This is the official blog of Sgt Ellie Bloggs, a real live police sergeant on the front line of England. It's not the official opinion of my police force, but all the facts I recount are true, and are not secrets. If they don't want me blogging about it, they shouldn't do it. PS If you don't pay tax, you don't pay my salary.


(All proceeds from Google Ads will be donated to the Police Roll of Honour Trust)

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The Real Blows in Life

Yesterday I was inundated with text messages, emails and calls warning me to BEWARE THE TIMES! Well, I had a few texts from close family and a lot of emails from strangers.

If you want to know what it's all about, read Dan Collins' blog, as he says it all really and far more objectively than I would. I do however think it is ironic that police blogger Nightjack's identity has been revealed by the ruling of a judge who on the same day ruled that the Beckhams' old nanny must make a formal apology for breaching their confidence some years ago. Of course, the Beckhams aren't bloggers, just international celebrities whose lives are generally available for public consumption. So clearly they require more protection than an erstwhile Lancashire detective constable who donates his off-duty earnings to charity. It's worth pointing out that Nightjack's force have issued a mere "written warning" for his most terrible and awful misconduct (this is just one level up from a verbal warning and below even a preliminary misconduct hearing).

There's a lot to say on the matter, and I strongly recommend Googling Mr Justice Eady alongside the words "Max", "Mosley", "Gordon Kaye", and "gagging order".

But back in the real world, things like this are happening. Most police officers who die on duty are killed in car crashes, as you can see if you check out the Police Roll of Honour Trust.*

When you read the comments on Gadget's blog about PC Pratt, most of whom I am sure never met him, you realise perhaps why front-line cops are a bit protective of each other, sometimes blindly so.

There aren't many jobs where you can spend eleven hours of your shift cursing bureaucracy and lose your life in the twelfth.

Stay safe out there.

Update: Daniel Finkelstein defends The Times.
I usually try to say something clever when I blog, but all I can muster up is the words utter codswallop. Read the comments below his article, the public ain't fooled. People have published anonymously for centuries, and writers like Swift and his contemporaries used to have great fun writing under one name and then responding under another. The public understood this was the game and decided what to believe. As Finkelstein's commenters point out, no one objects to a reporter checking out Nightjack's credentials to make sure he really is an English Detective. Had he turned out to be Sir Ian Blair, or not really a police officer, that's a story. But essentially their headline was "BREAKING NEWS - BLOGGER IS EXACTLY WHO HE SAYS HE IS SHOCK!"
Still, I have a feeling their victory in court will be their own punishment.


*
All proceeds made from advertising on this blog or articles I am asked to write go to the PROHT, which commemorates fallen officers.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.

16 Comments:

Blogger cambstreasurer said...

Orwell prize is a bit sadly ironic, isn't it.

Feel I should add my tuppence worth saying all police I've had to deal with have been v. helpful & professional.

17 June, 2009 11:20

 
OpenID inspectorgadget said...

Thanks for the link. I have always thought that the fast roads bring more danger than pissed up members of the public.

17 June, 2009 14:45

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad story. I wonder what would Justice Eady's position be on whistle-blowers, or victims that need to be kept anonymous. I'm sure he wouldn't object to release the picture of Baby Peter's mother or stepfather.

Let's hope that you may be allowed to continue to write about the police without problems. And if I ever get you round my door for reason's 1 or 2 as you mentioned to call the police, I will try to have some extra brownies or tea ;)

17 June, 2009 14:46

 
Blogger Hogday said...

I'd have just loved (not) to go before him with a PII request.

17 June, 2009 16:29

 
Blogger quixote said...

I don't get it. After a couple of centuries and some revolutions, we figured out that anonymity and privacy are important to a free society.

But suddenly, when a computer is in the mix, Whoa!, that's totally different. All the rules about individual rights get thrown out and we can start over. Is that judge retarded? Or maybe he just hates computers? Did he get a Blue Screen of Death one too many times?

As for the Times, my only regret is that I don't have a subscription so I can't cancel it. As you say, fact checking is not the problem. Being crass is.

17 June, 2009 17:42

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Make sure you all go over to the Times website and tell them what you think.

17 June, 2009 18:59

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why a police blogger should be subjected to a written warning, for his spare time hobby of writing, er FREE SPEECH, is a complete and utter mystery to me.

What this implies, is that coppers do NOT have any "Human Right" to express themselves off duty.
I hope that Nightjack gets himself a Human Rights Lawyer to challenge this violation of his free speech and creative self expression. Because otherwise this government will begin to think, that they OWN THE VERY SOUL OF ALL COPPERS, and that they can control them like robots 24-7. Not good......

This is just more double standards and hypocrisy, probably driven by government. Paedophile Judiciary and Top Cops do NOT get exposed to the public. No, they remain shielded and protected, often for life, and even in death. Their evil crimes get covered up and never spoken of, never mind taken to court. Only the lower ranks and the criminals of the public get named and exposed, and/or punished.

What a sickening and disgraceful load of hypocrisy, dished out by a man of so called "honour", a Judge.
Old habits die hard in the Establishment, it seems. One rule for them, and a different rule for the ordinary "common" folk. Sigh...

18 June, 2009 01:05

 
Blogger The TEFL Tradesman said...

Re "coppers do NOT have any 'Human Right' to express themselves off duty."

Actually, they do - as long as they say what their bosses want them to. It's only when they start to express differing opinions it is seen as 'dissent', and ruthlessly crushed.

BTW, re the long tradition of writing anonymously, the Irish writer Flann O'Brien made a career (well, half of it) writing outrageous letters to newspapers and then replying - both using false names.

In fact, you can still buy his hilariously whacky books - try Amazon for 'The 3rd Policeman', for example (and no, I'm not a relative).

18 June, 2009 07:18

 
OpenID inspectorgadget said...

Oh dear, my above comment is on the wrong Blog! Sorry!

18 June, 2009 08:22

 
Anonymous Mac said...

It's interesting that The Times seems to have censored all bar 2 of the comments on the original article. DF must have seen them all, hence his pathetic attempt to justify himself. However, to their credit they have allowed loads of really severe criticism to appear on that thread.
Seems like they might just have conceded that they did a really bad thing and don't want censorship added to the list. They've also published a later article by NJ himself explaining the consequences to him and his family of the 'outing'.
Maybe, just maybe, The Times is getting the point.

18 June, 2009 14:57

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I did read on Dan's blog, some of the stuff Night Jack had written about all the NuLab Home Sec's. He didn't spare any of them and he was rather rude about Jack Straw, which I did feel was unfair comment. Jack Straw I do feel, has tried to do good whilst in the Home Office, and as Justice Secretary.

What is becoming clear on the news reports about the ongoing expenses scandal, is that WHITEHALL IS THE GOVERNMENT, Civil Servants, and they do appear to have a great deal of control over what happens, or does not happen.

Having read Night Jack's comments about all the Home Sec's, I am not at all surprised that he was "outed" by the Judiciary. I did have a look at his blog a few times, but honestly didn't like his "vibe", which I found rather negative. I didn't like his spin and comments about "the evil poor".
Evil lurks in all walks of life, rich and poor, but the rich and landed gentry do appear to get away with a great deal more than the poor.

19 June, 2009 03:20

 
Blogger News from Monday Books said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 June, 2009 11:13

 
Blogger News from Monday Books said...

Anon June 19 - I think you've missed the point, with respect.
There are the 'Evil Poor' - and then there are 'The Poor'.
Nightjack had absolutely no axe to grind against The Poor; in fact, like pretty much all the cops I've dealt with since I started publishing anonymous blogging policemen/women, I think he felt very strongly that he wanted to protect the ordinary working classes, and the elderly, and the weak, from the depredations of the 'Evil Poor'.
If you are an elderly lady living on a rough housing estate, you are at the whim of people who think nothing of smashing your face in so they can steal your handbag.
These people are the Evil Poor and the system – whether through chaining police officers to their desks, or failing to deal with offenders effectively – isn’t helping you..
Of course, there are important arguments to be had about why people are poor, the nature of ‘evil’, the best way to prevent crime and so on, but in the here and now people need protection.
The real tragedy, I think, is that our great and good are insulated from Nightjack’s Evil Poor, and so can spend their time deciding which clothes the emperor should wear tomorrow, rather than worrying what that scraping noise was outside the back door.

19 June, 2009 11:33

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monday Books - I have not missed the point, but do accept that there is an nasty element in society who are violent robbing scumbags, and that being a little old lady on a council estate can be very risky. I have seen and read with my own eyes, the fixed opinions that "the system" often has about "the poor", and especially those on benefits. A few bad ones who do wrong appear to have been used to justify treating everyone else on benefits as a member of the criminal "underclass". The system has a very negative expectation of those people and often treats them with contempt, defaming them in public records with high handed arrogance - BECAUSE they are poor.

Our "great and good" probably are insulated form the dregs of society. However, there is an element within the so called "great and the good" who are protected, sheilded and equally insulated from prosecution and public exposure for THEIR EVIL CRIMES committed against the children of the poor. This has gone on to my knowledge since the 1950's, and has happened recently. But the system and the government have swept it all under the carpet, to date, although the media do have the truth about the scandal. It has also been told briefly, on here and on Coppersblog a while ago, plus on ConstableConfused.com

If it seems like I have an axe to grind, then that is because I find the blatant hypocrisy of the system and government, outrageous.
Much is made of any MOP who commits serious crimes, like child sexual abuse and/or murder. But come a rogue within the system and it's a different story, of denial, cover ups, arse covering, lies, smears against innocent victims, teachery and worse. Plus a cruel wall of silence, that just adds insult to injury, for a victim of the "evil men in positions of power and authority".

The Home Office slogan of "Justice Seen - Justice Done" really does depend upon who you are. If you are a child victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a cop and/or a judge, then it's good news for them, and bad news for the victim. The victim's charter means NOTHING, unless the abuser is a MOP, or a low ranking plod who gets caught.

The Home Office use the old get out clause of "bringing the force into disrepute" to justify cover ups of serious sexual abuse by high ranking officers. They changed the wording of the rule recently to "undermining the public's confidence in the police", to justify hiding scandals like child abduction, sexual abuse, or worse, from the public.

The "evil rich and powerful" who abuse their authority, power and position, and have done for a VERY long time, are a more serious threat and a danger to society than the public know, unless the MOP just happen to be a terrified, intimidated, silenced victim of them. WHERE are the coppers then?

21 June, 2009 03:06

 
Blogger staghounds said...

"Sir Ian Blair, or not really a police officer" is a curious locution. Or is there, somewhere outside England, a Sir Ian Blair who IS a police officer?

26 July, 2009 21:22

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am NOT surprised that Lancashire Constabulary [Aided & Abetted by Journalists such as Finkelstein] have saught to muzzle 'NightJack'.

I live in Lancashire an area served by this particular lot, they have a lot to suppress, officers killing themselves using Police Arsenal Weapons, Hanging themselves in Police stations [Could THEY be making a 'Final Statement' as they log off?]

As a 'None Police Person' who has always supported the police [Including having received a commendation from them] I have INCREASING DOUBTS as to many aspects of their activity, NOT LEAST as outlined above towards their OWN officers. If they behave like that towards their own 'God Help' the rest of us!!

Lancastrense

29 July, 2009 13:05

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker