Tag Archives: male victims of domestic violence

I Told You So…!

Posted on by
1

So, do you feel taken for granted and lied to? I do. Finally an ACPO idiot has broken ranks to show exactly what ACPO think about the men and women under their command who risk their lives day in and day out for the benefit of the public. That’s right, ACPO don’t give a toss!

How proud South Yorkshire chief constable David Crompton must feel about his latest missive to replace police officers patrolling the street with personnel with limited powers and often limited ability. Despite there being some very good PCSO’s around, people prefer police officers . It must have taken all of his 10 days or so in office to come up with this bolleaux. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. ACPO want to effectively break up and rebuild the principle and model of policing. Ladies and Gentlemen, these are the idiots in charge. I have warned you regularly but clearly you are not listening. It is about time you sat up and took notice. 

Should we worry. Yes we should!

If idiots like this get their way then the police will become a storm trooper force, simply bashing down doors and responding to fights, arresting and penalising. They will not be policing by consent but would just be enforcers of the law. No police officer joined to perform that role. It tires me when I hear the crap often trotted out by uninformed senior officers that many of the tasks performed by officers could be performed by someone who is not warranted. What they fail to recognise is that most of the thing cops do is all part of the service, it is visible and provides reassurance to the public and a deterrent to errant miscreants.

If Cops werem only tasked to respond in a shock and awe fashion then the police would be feared, disrespected and the consent they need to exist would be removed. David Crompton looks old enough to have been instructed that the first duty of every cop is:

“The protection of life and property. The prevention and detection of crime”

Note the order the duties come in. Pseudo cops like Crompton should be admonished for the abandonment and dereliction of the duties of officers. They are so far removed from the real principles of real policing, seeking comfort in balance sheets over and above the safety of the general population. He should be fighting for more constables not banishing them out of view.

Mark my words, this is the thin end of the wedge. That is until the next idiot comes up with replacing police functions by using security firms. Hang on a minute…….!!!!!!!

Criminal Case Review

Posted on by
2

John is a male victim of domestic violence. He was mentioned on this blog back in June 2011 to attempt to highlight the issues faced by officers who may be the subject of violence against them. John is still fighting to get justice and is awaiting his latest submission to the Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) to see whether they will agree that the case should go back to the appeal court.

www.abusedtotheaccused.co.uk

I now know John through a friend of a friend. He has decided to try and publicise his plight through the medium of the internet and has built a new website called www.abusedtotheaccused.co.uk. In time he will populate it with updates not only about the criminal court process but also about the consequences of the conviction namely his loss of house, his loss of job and the lack of access to his children. His case is a tragedy. Not only was he abused by his wife but he was prosecuted rather than investigated. Had he been investigated then evidence would have been presented to the court which would have shown him to be a victim trying to defend himself rather than an aggressor. That evidence has now been made available to the CCRC.

I know how much effort has been put into his appeal by John and a former Federation Representative and I wish him luck in his venture. It just goes to show just how precarious your position as a police officer is. John relied upon a number of factors which he thought would protect him should an unwarranted and malicious allegation be made against him. How wrong he was…….. but that is his story to tell!

Beyond Credibility

Posted on by
Reply

At the outset of this blog I have to express my thanks to……….. well, you know who you are, for this invaluable Nugget of information. As always I am indebted to those who seek to blow the whistle on senior officer idiocy, corruption and downright incompetence and provide relevant information through the email portal of noblecausecorruption@hotmail.co.uk. Now, after hopefully whetting your appetite, I shall begin.

Money to Burn

It has come to the attention of NCC that the senior management of Greater Manchester Police have approved and set up a course at their Sedgley Park training school which provides advice to relatively new recruits on how to spot someone who they should then question and search (hereafter called “turn over”). If this is true then surely Greater Manchester Police, who need to save over £100 Million off their budget, must be wasting thousands of pounds in this pointless exercise. Please tell me that it isn’t true….somebody!

Friend or Foe?

Apparently, the course involves theory based and practical work spotting someone who is suspicious and deserves to be turned over. I can only shudder to think how they set these practical lessons up. Perhaps they have a stock of striped t-shirts and swag bags to assist the profiling. When I was a raw recruity we actually did this at the initial training course and laughed wholeheartedly when it went t*ts up and the poor recruit ended up not knowing his arse from his elbow. I am amazed at the failure of senior command if we have to train people to recognise a criminal or even approach people who aren’t suspicious and actually speak to them….God Forbid!

It would be seriously funny if it wasn’t just a few days ago that GMP tried to convince their police authority to “sack” (the other name for A19) its experienced officers who have qualified for a pension. Clearly their financial managers need to check their budgets because if they can waste money on an escapade like this then they have savings to make elsewhere, other than cutting police numbers.

On a final note totally aside from the boll*cks by GMP, many will have noticed the slight change to the Noble Cause Corruption blog. The adverts are a way to finance my investment into the website and to keep this blog running. Everybody’s happy!

Thanks for your continued support and input.

Live and Learn.

Posted on by
Reply

ACPO Rank Training. Is it sufficient?

If anyone disbelieved me over the difference between being a Federated rank and being a senior officer then there can be nothing more apparent than the treatment of Deputy Chief Constable Adam Briggs from North Yorkshire Police. You may remember that this officer was found guilty in a misconduct process of trying to help a relative to get a job in North Yorkshire police. It followed a recruitment exercise where 200,000 people contacted a hotline enquiring about 60 jobs. In my book, this conviction alone would be sufficient to get a Federated member sacked. North Yorkshire Police decided to deal with it by way of a misconduct meeting and anybody facing a meeting rather than a tribunal knows that the ultimate sanction is a final written warning.

In my book, nepotism is a dishonesty. Whether or not it was well intended is immaterial the fact remains that any officer who is found to lack honesty and integrity will do well to keep his job. Surprise, surprise, that’s just what the “Dep” managed to do. In February 2011 he retired from the force.

A new revelation about Former Deputy Chief Constable Adam Briggs is that between 2007 and 2011 he has claimed a substantial amount of additional money for training purposes despite receiving £10,000 per annum as a training allowance. In addition to this generous allowance he, somehow, managed to spend another extra £11,750 of unaudited money on a 24 month contract with a company who coach people to be leaders. In a disciplined service do we really need advocates of tea and sympathy to be mentoring the leaders of our forces?

Interestingly, this information has been uncovered by a review of the force by the IPCC who appear not to be happy with the Police Authority. Far be it from me to make any allegations of any particular offence but if the IPCC Commissioner for the area says

“Although Mr Briggs has retired one would think he would want to take an opportunity to explain what he did with the money and why he claimed a further £11,750 from the public purse. It may well have been used entirely legitimately but Mr Briggs, who while holding a senior public office should have been acting in a financially responsible way, which was open, transparent and auditable, has chosen not to tell us.”

Far be it from me to make any allegations at all, if there is any suggestion of impropriety from the former Deputy Chief Constable, shouldn’t he made to account for his actions? I know if the allegations were directed at me or my colleagues then I am certain I would have been compelled to an interview, even arrested.

However, you live and learn!!

The Thin Blue Line

Posted on by
Reply

This week, whilst off duty and out and about, I met a colleague who I had assisted with a misconduct matter many months ago escalated beyond all proportion and reason by our uPSD to a criminal matter. It involved a minor squabble between the officer and his partner which resulted in her (probably) hyperventilating and feeling ill. Somehow a call to the ambulance service for help became a criminal enquiry into the officer for common assault. Not just any old enquiry, one that took 15 months to come to an end.

Without boring you with the fine detail, the uPSD got the matter beyond the CPS who, in this case, are just as culpable and managed to get summonses and the matter into Magistrates Court. The case was listed in front of a District Judge who refused to listen to the hearsay evidence because there was no case to answer and the matter should not have gone as far as it did. His words not mine. He was particularly scathing of the uPSD and Prosecution when it was realised that the medical evidence against the officer was obtained unlawfully because no consent to medical records had been signed by the partner. You know that you are on a loser when the prosecution, even before calling the first prosecution witness are discussing options relating to hostile witnesses!

As we left court with a resounding victory still fresh in our memory we were confronted by the uPSD officer who reminded us that our colleague still would “have his day,” a clear threatening reference to a misconduct tribunal. Eventually, after much work, time, effort and expense the officer was eventually told that he would not be facing any disciplinary procedures and he could return to work without restriction.

Back to the message. We greeted each other warmly and I remarked on how well he looked considering the stress he had suffered at the hands of an over zealous uPSD. I asked him about work and he replied honestly that he could not care less any more. It was sad that a good, honest and hard working cop had been turned into a cynical automaton. Our colleague would do what was required to get the job done, nothing more. He would not seek out work or other opportunities to improve society, he would assist colleagues and back up where necessary but otherwise he couldn’t be bothered.

I don’t blame him. What is the point of sticking your neck out and taking a hit when you don’t need to? The pay is the same. You can be the best in the world, the bravest officer but fail the marble in the head test of the uPSD officer and you are in trouble and nothing of your former career counts for anything. So my congratulations goes to our uPSD who have, once again, inefficiently and immorally turned a initiative using efficient officer into a robot who will only do what he has been programmed to do.

The consequences of Noble Cause for everybody to see.

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.

 

Watch Your Backs

Posted on by
3

Stabbed in the Back?

A sinister small claims court case will take place in the next few weeks which will impact on any Special Police Officer who finds themselves defending a criminal allegation against them. Until very recently all Special Constables subject of a criminal allegation have been represented under a Home Office directive by Reynolds Dawson Solicitors in London. This being funded and paid for by the local police authority and would involve travel from the home force to London as regularly as the defending solicitor required. As we all know it is the easiest thing in the world to end up being subject of a complaint and, as the economy worsens and more demonstrations are expected, the opportunity for complaints to become full blown criminal enquiries massively increases. To our colleagues, such as Special Dibble, who come and police for no pay, watch your backs.

The case in question involves a special constable who was charged with assault alongside regular officers. It does not matter whether none, any or all of them were guilty because the defending action of the force does not separate them. It is simply this (paraphrased in my own words):

If a Special Constable is subject of criminal proceedings as a result of an action brought against them for an on duty incident then all actions subsequent to that, undertaken in their defence, will be considered off duty. The consequence of this is significant in that attendance at defence solicitors and defence barristers will occur off duty and therefore will not allow the Special Police Officer to claim loss of earnings or any other expenses. In addition, the Special Officer will also be considered to be off duty for appearance at court and unlike the regular officers, will also not be able to claim expenses or loss of earnings.

In the small claims scenario, in accordance with Regulation 10 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, the full time officers were paid whilst suspended which included the days they were at court and their visits to solicitors local to them. The Special Constable was not paid by his employer for his loss of earnings whilst travelling to London to see his solicitors engaged by them on his behalf. The full time officers were also allowed to claim travel expenses to every court appearance they were required to attend including the 5 week trial during which they received full pay under suspension. The Special Police Officer was refused his claim for travel expenses and loss of earnings arising from the same incident. There is no guarantee that the claim to have the loss of earnings will be successful in the small claims court as the relevant force is strongly defending the claim.

The sinister aspect of this is that the relevant force during a significant recruitment drive for Special Constables want to keep this quiet because they don’t want Specials to know that they face this potential financial time-bomb just because they turn up for unpaid work and an allegation is made about their conduct. Could you afford 5 weeks of no pay simply to defend your actions as a Special Police Officer with no hope of ever recovering that loss of earnings?

Is this a breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act as the choice you face as a Special is whether to incur additional costs over and above what regular officers face or do you refuse to attend your legal appointments and thereby lose the ability to fight the trial on a fair basis? Is it right that, as a Special Police Officer, you are obliged to obtain legal advice about your on duty incident in your own time and at your own expense? As a regular officer I find it an incomprehensible anomaly that regular officers receive full pay and allowances but Special Officers don’t for the same set of circumstances, the same incident and the same court case.

If you are a Special then you need to establish your own force’s policy. You need to establish whether the force you devote your spare time to serving is one of the forces who will put you at significant financial risk just for trying to defend your on duty actions. If you don’t then I wish you well in your endeavours and I hope your insurance policies cover your earnings shortfall should the worst happen to you and you face a criminal trial into your behaviour.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!