"A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression among members of the public that it may so interfere".
For Assistant Commissioner Quick to make these remarks at any time would be alarming. For him to make them while an inquiry is still ongoing is astonishing. Sir Paul Stephenson should take immediate disciplinary action.
His remarks comes after the Mail on Sunday printed an article about a business run by his wife. As a consequence, he says, he has had to move his family out of their home. He believes the Conservatives must be behind the appearance of the article. I suspect he thinks that because he assumes that Conservative politicians behave in the same bullying way as their Labour opponents. If he has evidence to that effect, let him bring it forward.
But it ill behoves a man who has misjudged things so badly that he has jeopardised the whole inquiry. In one fell swoop Bob Quick has proved himself unfit to continue leading the Damian Green investigation.
Iain,
ReplyDeleteHe shouldnt have made the comments and you may well be right that he is now unfit to continue to lead the investigation. However, this is the poisoned legacy of the manner of Sir Iain Blair's departure.
Persoanlly, I was glad to see Blair go but this is nothing more than the whirlwind of that being reaped...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat would anyone do with his home address? Break into his house and take his stuff away?
ReplyDeleteHe's an idiot. He claims to have had to have moved his family because of his wife's wedding car business? and claims that his family weren't safe?? instead of posting a couple of his underworked special branch losers on watch.
ReplyDeleteI too found these remarks utterly astonishing. On top of the breathtakingly partisan nature of the comment, the idea that this vainglorious man apparently felt he had to move his children out of the house (at our expense?) as a result of some free publicity for his outside interests is too ludicrous even to be amusing. As if anyone, 'terrorist' or otherwise, could give a stuff about the jumped-up twerp or where he lives.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with him on one front though - I too feel 'very disappointed in the country I am living in' when I read tales such as these.
"However, this is the poisoned legacy of the manner of Sir Iain Blair's departure. " --- how do you get that?
ReplyDeleteBlair was a blatant self serving sycophantic pro labour toady. And useless to boot.
Can a Conservative not say they have no confidence in him? The only people who had any confidence (and then only that he would toe the labour line) are labour big wigs (and Ken Livingstone).
You look through the wrong end of the telescope (don't worry there are a lot of right wing journalists better than you who do the same) - this just shows what the knee jerk reaction of the police leadership is.
And to me confirms that the whole Green saga was just a desperate attempt by them to 'even things up' in the investigation stakes - ie politically motivated.
Trevorsden,
ReplyDeleteYou are rather hoisted by your own petard there arent you because on the one hand you say;
"Blair was a blatant self serving sycophantic pro labour toady. And useless to boot.
Can a Conservative not say they have no confidence in him? The only people who had any confidence (and then only that he would toe the labour line) are labour big wigs (and Ken Livingstone)."
And then you go onto complain about the 'political motivation' of the Green enquiry...anybody else spot the logical contradiction??
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Darrell
ReplyDeleteBlair resigned because Boris said he had no confidence in him. This is fair comment and the fact is no one else had, except the ones I mentioned (for the reasons I mentioned).
I merely then point out that the preposterous response from this policeman to the story, far from confirming that it is in fact Boris' fault (as you claim) for making a legitimate complaint, simply shows up the police for their bias.
Maybe its late in the year but I see no contradiction.
Am I to believe that if The Daily Mail had not found out where he lived then terrorists would never have tracked down his home address ?
ReplyDeletewhat a naughty newspaper !
MrMr [7.08pm]
ReplyDelete"The head of the UK's anti terror plod is running a chauffeur car hire business from his home and his chauffeurs are all ex UK plod."
So now you know what happens to all those coppers that get early Retirement due to 'Back Trouble' - they all get jobs on the side driving for 'Quick Cars' (perhaps he should have called the business 'Z Cars' to make new drivers feel more at home?...
FB
Darrell G
ReplyDeleteErrrrmm, the whole problem was that Ian Blair was political. That is where your whole thesis falls down. Boris did not force him out because he wanted a political (pro-Conservative) police commissioner, but because he did not want a political police commissioner at all. Is that really so hard to understand?
Therefore Boris did not politicise the post. Ian Blair, Ken Livingston and the Labour government did.
I think some of you are having problems reading the Mail on Sunday. It isn't HIM who runs the business, it's HIS WIFE. Getting through now?
ReplyDeleteOn the point itself, I agree that he shouldn't have said those things, but I don't really see the public interest in the Mail running this and it's hard not to imagine that there is some link between Tory High-ups and Mail reptiles, if only of intention.
We do seem one way or another to be being drawn into political policing. Jacqui Smith was eager to reach for the police in attacking her opponents and now the Tories are (understandably) fighting back dirty.
A starting point would be a backbencher's Parliamentary Commission given exemplary powers, such as calling to account the Home Secretary and her senior civil servants, to rectify the basic wrong here, which was them sending round the boys in blue to beat on Damian Green for getting leaks, when these blasted hypocrites are themselves leaking right, left and center.
Richard,
ReplyDeleteNo it really isn't hard to understand. However, Boris's actions have made the Met a political football now and it seems that the Daily Mail; which we all know is a Conservative-sympathising paper is broadening the attack onto other individuals.
It really is not hard to see why people feel that what the Conservative Party wants is a Met that is 'purged' on political grounds is it...
I am no supporter of Ian Blair; in fact, I said so at the top. I don't also support Quick making these comments but neither do I support this politically motivated witch-hunt....
'Fat Bob' is a prime example of over promotion.
ReplyDeleteA good Ds and DI maybe a DCI but from then on a few Bramshill Courses, an attachment to the FBI, a degree or MA paid for in 'The Jobs' time, then a bit of butterflying from force to force, rank to rank and they actually believe their own publicity. Programmed robots who leave their own common sense and experience behind as they crawl and grovel up the ladder. They all speak like programmed clones. They are all the same. 'Fat Bob, 'Cress', the hierarchy at the Yard spend all their time chasing the next rank and discuss who is going after what job or appointment. They should actually spend some time being good at their bloody jobs. In fact there really is no need to have all these senior ranks at all. Most of the operational front line work is done by DCI's downwards. What on earth do the Met need all those DAC's and Commanders, and chief supers and supers for? We really do need a Royal Commission into policing, let alone all these separate cries for various independant public enquiries for the ever growing and seemingly continuous cock-ups! Trouble is I'm not sure the climate is right for a Royal Commission - who would set the agenda?
Quick should at least ask to be reassigned before being moved by the perma-tanned Sir Paul Stephenson. He should also carefully consider his future - might be a good time to retire and take over the car business.
Where's the link between the Mail and the Tories Despairing Liberal? Where's the link? Imagine all you want chuckles but one would have thought that it's a pretty rum day when coppers go round imagining that someone's guilty of being a terrorist.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised you're despairing. Freak.
Oh dear. Mr Quick thinks himself a suitable candidate for our next Metropolitan Commissioner. Irrespective of the ethics of his wife's taxi business, his reaction to the story is hardly likely to impress the interview panel.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDicky Pricky, are you really saying there is no relationship between Tory MPs and Mail journalists? Who are you trying to fool?
ReplyDeleteNot that I believe it's correct in this case, just that I can understand why Bob Quick would think that given the circumstances. Try looking at it his way - journos from a usual-suspects Tory paper have just given out his home address and he is the head of anti-terror operations for the UK. Apart from being incredibly irresponsible by the said paper, this is against a background of him having to investigate a Tory MP on orders from the Home Office, now denied.
Who would stay calm and considered in such circumstances??
However, I do agree that the Met senior officers, Quick included, have been incredibly incompetent and foolish in the slavish way they followed New Labour Ministers / Home Office Senior Civil Servant's instructions in originally arresting Green.
This however does not justify dirty tricks in response!
"Where's the link between the Mail and the Tories"
ReplyDeleteYou have to be kidding me.
If the tory party decides (as it appears to have done) to pick a fight with the met then they're going to lose. The public is not going to be on their side.
Trevors,
ReplyDeleteI do. The reasons that Boris had no confidence in him were political. He could have made an issue of the De Menzes shooting and said it was because of that (a good reason for not having confidence in Ian Blair as it happens) but it was quite clear that this lack of confidence stemmed from politics.
Mr Mr - I think we're fine with a bunch of utterly amateurish idiots, promoted above all ability, taking pop shots at political parties without even a 3rd rate investigation of any salient facts. His Missus advertises in the Yellow pages - so yeah, the Tories leaked this story - obvious innit?
ReplyDeleteGood grief - no wonder the upper echelons of the police are fighting the Tories - they need to be brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century when being a Bobby required some skill other than bollock juggling.
As to those people deny the Mail is anything other than a Conservative-sympathising attack-sheet then I would simply say join the real world or better still read it for a week and then try and deny it :)
ReplyDeleteDarrell - I repeat, you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The police were already being political. Pointing this out and/ or saying that Blair was incompetent does not make the accusers political. The 'accusers' just want an apolitical police.
ReplyDeleteIf the police as appears likely want to persist on their previous tack then this again is hardly the fault of Conservatives.
Trevors;
ReplyDeleteSo your solution when you see a oil slick is to pour on more oil is it?? If you read my blog at the time then I actually agree with what you say but Boris's solution made things worse.
I say again; he could have made it a competentacy issue but he didn't. Yes it is because they are fanning the flames...
DespairingLiberal
ReplyDelete"Apart from being incredibly irresponsible by the said paper,"
Do you really think terrorists scan daily papers to find out where people live ? Do you not think that a competent terrorist organisation would have skills at least equal to a Daily Mail journalist?
not everyone is as stupid as politicians or Bob Quick
Haddock,
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit naive of you to think they might not; given that recent terrorist attacks have been by British citizens and besides it makes it freely avalible on the internet. Quick's comments might have been overkill but that doesn't mean they are without rational grounding...
"Do you not think that a competent terrorist organisation would have skills at least equal to a Daily Mail journalist?"
ReplyDeleteI think most domestic pets would, but it's not really the point is it? The security angle I agree is overplayed, but it doesn't get away from the fact that a tory scandal sheet has run a non-story personal smear in order to settle a score. apparently very few here appear to have a problem with that.
If, and I say if, the Tories are guilty as charged, then who's going to stand up and say that Campbell/Mandelson wouldn't have done the same.
ReplyDeleteOf course they would have and probably have done.
As a senior copper you can't wander round claiming that the Tories have set you up because you imagine it.
ReplyDeleteHad he stuck with complaining about the paper - i.e. sticking to the FACTS, he'd have been fine.
Oh, by the way, he's retracted it - bit too late though eh?
Dick, afraid not. He's just retracted the bit calling them 'corrupt'. He's still blaming the Conservatives for his vivid imagination.
ReplyDeleteDick,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that we will never know the truth because although CCHQ has denied it I am reminded of the saying; 'Just because you are paranoid doesnt mean they are not out to get you'.
He certainly should have kept that part of his musings private in his position but I can see why he would think it.
The man's a fool. Clearly he acts before thinking. The Tories will not have leaked this. The tip-off will have been from someone in the Met, a rival or subordinate.
ReplyDelete@ Jimmy
ReplyDelete"apparently very few here appear to have a problem with that"
Well, tell us exactly what is wrong with that - and then name any political party which does not do this.
That's not to condone such actions but it is to point out that this is common practice. No doubt you'll be equally vociferous when Mandelson tries to smear anyone via his chosen tabloids, too.
Just to add, even though the business is run by his wife (that is, if it survives now!) he would have been obliged to inform someone through the vetting regime at the least - Quick will be vetted to the highest level.
ReplyDeleteUnsworth, quite. I'm sure Jimmy was enraged when Mandelson's biographer put that unverifiable tosh about Cameron and Obama in the New Statesman.
ReplyDelete"Apart from being incredibly irresponsible by the said paper, this is against a background of him having to investigate a Tory MP on orders from the Home Office, now denied."
ReplyDeleteCrass. Since when have newspapers been required to be 'responsible'? They're newspapers for God's sake. Their job is to sell copies and it's sod-all to do with 'responsibility'. Yes, they have legal liability - but that's it, nothing else whatsoever.
As to 'having to'. He didn't 'have to' do anything. He could have refused. But then he has no free will, eh? "I was only following orders"?
Good Grief!
Nice to see the police are remaining politically neutral here.
ReplyDeleteHe really is an idiot. I'm now a helluva lot more scared about bloody terrorists if this arse is in charge.
ReplyDeleteQuick has demonstrated that he is entirely unsuited to the position he currently holds. He should resign tomorrow morning, and when he doesn't he should be sacked.
ReplyDeleteWV: spiers
Unsworth,
ReplyDeleteIf you're aware of another instance of an attempt to smear a police officer involved in a politically sensitive case then I'm all ears. I will be happy to condemn it.
Raven,
I can't see the Dave Lightweight story as remotely comparable. It was a story about a political opponent. Perhaps that's how you see the police
What is best for his pension?
ReplyDeleteA sacking or a resigning?
Jimmy said: "...it doesn't get away from the fact that a tory scandal sheet has run a non-story personal smear in order to settle a score. apparently very few here appear to have a problem with that."
ReplyDeleteDon't try to move the goal posts, Jimmy. On the terms you set out above, the stories are identical. The only difference being there is a trail of breadcrumbs with the NS story - not with this.
Raven,
ReplyDeleteYou think it's a non-story that the President Elect thinks the Leader of the Opposition is bit dim?
Do you guys seriously believe that this statement has not been fully authorised by the Home Office?
ReplyDeleteYou think a senior copper is going to make a political statement such as this and not ensure that his position is secure?
Either that is the case or the man is a complete incompetent and not fit to run a whelk stall.
1st or 2nd class, then Ian has proven that Quick is full of shit (to which I agree)
ReplyDeleteMichael Gove is saying that the next day post is NOT arriving next day. Yet I beg to differ as in our case it does arrive next day(regardless of 1st & 2nd class stamps)
Next-day delivery is the stuff of sci-fi
@ Jimmy
ReplyDeleteThink about it eh?
Try Yates.
I watched his evidence to Tony Wright's 'committee'. Naked and outrageous bias by a 'chairman' and deliberate attempts to cast personal slurs - many unattributable, of course - prior to that event.
And, you bet I see the police as political opponents. Just take a look at the mouthings of ACPO as but a few examples of political bias. Is it really their job to weigh in with political comment?
Clearly you believe it is, and clearly you believe that this is an unprecedented set-up by the Mail, never seen before in any newspaper or journal.
Unsworth,
ReplyDeleteI think you're scraping the barrel now.
In view of this attack on the Party by Senior Met Officers(and I do not blieve that acting Commissioner Paul Stephenson did not know about if), the Leader should make three points clear
ReplyDelete1) That other events such as the Stockwell Shooting and the botched Wimbledon Common muder investigation, that the Met should be disbanded with a new central London force based on the City of London Force and the existing adjacent County Forces of Essex, Herts, Surrey, Kent etc take on the adjacent outer London Boroughs
2) That if Messrs Quick or Stepehenson are appointed Commissioner that they will be relieved of office on the first day of the next Conservative Government.
3) That if Damien Green is charged and brought to Court, the Leader should state that the Party regard this is a politically motivated and malicious prosecution and publically ask all those called up for Jury Service to find him Not Guilty
Ian
ReplyDeleteYou forgot...
...4) Daily Hitler "journalists" will be rummaging through the dustbins of family members of any officer refusing to co-operate.
@ Jimmy
ReplyDeleteSo, no answer to that either then? Oh come on, surely you can do better?
Ok Unsworth, I'll bite. What were these personal smears against Yates or his family?
ReplyDeleteAh, let me try and summarise the views of the New Tories as put forward here.
ReplyDelete1/ Family members of police officers may not run businesses, especially if the Daily Hitler/London Evening Hitler disaproves.
2/ The police are now fair game for Tory attacks.
3/ When asked, all leading Tories will deny such attacks are anything to do with the ones they covertly arranged with Daily Hitler journos the day before.
4/ So long as the target is someone who is investigating a Tory, then anything smearing can be said against said target, even if said police target is also leading the war against terror in the UK.
5/ All this is fine because a Tory MP got arrested.
6/ Tory bloggers can now openly call for named senior police officers to be sacked and that's considered fine and acceptable.
7/ Er. I think that's pretty much it. Have I missed anything?
I think the old and far more honorable Tories must be turning in their graves.
Not that I have any brief whatsoever for Smith/Mandleson/Straw's ghastly faschist manouverings, but is this really any better?
I expected better in particular of Iain who has up to now led well on this issue, but is now alas descending into the dustbin with the Daily Hitler reptiles and their acolytes.
The President Elect used to think the governor of Illinois was the bee knees.
ReplyDeleteHe also used to think think his Chief of Staff was pretty clever.
Pretty soon you will see the opinions of Obama won't amount to a hill of beans.
Quick is clearly deranged and unfit for duty. just like our Prime Minister.
"However, Boris's actions have made the Met a political football" -- no, the police's actions in raiding the house of commons without a warrant have done that.
Thats even if you ignore the issue of Blair's tenure. He received a vote of no confidence by the London assembly back in 2007.
Lets not forget he lobbied MPs on behalf of the govt over 90 dyas and then we had the shambles of Forrest Gate.
Plenty of reasons to say 'no confidence'. And THATS before you consider IT contracts to a mate of his.
The MET is in a mess and this Quick outburst typifies it.
Ian wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn view of this attack on the Party by Senior Met Officers(and I do not blieve that acting Commissioner Paul Stephenson did not know about if), the Leader should make three points clear
1) That other events such as the Stockwell Shooting and the botched Wimbledon Common muder investigation, that the Met should be disbanded with a new central London force based on the City of London Force and the existing adjacent County Forces of Essex, Herts, Surrey, Kent etc take on the adjacent outer London Boroughs
In other words, that investigating an MP in the course of a criminal investigation shall incur wholesale reorganization of the Police Service in retribution.
2) That if Messrs Quick or Stepehenson are appointed Commissioner that they will be relieved of office on the first day of the next Conservative Government.
In other words, the next Conservative Government shall immediately interfere in the process of justice as political payback. Bugger the "Separation of Powers".
3) That if Damien Green is charged and brought to Court, the Leader should state that the Party regard this is a politically motivated and malicious prosecution and publically ask all those called up for Jury Service to find him Not Guilty
In other words, Ian advocates that the leader of the Conservative Party should commit a clear offence of sub judice by issuing prejudicial statements to a potential jury in order to prevent the administration of a fair trial if the person so named is a member of the Tory Party.
Very impressive from the "Party of Law and Order". Very impressive...
DespairingLiberal, I havent got the time to go into your points one by one to refute them, but would you please point out where I said he should be sacked? I said he could not lead this investigation. That is something very different.
ReplyDeleteBut you rather render your whole comment eminently ignorable when you refer to the Daily Hitler. It was the Mail on Sunday, not the Daily Mail.
Despairing, err.... the copper launched a completely unwarranted attack on the Tories not the other way round. Get your facts right as otherwise you just sound like an idiot.
ReplyDeleteBrit-In, I'd like to make clear that was not me, in case you are confusing Ian with Iain. And you seem to think that because one blog commenter wrote that, he is speaking for the whole Tory Party. A pretty pathetic insinuation.
ReplyDeleteNo DespairingLib .. you pretty much missed everything and no wonder since all you are doing is putting your own ignorant prejudice in the mouths of your opponents.
ReplyDeleteAs a policeman I would have thought Quick would know the meaning of evidence and realise the inadmissibility of hearsay.
As a Tory I could not care less about the activities of a senior policeman, whose main issue is dealing with security, allowing a business to be run from his home which by its very nature would attract every Tom Dick and Harry.
But I do object when he makes deranged baseless accusations of a political nature. it makes me think he is not as neutral as he ought to be. And the tittle tattle in the Mail makes no reference to his home. HE has put that in danger by his own business dealings.
"6/ Tory bloggers can now openly call for named senior police officers to be sacked and that's considered fine and acceptable."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes.
If an officer declares to the press that he believes "all acused thieves are guilty" then it's quite clear that no thief (actual or innocent) will be investigated in a fair manner.
By calling the conservative party as a whole corrupt - when he's investigating what is in many respects a corruption case he has irredemably destroyed any possible value in his final report.
As such he MUST be removed from the investigation - and it is right for bloggers, MPs and my cats to call for his removal.
Not only must justice be done it must be seen to be done.
Iain.
ReplyDeleteThis IS a resignation matter. he has shown crass judgement. He has shown naked anti tory bias. He is unfit for the role he has.
It shows how political the police have become and remember that this man has beendescribed as the Home Secretaries favourite policeman!!
The IPCC Must investigate this and I do believe that Quick has now reached the finishing line on his police career.
He has disgraced the uniform
"4/ So long as the target is someone who is investigating a Tory, then anything smearing can be said against said target, even if said police target is also leading the war against terror in the UK."
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, all anyone around here - or anywhere else - has said is that he made a gross lapse of judgement and should not continue in this investigation.
At no point has anyone accused him of - for arguments sake - of being corrupt.
Just that he's said The Wrong Thing at a really Bad Moment to a reporter.
If you want baseless smears then I suggest you look in the other chamber.
Having read the story, I can't see a scintilla of evidence that this came from 'the Tories', as opposed to Mail on Sunday journalists.
ReplyDeleteBeing upset by this story is one thing, but to react by saying "...The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation.
"I think it is a very spiteful act, possibly to intimidate me away from investigating Mr Green, and I feel it has put my family at risk..."
and to go on to accuse the party whose MP you are investigating as 'corrupt' is quite another.
This is guilt by association.*
I expect it from the current US Republican party; I am not entirely surprised to see it from Labour politicians; but for a senior police officer conducting a sensitive political enquiry to indulge in it, however angry he might be, is simply unacceptable.
*Though it is not entirely clear that the Mail on Sunday is guilty of anything other than very poor judgement.
Nigel - is it really so surprising given the current atmosphere that Quick thinks he is the victim of a conspiracy involving the Hitler on Sunday and leading Tories? If you were him, might you not also leap to such a conclusion if you had been forced to leave your home by it??
ReplyDeleteI think a curse on both NuLab and Tories on this one - NuLab faschists are busy sending tame policeman round to arrest opposition politicians and Tories are hounding policeman's families. My God.
Anyone for setting up a new consultancy staffed with UK politicians to train African dictatorships?
It's a fair point. The smear comes from the Hitler on Sunday, which can be described as part of the wider conservative "family" but plainly not an official party organ. It may well be therefore that the conservative party entirely disapprove of this attack on a police officer's family and spokesmen across the country are as we speak rushing to the television studios to dissociate themselves from it.
ReplyDeleteAny minute I'm sure.
Surely his telephone taps and bugs would have picked up any contact between the Conservative party and the Daily Mail.
ReplyDelete"The senior policeman, who is in charge of combating the Al Qaeda threat, even hires out his personal seven-litre 130mph Jensen sports car through the business.
ReplyDeleteOne senior Yard source said: ‘Bob Quick needs to ask himself whether he is happy that all this is out and about. There will need to be a review, bearing in mind his position. He needs to review all of this.’
Yard sources admitted that the website and promotional material could pose a threat to his personal safety and said they would look at removing some of the details they contain.
It is understood that Mr Quick did not inform his superiors that the car hire business was being operated from his home.
However, he is not under obligation to do so as it is run by his wife Judith.
The fact that steps are being taken only now to check for security breaches shows that, since he took up his post in March, there has been no thorough and effective assessment of the Assistant Commissioner’s security."
===
His own car was available for hire, and all details were on a company website.
He did not inform his superiors of the business and a possible conflict of interest.
No thorough and effective risk assessment has been made since he took his position in March.
I would say that calls his judgement into question.
"The senior officer told the Press Association: "It is an attempt to undermine an investigation which is legitimate. The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in."
====
Shows he is biased against the Conservative Party and cannot possibly continue to lead the Damian Green enquiry.
I see, Jimmy.
ReplyDeleteYou and Karl Rove would get on real well.
Despairing Liberal, whatever Quick might think, he is one of the most senior police officers in the country.
He should know better.
I'm not fond of any of the tabloids, but using Nazi epithets is childish.
@ Jimmy
ReplyDeleteThen:
"If you're aware of another instance of an attempt to smear a police officer involved in a politically sensitive case then I'm all ears. I will be happy to condemn it." So I refer you to Yates as but one example.
Now:
"What were these personal smears against Yates or his family?"
Do please make up what passes for your 'mind'.
You refer to the Daily Mail thus; "but it doesn't get away from the fact that a tory scandal sheet has run a non-story personal smear in order to settle a score." Without evidence, as usual, and without even getting the right paper. Have you bothered to read The Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday in the last ten months or so? For that matter have you ever bothered to read them?
I'm not doing your research for you. You could just get off your bone idle NuLab backside and take a look at the contemporaneous newspapers, journals, Hansard and Committee Minutes etc. But then that's hardly likely is it?
If memory serves me correctly, Bob Quick did not make the short-short list for the Chief's job and I reckon he has been smarting about that ever since. In fact, I think his outburst is "sour grapes" and nothing more. Another correspondent (Ranter) is obviously a copper and highlights accurately Quick's career moves. My son worked under him when he was Surrey's CC and now in the Met. He also says that Quick lost the plot when dropped in amongst the Bramshill crowd. Following the MBA and a Diploma in Applied Criminology, he was studying for a Masters in Strategic Leadership. I guess he never quite made the latter!
ReplyDeleteAny policeman in the lower ranks, running a business on the side, whether in the name of his wife, or not, is usually "persuaded" to knock it in the head. The Administration clique from Chief Inspector upwards are usually ensure they are immune from complaints and the big-stick, but this outburst will surely finish him!
Bob Quick should take a leaf from Brian Paddick's book and prepare for the Jungle.
ReplyDeletePC Conk would probably be the appropriate choice to take over his role in the "Service".
Is this officer a member of Common Purpose ?
ReplyDeleteAn apology has now been issued: '[I've] reflected on my comments, made at a difficult time for me and my family... not my intention to make any allegations, and I retract my commments. I apologise unreservedly...'
ReplyDeletetroymolloy said...
ReplyDeleteAn apology has now been issued...
December 22, 2008 10:43 AM
So that's okay then, at least we can be sure he won't show any bias against the Tories during the course of his inquiry.
Couldn't he at least have chucked in a couple of discount vouchers on limo hire as a sweetener?
Unsworth,
ReplyDeleteYou've not given me any examples. You've invited me to find them myself. Or presumably prove a negative. Argument not your long suit is it.
And your defence of Associated Newspapers as a non-partisan news source is noted. Have you ever read them?
@ Jimmy
ReplyDeleteExample given. 'Yates' remember? 'Defence'? Since when have I 'defended' either journal? What I asked was whether you have read them over the last ten months or so. How are the remedial reading lessons coming along?
Please, for your health's sake, do take a day off. It must be utterly exhausting being such a prat all the time. Are you some sort of Troll by any chance?