Farmer Chalk wrote:

Clearly there are strong questions over the behaviour of a certain DS working on the Catford division at the time. So much so that a number of investigations took place subsequently including the incredibly rare scenario whereby a number of covert bugs were placed in offices in an endeavour to capture those responsible….
Despite numerous investigations by numerous senior managers and new squads no evidence was forthcoming that could actually prove who murdered Morgan. Unfortunately when the rotten apple knows police policy and investigation interview techniques you are never going to get nothing other than the equivalent of a no comment interview.
Short of fitting someone up with verbal admissions which we would all agree is wrong there would never be enough evidence to successfully prosecute. I can assure you that when that ex officer successfully sued the Met for damages that hurt more than anything…
If the evidence is not there it’s not there… you can’t magic it up…

icestationzebra wrote:

Well there is an interesting interview with the Chief Constable of country's second largest force today (Greater Manchester). It seems they are still not performing and may not be doing so in 2 yrs time-if not he has promised to resign.
He has already stated "criminals free ride is coming to an end" and blames a failure in senior leadership.

The previous occupant was pushed into resigning by Andy Burnham. Hardly inspires confidence in the police does it?

RRSTDV8 wrote:

Good point about the type of things dealt with by the Met that wouldn't be seen elsewhere. But there is a question about whether the top plod should be dealing with that sort of thing anyway. The Chief Exec of a multinational doesn't deal with "coal face" issues and perhaps the head of a police service shouldn't either. That should be dealt with at least on the layer below, with the top plod running the organisation itself, not the projects they're dealing with - if that makes sense.

And there certainly shouldn't be a situation where the Met can hamper investigations in to its conduct such as alleged against Dick in the Morgan report. There should be a straight forward "you will provide everything to the investigation or you can leave the police force without your pension". In situations such as that, the top plod should be ensuring the rank and file are shown to be behaving correctly, not protecting those who might not have been doing so. That's where the possibility that having a long-time Met officer as the top plod starts to look wrong. Someone without those "ties of blood" would be more likely to want to get to the bottom of things. And anyone that stands in the way of such investigations should be kicked in to the long grass with nothing.

The police service is too important an institution to let the bad apples hold sway. We need everyone of them to be good apples and we need the public to be able to trust them. The few bad 'uns make the lives of the rest so much more difficult. They deserve better.

Farmer Chalk wrote:

It was a tragic incident… but not one that should blight her for the right decision made at the time.

I respectfully disagree and that is said as someone involved in that community for a good while and knows the pressures of leading an ops room as well as knowing some of those involved.

In no way or circumstances were the guys on the ground at fault and I was aghast but not surprised that the light fell on them.

When the primary asset, with all their skills, knowledge, training, put in place for that specific task on a deliberate op, fails to make a positive ID at normal contact then the presumption for everything else evaporates there and then.

In no way should any potential ID made at speed, by others, under pressure, ever be used to overcome the original doubt of the primary asset. She made a very bad and lethal call that went against SOPs. Somehow that was not fully understood by those legally reviewing her actions.

When you lead an ops room there is no confusion, only leadership - a lack of positive ID by the in-place asset = no direct action. It is just the way it is. Being caught-up in the moment and the confusion was her culpable mistake - it should have never have become the excuse. Somehow the criticality of the initial lack of positive ID fell out of her head.

As a result, an entirely innocent man was executed here in the UK under her orders alone. 'Doubt' is an actionable state and not something to overcome at speed by those who are unprepared.

A personal opinion no doubt but one from someone who appreciates what has to be in place before exercising lethal force, even if it puts your own people at risk. 'Courageous restraint' is a terrible phrase but the meaning underneath it underpins the UK use of lethal force both at home and on operations abroad.

 Land Rover - Turning Drivers into Mechanics Since 1948

Battery & Quiescent Current Drain Testing

Diagnostics for:
Defender, FL2, D3, D4, Evoque, RRS & FFRR
A not-for-profit enterprise

 

JordsDisco wrote:

Yep, just an example of another person promoted way beyond her abilities but her profile fitted. I am sure she will be missed.