There has been an interesting development in the Police Scotland illegal spying scandal.
You may remember that back in January I used this blog to name and shame four of the officers involved (see http://moroculous.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/names-of-police-spies-who-wont-face.html).
In that post I suggested that, over time, I expected the story may change as the heat in the kitchen rises and officers start to squeal on each other trying to save their own skins, but hopefully out of their internal conflict, the truth would come out.
Well, surprise surprise, my prediction was absolutely spot on.
One of those officers I mentioned, Detective Superintendent Brenda Smith, has made a complaint against her superior, Chief Superintendent Ricky Mason (who is head of Intelligence Support).
DS Smith claims that when she raised concerns about the spying matter she was treated differently by CS Mason (no details yet of exactly what she means by 'treated differently' but I can certainly guess).
The reason this latest development is so interesting is because I had hoped cracks would appear in the corrupt 'united-we-stand' front Police Scotland have been presenting to us up till now. It now means there's a (slight) chance the truth may come out. Don't hold your breath just yet of course, but at least the usual back-scratching mentality of Police Scotland - where all officers are expected to (unofficially) cover up for each other no matter what - has been breached.
And that's good.
Last year Sheriff Dickson spoke about it. He called it Police Scotland's 'culture of cover-up'. Any member of the public who has ever heard Police Scotland officers giving evidence in a court of law will know that their versions of events are always identical - not because they are describing the same events, but because they purposely collude with each other to give the exact same version of what happened in order to falsely create 'corroboration' in court. When police lie in court it helps their best buddy, the Procurator Fiscal, to win cases. Who can ever forget the police who tried to tell the court they saw a driver use his mobile phone - only for the defence solicitor to explain the hand he was supposed to have had it in was a prosthetic hand which couldn't hold a phone. Priceless!
Police lying in court helps the Procurator Fiscal so is ALWAYS overlooked by the Crown Office. Police officers are never charged with perjury for it afterwards and they know this.
Hey, even the Sheriff, Justice of The Peace, Court Clerk and defence solicitors don't so much as bat an eye lid when a case gets thrown out because Police Scotland officers were caught lying in the witness stand. It happens every day. I've seen it.
Anyway, I digress.
Back to Detective Superintendent Brenda Smith's complaint against her superior. It's rather interesting because it shows at least one officer in the spying scandal may now be prepared to break ranks.
And as soon as police officers start to squabble and squeal on each other, there is a chance that some droplets of truth may drip out from the bloodbath that ensues.
And that's good for justice.
Some time ago I was in a similar situation. I was involved in an incident with three police officers who lied and covered up for each other.
Fortunately I had undeniable proof that the three officers lied because I had secretly video-taped them. Ah yes, the camera never lies.
The video showed them acting in one way - but their statements told a completely different story. The three officers lied, plain and simple (by the way the video of the lying officers AND their false statements will be made public soon - I'll let you know via this blog when I'm ready to make it public).
Now I know fine well that these three lying officers did not act alone. They were instructed by senior officers higher up the chain of command to act the way they did.
And those officers higher up the chain of command were, in turn, asked to act corruptly and lie by a well-known politician in Glasgow City Council who worked VERY closely with Police Scotland. I haven't named the politician because I don't have a sufficiency of evidence to put him behind bars - yet.
In short, the three officers I caught lying were pretty much at the bottom of the food chain - the corruption stemmed from higher up - they were just carrying out orders from their superiors. However they still knew what they were doing and shouldn't have done it.
Now, I know fine well that the way to bring the whole corrupt house of cards crashing down and flush out the corrupt people at the top is to first charge the three officers at the bottom of the chain i.e. put them in the witness stand in a court of law.
Then, in court, you show the court the three police officers (false) statements and the contradictory video - and ask the officers to explain why their statements differed from what we see in the video (i.e. why did they lie)?
The three officers, or at least one of them anyway, would then squeal like pigs and name their superiors who put them up to the dirty tricks.
You see Police Scotland officers don't mind lying and covering up for each other when there's no come-back, but the game changes when they find themselves in the dock, alone, facing the music on their own. That's when they start to resent being in the dock and facing a lost career, a lost pension, and a jail sentence - while their superiors who made them do the dirty work sit, immune, in a nice comfy office. And that's when the truth comes out - they spill the beans to save their own skin.
But that never happened.
Because the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service REFUSED to charge the three lying officers.
So the three liars (PC Susan Glendinning, PC Jamie Collins, and PC Brian Fowler) never saw the inside of a court of law - and therefore never had any reason to tell the truth about their superiors.
In the end, the three lying police officers, plus their corrupt superiors higher up the Police Scotland command chain, plus a crooked politician from Glasgow City council ALL got away with it.
So why did the Crown office refuse to pursue a prosecution against the three obviously lying police officers?
The answer gets back to what I said earlier in this post (and in other posts on this blog). The Crown office need officers from Police Scotland to lie in court every day in order to help them get prosecutions. Police are happy to help the Procurator Fiscal by lying in court because they know that they have immunity from prosecution - the Crown office will NEVER prosecute a police crown witness for perjury - never. Because if word ever got around that police officers who lie in court might face perjury charges from the Procurator Fiscal, police would never risk lying for the Procurator Fiscal in court in the first place.
And that would make it so much harder for Procurator Fiscals to get convictions.
See how it all falls in to place?
It's easy when you join the dots.
And that's why I'm watching the DS Brenda Smith vs CS Ricky Mason fight with great interest to see how this departure from Police Scotland's close-ranks tradition unravels.