Cyril Smith - the revellations

[Derek Smith]

There's a book about to be published, not by me, on the cover-up of Smith's crimes:

Smile for the camera, by Matt Baker

Exhaustively researched I'm told.

It is not a band-wagon book. I was questioned some time ago, probably 18 mtns - 2 years, and it had been started long before that.

Worth keeping an eye open for it.

http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/Smile-For-Camera-S...

Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 9th April 16:34

[Derek Smith]

I've just been contacted by a DM journo about the book.

Not sure why.

[Derek Smith]

Tony2or4 said:

What was your connection with Cyril Smith, Derek (ie why did the author of the new book question you?)

Second question first: Google. There was a thread on here about Smith a year or so ago.

My part in Cyril Smith's lack of downfall was, to say the least, minor.

I was an instructor at HQ. I worked with a woman who was a brilliant facilitator, made the rest of us look amateur. Which we were to be fair. She ran specialist course for sexual offences, vulnerable people, domestic violence and such. She inspired her students. I went to the library around 8 pm one night to find it full of her students, all excitedly talking about the day's lessons. Never happened with my classes.

She was trying to get over the importance of the surfeit of evidence required in cases where offenders had influence. She mentioned Cyril Smith and another name - which I can't, in all honesty remember, although I'm fairly certain who he is, lets call him Biggs - where there had been over 144 complaints of child abuse yet there had been no prosecution. There was no mention of SB or MI5, just the need for overwhelming evidence. There was the horror of the offences against so many children and the emphasis was on the kids being ultra vulnerable as there was no one to turn to and the horrible pun of a gross and gross indecency made it even more macabre.

This was over 25 years ago but I remember it still so it proves her technique was spot on.

One morning I was dragged into an office by my Chief Inspector, whom I got on well with, liking the bloke and having a lot of respect for him, to be told that if I ever mentioned the name of Biggs 'again' in class - note that Smith wasn't mentioned - or anyone else involved in the case, it would be viewed very seriously and I could lose my job. I started to argue, no reason to change a lifetime's habits, but the CI advised me to 'just leave it there. There's nothing I can do. This is serious.'

I mean, leave it there. I was a police officer. As if any would.

All of us, apart from the two traffic trainers, got the warning, but the female instructor was treated much more seriously. She was distraught, really upset.

I didn't want to push it with her so asked around and then phoned Rochdale to ask to speak with someone on the child abuse team and said why. I was told it had been disbanded but I was asked for my home phone number.

I was phoned by someone who said they were on the enquiry into Smith before it was shut down. I don't know if (s)he was of course, but why phone if not? They didn't give a name.

It was apparent that he thought I had useful information for her/him and he didn't hide his disappointment very well. But he told me that the file had 'gone missing', much to the disgust of the team. He felt that the evidence against Smith was overwhelming. I told him of the warning and he said that they had sent information from the file, more or less the disclosure, to specialists in other forces, and I presume this would have included our instructor. She was well known.

I asked him if the warning, of dismissal, was to be believed and he said that this went 'to the top'. Clearly, not a chief constable and no one would suggest they were at the top. He said he'd given up pushing and was merely waiting, but said something like 'no one wants to know'. That sort of thing. The person was not so much angry by the blocking of the case as despondent.

It got in the papers around that time but without any real energy. This was the second time it was exposed, there being something in the papers around the time I joined the police, in the middle 70s. But no one bothered.

I phoned the Met Federation (ours at the time were sycophants to the management) about the threat. I got an inspector who said that from what he'd heard, it was serious but that unless I did something really wrong, it was an empty one. But I should take care. I was at that time under the impression that I had a career in the service so took care to the extent of not mentioning it again.

The clever use of the 'other person', Biggs, although there were a few in the cabal of abusers I believe, was clever(ish). The only persons to mention Smith were those being threatened but he was there in the background all the time.

It is clear that the evidence against Smith was overwhelming. It is clear that the abuse was systematic. It is clear that it was well known that he abused kids. It was clear that he had powerful friends. It was clear that the distress of a few kids, into the hundreds by the time he stopped, was not felt to be important enough to create a scandal. It was clear that the press were not that bothered at the time despite information being fed to them.

What was never resolved was how the information got from the classroom to the powers that be(friended and protected child abusers). You could see why it was viewed as dangerous though as everything that was said to the students was proveable. If, as happened there, a number of victims unconnected with one another, and over a long period of time, came up with identical complaints then this can be used as evidence of itself.

Cyril Smith was being used as the front man on a big advertising campaign by a big bank. I moved my account and then was told that there was a letter writing campaign to the bank criticising their choice of front man. Loads of police officers did it, including me. I got a couple of friends, non police, to do it as well. I stated that I had moved my account because of him, a lie but in the context of Smith, not a big one. The adverts had a short run.

But he'd got his money. He'd won. The 30-stone thug had got away with an horrendous series of offences against children.

So not a massive connection with Smith, but one which stuck in my mind. The facilitator was picked on again for something and after a while left Sussex and went to the Central Planning Unit. She then set up a business teaching and is currently in Africa, do something for scouts I believe.

She was too good a facilitator to be of any use in the service. The uninspired, the likes of me, were what they wanted. It doesn't do to have progressive ideas, like teaching the things that students need to know.

I noted a while back that the police were getting the blame for not prosecuting Smith. Perhaps they should speak with the officer on the case, as I did.

[Derek Smith]

Guybrush said:

Interesting. The bit at the end (below) made me laugh though...sounds like a description of the public sector generally, including local authorities.

Derek Smith said:

She was too good a facilitator to be of any use in the service. The uninspired, the likes of me, were what they wanted. It doesn't do to have progressive ideas, like teaching the things that students need to know.

The idea that the public sector rejects new ideas and progressive thought is difficult to support. If you look and state schools, most of the teachers were more than willing to opt for teaching methods that were proven to be better than the historical systems, those that I was subjected to. In the secondary school that all four of my kids went to the teaching methods progressed steadily as the time went on. There seemed to be little resentment.

Now, of course, we have Gove, who seems intent on negating all progress and reverting to failed methods purely because, oddly, they are old-fashioned.

[Derek Smith]

It's front page news in the DM today (Saturday). Or so my lad, who's a journo, has told me. However, I didn't get a mention.

No need to take the mickey, my son already has.

[Derek Smith]

Ozone said:

Derek your account sounds very similar to a BiB acquaintance who told me something similar about a very famous knighted pop star. That person and their colleagues were told to 'leave it' in the same way as you were.

To be fair, I had nothing to leave. I was, for once, an innocent in all of this.

I think it was more of a warning. Someone had identified the facilitator as a problem and she was at risk, and in such situations there is likely to be collateral damage.

Our - we didn't discuss it too much with the woman as she was quite distressed enough - thoughts were that it must be either SB or MI5, with us favouring the latter. There was no way, of course, that MI5 would not be informed at the very least. One might consider that they regarded it as a problem they had to 'manage'.

The information was out there about Smith in any case. I remember reading in the Eye something about it. That must have been before I joined the police as once I did, money for magazines was a luxury I could not afford.

[Derek Smith]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Was that letter from 'Derek Smith' in the Mail the other day you, or just coincidence, relating to a crash report?

Coincidence.

[Derek Smith]

aw51 121565 said:

Paedophiles are not rife, they just get a lot of publicity (which makes it seem like there's a paedophile around every corner and behind every bit of vegetation on the street - just waiting... ).

Once you've sussed that the UK press is essentially negative (report the bad stuff in the headlines and keep the good stuff hidden away in a couple of column inches on page 35 [for example] if reporting it at all), and couple this with the stuff paedophiles 'do' being VERY BAD NEWS INDEED, then the antics of the alleged (or convicted) .pdf file ain't going in a three-column-inch box on page 35 are they??

There may or may not be a surplus of kiddy-fiddlers in the BBC (in fact, as above I'd suggest it's the latter ) - but this is irrelevant to my cynicism above as regards reporting of such in general terms, hence I'll .

As you say. This current DM expose is nothing more than Dacre special. He appears to demand a shock theme to run, the last time it was Harman and her supposedly being an apologist for paedophilia. He's turning this into an anti left thing now and the police and the BBC won't be long in appearing.

That said, I worked beside a paedophile for years without knowing or, which is really shocking, even suspecting. The number of people investigated in the same operation was tremendous. People from all walks of life of course. Whilst not rife, I was surprised to find out just how 'popular' it all is.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Derek Smith, why make it about the Daily Mail rather than the establishment cover up?

Surely there's a bit of a theme there with the Detective Constable being unhappy about how the well connected paedophile, William Goad was being investigated going to Panorama and Woman's Hour on Radio covering the more recent Asian grooming gangs in Roachdale years ago, like 2007?, and the difficulties in breaking such crimes to the attention of the authorities or getting them to do something about it?

Look at some of the SP&L regulars that type 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide'? Well if you're a well connected Politician those that may be tasked with policing and watching over us, are actively protecting their wrongdoing task masters and their mates you have nothing to fear.

The Daily Mail are running excerpts from the Rochdale MP's book. It's quite common for newspapers to serialise books from the great and the good that are found to be wanting or hypocritical and find themselves inside.

When organised religions are getting grief about historic, and not so historic sex crimes against minors why shouldn't everyone else doing it?

If our elected representatives and the authorities will keep people like Cyril Smith in power and position, what won't they do to keep power and ensure their own survival?

Edited by carinaman on Sunday 13th April 09:36

I was replying to the post that was suggesting that paedophilia was being overreported.

The idea of my original post was a rather belated, and in essence pathetic, rant against 'the establishment'.

IF WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOOK IS TRUE -

Given the timing of the first revelations I have little doubt that the 'security of the nation' was the excuse used to justify the cover-up. Then, the assumption is, that habit took over and MPs were seen as untouchable.

The establishment will defend itself. Harman's attempt to try and ensure that MPs fiddling expenses was covered up by keeping them secret. It is but a small step from there to keeping kiddy fiddling covered up. The good on the nation, don't you know.

Real newspapers have done there bit to expose what goes on but the government's first reaction to the fourth estate doing what it is supposed to do was, after Harman of course, to 'investigate' the press and try and ensure that they were independent.

The expenses scandal is up there with Watergate in many ways. The Telegraph should be showered with awards for what it has done, and continues to do. Leveson is an attempt to ensure that such revelations do not see the light of day in the future. The excuse of hacking being the motivator is a nonsense as we have a number of people on trial for just such offences at the moment. Leveson will do nothing to stop that, nor, or course, was it intended to.

From what I experienced and what I later gathered - which might be wrong of course - my feeling is that the cover-up of Smith came from on high. And those who organised it knew full well what he was doing and, incredibly, what he would continue to do, but they used their power and authority to ensure that this, one of the most dreadful of crimes, torture of children, was allowed to continue.

Information that can't go up in the police can go to the press. But, for reasons unknown, the initial exposure was ignored. The later information was fed to the press, but again there was little response.

I know who were the 'masterminds' of the protection of Smith. It doesn't take an awful lot of working out. Indeed those tasked with protecting him did a wonderful job. A unit in an independent police force was closed, the penalty for getting too much evidence.

Even now - and this is not a criticism of Haymarket in any way, indeed I think they have been very brave at times with what they allow - names are removed from threads despite it being common knowledge that they were involved. But, of course, the law in this country means that just because it has been published before unchallenged, it does not mean that it can be published again unhindered.

Whether the cases, the many, many cases, against Smith can be proved is of no consequence, apart from the victims' points of view probably, because the bloke is dead and can no longer be harmed in any way. He has, in every way, got away with the systematic torture of the most vulnerable in society. What can come out of this is some chance that it won't happen in future. Safeguards need to be put in place, but the opposite seems to be happening. Leveson is a green light to those with power and the money to use the courts, or even threaten to use the courts, to stop the press publishing the truth.

Someone exposed in, for instance, the Eye will be able to sue the paper and, if they lose, the Eye might, and probably will, have to pay their own legal expenses and those of the litigant, this under Leveson.

Those taking over Cyril Smith's mantel, in parliament, in power and with money, will continue to offend, the only difference is that despite the knowledge of the involvement in the cover up, those tasked to protect the rich and powerful, be they Special Branch, MI5 or the libel courts, will carry on doing what they are doing untouched, unchanged and unchallenged.

We rail against priests, and for good reason. Smith, and those who protected him and allowed him to continue with his vile predilections are the equivalent in this country.

That is:

IF WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOOK IS TRUE REMEMBER -

That enough of a rant against the establishment?

I have to admit, it is not enough for me.

[Derek Smith]

I have a box all to myself in the DM report on Smith today. I'm quoted but just about everything in it is either false or distorted.

If I'd known, when speaking with the researcher of the book, that it was going to be in the DM I would not have said anything.

I know all papers do it, and some TV news, but it really irritates when it happens to you.

It has been used for an attack on the police. All sorts of implications are made. Almost makes you want to support Leveson.

Well, perhaps not.

[Derek Smith]

FwdConvert said:

It's a bit of a 'Slog' digging this up, though it takes less than 30 seconds to do...

These characters were constants in my youth, being interested in politics (not as a resident of a Care Home (sic)) and I remember well the shock of Smith being named as under such suspicion, omnipresent as the fat megalomaniac was. The other fat, slimy slug was often the butt of ( related) jibes but that seemed - at the time - as being probably unfair and based just on his appearance and manner. So one of those "comes as a surprise but probably not much of one" things.

If Smith can be named as being suspected of these things why, if the other character is also suspected, can it not be recorded as such? So, if I wrote, "Mr X is suspected of..." if he is but hasn't been proven to be guilty, given the comment does not say he actually is, just suspected, which he is!

If you discovered that X was suspected of an offence by reading the reports online and in the papers then there is no problem with that, subject to official confirmation of course. However, I have admitted to having spoken with a chap on the enquiry. If I suggest that there was ample, overwhelming in fact, evidence against X then it is somewhat different.

Also there's little point. It is hardly a secret, but this is no defence to libel.

Clegg has mentioned this today, I'm told.

[Derek Smith]

Did anyone see me on ITN News at 10?

They say TV adds 10 lbs, but my kids reckon I looked slimmer. I'm on a diet.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Derek did you see the stuff in Saturday's Daily Mail?

No. I didn't. I'd be grateful for a precis.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

It started to type it up, but then thought a link may be more useful:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608177/Wa...

It's about whether the diabetic with alcohol issues that ran Elm Guest House in Barnes committed suicide or was bumped off due to what she knew and her stash of photos. It mentions the raid initiated by two undercover officers earlier than planned when only a few people were there rather than a house full.

It alludes to another Politician of high office possibly being a regular there, but the 'victim' wouldn't make a complaint and without one the police couldn't move it forward.

Thanks for that. I'm grateful.

I knew nothing about the Elm Guest House in the 80s beyond just a bit of gossip. I did a bit of checking up on Smith and the place was mentioned once or twice but the rumours were vague. The name of the woman was also mentioned but I assumed she was Asian, so that shows how far off I was.

With regards the DM report, it is full of speculation and short on facts.

One thing which came up in a conversation with an ex-colleague who saw my, by now famous, appearance on ITN and decided to have a word, was a (alledged) brothel in Fleet Street, quite near to the Old Bank of England. Prot officers used to park up in Bell Yard and Fetter Lane. Checks on their index numbers used to come back as blocked. I was told by a sergeant, in the Lodge, that I should keep away as 'important people' used to go there. When I asked how important I was told that they didn't get much higher. But no names. Prot officers tends to indicate high up MPs and, being so near to the Courts of Justice . . . but then that would be speculation as well. I'm certain that those in such responsible positions would not visit brothels. I remember being told that in 1963.

So the idea of a conspiracy of the big blokes is not too far fetched.

I used to work in the City of London Police when a good, or bad, percentage of CID and rankers were corrupt, taking a regular bribe, or bung. Even so the degree of cover-up with Smith comes as a surprise.

I don't think this latest direction is particularly helpful.

By the way, I saw two suspicious heavies in a parked car in Carter Lane. There used to be a Lodge there (Dean's Court?) and when I approached them they put a log book on the dashboard. I did a PNC check, got the 'blocked' and moved off. Later I was told it was diplomatic duties. Later I got a pull from an inspector about what I was doing in Carter Lane. It was my beat. I always wondered who had turned up for their Lodge meeting but never knew. The car was a Granada, well down from the vehicles that used to park near the brothel.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Page 13 has Danczuk saying he may name the other prominent politician using parliamentary privilege.

I'm in two minds about this.

Parliamentary privilege was one of the great leaps forward this country made in establishing government. It is there as a protection for MPs. Deliberately mentioning a name against whom evidence is not available sufficient for a prosecution is underhanded, bullying if you will. I could understand, and support it, in the case of the farcical super duper injunctions, but using it merely to escape prosecution of libel seems wrong.

Yet . . .

The libel laws and courts of this country are part of the reason these people got away with their terrible actions, and people are still getting away with their actions. The threat of expensive costs is being used as a weapon of control of the press in Leveson.

If powerful people are protected by institutions then this might well be the only way of breaking a conspiracy, if conspiracy there be of course.

[Derek Smith]

FwdConvert said:

Though this person (if it is the politician I think it will be) hasn't been prosecuted, isn't there enough against him to provide reasonable cause for an arrest or investigation? In other words, is there no evidence or is he another who has been protected by..?

Do you recall the very clear and pointed Private Eye cover of him some while back - the one with the police officer asking if he'd accompany him to the station - to be told that, no, he was too old (for politician's taste)?

Yeah, take your point. If there is a conspiracy or pressure has been exerted in order to protect the person - or more likely to protect the co-conspirators - then, if the only option is to use Parliamentary privilege then so be it. I'm not sure this is the case yet.

If there is sufficient for an investigation against the person then, if it hasn't happened then pressure has to be exerted by those who can.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

'Brash, larger than life Character'?



A bit like the late Cyril Smith then?

But then again Cyril Smith, DC Foulden or convicted paedophile William Goad are around to defend themselves and their reputations are they?

The prevalence of those who get off on child abuse is really quite remarkable. I was told it was second only to car crime - this before immobilisers. For those with a strong constitution and who lack imagination, look up RFI, a somewhat frequent MO. I mean, where does that get exciting? It is bewildering.

I've heard the excuse that it alright for the straights as it is allowed, but then when I wasn't getting any I didn't take women off the street.

On top of that though are those who covered up for them. This has no defence, real or imagined, at all. Surely they must have been as repulsed by the actions as the rest of us. There is no doubt that those in the security side of things, be they MI5 or Special Branch, were involved in the cover up one way or the other. How many join either to protect MPs, judges, senior police officers and those high up in the the City, all of whom have been implicated.

I can understand visits to brothels and such being seen as OK, as long as the women were full partners so to speak. Consenting adults and all that. I felt sorry for Profumo at the time, let alone when I read up on it later. Whilst there were strong suggestions of rape of women deceived as to the purpose of their invite, no one suggested that he knew about this nor participated.

But kids, vulnerable kids, those who have been dealt a rough hand in any case and are, supposedly, being protected by councils.

This is not the case of someone making a mistake or perhaps panicking when in a position of authority that they are unused to. This is a matter of official connivance by those in power.

What are the odds for this being a 10-minutes of fame and then Dacre moving on to something else to frighten the middle classes with? It has happened before of course.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

carinaman said:

I've grown cynical with age? Or having dealt with an MP and Chief Constable that has problems dealing with evidence and the truth I've realised that these people that make up the 'establishment' aren't anything special. They're no different from anyone else. They can't respect the truth but I am supposed to respect their position and supposed authority?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 23 April 17:04

Your respect and deference are sadly misplaced. The Chief Constable and MP are part of the way up a very greasy pole with quite a way to go. The only suitable applicants for such elevation and an invitation into the hallowed halls are those that can be relied upon to do whatever they are told and seen to be a safe pair of hands. They are largely the only pre-requisites of high office - the last things wanted are integrity, honour and an independent spirit. That would never do, too many ghosts to keep hidden.

I know little about elections of Chief Constables but I've met a few CC's. One was kicked out of office by the home secretary. In other words, party politics has an influence on the selection of CCs.

I know one officer who went for the big job in London. I know him to be honest, straightforward, having experience, and successfully so, outside of the service. His only fault is that if you ask him a question such as, what do you think of . . . he will answer it truthfully. So he didn't get the job.

We now have individual politicians in charge of 'county' forces. That was obviously a good idea. We have Cameron's little me in charge of HMIC (as a reward of thinking up exactly what Cameron thought up many years ago and was rejected. All hail coincidence). This chap even chose to wear a uniform to a police remembrance service. Beyond criticism.

I know of one senior officer who, in an enquiry into the actions of police in another force area, lied, or so many of those involved feel. Many felt that the senior officer's conclusion was just what the government wanted. The truth came out in court showing that this senior officer lied. Yet the punishment awarded? CC in another county.

So we have senior police officers depending on the favour of MPs. We have MPs depending on the favour of media ogres, oops, sorry, moguls. We have big business funding big political parties and having tea a tiffin with cabinet ministers and advisors to the government. We have government influence on the legal system.

Into this mix put a group of like-minded criminals of the grossest kind.

Of course there are corrupt judges, CCs, MPs, big business types, and those with money.

They won't be exposed. They are too important. They have all the big guns. It is like the drugs industry: the minnows get prosecuted.

Cyril Smith, for all his grotesque size, was a minnow. And even he was protected. Now we see that the reason might have been what he knew.

[Derek Smith]

carinaman said:

Thorodin said:

They are largely the only pre-requisites of high office - the last things wanted are integrity, honour and an independent spirit. That would never do, too many ghosts to keep hidden.

Derek Smith said:

How many join either to protect MPs, judges, senior police officers and those high up in the the City, all of whom have been implicated.

Keeping inconvenient secrets and playing with the truth isn't on the Oath Constables take is it? It mentions impartiality, honesty and integrity though.

Look at the police recruitment threads in SP&L and 'Ha, ha, they wouldn't accept you' retorts. It's not about brand protection or telling fibs is it?

Indeed it is not, yet we are not talking about police officers as such. Although chief constables are constables (the clue is in the name) they are far from operational. The head of the met is not a constable.

Don't forget that police officers tried to push the case against Smith but were thwarted. I doubt if CCs had sufficient influence to ignore revelations in the press. This goes much higher than them.

The problem with high level corruption is that it is tilting at windmills. Who can you attack? These are ephemeral. Cyril Smith did not pull the plug on the investigation. It was done for him.

Any group which has authority will have a tendency to misuse it, abuse it if you will. It is not necessarily a dishonest move. For instance, if you see the harm done by drugs for instance and you have a mid-level dealer, then is it so bad that your search premises making out that you saw him leaving them before you nicked him?

Police (sticking with what I know) are task oriented. If you see a major incident room at the start of an enquiry, everyone is buzzing. It is one hell of an experience to be part of it. My force had people whose job it was to ensure that officers did not overstretch themselves, not through concern I think but performance drops off if people become tired and exhausted. Many SIOs sleep in their office for the first few days or week. This is a positive of course. Everything to find the offender.

It breeds a feeling of doing important work - all the more difficult to throw off because it is right. So when there's an inconvenient regulation is it not right to ignore it, just this once? Or so the feeling goes. After all, police officers know how corrupt and self-serving politicians are. Break one regulation for reasons of convenience then you can break a law because someone who is important is being targeted.

The only thing that restricts the abuse of power is a discipline system, and a strong one. Despite the criticisms, there are few - few here meaning none of course - other systems in place in this country that are anywhere near so restrictive as the IPCC.

But only up to a certain rank. Beyond that level it is very difficult to complain.

Senior politicians suggest that the ballot box is their discipline but, as we all know, an MP in a safe constituency can get away with much, including fiddling expenses, and still continue to get voted in.

Judges are largely untouchable, for particular reasons. And is Murdoch appearing in court for the hacking? What restrictions are there on bankers and top business leaders? I know of a fraud investigation that ran into £millions and then was cut, despite (ha!) the ring leaders becoming apparent, due to the costs. That said, the costs were climbing and taking the department over budget, but we are talking about individuals with multiple £millions unaccounted for.

We won't get them. And these are the ones to moan about, not the lowly PC. If he/she should do something wrong then there is ample recourse.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

The little fish have as bad an effect on their (unimportant in relative terms to those in shadow) targets as the bigger fish have on their much bigger targets. The purpose of catching the little fish is to give the impression that 'something is being done' and 'lessons are being learned', thereby lessening public outcry.
Oath? Does anyone keep an oath? Concepts like that are seen as New Year Resolutions - forgotten as soon as temptation rears.

I think the oath, or rather the ethos of policing, is important. When I was a PC I was taken to task by a senior PC for arresting someone for a minor, but 'arrestable', offence. His point of view was that I was stepping over a line.

I've been 'corrected' by more officers of my own rank than supervisors. Maybe I've been lucky, but the vast majority of officers I've worked with have wanted to do a good job. That said, I used to work in a factory and the same sort of atmosphere applied. Most people want to do the best they can I think.

I think part of the problem is that if you are a specialist and lock yourself away from others then your job takes precedence over everything. They move from being focused to tunnel vision. It can happen to anyone. Indeed, major incident enquiries suffered from this on occasion and nowadays there are systems in place to avoid it.

It can happen with specialist units.

One wonders if those whose task it is to protect important people don't get out enough.

The newspapers and other media are being controlled by the government.