Sgt.Mark Andrews has cost us (tax payers) at least £25K – that or buffoons in the Wiltshire cops and CPS have. My reserved view is that I haven’t seen and heard all the evidence and am disgusted our justice system has not worked out it should do this as a matter of course – not for me, but for the concerned citizen in democratic public scrutiny (the cheapest form out external ‘regulation’ – as in the Government publishing details of public servants spending our money on chocolate teapots). On what’s in the press I regard Andrews as disgusting, guilty and Judge ‘Roy’ Bean as much worse, a threat to what democracy and decency we have left. I may be wrong, but I want to be able to judge on the evidence, and its absence alarms me. The fact it isn’t there shows how backward or intentionally corrupt our legal system is.
The big problem here is establishment secrecy and lack of proper mechanisms of direct public scrutiny. Libertarians left and right and even librarians should be up in arms on this. Questions remain and they should not.
We allow a great deal of self-regulation in the UK. There is good reason for this, but it’s been letting us down all over. When we do bring in external regulation its usually useless, hapless, staffed with cronies or worse the dreadful jobsworth placepeople who become commissionars (no typo, they are Soviet). We end up with toothless wonders-to-behold like the FSA, IPCC, Ofsted and similar. Michel Foucault made rather a lot of Bentham’s ‘Panoptican’ – a prison design in which prisoners can be observed at all time – we might say modern production lines follow the design. This leads to a problem to do with who observes the guards, maybe summed-up in the old chestnut of ‘who polices the police’?
I took some umbrage when asked why scum who had tried to escape justice by trying to hit me with iron bars had ended up with faces like busted galoshes, but understood why I was being asked. Of course, I arrested some munters who looked like this before meeting me – I had to tangle with a few of these spitting, scratching, variously armed she-devils – all of whom made Andrew’s victim look like a de-clawed pussycat stoned on weed. It would have been the very experience of dealing with drunks and so on that would have made me compassionate towards her and her plight. If this is the worst modern cops face, as Andrews seems to have sworn on oath, then Gadget et al must be fictionalising their encounters to the extreme (they aren’t, so why did Roy Bean swallow the line?). One might wonder how a smaller man like me ever coped, yet I’m sure I could have led Andrew’s victim to the cells and left her in one piece. I’m by no means sure my charge office sergeants would have let me use the cells, and we usually didn’t in cases that looked like this. We might well have phoned the partner, tried to fix things up and got them home (after a relevant charge or process report). Sure, it went wrong sometimes, but we were peace officers who expected the odd call back (this looks like it has origins in a domestic).
We expected to get a lot of flak and abuse from people in distress. What this Andrews’ case reminds me of is those jerks who used to advise the drawing of truncheons before entering ‘niggers’ homes’ to give them a few smacks to let them know ‘who was who’ before finding out what had happened. This was usually ‘bravado’, but it’s the attitude I’m reminded of, and Roy Bean seems to have it too.
The deeper problem is lack of public scrutiny – it’s this that Sino-Soviet and junta regimes always prevent. This is where we have slipped, though having worked in countries with such regimes, I know we haven’t hit their bottom.
I’m only guessing, but think it likely the woman drove a short distance after a row with her partner and was trying to sleep it off. She probably drove with too much alcohol in her. She was not charged – and this itself shows incompetence if the first bit is true. Roy Bean seems to have accepted a lot on her drunken state, with no questions as to why she wasn’t charged, and none of himself in accepting ‘evidence’ which goes against the charge sheet on the night.
We can only guess on the costs, but if Andrews’ side was £25K we can probably double that. All from finding one half of a domestic sleeping in a car? That’s almost a couple of the coppers we really need, in a time of cuts.
What Wiltshire need to do is to open up this case to full public scrutiny. This should really be happening across the board with miscarriages of justice and the bungling that never leaves our press and about which the press rarely have the fortitude to pursue . On CCTV currently available, Andrews (now innocent by Bean) is as guilty as sin against my standards of decency. In Nico Bento, the CCTV that should, on looking at it, have cleared him was the very thing that convicted him of a murder that did not happen. Forensic scientists are not only lying in court, but must be known to be doing so by court officers who should disclose their suspicions, but don’t – when a judge writes of his suspicions on police evidence, we end up with the case going in front of Roy Bean, who suddenly finds a smell of roses coming up from the pit, where another judge, closer to the day-to-day found the odour of corruption.
I’ve regularly had my results turned over by other scientists and I’ve never got used to liking it. Sometimes, I’ve known my peers didn’t know what they were talking about, and on other occasions have been exposed like a raw prawn. Einstein‘s Relativity was still being dismissed as ‘Jewish science’ by some in the 1950s, but he would have been the last to smear current attempts at a real advance. Even science can take decades to accept the wet fish that has been slapping it in the face.
Cops get a lot of abuse from people we might cast as the ‘evil poor’. The problem is not that they should not expose this, it’s that they should not treat everyone who does not somehow out-ranks them through the almost unmitigated stereotyping some of them use, something that extends to them treating decent people very badly – even if that person is lapse through booze of stress. Many cops still rise above this, but on the ‘facts’ of the Andrews and other cases as we are allowed to see them, there are bent pathologists and judges they can turn to for cover-up, and an apparent interest in the establishment in the cover-up and the threat we must now all feel of being victims of the rotten core. This may be what the establishment intends, fearing discontent to come. This is not proper, civilised behaviour in a system that allows the occasional weakness.
In more recent life, I have had to back down from violent threats from a woman much worse than the victim in the Andrew’s case, who is probably just getting early release from arson and GHB convictions. I did not dare defend myself or my family. There was much more provocation and threat than Andrew’s even made up. Do cops now have greater ‘powers’ to use violence than civilians at lower levels of threat? Cops seem only concerned with themselves and their plight, a very selfish and dangerous attitude bloated out all over. The issues of having to deal with ‘Swamps’ is one I understand and did. Dealing with situations full of lies and emotion I understand. I even understand wanting to kill a variety of scum and have used a lot of legitimate violence, some of the situations still traumatising me from time to time, sometimes to temporary inaction and complete disjuncture from the world around me. I have never treated anyone remotely as badly as I feel Andrews did in the available CCTV. I am horrified any judge would find this remotely acceptable. I’m amenable to evidence that would change my mind – so where is it? And why would a judge think this acceptable, unless perverted by Sweeny myths?
Where, incidentally, is the evidence of cops being badly done to – the real stuff, not fairy stories told amongst those wearing Washerwoman Gadget’s wrist-bangles? And what is ‘evidence’ in this sense when one judge can choose to see it so differently than another? We need an enquiry in public. Sacking the IPCC hierarchy overnight might just pay for it. Instead of local police chiefs (promised pie in the sky anyway), we could start with genuine public representation there, and civilian decisions on what should be investigated and when. In Ghost Squad* – http://www.lovefilm.com/film/Ghost-Squad-Series-01-Episode-03-Heroes/131986/ -, a cop much defiled by fellow officers, yet the best amongst them, finally takes his belt off and flogs some scum floozie and is sacked. He could have been sent for re-education. I’d be happy if Andrews got that, but how many more need to go, judging on idiot support for his actions?
* Ghost Squad is available free at Lovefilm. ‘Amy’ is very pretty and I’m still a bit of a sucker for that kind of thing away from current affairs programmes where I regard such pouting as vile sexist and ableist behaviour. Half the plot of episode three is:
Sergeant Ralph Allen (Brendan Coyle) is an old-fashioned, no-nonsense copper, or a ‘dinosaur’ according to McKay (Emma Fielding). She suspects he is bringing the force into disrepute and needs removing. Amy’s task is clear – get close to him, prove that he’s abusing his position and get him kicked out. An undercover Amy (Elaine Cassidy) pairs up with Ralph to follow up the disappearance of tearaway Danielle Parker, a teenage member of a notorious girl gang that runs amok on the local estate. Ralph doesn’t seem too bothered about the missing teenager, but when his friend Eddy (Jamie Cymbal) gets viciously attacked by Danielle’s crew, Ralph becomes determined to bring the gang to justice. Amy soon finds that she likes Ralph; despite his gruff appearance, he is dedicated to his job and intent on making a difference for the community he serves.
There’s a great comment by Amy on Ralph’s demise – ‘why does he have to go when the 60% jobsworths get to stay’ (more or less). The actual IPCC turned out to be a damp squib, and internal accounts there say they have been warned off investigations that discredit cops. Some even say police executions may have been covered-up. No change, apparently after the demise of Nulabour. On ‘Swamps’ it is not that unusual to find police corruption – look up Colin Gunn and the Bestway Estate, where two Plods got caught. That investigation took four years, was conducted in secrecy and on memory by a detective superintendent.
I’d lead a ‘birch squad’ on my own Everglades (this happened on one estate 40 years ago because cops were so useless – I was one of the cops). We’d have less to fear on civil rights from the formation of such squads, than from this Andrews-Judge Roy Bean farce. Note the absence of LIBERTY and such on these cases.
A bare reality presented with great dispassion, ACO. Far too painful for some, I fear.
I hadn’t even finished Melvin. I’ve seen (illicitly) custody footage of two ‘utter scrotes’ who’d been violent, bitten a cop, covered another in spittle (may 50 spits) and had to be wrestled to the ground. The restraint shown was magnificent. They got a better deal than this poor, probably drunken woman.
GENUINE RESPONSE TO ‘COPS BEHAVING LIKE SCUM’ FOUND ON GHASTLY GADGET – A LETTER FROM ‘BEN’ PRIOR TO THE NORMAL DELETION OF CRITICISM OR REWRITE BY THE BLOGGER :
This post raises so many questions.
1. Are you really more upset by a slightly over-zealous bit of politically correct language than by the cases where police officers hurt and kill members of the public just for being drunk, or mouthy, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and then get away with it?
2. If you don’t see a problem with using the term “manhole”, why even mention that the BBC used it? Either you can attack the BBC for doing something wrong, or you can praise the BBC for avoiding loony-left political correctness. You seem to attack the BBC for avoiding something you don’t agree with – I know you’re being sarcastic, but it still doesn’t make any sense.
3. How does being told to avoid using the term “manhole” mean that it’s justifiable to make silly jokes in an enquiry about a man’s death at the hands of the police? (However unavoidable that death was).
4. Does trying not to be discriminatory really mean that you “cannot arrest anyone ever again”? It seems like the people you arrest in Ruralshire are mostly white men, anyway.
5. Are you really just annoyed and threatened by the idea that you might have to consider the feelings of women and black people and gay people? Is that what makes police officers feel justified in pissing around at a public enquiry? Even though it’s a public enquiry about the death of an upper-middle class white man?
I used to read this blog with a lot of sympathy for what the police have to put up with. I don’t know whether the pressures of policing the underclass gradually turned you into an unpleasant bigot, or whether you were like that all along and I just didn’t see it before.
Either way, I think you should resign your position.
I know that not all police are like you, because when I called in the Met to stop a rape, they helped the young, working class women who were at risk instead of blaming them.
I know that some police *are* like you, because an Indian-Irish friend of mine was mugged and the attending officers treated him as the suspect and let his white attackers get away.
I know from your writing that it’s an intolerable burden being the thin blue line between me and the savagery of the underclass. I want you to give up that burden. Don’t do me any favours any more. Resign, and leave the job of protecting me to men and women who aren’t bigoted arseholes like you.