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.
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.