STV news have reported that Police Scotland are to be investigated over their arrest of a 14-year-old boy in Cumbernauld who received serious injuries while police were arresting him.
At the time of writing, we have no more details about this so it is presently unknown whether police officers accidentily caused harm to the child during the arrest or whether police bullied the child by ganging up on him, causing him injury.
What we do know however is that untrustworthy Police Scotland have already come under heavy criticism for targeting our children in the streets with their dubious stop and search tactics. There is little doubt that the police certainly view 14 year old children as easy targets to be stopped, searched, and hassled. No wonder a generation of kids have grown up hating Police Scotland and no longer help them. You reap what you sow Police Scotland.
Hopefully the full circumstances of this incident will come out and be made public soon.
At least we can be confident that if police have behaved inappropriately and bullied this child in any way, our Chief Constable Phil 'Gormless' will quickly step up to the mark and condemn his officers.
Then again, perhaps not.
Because at the moment Chief Constable Phil 'Gormless' is already facing allegations of bullying himself...
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1395506-boy-14-seriously-injured-during-arrest-by-police/
Monday 14 August 2017
Public Have Lost Faith In Police Scotland
It's the worst kept secret in the country...the general public have completely lost faith in Police Scotland.
But bizarrely, untrustworthy Police Scotland are still running around like headless chickens trying to figure out why we have lost faith in them.
Don't they read the papers?!!
All in the very the same week, a bunch of newspapers - the Herald, the Telegraph, the National, and even the little Falkirk Herald - have spelled out what's wrong with Police Scotland, yet police chiefs still have no clue what's wrong never mind how to stop the rot.
The Herald - The public are sitting shaking their heads in disbelief as police stumble along in to blunder after blunder:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15459209.Public_losing_faith_in_Police_Scotland_after__series_of_blunders_/?ref=rss
Telegraph - Staff cuts mean less police out on the streets. You never see a policeman now, no wonder the public have lost faith in them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/scottish-police-less-visible-public-staff-budget-cuts/
The National - Police are spending £1,000 a day defending themselves in legal battles (police don't say why but, ahem, I'm sure you can guess!):
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15470700.Police_Scotland____spends___1k_a_day_to_fight_legal_battles___/
The Falkirk Herald - Police failings rear their ugly head yet again...and police bosses trot out the same old excuses again for their failings:
http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/crime/lessons-must-be-learned-from-latest-police-probe-1-4527731
Now, I know standards have fallen dramatically in Police Scotland's recruitment requirements lately but surely there must be at least one policeman out there who can read?
Anyone?
Hello?
But bizarrely, untrustworthy Police Scotland are still running around like headless chickens trying to figure out why we have lost faith in them.
Don't they read the papers?!!
All in the very the same week, a bunch of newspapers - the Herald, the Telegraph, the National, and even the little Falkirk Herald - have spelled out what's wrong with Police Scotland, yet police chiefs still have no clue what's wrong never mind how to stop the rot.
The Herald - The public are sitting shaking their heads in disbelief as police stumble along in to blunder after blunder:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15459209.Public_losing_faith_in_Police_Scotland_after__series_of_blunders_/?ref=rss
Telegraph - Staff cuts mean less police out on the streets. You never see a policeman now, no wonder the public have lost faith in them:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/scottish-police-less-visible-public-staff-budget-cuts/
The National - Police are spending £1,000 a day defending themselves in legal battles (police don't say why but, ahem, I'm sure you can guess!):
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15470700.Police_Scotland____spends___1k_a_day_to_fight_legal_battles___/
The Falkirk Herald - Police failings rear their ugly head yet again...and police bosses trot out the same old excuses again for their failings:
http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/crime/lessons-must-be-learned-from-latest-police-probe-1-4527731
Now, I know standards have fallen dramatically in Police Scotland's recruitment requirements lately but surely there must be at least one policeman out there who can read?
Anyone?
Hello?
Thursday 10 August 2017
Lord Advocates Cringing, Embarrassing (And Hollow) Apology
The Lord Advocate James ‘the big bad’ Wolffe has had to issue a cringing and embarrassing apology after no less than THREE top judges - Lord Malcolm, Lady Dorrian, and Lord Glenniehave - severely criticised the conduct of a Crown Office Advocate Depute for his questioning in a sensitive rape case.
Advocate Depute Ross Macfarlane behaved so badly during the trial that the judge even had to warn the jury to ignore parts of the evidence.
Following on from the Lord Advocate's apology, a Crown Office spokesman also said: “We accept that the conduct of this case did not reflect the high standards expected by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and was not representative of the general ethos and culture of the organisation”.
What a load of old tosh.
The Crown Office must think the Scottish Public are stupid.
I prefer the more honest and direct comments of a senior lawyer with knowledge of the case who stated:
“It was clear that the advocate depute was going too far in his bid to secure a conviction, and I am afraid that is becoming typical of many of our prosecutors”.
Let’s cut to the chase here.
The Crown Office lost their way many years ago when they introduced their (covert) policy of chasing prosecution targets instead of criminals. This policy has created a fertile ground for bias, corruption, and incompetence to enter in to their ranks and the wider justice system as a whole.
Of course, it doesn’t help that Crown Office Procurator Fiscals are essentially a bunch of failed solicitors who would never ‘cut it’ out there in private practice so are forced to take low paid Crown Office positions just to be in a job. When you have a Crown Office full of bottom-of-the-barrel misfit lawyers who are selected from the lowest parts of the legal food-chain it’s no surprise that corruption is rife and incompetence is the order of the day.
I distinctly remember a few years ago when I was the victim of a false accuser and had to go to trial to prove my innocence.
Not only did I have to take on my false accuser, I also had to take on a Crown Office mired in incompetence and corruption.
There were quite a number of police officers involved in my case (who's help I had originally enlisted), yet the Crown Office point blank REFUSED to cite any of the police officers who could prove that I had done nothing wrong. Instead, they carefully cherry-picked officers they thought would help them secure a prosecution and ignored all of the police officers who had made statements saying that I had done absolutely nothing wrong.
The Crown Office deviously and underhandedly tried to play on the fact that I was defending myself. They knew I could not cite these officers myself as I did not have a legal facility called ’caution’ (which is pronounced ‘kay-shun’). Their idea was that by only having prosecution witnesses at the trial the Crown would tip the balance of evidence firmly in their favour and secure a conviction (against an innocent man)! What evil and corrupt individuals we have in the Crown Office!
Thankfully I stood up to them and they failed. My case got thrown out in spectacular fashion.
However the fact still remains that the Crown Office sought to pervert the course of justice and the Procurator Fiscals in my case clearly went far too far just to try and secure a conviction (against an innocent man).
Disgusting behaviour by the Crown Office.
For example, in court, the Sheriff asked Procurator Fiscal Depute Sarah McCall if she would help me cite witnesses as I was unable to do so myself (the Sheriff realised that you cannot get a fair trial if all the witnesses are only for the prosecution and you're not allowed to bring in any defence witnesses).
PF Depute McCall readily agreed without hesitation (these PF's really like to 'sook up' to Sheriffs every chance they get and rarely refuse a request from a Sheriff in a case). She even asked me - in the court room and in front of others - for a list of the witnesses I'd like cited (which I handed to her there and then).
But as soon as the court had recessed and the Sheriff was well out of sight, the PF then backtracked and refused to cite my witnesses.
Furthermore, at the next intermediary diet, she lied in court to the Sheriff (a different Sheriff) that she had agreed to cite any witnesses for me at all!
She took a gamble that the Sheriff from before probably hadn't put it in his notes that she had agreed to calmly witnesses so the new Sheriff that day would have been unaware of the commitment and undertaking she gave to the court the last time.
Yes folks, these corrupt PF's don't even mind lying in a court of law and lying to a Sheriff as long as it helps their case and helps them get a prosecution.
Astonishing.
Furthermore, when I objected to this to the new Sheriff, the corrupt and despicable PF Depute Sarah McCall was asked by the new Sheriff to explain why she had recanted on the citing of witnesses in my case. As well as completely denying she had promised the old Sheriff she would cite witnesses, she also retorted in court that “It’s not the Crown’s job to help Mr Campbell with his defence”.
Ermm, no, but it IS the Crown’s job to pursue truth and justice and to act with honesty and integrity.
It's also the Crown's job to drop prosecutions where they know from the evidence that they have in their possession that the person they're pursuing is innocent and there is no likelihood whatsoever of a conviction.
Bear in mind that my case was thrown out with a 'no case to answer' verdict which means it should never have even got as far as a court of law.
She knew that I had no facilities to cite those particular police witnesses who had already made statements to the PF in which they said that I had done nothing wrong. She had all those statements showing I had done nothing wrong in her file. She knew every word that was in all those statements but did NOT want those police officers coming in to court and telling the court the truth.
Her good buddy and colleague, fellow corrupt Procurator Fiscal Callum Forsyth got in on the action too and refused to hand over the contents of my mobile phone...which he knew all to well actually cleared me of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
The reason he knew the mobile phone proved my innocence was because he had it interrogated by police computer forensics so had all the text messages and records from the phone extracted. As if that's not bad enough, the records from my phone - which PF Forsyth refused to hand over to the defence even though he wasn't going to use it as evidence himself - actually showed that I was the victim.
Interestingly, this was also a fact that was highlighted by Sheriff Douglas Brown as he was throwing the case out. Sheriff Brown held the phone records in his hand and said <quote> "the only abuse in this case has come from the complainer" <unquote>.
PF Forsyth, a despicable piece of human waste and space, knew fine well that the mobile phone records proved me innocent...so he refused to hand them over to the defence. And all this despite the fact that the Crown would NOT be using it as Crown production evidence themselves.
Disgraceful.
But incredibly, I still managed to beat 'em. I managed to get a Sheriff to order corrupt Procurator Fiscal Calum Forsyth to hand those phone records over. I shouldn't have had to go to these lengths though.
It's a sad day for the Scottish public when you have to force the Crown Office to act honestly, truthfully, and with integrity.
See what I mean now about corrupt PF's in the Crown Office 'hiding' evidence they don't want the court to see, just so they can get a prosecution against someone they KNOW to be innocent?!
In these types of cases the Crown has a duty to the Scottish public to drop cases where they know they are pursuing an innocent person. But they don't.
They are happy to see innocent members of the public prosecuted and thrown in jail rather than admit they made a mistake and started proceedings against the wrong person. They don't mind lying, cheating, and hiding evidence to do it either. They'll do anything rather than admit they made a mistake (Lockerbie, Emma Caldwell, Glasgow Bin Lorry anyone)?
The Crown should not be hiding evidence they don’t like and don't want the court to see. The Crown should not be actively seeking to exclude witnesses from a court room who can prove that a person is innocent. The Crown should not be trying to pervert justice.
But they do it every day.
I have personally watched first-hand as these nasty pieces of work attempt to use their privileged positions as Procurator Fiscals to pervert justice, constantly trying to tip the balance of evidence in to the Crown's favour in order to secure prosecutions against innocent members of the public.
I caught them at it, and I took them on. Which brings me to the next problem.
Because rest assured folks, the Crown Office don't like it when a layman like me with no legal background takes them on in court, proves them wrong, and wins a case against them.
Furthermore, they also absolutely hate it when you attempt to sue them afterwards because they are then forced to revisit the case and their mistakes are highlighted in a very public way for all the world to see.
Nope, they don't like that one bit!
As in many areas of corruption, the cover-up is what becomes far more serious than the initial situation itself.
For example, my trial and the case against me was a pretty small and insignificant affair in the grand scheme of things. My case consisted of not much more than a bit of sour grapes from a silly and disgruntled ex girlfriend who thought she'd make a false accusation against me to try and squeeze a few quid out of me.
It really didn’t take me very long in court to show her up to be a liar and get the case thrown out. As I recall, the trial was actually all over by lunch time(!) and she and her entourage were soon walking away from the court building with their heads bowed in shame. Serves them right. The Sheriff saw right through her and her cronies lies.
But the fights I had against the Crown Office, before, during, and after the trial as they relentlessly pursued this seriously flawed and failed prosecution against me was a different matter altogether.
The Crown Office used every resource at their fingertips to cover-up for the corruption that went on with a number of their Procurator Fiscals during my case. Interestingly, they had a budget of over £100 million a year to fight me, while I had nothing (except the truth) to fight them with. Yet I still won against them (or as I prefer to say, the truth won).
It's pretty damning when the Crown Office lose a case in court in which the Sheriff (in my case Sheriff Douglas Brown) states that <quote> "Mr Campbell should never have been brought before a criminal court" <unquote>.
Quite clearly something went SERIOUSLY wrong in the Crown Office that they even tried to lead such a case against me.
Yet every single complaint I made against the numerous Procurator Fiscals involved in my case who lied, cheated and covered up for each other at every turn were firmly batted right out of the park one by one.
The Crown Office took no responsibility for losing the case against me and no responsibility for bringing the failed case against me in the first place. Nothing. Not even an apology.
Their arrogance was nothing short of breath taking (oh, and did I mention that when you complain about the Crown Office they investigate themselves)!
So the moral of the story?
Even when you catch the Crown Office ‘at it’ they simply close ranks and cover for each other. It’s a closed-shop of incompetence, corruption, and cronyism and it is totally impenetrable.
And today we have just seen another example of it.
Three judges - Lord Malcolm, Lady Dorrian, and Lord Glenniehave - have come slamming down on the Crown Office, yet all we get from the Lord Advocate is an insult to our intelligence with a statement saying it was just a one-off and is not how the Crown Office normally operate.
In other words, it's back to 'business as usual' at the Crown Office (or perhaps that should read 'corruption as usual' at the Crown Office).
In conclusion, the day that the Crown Office stopped the pursuit of truth and justice in favour of prosecution targets was the day that truth and justice in the Crown Office and in our great country ceased to exist.
While I’m pleased that three of our top judges have spoken out against the behaviour of the Crown Office and their motley crew of Procurator Fiscals, my experience of dealing with the Crown Office tells me that this is really only the tip of the iceberg.
The corrupt Crown Office must be abolished. It must be completely dismantled with immediate effect and a new justice system fit for the 21st century and fit to serve the Scottish public must be put in its place.
The Crown Office used to be a trustworthy, honest organisation where truth mattered, proper justice was pursued, and the Scottish public were protected.
Now it is nothing but an untrustworthy, corrupt organisation where truth is ignored, proper justice is denied. Prosecution numbers are all they care about and the Scottish public are merely seen as fodder to be targeted to achieve those numbers.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15457050.Lord_Advocate_issues_warning_to_prosecutors_after_top_judges_criticise_conduct_in_rape_trial/
Advocate Depute Ross Macfarlane behaved so badly during the trial that the judge even had to warn the jury to ignore parts of the evidence.
Following on from the Lord Advocate's apology, a Crown Office spokesman also said: “We accept that the conduct of this case did not reflect the high standards expected by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and was not representative of the general ethos and culture of the organisation”.
What a load of old tosh.
The Crown Office must think the Scottish Public are stupid.
I prefer the more honest and direct comments of a senior lawyer with knowledge of the case who stated:
“It was clear that the advocate depute was going too far in his bid to secure a conviction, and I am afraid that is becoming typical of many of our prosecutors”.
Let’s cut to the chase here.
The Crown Office lost their way many years ago when they introduced their (covert) policy of chasing prosecution targets instead of criminals. This policy has created a fertile ground for bias, corruption, and incompetence to enter in to their ranks and the wider justice system as a whole.
Of course, it doesn’t help that Crown Office Procurator Fiscals are essentially a bunch of failed solicitors who would never ‘cut it’ out there in private practice so are forced to take low paid Crown Office positions just to be in a job. When you have a Crown Office full of bottom-of-the-barrel misfit lawyers who are selected from the lowest parts of the legal food-chain it’s no surprise that corruption is rife and incompetence is the order of the day.
I distinctly remember a few years ago when I was the victim of a false accuser and had to go to trial to prove my innocence.
Not only did I have to take on my false accuser, I also had to take on a Crown Office mired in incompetence and corruption.
There were quite a number of police officers involved in my case (who's help I had originally enlisted), yet the Crown Office point blank REFUSED to cite any of the police officers who could prove that I had done nothing wrong. Instead, they carefully cherry-picked officers they thought would help them secure a prosecution and ignored all of the police officers who had made statements saying that I had done absolutely nothing wrong.
The Crown Office deviously and underhandedly tried to play on the fact that I was defending myself. They knew I could not cite these officers myself as I did not have a legal facility called ’caution’ (which is pronounced ‘kay-shun’). Their idea was that by only having prosecution witnesses at the trial the Crown would tip the balance of evidence firmly in their favour and secure a conviction (against an innocent man)! What evil and corrupt individuals we have in the Crown Office!
Thankfully I stood up to them and they failed. My case got thrown out in spectacular fashion.
However the fact still remains that the Crown Office sought to pervert the course of justice and the Procurator Fiscals in my case clearly went far too far just to try and secure a conviction (against an innocent man).
Disgusting behaviour by the Crown Office.
For example, in court, the Sheriff asked Procurator Fiscal Depute Sarah McCall if she would help me cite witnesses as I was unable to do so myself (the Sheriff realised that you cannot get a fair trial if all the witnesses are only for the prosecution and you're not allowed to bring in any defence witnesses).
PF Depute McCall readily agreed without hesitation (these PF's really like to 'sook up' to Sheriffs every chance they get and rarely refuse a request from a Sheriff in a case). She even asked me - in the court room and in front of others - for a list of the witnesses I'd like cited (which I handed to her there and then).
But as soon as the court had recessed and the Sheriff was well out of sight, the PF then backtracked and refused to cite my witnesses.
Furthermore, at the next intermediary diet, she lied in court to the Sheriff (a different Sheriff) that she had agreed to cite any witnesses for me at all!
She took a gamble that the Sheriff from before probably hadn't put it in his notes that she had agreed to calmly witnesses so the new Sheriff that day would have been unaware of the commitment and undertaking she gave to the court the last time.
Yes folks, these corrupt PF's don't even mind lying in a court of law and lying to a Sheriff as long as it helps their case and helps them get a prosecution.
Astonishing.
Furthermore, when I objected to this to the new Sheriff, the corrupt and despicable PF Depute Sarah McCall was asked by the new Sheriff to explain why she had recanted on the citing of witnesses in my case. As well as completely denying she had promised the old Sheriff she would cite witnesses, she also retorted in court that “It’s not the Crown’s job to help Mr Campbell with his defence”.
Ermm, no, but it IS the Crown’s job to pursue truth and justice and to act with honesty and integrity.
It's also the Crown's job to drop prosecutions where they know from the evidence that they have in their possession that the person they're pursuing is innocent and there is no likelihood whatsoever of a conviction.
Bear in mind that my case was thrown out with a 'no case to answer' verdict which means it should never have even got as far as a court of law.
She knew that I had no facilities to cite those particular police witnesses who had already made statements to the PF in which they said that I had done nothing wrong. She had all those statements showing I had done nothing wrong in her file. She knew every word that was in all those statements but did NOT want those police officers coming in to court and telling the court the truth.
Her good buddy and colleague, fellow corrupt Procurator Fiscal Callum Forsyth got in on the action too and refused to hand over the contents of my mobile phone...which he knew all to well actually cleared me of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
The reason he knew the mobile phone proved my innocence was because he had it interrogated by police computer forensics so had all the text messages and records from the phone extracted. As if that's not bad enough, the records from my phone - which PF Forsyth refused to hand over to the defence even though he wasn't going to use it as evidence himself - actually showed that I was the victim.
Interestingly, this was also a fact that was highlighted by Sheriff Douglas Brown as he was throwing the case out. Sheriff Brown held the phone records in his hand and said <quote> "the only abuse in this case has come from the complainer" <unquote>.
PF Forsyth, a despicable piece of human waste and space, knew fine well that the mobile phone records proved me innocent...so he refused to hand them over to the defence. And all this despite the fact that the Crown would NOT be using it as Crown production evidence themselves.
Disgraceful.
But incredibly, I still managed to beat 'em. I managed to get a Sheriff to order corrupt Procurator Fiscal Calum Forsyth to hand those phone records over. I shouldn't have had to go to these lengths though.
It's a sad day for the Scottish public when you have to force the Crown Office to act honestly, truthfully, and with integrity.
See what I mean now about corrupt PF's in the Crown Office 'hiding' evidence they don't want the court to see, just so they can get a prosecution against someone they KNOW to be innocent?!
In these types of cases the Crown has a duty to the Scottish public to drop cases where they know they are pursuing an innocent person. But they don't.
They are happy to see innocent members of the public prosecuted and thrown in jail rather than admit they made a mistake and started proceedings against the wrong person. They don't mind lying, cheating, and hiding evidence to do it either. They'll do anything rather than admit they made a mistake (Lockerbie, Emma Caldwell, Glasgow Bin Lorry anyone)?
The Crown should not be hiding evidence they don’t like and don't want the court to see. The Crown should not be actively seeking to exclude witnesses from a court room who can prove that a person is innocent. The Crown should not be trying to pervert justice.
But they do it every day.
I have personally watched first-hand as these nasty pieces of work attempt to use their privileged positions as Procurator Fiscals to pervert justice, constantly trying to tip the balance of evidence in to the Crown's favour in order to secure prosecutions against innocent members of the public.
I caught them at it, and I took them on. Which brings me to the next problem.
Because rest assured folks, the Crown Office don't like it when a layman like me with no legal background takes them on in court, proves them wrong, and wins a case against them.
Furthermore, they also absolutely hate it when you attempt to sue them afterwards because they are then forced to revisit the case and their mistakes are highlighted in a very public way for all the world to see.
Nope, they don't like that one bit!
As in many areas of corruption, the cover-up is what becomes far more serious than the initial situation itself.
For example, my trial and the case against me was a pretty small and insignificant affair in the grand scheme of things. My case consisted of not much more than a bit of sour grapes from a silly and disgruntled ex girlfriend who thought she'd make a false accusation against me to try and squeeze a few quid out of me.
It really didn’t take me very long in court to show her up to be a liar and get the case thrown out. As I recall, the trial was actually all over by lunch time(!) and she and her entourage were soon walking away from the court building with their heads bowed in shame. Serves them right. The Sheriff saw right through her and her cronies lies.
But the fights I had against the Crown Office, before, during, and after the trial as they relentlessly pursued this seriously flawed and failed prosecution against me was a different matter altogether.
The Crown Office used every resource at their fingertips to cover-up for the corruption that went on with a number of their Procurator Fiscals during my case. Interestingly, they had a budget of over £100 million a year to fight me, while I had nothing (except the truth) to fight them with. Yet I still won against them (or as I prefer to say, the truth won).
It's pretty damning when the Crown Office lose a case in court in which the Sheriff (in my case Sheriff Douglas Brown) states that <quote> "Mr Campbell should never have been brought before a criminal court" <unquote>.
Quite clearly something went SERIOUSLY wrong in the Crown Office that they even tried to lead such a case against me.
Yet every single complaint I made against the numerous Procurator Fiscals involved in my case who lied, cheated and covered up for each other at every turn were firmly batted right out of the park one by one.
The Crown Office took no responsibility for losing the case against me and no responsibility for bringing the failed case against me in the first place. Nothing. Not even an apology.
Their arrogance was nothing short of breath taking (oh, and did I mention that when you complain about the Crown Office they investigate themselves)!
So the moral of the story?
Even when you catch the Crown Office ‘at it’ they simply close ranks and cover for each other. It’s a closed-shop of incompetence, corruption, and cronyism and it is totally impenetrable.
And today we have just seen another example of it.
Three judges - Lord Malcolm, Lady Dorrian, and Lord Glenniehave - have come slamming down on the Crown Office, yet all we get from the Lord Advocate is an insult to our intelligence with a statement saying it was just a one-off and is not how the Crown Office normally operate.
In other words, it's back to 'business as usual' at the Crown Office (or perhaps that should read 'corruption as usual' at the Crown Office).
In conclusion, the day that the Crown Office stopped the pursuit of truth and justice in favour of prosecution targets was the day that truth and justice in the Crown Office and in our great country ceased to exist.
While I’m pleased that three of our top judges have spoken out against the behaviour of the Crown Office and their motley crew of Procurator Fiscals, my experience of dealing with the Crown Office tells me that this is really only the tip of the iceberg.
The corrupt Crown Office must be abolished. It must be completely dismantled with immediate effect and a new justice system fit for the 21st century and fit to serve the Scottish public must be put in its place.
The Crown Office used to be a trustworthy, honest organisation where truth mattered, proper justice was pursued, and the Scottish public were protected.
Now it is nothing but an untrustworthy, corrupt organisation where truth is ignored, proper justice is denied. Prosecution numbers are all they care about and the Scottish public are merely seen as fodder to be targeted to achieve those numbers.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15457050.Lord_Advocate_issues_warning_to_prosecutors_after_top_judges_criticise_conduct_in_rape_trial/
Friday 4 August 2017
Chief Constable Investigated For Misconduct
Scotland's top cop, Chief Constable Phil 'Gormless' Gormley is being investigated for misconduct.
Conclusion:
The specific allegation against him is of bullying.
Yes dear readers, difficult as it is to believe, it would appear it may be possible that there is a police officer out there who might, well, be a bully.
Who'd have of thunk it!
The Scottish public already know that Police Scotland is mired in corruption and has been for years.
The whole organisation is rotten to the core from the top to the bottom and decent, honest coppers are leaving the police service in their droves.
The whole organisation is rotten to the core from the top to the bottom and decent, honest coppers are leaving the police service in their droves.
But like most corruption in public office, it didn't just happen overnight. It crept in very insipidly over a number of years and it now taints the whole culture of our policing system. Very few people noticed these erosions, even police officers themselves.
It happened in two distinct stages:
Stage 1:
It happened in two distinct stages:
Stage 1:
The first sign that all was not well was when policing started to become political and police chiefs began to serve the interests of their political paymasters rather than the Scottish public.
While it is understandable that the police - like anyone I suppose - would want to cosy up to and endear themselves to the people who gave them the job in the first place (and who decide their wages, working conditions, and yearly budget etc) it is also wrong.
Very wrong.
The police have a sole duty to help, protect and support the Scottish public, not their political bosses or any other corporate organisations who happen to contribute to a politicians election campaign and later call in favours or seek to influence policy.
When police stopped focusing on serving the public, the whole police service went very rapidly in to decline.
While it is understandable that the police - like anyone I suppose - would want to cosy up to and endear themselves to the people who gave them the job in the first place (and who decide their wages, working conditions, and yearly budget etc) it is also wrong.
Very wrong.
The police have a sole duty to help, protect and support the Scottish public, not their political bosses or any other corporate organisations who happen to contribute to a politicians election campaign and later call in favours or seek to influence policy.
When police stopped focusing on serving the public, the whole police service went very rapidly in to decline.
Politicians seeking re-election quickly realised one of the best strategies of a good re-election campaign was to demonstrate to voters that they have done a great job keeping the communities they represent safe.
To achieve this, the politicians put pressure on police to make lots of arrests so that they could point to crime figures and claim that they were being 'tough' on crime. Vote for me and I'll protect you from the bogeyman and all that kinda stuff.
To achieve this, the politicians put pressure on police to make lots of arrests so that they could point to crime figures and claim that they were being 'tough' on crime. Vote for me and I'll protect you from the bogeyman and all that kinda stuff.
All this did though was create a target based arrest culture within the police service in order to achieve these desired figures.
Little by little over a period of years, police officers who once upon a time used to help, protect and support the Scottish public were now actively seeking to target and arrest those same members of the public for the least little thing, anything, everything.
Any small technical insignificant misdemeanour of an otherwise innocent and law-abiding member of the public - which in days gone by would only warrant a stern but friendly and helpful warning from police - was now being seized on by police and used as an excuse to give out a tickets and even initiate a prosecution if at all possible.
No wonder good, honest, decent members of the public don't want to help the police any more, don't want to give statements or be witnesses in court. You reap what you sow Mr Plod.
Any small technical insignificant misdemeanour of an otherwise innocent and law-abiding member of the public - which in days gone by would only warrant a stern but friendly and helpful warning from police - was now being seized on by police and used as an excuse to give out a tickets and even initiate a prosecution if at all possible.
No wonder good, honest, decent members of the public don't want to help the police any more, don't want to give statements or be witnesses in court. You reap what you sow Mr Plod.
Throughout all of this, a culture has grown which rages today like a wildfire. Scottish police officers go out on patrol every day and night desperately looking to find a crime in every nook and cranny. And they don't mind bending rules and shoe-horning any incident or situation to make it fit in to a statute just so they can justify an arrest.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with police going out looking for crimes per se. It's part and parcel of what they should be doing.
The problem is when a police service is under pressure to make lots of arrests, the pursuit of hardened criminals tends to get pushed down the list of priorities because these sorts of investigations can be very lengthy and difficult to crack with low rates of arrest successes.
Which means ordinary otherwise law-abiding members of the public (the 'low-hanging fruit' if you like) become the main targets of the police.
The problem is when a police service is under pressure to make lots of arrests, the pursuit of hardened criminals tends to get pushed down the list of priorities because these sorts of investigations can be very lengthy and difficult to crack with low rates of arrest successes.
Which means ordinary otherwise law-abiding members of the public (the 'low-hanging fruit' if you like) become the main targets of the police.
Nowadays, when drivers see a police car in their rear-view mirror they immediately feel nervous and anxious and that's just plain wrong.
If you see a police car in your rear-view mirror you should feel safe, not intimidated.
When you actively seek to harm the very people you have a duty to protect you lose all legitimacy.
Police Scotland has lost the trust of the public. They have become an abject failure. Even those who work within the justice system - the police themselves, the crown office, the prison service, solicitors, and the politicians - all know this.
Stage 2:
The second stage of erosion in the functioning of Police Scotland is another area of corruption that has grown in similar way to the previous one.
If you see a police car in your rear-view mirror you should feel safe, not intimidated.
When you actively seek to harm the very people you have a duty to protect you lose all legitimacy.
Police Scotland has lost the trust of the public. They have become an abject failure. Even those who work within the justice system - the police themselves, the crown office, the prison service, solicitors, and the politicians - all know this.
Stage 2:
The second stage of erosion in the functioning of Police Scotland is another area of corruption that has grown in similar way to the previous one.
It is the rampant practice that has evolved in policing of presuming guilt and rushing to arrest.
In the honest, good old days, police would receive a complaint (or be called to an incident). They would investigate the incident and send a report to the Procurator Fiscal, stating what happened, who was involved, and any evidence they discovered. The Procurator Fiscal would then make a decision based on the police report whether to make a prosecution or not.
That process has completely changed now.
Nowadays police resources are so stretched and officers are under so much pressure from their superiors to make as many arrests as possible, police no longer spend time and effort to investigate anything.
Instead, they just form an opinion on who they think the 'bad guy' might be and try to cobble together as much evidence as possible to support that opinion. They also discard any evidence that they think may undermine that opinion so that they have a better chance of getting a prosecution when they pass it all to the Procurator Fiscal.
It's quick, it's cheap, and it works out ok most of the time.
It's quick, it's cheap, and it works out ok most of the time.
But it also goes against absolutely EVERYTHING policing should be about.
Police should play NO part in deciding someone's guilt or innocence. That's the job of the courts.
However police know all too well that the Procurator Fiscal is unlikely to lead a prosecution against a person police have arrested if there's evidence available that shows he may be innocent. So any evidence that may show that the 'bad guy' they've arrested may actually be innocent and may actually have done nothing wrong is ignored and/or not collected by police.
Police officers purposely (and illegally) go to great lengths to tip the balance of evidence firmly against the person they've arrested to ensure they get a good solid conviction.
It doesn't matter to police that they may have got the wrong guy and that evidence they ignored or 'binned' would have shown that they arrested was actually innocent. Arrests, convictions, and showing that they are being 'tough on crime' are all that matter to the police.
To them, the end always justifies the means.
Police officers purposely (and illegally) go to great lengths to tip the balance of evidence firmly against the person they've arrested to ensure they get a good solid conviction.
It doesn't matter to police that they may have got the wrong guy and that evidence they ignored or 'binned' would have shown that they arrested was actually innocent. Arrests, convictions, and showing that they are being 'tough on crime' are all that matter to the police.
To them, the end always justifies the means.
When you have police officers all over our country working in this way - deciding day in and day out who's guilty and who's not and having carte-blanche to arrest anyone and everyone regardless of whether they have actually committed a crime or not - it's not difficult to see how police officers chests start to puff out, arrogance abounds, and a bullying mentality creeps in.
It's a plain and simple historical fact that every time a new law gives police new powers, police always end up abusing those powers. Always.
If police think they can get away with behaving like bullies, they will.
If police think they can get away with behaving like bullies, they will.
Conclusion:
So does it surprise me that Scotland's top cop, the chief constable himself, is being accused of bullying?
No, not in the slightest.
He probably doesn't even view his behaviour as bullying or wrong in any way.
He probably sees it all as a perfectly normal way police chiefs go about doing their job.
He probably can't understand what the fuss is all about.
There's every chance that he hasn't even noticed the insipid erosion of morals, standards, and behaviour in his own police force over the years.
He has probably gone along with the flow himself for so long that he has completely missed this 'culture of corruption' which has mission creeped in to the police service.
He probably sees it all as a perfectly normal way police chiefs go about doing their job.
He probably can't understand what the fuss is all about.
There's every chance that he hasn't even noticed the insipid erosion of morals, standards, and behaviour in his own police force over the years.
He has probably gone along with the flow himself for so long that he has completely missed this 'culture of corruption' which has mission creeped in to the police service.
But what annoys me most though is that while this very concerning investigation in to the behaviour of the country's top policeman is on-going, Phil 'Gormless' still continues to sit behind the comfy desk of his £212,000 a year job and works on as usual.
Which is rather different to how you or I would be treated by police if we were suspected of wrong-doing.
Because when we ordinary members of the public are suspected of wrong-doing, we get slapped in handcuffs by police and thrown in to a grotty custody cell until such times as we can get to court and prove our innocence.
Yip, one law for 'em, and all that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)