the whole of my intake got our medals a year late), finally in 2002 I was not only presented with my Exemplary Service Certificate but my OCU Commander had actually had it framed for me.

They were all proud days.  There have been a few others along the way, but they’re the ones I value the most.

Fast Forward, it is now 2014 and I’m ashamed to admit that I was ever in the Met.

I haven’t got the foggiest idea what my mother, wife and children think I got up to for 30 years.  Comments from Mrs Angry suggest that she believes at least some of the vitriol that abounds at the moment, but then she is a Daily Fail reader, so I suppose I should understand that.

I am not blind, naive or stupid. I know that some bad things happened.  I do not condone them, excuse them or possibly even forgive them, but I do know the scale of these wrongdoings.  One of the Commissioners bravely (?) put a figure of 250 on the number of corrupt officers in the Met.  Was he right?  I’m not completely certain, personally I would say it was less than that, but 250 out of, let’s say, 35,000 at that time.

Less than 1%

Is that too many?  Of course it is.  Put into context (I hope, but I know that some will disagree with me), what percentage of the population at large has a criminal record, or criminal inclinations?  The most recent answer to this that I could find was ;

It is estimated that at least twenty percent of the working population has a criminal record and one in three men under 30 have criminal convictions

Much, much higher than 1%.

I then came to actually be ashamed of the Metropolitan Police Service itself, as I gradually learnt more ‘stuff’ that serving officers might not necessarily get involved in, for obvious reasons..

Here are just a few examples of the MPS Arcade of Shame.

PC Keith Wallis – lied in an attempt to discredit Andrew Mitchell in the #Plebgate saga.  The long-term effect that has had is that people remember the lies and Andrew Mitchell has gained support as a result of what was seen as his unfair and vindictive treatment at the hands of the Metropolitan Police.  It was all one big conspiracy against him.  Well hopefully the full truth will come out during the Libel actions.  I do not condone the actions of Keith Wallis, not for one second, but neither do I believe that we have heard the full, true, account of what happened from Mr Mitchell.  Time will tell.

The presentation by Tessa Munt MP – I won’t labour this, I blogged about it here, but it appears that the main witness (a Police Officer) allegedly, maybe, possibly lied on oath, or was mistaken, 25 times during his prosecution evidence.  Just as worrying (or maybe even more worrying really) Ms Munt alleged this about the MPS itself

“The MPS also tampered with personnel or staff records to produce false records for the six TSG officers. In 2013, as part of disclosure in part 20 proceedings, it came to the six TSG officers’ attention that their staff records had been tampered with. In March 2010, following their acquittal by unanimous verdict at the trial at Kingston Crown court, they were told that no internal disciplinary sanctions or actions were to be brought against any of them. They have discovered, some six years later, that a false account has been created for each of them on their personnel records, illustrating that a finding of guilt was made against each of them, that “words of advice” were given to each of them in 2009 and that the complaint was substantiated.”

If this allegation is true I would suggest that it has not been achieved without some Management involvement somewhere along the line. Or maybe it simply just isn’t true.

The Ellison Report – An enquiry into allegations of corruption and other matters pertaining to the Steven Lawrence Murder Investigation.  It appears that the Met DPS did not disclose information/evidence/intelligence  that they held when all such information had been requested. Moreover in 2003 a Mass Shredding of documents pertaining to corruption within the Met allegedly took place, with no other copies supposedly available.

The Daniel Morgan Murder – Like Steven Lawrence another MPS murder investigation littered with allegations of Police Corruption and the family insisting that successive senior officers from the Met have lied to them rather than admit to corruption being a problem.  I have to say I don’t know the truthful answer, but these allegations refuse to go away and the victim’s family and the population at large deserve to hear the truth, whatever that truth may be.

James Patrick – Three strands to this one.  Firstly I asked them how much the Discipline Enquiry had cost so far, you’ll find that story here if you haven’t read it yet.  The Met answered my Freedom of Information request by saying that they couldn’t answer it because they do not routinely cost individual enquiries.  I appealed, questioned the response and got the same answer back again.  Now I have to say that when I retired in 2002 all enquiries/investigations/operations were allocated a cost code amongst other reasons in order that Management could keep tabs of the costs and decide  whether or not it was getting more expensive than it was worth.  I have spoken with officers still serving who have told me that the situation is even worse now and one has to account for absolutely everything.  In addition the Met is able to put a cost to the #Plebgate investigation and the Madeleine McCann investigation, so why not the James Patrick investigation?

Secondly we have this that James included in his blog on 24th March;

“Throughout the misconduct process it has been denied that there were any senior level discussions about me, or policy deficiencies relevant to my case. It was discovered on the 19th of March 2014 that significant material does indeed exist. On discovering this, and immediately serving it on the misconduct meeting Chair, the reaction from the MPS has been aggressive; implying that I am the person whose integrity is in question for trying to discover the truth, and threatening me with potential discipline for defending myself.”

More lying/prevarication or Fudging, but certainly not the truth it would appear.

If we go back right to the very beginning James was disciplined for Gross Misconduct – selling a book of his blogs.  An external Force (Warwickshire I believe it was) conducted a review and determined that the case amounted to no more than simple Misconduct, James was no longer facing the sack, and his Discipline Panel would be chaired by an Inspector, not a Commander.  Much different.

Finally, James discovered that a document existed that informed DPS that no policy actually existed on the writing of blogs or books by MPS officers.  Furthermore the Director of Legal Services advised that the MPS could not prevent MPS staff from writing blogs/books merely because the content was embarrassing to the MPS.  So how is that Misconduct or Gross Misconduct?  DPS knows this now but is still continuing to discipline PC Patrick. How is that ethical?

The single word ‘Vindictive’ keeps going round in my head and I can’t make it go away.

One final thought on James:-  He has tendered his resignation, presumably the Met have accepted it.  As the proceedings against him have been downgraded to Misconduct, meaning the worst that can happen to him is a written warning, why have they not saved everybody the bother and expense and just discontinued the proceedings?  Vengeance Is Mine sayeth BHH.

Gagging Orders – Finally, last year I had reason to ask the Met about so-called Gagging Orders.  One of the questions I asked them was this;

2) How many senior officers in the Met, current or resigned/retired above
the rank of Chief Inspector are currently subject to such, similar,
‘Gagging Orders’ or similar agreements?
NB ‘Gagging Order’ any agreement voluntary or imposed by a Court not to
divulge the terms of any settlement etc.
For the avoidance of doubt I am specifically NOT requesting names or
circumstances, just a total number, broken down by rank if that is
possible.

The answer I got back was this;

Firstly:- Q2) Could you please clarify the term ‘Gagging Order’?

Then subsequently it looked like this;

Q2:  The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it
holds the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Act does not apply by virtue of the following exemption: Section 40(5) –
Personal Information / Absolute Exemption

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both
the request itself and any information disclosed, are considered suitable
for open publication.

This is because under Freedom of Information any information disclosed is
released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. To confirm or deny whether personal information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 1998. When confirming or denying that information is held would breach an individual’s rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 40(5) becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement for me to provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to conduct a public interest test.

Why not? What have they got to hide? Something going on or a simple denial would do the job.

I haven’t got enough years left in me to back through all of the Met’s Freedom of Information requests (between 2005 – 2010 there are over 730 PAGES of requests), but I have looked at a few, and it does seem that they either don’t answer many or sometimes don’t appear to provide a wholly accurate answer.  It is for all of the above reasons that I give them the Melton Mowbray for 2014.

Of course, if you, my reader, can think of any more reasons why the Met would qualify for this year’s Melton Mowbray please add them to the ‘Comments’ section below.  I moderate almost anything that doesn’t advertise shoes and handbags.

What is going on in the Met today is tragic, but I honestly believe that it is not too late.  This organisation I was once a proud member of can rise again, but it needs to face the truth and the reality, only then can it rebuild into its rightful place as a world leader of Police FORCES.  It really is time to stop the lying, stop avoiding the questions you really don’t want to answer and rebuild the honest and ethical way. Every time Bernard the Ostrich denies the obvious, or claims to have no knowledge, just makes that day a little bit further away.