Metropolitan Police Mission Statement:
We have pride in delivering quality policing, there is no greater priority.
We will build trust by listening and responding
A couple of weeks ago I was very pleased that a Bexley resident felt able to share his experience of Bexleyheath police and the corruption he exposed in court. A Judge was convinced that Bexleyheath police had systematically lied to turn a serious crime into a non crime - worse than that, to put the blame on the victim - with the result that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board refused assistance.
The resident indicated he would be back and he has been as good as his word. He has yet to reveal why Bexleyheath police were so keen to falsify the evidence but I feel sure that will come in due course. Here is the unedited Phase II of his report.
The curious thing about the court case is that the Police seemed intent on doing whatever they could (including spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money) just to avoid the simple, honest action of correcting their records:
• They stated that they “neither admitted nor denied” that an assault had even taken place – a strange argument when several Bexley officers had already referred in their own documents to the “assault”.
• They asked the judge to “skip past” some of their false blaming of the victim, on the grounds that it was only “in handwriting quickly done”.
• They claimed they didn’t have to correct false information about CCTV footage of the assault, on the grounds that their comments were about a CCTV camera and not about the child being assaulted. (The judge rejected this argument as an “artificial” distinction.)
• They claimed it was “very dangerous indeed to start requiring” the police to correct their records, as this would “damage their integrity”.
• They were caught misquoting data protection law, changing “disclosure” to “processed” so that it fitted their argument better.
• They were caught misquoting a witness, falsely claiming that he had said the child had “caused” the attack upon himself.
• They argued that, if a man assaulted and killed another man claiming that he thought, “completely wrongly and wholly unreasonably”, that the other man was about to attack him, this would be “a good self defence argument” that could make him “not guilty of an offence”, and that people who do consider this an offence were not looking at it “at a higher level”. (This is useful to Bexley Police, as it frees up their time from investigating serious assaults and killings, and allows them to refocus their limited resources on prosecuting bloggers and standing around at council meetings instead.)
The judge didn’t accept any of these claims. But, as with Bexley councillors and council officers, when there are insufficient checks and balances on your behaviour, it is easy to start believing that you can get away with doing and saying whatever you like.
A correspondent informs me that, after the judge gave his decision, the Police put pressure on him, telling him that his verdict was “inappropriate” and threatening to “go further with it” unless the judge was “prepared to re-open the finding”. Indeed, the correspondent began to fear that the judge might himself get arrested for not showing the Police enough ‘respect’. Thankfully, the judge stood his ground, and the Police ended up backing down.
Next we can start looking at the Police 'investigation'. Some elements of it might be familiar to readers of this website.
It’s dreadfully depressing to read just how dishonest Bexleyheath police can be but I await the next installment with some impatience. As a convenience to readers the whole story is being amalgamated here.
Note: This example of the corruption rife within Bexleyheath police occurred before the arrival of the present Borough Commander Victor Olisa.