Britannia Radio

31 March 2010 Met Police Avoid the Question Yet Again This is the first posting on my re-formatted website Britannia Rules. Introducing and providing access to my two new books on-line has taken rather longer than expected. Anyway, I am now free once again to add to the sum of human knowledge. And there is much to add over the next few days. By far the most important is the arrival of a years-overdue reply from the Metropolitan Police Authority. Those of you with long memories will recall that the MPA took over what was supposed to be a thorough investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the Met Police’s contempt for the allegations of criminal malfeasance made by John Gouriet and me against the then government in 2007. It a phrase, the Met Police simply chose to ignore them. The then head of the Met, Sir Ian Blair, famous for his open support of his namesake as prime minister, must have known of the well-founded, fully documented accusations John and I provided. But he managed – at the time – to distance himself from addressing both the issues and the potential consequences that might flow from our accusations being investigated properly. Our relatively recent exchanges with the Metropolitan Police Authority asking why nothing happened, and why we had no response from the Met Police, have been posted here previously – as indeed were the original accusations and documents. Well, finally, we now have a reply – of sorts. You will not be surprised to learn that it is both pathetic and disgraceful. Neither will you be surprised to learn that the Met has found a way to avoid both our serious complaints about Sir Ian Blair, for ignoring our allegations of woeful negligence against him, and our accusations of criminal malfeasance against the government. In a nutshell, the key words in the Metropolitan Police Authority’s long letter are that the “allegations…do not fall within the jurisdiction of the MPA”. The author, who describes himself as the ‘Acting Professional Standards Officer of the MPA’, then singularly fails to mention whose jurisdiction they might fall under. His words are, apparently, to be taken as sufficient to wipe our allegations away. Later in the letter he writes: “Members of the PSCSC [the MPA committee considering our complaints] did not think there was any indication that the Commissioner [Sir Ian Blair] would, or should, become personally involved in consideration of your allegations.” No, I did not make that up! A supposedly thinking adult in the employ of the MPA wrote it, and apparently expected us to accept it as a sensible response. He wants us to believe that the MPA thinks well-documented allegations of criminal behaviour against our prime minister and his government are not a matter which should concern the head of the Metropolitan Police, despite his being the highest-ranking police officer nearest to our seat of government. One can only marvel at the sheer audacity, the impudence, of it. But this letter is also quite cunning. It adopts the now legendary leftish tactic, so well honed by this dreadful, cowardly, mean-minded, bigoted, reckless government, of picking on some point of relatively trivial detail, focussing on that, and using it as a means of ignoring all else. So there is a tiny bone tossed in our direction at the end. The MPA has decided to ask the Deputy Commissioner, Janet Williams, who took over from John Yates (the man to whom our documents were addressed originally), why she did not answer our letters in more than a year. She is not, you will carefully note, being asked why our accusations were not thoroughly investigated. Not, how was Sir Ian Blair able to distance himself from this potential political nuclear bomb? No, she is being asked merely to explain why we were not provided with reasons for the Met ignoring our allegations. Of course we all know that quangos and other institutions of the state, which sadly now includes our highly politicised police, are stuffed full of Nu-Labour supporters. How better to reward, make use of, and lock in that support? And thus the Metropolitan Police are protected from the likes of trouble-makers like us when we bring serious accusations against not only the government, but against the head of the Met as well. They have a committee full of Nu-Labourites to dismiss all such threats from those they regard as opponents of the Nu-Labour ruling elite. It apparently matters not that the integrity of a once great public service is damaged further. That, it seems, is of little consequence. Which raises an alarming question: is there any government institution that can still claim its integrity after 13 years of this callow, corrupt, deceitful, despicable bunch of third-raters and all their sponging hangers-on? When, ever before, did Britain endure such a lawless, destructive, discredited government? Even worse is the fact that it shares all these epithets with its masters in Brussels. But that is another gruesome story for another day.   To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com Click www.ashleymote.co.uk to visit the site now.