I must admit that over the years I've always had a degree of naive astonishment in relation to the amount of sensitive information appearing in the media and exactly how it might have found it's way there. According to Inspector Gadget it's quite straightforward. He says that ever since the days of the Illustrated London News and the notorious 'Jack the Ripper' case, police officers have simply sold information to the press. He goes on to have the cheek to imply that in effect such actions are merely providing a public service and it's us who are to blame as the newspaper-buying-public.
His views appear to find support with several former very senior Metropolitan Police officers and whom have recently been giving evidence to the Leveson Enquiry. Former DAC Peter Clarke seemed to excuse the whole thing by saying 'Invasions of privacy are odious, distressing and illegal, but to put it bluntly, they don't kill you, terrorists do." That's all right then!
Of course Probation Officers have always know that as public servants such behaviour is not only illegal but unprofessional, unethical, unwise and appalling to boot. So how come the police seem to believe otherwise and it takes a woman, DAC Sue Akers to say something rather different? Her testimony to the Leveson Enquiry is indeed astonishing to most public servants and members of the public generally, but I honestly think that amongst many police officers there's a feeling of 'What's all the fuss about? It's just a perk of the job and anyway the public love all this salacious gossip.'
The real tragedy of course is that such a belief appears to have broadened into a widespread culture and attitude that is nothing short of corruption involving as it does allegations of the sale of secret information, the frustration of investigations, criminal collusion as well as plain old cronyism.
As I seem to say on a regular basis, we've been here before. I can't be the only person to recall that former Commissioner of the Met Sir Robert Mark got so fed up with the corruption amongst London's CID in the 1970's that he forced them all into uniform for a period. He's famously quoted as saying "A good police force is one that catches more crooks than it employs." In those days I think the perk of the job was taking backhanders from pornographers in Soho. It's obviously got a bit more sophisticated since then.
Jim
ReplyDeleteAs a supporter of you, I find this at a minimum a bit petty and at most vindictive. Gadget and police bashing is always good for keeping the lefties on side, but there is a bigger whole to be examined. The last government was so adept at lying that some couldn’t be shocked by anything. Can anyone in the reality based community not be surprised at how the government machine was used against Dr David Kelly and how important dossiers were ‘made better?’ Sorry but if you want to start attacking modern practices, you might look at a wider base and look at corruption amongst the political class.
This stuff is hardly the preserve of the police. I worked for a Local Authority for 18 months and left after I was unable to tolerate the casual corruption and incompetence that went on. Before you ask, yes I did complain, had my report torn up before my eyes and left before I was sacked. If you don’t believe me and are bored one day, go through your LA’s lists for say planning approvals, and work out any common denominators for those approved and those declined. Also work out those prosecuted, and those ‘where it is in the public interest’ to have it ignored.
‘He goes on to have the cheek to imply that in effect such actions are merely providing a public service and it's us who are to blame as the newspaper-buying-public.’ No he doesn’t – you have inferred it and you haven’t quoted the bit at the end, ‘I have never given operational or ‘real case’ information to a journalist, but I have also never been asked for any,’ and’ Public officials selling restricted or confidential information to journalists is wrong, but please let’s not all play this silly game where we throw up our arms and pretend we didn’t know.’ He isn’t endorsing it – he is attacking it. What are you reading?
No, I am not a Gadget fan. He is a small man in a small town acting big. The majority of stories are obviously invented or embellished and if the situation were as described, the horrendous nature of his town would be obvious to all. There is unremitting gloom, no hope and no redemption. He is what Daddy would call a ‘canteen cowboy’ full of bull****. He has however have one advantage that none here can match. He is the person who goes out and deals with the most unlovely members of the public at all times of the night. He sees them for what they are and watches them at their most truculent and aggressive, and has to take action. He has to comfort victims and explain why resources are poured towards offenders whilst aggrieved parties have little support. He then sees them in court ‘full or remorse,’ ‘just about to start a new life, and will give up drugs/booze/evil ways tomorrow.’ Until commentators have that experience, then their words are in the air. Sign up as a Special and see the dirty side of life first hand.
I expect to find this sort of stuff on the left wing magistrates efforts, not on what I previously thought was a thinking man’s blog.
"I expect to find this sort of stuff on the left wing magistrates efforts,"
DeleteReally??????????
Must be some other magistrate!
Well to be fair at various times I think I've had a pop at politicians, journalists, newspapers, newspaper owners, capitalists, asset-strippers, private contractors, civil servants selling out to the private sector, management and NAPO. There's probably more, but they immediately spring to mind.
ReplyDeleteTrue, I've not had a go at Local Authorities yet, but it's in the pipeline especially when it's been suggested that they take over the running of Probation. In my experience their short-sightedness, mismanagement, discrimination, corruption and cronyism have often helped create the very problems they now say only they can fix.
I think you are being unfair to former DAC Peter Clarke and have misquoted him, albeit that is what most of the journalists quote.
ReplyDeleteI saw, or read, rather more than you have quoted and that statement was made in the context of also having significant terrorist activity to investigate. It seemed to that he was effectively saying that with limited resources we have to prioritise and terrorists kill but invasions of privacy don't so we prioritised investigating the terrorists.
True or not I remember thinking at the time that it was a very sensible response.
Heather Brooke writes on a related topic here:
ReplyDeletehttp://heatherbrooke.org/2012/article-the-future-of-investigative-journalism/
She doesn't discuss this particular issue except in passing. But much of the information such as who was arrested when, is information which according to her ought to be in the public domain anyway.