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.
Noble Cause Corruption. Welcome to our (un)Professional Standards Department (uPSD) 