Last night the authority said it had been “confident” of proving Mr Maxwell’s guilt on all the charges but agreed to compromise after taking legal advice and learning that several members of staff at the force were suffering “extreme personal trauma” at the prospect of testifying against their boss (Yorkshire Post)
Banksidebabble has also posted.
Who is Maxwell – the head of a protection racket? It seems not …
Quite what message does this send? People traumatised at the thought of giving evidence should be a reason for going ahead, not caving in. So we have to put up with a chief constable who caused this? One almost hopes some lawyer tries to make the case that all his officers are unreliable, easily intimidated and not fit to give evidence.
I suspect the real story here is yet again that a speedy dressing down and written warning should have come about in a few days after the extremely silly incident. And should they not now investigate the traumas – and bring about changes to prevent such in the future? I know, let’s put Maxwell himself in charge of this!
The IPCC should be on this like a rash – but they will say it’s not in their remit. Of course not – why should they care about a corrupt chief constable or staff traumatised at the thought of giving evidence about him? Or that discipline procedures remain hopeless despite the promises before they came into existence.
Maxwell’s own comments on his experience call him into further question – surely he should be looking at the effects on his staff, apologizing to them personally and publicly, not wallowing in his own? This is all over something that should just have been admitted and a ruler slap given.
We should be able to complain directly to the IPCC and get something informal done – the ‘we’ being public and police staff and expect investigation if facts in the complaint cannot be agreed. Anyone lying at this stage should be subject to perjury and the proceedings should be listed in an anonomised public database.