This is the End

On Friday 3rd March 2006, the Management Board of the Metropolitan Police Service issued the following statement to all members of staff:

'Recently the organisation has become aware of a series of web-logs or blogs - where authors - claiming to be police officers - have offered their views on a number of issues in a highly personalised, often controversial manner.'

This statement is followed by 'guidance' on writing blogs. In summary, this states that although 'blogging' cannot be stopped, the 'impact of expressing views and opinions that are damaging to the organisation or bring the organisation into disrepute' must be considered. Disciplinary proceedings may be considered against posters of material that may be (among other things) defamatory, offensive or otherwise inappropriate.

I have committed no crime. I have compromised no police operations. I have received no payment for anything published on this blog. All opinions expressed are my own.

It is therefore with deep regret and great sadness that I must announce that I will no longer be submitting posts to this blog. I cannot challenge New Scotland Yard. I am weary indeed and cowardice is my bedmate. The protection of my family must take precedence.

To each and every one of you - take note of what has happened here and be afraid.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. - George Orwell

Cadburys Roses

As this is my 100th post on this blog, I thought I'd better take the opportunity to thank all those discerning individuals who take the time to browse my site. It is truly gratifying that some of my posts have attracted such intelligent reasoned argument from such a wide variety of people. The innate arrogance of the blogger can only be maintained through the attention of others.

Be lucky - WWD

Where's Blair?

Has anyone seen Ian Blair recently? It appears that all the major public speeches and appearances before Home Affairs Select Committees and so on recently have been conducted by his underlings.

Has Blair had wind of the CPS decision process in relation to the Stockwell shooting? Have the Home Office advised him to keep a low profile for any reason? Is it all one big conspiracy?

Where is Ian Blair?

So THIS is Where Your Taxes Go...

The following is an extract from an advert on the Metropolitan Police internal website for a forthcoming event:

On Friday 10 March 2006, the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate will host 'Dancing Together', an event aimed to encourage staff to provide feedback on how they feel the Service could be improved in terms of gender fair practice.

The 'Dancing Together' seminar follows in the footsteps of the women's consultation seminar 'Dancing on the Glass Ceiling' and the men's consultation seminar 'Dancing Partners.'

Aims:

- Explore and demonstrate the MPS commitment to gender fair practice.
- Investigate innovative approaches to organisational thinking required to progress the gender agenda.
- Provoke discussion around aspects of organisational culture and to challenge existing norms.
- Explore and determine ways in which we can improve the culture around gender.


To attend this event, officers and staff are required to complete an application form which asks for: 'ethnicity (please self-define), dietary requirements and any additional personal needs or requirements'.

I am fully supportive of efforts to improve gender equality. Indeed, there are several staff groups within the police service, and support agencies outside the police whose sole role is to progress this noble objective. Gender matters are also supported by law. Women in the police service suffer as much, if not more, than men from institutional cronyism, a lack of support for imaginative thinking, and a barely sumountable resistance to valid change.

There are 160 places available on this seminar, supported by organisers and speakers. That is at least one hundred and sixty members of the Metropolitan Police Service who will be meeting together at tax payers expense to discuss the above 'issues'. That is enough people to staff at least one of the police stations that have been closed across the country.

Such meetings are cloaked in key words and buzz phrases with the aura of political correctness at it's worst interpretation. Such spin deflects challenge. Will a report be published at the conclusion of the meeting? Will a list of problems be identified and presented to those in authority? Will anything tangible actually result from this meeting that cannot be produced via another method?

The tax payers of London deserve a police service that places their needs above all. The prevention and detection of crime cannot be achieved by diverting funds and resources for meetings such as this. Most boroughs within the Met have spent their budgets for the year. There is no money left to support initiatives against crime. Crime figures have been noticeably affected while elements with the police 'Dance Together'.

The MPS and Your Elected Representatives

If there is one thing that senior police officers detest, it is unsolicited contact from an MP or local councillor. They much prefer co-ordinated meetings, where the chosen few sycophants are produced to demonstrate local policing measures.

Any manager is fully aware that an MP will have the ear of his or her senior officer. Adverse comment from a member of the political elite can do nothing to aid career progression. This in itself is enough to fill them with dread.

Many years ago, I was involved in an enquiry where two violent males had been arrested. It turned out that one of the arrests was witnessed by a Labour MP. This MP did not witness the commission of the offence, merely the violent struggle put up against the arresting officers.

I commenced the enquiry, identifying the victim of the offence, and those members of the public who had seen the attack take place. Their evidence would be crucial to progressing the case, so statements were required from them as a matter of urgency. My investigation was progressing nicely until I was summonsed by a member of the Senior Management Team.

I was informed that I must make contact with the MP and make immediate efforts to obtain a statement. I argued that his evidence, although important, was not essential to the case as it stood. I was then informed that this particular MP was 'anti'. This means that he was perceived to be anti-police. It was presented to me that a formal statement would be required from him to protect the reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service that he was no doubt in the process of undermining.

I then contacted said MP. He was in fact effusive in his praise for police action. He willingly provided a statement, and indeed wrote a letter of appreciation for the officers concerned. My subsequent research showed that this MP had been critical of police actions in the past. This therefore meant he was marked as 'anti'.

I was impressed by my contact with this backbench MP, and still make contact with him occasionally. My faith in the institution of Parliament was moderately restored. I can only encourage people to contact their MP or local councillor if they have issues with the way their local area is policed. This will get results. Do not hesitate to put pen to paper to compliment good work from officers.

I have recently been reading the excellent blog of Councillor Bob Piper which I link to. Probably because of my poor search skills, I have been unable to find any similar sites written by our elected representatives. Can anyone recommend any? I am particularly interested in those who share an interest in the subjects I blog about.

Daydream Nation

Two of Scotland Yard's finest recently appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee. Andy Hayman and Peter Clarke were questioned about the support given by the police to Tony Blair's efforts to substantially increase detention times for those arrested in terrorism cases.

The two officers, both high ranking members of the Anti-Terrorist Branch, criticised television drama for painting an unrealistic picture of the war against terrorism. Shows like 'Spooks' apparently make it harder for the public to understand the case for keeping someone locked up for three months without charge. TV drama makes it harder for the police to make their case apparently. In a stunning insight, Hayman noted that TV drama was based on entertainment.

They were then asked exactly what their case was. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) was mentioned. Hayman conceded that their backing for the 90 days detention was based on 'instinct'. He even conceded that this was a 'bit flaky'. Clarke then disclosed that a suspected terrorist cell actually communicated via the internet. One of his officers had actually had to spend time watching over an hour of footage on a DVD.

Clarke concluded by claiming that 60% of suspects arrested gave 'no comment' responses when questioned. This comment is obviously intended to suggest they are indeed guilty men.

So there you have it. Scotland Yard's Ant-Terrorist Branch and ACPO lobbied for the ability to keep people in custody for three months without judicial oversight because they felt it was instictively right. That is the basis for the police supporting New Labour in their bid to introduce some of the most draconian legislation the country has ever seen.

And Still No Arrests...

It appears that none of the 'protestors' from 3rd February I blogged about here have been arrested yet. It is nearly one calendar month since the offences were committed.

I am sure that numerous decisions will have been made at a variety of levels within the Metropolitan Police Service. Each decision will have been meticulously recorded and checked in triplicate. What is missing is any level of transparency to the public. These are the people who employ the police to protect them from such activity. A degree of openness can be achieved without betraying state secrets or compromising future police operations. It was, after all, well-publicised that an investigation had been launched.


A recent poll in Police Review magazine asked readers the following question:

"Should officers have made more arrests at the recent Mohammed cartoon protests in London?"

YES: 85%
NO: 9%
Don't Know: 6%

Controversial Discussion Time

Diversity, equality or something else entirely?

Discuss.

'I Don't Destroy Liberties, I Protect Them.'

Tony Blair in The Observer:

'In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.'

This statement was made in a national newspaper by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is truly chilling.

A Bright and Shiny ID Card Future!

Tony Blair has recently stated the following in The Observer:

"On ID cards, there is a host of arguments, irrespective of security, why their time has come. Most people already have a range of different cards, for workplace, bank or leisure. And, contrary to what is said, it will not be an offence not to carry one."

There are no valid arguments for the introduction of ID cards. That is the only valid argument in this debate.


By security, I assume that Blair means the ever present 'terrorist threat'. The government cannot seem to agree to use this threat to support the introduction of ID cards or not. The use of the word 'security' suggests that Blair cannot quite decide. Nobody in government, or the police, has satisfactorily elaborated on how ID cards will prevent terror attacks. Maybe the following scenario may assist.

The scene: An anonymous provincial town in middle England somewhere. Four plotters gather together in a darkened room. The year is 2008.

Plotter 1: Right everyone. Today is the day. Is everyone ready?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Is everyone a 'clean skin' that has avoided the attention of the greatest security agencies in the world?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Does everyone have a rucksack packed with explosive?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Is everyone fully aware of our warped religious justification for committing mass murder?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Is everyone suitably brainwashed that they will follow my commands without question?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Is everyone willing to die in the name of their cause?

All: YES!

Plotter 1: Is everyone in possession of their ID cards?

All: Errr....

Plotter 1: What? What if you require access to key services on the way to cause carnage on the transport infrastructure of Britain?

All: Err...

Plotter 1: Right that's it. Take off those bloody suicide belts. No ID card no mass murder. If it wasn't for that blasted Blair we would have got away with it.....

Root and Branch Police Reform Required

In 1829 the Metropolitan Police Act led to the introduction of the modern police force. The primary means of policing was conspicuous patrolling by uniformed police officers. The key objective was the prevention of crime. The authority of the office of constable was taken from the crown, the law and, most importantly of all, from the consent and co-operation of the citizenry.

The police service of the 21st century has lost sight of these noble objectives. The force envisaged by Sir Robert Peel has been replaced with a service in thrall to the political and social elites. This is to the detriment of the people of Britain.

There are many dedicated police officers within the ranks of the police service. The philosophy of the prevention and detection of crime combined with the protection of the Queen's peace remains a concept supported by a large number of officers. The political influence infesting the senior ranks combined with an obsession with statistics is to the detriment of the community.

Each police force and, within those, each policing area, is subject to Home Office targets which identify objectives in micro detail. These targets are statistically based, and are set to exceptionally high levels. Such objectives are the life-blood of every manager, from the chief officer downwards. Pressure to meet those objectives is delegated downwards with monotonous regularity. Crimes are identified as 'priority' if they are so declared by a Home Office mandarin. Should a particular crime not be identified as such, it will be subject to cursory investigation, if it is investigated at all. The offence that obsesses senior officers in inner London boroughs is street robbery. See here for more detail on how robbery allegations are dealt with.

Due to the fact that the Home Office targets are set so high, the majority of police resources are diverted to tackle 'priority' offences. Extremely short term strategies are adopted (see here) which have only two results: the targets are touched upon, and the senior officer has another entry for their CV. The actual care of victims and the confidence of the community play a very small part in career advancement by statistic. Figures are massaged on a regular basis. The community are misled. The deprivation of personal liberty via arrest and the more or less random use of stop and search are still used as performance indicators. Such activities have historically been subject of much criticism, but continue to be favoured by unimaginative senior police officers.

The historic office of constable is being undermined and replaced. See here. The concept of Community Support Officers is an utter travesty.

The police have historically been overwhelmed with paperwork. This situation has not improved. Duplication of computer systems causes police officers to spend many hours away from the streets. This situation has arisen once again through lack of insight and forward planning by police managers. IT contracts are allocated at great expense, and systems are provided that are entirely incompatible with modern police work.

The police are not a democratic organisation. Senior officers support government efforts to introduce new and more draconian legislation. More power assists the managers in attaining targets which are set by the Home Office. See here. Imagination, lateral thinking and a genuine desire to help the community are not assests that will achieve career advancement in today's police service.

The current situation has produced police leaders who are in thrall to their political masters and will do their bidding to forward their own careers. The arrogance of the police to presume to comment on political matters continues unabated and indeed increases with every suggestion of new controversial legislation.

The problem of police recruitment has been tackled by the lowering of standards and the introduction of Community Support Officers. This is papering over the ever widening cracks. Many dedicated officers remain tied to the police through financial constraint, not through vocation.

Policing in the 21st century cannot be allowed to continue in this manner. Civil rights and liberties are being eroded almost monthly, with the connivance of the allegedly politically independent police. Community confidence will be lost. It may never be regained.

The police service must be subject to a full and wide-ranging review. Police leaders must be subject of democratic election. Some measure of political independence would prevent slavish reliance on political patronage from the government. The office of constable must be restored to the level of prestige forecast by Sir Robert Peel. This is what the public want and expect.

The police service has a long and proud history. It can once again be an institution dedicated to the prevention and detection of crime.

Herr Finegold I Presume?

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has been suspended from office for making offensive comments to an Evening Standard reporter.

What is interesting in this case is the level of spin applied by Livingstone's supporters. In a remarkable use of New Labour deflection tactics, Livingstone is being portrayed as an elected politician who has been the victim of an un-elected panel. Livingstone appears as the epitome of right against state sponsored anti-democratic forces. His deputy immediately rallied to his support, ensuring all media sources were fully aware of her Jewish background and Ken's non-racist credentials. The panel that sat in judgement on Livingstone are indeed unelected. Most such panels are not elected. No Judge or Magistrate is subject to election, but we still expect them to sit in judgement on others without fear or favour.

This whole farce could have been easily avoided by Livingstone apologising. By doing so, he would have appeared as a human being capable of folly, rather than a member of the political elite to whom admitting wrong is seen as political suicide. An apology would have cost nothing. I have no doubt that had Livingstone witnessed another behaving in such a manner, he would have been the first to have called for sanction.

Livingstone will apparently be liable for at least £80,000 costs. The case was based on a recorded conversation between two people. The three person panel was obviously in possession of a list of sanctions they could apply having decided he had erred. How this task could have cost what most of Livingstone's electorate would take several years to earn is beyond me.

The whole affair only serves to damage the already poor opinion the people of London hold of their political elites.

Couldn't Happen Here Could It?

From The Guardian 25th February 2006:

'At least eight prominent Chinese human rights activists have vanished after they joined one of the first overt attempts to co-ordinate a nationwide protest against the authorities since the 1989 democracy demonstrations.
Political security police are thought to have detained the campaigners...'

Pacifist Philosopher

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

- Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

This quote has been taken from the blog of the excellent MuppetLord whose site is a year old this month!

Muddy the Waters 3 - Darker and Deeper

I have previously written about the enquiry into the Stockwell shooting in Muddy the Waters and Muddy the Waters 2 - Getting Murkier

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report has been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to review the possibility of criminal charges being brought. The separate investigation into the behaviour of Ian Blair has not been subject to recent media comment.

The key decision the CPS will be required to make is whether the officers concerned in the actual shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes committed any criminal offences. The obvious potential charge is murder. I predict that no officer will ever be charged with murder in relation to this incident.

Should an officer be placed before a court, their natural defence would be one based around reasonable force based on the policies in place combined with the facts presented to them at the time. The reason for a 'shoot-to-kill' policy would be examined in forensic detail. The nature of the suicide bomber and the police reaction to this threat could not be properly examined without reference to government foreign policy, the related heightened risk of terrorism, and the attacks of 7th July.

New Labour has consistently side-stepped the issue of an official enquiry into the events of 7th July and surrounding matters. It would cause considerable embarrassment to the government for such matters to be debated and tested during a murder trial. The risk of Tony Blair's domestic and foreign policies being used to support a defence to murder will not be allowed to happen.

Every armed officer must make a personal decision based on information presented to them. They must then be in a position to justify their actions. Although since discredited, the initial statements released by police authorities suggested de Menezes fitted the profile of a potential suicide bomber. It is not yet known whether such mis-information was fed to the armed officers prior to deployment. It remains a possibility. Part of the IPCC report has been leaked suggesting the contents of a surveillance log were altered. The quality of information supplied by the observation point has already been subject of comment. It is a reasonable assumption to make that elements of blame will be directed to the officers deployed prior to their armed colleagues. This again supports the argument that no charges will be laid for murder.

It is inconceivable that blame will not be laid for the events at Stockwell tube station. As outlined above, the government will not allow the blame for these events to be laid at their door. The matter will be treated purely as one of internal police policy and procedure that went tragically wrong. It has already been suggested that the 'shoot-to-kill' policy was not brought to the attention of the Home Office.

The recent behaviour of Ian Blair, combined with media hostility, has presented Tony Blair with a convenient scapegoat. It was previously politically inconceivable for the country's most senior police officer to be removed from office. Paul Condon was threatened with such action, but was allowed to remain in post on the condition that he accepted the contents of the Lawrence Report. Ian Blair is in no position to bargain. With recent events in Iraq, Tony Blair will be all too keen to deflect attention from his foreign outings. The sacrifice of Ian Blair will suit his purposes perfectly and can be lauded as closure to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.