I am sure you will have been following the media spat between Metropolitan Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick and the Conservative Party. Quick accuses the Conservatives and their running dogs in the press of running a “corrupt” campaign against him as he uses valuable policing resource to investigate that well known threat to national security Damian Green. He has subsequently withdrawn his use of the word “corrupt” from his tirade but I am sure you all get the general idea. Naturally, the BBC delights in reporting this and presents the entire issue as if it were merely between the bad Conservatives and hard-working Quick. It’s not. The broader issues here include why does Quick believe that investigating Damian Green is a greater policing priority than investigating Islamic terrorism? Is it appropriate for senior Policeman to make overt political attacks? After all, Quick was very quick when it came to offering support to the claims of Jacqui Smith over her 42 day detention bill earlier this year. With such an allegedly clear political bias in favour of the Labour government how can any conservative-inclined citizen feel confidence in the work of the Metropolitan Counter-terrorism Police? These are all questions the BBC has no interest in pursuing since the main point here is to paint the Conservatives as the enemies of effective policing.
QUICK, QUICK SLOW…
Bookmark the permalink.
Nu Liebour has turned the police into little more than rent boys. Paid to provide a service at the demand of their masters.
When the Tories win next time around, they need a clear out. Personally, senior Police officers should be elected by the people not fat corrupt politicians.
Martin, three rent boy references in three comments, you must have had a fun weekend..
From the oblique way the bbc refered to his wife running a business from home, there is possibly more to come out about who uses the business.
Conspiracy….aliens….blah blah….you know the rest.
Right, now that’s done, Atlas, you don’t need to waste our time with a posting.
unless you are a new labour kissass you won’t get on in the public sector anymore.
That’s why we wont be allowed to elect our local police, just in case we “politicise” them –what a joke!!
You might not think that there is a conspiracy, but Labour has filled the public sector senior management with their cronies, all fully aware a Tory government might mean their downfall —look at the way Campbell treated the civil service when he got in in ’97– removing all the old neutral managers and replacing tem with new enthusiastic asskissers.
Frankos is quite right. ZaNuLabour really has operated a process of culling and replacing key bureaucratic bodies and figures with placemen: you can see it very clearly in the NHS’s management, but it is just as prevalent in local government and, of course, the legion of unelected quangos.
In that sense, ZaNuLab’s 1997 election victory was more a silent revolution, than just another twist in post-war poltical history.
The party set out to change Britain so radically that no future Conservative governemnt (assuming there could ever be one) could change it back again.
Mass, uncontrolled immigration was one way of achieving this, control of the management structure of the country was another.
Fellow travellers within the BBC (already on the team) applauded and assisted the process throughout – and continue to do so.
I see this plod has now done a TOTAL apology.
If any further proof were needed that under the Nazi party we’ve been turned into a bullying police state, this is it.
Whatever happened to plods shutting their fucking gobs and getting on with nicking scum?
And this fucking gobby shit had better pray to god that we don’t get a terrorist attack in the next few months.
The way this story was being reported on the vile VD’s 5Live programme this morning was a treat. I think there may have been a competition as to how many times the word corrupt could be used and linked to the Conservative party.
Martin – he has made a NuLab apology. He is sorry for any offence he has caused – in other words it’s your fault if you are offended. No doubt he privately still stands by what he has said.
Dunno about this post, the way the Beeb has reported this seems to be consistent with the rest of the press (and not just the Tory press), which is that the police are clearly at fault. Which might be the case but smacks of possible self interest given that its the papers who benefit most from newsworthy leaks. cameron has played a blinder on this one – made the government look like a bunch of rancid hypocrites and his lot like steadfast defenders of truth. It’ll be interesting to see if it does transpire that Green has been up to genuine no good but my guess is the coppers will bottle it.
If he’s prepared to make these accusations in public without ensuring he has evidence to back them up, I suggest he’s in the wrong job. I wouldn’t want to be on the wrong end of an investigation of a policeman with that mindset.
You all don’t get it. We are being mind controlled. Except me. They will kill us all. Except me again. My advice: move in with your nan and don’t answer the door.
No, I’m the REAL Atlas Shrugged impersonator. You’re an IMPOSTER!!!!!
The key question that BBC has refused to ask ever since the Damian Green arrest is a simple one: why were the Police investigating at all, since no criminal offence had been committed?
The Official Secrets Act was first passed in 1911 and later amended in 1920 and 1989. The 1989 Act enumerates various tightly defined categories of information that it is unlawful to disclose. Any information that is not under any of these categories is not protected by the criminal law.
The corrupt crooks in NuLab are trying to pretend that leaking documents (and receiving leaked documents) about immigration is an offence.
They are pointing to the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
If misconduct in public office covers leaks, then there would never have been any need for an official secrets act.
The fact is that leaking non-secret information is not a criminal offence. It may be a disciplinary matter between employee and employer, but that is all.
For the Police to have agreed to help their NuLab masters intimidate Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition shows the Police to be the corrupt ones here.
Smith was on the TV explaining that we should all get off Quicks back and let him get on with his vital job of arresting politically embarrassing opponents of the Party, after all he is the most senior anti-terror cop in the country. Interesting to see how Liebour define terror. People who leak information? Why no arrests when the no 10 press office leaked misleading ‘crime’ data? Why didn’t bob lead his troops into no 10 and get the collar he needs to advance to C Constable?
Why no appology when the head of BTP said that this was, whilst within the law, basically bollocks? After all anyone can be arrested for pretty much anything (including writing on this blog of the Blears woman gets her way). The point is why did it happen?
the BBC have told me MANY times that Boris has ‘politicised the police’. This meme is issued every time the Met fuc* up. Isn’t it about time that the Met realised that the post McPherson Met has a track record of failure. Lets list a few
– Shooting of an innocent ilea gal alien and hopeless panicked response to the actual threat
– Fitting up the first loony they could tag for murder
– Weak and incompetent management of street crime
– The development of a “service”
– The politically directed arrest of an MP
– The use of 200 police to arrest two moslem brothers (one shot) on the basis of zero evidence (one had some porn on his PC so they got him for that
– Priritisation of Hopless Community Drowning Supervsion Officers (PCDSO’s)at the expense of policing
The Trend against directly elected Chief Constables is worrying as Liebour have realised that this would mean concentrating on addressing criminality – and specifically criminality affecting the majority population – at the “expense” of socialist engineering targets.
Isn’t it about thime that the BBC did a “secret policemen” review if the agendas at chief constables’ meetings?
Well, Bob Quick and the Met should be experts on corruption !
I thought it was the police who issued an apology, not the Tories getting the police to issue one on their behalf.
The BBC headline reads as if it’s the Police issuing an apology on behalf of the Tories. Why not lead with ‘Police Chief Issues Apology to the Tories’ rather than ‘Police Chief Issues Tory apology?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Is it bias or just crap writing?
Anon 3:30
It is bias AND crap writing !
Further proof – if any were needed – of the politicisation of our police and the fact that most of our top Knackers are Labour supporters. Like all cops with a totalitarian bent they hate criticism and cannot counternance the idea of an opposition. But they sure love hate/thought crime and are quick to protect the favoured victims of the regime that controls this country and it’s unelected leader.
Quick looks like a boozer. Perhaps Sundays are not the best days for him to exercise judgement.
the BBC online report provides no information on the nature of the Mail on Sunday article leaving those who have no further information to assume that the article had no purpose other then to compromise Quick’s privacy & to leave the impression that it is only the Tories, & not Quick, who could be accused of being corrupt.
David Vance:
Your comments are spot-on about:
1.) the difficulty of having any confidence in the Met’s Counter-terrorism policing, as ‘led’ by Mr. Quick,
and
2.) the BBC’s anti-Tory priorities, over the rights of the British people’s representatives in Parliament.
‘Evening Standard’:
“Mr Quick and a lack of judgment”
[Extract]:
“The politicisation of the Met is already a problematic issue. Mr Quick’s lack of judgment raises other questions, however — about the calibre of the individuals who occupy some of its most senior positions. As Mr Grieve said today, this is something that Mr Quick must reflect on: it is hard to see how he can remain in post now.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23606348-details/Mr+Quick+and+a+lack+of+judgment/article.do
I’m glad it’s not just me who thought the headline was just wrong – utterly wrong. Issuing a ‘Tory apology’ is completely different to issuing ‘an apology to Tories’.
Just watched the views 24 prog. It was interesting that the key word “corruption” didn’t raise its head. The reason that there is a “Tory apology” is because Quick made an unsubstantiated allegation that the conservative party corruptly misused their media contacts to target him in revenge for his perfectly appropriate invasion of Parliament 9the first in 350 years)and the arrest on a trumped up charge of a Conservative front bencher. This is why he has issued a total retraction.
These allegations are clearly entirely without foundation. If nothing else one has to question his judgment. the real question remains unanswered. Why did the Met arrest Green on such thin grounds? The speculation has to be that some one suggested that they do it. Clearly the met have applied the same logic to the mail story about the limo hire business: ‘they must have been tipped off and for a reason.’ Obviously because that this is what happens in neo-marxist Britain: every action has an explicitly political objective set out in the “Grid”. Any Trotskyite wannabe can tell you that.
BBC Radio 4s ‘PM’ programme on: Mr. Quick and the Tories – gave 90% of the political coverage to two Lib Dems: C.Hulme MP, and London Mayoral candidate, Lib-Dem (and ex-Met), B. Paddick!
The BBC is generally reluctant to discuss whether Mr. Quick, in the interests of national security, should have been operating the business activities from his house. For details, see ‘Mail on Sunday’:
[Extract]:
“Questions have been raised over the judgment of Britain’s top anti-terror police chief after it emerged that a wedding car hire business – including one of his own cars – is being run from his home.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1099168/Security-scare-wedding-car-hire-firm-run-terror-police-chiefs-home.html
I speak from experience.
The politicisation of the police began around 1976 when the last shower of socialist shit were in power.
Police training is governed by civil servants in the Home Office. I never understood why the Tories did not get a grip of this nest of vipers.
By 1994 the basic police initial training had changed beyond recogition.
Gone was learning the definitions of robbery, burglary, theft and blackmail. In was being nice to ethnic minorities.
All middle and senior command courses had a requirement to tick the right boxes in that regard.
Every promotion interview has some weirdo from the ‘diversity’ dept. to ensure that only the ‘right-on minded’ progress up the ladder.
Real policemen had to keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
The current state of British policing is an unmitigated disaster and unfortunately our armed forces are being led down the same path.
If corrective measures were introduced today it would take a generation to undo the damage done and to restore the police to what their primary roles are.
Anonymous 5:41 pm was me.
George R
I never met Paddick but I know people who have and one who worked in his department (I avoided saying ‘worked under him’).
By all accounts Paddick was a rather unpleasant bully to his junior staff.
Something totally in keeping with people of his ilk.
In the climate of political correctness that has the police in a vice like grip, the Paddicks were always going to get on, regardless of ability.
Bob Quick I did meet on a number of occasions when I spent a few months on a secondment to the Met Anti-Corruption Unit.
I’m still shaking my head in disbelief that he has managed to get himself into this situation.
Sadly I’ve had to revise my opinions of him.
Sorry to see an increasing incidence of bad language on this site – you don’t advance your argument by using foul language!
David, comment?
Just seen the check-out girl on the 6 o’clock taking about `Bob this and Bob that’ Cosy!
We are all going to die I tell you!!!!
The Aliens are coming and they are going to take over the planet!
I have my tin foil hat on though so I will be safe.
You all would do well to follow suit.
Shatlass Rugged. You are an MI5 plant whos aim is to discredit my postings. I am the true impersonator of atlas even though you were first. Atlas himself is just black ops working for MI6 and the muppets from the inside.
What on earth is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7795796.stm
A complete character defence of the guy by a supposedly impartial news organisation. This is pure “witness for the defence” stuff, there’s no attempt to go and find a counterview. There’s -speculation- of a counterview rather nastily phrased, but there’s no source quoted. Oh, and how about:
“It is suggested that…he did not see the political storm coming”.
Suggested by whom? Not even a hint of where the source for this ‘suggestion’ might have come from.
Anonymous | 22.12.08 – 3:30 pm | # was me
and I have now made a formal complaint to the BBC about the continuing misleading and biased headline.
Atlas Shruged
Ratass Shagged
any chnace of barring these imbeciles
Quick’s finished. As “BBC political correspondent” pointed out on BBC 6 o’clock news, this guy is meant to head up anti-terrorism unit.
“If he reacts like THAT to a Daily Mail article, what will he do when terrorists attack?”
Jacqui Smith, on being asked whether this whole incident might have “compromised his impartiality”, replied tersely “No” while looking absolutely furious!
Quick will go. Mark my words. If he doesn’t, don’t mark my words. Either way the BBC will concatenate the words “corruption” and “tory” until they can milk no more.
BTW do folks have to use the F-word so much? I readily accept that I’m a rubbish commentator with rather limp observations but repeated swearing does make this board look a bit cheap.
Can one of you bright sparks explain to me how electing police chiefs de-politises them?
Surely that just opens the door to the Gauleiter and his mates? Oh I see. Silly me.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny: Yes rather easy. It means that the police have to respond to the needs of the local community, not what central Government want.
If people want the police in their area to concentrate on rounding up yobs or drug users (that included beeboids) then so be it.
It would also stop the Government from distorting the crime figures.
The Cattle Prod of Destiny | 22.12.08 – 7:38 pm |
I agree that Police Chiefs should not be elected – what is to stop them standing on a “Liberal” or “Labour Ticket” or even “Tory”. I would think that the old fashioned way of policemen working their way up from the humble constable would be far more preferable.
TPO is spot on – the police are now being run by people who “represent society” but they represent only Labours idea of society.
Jon: Most senior police officers are already leftie liberals. The days of a good old fashioned plod are long gone.
Only by giving people back control of the police will we get crime under control.
Remember Ray Mallon? We need plods like him to wipe the shit from our streets.
If we can elect our politicians we can also be trusted to elect police chiefs and judges who at the moment are political appointments by rent boy users, drug addicts and public school retards.
Be in no doubt had an ordinary Constable made comments similiar to Quicks, his feet would not have touched the ground, he would have been fast tracked through the discipline process with a view to dismissal for bringing the force, sorry “service” into disrepute or some other breach of the code of ethics reserved only it seems for the lower ranks.
In my humble opinion Police officers did not get involved like this prior to 1997, then again they did not go around feeling the collars of ordinary decent folk for holding rightly held and legal views that go against the current political orthodoxy.
No one should be at all surprised about the way the Socialist police are behaving. Churchill warned in 1945 that the Socialists would eventually have to instigate a Gestapo like organisation. Only recently have the Socialists been in power long enough to replace many senior police offficers by their supporters and the thug tactics have begun. In many of the attacks against their opponents the Socialists have no immediate intention of taking their opponents to court, especially if it involves a jury trial, but they are putting the frighteners onto their political opponents. This was a favourite tactic of the Gestapo.
Since when did the Tories ruin the career of Ian Blair as the BBC rent boy users keep saying?
Blair was a tosser. He sucked up to the Labour party, made himself their bitch getting involved in campaigning for the 42 days detention and so on.
If the moron had concentrated on wiping the vermin from our streets he’d still be in a job.
Only BBC rent boy users can make this shite up that Boris finished Blair. He did that the moment he put his hat next to Liebour.
Why should I be banned for stating my opinion. Isn’t that what this forum is about… you all do it more often than I fucking care to mention so why shouldn’t I?
Come on! Cheer up… It’s Christmas!!!
Sorry OT but just heard this gem on the World Service: “His suspistions were aroused when the men asked him to copy a video tape of them firing automatic weapons and shouting Jihadi slogans” – really? Now what led him down to conclude anything there then?
The BBC sould be standing up for the rights of the British people’s Parliamentary representatives against any intimidation from the police, or by the Labour government; the BBC should not be merely reporting accusations from Quick against the Tories, followed by his apologies.
‘Mail’:
‘Anti-terror chief on the brink: Quick faces call to stand aside over his slur on Tories’
“The future of Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer was in doubt last night as an extraordinary row between the Tories and the Metropolitan Police intensified.
Bob Quick faced awkward questions about his suitability for such a sensitive post following an angry outburst against the Conservatives.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1099449/Anti-terror-chief-brink-Quick-faces-stand-aside-slur-Tories.html
ALSO, from ‘Mail’, but neglected by BBC:
“Risky business: Fresh security review over running Quick car hire firm from home”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1100542/Risky-business-Fresh-security-review-running-Quick-car-hire-firm-home.html
Richard Littlejohn did a brilliant piece of this fat useless plod this morning.
And Nick Cohen has this:
“We don’t need your petulance, Mr. Quick”
[Extract]:
“The best definition of a bully is of a man who ‘can give it but can’t take it’. As well as describing the intimidation, it includes the necessary elements of rank hypocrisy and unwarranted self-pity.
“Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick of the Met can certainly give it – as MPs realised when his men rifled through Damian Green’s Commons offices without so much as a search warrant.
“Taking it is another matter, however. After ‘The Mail on Sunday’ reported that Quick’s wife was running a classic car hire business from his home, outraged innocence filled his throbbing chest.
“I am no Sherlock Holmes. But I only needed to glance at the story to guess it had come from a disgruntled officer who wondered whether it was safe or wise for the head of his anti-terrorist division to allow his home address to be posted on the net.
“Not so Mr Quick…”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23607137-details/We+don%27t+need+your+petulance%2C+Mr+Quick/article.do
Peter Oborne has:
“The Bob Quick farce shows our police chiefs should fight crime – not pander to politicians”
[Extract]:
“In short, Bob Quick inspires no confidence as head of counter-terrorism.
“He is, however, typical of the modern, senior police officer.
“The way to the top of the police force used to be to show real flair at putting criminals behind bars. Today, it’s mastery of political correctness – and the ability to grovel to ministers.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100544/PETER-OBORNE-The-Bob-Quick-farce-shows-police-chiefs-fight-crime–pander-politicians.html
Anonymous 12:25 pm was me.
I don’t think chief constables or met commissioners should be drawn from the police ranks at all.
And certainly not from the ranks of sociologists in uniform.
Indeed, it’s a relatively new thing that they are.
In the past, police forces were run by retired brigadiers or generals.
And they were run better then than they are now.