Qui custodiet ipsos custodes
No-one with any power, clearly.
Coppers - I want to trust them, but I really, really don't.
The head of the national police unit set up to tackle internet crime told lies under oath about her involvement in a plot to damage the career of a junior detective, a judge has said. Detective Superintendent Charlie McMurdie, of the Met's high-profile Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU), falsely claimed that conversations she …
No-one with any power, clearly.
Coppers - I want to trust them, but I really, really don't.
Some coppers are bent!
Also, scientists prove water is wet!
Good article tho. Always nice to see proved what most of us already know to be true.
I could sing you a song.
It won't take long.
Any job that is incentivised stands the risk of exaggerated reports by the performer of the task.
The police are supposed to be an uninterested enforcer of statutes, to report accurately, and without lies or enhancement, the truth to a court.
If these particular Plods can't even be trusted to behave fairly between themselves, keeping in mind the maxim "honour amongst thieves", how can any court trust their sworn evidence which is even more degraded by their reprehensible failure even to answer questions honestly?
Why do they still hold their jobs, their rank or their pensions? In any self-respecting organisation the offenders would have been given the Order of the Boot.
There again, we're discussing Plod, so those criteria don't apply.
>The Met has applied its weakest sanction - "words of advice" - against him over the affair.
Don't get caught next time!
In other news, bears observed defecating in forested area.
The news here is that someone challenged it. Thank you for publicising it, shame the honest guy lost, but that's the way it still is in the Met.
Where's Sir Robert Mark? We need him back, though it wouldn't be popular.
He recently died. Was featured in BBC Radio 4's "Last Word" obituary show.
Hey, are these the folks who are now going to be in charge of online child pornography? Do you think they're against or for it?
Against it...unless (at least) one of them is an aficionado
It's the Peter Principle all 'round, innit.
Whilst I'm not at all shocked that the brass at the met is as bent as a two bob note, I'm also not suprised that once again they walk off scott free, and I'm not suprised by the lack of media coverage... wait no I'm not shocked by anything in this case.
The shit floats to the top, and "British justice" is an oxymoron.
The mainstream news media doesn't want to risk its sources for regular crime reporting, so they usually go easy on corrupt police.
Just a small technical point:
Turds produced from a diet rich in fat float. If the diet has little fat, the turds sink.
Just thought you'd like to know ... yes, I'm on my way ...
So in summary then, we have a rather candid tribunal that has found serious wrongdoing and corruption and negligence, blatantly pointed out that fact, and the Met are entitled to simply say "well, we already investigated that and it's all fine, honestly"?!
If she's been found to have lied under oath, there should be serious consequences.
... is defined as something the ordinary person would get severely penalised for, but police can get away with every time. Don't expect anything to happen to this lying shit - it didn't happen in the de Menezes case, and it won't happen here.
Christ almighty. What a catalogue of corruption. Justice is a funny thing when it comes to putting coppers in the dock.
Never... Quite... Seems...To... Work.
I can think of another high-profile 'cyber crime cop' due to (possibly) face the courts quite soon. Quite depressing, really. I'm not too optimistic justice will be any better served there, either.
Judges and prosecutors depend on police to protect them from the enemies they make doing their jobs. So there is a conflict of interest.
Put a cop on trial, and his or her "brother officers" show up in the audience and stare.
The message, you want us to come when you call, you let our buddy off.
Certainly no intelligent juror in their right mind will trust the testimony of a police officer from a police force that openly tolerates perjury and evidence tampering.
What a big surprise. Same old same old.
"The Met will carefully review the findings to see if there is any wider learning for the future."
Let me help you with that: lying, cheating scumbags do not deserve to be police officers.
So it is legally proven that a mans life work is systematically and deliberately ruined by those that should really set a better example and he doesn't even get his legal costs paid? And to add insult to injury, the perpertrators are currently off scott free.
These guys must have some really good dirt on people in high places.
Bit like Bush had on Blair.
Delusional nonsense based on the fantasy that the only time a British politician does something wrong is because he's blackmailed into it.
Or Mandelson on Blair and Brown - how else would he be recalled to government twice after being pushed for behaviour which would have had Joe Doe prosecuted?
"The award of £38,000 does not cover his legal bill."
Somehow that just makes me want to cry. Not so much because of lawyer-hate, but just the idea that he successfully charged them for screwing him, and yet still ends up even more screwed. He's right; they have won and he has lost.
I wonder what the judge was thinking. It doesn't sound from the quotes that she had any illusions about what went on. Even if perjury charges are never brought, why issue a judgment that acknowledges the gravity of the original offense, but leaves the victim still in the hole for even attempting to have it compensated?
(I also wonder if McMurdie's willingness to both cover up the initial cheating and screw the whistleblower stems from some specific connection between her and Williams, or just a general hostility to whistleblowers)
Wonder how Williams got hold of the questions before-hand!
This is sickening.
It looks like the best way to go about breaking laws with impunity is to become a copper.
"Words of advice"?
As we all know, the Police are above the law, and for some, they are the law. It is good to see they have given the public another very good reason to trust the, tying on oath to add to Section 41, Section 44 amongst others.
I believe if a civilian, ie non-mason (Senior Met officer) had perjured themselves,, then the full force of the law would be applied.
AC because you never know who's watching.
Can't be a Freemason - she's a she.
Woman and mixed freemason cells exists.
This.. CCTV.. speed cameras.... the abuse of fixed penalties to curtail public liberty... is it any wonder trust in the Police is at such a low ebb?
I agree we need another Mark.. with a brief to put every single police unit in theUK under the microscope... Just think of the savings to the public purse if we dumped all the bad officers... It would likely thin the ranks down quite a chunk.
What we have now seem to be largely arrogant ego-maniacs who address the public with a total lack of respect, while eagerly displaying a level of power over the citizen that has grown out of proportion and is starting to look like it is out of control.
Time the bad guys got a short sharp shock and bounced out of any position of authority and onto the dole queue
Looks like our boys in blue have watched the US lads and started to see the selfish, personal benefits of being a Copper in a 1st world nation!
We've already had our own Rodney King episode, with that poor Brazilian lad being killed in public by mistake and the Coppers simply being told "Don't do it again!" and sent back to work.
We can be truly proud of what Robert Peel created....
The post is required, and must contain letters.
The fact that their integrity is in doubt *should* mean instant suspension, I feel truly sorry for any honest plod out there, because now they know it's not even possible to blow the whistle on wrongdoing...
Fuckers, I was quite happy today, now I would like to feed those unworthy twats slowly feet first into a meltog pulvermatic... I'm mildly pissed off..
Integrity is an essential requirement to be a police officer, or it would be if we had a fair and reasonable justice system.
Perjury, tampering with evidence, should make a person totally unemployable as a police officer or security guard.
In other news ....
Politician claims fake expenses
Banker gets a big bonus payment
Every one is guilty so nobody is guilty ... that is such a lame over generalization, routinely used by crooks to justify their crookedness as being the social norm.
Some politicians claim fake expenses, some bankers get big bonus payments, and some coppers are crooked.
The crooked ones should go to jail.
And for cops, when a cop makes that argument they are arguing that we can do without police forces, thus: If cops tolerate crooked cops, then cops can tolerate crooked civilians, and we can dispense with police forces, prosecutors and courts entirely.
This sets a grand example of corruption for lower eschelon officers to follow.
Bravo corruption. Let's make an internet film about this and make sure it says 'based on real events' at the beginning and show it off at Cannes to the rest of Europe how good it is to be a senior copper in the UK.
Fucking bent coppers make my teeth itch, my skin crawl and my stomach knot in rage all at once.
Once again I'm impressed by the the Beeb's news reporting:
cat in a bin = headlines;
corrupt coppers colluding = silence.
Maybe the Beeb regards the coppers' actions as normal/acceptable - wouldn't surprise me.
Hey El Reg, from what was reported, how come Shaw was awarded so little?
The tribunal awarded damages for hurt feelings, and aggravated damages. Awards for both these types of damages are limited. Shaw asked for exemplary damages, which are unlimited, but was denied.
Employment tribunals can award costs up to £10,000, only where the other side has caused delays or acted un reasonably. In this case the tribunal found there was a short delay while the Met looked for certain documents.
Perjury and evidence tampering reasonable? Not in my book. Especially not by people trained to the expert level in the preservation of evidence and the seriousness of perjury as a crime.
... is the last place that these scum haven't invaded and corrupted. Bent police, bribed politicians and greedy corporations - they are trying to, but we need to keep them away from our internet.
This sort of thing happens in all sorts of places so I'm not surprised. What worries me, however, is that no action has been taken against McMurdie and Williams. Futhermore nobody seems to be interested in finding out how Williams obtained the questions in advance of the interview.
How can anybody trust an officer in charge of fraud cases if she is willing to carry on like this. Even if perjury charges aren't brought she should be sacked. And no, not one of those "sackings" that come with full pension rights and good references.
Of every case she has been involved in since she took on her current job.
once you get high enough into an organisation, you rely on crony-ism, intimidation and "doing people over" in order to stay where you are and even to gain advancement. Once you reach so high, any failure of yours will reflect on those who annointed you, so they do their best to maintain their own clean slate by association.
In theory the only thing these two did wrong was get caught. Cynical I know, but have seen this time and again in the military and public service, and been in this guys situation as well.
AC cos you never know whos watching.
ACAB - or at least enough of them are that the few decent ones haven't got a fucking chance.
"However, as with any tribunal, the Met will carefully review the findings to see if there is any wider learning for the future."
Yes there is - that you can get away with blatant corruption if you are a powerful member of the police. A lesson for us all.
Is it any surprise that an apparently corruptly led police e-crime unit seems to find it so difficult to get off its backside and do something about covert interception of internet communications, whether at News of the World, BT/Phorm, or TalkTalk? Or that the Home Office simply doesn't want to discuss such matters? Or that police stations around the country haven't a clue about RIPA legislation? Or that ISP CEO's can be so arrogant in wrongdoing and cavalier about privacy?
Get some honest coppers at the helm of the ecrime unit, and lets see some action against the REAL cyber criminals - the well paid ones in the suits that leak our private data and intercept our internet communications time and time again, and keep gettng away with it.
You hit the nail on the head. If News Corp reports evidence tampering and perjury by senior Met officers, senior Met officers will carry out their duty and do a proper job of investigating News Corp for wiretapping, and interferring with computer systems and computer communications.
I would think that anyone who had been convicted in a trial where McMurdie's testimony was any significant portion of the prosecution's argument, would be looking to have their case re-opened?
This should be standard practice if any police officer (or indeed expert witness) comits perjury.
"Last year he (Williams) became the first Met officer seconded to GCHQ's new Cyber Security Operations Centre."
"He's bloody useless - he only got the job by cheating; fuck him off to GCHQ".
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017