Archive for May 2nd, 2006

May 2nd, 2006

Do as we say not as we do!

Posted in The Job - Comment by 200

I see Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, continues to refuse to resign over the debacle about allowing foreign criminals out onto the streets of the UK as officials ‘forgot’ to deport them to the countries from whence they came.

One of the reasons quoted on the TV & national press for his ignorance, sorry, determination, is that he needs to stay in post to put the matter right.

You may remember a certain David Westwood saying exactly the same thing in 2004. You remember him, he was the Chief Constable of Humberside who took the blame for the intelligence cock-ups in the Soham Murder case. Then, Home Secretary David Blunkett, called for his resignation over the issue and Westwood refused to go stating he needed to stay in post in order to sort the problems out. The Police Authority backed the Chief and refused to suspend him.

Blunkett then went to the High Court and obtained a ruling forcing the suspension of Westwood. So no double standards there, then.

In a strange twist of fate, Westwood was later reinstated, although agreeing to retire early, and Blunkett was forced to resign over allegations of his own indiscretions some months later.

May 2nd, 2006

No Surprise There, Then

Posted in The Job - Comment by 200

The Dispatches programme caused some discussion on the police websites & blogs in the last few days. Over at the Coppers Blog 2 threads have elicited a couple of hundred replies. As one might expect, most in favour of the police but it has attracted one or two apparent anti-police scribes.

The Police999.com and PoliceUK discussion forums attracted a surprisingly slow discourse on the merits (or lack of) of the programme.

Over at PoliceSpecials they really got the bit between their teeth with about 12 pages of forum posts. As is so often the case on that site, though, if people disagree with the prevailing  view of the site moderators and administrators, threads are closed down and locked. Apparently, free discussion is less important than what people might think of the site & it’s reputation. Surprisingly, given that the site is run by a serving officer and is dedicated to the Special Constabulary, the prevailing thoughts were that anyone who wanted to slate the programme for all its faults and failures, was regarded as an apologist for disgusting and atrocious behaviour. Anyone disagreeing was denied the chance to speak further on the matter.

With friends like that…