I was reminiscing this week-end with a colleague about the “olden days.” Back in the day when a mistake was dealt with by a punishment parade in front of a Chief Superintendent who would bollock you up hill and down dale. The reason you accepted it was because you had respect for the boss mainly because he had been in your position and had done your job, rising through the ranks in the process. Nowadays, all I seem to find are intellectuals with little or no real understanding of front line policing. However, they do know how to arrange meetings. One such former Chief Inspector colleague was, until recently, a member of our uPSD deciding whether an officer was guilty or innocent based on the biased investigations presented to him. I only really thought about him because he was mentioned in some Police Authority minutes and thanked for his help and assistance over the years. His name came up in the conversation. What he forgets is, I remember him when he was a constable and we worked on the same shift.
Clouseau of the uPSD
This bastion of self righteous discipline was a bit of a puncher in his early days. Not his own prisoners, of course, but those that did not belong to him. #slapslap as it might be quoted on Twitter but he would then walk away leaving you to pick up the pieces. He was also a shagger. In fact he once bonked a women inside an empty police station that we had a responsibility to check during a night shift in a violent inner city conclave. I could never understand the philosophy of those who, simply because they got away with it in their early days, chose to become zealots in their application of the regulations into police malpractice.
He adopted the “marble in the head” policy. That is, your livelihood and your career was decided by which side of his head the marble fell when you disturbed him, one side you were guilty and should be sacked, the other side, you were innocent and the investigation would be tailored accordingly. The only positive I can say about this officer is that he is no longer in the police and therefore cannot promote his misguided Noble Cause Corruption. Never content in weeding out the dishonest and grossly incompetent, an honourable and noble undertaking, he mastered in the demise of the careers of many very efficient, effective officers who made small errors of judgement but didn’t meet his threshold test.
Like many others in the uPSD he wasn’t very good at the job, often scared of meeting an angry man,. He was good at exams and promotion panel bullshit which allows many idiots to progress to high ranks within the police. He changed his local accent to the best BBC English and developed a fabulous ability to chair a meeting with tea and sandwiches at the expense of the taxpayer.
I do hope I meet him in the street so I can tell him what I truly think of him. What should I actually say? That he is a hypocrite, that he sold out or should I tell him that he was part of the last bastion of corruption still to pervade the police, namely the uPSD. Actually, I don’t need to bother, he will know that already.