Author Topic: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.  (Read 62492 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #105 on: March 10, 2020, 03:03:44 PM »
You're in denial davel.

And you have been fooled...so has he actually named anyone.....he hasnt
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 03:06:38 PM by Davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #106 on: March 10, 2020, 03:05:34 PM »
You're in denial davel.

Are you a Lenny Harper supporter to...do you think the child's skull was swapped for a piece of coconut..lol
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 04:37:26 PM by Davel »

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #107 on: March 10, 2020, 03:13:01 PM »
You're in denial davel.
About what?  what established facts is Davel denying?  Please clarify.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #108 on: March 10, 2020, 09:55:01 PM »
You're in denial davel.

I think that there are conclusions to be reached when the narrative is broadened to include a much more comprehensive list of sources than the single source which those of us intermittent visitors to CMOMM are unfamiliar with.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2020, 10:04:44 PM by Brietta »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Erngath

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #109 on: March 10, 2020, 10:36:25 PM »
I think that there are conclusions to be reached when the narrative is broadened to include a much more comprehensive list of sources than the single source which those of us intermittent visitors to CMOMM are unfamiliar with.

I do visit there intermittently.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #110 on: March 11, 2020, 08:18:56 AM »
why do posters here see this man as a whistleblower...when he hasnt blown the whistle. He claims theres organised abuse...what has he done about it....nothing

Offline G-Unit

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #111 on: March 11, 2020, 09:41:57 AM »
It is allegedly very difficult for a policeman to complain because action will be taken against you which will damage your career and character;

This is what happens to police whistleblowers.
Be prepared, call now for advice from those who have been there!
"Shooting the Messenger"
 
While one should try to be positive about the subject of accountability and the various policies, procedures and agencies that exist to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, in reality your disclosures will not be welcomed.
 
This assertion is corroborated by the lack of support from forces and the IPCC when the chips are down. Correspondence from the Home Office advises officers who have written to them to take their matters to the Employment Tribunal rather than the Home Office taking any positive action to deal with the allegations of corruption which have been raised.
 
It is important for a police officer or member of police staff to be aware of what they might expect in the worst scenario.
 
Police officers and staff are at a distinct disadvantage as they are unable to make a ‘complaint' against a colleague in the police service and do not have the same rights as a member of the public who can appeal to the IOPC(Independent Office for Police Conduct). This a standard response to police officers when contacting the IPCC.

It is a worthwhile exercise when thinking about reforms to ask why police forces respond in the specific non-accountable ways that they sometimes do. One could roughly arrange these by the degree of defensiveness to which a police force/employer feels driven.

Hot air
 
The force will appear at first to share your concern. Many fine words will be generated, insubstantial memoranda may fly about, a meeting may be convened, and promises will be made. No action will be taken, except
perhaps the most trivial. At a later date any conversation not recorded on paper may be strenuously denied.
 
Send to Coventry
 
A change of mood comes over certain managers and colleagues. Initially this is quite subtle. Greetings, smiles and friendly banter are less frequent. At first you brush it off. Then it becomes more pronounced. Eyebrows are
raised, you are avoided and left out of events and decisions, sarcastic comments are made. If you mention it you may find that your mental health is questioned.
 
Close ranks
 
It is clear that what you said to one colleague or manager has been passed on, and possibly distorted, to his or her peers. When you approach a manager further up the line it is clear that they have been forewarned. Your
concern has somehow created an anti-you group. You are identified as a 'trouble-maker' by most people with any authority, and any attempt to raise your concern is now pre-empted and prejudged. Some of your colleagues feel that your complaint demeans them by implication.
 
Stonewall
 
When you raise your concerns formally you find that your letters are unanswered, the manager is never available, promises to 'get back to you' are broken, you are passed on to someone who eventually sends you a letter thanking you for raising the concerns and the matter has been investigated. You may be told directly not to send any more reports or letters.
 
Biomedical diagnosis
 
It is suggested that you have been under a 'lot of stress lately' and that you ought to visit the occupational health department, seek counselling or visit your GP. You are asked if you are 'coping'. It emerges, unknown to you, that you have been informally diagnosed as anxious, depressed, paranoid, having a personality disorder, or as being 'neurotic'.
 
Spying
 
A colleague is passing on information about you (and has, perhaps, been asked to do so). You are the object of close observation, fault-finding, and perhaps your e-mail and telephone conversations are being monitored. Some of your work goes wrong or astray and you wonder about sabotage. If you mention this it is taken as further evidence that you are unable to cope or are 'paranoid'.
 
Grind down
 
Work becomes more difficult. Your workload increases, you get the unpopular cases or incidents. Your attempts at promotion are made difficult and your appraisals are unfairly written and do not accurately reflect your
performance. You may be transferred to another station or department and your request for leave and time off are refused without valid reasons

Sticks and carrots
 
An intermediary, usually a non-independent person is chosen to act as a facilitator and will call you aside for 'a chat' and you may feel that at last you are getting somewhere. Your career prospects may be discussed, the
suggestion being that you drop your complaints. Alternatively, or if you refuse to accept the carrot, veiled threats will be made such as 'Are you sure you wouldn't be happier working elsewhere?' These become overt threats such as 'You are jeopardizing your future' and 'you won't be working here much longer'. If you raised concerns about colleagues, you may find that you become a victim of harassment.

Character assassination
 
Aspersions will be cast on your character, your personal conduct, your
personal past, your political views, your class or ethnic origin, or your sexual orientation. These may progress to accusations of your own misconduct including criminal, theft of documents, lying, disloyalty, breach of confidentiality, and the like.
 
First strike
 
Official counter-complaints may be formulated against you in a disciplinary hearing before your own concerns are addressed or instead of addressing them. You may be made a scapegoat. Disciplinary or grievance procedures may be used and abused as a pre-emptive or retaliatory measure. The force will attempt to get their revenge in first.
 
Second strike
 
If you manage to get through the first strike, your force may abuse their powers and decide to maliciously investigate you on suspicion of a criminal offence, your home may be searched and you will be interviewed in a custody suite to cause you the maximum amount of distress.

You may be charged and relevant evidence is witheld from the crown prosecution service.

You may be wrongly convicted and spend many years trying to clear your name and searching for evidence which has been destroyed.
 
Dismissed

If you remain in the force; your presence is no longer tolerable. You may be wrongly suspended and then dismissed or there may be a reorganisation in which your post is made redundant.

Even if aquitted at a criminal court, the force will use discipline as a second bite of the cherry to get rid of you.
 
Cosmetic reshuffle

If your concerns were of a serious nature, especially if an inquiry took place, then there will be some changes at your workplace of a cosmetic nature.

Some posts may be reshuffled, but it is unlikely that policies will be revised or that managerial heads will roll.

Certainly no acknowledgement will be made that there is any connection between your raising a concern and the
changes which followed.
https://www.ipsg.co.uk/shooting-the-messenger
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #112 on: March 11, 2020, 09:57:50 AM »
It is allegedly very difficult for a policeman to complain because action will be taken against you which will damage your career and character;

This is what happens to police whistleblowers.
Be prepared, call now for advice from those who have been there!
"Shooting the Messenger"
 
While one should try to be positive about the subject of accountability and the various policies, procedures and agencies that exist to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, in reality your disclosures will not be welcomed.
 
This assertion is corroborated by the lack of support from forces and the IPCC when the chips are down. Correspondence from the Home Office advises officers who have written to them to take their matters to the Employment Tribunal rather than the Home Office taking any positive action to deal with the allegations of corruption which have been raised.
 
It is important for a police officer or member of police staff to be aware of what they might expect in the worst scenario.
 
Police officers and staff are at a distinct disadvantage as they are unable to make a ‘complaint' against a colleague in the police service and do not have the same rights as a member of the public who can appeal to the IOPC(Independent Office for Police Conduct). This a standard response to police officers when contacting the IPCC.

It is a worthwhile exercise when thinking about reforms to ask why police forces respond in the specific non-accountable ways that they sometimes do. One could roughly arrange these by the degree of defensiveness to which a police force/employer feels driven.

Hot air
 
The force will appear at first to share your concern. Many fine words will be generated, insubstantial memoranda may fly about, a meeting may be convened, and promises will be made. No action will be taken, except
perhaps the most trivial. At a later date any conversation not recorded on paper may be strenuously denied.
 
Send to Coventry
 
A change of mood comes over certain managers and colleagues. Initially this is quite subtle. Greetings, smiles and friendly banter are less frequent. At first you brush it off. Then it becomes more pronounced. Eyebrows are
raised, you are avoided and left out of events and decisions, sarcastic comments are made. If you mention it you may find that your mental health is questioned.
 
Close ranks
 
It is clear that what you said to one colleague or manager has been passed on, and possibly distorted, to his or her peers. When you approach a manager further up the line it is clear that they have been forewarned. Your
concern has somehow created an anti-you group. You are identified as a 'trouble-maker' by most people with any authority, and any attempt to raise your concern is now pre-empted and prejudged. Some of your colleagues feel that your complaint demeans them by implication.
 
Stonewall
 
When you raise your concerns formally you find that your letters are unanswered, the manager is never available, promises to 'get back to you' are broken, you are passed on to someone who eventually sends you a letter thanking you for raising the concerns and the matter has been investigated. You may be told directly not to send any more reports or letters.
 
Biomedical diagnosis
 
It is suggested that you have been under a 'lot of stress lately' and that you ought to visit the occupational health department, seek counselling or visit your GP. You are asked if you are 'coping'. It emerges, unknown to you, that you have been informally diagnosed as anxious, depressed, paranoid, having a personality disorder, or as being 'neurotic'.
 
Spying
 
A colleague is passing on information about you (and has, perhaps, been asked to do so). You are the object of close observation, fault-finding, and perhaps your e-mail and telephone conversations are being monitored. Some of your work goes wrong or astray and you wonder about sabotage. If you mention this it is taken as further evidence that you are unable to cope or are 'paranoid'.
 
Grind down
 
Work becomes more difficult. Your workload increases, you get the unpopular cases or incidents. Your attempts at promotion are made difficult and your appraisals are unfairly written and do not accurately reflect your
performance. You may be transferred to another station or department and your request for leave and time off are refused without valid reasons

Sticks and carrots
 
An intermediary, usually a non-independent person is chosen to act as a facilitator and will call you aside for 'a chat' and you may feel that at last you are getting somewhere. Your career prospects may be discussed, the
suggestion being that you drop your complaints. Alternatively, or if you refuse to accept the carrot, veiled threats will be made such as 'Are you sure you wouldn't be happier working elsewhere?' These become overt threats such as 'You are jeopardizing your future' and 'you won't be working here much longer'. If you raised concerns about colleagues, you may find that you become a victim of harassment.

Character assassination
 
Aspersions will be cast on your character, your personal conduct, your
personal past, your political views, your class or ethnic origin, or your sexual orientation. These may progress to accusations of your own misconduct including criminal, theft of documents, lying, disloyalty, breach of confidentiality, and the like.
 
First strike
 
Official counter-complaints may be formulated against you in a disciplinary hearing before your own concerns are addressed or instead of addressing them. You may be made a scapegoat. Disciplinary or grievance procedures may be used and abused as a pre-emptive or retaliatory measure. The force will attempt to get their revenge in first.
 
Second strike
 
If you manage to get through the first strike, your force may abuse their powers and decide to maliciously investigate you on suspicion of a criminal offence, your home may be searched and you will be interviewed in a custody suite to cause you the maximum amount of distress.

You may be charged and relevant evidence is witheld from the crown prosecution service.

You may be wrongly convicted and spend many years trying to clear your name and searching for evidence which has been destroyed.
 
Dismissed

If you remain in the force; your presence is no longer tolerable. You may be wrongly suspended and then dismissed or there may be a reorganisation in which your post is made redundant.

Even if aquitted at a criminal court, the force will use discipline as a second bite of the cherry to get rid of you.
 
Cosmetic reshuffle

If your concerns were of a serious nature, especially if an inquiry took place, then there will be some changes at your workplace of a cosmetic nature.

Some posts may be reshuffled, but it is unlikely that policies will be revised or that managerial heads will roll.

Certainly no acknowledgement will be made that there is any connection between your raising a concern and the
changes which followed.
https://www.ipsg.co.uk/shooting-the-messenger

Allegedly...but he was leaving anyway ...so why had he still not named even one name...
Seems like you are another who has been fooled by this fantasist imo

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #113 on: March 11, 2020, 10:11:16 AM »
It is allegedly very difficult for a policeman to complain because action will be taken against you which will damage your career and character;

This is what happens to police whistleblowers.
Be prepared, call now for advice from those who have been there!
"Shooting the Messenger"
 
While one should try to be positive about the subject of accountability and the various policies, procedures and agencies that exist to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, in reality your disclosures will not be welcomed.
 
This assertion is corroborated by the lack of support from forces and the IPCC when the chips are down. Correspondence from the Home Office advises officers who have written to them to take their matters to the Employment Tribunal rather than the Home Office taking any positive action to deal with the allegations of corruption which have been raised.
 
It is important for a police officer or member of police staff to be aware of what they might expect in the worst scenario.
 
Police officers and staff are at a distinct disadvantage as they are unable to make a ‘complaint' against a colleague in the police service and do not have the same rights as a member of the public who can appeal to the IOPC(Independent Office for Police Conduct). This a standard response to police officers when contacting the IPCC.

It is a worthwhile exercise when thinking about reforms to ask why police forces respond in the specific non-accountable ways that they sometimes do. One could roughly arrange these by the degree of defensiveness to which a police force/employer feels driven.

Hot air
 
The force will appear at first to share your concern. Many fine words will be generated, insubstantial memoranda may fly about, a meeting may be convened, and promises will be made. No action will be taken, except
perhaps the most trivial. At a later date any conversation not recorded on paper may be strenuously denied.
 
Send to Coventry
 
A change of mood comes over certain managers and colleagues. Initially this is quite subtle. Greetings, smiles and friendly banter are less frequent. At first you brush it off. Then it becomes more pronounced. Eyebrows are
raised, you are avoided and left out of events and decisions, sarcastic comments are made. If you mention it you may find that your mental health is questioned.
 
Close ranks
 
It is clear that what you said to one colleague or manager has been passed on, and possibly distorted, to his or her peers. When you approach a manager further up the line it is clear that they have been forewarned. Your
concern has somehow created an anti-you group. You are identified as a 'trouble-maker' by most people with any authority, and any attempt to raise your concern is now pre-empted and prejudged. Some of your colleagues feel that your complaint demeans them by implication.
 
Stonewall
 
When you raise your concerns formally you find that your letters are unanswered, the manager is never available, promises to 'get back to you' are broken, you are passed on to someone who eventually sends you a letter thanking you for raising the concerns and the matter has been investigated. You may be told directly not to send any more reports or letters.
 
Biomedical diagnosis
 
It is suggested that you have been under a 'lot of stress lately' and that you ought to visit the occupational health department, seek counselling or visit your GP. You are asked if you are 'coping'. It emerges, unknown to you, that you have been informally diagnosed as anxious, depressed, paranoid, having a personality disorder, or as being 'neurotic'.
 
Spying
 
A colleague is passing on information about you (and has, perhaps, been asked to do so). You are the object of close observation, fault-finding, and perhaps your e-mail and telephone conversations are being monitored. Some of your work goes wrong or astray and you wonder about sabotage. If you mention this it is taken as further evidence that you are unable to cope or are 'paranoid'.
 
Grind down
 
Work becomes more difficult. Your workload increases, you get the unpopular cases or incidents. Your attempts at promotion are made difficult and your appraisals are unfairly written and do not accurately reflect your
performance. You may be transferred to another station or department and your request for leave and time off are refused without valid reasons

Sticks and carrots
 
An intermediary, usually a non-independent person is chosen to act as a facilitator and will call you aside for 'a chat' and you may feel that at last you are getting somewhere. Your career prospects may be discussed, the
suggestion being that you drop your complaints. Alternatively, or if you refuse to accept the carrot, veiled threats will be made such as 'Are you sure you wouldn't be happier working elsewhere?' These become overt threats such as 'You are jeopardizing your future' and 'you won't be working here much longer'. If you raised concerns about colleagues, you may find that you become a victim of harassment.

Character assassination
 
Aspersions will be cast on your character, your personal conduct, your
personal past, your political views, your class or ethnic origin, or your sexual orientation. These may progress to accusations of your own misconduct including criminal, theft of documents, lying, disloyalty, breach of confidentiality, and the like.
 
First strike
 
Official counter-complaints may be formulated against you in a disciplinary hearing before your own concerns are addressed or instead of addressing them. You may be made a scapegoat. Disciplinary or grievance procedures may be used and abused as a pre-emptive or retaliatory measure. The force will attempt to get their revenge in first.
 
Second strike
 
If you manage to get through the first strike, your force may abuse their powers and decide to maliciously investigate you on suspicion of a criminal offence, your home may be searched and you will be interviewed in a custody suite to cause you the maximum amount of distress.

You may be charged and relevant evidence is witheld from the crown prosecution service.

You may be wrongly convicted and spend many years trying to clear your name and searching for evidence which has been destroyed.
 
Dismissed

If you remain in the force; your presence is no longer tolerable. You may be wrongly suspended and then dismissed or there may be a reorganisation in which your post is made redundant.

Even if aquitted at a criminal court, the force will use discipline as a second bite of the cherry to get rid of you.
 
Cosmetic reshuffle

If your concerns were of a serious nature, especially if an inquiry took place, then there will be some changes at your workplace of a cosmetic nature.

Some posts may be reshuffled, but it is unlikely that policies will be revised or that managerial heads will roll.

Certainly no acknowledgement will be made that there is any connection between your raising a concern and the
changes which followed.
https://www.ipsg.co.uk/shooting-the-messenger

https://www.ipsg.co.uk/the-whistleblowing-bandwagon

You've quoted the Ipsg ...they don't seem to think a lot of John Wedger...so something of an own goal by you...read the link provided

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #114 on: March 11, 2020, 10:29:44 AM »
The statement, by the IPSG’s Julian King, is titled “The Whistleblowing Bandwagon”, and it raises a number of issues. These include:

Inconsistent accounts: “With regards to Maggie’s case there is this glaring difference as to the reason she left the force, having known Mr Wedger for 4 years and each being a listening ear for each other according to video footage, it is still unclear as to what actually happened or why different versions have been given.”
The question of why neither Wedger nor Oliver have ever “sought to use their right to take their respective police forces to an employment tribunal with regards to their treatment”, and why Wedger says police officers have no legal protections: “This is not true when whistleblowing is involved as police officers are covered by section 191 of the Employment rights Act 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act.”
Wedger’s silence about his allegations for several years: “We would have expected Jon to have formally challenged the corrupt behaviour by his boss at that time…. Staying silent for so many years especially; with regards to the seriousness of the matters alleged is not an option for a police officer.”
An allegation of Satanic Ritual Abuse made against a chief constable on the basis of Wedger providing King with “a section” of the RAINS list, which “appeared to contain everyone and their uncle so has to be treated with caution” (more on RAINS here).
Wedger providing inaccurate accounts of whistleblowing by other officers, in particular King: “no efforts have been made to correct the information”.
Wedger’s complaint that he was not promoted for his police work: “police officers know that everyone goes through the same promotion system by completing Sergeants exams and applying for a selection board when suitably qualified.”
Wedger’s claims to have a network of whistleblowers supporting him: “none appear to have supported him publicly recently and it is interesting that the posters being displayed [at a protest event] show just 3 officers, Jon and two senior officers Mike Veale and Bob Quick. The senior officers do not appear to be whistleblowers.”
Share this:



So who's in denial....
I think it's Wedgers gullible supporters who are in denial.

Offline kizzy

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #115 on: March 11, 2020, 10:36:22 AM »
Allegedly...but he was leaving anyway ...so why had he still not named even one name...
Seems like you are another who has been fooled by this fantasist imo
said



Instead of jumping straight in and rubbishing what JW has said - are you not concerned or disturbed

Or is your concern and integrity only for the mccs - it should be very disturbing to anyone not just fobbed off

You only have to look at Hillsborough

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #116 on: March 11, 2020, 10:48:02 AM »
said



Instead of jumping straight in and rubbishing what JW has said - are you not concerned or disturbed

Or is your concern and integrity only for the mccs - it should be very disturbing to anyone not just fobbed off

You only have to look at Hillsborough
Does nothing at all give you any reason to doubt John Wedger's "whistleblowing", or are you absolutely convinced he's telling the truth?  If so, why?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #117 on: March 11, 2020, 10:53:18 AM »
said



Instead of jumping straight in and rubbishing what JW has said - are you not concerned or disturbed

Or is your concern and integrity only for the mccs - it should be very disturbing to anyone not just fobbed off

You only have to look at Hillsborough

I don't take anything at face value...I research it first rather than jumping in.
Do you believe there is widespread Satanic Abuse amongst the upper echelons...
The research I've carried out points to Wedger being s fantasist. If he has information re abuse why has he done nothing about it

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #118 on: March 11, 2020, 10:55:42 AM »
said



Instead of jumping straight in and rubbishing what JW has said - are you not concerned or disturbed

Or is your concern and integrity only for the mccs - it should be very disturbing to anyone not just fobbed off

You only have to look at Hillsborough

You are the one who jumped in and believed him...have you read my posts from those who know more about him and his claims

Offline kizzy

Re: Former Scotland Yard detective exposes cover up within the MET.
« Reply #119 on: March 11, 2020, 11:13:23 AM »
You are the one who jumped in and believed him...have you read my posts from those who know more about him and his claims


What you don't know is if there is any truth in it or not - Just rather think SY squeaky clean.

Whatever you think - it's still up there for all to see.

Why hasn't it been removed?