17 July (Part 3) - Cunning coppers?
When
Cheryl Bacon
began to circulate nonsense about me shouting, waving papers and creating mayhem in the council
chamber in order to justify my unlawful exclusion from her meeting I thought about complaining
to the Local Government Ombudsman but it soon became apparent that any submitted file of
papers would be horrendously complicated and take far too long to put together.
In any case the LGO is not genuinely interested in controlling the excesses of
wayward councils.
With that in mind I am not surprised that Mick Barnbrook has been working on his
allegation of criminal conduct against both Will Tuckley and Bacon for more than
a month. When we met before
the Cabinet meeting he showed me what I believe
is the final draft of his letters (one against each) but he is still working on the bundle of evidence
which currently stands at 94 pages. And then there’s the index.
You may remember that Mick has also made
criminal allegations against Chief
Superintendent Ayling and Constables Sean Kelly and Peter Arthurs for the
part they took in support of untrue statements from Bexley council. The letter
didn’t actually go until 3rd July so Mick was a little surprised to (apparently)
get a response as early as the 8th. He was not however best pleased to hear that
Hogan-Howe had sent the papers back to one of Ayling’s men
to investigate, he thought, his boss.
When he got a moment he called the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards
(DPS) to protest but he discovered only more underhand practices by a force
renowned for its corruption.
While Mick Barnbrook was trying to pin down the slippery cops in Bexleyheath he
was in correspondence with Chief Inspector Ian Broadbridge who Mick believed was
doing as good a job as was possible in the circumstances. Mick probably got it wrong.
By 16th June CI Broadbridge had realised that Mick was going to make
a formal complaint and reported his own officers to the DPS.
It was to that report by Broadbridge that the DPS were responding on 8th July, not Mick’s letter of the
3rd which included all the evidence.
Without the evidence, the simple uncalled for complaint sent in by Broadbridge on Mick’s behalf has
been judged by the DPS to be misconduct and not a criminal offence as Mick’s file
of evidence attempted to demonstrate. The DPS say that their own rules now prohibit acceptance of
Mick’s allegation of criminal conduct, how very convenient, because he has already made a
complaint of simple misconduct, which of course he hasn’t.
That may have been a very clever move by CI Ian Broadbridge
which would
make it look like he is no better than the other coppers involved in this sorry tale.
Mick however is still firmly of the opinion that the Chief Inspector is merely the
unfortunate middle man who has no option but to do what he has been told.
The DPS insists that common sense must not prevail and the only way forward is to await the
probable whitewash from Bexleyheath police and then send the papers to the IPCC for review along with
all the evidence of dishonesty. That’ll push the outcome a further six months
down the line.
Meanwhile the moral of the story can only be…
• Never trust any policeman, least of all one from the Met.
• Do not reveal to them more than you have to.
• Always assume a policeman will lie and double cross.
Note: Although Mick complained about the Chief Superintendent and the two constables,
at the same time but separately I think, it now appears that the DPS may have only sent the latter
complaint back to Bexleyheath. Latest info is that the DPS cannot find the complaint against
CS Ayling at all. I see no evidence that Ian Broadbridge’s premature complaint
mentioned Peter Ayling so maybe eventual clarification will show that the above tale
applies only to the constables and the way is still open for the allegation
against the borough commander.