Who knew what when is not about micro-managing.

Many of the questions being pointed at senior managers in the hacking charade seem to lack much understanding of what senior management is and to make assumptions that they are expected to “micro-manage”.  It’s hard enough as an SIO in a criminal enquiry to get a full-picture – indeed this often is not achieved even in successful investigations.

We had an allegedly full public investigation into the Iraq farce and yet Andrew Gilligan, castigated over telling us the blatantly obvious fact that the WMD nonsense was nonsense, revealed recently that senior MI6 officers are now contradicting evidence given by the “figures of great integrity” to Hutton.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100097068/iraq-dossier-mi6-concerned-about-its-claims-from-the-outset/

Gilligan points out that this is much more important than the current hacking performances.  The story emerging is that the security services did feel pressurised to support the case for war.  One could reasonably conclude the “people of integrity” colluded and lied.  I think this is true – but the obvious issue is why the people coming up with evidence now were not those giving evidence then.

Stephenson, Yates and all others paraded on hacking are all giving Nixon’s famous line about not knowing at the time – sadly there are no tapes with the expletive deleteves.  There are, of course, others down the food chain who know who they told what and what was being talked about in the system.

As I write, ‘Bill the Burglar’ is being nicked across the road – there are indeed police officers doing what we pay them to do.  Peter Fahey no doubt does not know what they are doing and is not present.  It’s a ludicrous to suppose GMP’s CC should do everything himself as it is to suppose Stephenson or Yates should not have been able to trust officers like the guys doing their job across the road.  These lads might miss a bin bag full of evidence and we could not blame that on Peter Fahey.

Any senior manager is entitled not to take the fall for wrongdoing by others in her organisation on the grounds you can’t and should not have your fingers in all pies.  This isn’t the point.  You can always say you did not know what was going on because of delegation.  A crime boss can say this on jobs he has organised but others have been caught doing.  Generally the blaggers don’t blow our Mr.Big.  The point is that our general organisations are behaving like the criminal ones – that is as though there is something to hide from public scrutiny.  The truth is not enough because this might give the wrong impression.

The farce with the Murdoch’s has just ended with a ‘custard pie’ and an apparent assault by a woman on the perpetrator.  Only one has been dragged away in chains.  Had my neighbour rushed out and dealt such a blow to Bill the Burglar (who has done her far more harm than shaving foam) whilst he was being carted off, I would hope the cops granted her such immunity,  I would certainly have given an ‘I saw no assault’ witness statement had she done the deed.  “Integrity”  is such a difficult thing!  And I would have blanked my security camera.  It appears that Rupert Murdoch’s wife Wendy is allowed to break the law on camera and take the law into her own hands in a manner not allowed us mere serfs.  The press has not noticed.  Before thinking of the perpetrator as scum, we should wait and see if he brings charges.  He should not have to as Wendy has contributed to an affray.  No doubt the Met will ignore this – they have form for selecting crimes they do process!  The law is the same as for a pub fight.

Bill was subject to an attack in the street last week – by an accomplice’s munter.  There was much shouting along the lines of ‘don’t you f****** (ten) well get my man involved in all this’ (she was even less literate).  Cops will now be hearing claim and counter-claim.  What they won’t do is parade these claims – they will investigate and try to find the convincing evidence.  This is what is so unconvincing about the current parade.  Plenty of investigation could have been done, but we are getting is equivalent to stories put up by chummies.  All of them have been shown not to have been telling the full truth and are now relying on stories they did not tell before.  None of them have come forward voluntarily and laid out what they knew in any straightforward manner.  The pattern throughout is giving limited information, bringing into question problems under PACE – relying now on information not given then.  They are all giving excuses no chummy would get away with.

What is plain is that the chiefs are all responsible when things go right – as though the changes they make or their brilliance networks right down, say, to the nicking of Bill today.  This network evaporates as soon as something goes wrong.  More than 80% of oirganisational communication is informal, and what is not presented to us is any notion of this ‘structure’.  Without this, and I have built many such structures, the proceedings are child-like.  All the worthies seem to have been wandering about in dubious networks wearing a shield of innocence.  This is nonsense.  And it’s not what people claim in other forms of communication.

I think we may have learned more from the shaving foam and Wendy Murdoch’s treatment in comparison with what happens to ‘ordinary folk’ who take a pot at someone being arrested.  There’s one law for them and another for the rest of us.  If I was sure my treatment would have been as lax as Wendi’s, I’d have nipped out, jumped over someone’s back and landed one on Bill for all of us.  Not only has Wendi got away with it, none of our press seem to have noticed she broke the law.  Perhaps this is why they find it so hard to think of bank bonuses (£14 billion seen, another £20 billion hidden) as stealing.  My left hook is much better than Wendi’s and Burglar Bill so much more deserving than the security breach chap.  I’d just be seen as a thug, even though ‘Saint-like’ I’d face him square on and not from behind.  The clown may try and bring these matters up at his trial.  Look again at what Wendi did.  Whilst 99% of us would have approved of letting her give the clown a kicking, she contributes to affray.  That’s if it is Wendi in the pink top – she may have a defence of mistaken identity.

When we nick blaggers and tea-leafs we hit hard, quick and seize evidence – this is also the case in fraud and tax evasion.  This lot are being tipped-off and allowed to destroy evidence and create defences.  Very sloppy.  And we always expect crooks to make claims about not knowing.  This lot all seem to know nothing about anything that matters.  We should never have asked them before ensuring they couldn’t erase traces.  Perhaps we should now be treating them as having gone ‘no comment’ and treat the baffle coming out now as unreliable?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s