What a great day May 10th 2012 was for all the wrong reasons. In that I mean it was a fantastic turn out of possibly 30,000 off-duty police officers who were worried about the future of policing. I applaud everyone who attended and the many who gave comment about the dangers we all face if the police is privatised or the conditions of service are changed so dramatically that the special nature of being a crown servant and unable to enter into industrial action is forgotten. The police are not to be tinkered with or put on an industrial employment footing if you want to retain impartiality and integrity.
In another issue I have to marvel at the senior command of Greater Manchester Police who can, somehow, manage to dismiss a racial issue by stating it is not a racial issue. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Even the head official of the Ramadan Society went on television to state publically that he knew that the Asian men who preyed and groomed the white girls for their own sexual gratification were doing so because they were white. The would not get away with it had they done the same to an Asian girl. I know it, they know it, the head official of the Ramadan Society knows it yet Assistant Chief Constable Heywood simply dismisses GMP’s own definition of a racial incident and denies it.
BY doing so Heywood has lessened the true impact of this incident. Whether the intent of the offenders was racial or not is immaterial to the recording of the incident. I have lost count of the number of officers who have fallen foul of inadvertently misdiagnosing a racial incident only to have the uPSD or IPCC criticise and discipline them accordingly. Of course, we know it is one rule for them and another for us.
An email from part of a series I have received albeit about three weeks ago accused me of being involved in a rant which I could neither evidence nor justify. I have been asked by the contributor not to publish their comments as they do not wish to contribute to the site. He or she simply wishes to berate me. So be it. I do enjoy reading the well structured and superbly constructed arguments which form an opposing opinion to mine. However, this pr*ck could not string more that a few sentences together in a form of pigeon english and, as they know who they are, you could do with reading some books and working out how to punctuate. That way I might actually think you have something pertinent to say.
To further evidence my point of view I should refer the email pr*ck to the new investigation into the Corruption in the Metropolitan Police in respect of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. The allegation is that the Met failed to pass potentially relevant material to the 1998 public inquiry into Stephen’s death. Another in a long series of corruption type incidents from ACPO officers all around the country. ACPO being that private business who control the police and allow non police officers to join their ranks and develop policy. At what rank do you think this decision was taken? Just like Steve Heywood’s remark from GMP there is no doubt in my mind that this reflects the decision of senior officers within the Met irrespective of who ends up biting the bullet. At some stage, surely, the public should realise that the integrity of ACPO and senior command in many forces in this country should be subject to a root and branch enquiry.