Taking the blame. Or not.

[cromwell]

Dame Cressida Dick came out with a beauty re the farcical Operation Midland conducted by the Metropolitan Police into the claims of Carl Beech, a man who claimed there was a "VIP paedophie ring" operating in Westminster and he and others had been serially abused. There were other fantastical stories about torture and murder.

Because that's what it was, a fantasy. There were more holes in Beech's story than a string vest; nobody with a brain cell would have believed him for five minutes.

Nevertheless, some did. Notably the people in charge of Operation Midland. One of them, Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald described Beech's ludicrous tales as "credible and true". I would have thought that "true" or not was a matter for a jury and that Det. Supt. McDonald had put his foot in it in a major way, but at the time he went uncorrected.

So this week Dame Cressida was questioned at the London Assembly whether she, as the person above the officer leading the inquiry (one Steve Rodhouse) should have corrected this outrageous statement. Her answer is an absolute beauty.

"Perhaps in retrospect I could or should have". Look at the qualifications in that short sentence. "Perhaps". "Could OR should have". There should be no perhaps and no could or.

She is absolutely typical of public sector management. Happy to take the money and the kudos of senior rank, but very unwilling indeed to take the responsibility that goes with it. And who indeed work very hard to minimise their responsibility. For a game of spot the evasion, the link to the article is here.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/1 ... ible-true/

[Workingman]

Yes, Dick should have pulled McDonald up, and done it publicly, but what if McDonald had said "could be" or something less definite than "is" how would things have changed? I am thinking that despite the fantastical claims the police must have had some reason to continue with the investigation - surely?

It seems that at the time the police were under pressure to be 'seen to be doing something' and that led to what are now described as actions 'perverting the course of justice'. With that in mind it looks as though the investigation was riddled with prejudice from the top right down to relatively minor investigating officers and that they have all got away with it.

How the Independent Office for Police Conduct found no evidence of misconduct is a mystery and I now see that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has been asked to investigate further. Heads should roll, but I will not hold my breath. Incompetence and poor performance seem to be essential for promotion and honours in today's UK.

[TheOstrich]

With that in mind it looks as though the investigation was riddled with prejudice from the top right down to relatively minor investigating officers and that they have all got away with it.

Ah yes. Cross-reference Stephen Lawrence

How the Independent Office for Police Conduct found no evidence of misconduct is a mystery and I now see that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has been asked to investigate further.

Will that make any difference? Neither are exactly "independent" in my book. The Judge Henriques should have been the definitive and final investigative outcome, and heads should roll from that.

My bete noire, ex Wiltshire police chief Mike Veale got away with it as well, and the county Police and Crime Commissioner has steadfastly refused to hold an enquiry into his operation against Edward Heath. That tells you all you need to know about the so-called independent oversight of the police.