This is the official blog of ex-Sgt Ellie Bloggs. I was a real live police constable then sergeant for twelve years, on the real live front line of England. I'm now a real live non-police person. 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 (or didn't) pay my salary.

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

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Who polices the people who police the police?

Woman with child: "The officer went berserk."
Guy with rucksack: "I was terrified."
Group of three girls: "He took out the baton and started hitting people and screaming."
Bloke with red hair: "I was pleading with him to stop. I wasn't even armed."

Police officer: "The red-haired guy was wanted for burglary, but when I approached he said he'd cut me up. I shouted instructions but he failed to comply. I thought he was about to s
tab me."

Shock horror newsflash: people who complain about the police are angry when their complaints are not upheld!

"Why should the public have confidence in a complaints system when they know that the odds are hugely stacked against having their complaint upheld and are even more stacked against them in terms of the prospect of a police officer who has done something wrong being held to account?" asks former Commissioner John Crawley.

Perhaps he could take a stab at answering his own question.

Apparently the fact that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is not upholding a large number of complaints is evidence of the fact that it's not doing its job properly. Did anyone ever stop to think it might be evidence of either:

(A) There is rarely clear evidence that the police are in the wrong.
(B) In general, most complaints against the police are malicious/unfounded/incorrect.

In my more than five years' service, I've received complaints from members of the public, criminals, lawyers and colleagues, for th
e following reasons:
  • I've arrested more than one person who wasn't guilty.
  • I've assaulted someone during arrest.
  • I've stolen someone's cash and clothing whilst administering life-saving first aid.
  • I've deliberately destroyed evidence.
  • I've lazed around in bed when I should be attending court.
  • I've waged a racist campaign against an innocent member of the public.
  • I've carved a swathe of rudeness through Blandmore, insulting people in various ways from swearing at them, to bullying and browbeating them, right through to criticising their driving.
In fact, it's pretty clear that PC Bloggs (or APS Bloggs as I'm lucky to be known), is a corrupt, violent, vicious individual who uses her uniform to intimidate and frighten law-abiding innocent citizens.

On a couple of occasions, complaints involving me have gone to the IPCC, and on a couple of others, I've been interviewed under caution by Professional Standards. I've had one or two meetings with the superintendent where I've been warned not to oversleep on the morning of court or forget to put in my statements that I've handcuffed someone. I've also on numerous occasions received letters two or three years down the line informing me that certain complaints have been dropped that I never even knew had been made.

Does all of this mean that the people who investigate police officers are not doing a good job?

Try telling that to the half dozen officers in my area alone who were (deservedly) arrested and charged last year for dishonesty and/or corruption. Or the hundreds who (undeservedly) suffered the stress of PSD or the IPCC storming through their workplace baying for blood.

The fact is, the majority of people who complain to the police are simply complaining because they didn't get their way. They are the same people who dial 999 to report children playing with balls in a play area, and then have a go at the police who arrive to speak to the children without their parents present. The same people who call to report being assaulted, and then lunge at the officers attending with a metal bar. Sometimes they complain merely to try and wriggle out of what they've done wrong, sometimes it's to claim compensation. But very often they don't really know why they're complaining, or what they hope to achieve. They just do it.

I'm bound to have some heated comments from people thinking I am blinkered, or unwilling to accept that the police can ever be wrong. I'm not. I have a dozen examples of times when I've heard complaints that were fully justified, and another few dozen where no one ever made a complaint when they should have done. But I've hundreds, maybe thousands, of examples of where the complaint should never even have gotten as far as putting pen to paper.

But then again, who wants to read a news story with the headline: Police Rarely Found Corrupt And When They Are They Go To Jail?

Result: Officer calls for assistance, ends up hitting red-haired guy 3-4 times with baton, as well as his mate. Half a dozen cops restrain both males. The crowd are appalled and all make complaints. Neither guy is charged with anything.
IPCC verdict: the red-haired guy closely matched the description of a burglar, but his behaviour made it impossible for the officer to confirm his identity. The officer acted in accordance with his training, genuinely fearing for his safety.
The newspapers say: IPCC backs feral police yob.

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


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spot on.

19 January, 2010 18:00

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fantastic, brilliantly written. When will people and bosses realise that we enforce the law and in doing so we are not going to make friends we are going to upset people, not all people however just the ones who dont like being told NO.
I agree with the part regarding people not making complaints when in my oppinion they would be justified in doing so.

19 January, 2010 20:04

Anonymous Antipodean said...

When I first joined the job, over 20 years ago, one of my first Sergeants told me that "If you aren't being complained about, you aren't doing your job properly." Trite, but, true.

19 January, 2010 20:20

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Action always gets a reaction.
It is impossible to have 100% of the population in agreement, you are doing extremely well if thee get more than 50 % on your side.
Every topic has three sides just like the proverbial poll or coin, heads [yeas], tails [nays]and the forgotten edge [do not knows], if no edge, no coin [poll] exists.

Unfortunately many of thy customers/clients like the evil side of life, thus will never see the wrong they are doing.
As now that the politicos depend on this mob for their power, the criminal has no fear thus will exploit the system for their own profit.
the lawyers know this

"The passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them"

remove fear and then comes each man for himself.

19 January, 2010 21:35

Anonymous QT said...

Great blog, good to hear how it is on the Police side of the story. We never get the Police side because you're shackled by the law, so you're only ever going to get bad press - no comment doesn't sell news.

19 January, 2010 21:37

Anonymous Netcopper said...

Dungbeetle veh QT.... are you two loosers anything to do with soi=disant "law enforcement" ?

19 January, 2010 22:13

Blogger Hogday said...

The complaints system is, by and large, a very thorough and robust (harsh) one that is probably better (harsher) than most other comparable organisations and any officer (including this `ex`) who has been subjected to such investigations will testify to that (with a `friend` present of course). However, I have always been very concerned (suspicious) of the IPCC's capabilities (independence) when looking into cases involving the topmost echelons of police forces. I believe that this is the area that the title of this post is best aimed at. I believe there are worrying deficiencies. If only someone with gravitas, skill and independence could look into them, which is pretty much where this post started.

20 January, 2010 08:28

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

Complaints that I have had against me by MOPs include
1.Smiling and looking happy at work
2.Calling a motorist "Sir"
3.Calling a motorist "mate"
4.Wilst custody Sgt that I had detained a "seriously ill" person-he had flu- on a non appearance warrant despite the police surgeon stating he was fit to be detained and the Mags Ct refusing to grant bail
5.As custody I treated the detainee in an over friendly and considerate manner which made the detainee admit to a crime he did not commit.
None of these complaints went anywhere as the Inspector refused to record them-Now a days they would all have to be recorded investigated and reams of paper produced-for what-personally I used to be terrified of a bollocking off an old time skipper or guvnor cos you knew you would be walking the worst beat on a week of nights in January!!!!

20 January, 2010 14:17

Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an Inspector, I once took TWO complaints on one shift.

1. Someone in the High Street complained that a police vehicle on blues and two's was driving too fast to an emergency call.
2. Someone who called the police to an emergency, complained that patrols didn't arrive fast enough.

Who was right? Both can't be. Hence, 50% of people who complained that night were not satisfied with the police response to their complaint.


20 January, 2010 15:05

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

Doesn't this really boil down to the same general thing - you can't quantify the unquantifiable.
In the same way that, patrolling today I may have prevented several crimes or I may have prevented none, it is equally impossible to quantify those who saw me on patrol and were utterly indifferent compared with those who, for example, were stopped for advice about use of fog lights.
The vast majority cannot be quantified, those who wish to complain that I am persecuting innocent motorists can (generally by way of my traffic stats).

The current Home Office/ACPO/SMT line is all about public satisfaction. Yes, there are lots of ways in which we can do better, particularly in caring for victims and witnesses of crime. But with notable exceptions, this is the only contact that people ever have with the Police. We should leave a positive impression, but for me, the continuing indifference of most law-abiding people to the Police is good enough.

In the same way, those who are sufficiently moved to complain may have received a poor service or badly treated - of course it happens - but I'd agree with Bloggsy - most either want compensation or to muddy the waters of their own pending case.

I don't do this job to be liked or idolised by the public, and the very nature of what we do means we will cause annoyance, resentment and ultimately complaints from some. I'm happy with that, because in my experience, I was probably stopping them from doing something illegal in the first place. That's my job.

20 January, 2010 15:30

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like press headlines like "Cops kill Grandad". All Grandfathers are frail, old, war heroes who will not harm anyone. They are never knife or sword wielding maniacs.

Why do the Police always kill them?

20 January, 2010 16:02

Anonymous Inspector Lestrade said...

Bloggsy, I would be careful about making observations such as "and another few dozen where no one ever made a complaint when they should have done." without at the very least qualifying it by going on to say that either you, or another officer at the scene put in the complaint themselves.

Otherwise, you provide welcome evidence to those ill-disposed towards the police to the effect that you, they, all of us are complicit in covering up wrong-doing.

You're absolutely spot on with the rst of your post, though.

20 January, 2010 16:40

Blogger blueknight said...

They always get there quickly on 'The Bill' but in real life it is rarely like that.
The Police Officers attend when Control Room tells them to. They do not necessarily know how 'old' the job is when they are sent.
In the towns and cities there is congestion and in the rural areas a 10 mile drive through country lanes is not uncommon.
And don't get me started about houses that do not have visible names or numbers on display...

20 January, 2010 22:13

Anonymous Sean said...

I've worked for NHS complaints handling, and 80% were completely spurious. Your numbers seem about right.

20 January, 2010 22:34

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Inspector Lestrade, thank you, but if I was worried about being careful, I wouldn't have a blog! It's here for me to be honest.

Besides, I genuinely don't think it's for me to make a complaint if someone isn't aggrieved themselves by what's happened. I'm not talking about people being beaten to a pulp by out-of-control cops.

20 January, 2010 23:42

Anonymous Tom said...

"In fact, it's pretty clear that PC Bloggs (or APS Bloggs as I'm lucky to be known), is a corrupt, violent, vicious individual who uses her uniform to intimidate and frighten law-abiding innocent citizens."

Well at least you are honest, should be easy to identify you now, just look for the fat station bike with an attitude problem.

On an even more serious note, GOOD.

More complaints means more hassle for the police, and let's be honest, you cunts do deserve it don't you? You can't be talking to the public like crap, throwing your weight around (and i guess you have alot) and NOT expect some sort of retaliation? No sympathy, with luck, maybe a MOP will knock that attitude out of you, like the other filth that got a kicking.

21 January, 2010 05:30

Anonymous ccslb said...


One of the Police's regular "customers" are you? The sort that likes to gob off when it doesn't go your way? Throw your weight about a lot?

21 January, 2010 08:47

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Bloggs {ASP},
Just had a quick look at the IPCC web page only 10% of all complaints upheld, so 90% are lieing drunk low life just making up sh**, sorry no way not a chance.
If {if} what iv just read is right the IPCC claim that the people most likley to make complaints against the police are the people who have the least dealings with the cops.
Or do you think the IPCC are just making that up??
If your PSD are so great at what they do why do we need a IPCC?? could you explain why the old PCA were dispanded sorry discredited then dispanded.

21 January, 2010 11:34

Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I'm sure it causes a few grey hairs and undoubtedly gets abused by the regular customers, the IPCC and scrutiny from PS does surely contribute to policing which is relatively free from the sort of abuse frequently seen in other countries, and perhaps seen in ours in times past.

Somehow I doubt that John Crawley has any first-hand familiarity with systems that _really_ lack accountability for officers. If he did, I doubt he'd be so cavalier.

IG's comment above is incorrect. If you have only a handful of coppers on response on a given evening having to deal with anything kicking off in a 30 mile radius (as in my area), the police can be both driving too fast and not responding quickly enough (because they're busy filling forms in triplicate or responding to a complaint of chavtxting/understaffed/the force hired PCSOs and clerical staff instead).

21 January, 2010 12:29

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what about the Warboys case? Was the IPCC doing its job there?

I think not.

21 January, 2010 15:12

Anonymous Anonymous said...

thing is Tom- I deal with idiots like you on a regular basis.

In my experience, gobshites like you- rarely do anything themselves when face to face with a Police officer- because they just dont have the balls.

You are the type of spanner that shouts and runs away. So, not really a problem for me.

I just fear for the gene-pool when pond-life like you end up having kids.

21 January, 2010 15:44

Blogger consenting MOP said...

good for Tom.
better to hear both sides rather than just the usual converted's view on the preacher.

21 January, 2010 16:44

Anonymous Anonymous said...

For me the Police are like Bank Managers. Best avoided and if you need to speak to one, you know you're in trouble.

This blog posting, masks how small the proportion of complaints are actually investigated by the IPCC. Most are investigated by the force the complaint is against. Hardly an impartial situation and certainly does not inspire confidence in the police from the public.

My personal experience of the Police with the exception of one geordie in the Met, on armed patrol Horse Guards Parade is that the legal knowledge of officers is very poor indeed. Officers trying to use powers without knowing where those powers derive from, or indeed the limits of those powers, is a recipe for disaster.

Policing has to be by consent. Loose public consent and you may as well shut up shop and all go and write books and blogs.

The Police need to stop viewing the public as "the enemy". We are not all criminals and some of us object to being treated as such.

I have been involved in so-called "consultative" groups and have witnessed agendas being manipulated, senior officers avoiding questions, as well as being told one thing, when a Freedom of Information inquiry shows the opposite to be true.

So for the officers who gather here I ask only one question:-

What is it you are going to do to regain my trust?

21 January, 2010 18:31

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Officers trying to use powers without knowing where those powers derive from, or indeed the limits of those powers, is a recipe for disaster."

True. A huge training issue. Which powers specifically are you referring to?

"Policing has to be by consent."

It doesn't. Look around the world. But it is preferable!!

"What is it you are going to do to regain my trust?"

Start the ball rolling. What would you like the police to do? Less focus on motoring offences?

21 January, 2010 19:15

Anonymous R/T said...

Blimey Bloggsy! You seem to have attracted some right sorts with this one!

21 January, 2010 20:22

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Anon 18:31, you seem to be starting from the assumption that police officers, and/or police bloggers are automatically in favour of everything the police do. If you actually read most police blogs, we are trying to highlight the same insanities and frustrations that piss off the public. I don't know about other officers, but I WANT to police by consent, as long as the consent isn't coming from the guy who's currently burgling someone's house/beating up his wife/doing drugs in the street. If I didn't think there was a problem, I wouldn't be a blogger.

On the topic at hand, you really need to look at some of the complaints the IPCC has made to them before you assume that 10% is a low ratio of substantiation. The majority of complaints come from a small proportion of people, the same as the majority of crime. Funnily enough, it's often the same people.

21 January, 2010 23:29

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Actually just looking at my last and the comment that the IPCC think the majority are from people with the LEAST dealings with the police, whilst I disagree with the statistic there is a reason why those people also complain and do not have it upheld. Many complaints arise out of a lack of understanding of police procedures: for example unfortunately if you are pointed out to us as an offender, we can legally arrest you and as we have never met you, we usually do. If you resist, you will get forcibly arrested. If you're innocent, this is pretty horrific and I have sympathy with you. But many complaints I hear about, some of which are made directly to the IPCC instead of locally, relate to things like DNA/fingerprints being taken and kept, or crimes being recorded and people then being arrested. These things, whilst acted out by police officers, are edicts from the government and we cannot lawfully fail to do them. As a member of the public, your only recourse is to vote differently in the next election. And that is just as frustrating for me as it is for you.

21 January, 2010 23:38

Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, use GPS jammer to block all secret transmitters in your room or at work.

22 January, 2010 00:55

Anonymous Anonymous said...

veh QT.... are you two loosers anything to do with soi=disant "law
net copper, are you just corroded, or just too much oxygen and water in thy system.
[ @ 9 January, 2010 22:13]


22 January, 2010 03:02

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hogday is spot on with his comment.

PSD and IPCC are there mainly to keep the lower ranks in check, and to give reassurance to the public, that the police are not able to abuse their position and authority unchallenged. And although they have 'investigated'[cough, cough] some high ranking officers, like some at the top of the Met, regarding Jean Charles de M, it was a whitewash. A great deal was covered up at a very high level, with the knowledge of the H.O. because it suited them, and still does suit them. HUGE SCANDAL.....

When people in high places make mistakes, or commit crimes of deception, they will go to appalling lengths to keep their wrong doing covered up. They will even stoop to even more serious crimes against a person who could bring them down. They seek only to protect themselves, their positions, reputations and pensions. Lies, dodgy dossiers and stitch ups being the least of their self protective deceptions.

So, faced with that reality, what is the point of going through the motions, of even attempting to obtain some sort of redress, via a complaint against high ranking officers? And if the problem is one of fraud/theft of a substantial amount of money, by a group of very naughty high ranking officers et al.....What makes you believe that even some in PSD could not be 'induced' with a 'gift', OR, death threats against them and their loved ones, so that a PSD officer turns a blind eye to the corruption.

That is how corrupt high ranking officers have got away with serious crimes, like child sexual abuse, for decades. With the full knowledge of the Home Office, because often there are members of the judiciary involved in the scandal, and THEY call the shots. As do the government when it comes to covering up serious abuses of power and authority, including their own. With the exception of the recent expenses scandal! And just maybe, also over the war with Iraq.....

So, if the complaint is one of sexual abuse, assaults and threats to kill....How far do you think a victim would get making a formal complaint via the legal system?
Refer perhaps for some insight, to the case of Chris Jons in the 90's, and despite the so called 'investigation' into his death, he did NOT commit suicide.

Nor did Fiona Pilkington, despite what the 'investigation' into her death claimed. Where was the hard evidence that Fiona set the blaze?......As Jack Straw said a while back, 'they' didn't want the paperwork. Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, BOTH MURDERED souls, were viewed as a drain upon resources....a single parent on welfare benefits, with a disabled daughter, who would also be a long term drain upon the public purse.

Even IF another proper investigation into their deaths took place and the culprits were detected, would the truth ever be told to the public? I doubt it.

It is difficult to get hard evidence against corrupt officers, and that is because they are very good at covering their tracks and creating a 'picture' of a particular crime that they want people to believe.

The case of Madeleine McCann's abduction is a good example, where the media were used to smear the names of numerous innocent people, including her parents. They were lucky to be middle class professionals who had help to obtain decent legal assistance.

That does not happen in the majority of cases, and the corrupt officers know that and play the system to cover up their crimes.
As in the case of Shannon Matthews, whose mother did NOT plot her own daughter's kidnap. Karen Matthews did know who had abducted Shannon and was too scared to talk, because of death threats against her and her family.
And these low life abusing creeps call themselves 'men'.

There's a big can of worms over in Yorkshire, and elsewhere, sadly.
The festering boil needs to be lanced, and then a thorough detox of the system, to produce a healthy body, fit for purpose.

Minority Report Officer

22 January, 2010 04:35

Anonymous Anonymous said...

wheres tom gone?

22 January, 2010 05:38

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Minority report officer - Shannon matthews mum did conspire to kidnap her for the publicity.

Fiona pilkington was not murdered- she killed herself.

You have a point about high ranks hiding from psd etc however I don't recall child sexual abuse bring one of the crimes- that's just paranoid.

22 January, 2010 08:09

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

I think the differing views on this one illustrate the point I made before - to be sufficiently motivated to complain (or blog for that matter) you probably have some sort of agenda in the first place. I know that this is, for me as well as Bloggsy, a sort of therapy where we can sound off about the internal lunacy that makes us jump through hoops to achieve anything at all.

I want to do my job to the best of my ability and I expect the same from those I supervise. I have nothing to hide, no war against the general public and most of the battles I fight seem to be internal.
I am pretty sure that every complaint I have ever received has been from the offender or one of their cronies, not from a random MOP who is aghast at what they perceive.

The IPCC and PSD did a great job identifying and bring a prosecution against some bent cops in my own force a few years ago. I wish them luck with any more they have their eyes on. But they are the exception. We are normal people expected to do an extraordinary job and open to more scrutiny than almost any other organisation. Sometimes it goes brilliantly well, sometimes it goes horribly wrong. Most of the time it goes okay and life goes on. I'd say that percentage-wise, it's almost a perfect match with the proportion of complaints taken vs the number upheld. Go figure...

22 January, 2010 13:48

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

"I have been involved in so-called "consultative" groups and have witnessed agendas being manipulated, senior officers avoiding questions, as well as being told one thing, when a Freedom of Information inquiry shows the opposite to be true."

Welcome to our world...
I'm thinking of suggesting we rename our Force newspaper Pravda.
The truth is out there, but only as they would have you believe it.
If you haven't worked out that operational cops feel the same way as you do, Anonymous (at least Tom posted his name), you perhaps haven't understood what this blog is all about

22 January, 2010 13:57

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

Anon@8.09 22 Jan
Can I refer you to an enquiry in the 1980s in North Wales of organised sexual abuse in childrens homes-The Dc that took this on was put under a lot of pressure to drop the case by his Ch.Supt but he bravely carried on and lo and behold-who was one of the major players-the Ch.Supt himself-All this was subject to a massive cover up as it involved a lot of high rankibg people but it opened up the eyes of people to paedophile rings etc

22 January, 2010 14:42

Anonymous Anonymous said...

for pitys sake let Tom back. you may not of liked what he said, I didnt either. but you cant get rid of people a the touch of a button in real life and neither should you here.

22 January, 2010 14:44

Anonymous R/T said...

Anon @ 14:44 - Fairish point - but it's OUR blog not theirs. I feel quite strongly about that. Think it was NottsSarge who said that it's our sounding board and place to moan, not somewhere for a deluded idiot to sound off. So there!

Oh - to those "Anon"s - could you please just put a name to your posts so that we know who you are? Not you Melv, we can always recognise you!

22 January, 2010 15:24

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Welcome to our world...
I'm thinking of suggesting we rename our Force newspaper Pravda."

Hillarious, I love it!

"If you haven't worked out that operational cops feel the same way as you do, Anonymous (at least Tom posted his name), you perhaps haven't understood what this blog is all about"

Ok let's looks at what you just said.

Someone called NottsSarge appears to take exception to me using the anon function on the comments, without actually giving his (or her) own name. Hmm....

You then go on to imply I fail to understand something.

Trying to illicit more information from me perhaps? If so, rather crudely done.

Back to business.

You say operational officers are just as fed up as a significant number of members of the public. Ok. Why aren't we seeing whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork? Why are officers closing ranks, copping for their money each month and stashing their public sector pension contributions?

Are you doing anything to change things for the better from the inside?

I'd be interested in what you have to say on those fronts.

22 January, 2010 17:46

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon@8.09 22 Jan

You are wrong. This is the truth.

Retired Sgt is right in what s/he said but I am sure that the investigation went on into the 90's. It only kicked off publicly re the abuse in council care homes, after a notorious paedophile had hijacked the effort of an undercover officer, [and also his child victim of abuse] to instigate a better system of child protection. He presented the work of his victim, as his own, [with the full knowledge of many in the system including the H.O] to the media, as a great new concept for 'Protecting Children' He deceptively took a check for £365 THOUSAND, that belonged to the author of the letter who outlined the concept. He also smeared the names of his victims. Including the one he robbed of the bonus check in 1989, on national T.V.

Many of his victims from previous decades were OUTRAGED by his audacity, including Chris Jons and his father. However, the Home Office already KNEW about the problem in 1957, but do not care to admit this. But it is detailed in records made by special branch officers et al, at the time - OPERATION SATAN.

We often hear on the news how 'lessons will be learnt' whenever the system FAILS in its' duty to protect children from serious harm. They never will 'learn the lessons' until the govt acknowledge the REAL problem within a corrupted system.
A system corrupted a long time ago.

Instead of other agencies of Health and Social Services being there to help kids and OFTEN their parents, when a child has been unfortunate enough to fall prey to paedophiles in 'authority', they have focused on a 'witch hunt' against mothers for the act of NORMAL DISCIPLINE of a child - smacking them when they get totally out of order.

THAT is what has led to 'Broken Britain', and the reality that the paedophiles within the system, still play it and manipulate the picture that is painted, to hide their guilt and maintain the status quo. Not only that, they use the media to whip up a storm, to 'justify' even more harsh and oppressive measures AGAINST mothers, to gain access to fresh victims.

In the recent case of the boys who abused and tortured two other boys, it has been stated that their home life was 'toxic'- a bad mother who was subjected to physical violence from her partner.
The boys were placed in foster care. What is NOT being reported is that those boys were sexually and emotionally abused whilst in foster care. The clues are there. They subjected their victims to sexual abuse and humiliation, with the time tested death threats against them and their family. The boys didn't hear that from their birth family, and there have not been reports of those boys having been subjected to sexual abuse whilst at home.

The paedophiles in positions of authority are looking for new ways to gain access to vulnerable children. Foster care is what they are going for, with the same old threats they have used for decades, to keep victims quiet about abuse.

It worked for them regarding Shannon Matthews, because of a problem within the health care side of the child protection system. Karen Matthews DID NOT conspire to kidnap her own daughter, but certain officers and judiciary would like you to believe that lie.

Shannon was spotted and targeted for abuse and then abduction. Karen Matthews and Donovan were the convenient scapegoats to cover up the crimes of paedophiles in VERY high places. History repeats.

There are proven accurate, credible Intelligence records, that will confirm the information stated here, plus Intel warnings about other serious matters, terrorism, the danger from Nuclear power, and more. But govt cover it up.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

OPERATION BEELZEBUB - codename Lawrence - Royal Protection Officer - 1957/58 - RECORDS.

Minority Report Officer

22 January, 2010 18:42

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

"you cant get rid of people a the touch of a button in real life and neither should you here"

You obviously haven't seen The Net.

As I've said before, childish squabbles will be deleted. I've left plenty of critical but constructive/thoughtful/funny comments up there.

I should add, people who log in from certain IP addresses known for being pests will have all their comments deleted whether sensible or not. Because it's my blog, and I am responsible for the content, even the comments.

22 January, 2010 22:22

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

And to the other commenter, who IS reasonably sensible:
"Are you doing anything to change things for the better from the inside?"

1) Blogging.
2) If I told you, I'd identify myself. But yes, I am.

22 January, 2010 22:23

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whistle blowers if not in power position always get shafted.
No one in the lead position likes to be critiqued.
'Tis the law of nature.
self preservation comes first

23 January, 2010 01:30

Anonymous Steve D. said...

Colleagues and I have fallen victim on more than several occasions, to a crazy legal system that encourages malicious complaints.

An example is when I made a perfectly legal arrest for a public order offence and the detainee (who had more than his fair share of convictions) made a complaint against me for unlawful arrest.

I was later informed by the Met's legal branch that the arrest was lawful, however they were settling out of court for £5,000 without prejudice, despite us having a case we could not lose. This was apparently because even if we won the case it would cost the Service approximately £15,000 just to take the case to civil court. Of course the scumbag in question was laughing all the way to his dealer.

I also know that suspects regularly complain about arresting and investigating officers just so they can bring up the fact that they have made a complaint when their case is heard at court. Complaints are not investigated until the case is completed and so to juries, who don’t necessarily understand the system, it appears as if there’s an unresolved complaint regarding the case and can affect their verdict. We all know how barristers will concentrate their efforts on arguing anything that isn’t related directly to the evidence and the points to prove, because the case would have failed long before the trial if the evidence was not sound. Therefore the barristers spend hours talking about the complaint and before you know it, that’s all the jury will remember.

In my opinion, examples like those above and many others, encourage a large number of malicious complaints to be made, which seriously affects the statistics.

And don’t get me started on the no promotion or posting policy while a complaint is outstanding. How can it be fair to affect someone’s life and career because some idiot thinks it’s a good idea to make a malicious complaint against Police.

23 January, 2010 07:42

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"1) Blogging."

Does that really change anything about the targets, procedures and systems you have to use / comply with on a daily basis. I can imagine it gives you a 'pressure release' valve of getting things off your chest, even if you have to consider each word very carefully.

"2) If I told you, I'd identify myself. But yes, I am."

I hope you can appreciate that to a sceptic, that's a less than convincing response.

In the spirit of co-operation, how about including suggested topics for people at large to submit Freedom of Information request about. Your identity remains protected, people outside 'the system' get steered in a more focused direction.

Officers could also suggest topics in the comments, whilst those receiving responses could also post updates.

Following Steve D's comment, I'd like to know how much money the Met has wasted in out of court settlements where officers have been found NOT to have been at fault. The situation he describes perpetuates a poor image for officers, whilst it is the legal team that need to be castigated.

What do you think? Would it work?

23 January, 2010 08:29

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

Anon @17:46 I am more readily identifiable than a lot of people here. In fact, I do wonder if PSD monitor things like this. They wouldn't have much of a job to find out who I am and stick me on for causing dissent within the force (a disciplinary offence). I am sure that Bloggsy's overlords know who she is, but to 'out' her would cause considerable embarassment.
The fact that books like this and Wasting Police Time have achieved wide publicity and support from within just goes to show that the message is getting out. Sadly, nobody above the rank of Insp is likely to read or believe them, because they've had the Bramshill chip implanted in their brain.

I have fought some significant battles against bureaucracy and downright stupidity. It's one of the things I'm good at, along with thief taking. Equally, I have been stonewalled over certain issues because it would be uncomfortable to back down to a mere Sgt in an organisation where rank implies greatness.

If I were you Anon, I would be asking why there is no compulsory register for Freemasonry nationally, how many officers above the rank of Sgt have ever been considered under unsatisfactory performance regs and when C/Insps and above were last operational in any meaningful sense.

By the way, I have no desire and no real means to find out anything more about you, unless it's what you're having. Mine's a pint...

23 January, 2010 11:48

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good morning NottsSarge.

You mention the Bramshill chip, but I can't help thinking we're now paying the price of all those bright young things on accelerated promotion schemes who did their Masters degrees at public expense reaching certain ranks now.

We're told there's 40+ police forces in the UK that are supposedly independent yet the appointment of each CC or Commissioner has to be 'confirmed' by the Home Sec. That immediately makes them political appointees.

What are your feelings on locally elected Chief Officers?

Is true Force independence (with mutual aid agreements) feasible?

23 January, 2010 12:06

Anonymous Mark said...

ASP Bloggs,
you have lost me a bit with your reply about wrongfull arrests and the use of force.
The biggest % of complaints against the cops is being rude and uncivil sorry not DNA,, not to sure were you get your info from but you seem way off the mark their.
Just had a quick look at the IPCC web page and most complaints dont arise from an arrest!!!
You may have seen in the press a cop has been charged with rape and other horrid things going back years i do wonder how many complaints were put in against him before he was arrested??? yet again the police investgating the police.
I also gather that many complaints are upheld by the IPCC on appeal after your mates in the PSD would not.
cops investigating cops complaint not upheld-IPCC investigating cops UPHELD thats strange.
one more thing you said you have had complaints against you by other cops?? who lied? you or them?
I will look forward to your reply.
I was the anonymous who posted the other day, im Mark.

23 January, 2010 12:43

Anonymous bender the robot said...

Bloggs- just block the nob Tom... his offensive, brain-dead rantings have no place on a site supposedly for debate about current Police issues.

People like 'Tom' just cant be pleased or helped.

Why even engage with the moron?

Its clear that he had a fixed penalty or was spoken to (no doubt for his loutish behavior) and now has a chip the size of the Albert Hall on his shoulder about the Police.

His strutting bullshit comments are for on purpose only- to attack and wind up the Police Officers that are on this forum.

Just go away Tom- you are SO not wanted.

23 January, 2010 13:30

Anonymous bender the robot said...

Mark- I wonder if we took a survey of the customer service department of say, BT, O2, Gas etc. what would be the biggest proportion of calls?

Calls to chat about upgrades? Good service given?


Complaints about service?

My money would be on the latter. It is OBVIOUS that people that get done for their own poor judgement (using a mobile whilst driving) bad behavior or other such issue are not going to be very happy with the people that actually start the process off- namely the Police.

The difference between us and O2- is we are accountable - they are not. We are under a number of microscopes- initial supervision, PSD and the IPCC.

I had a chap in the Front office t'other day wanting to make a complaint about his curfew (court imposed)... He had a problem that officers were turning up at random in the night to check the curfew- they were walking his kids see...

He just didnt get it- the person that has caused this state of affairs isnt me, the OIC or even the court- its him... for adopting a criminal lifestyle.

If he hadnt- he wouldnt be on bail for burglary- ergo no curfew.

This is so the issue! For him, like many, its someone else's fault... never him.

23 January, 2010 13:40

Anonymous Mark said...

Mr Robot, the cops are not BT,O2 or the gas people you seem to have missed the point.
Yes it is curfew boys fault fuck wit, {him not you}.
As iv said already most complaints acording to the IPCC dont come from fuck wits {can i say that?} most complaints dont come from arrests.
27% of complaints not not upheld by PSD are then overturned by the IPCC, so please tell me how you can be so accountable and watched under a microscope if over a quarter of complaints are over turned???
how many more people dont bother to go to the IPCC when their complaint is not upheld by your friends in the PSD,
If you are so accountable why o why was the old PCA dispanded, why do we even have a IPCC???

23 January, 2010 14:22

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

Anon - I too have a Masters degree but I joined to be a cop. The 'system' isn't geared to acknowledge that the best people aren't necessarily those at the top. (By the way, if PSD are reading this, my identity is probably down to a handful of suspects now).
Accelerated Promotion tends to generate clones, wherever they serve, because it's a single set of ideas being sold across the board. I'm all for the bright minds doing well but they lack the grass roots understanding - hence the cynicism towards them internally and externally. They also flit from post to post, gathering pips and crowns and are never anywhere long enough to see the true cause and effect of their received wisdom. I compare it with expecting a League 2 Football Manager to win the FA cup in 18 months.

If we want to get philosophical, I don't believe the Home Secretary is constitutionally authorised to set national targets for anything, as each Chief Constable should be answerable to their Police Authority. I actually believe that, rather than electing the CC by popular vote, the Home Office should back right off and a publically elected Police Authority should set the priorities for their area. There would be greater accountability to local people and less pandering to the bean counters in London. Radical? No, something like what Sir Robert Peel had in mind in the first place I think.
Unfortunately, at a local level, residents always complain about kids on street corners, parking and dog mess. I'm not sure there is sufficient knowledge of what's really happening out there to elect a CC by popular vote.

Mark - you can complain direct to the IPCC online. They decide the level at which it will be investigated then. At least that way it's top-down and someone independent sees it first...

What a can of worms you've opened this time Bloggsy!

23 January, 2010 17:42

Anonymous Mark said...

notts sarg,, thank you for your reply, but could you please anser the questions iv asked.

23 January, 2010 17:51

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

"You said you have had complaints against you by other cops??"

Did I? When?

It is true that the majority of complaints are about rudeness, but handcuffing is also one of the main ones. Rudeness (or perception of rudeness) is inevitable. We do a job where pleasing one person often means upsetting someone else. When someone is upset, they will often not listen to reason, and end up in a war of words with the officer. Police officers all have different skills, and not all of them handle these situations diplomatically. So some officers get a lot of complaints about rudeness, and many are justified. But this doesn't mean in general that they police badly, or their actions are unfair/corrupt. Sometimes they're just not very good at articulating themselves. Whether internal or external investigation finds them guilty or not, the result will only be words of advice. And we still need these cops in the job, to bosh in doors, run after fleeing villains, and grapple with lunatics wielding knives. On top of which, members of the public are equally often rude to us, and we usually put up with it. Like it or not, it's not the end of the world if someone's rude to you.

The more serious issues leading to complaint, that can result in dismissal/prosecution, are excessive use of force, unlawful arrest, neglect of duty. If these happen to you, they ARE the end of the world. Which is why my comment was about those.

23 January, 2010 18:54

Anonymous Tom said...

"bender the robot said... blah blah blah"

Fact: The police have become politial pawns.

Fact: The police are turning the public against them.

Fact: You enforce these laws, but fail to protest about them, touch your pay, and you're up there with your banners like a greyhound.

Fact: You love to shut people up (you don't like dissent, Example bloggs)

The rest of what you wrote was a torrent of liquid shit, i can see why most of what i write goes right over your head, having the IQ of white dog shit doesn't do you any favours.

Just face facts, the police are now enemys of the public, that's not a good position to be in is it? Twat, now...why don't you run along and attend some domestics.

23 January, 2010 19:00

Anonymous Bender the robot said...

Tom - I think it's YOU that are the enemy of the public- people like you that can't get a paragraph down with using the word twat etc... I don't think I have much to worry about from you. Not really the top two percent are you?

Go out, get some Stella down you and knock your 'bird' around. That's more your game - leave the grown ups to talk grown up stuff.

I suspect that the majority of the public don't agree with you. I know I do a good job. I wonder what you do?

I have ten years to go- as I mentioned above I was a teacher before the Police- and I did a term in the army- so you could say I have given my working life to serving the public. So, when I hear foul mouth louts like you talking about what I do with such hate and venom- it annoys me.

I just think you need to grow up.
White van man?

23 January, 2010 19:50

Anonymous mark said...

ASP Bloggs,
You mailed in more than 5 years service colleagues put complaints in against you.
thank you for you reply but you still have not ansered my questions. the PCA bit.

23 January, 2010 21:39

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I cannot help having a feeling of Schadenfreude when I read the sense of unfairness wafting off these pages that some people make unjustified complaints, and the stress/strains that it causes to the policeman whilst it is being investigated, and the fact that the complaint appears as a perminent record.

Bit like the sense of unfairness when some police make unjustified arrests, and the stress/strains that it causes to the accused whilst it is being investigated, and the fact that the arrest appears as a perminent record.


Solution? Deal with unjustified complaints swiftly robustly and come down hard on those who make them, and don't make arrests unless they are fully justifed and come down hard on those who do.

24 January, 2010 10:55

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

I see, I didn't necessarily mean always formal complaints. Ref the PCA, you brought that up, not me. Nowhere in my post do I bemoan the existence of the IPCC.

Unfortunately, due to Godwin's Law, I am closing the comments at this stage.

24 January, 2010 15:05


<< Home


View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker