The Infallible David Gilbertson

The Daily Mail has an article by the “esteemed” but somewhat misguided David Gilbertson who is so important in the press world that he has to write his name in block capitals. His article is centred on the public wailing over the fact that half of 58,400 complaints nationally were for incivility, rudeness or neglect of duty. Mr Gilbertson retired in 2001 and, for those of ACPO rank, that is about 10 years ago.

His uninformed article, full or rumour , conjecture and suspicion talks about the average age of the operational PC is under 24 as if, in the last thirty years, it has been any different. He talks about young officers getting to know their own beats and the local communities that lived upon them. What planet are you from, Mr Gilbertson? For the last god knows how many years and certainly in the eighties and nineties that model has been performed by very few officers. A direct consequence of ACPO led industries requiring immediate attendance at every job just so a tick in the box is achieved towards the next rank.

Typically, he rounds upon the the training given to officers which talks about compliance, using unambiguous language and criticises the officers for its use. The very policy formulated and agreed by ACPO, the business he now wants to take action against the officer.

Another Uncivil Police Officer

Actually when you read the figures, rudeness and incivility amount to 11,500 of the complaints. This might equate to a figure close to 50% by retired, axe-to-grind, former ACPO calculations but in the real world it equates to 20%. Is this significant? Of course it is. The reason it is significant is because the other 30% of the figure relates to neglect of duty or the consequence of overloading officers with too much work and then loading them with even more to the point that either, they cannot do a sufficient job on the work they have or they try to cut corners.

These figures do not portray a true picture. Often complaints are made simply because the person making the complaint does not want to conform to the request of the police officer and is simply making an issue out of nothing. Gilbertson has the temerity to state that current day police have never been held in lower esteem! He talks about minor disciplinary sanctions by middle managers not being effective. Does this mean that he wants punitive sanctions by senior officers simply based on the un-corroborated complaint of a member of the public. Yes, it would appear so – that is why people like Gilbertson should be rounded up and sent to the ACPO funny farm somewhere near to Bramshill.

Discretion

You know, ACPO are never wrong and former ACPO buffoons who are regularly trotted out to criticise current day police are always perfect. Particularly those who spent little time at the real sharp end and really are (or were) politicians in uniform. Mr Gilbertson, we are always embarrassed and disgusted by the behaviour of boorish, former high ranking colleagues such as you. You retired 10 years ago so stay retired as you don’t know what you are talking about.

Sincere apologies for my recent disappearance entirely due to an extremely busy time. I still have a day job sometime stretching into the evening and the wee small hours. Anyway, back on track.

A Uniformed Colleague Secretes Himself near to a Kebab Shop

I wonder what would happen to the ordinary Federated rank if it were found that they were being wined and dined by a corporate company. Particularly one which would appear to have recently employed staff who broke the law significantly enough to merit a prison sentence. I know from experience that colleagues have faced criminal investigations into their associations with so called criminal elements. In fact, in my force, an officer was investigated over his association with a man, who he had known for about 10 years, who was arrested for an offence of kidnap. The reality was that the officer signed his passport photograph to say thet the passport was a true likeness and was still investigated.

Furthermore, the arrest for kidnap was in 1996 when the officer was 17 years old and studying A levels at College! He didn’t meet this man until 5 years later by which time the man had got his act together and had become a successful business man. Not only that but afterwards he was guilty enough of something which meant he was transferred to a new position.

Candlelit Dinner for Two?

Compare this to the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner who, in a four year period between 2006 and 2010 as reported by the Independent Newspaper, had thirteen such “winings and dinings” with members of the News of the World including half of them with the Deputy Editor, Neil Wallis. Of course, it was all above board and had nothing to do with the fact that there was a refusal to investigate the News of the World telephone hacking scandal.

But just so I know, if I go into a local kebab shop and he gives me a free poppadum to eat with some onions and chutney while I am waiting for the kebab to be cooked, why do I feel so guilty?

I am aware of a colleague who transferred to my Force some time ago with no difficulty. As a result of an application to move into a position which again requires him to be vetted he has landed himself with Reg 15 papers. These papers outline a fraud offence and the usual bollox about honesty and integrity, etc, etc. The allegation stems from him not recording a speeding offence on his application to transfer and the fact that he had been investigated about that matter by the original force, again, prior to the transfer.

The wording of the question he has “failed” to answer correctly is something like:

“Have you been involved in any misconduct proceedings whilst serving in a UK Police Force.”

His thought process was that he hadn’t because proceedings means a tribunal or similar so his answer to this question was “No” (This is under the 2004 Regulations). We have all been investigated for malicious complaints. Why is he now being investigated for the criminal offences akin to pecuniary advantage and misconduct in a public office? I have news for the investigators…..consider this. If he hadn’t transferred to your force, he would still be earning the same money in his original force so where is his dishonesty or his pecuniary advantage? Why can you not see this!!!!? The speeding matter was a simple fixed penalty notice which he reported to his force when he received it but forgot about it when he submitted the transfer application. Words of advice, I think so?

What has actually happened is the force has been embarrassed. Either the original vetting process was flawed or it wasn’t done. A third option, unlikely I know, is that it was recorded but that record does not now appear on his personal file. There is now a police officer working under restriction for a clanger dropped by a vetting official. Not only that but the police officer faces a criminal investigation as a consequence. I wonder how long it will take.

One rule for some.....!

I raise this issue for two reasons. The first is a Labour Councillor called Stephen Govier. Mr Govier is the leader of Southwark Council and spent 3 years, having served half of a six year sentence, in an American Prison for shooting someone in his home in Los Angeles 13 years ago. Straight after he was deported back to the UK. The newspaper report quotes him as saying:

“He said he did not reveal details of his conviction when he applied to become a councillor as he did not believe it would be prejudicial to the Labour Party.”

By my reckoning the councillor is in a public office and has deliberately withheld this information knowing how it would have been interpreted. Is he facing a criminal investigation? No chance……he is being urged to resign! So far he has refused. One rule for some….?

Vetting Precoss

The second related debacle is Brian Sirjusingh. This is the bloke who was sacked for accepting £1000 to show some newspaper reporters around Buckingham Palace in May 2009. Would you be surprised to learn that, according to the news report, he is now a civilian detention officer at a police station in the Met? One would assume the vetting process has been carried out on him.

Why is it that a man with a security risk as high as his and with the apparent willingness to accept a “bribe” has been allowed in such a sensitive and secure environment as a custody office? Why is it that my police colleague is now facing a criminal investigation for an incident miniscule in comparison to both these persons?

Noble Cause Corruption.

This week I have read an article in Metline, the Metropolitan Police Federation Magazine, called “To Hell and Back.” It details the despair that can come from being caught up in the discipline procedure and it is sobering reading. As has happened with the author, the story outlines a colleague who was first complained about around July 2005 whereupon he was served his papers in August 2005. It was, by all accounts an allegation of bullying involving racism and sexism.

I need to make it perfectly clear that I do not condone this sort of behaviour.

But my experience is that a significant portion of allegations made against police officers are fabricated or embellished.

Banned from Promotion

The officer was placed on restricted duties unable to meet the public. In his case he was informed he was barred from entering the promotion system. He outlines that by December 2006 he was at his wits end, stressed up, living and breathing the complaint that the uPSD are allowed to leisurely process. The stress got so bad his wife asked him to leave.

Eventually, he was summoned for interview and met the “investigators” whom the writer describes as follows:

“To be confronted by your investigators and treated as a suspect in an investigation which, I can say, falls short of the standards required by PACE, whereby officers are to investigate all avenues that lead to and away from the suspect. I found that the DPS (uPSD) were able to write their own canvas.”

He goes on to explain that everyone had been interviewed but only detrimental statements were obtained corroborating the allegations. The culmination of the saga is that he went on to face an all powers tribunal and admitted the misconduct offences that he had admitted in the interview. He was sanctioned and returned back to his work.

The article seems to be cut short in my opinion because I would have liked to hear his experience following the tribunal. Having been in a significant position of jeopardy myself, I began to feel resentment, bitterness and anger following the decision to clear me of everything. It took a lot to change my attitude but I did……eventually. I directed my angst at uPSD and at those in management who supported me to my face but cut me off when they thought I was drowning only to find that,  because I was frantically kicking my legs, I remained on the surface determined to stay afloat.

This could be a story about my own force and, I dare say, is a story about your own force. It is mind boggling that an investigation which takes the average detective a few days to complete takes the uPSD years to do the same. They are so wrapped up in their own self righteous conscience that they fail to see the impact of their incompetence and lethargy. The uPSD management should be reviewing the way their staff progress their files and bringing them to account to explain any delays.

I have been referred to a news story in the Manchester Evening News which outlines a solicitor who has been caught for the second occasion drink driving. You may wonder why this story is relevant to Police matters but Annexe N of the Old Misconduct Regs from 2004 basically outlined to cops that if you were caught drink driving you are sacked. I have known countless colleagues who have been convicted of drink driving and sacked very shortly afterwards. The only recent exception was a Chief Inspector who was busted a couple of ranks. Shows how long ago! The 2008 Regulations removed demotion as a sanction.

Back to the solicitor. He was banned in 2002 following a conviction for drink driving and has recently been found to be one and a half times over the limit when he wrote off a VW Golf using his Ferrari on the M56. He was banned for 3 years, £1200 fine (probably about 5  hours work in reality!!!), £120 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. Here comes the dilemma. The Solicitor’s Regulation Authority has been quoted by the newspaper as saying, “If non custodial, we would assess (the sentence) and could give a reprimand depending on impact on the solicitor’s integrity.”

A cop gets sacked on first conviction, a solicitor gets a reprimand on his second conviction.

Why do we put up with this nonsense? I don’t know but someone has decided to make us the scapegoats. When I arrived at my initial posting, an old cop about to retire said that when you join the police you are as close as you will ever be to going to prison. I think I know what he means.