Bend it like Andy

You may remember the case of the Policeman who came over all shy? He was a former Chief Constable, a Deputy Commissioner of Scotland Yard responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) when he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset. Yes, this sensitive soul was Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard who was responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror. In December 2007 he decided to retire immediately from his £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

His decision to step down was another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues at the time rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard. Ian Blair has since gone and Sir Paul Stephenson has taken over with a stated mission to regain squandered public trust and return Scotland Yard to the basics of policing. As such he is in the tradition of respected reforming commissioners such as Robert Mark and Paul Condon but it has to be asked if the stables need to be shovelled out with such frequency is the design wrong? Just how bad the stables still are can be garnered from this report in the Observer;

"Auditors who have examined the American Express accounts of 3,500 officers involved in countering terrorism and organised crime have reported almost one in 11 detectives to the Metropolitan Police's internal investigators. A senior officer appears to have spent £40,000 on his Amex card in one year, without authorisation. Items bought by others without permission include suits, women's clothing and fishing rods..."

"Sources have told the Observer that some detectives had fallen into the habit of withdrawing hundreds of pounds at a time from cashpoints. Other officers appear to have filled in blank receipts from restaurants to account for cash payments."



Hundreds of Metropolitan Police Officers have been investigated for fraud after widespread abuse of corporate credit cards was revealed. Indeed those who have cards withdrawn equates to 1 in 11 of all Scotland Yard’s plain clothes officers, so there is definitely something badly wrong with the Yardie’s culture of entitlement and basic honesty.

Now you would think Shy Andy would have stayed shy having failed to give an account of himself but no sireee, you would indeed be wrong. For in the greatest transformation since Ernest Saunders cast off incurable dementia Andy “I don’t want to give evidence” Hayman has triumphed over his shyness and then some! For one thing he has appeared in the columns of The Murdoch Times as a “security correspondent” giving his opinion on all and sundry to do with policing, Law and Order. Now those of us of Hibernian origin remember that throughout the Northern Ireland conflict the Sunday Times always had security correspondents who pedalled British Security Service disinformation and smears, all the time quoting unamed “Security Services”. Never mind most of their “splashes” were wrong, no retractions, apologies or corrections were ever forthcoming.


Community Policing

Well Shy Andy continues in this proud tradition of Murdoch Press Integrity, giving forth with his “expertise”. The Government crisis committee that deals with events from flu epidemics to terror attacks was condemned by him as a “nonsensical system.” He said the Cobra committee dragged people away from their real jobs when dealing with a crisis. Mr Hayman, who was head of counter terror operations during the 7/7 bombings in 2005, gave details of Cobra in his book The Terrorist Hunters. He was particularly critical of the shambolic operations of the committee, which he revealed meets in a fortified cellar beneath Whitehall. Senior officials who are dealing with the immediate aftermath of a major event are suddenly dragged into a meeting with politicians, he said. “There's a bomb attack and all hell breaks loose. Everyone scrambles — emergency services, police, intelligence agencies, Government departments — and rushes around trying to deal with it. But within an hour we're pulled off the job and summoned to Cobra.”



He says the meeting room is stuffy and often senior officials wander lost beneath Whitehall trying to find it. He adds: “Of course a meeting should be called to co-ordinate the response, and the role of senior people is to detach themselves from the detail and plan ahead. But in my experience, Cobra fails to do that. The first time I attended, I was in awe. There were more knights there than at King Arthur's round table.”

He said politicians are often plunged into meetings on issues they know little about. Speaking about the 7/7 attack he says: “Take Alistair Darling, who was then Transport Secretary. He was on my case all the time, telling me the Underground needed to be reopened. And I kept asking: Do you want me to secure the crime scenes and get the evidence to prosecute the terrorists, or do you want me to get the traffic moving?'”


7/7 attack on The Tube

Speaking in the Times (where else!) to publicise his book he said: “Sometimes the meetings worked but more often they didn't. People would jockey for position in front of influential ministers, squabbling over places at the table. At times Cobra appeared to be little more than a stage for those looking to impress.” Mr Hayman calls for Cobra to be replaced with a committee made up solely of operational officials.

Well now the publication of the book The Terrorist Hunters by Andy Hayman has been blocked by the Attorney General. Baroness Scotland stepped in at the last minute to obtain an injunction preventing The Terrorist Hunters from hitting the shelves today. The book focused on the struggle against Islamic terrorism in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 attacks on the London Underground which killed 52 people.

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/08/walktalk.html

It also looked at the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko and gave a behind-the-scenes glimpse of top-level political and intelligence work. An advisory notice highlighting the injunction, granted by an unnamed High Court judge, was circulated to news-paper editors at 11.45 last night. Further details of the reasons behind the injunction cannot be published for legal reasons linked to continuing criminal proceedings.

Thousands of copies of the 372-page book were delivered to bookshops nationwide ahead of its publication today. Large sections of the book, co-written by former BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore, were also serialised in The Times. Sources close to the publication said it was vetted by officials at the Cabinet Office, MI5 and MI6 but no copy was passed to Scotland Yard.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has complained that he was not given a preview of its contents. He told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority last week that he was reluctant to give the book more publicity. But Sir Paul said members of the force's watchdog might like to consider whether senior officers should be allowed to publish such books. He said: “I find it surprising as commissioner that I have no right on this occasion to have access to the book before it is published. It is troublesome and it does not help good conduct.”

One senior police insider said: “There is quite a lot of anger in the Met about the book's contents. No one else's memories of some of the events he describes are the same."

Anyway I leave the final word on Shy Andy to one of his former colleagues in the Blue Brotherhood who left this comment on an Evening Standard article;

“Oh Please! I am no supporter of the current status quo, but we really don't need any advice for Andy Hayman as part of his campaign to publicise his book. This light-weight individual was, by common agreement, one of the most ineffectual heads of counter-terrorism we have had in recent years. He left the post hurriedly with an enormous cloud over his head, so his comments should be taken with a shed full of salt.”

Oh Dear!

"Righteous Kill" poster at Stockwell

Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest on the 23rd September 2008 stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place. And, Oh dear, here was the poster on the wall behind them!

Here is what the Advertising Standards Authority said, as reported by the BBC;

"A film poster sited at Stockwell Tube station during the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest could have caused serious offence, a regulator has ruled. The poster for Righteous Kill was displayed at the station where Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.

Its tagline read: "There's nothing wrong with a little shooting as long as the right people get shot."

The Advertising Standards Authority said it breached guidelines on decency. "We understood the siting of the poster at the station was unintentional, but nevertheless considered that the text had the potential to cause serious offence in that location," the ASA said in its adjudication. It added that the poster, which also featured stars Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, breached rules on social responsibility."

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-in-london.html

Longford Lecture 2008 - We Can't Build Our Way Out of Britain's Prisons' Crisis

Once again on a cold London night we proceeded across the yard of Church House, Westminster, to the Hall for this year’s “Longford Lecture” organised by the Longford Trust and sponsored by the excellent Independent Newspaper which is owned by Tony O’Reilly’s Independent News and Media. I mention this as the Celtic Sage has read the Independent and admired its non-aligned journalism (Its original strapline was “A Newspaper, not a Views Paper” – although some, including Tony Blair, would dispute this now) even before it was Irish owned. Tony O’Reilly has long been associated with the Ireland Fund and the support for the lecture is admirable.


Lord Longford (Frank Pakenham)

Lord Longford (Frank Pakenham) was from the Anglo-Irish tradition and remained sentimentally attached to Ireland even though he probably broke every tradition of his Anglo-Irish ascendancy family. He was born into a military, Protestant, Conservative and Unionist clan, and educated at Eton and New College, Oxford. As an adult, he embraced the Roman Catholic Church and Irish nationalism. His failure to follow his soldier father, who was killed at Gallipoli when Longford was nine, remained an open wound. Longford's memory will live on, if not for the scale of his achievements then certainly because of his courage, tenacity and nobility in trying. He was a man of great intelligence and moral strength and the speakers and themes of the “Longford Lectures” reflect his life’s work. Last year’s lecture was on the theme of “Changing History” by the President of Ireland, Professor Mary McAleese, (http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/11/longford-lecture-2007-changing-history.html ).

This year, as a one-off, the trustees decided to stage a debate, chaired by Jon Snow on the theme “We Can't Build Our Way Out of Britain's Prisons' Crisis” The four principal speakers were Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Jason Warr, former Longford Scholar, now a Cambridge criminologist, and Phil Wheatley, director of NOMS, the National Offender Management Service.

This is the latest in the annual series of lectures organised by the Longford Trust on questions of social and penal reform. Past speakers have included President Mary McAleese of Ireland, Clive Stafford Smith, Brenda Hale QC, Cherie Booth QC, Archbishop John Sentamu and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The Trust also awards an annual Longford Prize to an outstanding individual or organisation working in the field of prison and social reform. It funds Longford Scholarships for ex-prisoners who want to rebuild their lives through education. And it offers financial support to Inside Time, the national newspaper for prisoners.

Offenders sentenced to community punishments should be forced into uniform to restore flagging trust in the criminal justice system, Sir Ian Blair declared last night. In his first public appearance since his resignation a month ago, the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner argued such sentences had to be shown to be effective to win public approval. Sir Ian also called for early intervention with youngsters to deter them from carrying knives and cast doubt on the drive to build more prisons.

Speaking at the annual Longford lecture he said: "One of the things we are going to have to do is move towards is the very unpalatable situation where community punishments are visible.”They are in uniform, on the streets, doing jobs and people can see people are being sentenced to community projects that do not seem very pleasant." He explained that the public needed to see that community punishments were not a soft option. He added: "If they don't understand it's happening they will want people locked up."


Sir Ian Blair

The Commissioner asked: "Why do so many people think prison is the only answer? An element of the media and political community argues that the only good thing is to lock them up and everything else is namby pamby." Sir Ian, who leaves his post on 1st December, refused to discuss the background to his departure or shed light on his plans. Turning to the spate of knife murders in London, he said: "We can't arrest our way out of this. The only way we can stop this is to stop young people believing they have to carry a knife for their protection."

The Government has drawn up plans to open another 10,000 prison places, with up to 7,500 in three "Titan" jails. But Sir Ian suggested prison should be reserved for violent and persistent criminals. The public had to be confident fines were paid and bail bandits were punished by prison, Sir Ian argued. They should also be informed about the outcome of local court cases.


Church House, Westminster

The Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, a leading human rights lawyer, attacked "Titan" jails plans, saying that large prisons were less effective than smaller jails at rehabilitating offenders and tackling suicide and self-harming among inmates. She condemned the booming prison population as a "shame" on the nation, stating that Britain had more prisoners per head than Libya. Lady Kennedy said: "There is no way we can build our way out of a prisons crisis. It is a shame on society that we have as many people in prison as we do. Since 1992 we have doubled the number of people in prison. We are the prison capital of Western Europe. We have seen a Dutch auction between the political parties about who is tougher."

Baroness Helena Kennedy QC

Phil Wheatley, director general of the National Offender Management Service, said he had no direct influence over the number of people behind bars. He argued that the size of prison estate was the result of politicians' and judges' decisions. But he acknowledged that the public tended to take a hard-line view on dealing with offenders and politicians had to take that into account. Before the lecture, Grendon Prison, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, received the annual Longford Prize in recognition of its work in rehabilitating violent offenders through intensive group therapy.


Frank Longford said often during his life that he would like his epitaph to be ‘the outcasts' outcast’. It summed up a long career as a politician, writer and campaigner on social and prison policy which was all about standing up for the unpopular, the unloved, the underdog and those on the margins of society. He was first a minister in Clement Attlee’s post Second World War Labour government, where as Deputy Foreign Secretary he played a pivotal role in the reconstruction of West Germany. From 1964 to 1968, he was a member of Harold Wilson’s Cabinet.

He started visiting prisoners in 1930 and continued until his death. He was assistant to Sir William Beveridge on his landmark report of 1942 which laid the basis for the Welfare State. In 1956 he founded New Bridge, one of the first organisations in Britain seeking to create links between prisoners and the community, and in 1963 chaired the committee on crime whose recommendations led to the establishment of the parole system. On leaving the government, he launched New Horizon, a charity for young people in need.

The Pakenham Family have roots in both Ireland and England and have influenced both countries over the years. In Dublin they are commemorated in Longford and Aungier Streets and the former Pakenham Hall near Castlepollard in Co. Meath was renamed Tullynally (The Gaelic name) by Tom Pakenham (The current Lord Longford, although he does not use his titles) when he took it over in 1961. Tom Pakenham is himself an author and historian of note as are his sisters, Lady Antonia Fraser, Rachel Billington and Judith Kazantzis.


Tom Pakenham


Lady Antonia Fraser


Rachel Billington

The plight of the underdog motivated Frank Pakenham throughout his life and although he is associated in the public mind with his campaign to free the Moors Murderer Myra Hindley, many would argue she was an unworthy focus of his attention and obscured his wider message about penal reform, a concern which is even more pressing today when Britain, despite the evidence of failure, locks up proportionately more of its population than any other European Country.

In its bid to establish itself as the party of law or order, Tony Blair’s Labour government introduced a series of draconian measures, including a tougher sentencing policy for petty offenders. The fact remains that in the UK so many prisons are bad and most prisoners are not re-educated or rehabilitated but come out more corrupted and go onto re-offend. Of the current prison population of over 80,000 shamefully it is estimated that over one in eleven prisoners are ex-service personnel who have developed mental, alcohol or drug problems after leaving the forces and 8% are foreign prisoners. A high proportion of the convicts interviewed in the study had suffered some form of post-traumatic stress disorder after leaving the forces. Often their convictions were for drug- or alcohol-related violence. Ex-services charities said the findings highlighted the difficulty which many former soldiers face in making the transition to civilian life. The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), which carried out the research, called on the Government to do more to tackle mental health problems suffered by people who have fought in war zones. It said that around 24,000 veterans are either in jail, on parole or serving community punishment orders after having been convicted of crimes. They make up around nine per cent of the prison population.

The relative number of women prisoners is rising even more sharply than that of the male inmates—more than doubling since the mid-1990s. Twice as many women are jailed for their first offence compared to men, while few female offenders pose any threat to the public. The frequent imprisoning of mothers has an enormously disruptive effect upon their children and family life. One third of women imprisoned in British jails have children under the age of five.

Prison Inspector reports in some prisons show eleven per cent of inmates claimed to have been assaulted by officers at the jail and one mentally-disturbed prisoner had been denied a wash or change of clothes for weeks because staff thought he was faking his illness. The Prison Officers Association has said that because of understaffing at many prisons “they have been unable to provide the basics, like showers, clean clothes and mail, on a regular basis." They said this had also led to high levels of sick leave among officers. Their General Secretary commented; "At the end of the day cash is king and while there are votes in health and education, there are no votes in prisons, which means they will continue to be under-resourced," he said.

So the cause that Lord Longford espoused and which his charity and the Longford Lecture seek to remind us of is even more relevant than ever and Britain as a society remains challenged by the disconnect between cause and effect in its Penal Policy. As for Frank Pakenham himself we should remember the quality of his humanity and commitment to the underdog best, and affectionately, summed up by his daughter Judith Kazantzis in her introduction to the Longford Prize;


Judith Kazantzis

“While he had his strength, he never failed to answer the prisoners, often despairing and lonely, who appealed to him for practical help or just friendship. When I think back over the years to countless phone calls from unknown men, ringing to ask for Frank, or for Lord Longford, maybe to report progress on their case, or just to confide, I see how he was an inspiration from my student days, in the deepest sense: in his belief in equality and justice, those two pillars of a truly free society.

No one is less free than the prisoner. How simply I heard my father put this: how irrefutably. He said that society cannot go on punishing and punishing the prisoner, who is already punished with the loss of his freedom, with the key thrown away. The prisoner must be treated with human dignity. He or she absolutely must be offered the chance of a new life after prison.

My father drew every day until he died from the teachings of Jesus Christ. The prodigal son was a story we read to him on his deathbed. He himself was prodigal in his prison visits, often in the worst of weathers, seeing complex, long incarcerated people at the end of exhausting journeys. He was prodigal just as much in his public speaking out for reform of our prison system. I believe he had it right: to work for the individual, to fight for the wider change, like one hand holding the other hand.”

A Metropolitan Police Commissioner for London

Sir Ian Blair - Bring it on!

Britain's most senior policeman was forced out of office by a Conservative mayor of London yesterday, provoking a political crisis over control of the country's largest police force.

Boris Johnson was accused of carrying out a putsch against Sir Ian Blair, who was forced to resign after being told he no longer had the confidence of the Mayor. Furious Labour ministers privately accused Mr Johnson of turning the post – which is appointed by the Home Secretary and includes leading the nationwide fight against terrorism – into a "political football". They said that Sir Ian's resignation would usher in a new era of politicised police officers.

Mr Johnson assumed the chairmanship of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) on Wednesday and immediately told Sir Ian he did not think he was the right man for the job.

So, in the spirit of recent “Vox Pop” competitions The Celtic Sage is launching “A Metropolitan Police Commissioner for London” competition where the public will vote for the fav non-PC candidate! Details are awaited but as these competitions are largely about appearances here are photos of some of the leading contenders so far! Hello, Hello, Hello!


The candidates so far








An American, maybe?


Maybe not?




MORE? See the PlodBlogs in the Blog sidebar

A Death in London

Jean Charles de Menezes


Jurors in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest today stood in silence at the spot where the 27-year-old Brazilian was shot dead by police marksmen. The six-woman, five-man panel was retracing Mr de Menezes's final steps and went to Stockwell Tube station where the shooting took place.

They filed through the ticket hall, down the escalator and onto platform two where Mr de Menezes had planned to take a northbound Northern line train. The jurors barely exchanged a word and coroner Sir Michael Wright did not speak throughout the 10-minute visit. The silence was only broken when a train full of passengers thundered through the station without stopping at the platform.

While Northern line trains were not stopping at the station, the Victoria line continued to operate as normal. On their way in and out of the station a court official pointed out the points the jurors were passing on their printed itinerary. The second day of the inquest into the death of the electrician on 22 July 2005 was set aside for a tour of key locations in the ill-fated police operation.

A convoy of coaches left the Oval cricket ground where the hearings are taking place with a police escort. The coroner travelled with the jury in the front coach, followed by legal teams travelling with the de Menezes family in the second and a media bus bringing up the rear. The visit to Stockwell was scheduled for an off-peak time on the 23rd December 2008 to minimise disruption for commuters.

In his opening yesterday, the coroner told of the confusion which existed before two firearms officers shot Mr de Menezes after mistaking him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman who had been on the run since attempting to detonate his bomb on the Tube the day before. Two weeks earlier, British-born al Qaeda bombers had succeeded in blowing up three Tube trains and a bus on a day of carnage in the capital.

Jurors have been told how firearm officers made a split second decision to kill the suspect. Sir Michael told the court that they had been convinced Mr de Menezes was Osman who was carrying out a second suicide bomb attack and could only be stopped by an "instant kill".

The coroner emphasised Mr de Menezes was entirely innocent.


Jurors at Stockwell Tube


----------------------------------------------------------------


From DaithaiC 16th October 2007


The Death of Jean Charles de Menezes

Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by Metropolitan Police firearms officers at Stockwell Tube station, London, on July 22nd. 2005. Bizarrely the Met(as the Metropolitan Police or Scotland Yard are commonly known) is being prosecuted under English Law not for Murder or Manslaughter but under Health and Safety legislation for failing to protect the health of Jean Charles de Menezes and members of the public who were exposed to danger in the operation. Indeed.

The details revealed so far in court are of a 27 year old electrician peacefully going to work unaware he was being trailed, not being intercepted as a possible suspect, getting on and off two buses, wearing jeans and a T-shirt and a light jacket with no baggage or possibility of concealing anything on his person, going routinely through station barriers and pausing to pick up a free newspaper, taking his seat on a tube train.



There he was held without challenge by a police officer who immobilised him by holding his arms around him in a vice like grip whilst his two colleagues fired 7 special "124 grain" dum-dum style bullets into his head at point blank range. The details of this killing have appalled and dismayed the public in equal measure and common sense would suggest these feelings will not be addressed by a prosecution under "Health and Safety" legislation - this being somewhat beyond satire. I think we can take it as read that if you kill somebody wrongly you have not protected their "Health and Safety."

Scotland Yard have real issues to answer about the apparent ineptness of the operation and about the large amount of uncorrected disinformation disseminated afterwards from the Commissioner downwards that this innocent persons' killing was "related to the ongoing terrorist situation", that he behaved suspiciously, ran away from officers, vaulted over ticket barriers and was wearing "bulky clothing". As none of this was true, where did it come from?

Hindsight is a great teacher, it is always a pity we don't have it beforehand, but there is another side to this sad story. Fifteen days previously on the 7th July 2005 4 suicide bombers had detonated 3 bombs on the Tube and one on a London bus. They killed 52 people (and themselves) in the biggest mass murder in peacetime Britain. The roll call of the dead is heart rending encompassing a typical cross section of Londoner's going about their day, young and old from every continent, colour and religious persuasion including a 19 year old Muslim girl on the threshold of her life. Of the 4 "brave" martyrs one was a 19 year old Jamaican Muslim convert who lived near me in Aylesbury and who took 26 lives on a Piccadilly Line train between Russell Square and King's Cross. What did a 19 year old know about life and what sort of crypto fascism justifies this cruel obscenity towards people you do not know but look in the eye before killing and maiming them? Maimed indeed for as well as the dead there were over 300 injured, some who lost limbs and eyes and some who will never live independent lives again.



I was in London that day and for a number of days afterwards spent afternoons and evenings helping people cope with the transport disruption. Two things were palpable. one was the great determination that London would not be brought to its knees by what happened, there was the quiet unseen courage of the Tube and Bus drivers who climbed into cabs at dawn the next morning and in their own way said "let's Roll!". The sense of determination was shared by the public who displayed stoic courage by insisting on going about their everyday business and not being terrorised even if it meant walking halfway across London to work.

Nerves were of course there under the surface but they had recovered somewhat when exactly 2 weeks later on the 21st July 2005 there was almost a carbon copy attempt of 4 suicide bomb attacks on the transport system in London by fanatics equally determined to destroy their fellow unknown human beings. This second attempt nearly succeeded and only failed because they had made a small error in the formulation of the homemade but deadly explosives they attempted to detonate. This second attempt was a great shock to the system, to the morale of Londoner's and no doubt to the security services who felt they had bottomed out all the leads and had stabilised the situation.

Now along with all of London they were looking into the abyss and not knowing what they were looking at or where the next threat would come from. What is happening and how many more are out there? - was the general public feeling. It was Jean Charles de Menezes great misfortune that he lived in a block of flats which was also the address of Hussain Osman, one of the failed suicide bombers from the day before and he was not entirely dissimilar in appearance given the limited identification information the police had to go on.

No doubt these court proceedings and further inevitable investigations will draw their own conclusions and I'm not attempting to anticipate them, but I make two observations of my own.

One is that society as a whole is not pacifist. We expect that the welfare of all is protected and logically that means we assent to people killing on our behalf. So we agree an Army is maintained and we expect it to kill and its troops to accept the possibility they will also be killed in combat. If an embassy is besieged, if a plane is hijacked or if a deranged gunman walks down the street killing at will we expect somebody to deal with the threat on our behalf. And if a suicide bomber is apprehended before he can blow us up we expect they will be killed. On the morning of the 22nd July 2005, the Met, a civilian police force had called in all the help it could get from the Defence and Security services and was trying to cover an impossible number of bases not knowing where the next threat was or where it would come from. Wherever fault lays in this sorry story it does lay with the three armed officers acting under orders who entered a Tube train to stop what they thought was Hussain Osman detonating a bomb.

The second point is who those of us who live and work in London felt that morning. Shamefully, I can remember my reaction was "Good on them, they got one!" and I can tell you in feeling that I was in a majority of, well, everybody. For at that stage, below the surface, there was a palpable sense of fear about town. And that is the point of the sheer obscenity and ruthless cruelty the suicide bomber. It desensitises all of us and for the sake of our protection makes us accept in our heart that which we would not normally accept in our head.

That desensitivity is something we all must fight against because otherwise the bomber has won and that must and will never happen. In this case it means we must, however difficult it may seem, try to do two things. Respect the memory of Jean Charles de Menezes and the grief of his family and respect the courage of the Police Officers who, out of a profound sense of public duty, did the unthinkable on all our behalves.

See also;

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2007/12/policemans-lot.html

A Policeman's Lot?

Shy Andy

If you have the misfortune to be arrested by the police in England you will be read the following statement:

“You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

The implication is clear, that an innocent person wants to proclaim their innocence and speak in their own defence. Indeed under the same Act (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) a judge in their charge to a jury may instruct them to draw an unfavourable inference from a defendant’s refusal to testify or their refusal to make a statement to the police.

Consider then the contrast in the case of Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman of Scotland Yard responsible for the Metropolitan Police’s unit in charge of the fight against terror, who has decided to retire immediately as the £180,000-a-year post, thereby avoiding a disciplinary inquiry or other action in relation to a number of matters. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) examined Mr Hayman's conduct after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station and later accused the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner of misleading colleagues and the public. Mr Hayman, who has spearheaded the fight against Islamic extremism since 2005, has also been questioned over allegedly “inflated” expenses claims and trips abroad with Sergeant Heidi Tubby, his staff officer.

His decision to step down is yet another blow for Sir Ian Blair who recruited Mr Hayman after taking over as Metropolitan Police Commissioner in February 2005. Mr Hayman's former colleagues have rallied to his support, claiming he had been the victim of a 'dirty tricks campaign' at Scotland Yard.

This is where the Yardies live - A Male Gang obsessed with guns and "Respect"

Channel 4 News claimed Mr Hayman was in very close contact with the complaints commission official, who worked for the watchdog's communications department. The pair's exchanges came when the commission was drafting its report into how the Met handled the aftermath of the shooting of Mr de Menezes in South London in July 2005. Channel 4 alleged the “communications risked compromising the integrity and authority of the IPCC inquiry”. The female official at the centre of a row which led the Met's anti-terror chief to quit is named today as 36-year-old Nicki Redmond. She received hundreds of calls and texts from Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman while on the staff of the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigating the Stockwell shooting. After leaving the commission, Ms Redmond was at the centre of a probe into alleged "inappropriate contact". Ms Redmond worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission while it was compiling its damning report into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station.


Andy Hayman with "friend" Nikki Redmond

The UK's former top anti-terror officer is to be given "advice" after breaking the police code of conduct following the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting. A report said Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman "misled" the public. Now the Independent Police Complaints Commission has ruled he should not face disciplinary proceedings but should be advised about future conduct.

In a statement, the IPCC said: "On 6 November, the MPA recommended that Mr Hayman receive advice because he had broken Code 5 of the Police Code of Conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties.

"After taking legal advice, the three IPCC Commissioners, who oversaw the investigation, have decided to accept the MPA's recommendation." The IPCC also said it would pursue the MPA's recommendation that it undertake an "in depth" review of the lessons to be learnt from Mr de Menezes's death.

Mr Hayman, a 48-year-old married father of two, has been caught up in two internal investigations this year. The first was sparked after complaints that information about a series of anti-terror raids in Birmingham last February was leaked to the media in advance. Mr Hayman's telephone records for the months before and after the raids were scrutinised and he was cleared of any blame. Investigators did, however, find details of the hundreds of “unexplained” calls between Mr Hayman and the complaints commission official. She has now left the police watchdog and works for the Association of Chief Police Officers.

In a separate inquiry, Yard auditors raised concerns over the £15,000 spent by Mr Hayman on drinks, restaurants, hotels and foreign travel. He strenuously denied the expenses allegations and vowed to clear his name when details of the financial probe emerged last month. Mr Hayman vigorously rejected the claims but, after a reported fiery meeting with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair decided to take early retirement. He issued a statement saying the “unfounded allegations” had taken their toll. The former Norfolk chief constable will spend the next four months on paid leave before officially retiring in April. By then he will have served 30 years in the police and be entitled to a full pension.

In a statement, Mr Hayman said the time was right to leave the high-profile job after a string of hurtful accusations. “This role requires total commitment in both time and effort and has a considerable impact on your personal life, your family and friends,” he added.


Sgt Heidi Tubby

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: 'Andy Hayman has been at the forefront of the police's work to protect our country from the terrorist threat. “I am very grateful for his immense contribution to counterterrorism and to British policing.” Mr Hayman was awarded a CBE last year for his outstanding work after the London bombings of July 2005 and for his role in rounding up the failed July 21 gang. He is said to have impressed Tony Blair and leading Government figures with his calm demeanour and factual briefings to the Cobra emergency security committee that month.

Last year he made a humiliating apology to two brothers arrested and later released after a high-profile anti-terror raid on their house in Forest Gate, East London. One of the men was shot during the operation which involved a search for a “chemical device”. No such device was found.

In December last year, Hayman was found to have been in command of an "unlawful" investigation into one of his own colleagues, Ali Dizaei, who was then a Met police superintendent. Hayman was in overall command of an operation that included tapping Dizaei's phones, something the investigatory powers tribunal declared unlawful. The investigation took four years and cost £4m, but ended with Dizaei's acquittal on corruption charges at the Old Bailey. The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair admitting it had caused "considerable damage" to relations between the force and its black officers.


Ali Dizaei

He was instrumental in government attempts to extend the period for which terror suspects can be held without charge to 90 days. MPs were unconvinced by the proposal, and Tony Blair's government suffered its first Commons defeat over the issue in November 2005.

So who is this shrinking violet who is resigning because he finds the “unfounded accusations” hurtful. Well as the former Chief Constable of Norfolk and Head of the Anti-Terrorist squad he probably doesn’t meet the normal profile of a sensitive soul. Mr Hayman joined Essex Police in 1978 where he served as a uniformed officer and in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). In November 1998 Mr Hayman was appointed Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and given responsibility for drugs, crime and complaints investigations. In this role he commanded Operation Trident an investigation into drug-related murders in the capital. In September 1999 he was appointed Director of the Anti-Corruption and Complaints Investigation Department, which became the Directorate of Professional Standards, responsible for discipline and anti-corruption.

From April 2001 to December 2002 he was Deputy Assistant Commissioner, retaining responsibility for professional standards and assuming extra responsibilities as deputy to the Deputy Commissioner.

So as a former Chief Constable, Commissioner responsible for discipline and anti-corruption and head of the anti – terrorist squad making life and death decisions (not necessarily a metaphor) why has he suddenly become bashful, sensitive and upset? The assumption of the Law in England is that innocence seeks to proclaim itself and be heard but Andy Hayman has made a decision to resign, to not square up to the allegations made and to not answer them. Is this the behaviour and example expected from a senior police office honoured with a CBE and the Queen’s Police Medal, paid generously over 30 years from the public purse and expected to be held accountable to that same public for his actions.

Indeed is this the same silence which would draw an “unfavourable inference” if you or I were being questioned by Andy Hayman’s erstwhile colleagues or appeared in court on the basis of evidence presented by them?