Oooops! Open Mouth and Engage Brain

I noted a story from Greater Manchester which I have been monitoring over the last couple of days. It is the story of a 53 year old delivery driver called Philip Hulmes who, tragically, died shortly after being tasered by local cops. Of course the Daily Wail Mail decided to quote the voice of the people namely a charity called Inquest. This charity supports families of individuals who have died in contentious circumstances in police custody.

Helen Shaw from the charity said police should not act as if they are exempt from punishment when making arrests. She continued ‘For too long there has been a pattern of cases where inquest juries have found overwhelming evidence of unlawful and excessive use of force or gross neglect yet the police do not seem to have learnt the lessons from these previous deaths. Whilst we await the outcome of the inquests and investigations into these recent deaths it is imperative that the police are reminded that they cannot act with impunity.’

A Bastion of Truth and Reality.......NOT!

Ms Shaw is something special. Despite trying to be magnanimous in her delivery of the speech she somehow manages to insinuate that the police have committed some form of criminal offence. Do you agree? I wonder where she gets her assumption of guilt from? Perhaps, it is to satisfy the various groups who contribute almost £1/2 million to the organisation including £60,000 from London Councils. Is it a coincidence that it was the Wail who promoted their rubbish, that is the newspaper who should have a mission statement of “why let the truth get in the way of a good story?”

Anyway, I popped over to the Manchester Evening News tonight and found that the post mortem on Mr Hulmes has revealed that he died from stab wounds. You see, he was being tasered by the officers because he was stabbing himself and they were trying to save his life by incapacitating him. Something Ms Shaw plainly failed to consider or even wish for. If she’d actually bothered to keep her gob shut for only 24 hours or so she would not have finished the day with one of her great size seven feet stuck in it.

Ahhh but then she would not have got a mention in the media. I won’t provide a link to this crap but take it from me they have the most narcissistic front page of any website I have ever seen. Each and every newspaper reference to them is publicised on their home page and your taxes are paying for it. If only they were balanced and objective they may be taken seriously by somebody.

Any takers?

Sir Paul Stephenson is Innocent…….SHOCK!!!!!!!!!

Innocent!

Was it really a surprise to find out that Sir Paul Stephenson was not responsible for any criminal offences in the telephone hacking scandal? Of course it wasn’t. Only Federated ranks are guilty of the criminal offences of stupidity in a public office. In reality I have always thought that the likelihood of this senior officer being guilty was next to no chance. However, his decision to pally up to the press just like the other quasi-political animals of ACPO rank in the Met did leave a lot to be desired.

What was a shock though was the length of time it took the IPCC to clear him. Bloody Hell it was about 4 weeks. I try to explain this to one of my recent clients who was still being investigated 20 months after making 4 anonymous and unprofessional telephone calls to a lady who he thought might become his friend. Or how about the officer who was sacked at Misconduct Tribunal after 24 months of investigation, did it really take 12 months just to get to interview? Well, the uPSD did have at least one statement to take from non-police witnesses. Or how about the officer who I told and he accepted 14 months prior to resigning that his career was over due to his actions both on and off duty. His best option was to be a resignation following a CPS decision not to be charged. It eventually happened after 14 months. For the IPCC 14 months is about 61 weeks!

Oh how my federated colleagues would love to be investigated in 4 weeks by a professional investigator who has not decided their guilt or innocence on a whim dependent upon which way the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, the cop in the street does not count. They can be ridden rough-shod over because society does not know and the judiciary do not care that regular abuses of process continue up and down the country in your local uPSD.

The IPCC are clearly selective in their application of the Taylor Reforms which were designed to speed up the misconduct process but it isn’t working and we still see lengthy investigations lasting years for matters which a real detective would complete in weeks.

ACPO Constabulary or is it ACPO Force?

Up Your's Missus

I saw Sir Hugh Orde on Television the other day wearing the insignia of ACPO on his cap badge and on his name tag. At what point did the private business enterprise monster which is known as ACPO receive the power to appoint its own Chief Constable and design its own crown insignia? According to him, so it must be right, he is entitled to wear a police uniform and as he is head of ACPO he is entitled to wear the badge of ACPO design.

Surely it is against the law for a private security business to portray themselves as a lawful police force and imitate the uniform that officers are so proud to wear? Section 96 of the Police Reform Act 2002:-If a person who holds the office of constable becomes the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, he shall, while he is the president of that Association—

(a) Continue to hold the office of constable; and

(b) hold that office with the rank of Chief Constable.

If my memory serves me correctly, he became ACPO president following service with the PSNI. Therefore he should be wearing the PSNI uniform and not some joke outfit designed to give him the London look (Never thought I would be comparing Orde to Kate Moss’s Rimmel advert). Therefore, I see the case that our beloved Paul McKeever should wear a Police Federation Badge when next parading in full uniform and let us see if the law is applied fairly to both parties.

Stand Up for Arbitrary Application

An “Old Timer” told me in the first couple of weeks of service that, “You’re never as close to going to prison than when you put on a police uniform.” I didn’t know what he meant……then! What is it about a police uniform that means that absurd prison sentences are handed out for offences which non police offenders, either get non custodial sentences or don’t even get charged? Take this story in the national press.

I refer to a story about former Lancashire Police Sergeant John Cragg who has recently resigned from Lancashire Police following the discovery of him having an affair with a victim of crime. Not only that, the Judge in the case was so offended that he was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the crime of Misconduct in a Public Office. Now, Mr Cragg may well deserve all he gets. Apparently a number of serious cases were discontinued by the CPS due to the fact that he was undertaking this affair and that is not good for anybody.

However, I wonder how it is that a cop gets three years for sh*gging on duty whilst a politician of large girth bonks his secretary across his desk which does not even merit an investigation. Or perhaps, a Conservative Lord takes advantage of a vulnerable lady who comes to his political surgery for help and assistance yet ends up being a notch on his bed post. Don’t believe me then check my previous blog about Lord Strathclyde.

How about Dr David Lomax who worked as a psychiatrist and clearly dealt with some of the most vulnerable people as part of his normal daily duties. What happens to him when he sh*gs one of his patients on the floor of his office whilst a Women’s Institute Deputation waits outside? Well he faces a misconduct charge at the General Medical Council and may lose his job. Hang on a minute! The Police Sergeant has sex with a vulnerable but consenting adult and gets 3 years imprisonment and loses his job whereas the psychiatrist faces a panel where he might lose his job and the politicians, well, they continue to be politicians. Where is the sense in this? Can someone justify this double jeopardy to me?

Now, Noble Cause does not believe that officers who are guilty of criminal offences should be allowed to get away with committing crimes. Nor do I believe that officers who commit acts of such crass idiocy should be allowed to remain in the police but I do believe that the laws should be applied arbitrarily to all sections of the community. Public officials such as politicians and ACPO senior officers should face the same consequences when their actions mirror those of the former sergeant who now is residing at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for the next three years. It should also be the same for those others in public life with a responsibility for vulnerable people. A sentence which ranks the former Sergeant on a par with the original sentence of the Baby P child killers. The Judiciary are so out of touch!

Look after your jobs by keeping it in your pants!

Time to Stand Up and be Counted

I have just seen a short film on Sky News about the riots in Manchester. This short footage taken at night and using street lamps, show a number of riot-clothed officers running along a street. It then becomes apparent that they are running to intercept a number of youths who were running away from another area of the riots but unfortunately, for them, they ran into these cops. How great it was to see a bit of summary justice dished out. A couple of baton strikes, a gentle poke with the foot and a couple of rioters rioted no more. It was also gratifying to see one rioter run into the path of another who was riding a pedal cycle and they both became a cropper. Let’s hope they broke something not attached to the bike

The only problem was that the inference of the sky news presenter, that bird with the auburn hair, seemed to indicate that the cops had somehow done something wrong. What in heaven’s name do the media want? Do they want the police to police or do they want them to watch while the country burns? The auburn one stated after the clip was shown that they would report the comments of Greater Manchester Police once they had received them. Only, I don’t expect they will if it is my telephone they happen to ring because I would tell her to wind her neck in and that I think they got off lightly.

This got me contemplating, I really hope that the Command at GMP and the other affected forces around the country show their officers some support. They need to be resolute and to not give a flying f*ck about what the press think or how the reactions of the officers come across on the television because every body I have spoken to recently thinks that a few sore heads would be just desserts. Pain is a great way to stop rioters rioting and we all know that the expectation of it is a great way of preventing further disorder. That and rain, of course!

However, members of the public need to play a part. Too often I have seen Police Officers convicted of assault when undertaking their duties. Their actions being warped by a smart-arse barrister and being received by an unqualified and gullible jury who seem intent on letting the criminal get away with it.

It is vital that the law abiding citizens of this country stick together and don’t give it up to the rampant criminal.

Big Boys Rules

If you chose to carry a gun, expect to be arrested at gunpoint.

If you chose to point that gun at anyone during your arrest, expect to be shot.

If you chose to shoot a police officer (or anyone else) during that arrest, expect to be shot several times.

Big boys games, big boys rules, YOUR choice!

TIME TO SUPPORT YOUR POLICE FORCE

Home to Roost

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

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.

I’ll Get My Coat….!

Has someone lost the plot in London? I don’t know whether to believe the latest Daily Mail headline about the fact that we can now be abused whilst on duty and there is nothing you can do about it. But then they produce a card which has been produced by Scotland Yard which outlines that very fact. It goes on to list the details of the words which we now must face and do nothing about it. I wonder what would happen if I used them back. Any takers for that gamble? Didn’t think so. The card goes on to say that the arrest will be assumed for “failing the attitude test” and will therefore be dismissed. The world has gone mad. Just wish I had the bottle to walk into a Magistrates’ Court effin’ and jeffin’ to see whether I would be admonished.

Please someone tell me that it is a joke!

They also include in the advice that hand cuffs cannot be placed on a prisoner just for officer safety and that the use must be justified. So clearly your and my safety is not a justifiable reason for the use of hand cuffs. Of course, the managers and back room consultants who come up with these directives only ever see an angry man on the television. I remember that the National Federation were instructed to argue for the right to handcuff all prisoners simply because they were arrested during a Police Federation Conference but nothing has been done or achieved, apparently. That vote must be at least 4 years old because it was taken at the last Blackpool conference. I suggest you badger your Fed Rep because the mandate is still there!!!!

The reason behind this farce is to save money on compensation claims. Perhaps if the Met were to defend a few more then they might have less claims in the first place. The Civil Actions Unit should hang their heads in shame because they are all a bunch of f*****g w*****s with a policy which is a load of b******s.

Open season has started on the police.

Abuse of Process!

I have deliberately waited a few days before posting this comment to see whether there are any protestations or utterances from other media commentators. Alas, but predictably, there have been none.

Four specialist police officers have been found not guilty of violently assaulting a British Muslim man during an early morning raid on his home. Babar Ahmad, 34, a terrorism suspect who remains in detention, had claimed he was punched, kicked and strangled by officers from one of the Met’s territorial support units during an arrest at his home in December 2003. But after only an hour’s deliberation a jury at Southwark crown court found Police Constables Mark Jones, Roderick James-Bowen and Nigel Cowley and detective constable John Donohue not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Hang on a minute!!!!! Found not guilty of assault following his arrest in 2003. Can this be real? Has it taken SEVEN years to bring these officers to justice? Were these officers placed on restricted duties for that length of time? Surely not. I don’t know but something smells a little here. What has happened in those 7 years between arrest and court case? Well, there has been a civil court case where the Metropolitan Police paid Mr Ahmad £60,000 where the Met concluded that he had been the subject of a “a serious, gratuitous and prolonged” attack. Wonder where they got that evidence from!

In fact, this matter had already been subject to a CPS decision to not proceed with the allegation but was overturned following a review of the case by Sir Geoffrey Grigson, a retired judge. Did he know about the existence of a tape recording which showed that the officers were telling the truth? Is he now embarrassed by the fact that the allegations were so swiftly dismissed by the jury?

The reason being is that it appears there was a recording of the incident captured on a covert listening device probably installed by some secret squirrel squad. The information in the press is that the listening device did not match the description of the incident as given by Ahmad but did coincide with the description of the incident by the officers, that they acted professionally at all times with a man described as being as dangerous as Kamel Bourgass. He was the man who murdered Detective Constable Stephen Oake in Manchester.

Someone in authority must have known about the tape recording back in 2003. Just how far were these officers going to be hung out before the truth was revealed. A truth that was so bleedin’ obvious that it took 12 members of the public only 60 minutes (less the time it takes to walk to the jury room, elect a Chairman/woman, have a brew and then walk back to the court to deliver the verdict) to see through the pile of crap that the allegation was. Shouldn’t the allegation have been nipped in the bud at an early stage? The evidence was clearly there to do so.

Still Ahmad’s father, despite the existence of the tape recording of the incident wants some form of justice being meted out on the police. For what? The only person who appears to have not told the truth during this incident was not a police officer. Even then the Judge with his misplaced bias, at the end of the trial, shows no concern for the officers who have just been found not guilty of a fit-up but insists that the public at large would be concerned about the length of time it took to deport the suspected terrorist. Along with the Judge, I consider that a decision should have been made about this man a long time ago and there is even a website dedicated to this very decision. After all Ratko Mladic was extradited in a week. The public at large should also be concerned about the distinct lack of fairness and integrity in the investigation into these four officers.

Anything goes when you are dealing with the bigger picture, doesn’t it? Or maybe I am just cynical.

Appropriate Authority

Chris Huhne MP

In the press this week is a story about Chris Huhne, MP, who is going to be investigated by Essex Police following an allegation that he tried to get someone else to take his points following a speeding offence. It would appear that it is his wife who is the whistleblower in this matter and I have seen Mr Huhne appear on TV regularly to deny the allegations. I wonder why the reporters read something into his words when they hear them. For example, because he has not said outright, “I didn’t do it!” they are going apoplectic about the actual words used. Good grief. A denial is a denial.

On another note, whilst the might of Essex Constabulary comb through records which are 9 years old to establish the merit of the allegation, Noble Cause Corruption has become aware of an allegation of perverting the course of justice and corruption being made against officers of another force. The allegations appear to have some merit but the officer is frustrated at the fact that the IPCC have refused to accept the allegation quoting the Police Reform Act 2002 and, consequently, have referred it to the force subject of the allegation. Unsurprisingly, considering that the allegation was against the uPSD department of the relevant force, are you surprised that they have dismissed it? Apparently, without even contacting the person making the allegation!!

It begs the question, why is the 9 year old allegation of a spurned wife against Chris Huhne more important than a criminal allegation against a uPSD office of a police force? The answer is Noble Cause Corruption.