Tag Archives: male victims

From On High

Posted on by
1

In a shocking revelation of Noble Cause Corruption of the highest order I draw your attention to the Independent Newspaper’s article about the hacking of Milly Dowler’s mobile phone and the fact that Surrey Police knew of the crime. Not only did they know but they chose to ignore the crime for many years and then, only because the sh1t had hit the fan in 2011, did they actually admit they knew.

Now you can be rest assured that this is a high ranking noble cause corruption because, if the offending officer(s) were only federated rank, particularly the lower end of the scale, then the full wrath of the misconduct and judicial process would be descending upon them from a great height. The question remains to see whether any of these high ranking buffoons will actually face the music. After all, I’ve lost count of the number of officers I have represented for failing to investigate a crime. In fact, I have seen some go to prison often in the most undeserving of cases.

It is typical of the underhanded tactics used by senior ranking officers in the police to only seek to administer discipline to the lower and middle ranks whilst they cajole each other and cover up serious wrongdoings enacted by themselves. I know a number of former colleagues who have been convicted for spurious offences, particularly Misconduct in a Public Office, when the evidence is that they may have acted like an idiot and faced a subsequent prison sentence rather than a loss of employment. I don’t know why we put up with it.

Exclusive

Just thought I'd show it again

On a different tack, Noble Cause Corruption blogged on the 3rd January 2012 a title of Misplaced Loyalties. How many of you noticed that the motor vehicle featured in the blog is the same vehicle that Greater Manchester Police have been desperately trying to cover up. Or have they? The recent newspaper frenzy has intimated that the crashed car was very recent. One of the daily rags even quoted the accident having occurred in the last few days but, of course, Noble Cause can rely on their sources implicitly. Newspapers have gone apoplectic over this story but they all missed one small fact that isn’t common knowledge. My source tells me that the last person to drive the vehicle before it was loaned to Greater Manchester Police was The Stig for Top Gear around their test track. Apparently, it has cost GMP £38000 to put this debacle right. No wonder they weren’t publicising it!

On a slightly strange note, it should be noted that one of the reporters in this Manchester Evening News piece of journalism was former Terry Duckworth from Coronation Street actor, Nigel Pivaro in his new career as a journalist. The other was Neal Kealing who always seems to get those stories about police misconduct that are “leaked” from the force.

Surely not from someone in the uPSD!!!!!!!! I wonder………hmmmmmmmmm!!!!

Chomping at the Bit

Posted on by
Reply

I was desperate to post about this subject matter but I thought I would let the dust settle before opening my gob and maybe putting my big foot in it. My issue today is about the South Wales matter involving the retired cops taken to court for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and ancillary offences because it was alleged they fabricated evidence against men subsequently found not guilty of a local murder. It matters not to me whether they were guilty or innocent. I would like to think that they completely innocent but the case is a classic example of the Noble Cause attitude of investigations of Police Officers.

You may disagree that the result was the right result but, being magnanimous, I would have hoped that a jury had found them not guilty rather than a judge on a point of law. However, the point of law serves to prove my assertion that, when police officers are in the frame suspected of offences, the uPSD tasked with investigating them is tainted against investigation and relies upon prosecution of the individual.

The question to be asked is, “Why else would the uPSD investigators deliberately destroy evidence which the defence believed and the judge believed would have allowed a fair trial to be heard? I’ll leave you all to answer that question yourselves.

There are too many cases where the officer ends up in court to find a judge dismissing the case at the outset or before the matter gets any where near a jury. This matter only cost about £30 million. I ask that politicians, reporters, members of the public and decent people stand up and take notice. If there are bent cops out there we want them arresting convicting and sacking. However, we don’t want them cocked up by errant and misguided stormtroopers of ACPO and other senior ranks because they believe that the public supports their stance.

Men Behaving Badly

Remember John, our sacked colleague who was the victim of 18 incidents of domestic violence only to defend himself, get convicted and then be sacked. His story can be read here if you wish to view it. Last week, it appears that his wife, who he has had nothing to do with for over two years except through solicitors and divorce court proceedings, has got her dad to photograph the clothing on his mum’s washing line in her back garden! The reason for it is that his wife erroneously believed he had police uniform hanging there drying.

Firstly, John doesn’t live with his mum. Secondly, the washing belonged to his sister. Thirdly, wife’s dad was copped taking the photo’s by a neighbour who confronted him. The local police attended and did a pretty good job in fairness. They got dad to admit his part in the debacle and the fact that his daughter was so insistent on him obtaining the evidence that he felt obliged to take action. An example of her obsession with John, perhaps or does she still want to hurt him just a little bit more?

How reassured John felt, however, when he received a letter from a senior officer in the relevant force (that sacked him) outlining that the matter was being treated as a domestic incident and a specialist unit were now available to him should there be a repeat performance. Unfortunately, it is 18 incidents and one sacking too late.

Still hanging in for a criminal case review.

 

The Right of Reply

Posted on by
2

Normally I just approve comments and let them sit on the post they have been appended to but on this occasion I have decided to give special mention to this comment quoted which is also a comment on the Panorama blog. So here it is:

“Lightfoot got what he deserved, violent knobheads like him only work as a Specials so they get their fix of violence. Regardless of Mark Aspinall’s behaviour, he still needed to be dealt with in a professional manner. The distraction punches aside, the rubbing of his face into the road was unacceptable. Lightfoot clearly knew what he was doing as he was looking around to see if anyone was watching him. We Police have a demanding job to do as it is, without nasty no marks like Lightfoot making us all look bad.”

I always enjoy debating with intellects, in particular those who choose to use such professional comments such as “knobheads” (I actually think that there is a hyphen between the word knob and head to be exactly grammatically correct but I will bow to the evident Master Exponent of English). The interest to me about this comment is the fact that from a brief and uninformed position, a police officer (possibly) decides guilt and innocence on the basis of an interpretation by the television and the fact that there was a special involved.

Another Uncivil Police Officer

In answer to his extremely well constructed argument I hereby respond. I will write slowly for you Andy so you can actually take it in. Just let me know if any of the bigger words require the provision of a definition. By the way, to actually send me a message containing unprofessional language from a police computer which captures not only the IP but your email address (including the force you serve with) is, well, pretty stupid. You have no idea of who I am or my motives. A word of advice, look after your career!!!

Comment

Without wishing to delve into the details of the drunken and abusive squaddie, I would just put forward a simple comment to potentially defeat your argument. To get to the point of the appeal by Aspinall, the following must have occured. The cctv was watched by:

  1. The Control Room Operator
  2. The Control Room Inspector
  3. The Evidence Review Officer
  4. The Reviewing CPS Official at Police station for charge
  5. The Reviewing CPS Official at relevant office for assessment of evidence
  6. The Prosecuting CPS Official at Magistrates
  7. Three Magistrates convicting Aspinall
  8. The Appeal CPS Official
  9. The Appeal Barrister
  10. The Defence Solicitor at Magistrates
  11. The defence Barrister at the Appeal

Big Brother. Only when you are a cop

I make that 13 people who did not have an issue with the cctv until the Judge at the Appeal decided that there was something untoward. At that point the enquiry started. Even then, from information supplied to me, the Judge had to take the images into his chambers because he could not see what actually went on on the screen in the court room. If you actually watched the cctv in its entireity expecting to see something untoward then you would be disappointed. It simply does not look as it is portrayed by the media using effects they have at their disposal. Blink and you miss it. Hence, Sky news and others concentrate on the perfectly legitimate distraction blows as if they are the offence.

All I can say, Andy, is that you have won the prize for short sightedness in the field of operational duty. Makes me think you are the ideal calibre for the uPSD. Thick and unjustifiably opinionated

A Conspiracy of Bastards!!

Posted on by
2

A long time ago, the police believed they were a prosecuting service. To an extent we still are. However, the focus of attention for the police has now shifted away from prosecuting offenders towards an investigation of the circumstances and allowing other, supposedly qualified, professionals the opportunity to decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute or not. It is, therefore, a shame when they uPSD’s of this country fail to realise that this is the way they should apply their own efforts.

Take PC Consterdine (not his real name) who was involved in the arrest of an offender. He uses force on the offender which he declares it to his sergeant who does nothing more than absolve all responsibility for it and report it to the uPSD. There is an in car video of the events. This is because the Sgt was a “career boy” and couldn’t make a decision in his life and stick to it. As it happened, PC Consterdine was a referred officer. In my force that is an officer who has more than the average number of complaints. Simply, they get the fact that they have complaints brought to their attention and they are told to change their ways. In reality PC Consterdine was a dog man so the uPSD should actually have told this to his dog who was the real culprit in respect of the complaints. He would insist on biting people very hard and very often.

I suppose that should give you a clue. A dog man with a dog that bites very often??? You guessed it, this was a pro-active police officer who was prepared to put himself out to help others but, in reality, who cared. Certainly not the brainless sergeant who grassed him up because of his weak willed nature nor the uPSD who now had the prime opportunity and aim to get PC Consterdine sacked. This was an officer with numerous letters of appreciation and awards from St John’s Ambulance and other organisations for saving the lives of a stabbing victim and a man who tried to hang himself.

It is simple to get someone sacked in this country, you just make it up as you go along. That is why the uPSD started off with an investigation into PC Consterdine for a common assault. They requested information and advice from the local CPS and eventually submitted a request for the case to be reviewed. How shocked they were when their case plummeted around their ears after a CPS official declared that there was insufficient evidence to convict on the basis of the evidence provided so far.

So what does a uPSD do now? He certainly doesn’t tell the Fed Rep or the Solicitor for the officer. Instead they decide to get a statement from the person who has been struck and, joy upon joy for them, the baddie evidences in his statement that the strike by PC Consterdine broke his arm. The fact that the statement bore no reality to the truth of the situation in any other respect was not lost on the investigators who did not care because they could now reinvestigate the common assault as a grievous bodily harm.

Just hang on a minute!! In the referral to the IPCC did the uPSD declare that they believed the broken arm was caused by a car crash which the offender was involved in? Did the uPSD write to the offenders casualty doctor for evidence of the injury and he wrote back declaring that the injury was caused by the car crash described as a “Chauffeur’s Injury” and could not have been caused by the strike from PC Consterdine. “No worries” said the uPSD, “we will just not tell the Solicitor, the Fed Rep or PC Consterdine. We will pretend that we have the evidence of him committing GBH and get him interviewed. That way, when we get to misconduct tribunal, we can use it against him and get him sacked.”

To summarise, PC Consterdine struck a violent and aggressive offender, declared it to his Sgt, the uPSD could not prove a Common Assault so fabricated a GBH in order to get him into interview, without which any subsequent Misconduct Tribunal would have had no evidence and no opportunity for the prosecuting barrister to get his teeth into. This was done in the full knowledge of senior officers in the uPSD and at least one ACPO officer.

PC Consterdine was required to resign and failed to get his job back at the Police Appeal’s Tribunal. He cannot sue for unfair dismissal and so has to try for a Judicial Review of the decision. We may well be out of time but a Judge will decide that issue. A complaint has been made to the relevant force, they have denied it and refuse to investigate the allegations. Unfortunately for them, they sent papers with the PAT file which, perhaps, they did not intend to send.

My MP is interested, PC Consterdine’s MP is interested. Both are being ignored by the force. Perhaps, this matter may need to be debated in the press!!

The Final Curtain

Posted on by
1

I have been a bit tardy lately, largely due to the pressures of work I face. However, I have two bits of interesting news to impart. The first is that John, who features in the post of 7th June 2011 called “Men Behaving Badly????” has now submitted an appeal to the Criminal Case Review Commission. He knows it is a long shot but it is the only shot he has.

Many people who know him are of the opinion he was badly done to not only by the investigating force but also by the judiciary and his own force. A man who is a victim of regular and concerted domestic violence, 18 occasions of which he reports to the job, has photographic evidence of bite marks on his back, bruises to his arms and body, has colleagues who saw a stab wound from an eating fork, should be allowed to defend himself

Unfortunately, one bad investigation later, John is convicted of being reckless in his use of self defence. Clearly the magistrates did not understand the R-v-Beckford stated case quoted to them. We now know that Social Services were in possession of overwhelming evidence against him at least 4 weeks before he was ever interviewed by the police!! The evidence was so overwhelming that all the professionals including the investigating police officers in the meeting came away knowing that on his return to the police station he was to be charged. Why was he interviewed and why did he spend a further 8 hours in custody? I don’t know but it seems a bit suspicious to me. There are several other areas of difficulty which have been reported to the CCRC so we wish him good luck with his appeal.

New Front

On a new front, a former colleague is now in the process of trying to get an out of time Judicial Review of his debacle. His uPSD investigation team, quite simply, deliberately misrepresented the reality of his grievous bodily harm interview by neglecting to point out that the injury subject of the grievous bodily harm was caused by a car crash. Even more sinister is the fact that they knew this fact before the interview for GBH because the doctor treating the “victim” told them so in a statement, conveniently not disclosed to our former colleague, his Federation Rep not his legal representative. Mr NCC has the evidence in his possession and no-one has been to see it. The point in question is this fabricated excuse for an interview was then used in a subsequent misconduct trial where the officer was sacked for excessive use of force. Without the interview was there any evidence? Only the word of a drug fuelled, burgling car thief who provided a statement which was a pack of lies to the uPSD. Why should we worry about the truth when the uPSD have an ulterior motive to the benefit of us all………… apparently!

We believe this to be a crime but the relevant force refuse to investigate. The IPCC hide behind the Police Reform Act and both organisations use delaying tactics to defeat the gathering of evidence. For example, the relevant Police Force is now at day 96 of the Data Protection Act request that they are required to complete within 40 days. They have originally denied the existence of certain information and then suddenly found it when challenged with identities of persons known to have the  information. How about an ACC who carried out a full review of the case but failed to notice that his own uPSD may have acted corruptly? If the courts won’t help us then it may have to be the press. I will keep you posted.

Noble Cause Corruption!!

Home to Roost

Posted on by
Reply

Britain is burning and being laid to waste by gangs of feral youths around the country intent on causing damage and looting. No doubt there will be those who suggest that the catalyst for the trouble is a breakdown in communication between the police and the community. There may be an element of truth in this but the majority of the trouble makers are simply doing it because they can. They know that there is insufficient police numbers to cope with concerted and widespread disorder and what better way to show your political and social might than smashing a window in Curry’s and stealing a 50 inch LED television. Wake up Britain. Stop making excuses for them and realise we have bred a swathe of children and young adults who are prepared to burgle, rob and otherwise thieve in an organised and deliberate way.

Of course, the media blame the police for not controlling several hundred rioters with 10 or 12 officers likely to be patrolling a town centre. I suppose they don’t realise just how few cops are on duty at any one time and the requirement to deploy police in riot gear needs ACPO approval. It makes me sick to see these thugs and vandals some of them clearly only just out of junior school walking around masked up and relishing their place in the disorder.

I have saved my anger to the end for the real culprits. They are the politicians, the Judiciary and ACPO. For too long we have been soft on crime and the causes of crime. When you have an idiot in charge of the asylum then all hell breaks loose and we are awash with idiots all lined up with their hands over their eyes, over their ears and over their mouths. Our MP’s should be inundated with members of the public insisting that people get sentenced to imprisonment for these offences. Not 1 or 2 months but how about a couple of years each with no time off for good behaviour? Why are the Judiciary so reticent about sentencing anti social criminals and thugs to terms of imprisonment? Why can we not get our politicians to enforce the proper sentencing of criminals? The police are being run ragged by crime at the expense of the ordinary working man and woman.

My main anger and anxiety is aimed at ACPO. Why? Because they have created a workforce so frightened to use their powers of self defence that the police stand and take what the rioters want to give them. The ordinary copper on the street and those facing the rioters are frightened of being seen using force because they know that they will be investigated to high heaven by an over zealous uPSD who view a three dimensional incident in a two dimensional way. Overnight I saw rioters hurling bricks at officers who were only feet away and the officers use their shields to push away the rioters. A rioter with a broken arm from a baton strike cannot throw rocks and stones and is likely to remain tucked up in bed contemplating the pain and suffering they are experiencing. However, there is no support from ACPO to officers facing investigation. There is no support from the CPS to officers facing a difficult situation and there is no support from judges or politicians.

As much as I would want to encourage the selective use of the baton to quell the disorder, I can’t. Look after yourself and your careers. They can always rebuild a shop, a home and re-stock any looted premise. You, on the other hand, get one chance and only one chance.

The Wonderful Police Reform Act 2002

Posted on by
Reply

Those of you who have read my earlier stories will realise that I have a deep mistrust of any police officer who wishes to then investigate their colleagues. Borne out of my own experiences and the fact that I honestly believe that our uPSD departments are the last bastion of institutionalised corruption known as Noble Cause Corruption, I wonder what their motives are when they adopt a prosecutorial stance instead of an investigative stance and decide who is and isn’t guilty of something dependent upon which way the wind is blowing. Often this is based on assumption and innuendo and directly influences the way they proceed in many investigations.

I have examples of what I consider to be corrupt practices, neglect of duty, honesty and integrity breaches and attempts to pervert the course of justice within a uPSD office in this country. Complaints have been made to the senior management of that force but they dealt with each complaint in isolation and dismissed them without foundation but when all examples are taken together it makes interesting reading. This latest issue directly relates to an officer sacked using evidence which has been obtained by deliberately questionable methods. The job is done and the uPSD won’t re-open it to check the evidence that I am prepared to provide them.

At this point I need to make it perfectly clear that I am not in the business of police bashing for the sake of it. I am not in the business of having officers who are guilty of matters for which they should be sacked kept in the job. I do not want to serve with corrupt officers, thieves or officers who act so grossly stupid that they are an embarrassment. I am not mad or on some sort of moral crusade which is all consuming, I just insist that any officer under investigation is dismissed using the rules, not some arbitrary assumption by an ill qualified uPSD officer who then goes out of their way to “stick it to them.”

Let’s get to the point. The title of this blog today is the name of a piece of legislation which effectively brought the IPCC into existence. It outlines that they can force the police to carry out investigations into anything they want except when the complainant is a police officer who was on duty at the time when the matter is uncovered. Effectively, if I have evidence of corruption or perverting the course of justice within my own force I have to report it to my own force in order for them to investigate it. If that evidence exists in relation to the uPSD department being the guilty party I have to give the evidence to the force for the uPSD department to investigate themeselves!! I wonder what their conclusions will be? Forget it, I already know.

This stance is an interesting one because it would appear the IPCC have double standards. My complaint is summarily dismissed without anyone even looking at the evidence I have but they are happy to self impose an investigation into John Yates and Sir Paul Stephenson. Of course, my complaint is about the corrupt practices which resulted in the sacking of a constable where as the investigation into two former senior met police officers is a political gold mine and fantastic publicity for any egotistical employee of the IPCC. However, Noble Cause is not easily dissuaded by such discrepancies. It confirms a resolve that the IPCC are only in it for the headlines and that as a consequence your uPSD department can institutionally corrupt any investigation and consider you guilty from the outset resulting in your prosecution instead of an investigation into your actions.