The Moral Police

Posted on May 21, 2011 by noblecausecorruption

Sir Fred Goodwin has been recently exposed as one of the individuals in this country who have used a super injunction to prevent a story about them being published. Thanks to a Member of the House of Lords he has been exposed and accordingly the High Court have decided to revoke some of the order to now allow the story to come out. I am not really hear to pass any comments on Mr Goodwin’s shortcomings or the fact that he was able to get an order banning the mention of the story in the first instance. I am intrigued as to the difference in treatment between him and a colleague and, indeed, between he colleague and a senior ACPO officer.

The senior ACPO officer was Michael Todd. It appears from the report into his death that he was known to be a womaniser and most people who knew him also knew of the many women he had intimate relationships with. Whilst he was an ACPO officer in the Met he had affairs with many women it would appear in the full knowledge of many at the Met. Even so, he applied for and was given the role as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police where he continued hisways and was soon to commence a relationship with a local Manchester woman who was a high flyer in the business arena. It was common knowledge to the senior brass at GMP that he was having an affair but nothing was done about it and the report, previously mentioned, indicated it did not affect his job.

I have stated that I am not the moral police. I do not care who is bonking who in this world but I do criticise hypocrisy when I find out about it. An officer I have been contacted by has recently been investigated by his local uPSD for having an affair. I thought this had petered out years ago but obviously not. The circumstances of this officer was that he still lived in the same house as his wife. She lived upstairs and he lived downstairs. Their marriage had been over for some time and the arrangement was amicable between them as it meant that they could afford the house they were living in and they had just not got around to divorce. In fact, our colleague’s former wife had moved her new partner into the house with his blessing although, as he pointed out to me, he had not right to interfere even if he wanted to.

The officer had met a lady near to where he worked and had struck up a relationship with her. She was single having been divorced from her husband and they began seeing each other after they realised that they enjoyed each other’s company. Everyone at his station knew her and knew of their relationship. He hid nothing. The only complication was the fact that, as part of his duties, he would attend meetings at the building she worked at and he would have a brew with her waiting for the people he was meeting with to be available. Everything was open and above board and conducted professionally.

Another Arkell v Pressdram (1971) moment

So why did he have his private life interfered with by a full blown investigation into his affair which wasn’t actually an affair? What right does a uPSD official have to pry into the private life of a police officer. The officer was moved from his position to a different area of the force and people in the officer where his girlfriend worked were interviewed about their relationship. Questions were asked of a highly personal nature to his colleagues and to her colleagues and some of the investigation bordered on the belief that he had committed a criminal offence. His wife threw the uPSD officers out of her house when they came to interview her quoting the immortal case of Arkell V Pressdram (1971)

The relationship has survived this intrusion by the moral police but it begs the question, “Why did it take place in the first instance?” Is it because our colleague was a Constable rather than a Chief Constable or a Chief Executive? Maybe it was Noble Cause Corruption.

Ken Clarke……Bless!!

Posted on May 19, 2011 by noblecausecorruption

I have listened to the sentencing debate with increasing incredulity when a man puts his foot so far in his mouth that he can kiss his own bottom. Of course, I am talking about Ken Clarke. If Ken Clarke was a cop, particularly a Federated rank he would now be forcibly pushed towards the door marked “EXIT” but without the grace and favour of being allowed to resign. He would be sacked without notice. The reason why people like Ken Clarke believe we should be content to live amongst criminals is because of money. It is simply the case that prison is expensive. So what? I call it a debate but I suspect that what he is doing is softening us up by a constant drip feed of idiotic and crass statements so that we are not so shocked when he eventually invokes his master plan.

It is many years since I dealt with a rape victim. Advances in investigation have been made to try and ensure that the victim is paramount in this area of the justice system. I know that to some women this is the worst type of violation they can face, even higher than murder! So for a person in such a powerful position to trivialise it is unforgiveable. So what is next for our industrious Mr Clarke? Assuming he keeps his job he will still be in charge of the maintaining the high criminal element within our community either by not sending them to prison in the first place or by releasing them early from prison. Justice Secretary, don’t make me laugh. Perhaps, he needs to lie in a darkened room for a period of time. Preferably one with some padding on the walls and with the lock on the outside.

I watched the Home Secretary at Bournemouth yesterday online at www.polfed.org. I have to say that the silence with which she walked to the platform was enormous and clearly she was unsettled. It spoke volumes of how cops feel they are being treated. I also have to comment about the professionalism of Paul McKeever. He is a public speaker of some quality and it is about time this was recognised by rank and file officers who constantly bemoan the Federation. The point he made using the chart of Government spending to show just how little is actually spent on the police when you look at the full picture was a massive coup and showed this government up for the doctors of spin they are. The common theme has always been that we need to cut the police otherwise it will break the bank and the police will bankrupt society.

Honesty and Integrity only applies to the police and even then only to junior ranks.

Appropriate Authority

Posted on May 16, 2011 by noblecausecorruption

Chris Huhne MP

In the press this week is a story about Chris Huhne, MP, who is going to be investigated by Essex Police following an allegation that he tried to get someone else to take his points following a speeding offence. It would appear that it is his wife who is the whistleblower in this matter and I have seen Mr Huhne appear on TV regularly to deny the allegations. I wonder why the reporters read something into his words when they hear them. For example, because he has not said outright, “I didn’t do it!” they are going apoplectic about the actual words used. Good grief. A denial is a denial.

On another note, whilst the might of Essex Constabulary comb through records which are 9 years old to establish the merit of the allegation, Noble Cause Corruption has become aware of an allegation of perverting the course of justice and corruption being made against officers of another force. The allegations appear to have some merit but the officer is frustrated at the fact that the IPCC have refused to accept the allegation quoting the Police Reform Act 2002 and, consequently, have referred it to the force subject of the allegation. Unsurprisingly, considering that the allegation was against the uPSD department of the relevant force, are you surprised that they have dismissed it? Apparently, without even contacting the person making the allegation!!

It begs the question, why is the 9 year old allegation of a spurned wife against Chris Huhne more important than a criminal allegation against a uPSD office of a police force? The answer is Noble Cause Corruption.

Exactly What It Says on the Tin

Posted on May 11, 2011 by noblecausecorruption

Grahame Maxwell must be mightily relieved today following the decision to give him a final written warning at a misconduct tribunal after he admitted gross misconduct. It begs the question of why they didn’t just give him a final written warning at a misconduct meeting and save all the expense involved in setting up a panel? You may know that this man assisted a member of his family in the recruitment process for positions at North Yorkshire Police, a matter which has been widely reported. Whilst I have no wish to see the man sacked, it is of little comfort to the ordinary cop who, I believe, would have been summarily dismissed form most police forces in this country for a similar indiscretion. Indeed, it is likely that the ordinary cop would have been facing criminal charges.

The fact is that it took the integrity and tenacity of one of his Assistant Chief Constables to report this matter after refusing to back down. So Grahame Maxwell only admitted his wrong doing after he was found out. It appears, if we believe the IPCC, that he questioned the ability of the IPCC investigators in an attempt to discredit the investigation. Is there not an honesty and integrity issue in this? Of course there is but this is noble cause, so there was never any doubt he would keep his job and you are unlikely to do that if you have to also admit a honesty and integrity violation!!! The Taylor Reforms were introduced in a blaze of glory with the emphasis being on learning rather than punishment. What a load of rubbish. It is obvious to anybody engaged in the discipline field that Chief Constables are using it as a form of redundancy without the requirement to make the required payments. Of course, when it is one of their own in the hot seat, they appear to have differing rules when it comes to sanction.

Take this example, an officer strikes a prisoner which is caught on cctv. He never denies the strike and actually declares it to his line manager. He is not prosecuted because there is no realistic chance of a successful prosecution but he faces a misconduct panel for excessive use of force. There are 5 officers in the relevant force at the time of the panel with convictions for assault. In fact, his federation rep was one of them. How is it fair that an un-convicted officer loses his job for a misconduct offence which must be less serious than the 5 officers with convictions who kept their jobs. It can’t be because the force needs to lose a number of officers due to budget difficulties, COULD IT?

On a final note, departing from the main theme of this blog I have to announce that, quietly, new pension calculation factors have been introduced since the 20th April 2011. The main change is to the commutation factors which means that someone (Constable) retiring before that date is about £16000 worse off commutation wise. A little complication is the fact that under certain circumstances, if the commutation is too big then a portion may be taxed. A friend of mine retired in March of 2011 and faces a significant shortfall compared to his mate who retires at the end of May even though they joined on the same day!! C’est la vie!

Officers Innocent……Shock!!

Posted on May 5, 2011 by noblecausecorruption

In Manchester, a cause celebre is being attempted by Howard Swarray. According to the Manchester Evening News he was working out at a gym in the Manchester area when he had a fit which required the attendance of the ambulance service. The result of the ambulance attendance was that three paramedics were assaulted by him and the gym staff, unable to assist, called for the police to attend. The attendance of the police resulted in a taser being deployed albeit the first blast did not work but the second did.

Mr Swarray does not remember any of the incident and has had to rely upon the testimony of the officers, paramedics and other witnesses to find out what happened to him. Following the intervention of the officers, Swarray was sedated using the horse tranquiliser, Ketamine and then spent 8 days in a drug induced coma at hospital. The officers probably saved his life but Mr Swarray thanks them by complaining to the IPCC about their actions. I wonder if a reqest for compensation is to follow?

That aside, I have to visit the resulting conclusions from the IPCC as I think they have surpassed themselves in their lack of sense. They have decided that no officers breached policies or procedures or breached misconduct. An admirable and logical sentiment but they then add, “some of the tactics used were ‘questionable’ and they have “asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to carry out a review into the tactics used for dealing with people experiencing serious medical episodes.”

Let us look at this example of IPCC clear thinking. They have ruled that the complaint is without foundation otherwise the officers would have been facing misconduct procedures. They have ruled that the officers have acted correctly, some would argue that the words they should have used are bravely and professionally. They have then countered this with a “questionable tactic” allegation. What does this mean? I always thought things were lawful or unlawful. When did this questionable verdict become acceptable? It is simply a whitewash. The IPCC found nothing but felt compelled to pass a verdict on someone. Maybe they feel the need to justify their own existence. Either way the comment is ridiculous.

However, it became even more ridiculous when the IPCC have decided that, “the IPCC is writing to ACPO to suggest that, in conjunction with relevant charities or healthcare providers, they consider whether other, potentially less violent tactics could be used in these types of situations to ensure people suffering medical emergencies receive the right care and that frontline police officers have the relevant knowledge to assist them.” Analyse this for a moment. Do they now want officers to have some form of medical training to establish whether someone is simply being violent for the sake of it, violent because they are mentally ill or violent because of a medical problem such as a fit or other seizure. There were three paramedics there. I fail to understand why the IPCC cannot see that the officers would have asked the paramedics for medical advice and that the paramedics would not have allowed the use of the taser if they thought that they could have handled it another way.

Do they really have a clue?

They further state that the “ overriding concern remains that a medical condition exists that can prompt an individual to be in a totally disorientated state which can result in them being incredibly violent, yet the only option open to police officers in dealing with such an individual at present appears to be to deliver controlled violence.” Interestingly, the IPCC are silent as to what tea and sympathy activities the officers should have performed whilst this incident was taking place. Woe betide the officers if someone was to be injured whilst they dismissed the observations of the paramedics in order to perform their own medical assessment of the injured party.

The problem with the IPCC is that they really haven’t got a clue!