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)

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Iron-clad Compassion

PC Jason Hanvey and PS Andrew Kennedy are currently facing about nine months in prison for assaulting a teenaged female prisoner.

When shaking one's head at how two experienced officers find themselves in this predicament, it is worth considering the following:
  • As a custody officer, PS Kennedy was well aware of the CCTV live and recording in his suite.
  • Two other PCs and a Gaoler were acquitted, so it seems likely the jury considered the case quite carefully and did not brand all five as automatically guilty.
  • One of the acquitted PCs stated "I wish we were trained better" and that she had no idea restraining someone's arms in the position used was not acceptable.
Overall, I think it can be concluded that no one present thought anything was amiss with the situation until they were prosecuted.

One of the challenges I now face as a sergeant is taking a step back from fraught situations and assessing what my team is doing. When you attend a fight and end up rolling on the floor, a crazed drunken assailant using every muscle in their body to lash out and kick at you - or their intended victim - adrenalin shoots up. It takes considerable presence of mind and more training than one day a year to keep a grip of your sense of proportion.

This prisoner is fighting with every inch of his breath.

This one is dead.

It's not as easy as you'd think to tell the difference.

Which is why, as a sergeant, I will often stand back from the struggle (unless my colleagues need help, obviously), and give instructions to release holds or move the prisoners' arms into a different position. Not because my PCs are deliberately roughing the person up, but because in the melee they may not have registered when the shouts of "FUCK OFF COPPER" changed to "OWWWW OK LET GO I'LL STOP". I am no better trained than they are, and I'm just as human, but I have the privilege and responsibility of being the cool head amid the panic. If I've had to get stuck in, I'll get unstuck as soon as I can, catch my breath and have a look at what I've got.

Ugly but justified on the street.

Maybe unacceptable in custody.

The above is why you have a custody officer at the police station, in case there's no cool head left in the chaos. The custody sergeant is independent from the investigation, not involved in the scuffle on the street, sitting behind an unmoving and objective desk, in a cool air-conditioned (er, maybe) office. When the street-fighters erupt into his/her suite, the sergeant should immediately take control. If he/she thinks that the officers are still affected by whatever violence they have faced outside the door and may be overreacting to the lesser violence offered in the safety of custody, the sergeant should interject. It is even appropriate to send away the arresting officers and try to find another officer to book them in, to give the prisoner a chance to calm down. In the case of Amy Keigher, the sergeant's job was not only to protect the prisoner, however vile she may have been, but also to save PC Hanvey from himself.

Unfortunately, Sergeant Kennedy chose to tell Amy Keigher she should expect to be hurt, and hence faces the same jail time as the officer who threatened and restrained her excessively. He also falsified custody log entries and failed to give either of two prisoners their rights. Which can't have helped his case.

I am sure that there was another side to Amy Keigher- though it's worth pointing out she didn't want the officers prosecuted. Either way, once in custody and without her liberty, she was vulnerable, and that requires iron-clad compassion from her detainers. The hard thing for the front-line police officer is not to hold the un-detained side of someone against them once the prisoner has lost the fight. It is a fine line, because if you relax your guard too much, you may be assaulted. (It is probably fair to say, however, that there aren't many situations in which threatening to rip off someone's skull whilst they are in the grip of 3-4 officers is going to be acceptable.)

It is easy to toss around words like 'professionalism' and 'objectivity'. Most people have no idea whether they have those things or not, because they have never had to test them in a heightened physical situation. As a police officer, at some point in your career you will discover what qualities you possess. Hopefully you find out soon enough to obtain whatever it is you are lacking, and before you land yourself in prison.

I have no sympathy for the convicted officers, but I feel sorry for the police.

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


Anonymous ginnersinner said...

Ellie, that is exquisitely put.

14 April, 2010 22:06

Anonymous mark said...

Madam Bloggs thank you,
Why the hell do cops behave like that when their is CCTV and they know their is CCTV.
The actions of all the cops there is well out of line and they ALL should be sacked not one cop tryed to help the girls or make a complaint about the others.

I cant see how cops acting in this manner helps the police in general
It will just make people hate you more and less willing to help you when you are attacked.

15 April, 2010 09:44

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Mark, how do you know the actions of all of them was out of line? The jury was obviously happy enough with all but two of them.

15 April, 2010 09:55

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

PS Please don't call me Madam.

15 April, 2010 09:56

Anonymous Jumile said...

Your mention of those present at the incident being unaware of the situation being amiss reminded me of an interview with Philip Zimbardo -- who ran the famous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 (where volunteer "guards" and "prisoners" were put into a staged prison environment) -- in the March edition of the Baggini's Philosophy Monthly podcast.

Zimbardo refers to his then girlfriend visiting to see the nightly bedtime procedure, which involved rituals such as standing in line, bags over heads, etc. After a remarkably short time of these kinds of simple procedures, she was shocked at how normal this appeared to the "guards" and "prisoners" and, perhaps more tellingly, the observers of the experiment. Nobody who had been exposed to it for a few days considered any of what was happening to be out of the ordinary.

Perhaps this is something that anyone in a position of authority in a relentless us-vs-them, siege-type environment is at risk of experiencing? Such as we see with police and military forces. The potential parallels are interesting.

15 April, 2010 11:35

Blogger Crime Analyst said...

What an informed insight Ellie.

How the heck you manage to "Keep your head when all around you are losing theirs" is almost beyond comprehension for the rest of us.

Whilst appreciating the need for CCTV these days, it must make the practical application of the job a sodding nightmare and supervision in such circumstances a real challenge.

Unfortunately, joe public will in the main, only see the tabloid headlines of misconduct and cruelty. In an ideal world, balanced media would present an account like yours above, if only to show the outside world what conditions you have to operate under.

Based on the numbers arrested, and of those, how many kick off requiring restraint, the system seems to protect a tiny % that may have real cause for complaint.

Did CCTV in stations emerge as a result of custody officers failing to do the job satisfactorily or was it yet another instance of big brother watching you? It's a sad indictment on the service in general that the powers that must be obeyed decided that in station CCTV was necessary in the first place, but then I guess there would be plenty come forward to support the statement that CCTV protects the officer doing the job properly whilst also protecting the prisoners rights.

Overall, does it help or hinder you in delivering the job the way you would want?

15 April, 2010 11:55

Anonymous mark said...

well 2 of them have been sent to prison, did the others make any complaint?? did they try and stop what was going on??
the pace act was broken, was a complaint made about this??

None of them seemed to think their was a problem in what they were doing,
Well I do, the other 3 should be sacked time for the IPCC i think.

You say your a SGT if you had been their {not your station} what would you have done??

15 April, 2010 12:20

Anonymous mark said...

ps/ is Sir ok?

15 April, 2010 12:23

Anonymous mark said...

Crime Analyst,
the girl {s} made a complaint the tape was then watched.
CCTV also stops cops nocking s%%t out of the people they arrest thats why it was installed in the first place.
i think a lot of cops would love the cctv taken out of stations.

15 April, 2010 12:29

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

Three ppoints
1.Harvey already had a previous conviction for common assault which he got as a swerving officer.His discipline board did not dismiss him which was a complete and utter failure to impose and maintain discipline-what if the result of Harveys actions had been to kill someone-would anyone have taken the discipline board to task?-and should they do so now?
2.Kennedy was clearly not up to the job of being a custody or Sgt or I suspect of even supervising a
piss up in a brewery.
3.It is interesting that one of the cleared officers stated that she felt that she needed more training-it needs to start right at the beginning-a more rigorous assessment centre a hard time at what now passes for "trainig" school to see if people can really keep their temper instead of sitting round all day talking the hind leg off a donkey.
But the thats just me being old fashioned expecting police officers to be disciplined controlled and above reproach-and expecting that when they do step out of line that they are jumped on from a great height.

15 April, 2010 16:59

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

Oh dear-I put "swerving officer"-but perhaps on second thoughts...

15 April, 2010 17:33

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Mark, I think my post says exactly what I would have done. You don't know that the other officers made no complaint, your cries for their imprisonment/sacking are based entirely on your assumptions.

As for PACE, it is breached/broken day in, day out, so that in itself is not cause to jump up and down. No custody suite is perfect, and case law generally confirms that as long as the spirit of the law is kept, minor breaches are no issue.

The CCTV 9 times out of 10 covers our backs and gives us evidence of prisoners damaging the cells and assaulting the custody staff, so I'm all for it.

15 April, 2010 18:06

Anonymous A Polis Man said...

Hear hear Ellie

The spirit of PACE is adherred to, prisoners do not routinely get beaten or abused in custody.
CCTV protects more officers from malicious complaints than are ever convicted on its evidence.
Violent uncontrolled thugs belong in prison whatever colour they were before be it white, black or anywhere between but especially blue! I don't want to work with them or be associated with them, horay for a jury that looked at and thought about the evidence, to convict 2 out of 5 shows careful thought

15 April, 2010 18:28

Blogger Metcountymounty said...

Mark, custody CCTV has knocked back plenty of spurious and malicious complaints and everyone knows it is there, in the Met the audio I've seen is actually pretty good as well.

As bloggsy has said in the main post the thing you HAVE to remember is as soon as you are in custody the level of violence presented by, and the level of force used on a prisoner is different from the alley or town centre you may have been in twenty minutes earlier.

Whereas you were on your tod or there were a couple of you not only dealing with the suspect but making sure no one else came in for a cheeky crack around your head, in custody it's different.

Custody is by no means a completely safe environment, if anything becoming complacent has lead to officers being attacked and injured. However everyone knows that you can't apply the same threat assessment as you had outside, and a jury or a magistrate will definitely see the two environments differently.

15 April, 2010 19:21

Anonymous mark said...

We do know none of the other 3 made complaints about the girls treatment, if they had they would not have been in court,

I am a bit shocked about pace i was always under the impression it was set in stone whats the point of rules if they CAN be broken??

I think you miss my point of cctv
and the reason it was installed in the first place.

15 April, 2010 21:46

Anonymous mark said...

metcountymounty, O yes im all for fair treatment even for the cops, and im very sure it stop a lot of doggie complaints and sends a few cops down the stairs,

Yes i gather the level bit and think its right I on my own would use more force you and me would use less four of us even less and in custody CCTV with sound a lot less.
But i think your missing the point their is no excuse for the treatment by the cops of the two girls.

A quick question for you what would you have done??

15 April, 2010 22:07

Anonymous mark said...

sorry dodgy not doggie,

16 April, 2010 08:29

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

I'll do a post on PACE soon actually, because it's quite an interesting subject.

16 April, 2010 11:03

Anonymous mark said...

i hope you do soon i will be very intrested in that one, their seems to be a fair bit i dont understand.

16 April, 2010 17:46

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

From the above then you must be a senior officer!!!-Only joking of course-a senior officer would never admit to anything such as not knowing the basics of police work!!

16 April, 2010 18:21

Anonymous A Polis Man said...

PACE a piece of knee jerk policy in reaction to several high profile miscarriges of justice, think 5,4,3,2,1.

Having said that it is quite well written and has stood the test of time.

It does not however cover every eventuality hence where the spirit of PACE is invoked and the fairest solution is worked, a quick example for you, felon fails to answer 47(3) and is arrested in Ruralshire where he now lives having left Blandshire, CPS have had no other choice but to authorise the charge, PACE says he has to go to the Blandshire Police Station he has failed to answer bail at. FELON says hang on Mr Polis Man (he clearly wants something) I couldn't answer my bail I was inside!

The supervisors have a discussion and decide to breach PACE!!!! and decide to charge him in Ruralshire and bail him to the Blandshire court as no court will remand him for failg to answer bail whilst in prison.

PACE breached, Sprirt of PACE intact, officers released to frontline duties quicker, prisoner treated fairly

16 April, 2010 20:45

Anonymous A Polis Man said...

In answer to the question about CCTV it was brought in to catch the hundreds of prisoners being abused and beaten up in police stations just to get a cough or just because.

What it did was protect the vast majority of police officers from vexatious complaints much to the dissapointment of the crimnal classes (i.e criminals and polititians :) )

16 April, 2010 20:48

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another excellent piece.

I'd be very interested to read your take on Alice Thomson's recent in article in The Times, at


17 April, 2010 08:45

Blogger Hogday said...

Good post Ellie, covering a multitude of situations faced in custody centres everywhere. Although I joined at a time when a large proportion of my peers with over 25 yrs service were ex servicemen from WW2, one of the toughest of them once said something very simple, but which struck a chord. He said that I should always remember that whether they come through the front door or the back, a person in a police station should be in the safest place in town.

17 April, 2010 10:50

Anonymous mark said...

Retired sgt, We all like to knock in your case senior officers in mind superviors but they tend to see the big picture we only see whats in front of us,
We only answer to them they answer to lots of people,
In your case even more senior offers then MPS who all answer to the ungratful public.

17 April, 2010 15:27

Anonymous mark said...

A Polis man, Yes lots of prisoners were abused in police stations and treated very badly and in some cases died,

Im not trying to say ALL cops acted like this but a lot did and some still do like the 2 who have been sent down.
CCTV protects both sides.

17 April, 2010 15:46

Anonymous mark said...

A Polis Man,
I see what you mean now about a breach in PACE,
As a mop when the cops say breach in pace we think the cops are trying to fit people up or they are up to no good a problem with trust i think.

17 April, 2010 15:52

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

It does not matter who the senior officers do or do not answer to- it is a question of knowing police powers and procedures and the practical application thereof-so many senior officers have got to the top by avoiding police work so when they find themselves in the hot seat having to make the decision or framing a policy it is often completely wrong or has a dubious legal basis.The current topic is a case in point-if Harvey had been dismissed at the time of his first conviction for assault then we would not be having this "discussion" now-it really is safe to say that so many police managers are out of their depth.

17 April, 2010 17:48

Anonymous mark said...

retired sgt,
that is very worring my lot arnt that bad most of them do have a clue.

Harvey I think is a bit different that comes down to the complaints procedure not so much senior officers, I think it happend in 1999 so i would say it was in the hands of the old PCA,
Cops back then got away with a lot more than they would dare do today
thats more the fault of the system not so much senior officers..

Back then cops of any rank liked to cover things like Harvey up, I would like to bet you he has loads of complaints against him most if not all not upheld but probbley true..
The other 3 cops that were their at the time did nothing to stop him or make complaints against him thats not poor senior offers thats poor policing..
The other cop was a SGT of 27 years service {i think} not what you would call new to the job,
Would you say he was out of his depth or just a fuckwit???
Of topic a bit iv never for the life of me understood why the police weather its PCA IPCC or PSD let cops like Harvey or the SGT keep their job, all they and other cops like them do is hurt the police and make mops hate you all, as you will all be tared with the same brush..

17 April, 2010 18:22

Anonymous NottsSarge said...

It's true to say that the actions of the few always taint the reputations of everyone else - guilty by association. This isn't helped by 'police brutality' being excellent tabloid fodder, so the effects are magnified.
Personally I have no sympathy for Harvey or Kennedy. If someone is brought in still fighting, they go straight to a cell and are left there until they calm down. If they kick off again, back they go. Happens all the time. But as Ellie rightly points out, it's often more appropriate for the arresting officer, or the one who's been nose to nose with the DP, to hang back and let other officers/DOs deal with the prisoner in custody. That's common sense and professional, two things which were clearly lacking in this case.

As for complaints/keeping jobs - these days my Force will sack anyone who picks up a criminal conviction, as criminal conduct is a straight-up disciplinary offence. There are still a few cops with old drink-drive convictions, but that's the one that probably sees most cops sacked these days. I know that, not so long ago, the Met were accepting some applicants who had spent convictions or cautions for minor offences. I don't know if they still do, but to me that undermines one of the basic principles of being a Police Officer.
Knowing what the hell you are doing also helps, unless you have been promoted beyond such trivialities...

18 April, 2010 12:39

Anonymous Retired Sgt said...

Dont forget its senior officers who decide on the punishment for a discipline offence not the old PCA IPCC The Sun or anybody else.Lets hope that as Notts Sarge points out the tide is turning and discipline is back.
In relation to Sgt K he should have controlled the situation he should have sorted it.In relation to the other 3 I only know what I have read-what did they do?I dont know-did one of them approach the Sgt to complain and was told not to get involved or that he had dealt with it?Certainly the jury decided they were not to blame but I agree anyone who keeps quiet when something goes wrong should speak up-there is no excuse not to really.Although as one who has spoken up on more than one occasion I can say that you need mental and moral strength to do it.

18 April, 2010 16:36

Anonymous mark said...

Notts Sarge, Thank you for that reply very intresting,,
If i may say I think you are a bit hard on spent convictions, people do silly things when they are young
and to make them pay for a silly fuck up for the rest of their lives is a bit hard, im not saying give x IRA members a uniform, but if a wana be cop got a caution for being silly 10 years ago is that such a big deal???
I do think that a cop who gets done should be sacked.

18 April, 2010 17:31

Anonymous mark said...

Retired Sgt,
As iv said i dont fully understand the police discipline rules,
To be fair the other 3 did nothing and said nothing as you said their is no excuse for saying nothing so they must take some of the blame.
I can see your point it must be very hard to speak out but if the police want the trust and respect of the public they must stop things like this.
As the Notts Sgt said the press love the brutality stuff..

18 April, 2010 17:49

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spoke out as a child special constable over 50 years ago and was treated rather badly by the then Home Office, who did nothing to help me and other kids who were being sexually abused by officers and judiciary, judges, barristers, lawyers. Some kids were being abused by those creeps and by social workers, whilst they were in council care homes. Chris Jons blew the whistle on what went on when he was a child, but didn't survive and was not properly supported/protected by the system.

The Home Office "plan" over 50 years ago, was to get us all together for a "briefing" about a long term police operation. A real Tory DIY job, where we, the victims, would tackle the problem of paedophiles when we grew up, which disgusted me at the tender age of 6, nearly 7 years old. But in those bad old days, children really were seen but not properly listened to. It was all swept under the carpet and never spoken of again.

The ruling elite did as they pleased with women and kids, regardless of how illegal it was, and nobody stopped them. They were "untouchable" and it would appear that "they" still are, as far as any legal process against them for criminal acts of child sexual abuse, and even perverting the course of justice. Nothing has changed. The system has failed.

Special Branch Officers told me at the time that I was "very brave". My parents said "Fools rush in".
So for my "bravery" and whistle blowing, the baddies were determined to make my life, and the long term police operation very difficult. My name was smeared by their lies, and throughout my life they have added to that in the system's records. They also used sabotage and underhanded skulduggery to interfere with my life and the lives of others. Illegal subliminal programming via TV, to alter behaviour, thinking and actions. I was deliberately manipulated by them in my younger days and sent "off track", ending up with a criminal record. That was done to me to discredit me, knowing from the Home Office "briefing" the role I would play in later life. Ba$tard$

A promise was made over 50 years ago, that at the end of the Op, all the smears would be removed from the records, and that having been undercover, taking all that crap for years, I would be paid a substantial sum. Job done and I'm still waiting to be paid by the H.O which is/was of course controlled by NuLabour......who keep telling the public that they are the party of the people, and will deliver a future fair for all.

They, NuLabour, have also subjected myself to a smear campaign and some very underhanded treatment over the years. I have been used and abused because I did my duty and "spoke up" more than once about wrong doing and other very serious matters.

Government is corrupt, and both the Tories and NuLabour are directly responsible for the problems in society today, especially with the lack of respect from kids. They have BOTH undermined teachers and parents authority with the mis-direction of the Child Protection System, starting in 1989, matters made worse since 1997 by NuLabour meddling and nannying of the public. Both are in denial about this issue and are colluding in a cover up of historical and recent cases of serious child sexual abuse. There, I have spoken out, AGAIN....... but I'm not going public with it, because government are NASTY.

19 April, 2010 06:35

Anonymous Metcunty said...

.... I am a faggot

19 April, 2010 09:21

Anonymous mark said...

Anon, thats a sad tale,
But i think things are a lot better now than they have ever been
not right but a lot better.
The 2 cops this blogg is about is proof of that 20 years ago it would have never got to court,,
Things are changing not always for the best but they are changing.

19 April, 2010 09:40

Anonymous Mac said...

I love CCTV. Of all the complaints I have dealt with where CCTV was available, the officers were exonerated. Because the vast majority of 'use of force' complaints involve a complainant who was drunk/drugged at the time force was used, I have regularly played the video back to the complainant and asked 'is that how you remember it?' then 'Having seen that, do you still wish to pursue your complaint?'the answer is always no.
Likewise I am a big fan of tape recorded telephone lines. I worked on a department (conrol room) where all calls were recorded and the same technique above helped refresh a few memories about who was the aggressor in a conversation (on both sides of teh fence). Telephones calls especially seem to be when people involved genuinely don't realise how they came across until it is played back to them. Where I work now we have stickers on all phones saying that calls MAY be recorded, but I would record the lot. At the very least there should be one phone at each station that is permanently recorded so if officers choose they can make outgoing calls from it. At the moment if I know someone is a serial complainer, or I know that I won't be telling someone what they want to hear, I have to travel to the Enquiry centre to use one of their phones to cover my back.
In my view, quite apart from the integrity issues, anyone who acts inappropriately in full view of a CCTV camera they know is there, is probably too stupid to stay in the job.

19 April, 2010 11:45

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just before cctv in custody centres was introduced there was much suspicion and not a little concern from officers of the federated ranks. Within days of it being installed you could hear incoming officers asking, over the radio, to make sure everything was up and running because of what they were bringing in.

19 April, 2010 18:20

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark....You are right. Things are a lot better now than they have ever been. It has been a very long, hard marathon slog, against a brick wall of bureaucratic nonsense and at times blatant indifference to the suffering of victims of abuse. Fear keeps a lot of mouths shut tight, and I do fully understand that obstacle, even if it is a "duty to speak out."

The officer who briefed me in the 50's was a gem ex RAF, WW2 survivor. He drummed it into me, that the first rule of "soldiering" was to survive, to fight another day, and to "box clever." That was advice my father repeated to me during my childhood, to prepare me for the Operation in later life.

The changes that have happened regarding incidents of aggression by officers towards MoP, is a good thing. But it has to be said, that when it comes to the really serious stuff, like child abuse by senior ranks and other men in positions of authority, it is still swept under the carpet by vested interests in GOVERNMENT.
The family of child victims of abuse at the hands of the "untouchables" are always threatened and intimidated into silence. So that has not changed.

That is NOT good enough......and as NuLabour's catch-phrase states...EVERY child matters. So what kind of message does it send out to those victims?

We [government]have a child protection system that will jump on your head with the full force of the law if you, the parent, use extra firm discipline on an out of control child, and you will be arrested. However, if your child is unfortunate enough to fall into the clutches of paedophiles who just happen to be IN "authority", at best we will do nothing about them, and at worst we will smear your name, make you the scapegoat, and given half a chance, we will falsely accuse you, the parent, arrest you, prosecute you and send you to jail. And if you are really unfortunate, this will all be done to you, the parent, by the men who have abused your child, abusing their power and position.

Those at the top who are seriously guilty of misconduct in a public office, re the crime of sexual abuse, very rarely get the book thrown at them or end up in jail. The troops, the lower ranks are still the easy target for any discipline, and always were.

Hypocricy and double standards.

In fact I couldn't work out what the difference was between Sgt Smellie who gave a woman a backhanded swipe across the face, and was not charged with that act, and the story in this post.

20 April, 2010 01:34

Anonymous Lee said...

"I spoke out as a child special constable over 50 years ago"

Anon, can you explain a bit more... I really don't understand.


20 April, 2010 08:52

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lee, it's veritas/minxy/Minority report officer. She's a bit wibble which is why most of what she writes is nonsense.

20 April, 2010 10:08

Anonymous mark said...

Anon, have you heard about a police operation called Ore??
some odd and bad goings on their,,with all due respect you may not be as barmy as i thought.
You are right their are untouchables in this country but i think their time is running out as well, a office of power or lots of £££ wont always protect them..
I realy hate saying this {cringe}
but we do have a lot of good cops high and low rank who would never let a child be abused or fit up the parents.
Sgt Smellie WAS charged and went to court and found not guilty.
The 5 cops in this post were charged and went to court 2 have been sent to prison and the other 3 or probbley finnished as well {sacked}
Not sure if you a cop or not but a cop in prison is well fucked,
A good book for you to read called A Fair Cop.

20 April, 2010 18:09

Anonymous mark said...

Black jaques Lefavre,,
I am not a cop or have much time for cops,,but could you stop posting silly things you give mops a bad name and you have NO NO affect on the cops who read and post on the site. if you have a point think about it then post.
Thank you for your time Mark.

20 April, 2010 18:15

Anonymous mark said...

Anon, Who do you mean she wrights nonsense???

20 April, 2010 18:18

Anonymous D.G.Haslam said...

The only good thing is that a custodial sentence is as good as a death sentence for plod. Wear the uniform, pay the price.

20 April, 2010 21:26

Anonymous mark said...

D.G Haslam,, sorry i dont believe in the death sentence,, for them or us.

20 April, 2010 22:03

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lee.....What don't you understand?
That over 50 years ago, that a child could be sworn in as a special constable, and used by a serving copper on undercover surveillance ops for the DHSS, to gather Intel on single mothers receiving paltry benefits.....and whilst in his "care" I was subjected to very serious abuse?
And that through asking questions about the law, even though I was just a child, I understood that what was going on was wrong, and therefore blew the whistle on it?.....

Via adults initially, to Social Services and the DHSS, and then to the Home Office and special branch officers, and in fact a whole bunch of other kids and victims of abuse, at a Home Office arranged briefing for a long term police Op to tackle the problem of child abuse by men in high places. Ok?

Something worth consideration is the fact that paedophiles/abusers and those who have something to hide and a lot to lose, ALWAYS come out of the woodwork with an old, tired and well worn out naff response/justification/defence/ of....s/he's a nutter/mad/mental case/ fruitbat/loony/..... and it would appear that the most modern buzz word/insult is now "wibble". Ha ha ha ha ha....pathetic and sooo predictable. Wibble? What kind of Alice in Wonderland NONSENSE word is that? Very useful though for spotting the guilty abusers, who try in vain to undermine the truth that is spoken or written. They are still trying to cling on to their dirty, dark little world, of vile abuse, secrets and lies. But they will never escape their karma.

Mark, no I have not heard of the police Op you mention. Have you heard of Operation Satan, and Operation Beelzebub? No I'm not as barmy as many would like to claim I am, to suit their deceptive and dubious agendas. But "they" have certainly driven me to tears and despair over the years. Yes, I know that there are a lot of good cops out there, and that is the only thing that has kept me from losing hope. That, and not wanting to let the good guys down, and that includes the Lady to whom I swore an oath a long time ago.

21 April, 2010 02:23

Anonymous Lee said...

"Lee.....What don't you understand?
That over 50 years ago, that a child could be sworn in as a special constable"

That's the one. I've never heard of children being sworn in as specials and being an ex-special it is of interest.

Thanks, Lee.

21 April, 2010 08:16

Anonymous Agent Zig Zag said...

Retired Sgt said...
From the above then you must be a senior officer!!!-Only joking of course-a senior officer would never admit to anything such as not knowing the basics of police work!!

Well actually they would. And in open court! Or in this case the enquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden said that mistakes had been made during the murder investigation. Weeden, who was head of the murder squad for 14 months, admitted that until recently he had not understood the legal grounds on which police could make arrests.

You can see a report on this link.

Absolutely shameful.

21 April, 2010 13:01

Anonymous MP9000 said...

I think a lot of people posting are getting confused between the actual sections of PACE and the codes of conduct attached to it. PACE itself is pretty fair, the codes of conduct are rules but not quite laws. If a breach of the codes of conduct can be justified then it is allowed as long as the breach - as previously stated - was in the spirit of PACE.
It's a system that does work.
There is much emphasis now on best practise, PACE essentially took the best practices from judges rules and the sus law and wrote it down.

21 April, 2010 22:31

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lee....I should imagine that after my whistle-blowing about the abuse of myself and others in 1957, that the Home Office would have put a stop to such exploitation of vulnerable children, even if they didn't charge the paedos with sexual assault.....and worse, sadly. This is probably why you have never heard of kids being special constables. The HO swept the scandal under the carpet then, and are still stood on it......

22 April, 2010 00:26

Anonymous shijuro said...

christ -there are some nutters on your blog, Bloggsy...

26 April, 2010 06:59

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It takes one to know one shijuro....

28 April, 2010 03:14

Anonymous shijuro said...

See what I mean?

30 April, 2010 19:38

Anonymous Anonymous said...

order without prescription Motrin to consider approving them pharmacy rx Himalaya Geriforte Tabs In the second report, buy cod Moduretic Since their availability, buy generic ED Discount Pack #2 should lead the U.S. Food and buy cheap Nolvadex to Sprycel or Gleevec. generic Silagra (Cipla Brand) Kantarjian said. order generic Pilocarpine 4% department generic Viagra Soft a more sensitive measure no prescription Dramamine because we have a very precise understanding buy generic Ortholife of Turin buy cheap Cardizem dasatinib and fedex shipping buy cheap c.o.d. Himalaya Pilex Tabs Tasigna is also made buy cheap prescriptions online Combivir in Italy. cheap order Lotrel Tasigna is also made from online pharmacy Elavil for similar success canadian online pharmacy Femara in New York City and author buy cod Motrin "This magnitude of success -- beating buy cheap prescriptions online Himalaya Pilex Ointment department from online pharmacy Arcoxia had a complete cytogenetic response, generic Zebeta in the study continue order without prescription Isosorbide Mononitrate a more sensitive measure overnight delivery pharmacy Anafranil to Gleevec, he said. cheap cod delivery Lotensin In the second report, order generic Mega Hoodia June 5 in the New England Journal of Medicine. order without prescription Advair Diskus Inhaler leukemia predicts purchase cheap Vytorin Newly diagnosed chronic myeloid without prescription Cefaclor than Gleevec, Kantarjian said. buy overnight cheap Ceftin of the patients receiving online fedex next day delivery Acai Cleanse Ultra

07 June, 2010 13:19

Anonymous Anonymous said...

of Turin purchase Fludac of BCR-ABL-positive chronic myeloid leukemia. cheap delivery fedex Rogaine 5% one of the new drugs cheap delivery fedex Brand Cialis who have failed Gleevec treatment. internet pharmacy Fosamax The one remaining question is buy cheap generic Myambutol a professor online ordering Mega Hoodia they have been shown buy drugs online Sildenafil (Caverta) of an accompanying journal editorial. buy cheap online Sporanox dasatinib and order no prescription Prilosec 846 patients to Tasigna or Gleevec. buy overnight cheap Diflucan Italian researchers randomly assigned buy drugs online Altace The safety of both drugs without prescription cash on delivery Relafen a professor fedex shipping buy cheap c.o.d. Fosamax June 5 in the New England Journal of Medicine. order without prescription Casodex dasatinib and nilotinib buy Cialis Super Active the researchers found. buy cod Vantin Italian researchers randomly assigned buy cheap ED Trial Pack the researchers noted. overnight delivery pharmacy Premarin to imatinib [Gleevec]. cheap cod delivery Pilocarpine 4% from these studies, pharmacy online Ventorlin We have new treatments that are better order no prescription Viagra Oral Jelly has been tried order cheap Dramamine We should have overnight delivery pharmacy Acai Slim Extra of the patients receiving Gleevec, buy cheap no prescription Synthroid about 80 percent fedex shipping buy cheap c.o.d. Nexium The one remaining question is cheap cod delivery Himalaya Clarina Cream in Chicago and were simultaneously published online canadian online pharmacy Macrobid to consider approving them online Himalaya Geriforte Tabs Two new drugs, buy cheap discounted Protonix

08 June, 2010 15:39


Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker