Arson, Looting and Violence Are Criminal – Shock Horror!

The London Riots are long overdue – Britain’s poor are very tame in comparison with our European neighbours.  Of course it’s all wrong, though so is our patronising Home Secretary for telling us.  If the knee jerk blather of such as Ms May and Herr Klegg is right, Britain must contain substantial pockets of criminality just waiting to burst out on the streets – a criminality we otherwise don’t see?  Police are in for a dire time if this is true.  I suspect, for once, that deeper sociological analysis is right and the causes of these riots are complex.  The symptoms are criminal, the ‘disease’ is not.  The revolting arrogance of well-off politicians and banksters on the austerity non-economics is a red rag to those who have been given no future and had very little.  I take a different view and have decided to leave, my country now a shameful place beyond repair due to years of nopolitics and theft by the rich.

The kids who are out smashing and burning probably have little articulation of what they are up to.  I doubt they are criminal in the normal sense of use – this is all people like this can do, much as the banbksters could not help but defraud us with useless loan insurance.  The policing involved looks bad and of the ‘arrest the survivors’.  It will be interesting to discover the full extent of whatever it is that is pent up.  To think of this as criminality is unhelpful.  To brand it as criminal is potentially highly inflammatory, along the lines of the blacking of Duggan’s character.  He now seems to have been shot in panic, though we’ll know more tomorrow.  We have not been listening to our poor and let our rich systematically steal our future.

Burning shops doesn’t seem to help, but nothing else does either.  The white collar versions have gone unnoticed, yet the thefts have returned us to 1900 and probably to the brink of war.

What we should have is answers that would prevent people being this pissed off.  Instead our turkey-government has been adding to the flames.  The answer is to replace unemployment by National Service and agree a fairer distribution of wealth and income and politics that genuinely represent across our society, rather than vie for enough votes to be in power.

There is no excuse for the riots, but the blame does not attach merely to those rioting.  Our attitude to the poor is one of my reasons for leaving.  Depression is coming and we aren’t hearing any sensible plans to help us work our way out of it.  The rich don’t want work – they can’t make enough money sitting on their idle arses from work.  We should learn from the massive bail outs and QE just how much money we could have thrown at unemployment and new investment if the scumbag rich hadn’t been running an illegal gambling game funded by tax payers.  Remember, when I’m gone, you brought this on yourselves through ignorance and callousness – you’ve been had.

We know the trashing of communities is wrong and all the rest.  But so is the massive hogging of our resources by rich interest groups who threaten to leave any country trying to produce a decent economy for all.  Police, as ever, have to stand up and be counted, which is a lot more than the rest of us have managed with the politicians who have presided over the flight of our capital.

I don’t know what these kids are doing or why they are doing it.  I’m waiting for someone to ask them.  In the meantime a curfew might have been an idea.  Soon ‘stop and search’ will be used to deflect responsibility onto policing and away from the nopolitics.  I assume, if this stuff was organised, there would have been a torch-lit march on Parliament.

These actions are criminal and should be dealt with as such.  This is obvious – so why aren’t our non-politicians asking deeper questions on why anyone would ‘support’ them by being on the streets?

In the meantime, the real story is the financial crisis and stock market collapse – all the doing of greedy rich people we don’t need and yet control our lives.  My heart goes out to the bobbies, fire staff and paramedics trying to cope.  They deserve some responsible politicians.  This isn’t about stop and search or the Duggan cock-up.  My guess is its about making so many people feel worthless.

The events are ‘simply inexcusable’ – but are we really convinced by ‘school’s out’ blather?  Those protesting elsewhere in the world have all been called criminals by horrendous governments.  It is, of course, very difficult to think of any of our rioters as political protesters – but it’s not impossible to see political reasons for some of our youth behaving like this.  We have done little for them and it looks like they finally know this.

Curfew and shooting looters might well be a fair response if we are prepared to do something about the real problems.  We won’t.


Police Pay in the Light of Rioting

There is no special attack on police pay.  Wages have been shafted for everyone else other than an elite for more than 30 years.  This is clear in GDP figures.  The rich and well-paid have been getting vastly better off as the rest of us have had our wages cut in real terms.  Police and public sector pay and conditions fared better than the private sector.  The police and public sector did not stand up and be counted when this started and, indeed, police enforced much of the deterioration in the Miner’s Strike and other attempts to prevent the collapse of manufacturing.  We should note that the anti-union propaganda and similar are never aimed at those groups in our society using ‘guild’ techniques to maintain their earnings like lawyers (including judges), accountants, bankers and the rich.  The idea that we have a “meritocracy” is farcical – tossers like Blair used to go around quoting books with the term in the title that were highly critical of the notion as though they were arguments for it.

Cops are not generally well qualified, trained or skilled and the work could be done by any reasonably fit people.  In the past police wages were severely cut in times like this and the blue line still did what it was told.  There is no special case now and to make one is only likely to further inflame those who are really suffering poverty thanks to the rich and their toady-politicians.  None of this is to say .I don’t think cops should be paid less than lawyers, judges and bankers – I value police more than these parasites.

The reason there is no money is that the rich have had it – through investing abroad to take advantage of near slave conditions of employment and tax evasion (it is evasion because they use threats to leave with all their money to prevent fair rates).  The only investment in anything real (almost) has been through the public sector or highly subsidised by our taxes – the rich have formed a vast Ponzi scheme to get unrealistic rates of return and have stolen vast sums we needed to invest in meaningful jobs.

Most have not understood the extent and nature of the criminality of the rich – which is as bad as any of the evil poor’s doings – worse when land grabs involve forced evictions and killings.  If the reality sinks in, our police are going to be a thin line between a vengeful poor and their masters.  This is likely to be done by decimated ranks that will be protecting the bankster-terrorists and their smug political lackeys.  They are likely to find themselves between ‘white racists’, ‘disaffected immigrants’ and other factions – and with no political solutions offered because we have no real politics.

We are so dumb as a populace we haven’t spotted that the rich have been keeping more and more of the world’s wealth as debt and deficits rise – this is almost like your neighbour always having potatoes just after your crop has been raided and not making the connection.

There’s some chance this government may re-think on police numbers and pay.  As Gadget points out the amounts involved are nothing in comparison with banking thefts.  No doubt this would be a red rag to the rest of the public sector bull – but the Tories might risk it under some crime and disorder propaganda.  Policing as we’ve known it in the UK would disappear, and cops turn to a semi-military militia.

I won’t be here, having decided to up sticks long ago.  The IPCC make a statement later tonight.  I expect bullshit – hard to imagine what they could say now they couldn’t have managed yesterday when whatever they didn’t do played some role in making people angry and setting off the angry.

Tottenham Probably Shows No Faith in IPCC

Cops in London shoot some guy.  It maybe a ‘Katrina Bridge’ incident or not.  Now we have riots and arson all over.  One possible reason for the riots is that our supposedly independent police complaints commission isn’t.  It’s hard to find any decent investigation they have done and senior figures should have been sacked long ago.  Internal suggestions include the bosses being warned off proper investigations and nicking bent cops by the Home Office.  The worthies who get these top jobs all seem much the same and pretty useless.  There is not a single decent investigation report on the IPCC website, yet there is a growing list of worthless self-congratulation and performance management piss that should be the tell-tale sign of hapless management by now – the stuff that comes before Baby P, Fiona Pilkington, killing innocent Brazilians (this seems to have done Dick’s career portfolio good) and the dreadful truth.

The initial protest was peaceful and just an airing of concern.  If the IPCC was any good, one can imagine a few people going to make a complaint.  This bunch of bureaucratic tossers would probably have fobbed them off with meaningless crud on confidentiality and other routine insulting behaviour concerned citizens get.

Cops immediately started their backfire campaign of smearing the poor sod they shot.  This theme is widely reported in journal articles and no one ever seems to be sacked.  The lies told around Stockwell helped no one.  Blair should have been removed from office as soon as he blocked IPCC people at the scene (I must admit I’d balk at untrained bunglers on my crime scene) and now excuses about CCTV not working and so on look dire, as does the drivel on 17 civilian witnesses not hearing shouts of ‘armed police’, especially as this should not have been shouted.  I have no truck with blaming armed people under stress – but Stockwell should have produced sackings in clown Gold and the prosecution of Blair for interfering with a lawful investigation.  IPCC investigations do not seem to lead to satisfaction for victims of poor policing or to uncovering corruption.

On a statistical basis, how many of the 40+ forces across England and Wales don’t have problems when they are put under at bit of pressure like the Met on ‘hacking’?  We were told GMP was lucky to have such a fine specimen as ‘Shagger Todd’ – in fact he now looks like a total clown in comparison with Fahey – so where was the IPCC when needed?  Where are they now on the routine favouritism and chief constables able to bully their way out of gross misconduct and stay in office?  Given not a single force has been able to understand its own performance in order to transfer ‘success’, where are both HMIC and IPCC on a corruption enquiry into senior police gaming?  Two Merseyside working stiffs are supposed to have been sacked (no report on IPCC website though) and lost pensions over gaming – so what should be happening to the senior network actually raking in bonus payments?

The IPCC has failed – we need a new way to renew faith in our policing.  The resources could be found by abolishing ACPO and other nitwit bodies and combining police complaints and HMIC in a quality body.  The new body should be responsive to communities and ordinary people and responsible to the public.  But on this last matter the question is how?  We need new ideas now we have discovered voting is almost useless.

We want our cops nicking the looters, druggies and other thugs rather than see them cashing in on protests and we want cops to be able to tell the truth on crime, not listen to ACPO-types telling us the opposite of what we witness every day.  We simply can’t trust that proper investigations will take place.

Nothing excuses this kind of riot and one wishes officers hurt a speedy recovery, as well as the innocent victims who have lost their homes.  It doesn’t feel good that we have areas as tinderbox as this.  It could be the people involved are beyond any rational appeal – I remember a similar issue over a worthless toerag 30 years ago in Manchester.  That one resolved when a good proportion of the protesters realised chummy had been nicking from them and was not innocent.  One can’t base arguments on the twits with firebombs, but if this can kick off over what looks like a police return of fire, one has to wonder about the wider issue of investigative credibility. The IPCC seem to have been intimate with the dead person’s relatives and this wasn’t enough.

IPCC ‘Investigate’ A Bare Cupboard

Police and court records appear to be destroyed as a matter of routine in a fairly short space of time.  A case in Manchester saw Mr Zengeya convicted in 2001.  He seemed to have used stolen credit cards to pay for a shipment, presumably over the phone.  He claimed ‘some other guy did it’ and named him.  This was to settle a debt between them.  He named the other guy, who was found and arrested – but not charged and later appeared as a prosecution witness.

Mr Zengeya went through a few appeals with no luck and then to the CCRC.  They sent the matter to appeal and the conviction was quashed in 2009.   Mr Zengeya got 9 months, which he presumably served.  The interesting thing is that the Appeal Court, notoriously difficult to convince of anything, found enough evidence to conclude there was not a fair trial.  This is very strange in view of the IPCC ‘investigation’ into a complaint about the cop who dealt with the case, now Supt. Hassall.  They seem only to have scraps to have a go at as all the main evidence of court records and the like and, of course, the GMP file, have been destroyed.

So what did the CCRC and the Court of Appeal work on then?  And why was vital evidence destroyed when an appeal was in progress – or was it all destroyed after the appeal in case a complaint followed?

The appeal was granted on the basis of disclosure rules.  It’s impossible from the poor IPCC report to make out if they contacted the court for the evidence presented to them, only to note the cupboard was empty where they looked and they avoid saying when it was emptied.  You might think a case in which an innocent man was found guilty (or the opposite) would be sealed in some way so we could find out what really happened and prevent the same thing happening again.  Or that an ‘independent’ commissioner would be asking very open questions as to why evidence vital to this purpose can be routinely destroyed.  No ‘learning lessons’ from this one then  – unless the system has already learned burning the books is the lesson to learn!  The case is equally appalling if a guilty man can rely on the evidence going up in smoke and then appeal.  Dismal.  All we can say here is at least one guilty man walked free.  The Guardian reported the following:

A commission report found that the police officer investigating the case, Steve Hassall, then a detective sergeant and now a detective superintendent for Greater Manchester police (GMP), failed to disclose certain important pieces of evidence, relating to Usman, which should have been put before the jury.

The commission found the failure to give full and proper disclosure of material relating to the credibility of the key prosecution witness rendered the conviction unsafe.

“Hassall’s witness statement was clearly misleading in that he said Usman was interviewed in relation to ‘unconnected offences of obtaining services by deception’ whereas the records of his police interviews clearly showed that he was interviewed as a suspect and also, as regards items found in his house, as a potential fraudster,” the commission’s report said.

If the CCRC was able to conclude this, what standard of evidence is it using in comparison with the IPCC who couldn’t find anything?  The CCRC mention being able to compare the officer’s statement and police records, yet this was something the IPCC could not do.

Another feature of this is that only the poor cop is subject to investigation – why not the lawyers and judge?

As part of the CCRC investigation both the defence and prosecution barrister
argued they did not believe they had been aware of Mr A's arrest prior to the
start of the trial. Both opined that Supt Hassall's statement to the court was
"misleading" in that it didn't specifically state that Mr A had been arrested for
the specific offence that Mr Zengeya was charged with. In particular the use of
the term "unconnected offences" was believed to be most misleading.
However Mr Zengeya's defence barrister also opined to the IPCC
investigators that it did appear the arrest of Mr A had been disclosed during
evidence and therefore the allegedly misleading statement could not have
undermined the case.

On the basis of the above from the IPCC report I wonder what use these lawyers and the trial judge are.  The question seems to be whether Mr.Z did it, Mr. U did it or whether they acted together.  We need to know why the system was so piss poor this was not thrashed out in court at the time.  All that we can be sure of is that documents from which lessons could be learned are being destroyed.  And Mr. Z’s defence lawyer was no good.

The Appeal Court judgement is not available.  Shouldn’t the CCRC do something to stop records being ‘routinely’ destroyed like this?

Do our courts know what evidence is?

At 2:00 in the morning on 25 January 1995, Boston police officer Kenny Conley was chasing a shooting suspect who climbed over a chain-link fence. An undercover officer named Michael Cox had arrived on the scene moments earlier, but other officers had mistaken him for a suspect, assaulted him from behind, and brutally beat him. Conley chased the suspect over the fence and apprehended him some time later. In later testimony, Conley said that he ran right past the place where Cox was under attack, but he claimed not to have seen the incident. The investigators, prosecutors, and jurors in the case all assumed that because Conley could have seen the beating, Conley must have seen the beating, and therefore must have been lying to protect his comrades. Conley was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and was sentenced to thirty-four months in jail.

This is obviously a US case, but courts around the world have difficulty with “evidence”.  There’s a long list from the UK I’m aware of – Nico Bento being the classic, in which the very evidence that should have secured his acquittal was turned to the damning piece.  This involved a judge and jury being asked not to believer their own eyes but the cock-and-bull of an “expert” already discredited elsewhere.

Kenny Conley is more likely a decent cop doing his job with some bravery than some in the UK public eye recently.  The matter is reported in the journal i-Perception –

This journal has much about it I would commend, notably that it is free to read and freely available – a model our public affairs should follow.

Our court systems rely on concepts of evidence that are very dated.  Decisions on fact are essentially taken by lay people – magistrates and juries.  This might be a good thing, given some of what is emerging on “expert” decisions in the Crown Prosecution Service and seeps out on bureaucratic manipulations in the like of Baby P, though the same flaws are present in our court rooms because what can be presented in court is severely limited by cost, representation and ‘legal rules’.

Human history is not one in which many people have shown much notion of what real evidence is.  In this case, it isn’t so much that the academics have established that it is quite likely that we might well not see and incident whilst focused on another, but that courts are making decisions on what they cannot know as though they could and prepared to send people to jail on that basis.  Many questions spring up, including that if this can happen to a cop with representation, what else might be going on in cases with no representation?

I feel for Kenny, having been in a similar situation.  The point really though is that the time for our courts to be subjected to proper public scrutiny is long overdue – and this needs to be scrutiny beyond that of superior courts.  I gave evidence that wasn’t quite true in order to both tell the truth and defend an officer doing his job.  Other officers present lied that they could not see the incident, something easily disproved in an recreation (there wasn’t one).  I was some distance further away and arresting someone else – they were, in fact, just watching and the idle and incompetent of many other incidents.

Our courts have been pretending on evidence for centuries.  Our legal system is based on fictions and in no way approaches scientific criteria on evidence – it could not entirely of course.  What really worries me about Kenny’s case is that we would send a man to jail in the belief he was lying about the fact that he could have given evidence, with no one bothering to find out whether anyone was likely to have been able to.

One cannot read i-Perception and conclude anyone was likely to be able to give the evidence Kenny was assumed to have been able to witness.  Yet we assume all kinds of worthies can’t see the blatant corruption around them in Baby P, Parliamentary expenses and in hiring a bent forensic expert who lies to court (Bento) or in CPS decision-making on Harwood and in failing to disclose on undercover officers etc.  All these worthies are clearly more guilty than Kenny, even if he did see the fight.  Unlike the nose-in-the-troughs the sharp end appears exposed to the same unfair ‘justice’ as the rest of us.

What about an experiment on whether we would ‘see’ corruption around us?  The Establishment knows we do – that’s why Tisdale and the guy who told us which direction the Belgrano was sailing in were prosecuted and why whistle-blowers are treated like lepers.

Kenny Conley eventually won on appeal, though not on the academic research.  My own feelings are that it is time to stop the nonsense of magistrates and juries making up their minds on whatever is skewed at them in the weird settings of courtrooms.  Could we not come up with a better system of public scrutiny?  I don’t really mean new court systems – something systemic that would not have to rely on ‘personal integrity’ or ‘value ethics’ acting in secret?

Tomlinson Enquiry Failing The Need – the Grauniad.

Ian Tomlinson was killed two years ago because police officers failed to protect a vulnerable man.  They prevented him making his way home, and one of them clearly assaulted him in front of other officers.  The story is now ghastly, and pretty much all of our criminal justice system is tarnished.  Claims that there is no evidence of this, that and the other really only substantiate that no timely investigation was possible, and that only ‘chance’ video evidence has helped bring the grubby story to any light at all.

One can see that police have to be as free as we can make them from malevolent complaint, but here we have all the signs of various bureaucracies operating only to make no one responsible.  Whilst money is being consumed in this manner, we can only fear things can only get worse.

Harwood will almost certainly escape proper prosecution because a trial would bring others and the system itself under belated scrutiny.  And it is in these areas that the great matters of public concern lie.

“Public Argument” is failing all of us (Tomlinson)

One can put a case forward that Mr. Tomlinson would still be alive if there had been no G20 protests.  Beyond this one can argue that the organisers of the protests are responsible for the death if the protest was not justified.  Beyond this, one can argue that those who organise our democracy were responsible because their failings make such protests necessary to protect democracy.  There is no need to agree any of these arguments, just appreciate they can be made, no doubt at tedious length.  We have known this about argument at least since Pyrrho. One can get so pissed off with argument that all that is left to say is to point to the pisswitterers (Sophists, lawyers, pundits) and announce ‘I know nothing, but even this is to know more than them’ (Socrates).  This is only a ‘polite, humerus’ way to chant ‘fuck off you twats’.

Given a more or less white powder, test tube, thermometer and Bunsen burner, and asked to find out what temperature lead carbonate turns yellow, most of us would probably stick the powder and thermometer in the test  tube and heat it up, recording the temp.  I forget the result.  There are more people than you’d think who can’t do this experiment.  They’d be the only ones left if I’d substituted lead azide, which is so massively explosive we transport it in dextrinated solution (carefully).  It’s sort of white to buff as a powder.  Most of us can heat up white powders; almost none of us can spot the psychopath.  Not many of us can do chemistry in a safe manner.  I could write this little exercise up a bit more carefully to make its point – which is that most of us can’t do argument safely either and the results are as disastrous as heating up lead azide or even looking at it aggressively.  I forget, but the stuff is so preposterously explosive in raw form, that the energy to set it off equates to dropping it through six inches, or as Hogday might appreciate, breathing loudly in the distant vicinity of a currently non-hostile Arab mob or Millwall soccer fans.

Public argument is as distant from real, scientific argument as most of us are from being able to make and handle lead azide.  More than this, we keep non-equipped dullards out of lead azide handling, but not out of public argument. That this is blazingly obvious is blazingly obvious – the questions are about how we so easily forget this so regularly.

We send cops (and others), ill-equipped, under-trained (yet burdened by loads of useless training) and more into quasi-lead azide situations and blame them when things explode.

I still like to think, at the end of a 22 hour shift, covered in the blood of my best friend (he survived) and having just fitted my inspector’s head up the exhaust pipe of a Volvo, I would have treated Mr. Tomlinson better than Harwood and the cops who looked on.  And that even in one of my current diabetic states, I would not have been as jobsworth as the DPP  in his pathetic ‘decision-making’.  I ain’t Superman or Plato, just a working stiff.  What has ans is getting in the way or ordinary people doing their best?  That they didn’t for Mr. Tomlinson is obvious.  The energy required to do this amounts to a drip in the bucket of cover-up blather.

The Death of Maria Stubbings

The following is the tail end of the IPCC (Incompetent Poodles of Constabulary Corruption) report, two years on from the murder of Maria Stubbings, killed by a violent man with a previous conviction for the murder of a girlfriend.  The first part of the report deals with idiot law which means a conviction outside the UK doesn’t really count.  No note is made that police, knowing this, should not give up, but take more steps to protect vulnerable people in such circumstances.  Any ‘we could do nothing because the conviction was in Germany’ is pathetic – having identified idiot law, police should have taken reasonable steps to protect Maria, including injunctions or an ASBO to allow him to be locked up anywhere near the woman or her family.  Of course, they could really do with substantial powers beyond such measures, and the feeble ASBO has now gone.

The IPCC investigation also found that a combination of factors including human error, missed opportunities and individual failures in performance or duty by Essex Police officers and staff led to a serious failure to provide an adequate response to a vulnerable woman.

When Maria called police to report Chivers had been in her house without permission on 11 December 2008, the initial call taker failed to record the correct address for Maria, which meant that any alerts or flags attached to Maria’s address were not accessed. No further checks were undertaken, and the call was wrongly treated as a report of a burglary rather than a domestic violence matter. Had all of the information been gathered then, Maria should have been assessed as a highly vulnerable victim of domestic violence, and received the immediate response required. The IPCC has concluded that the call handler should face action for poor performance. It has also recommended that Essex Police examine and review their policies and procedures with regard to call handling, call grading and call taker identification of domestic violence incidents. It should be reiterated to call takers the importance of identifying risk factors to enable further questions to be asked and an appropriate risk assessment to be made. In particular, any information that could relate to domestic abuse or a previous history between individuals should trigger appropriate background checks to be made to equip attending officers with all known information that would assist in their response.

The next day a Police Community Support Officer found Maria’s 15-year-old son during school-time in a car at a park with Marc Chivers. On returning her son to Maria’s house, police officers witnessed Maria’s shock and distress, and her say to her son ‘you know what he’s done’. The following day Maria informed police that she did not want to pursue the burglary report, but the allegation later came to the attention of a detective inspector who was rightly concerned.

Commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said: “An important issue here is that women fleeing domestic violence have many reasons why they may withdraw statements, and it is important that police do not draw a conclusion from the woman’s actions, but rather proceed accordingly on the basis of the evidence.”

On 17 December a police visit to Maria’s home to check on her welfare did not take place because the female officer said she could not find any other officer to accompany her. The IPCC investigation concluded that, having assessed the risk to herself as too great to visit alone, not attending Maria’s house that night was a failure in duty to properly consider the immediate risk to a highly vulnerable woman and her son. This officer therefore has a case to answer for misconduct.

At around 7 pm on 18 December two police officers, including the officer who failed to attend the night before, went to Maria’s house and were invited in by Marc Chivers. He said Maria was away staying with friends and he was looking after the household. Despite Maria’s car being on the drive, the officers accepted Chivers story and left. The IPCC concluded that action for poor performance should also be considered against these officers.

Rachel Cerfontyne added: “I am unable to make sense of the ease with which two officers were fobbed off by Marc Chivers at the house when they turned up on 18 December. They were far too easily persuaded by the account of a man they knew to be a convicted murderer that Maria had gone to stay with friends – far more probing questions of Chivers should have been asked.”

On hearing this information the next morning, the detective inspector was not satisfied and sent officers back to the house. While searching the ground floor, a detective constable opened a door in the hallway and, pulling away what appeared to be a pile of coats, discovered Maria’s body. Her son was not at the house and safe elsewhere. A post-mortem established the cause of death as strangulation.

My first question would be ‘why two years’?  That’s two years in which this kind of crappy cop performance could repeat, and almost certainly has.  This was going on when I finished, 30 years ago.

Next would come – ‘why are you dealing with this case in isolation? – there are regular incidents like this and claims to ‘learn lessons’ – it should be in the IPCC remit to look at this – why has nothing been learned?

This looks like a case of dire supervision.  The investigation does not seem, to raise these issues.

A number of plods are recommended for discipline.  This is two years on and they appear to have acted like gawps.  Why did their own supervision not deal with them?

This is very sad stuff and appears to be going on all round the country.  If it’s this bad with a known murderer, what else is going on?  What ‘culture’ allows a police woman not to attend a potential serious crime to protect a member of the public because she couldn’t find anyone to go with her?  If it’s true going on her own would have got her into trouble, a lot of rethinking needs to be done – Maria was being killed, or could have  been.

Where is the investigation of why the dealing cops were so useless?  We all know they deal with loads of dross, but they appear to have no clue on what to prioritise.  Essex PSD should have dealt with the under-performing officers, including supervisors.  The IPCC should long ago have been collating the widespread problems long ago.  Have they done anything useful?  I doubt it.

The failings in these matters are much wider than any police bungling.  Where were the Block sergeants and inspector in all of this farce?  None existent or stuck up old drippers?  Who is responsible for such crap law, or police disbursement and attitudes that are so inadequate?

The need is for a wide investigation into what victims get  when reporting offences and intimidation to police, and what our courts are actually wasting time on, and who is getting the money spent.