Migrating Servers

Noble Cause Corruption is moving from this server to a new server at www.noblecausecorruption.co.uk. The new server means I can have more control over the format of the site and content by using wordpress.org rather than wordpress.com. Trust me there are some out there who know exactly what I am talking about.

If you are an email subscriber then I have imported you into the new site but it is possible that it might not have worked. If you are a WordPress blogger yourself then I am struggling to find an import for you. Please bear with me for the next few posts as I may double blog on both sites before eventually closing down the wordpress.com site at some time in the future. However, it is all new territory. I don’t want to lose any of you as I enjoy all the feedback I receive at noblecausecorruption@hotmail.co.uk.

Please join me on the other side.

All in a Day’s Work

The sobering case of PC James Holden of Hampshire Constabulary should show what the job thinks of those of us still in it. To put this in context I need to ask those readers of this blog who are not police officers to consider the following scenario.

Imagine, if you will, getting up to go to your work. You shower and dress, eat a breakfast and possibly drink a cup of coffee or tea to wake you up for the day. You kiss your partner goodbye and, without much thought, drive or commute to your place of work. What then takes place is that you try your very hardest to do a day’s work. However, what sets PC James Holden apart from most of the non police readers is the fact that his constabulary tried to send him to prison for trying to do his very best.

Could it really be possible that you try your very hardest and some third party, in an office, looks at your best efforts and decides that you should face life changing consequences and incarceration? Welcome to the world of uPSD.

PC Holden followed a stolen van containing burglars which chose to crash through a level crossing railway barrier. The van driver was arrested on the other side of the crossing by a colleague because PC Holden did not cross the railway line. Did PC Holden instigate the dangerous driving or did he merely respond to a situation unfolding in front of him? Of course, we all know the answer. Thankfully the jury also knew the answer and took less than two hours (note: less than 2 hours!!!!) to see through the fallacy of Hampshire Senior Command. So that’s alright then. Another police officer freed following over zealous judicial process. You must be joking.

The next time PC Holden or his colleagues see a stolen van driving dangerously what is he likely to do? Try his very best and face going to prison? What would you do?

Hopefully, if I have been burgled and the thieves are trying to escape justice, officers like PC Holden will respond because it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, the public will back and support police officers dealing with errant criminal underclasses by continuing to show  the pricks that continue to lead the uPSD of many forces in this country that they want police officers to be robust and effective. Is there anything more effective than arresting burglars driving a stolen van?

As the last paragraphs of the BBC report states: “After the verdict, Hampshire Constabulary said: “Police officers do a difficult job often in very difficult circumstances and the people being pursued were caught as a result of this pursuit and convicted of burglary, vehicle theft and a number of other offences.

“Police officers involved in pursuits are subject to a high level of specialist training, adhering to national policy and codes of practice. Following the outcome of this case we will identify any organisational learning that comes out of it.”

The ONLY organisational learning is that the senior management should stop trying to criminalise hard working police officers.

Misplaced Loyalties

I have much respect for Special Officers. Those individuals who do a week’s work before putting on their uniform and going out on patrol. Notwithstanding the fact that many do not realise the jeopardy they are in by simply turning up for duty in respect of their livelihood should things go wrong or accusations come winging their way. I won’t go into that now but suffice to say they can be a major asset to any shift when they are keen and eager to be involved.

Which Force is keeping this little covert tickle under wraps?

However, this post is going to be critical of senior management within my force in respect of their overlooking the lack of qualifications of a Special Officer. Now this could easily never, ever end in tears but I will monitor the situation with interest just to see what happens if he makes a mistake and questions get asked. A frequent saying in the job is “Sh1t rolls downhill!”

The special officer in question is keen to do the job. So keen, in fact, that he has earned the right to drive liveried vehicles and use the blue lights and sirens. What he is not trained to do though, is drive covert and unmarked vehicles which have concealed blue lights and become involved in pursuits and stop checks as a consequence.

Somehow, he manages to perform this role without the training that regular officers are required to attend and with the full and open knowledge of his senior officers and senior command. He also lacks the experience which can only be acquired by constant training and performance of duties in the role full time. In fact it is almost embarassing to hear him reassure everyone on his shift who knows he is unqualified that he somehow magically qualified in the recent past.

I sincerely hope that this special officer manages to steer clear (no pun intended) of any trouble from his unqualified role which may invalidate any insurance in respect of his driving authority. Possibly an expert in these matters might enlighten us. I wonder whether he believes that he will be supported if something goes wrong when I know for sure that he will not receives a moments thought by the uPSD tasked to stick the knife in.

I just hope he has not misplaced his loyalty and naively believes he will be supported by the Noble Cause Corrupt regime that allows him to do what he is doing. Although I hope I won’t have to…….. watch this space.

Don’t Hold Your Breath….!

It really did not come as a surprise that the Police were found to be to blame for the riots that blighted this country this year. Of course, the ordinary cop on the ground suffered the greatest indignity having to stand idly by whilst gangs of feral youths burned and looted their way to an early Christmas present. The liberal bleeding hearts then roundly criticised the still weak sentences preferring to try and rehabilitate these morons in the community at your expense and at my expense.

What a pity for their morale when it was proven that crime actually dropped after the riots for a short period of time leading me to consider the following mathematical formula:

Average criminal moron + longer prison sentences = less crime?

As experienced cops, we all know that the Average criminal moron is basically a coward who seeks to take what they are not entitled to in the anonymity of a crowd. They care nothing of the community they destroy nor do they care who picks up the bill for their crimes. They just simply want!

In Safe Hands...?

However, I wonder whether there is a bigger fish to fry! The report from the Select Committee talks of a lack of leadership. The ordinary street cop facing the violent crime wave without direction or command. Does this mean that our ACPO leaders are actually sh*te at their job? Should they be looking for the culprits within their own ranks and issuing Regulation 15 notices to those who neglected their duty or brought their force into disrepute? If you are an ordinary member of the public, you can rest assured that these bastions of incompetence will not investigate their own shortcomings. They will reserve that for the front line officer who will pick up the pieces of their ineptitude.

Where are the IPCC and the Police Authorities of this country who should now be disciplining our incompetent leaders who failed to control the riots. They failed to provide proper communication, proper leadership and direction and they failed the public costing the taxpayer an arm and a leg in the process. Will any be disciplined for this costly incompetence? Don’t hold your breath!

 

Chomping at the Bit

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

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

Panorama

I watched tonight’s Panorama with interest. In it we had a Chief Executive Constable of ACPO stating that we should recognise officers make mistakes which should be taken into account when dealing with complaints. Yet he seeks to state that the former Special Constable, also featured , somehow justified being sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. Former Special PC Lightfoot deals with a drunken buffoon ejected from a nightclub by bouncers who still have to call the police, abuses an ambulance crew preventing them dealing with a collapsed lady, throws another lady’s handbag into the street, who refuses to go home, falls over twice he is that p*ssed and tries to bite the legs of the attending officers. All Mr Lightfoot did was punch him six times using distraction blows to get him to release his arm or did I miss something? Oh and Mr Lightfoot, being a Special was not even being paid for the privilege. Good grief, I have known rapists and GBH assaults by stabbing get less of a sentence.

I also consider it easy for a closeted ACPO ranking official who last saw an angry man on a cctv camera to pick fault with those at the sharp end. I would also be pleasantly surprised if they chose to get their uPSD to investigate rather than prosecute. I would dearly love for the uPSD to not be allowed to consider any rumour, anecdotes, innuendo or reputation. However, for that to happen we would need to have proper and efficient investigators in our uPSD and we all know that in the majority of cases efficiency and uPSD do not go hand in hand. Unless of course, they have decided to sack you, then they are brilliantly efficient.

The main recipients of this summary uPSD justice are the lower ranks, the street cops. Those brave individuals who put themselves in the firing line day in and day out. They have no support from senior management who are just as likely to cold shoulder them when it suits. Woe betide you making a mistake if your face doesn’t fit. Just ask PC Consterdine from the Conspiracy of Bastards post. I felt that the Durham experiment was worthwhile. The member of the public still not happy at the arrest but understanding the reasons behind it. In my force, that would just be a two year prosecution of the officer for a criminal assault where it was a toss up if he was to face a misconduct panel.

I think I would welcome an independent investigative arm to police discipline but one which specific rules of engagement. Their remit would be to investigate and not prosecute. Their purpose would be to not decide guilt or innocence but to report the full facts to a judiciary or panel for them to make a decision. Being independent they would simply investigate the complaint with no ulterior motive or sinister crusade behind them. One thing it cannot be, though, is the IPCC. That bunch of former school teachers, insurance consultants and DWP clerks thrive on salacious and unwarranted headlines designed to promote and publicise themselves rather than a true reflection of the case facts.

Independent enquiry would do away with Noble Cause Corruption, so say I.

A Conspiracy of Bastards!!

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

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!!

No, I’m not dead just angry!!!

No jokey images today. Just words!!!!!!!!

I know I have been quiet and appear to have gone walkabout recently but, as always, there is a reason. Recently, I complained to the IPCC and a police force in this country that officers from their uPSD acted corruptly in an investigation which led to the sacking of an officer for excessive use of force. I have provided an account of the evidence I have in my possession which asks serious questions of the investigators, their superiors, the IPCC and a couple of ACPO idiots, all of which have had a direct involvement in this matter whether by being an investigator or a reviewer of the matter.

The IPCC have hidden behind their now famous “It’s got nothing to do with us” line (courtesy of the Police Reform Act 2000) which they espouse every time they get an allegation they cannot make significant publicity out of. I do ask the reader to note that they required no such encouragement when they announced their investigation into the phone hacking matter which they completed in world record time. However, I shall have my day in the public arena with them.

The evidence I have is a concern as the best it can be construed is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. Personally, I think it was a deliberate Noble Cause Corruption. That is because I have other anecdotal evidence about other matters so I know how the uPSD works. As I have now got someone looking into the matter in the force concerned I chose to wind my neck in for a bit.

Only, I have just heard something which made me angry. Angry because it is typical of the incompetent and imbalanced view you very often get in the hierarchy of a uPSD. Today I learnt that a particular inspector had been allocated the enquiry to check the veracity of my allegations. I know the inspector who I do not consider to be in the top half of my competence table in the force let alone the uPSD. Anyway, they deserve a chance. An informed source then gets in touch with me. The inspector has been overheard questioning people about the issue, one of which was a federation representative.

The Inspector started on the fed rep by telling him that the enquiry was a joke and that the officer deserved sacking, after all had the fed rep seen the video coverage? Why does the officer want his job back? The inspector singularly fails to understand that the officer provided his justification as to why he felt it necessary to use some open palm strikes on a violent and dangerous prisoner. The inspector, displaying all the necessary qualities of Noble Cause Corruption, believes that the right result has been achieved and b*llocks to the way the uPSD achieved it.

I have news for the Inspector. This news is my calming measure as it provides a balanced and open viewpoint. Procedurally, a deliberately, criminally flawed investigation which achieves a result considered to be the right result is just as bad as the action that it purports to challenge. It is not for the investigator to hold the views you hold and therefore you prove your incompetence to me and justify my opinion of your abilities. I have the ace card because I have the opportunity to take this matter to the press to have the public debate I think it deserves and I consider my professionalism in giving both you and the IPCC ample opportunity to investigate my allegations will prove my integrity.

Oh, by the way, the officer should not have been sacked for defending himself and other officers in the way he did. Put simply, we all know his face did not fit!!