BiB blogs 'banned' by the Met
Discussion
Just received word from a PH mate...the Orwellian jackboot just stamped on a few more faces.
The emphasis is mine, the words are wwd's
worldwearydetective said:
Friday, March 03, 2006
This is the End
On Friday 3rd March 2006, the Management Board of the Metropolitan Police Service issued the following statement to all members of staff:
'Recently the organisation has become aware of a series of web-logs or blogs - where authors - claiming to be police officers - have offered their views on a number of issues in a highly personalised, often controversial manner.'
This statement is followed by 'guidance' on writing blogs. In summary, this states that although 'blogging' cannot be stopped, the 'impact of expressing views and opinions that are damaging to the organisation or bring the organisation into disrepute' must be considered. Disciplinary proceedings may be considered against posters of material that may be (among other things) defamatory, offensive or otherwise inappropriate.
I have committed no crime. I have compromised no police operations. I have received no payment for anything published on this blog. All opinions expressed are my own.
It is therefore with deep regret and great sadness that I must announce that I will no longer be submitting posts to this blog. I cannot challenge New Scotland Yard. I am weary indeed and cowardice is my bedmate. The protection of my family must take precedence.
To each and every one of you - take note of what has happened here and be afraid.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. - George Orwell"
The emphasis is mine, the words are wwd's
flemke said:Precisely. I always think that when some outfit like the MET says they're banning something to prevent the organisation being brought into disrepute, the intention is they want us to think it's the blogger or squealer that's doing the bringing - when in reality the buffoons in government and muppets wearing thick braid have already brought themselves into disrepute and all they want to do is keep it quiet. Somehow I don't think attempts to silence individuals will work 100% as there are always a few people prepared to pay the price when exposing serious muppetry in officialdom. Thank God.
the 'impact of expressing views and opinions that are damaging to the organisation or bring the organisation into disrepute' must be considered.
Even if those views and opinions are the truth?!!!
Why don't those in the police simply report to a third party to then blog what they report?
Surely it isn't unlawful to pass on what you did at work (within reason of course, as it already has been)...
Is it now not allowed to critisise or comment on our own public services and how they are run?
Surely said bloggers could go to the ECHR to fight this if they really wanted? It's a sad day when the police can't even take critisism from their own employee's, those who serve the public better because they openly discuss their roles and concerns within their job!
Infact blogging publicly should be encouraged, so the public can see the good they do as well as the bad that is done!
And the government want more people to think the government are transparrent, well surely reducing the flow of information down to "home office approved" press releases is biasing the "transparrency" a little
I'm praying for an asteroid to hit Parliament when Bliar and his cronies are in there... please please please God, judge Tony Bliar for his actions now
Dave
Surely it isn't unlawful to pass on what you did at work (within reason of course, as it already has been)...
Is it now not allowed to critisise or comment on our own public services and how they are run?
Surely said bloggers could go to the ECHR to fight this if they really wanted? It's a sad day when the police can't even take critisism from their own employee's, those who serve the public better because they openly discuss their roles and concerns within their job!
Infact blogging publicly should be encouraged, so the public can see the good they do as well as the bad that is done!
And the government want more people to think the government are transparrent, well surely reducing the flow of information down to "home office approved" press releases is biasing the "transparrency" a little
I'm praying for an asteroid to hit Parliament when Bliar and his cronies are in there... please please please God, judge Tony Bliar for his actions now
Dave
While I'm not a fan in any way of censorship or political control, this is one of those instances where we have to take a step back.
The Police Force (non-specific) for the last 100 years have tried their utmost to excercise powers of investigation in an apolitical manner. Entering, in any small way, into the political arena opens up the Force to direct political pressure.
It's my opinion, and that of others more enligtened than me ( www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1791105,00.html ), that this is changing. However, the powers that be within the police acknowledge that this change must be very carefully done.
In addition, there has always been a large amount of control over how a police officer conducts his/her private affairs. Much of this is to do with maintaining respect for the Police FOrce as a whole. No-one can have any respect for a traffic officer who stops off for half a dozen pints on his drive home. The thing is, the police need to be respected. Any action that can possibly damage that respect is heavily frowned upon (actually, I think I'm putting it mildly there).
With regard to this Blog, I don't think it's right that this guy should proffer his own opinion while wearing his policeman's 'hat'. If he wants to give an opinion on a matter, he should be free to do so but that opinion should be the opinion of a private individual rather than that of a serving officer. If he wants to offer the Police Line on something, he should do that in accordance with the guidelines set down on that matter. If he feels that something is so obviously wrong, then he should complain/refuse/resign as appropriate.
If someone wants to know the legality regarding a matter or has an issue with police procedure, then they should telephone their local station. I have.
In addition, confidentiality is a huge consideration when matters that could be sub judicae can find their way on to a public forum.
Don't see this as Big Brother. Rather, see it as a common sense approach to a delicate matter.
DISCALIMER: none of the above is intended in any way as a slur or attack on the conduct of any individual officer or collective of officers. None of the above represents the opinions of the publishers. None of the above represents the opinion of the other members of PHs. None of the above will strictly represent the authors opinion in another 15 minutes.
The Police Force (non-specific) for the last 100 years have tried their utmost to excercise powers of investigation in an apolitical manner. Entering, in any small way, into the political arena opens up the Force to direct political pressure.
It's my opinion, and that of others more enligtened than me ( www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1791105,00.html ), that this is changing. However, the powers that be within the police acknowledge that this change must be very carefully done.
In addition, there has always been a large amount of control over how a police officer conducts his/her private affairs. Much of this is to do with maintaining respect for the Police FOrce as a whole. No-one can have any respect for a traffic officer who stops off for half a dozen pints on his drive home. The thing is, the police need to be respected. Any action that can possibly damage that respect is heavily frowned upon (actually, I think I'm putting it mildly there).
With regard to this Blog, I don't think it's right that this guy should proffer his own opinion while wearing his policeman's 'hat'. If he wants to give an opinion on a matter, he should be free to do so but that opinion should be the opinion of a private individual rather than that of a serving officer. If he wants to offer the Police Line on something, he should do that in accordance with the guidelines set down on that matter. If he feels that something is so obviously wrong, then he should complain/refuse/resign as appropriate.
If someone wants to know the legality regarding a matter or has an issue with police procedure, then they should telephone their local station. I have.
In addition, confidentiality is a huge consideration when matters that could be sub judicae can find their way on to a public forum.
Don't see this as Big Brother. Rather, see it as a common sense approach to a delicate matter.
DISCALIMER: none of the above is intended in any way as a slur or attack on the conduct of any individual officer or collective of officers. None of the above represents the opinions of the publishers. None of the above represents the opinion of the other members of PHs. None of the above will strictly represent the authors opinion in another 15 minutes.
J1mmyD said:
Stuff, then
DISCALIMER: none of the above is intended in any way as a slur or attack on the conduct of any individual officer or collective of officers. None of the above represents the opinions of the publishers. None of the above represents the opinion of the other members of PHs. None of the above will strictly represent the authors opinion in another 15 minutes.
Eh?
Why can't people have an opinion?
It's a delicate matter, but that doesn't mean that what messages the general public receives are the spun lies and mis-truths of the home office.
As a British Citizen, I woulld PREFER police to fill in public blogs, with their concerns. It is none of the governments business to control people, no matter what organisation they represent. In a way a police officer represents his own interests, as a British Citizen!
I never asked for this government to remove our freedoms, but they are doing, so why should I believe the removal of police officers freedom of speech, further seperating them from the public, is a good thing?
Dave
J1mmyD said:
With regard to this Blog, I don't think it's right that this guy should proffer his own opinion while wearing his policeman's 'hat'. If he wants to give an opinion on a matter, he should be free to do so but that opinion should be the opinion of a private individual rather than that of a serving officer. If he wants to offer the Police Line on something, he should do that in accordance with the guidelines set down on that matter. If he feels that something is so obviously wrong, then he should complain/refuse/resign as appropriate.
What's the difference ? Our resident BiBs are private individuals who happen to be Policemen. You aren't really saying that if they write 'this is my personal opinion' (they probably do anyway) that it doesn't matter.
This is about controlling the message. There are mindless little cretins in every public service who monitor all this and desperately try and keep up the "message" ; however laughable that message is ; I've had a long discussion with one (Head of PR at our local NHS trust has so *little* to do that he offers me a private tour of the Hospital ? I'm NOBODY !).
That's what drivel like "in accordance with the guidelines" means. It's to do with censoring and controlling all and any opposing views. The *MORONS* who do this kind of thing actually think that if they cover up enough people will believe their stories.
Clue, they don't. One doesn't agree with everything our BiB write here, but they are clearly far more rooted in *reality* than anything the PR department comes out with.
If the bloggers are writing "My CC is a rapist" or giving operation details that could damage a case then fine, but it's nothing of the sort.
The bloggers and the BiBs here paint a far more balanced and realistic view of what the "Police" do. More power to their elbow, say I, and sack the useless ***** in PR and spend their salaries on more proper coppers.
Mr Whippy said:
Why don't those in the police simply report to a third party to then blog what they report?
Surely it isn't unlawful to pass on what you did at work (within reason of course, as it already has been)...
Is it now not allowed to critisise or comment on our own public services and how they are run?
No it isn't. It happened to this bloke http://briansbriefencounters.blogspot who is a Copper
"It seems that not everyone is a fan. I’ve been rumbled and stand accused of a number of curious ‘offences’. You’ll be pleased to hear that I’ve gone ‘No Comment’. For the foreseeable future I’m on gardening leave. This is so that I can “seriously reflect on the impact and outcomes of some of my statements”. The first thing I need to do is to build a grassy knoll. Anyone know where I can get some cheap manure?"
The reason it isn't is because or public services (which includes the Cops) is run on PR, propaganda and targets. You can't have "rogue" coppers (or whoever) telling people what they actually do - like Dibble's "staffing levels" (just him). There's nothing wrong with what he says, they just don't want people to know about it.
What the blogs tell you is something like, okay "it's a bit of a mess at times, and the management can be shambolic, but the BiB are doing their best in difficult circumstances and we do make a difference".
Fine, I can understand that.
However, the PR department wants "We've caught every criminal ever, everything is brilliant, there is no crime anywhere" messages, and they're just insulting.
>> Edited by autismuk on Tuesday 7th March 13:20
I stand by what I've said.
If you hold yourself out to represent ANY body, public or private, then it is your responsibility to uphold the 'line'.
If you vociferously disapprove of your company's actions then why shouldn't you be asked to resign from that company?
If you stand up as a Cabinet Minister and say 'I disagree with what the Prime Minister said today and think that the Budget is all wrong', would anyone be out of line to ask for your head on a plate?
If you disapprove of an action taken by your company; organisation; partner or even your spouse then the right thing to do is to voice your objection privately. You do not take your argument to a public forum in the same way that you avoid a slanging match in the middle of Tescos. If your disapproval is so strong as to make it impossible to continue your role, you leave.
Or maybe my sense of ethics is too outmoded?
If you hold yourself out to represent ANY body, public or private, then it is your responsibility to uphold the 'line'.
If you vociferously disapprove of your company's actions then why shouldn't you be asked to resign from that company?
If you stand up as a Cabinet Minister and say 'I disagree with what the Prime Minister said today and think that the Budget is all wrong', would anyone be out of line to ask for your head on a plate?
If you disapprove of an action taken by your company; organisation; partner or even your spouse then the right thing to do is to voice your objection privately. You do not take your argument to a public forum in the same way that you avoid a slanging match in the middle of Tescos. If your disapproval is so strong as to make it impossible to continue your role, you leave.
Or maybe my sense of ethics is too outmoded?
J1mmyD said:
Or maybe my sense of ethics is too outmoded?
NOT outmoded and I understand where you're coming from......
However if the Police cannot even criticize openly (or veiled) their "employers" we're running the risk of a bad police state similar to the DDR or Germany under the NSDAP!!!
Any employee is entitled to criticise especially when the employer or people influencing them are making dubious decisions (which is what is happening nowadays).
Sure at some time the BiB in questiion may well resign and judging by what I've hear there are a huge amount leaving the Police force just because of this, and this is why the government is bring in these Disney Police (PCSOs and other uniformed untrained eejits), with whom as I am led to believe the BiB want nothing to do......
Any BiB who blogs will of course run the risk of a rap over the fingers but a Met-wide ban cannot be legal and certainly will not stand up in any Human Rights case.
The CC of any Force likes to think his men have high moral and everything is going fine and dandy. HOWEVER, the various ranks of middle management will not let 'unrest' amongst the troops within earshot of their 'superiors' as the bad news will prompt questions of them that they'd sooner not answer.
Therefore the opposite is spoon fed up through the ranks in order not to illicit criticism for the messanger, who is very concious of the damage that that can do to one's ascent of the greasy promotion pole.
Often the CC is blissfully unaware of the true feelings of those beneath him, ENTER the blog. The blog threatens this cosy "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" blanket that conceals the true situation within the police service/government/company etc.,
The "Corporate Line/Image" is rendered impotent whilst insider knowledge empowers the readers of these blogs.
Knowledge is power. Ignorance is a stick with which to beat and control the masses. Blogs are the high energy batteries that the Establishment would not like distributed to those of us sitting in the dark clutching empty torches.
Now I'm going to get back into my box for a lie down.
Therefore the opposite is spoon fed up through the ranks in order not to illicit criticism for the messanger, who is very concious of the damage that that can do to one's ascent of the greasy promotion pole.
Often the CC is blissfully unaware of the true feelings of those beneath him, ENTER the blog. The blog threatens this cosy "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" blanket that conceals the true situation within the police service/government/company etc.,
The "Corporate Line/Image" is rendered impotent whilst insider knowledge empowers the readers of these blogs.
Knowledge is power. Ignorance is a stick with which to beat and control the masses. Blogs are the high energy batteries that the Establishment would not like distributed to those of us sitting in the dark clutching empty torches.
Now I'm going to get back into my box for a lie down.
I tend to agree with JimmyD for it is indeed a fine line where the tail doesn't wag the dog. Whilst having an opinion contrary to the official line then voicing that publicly can be deterimental to the organisation and bring discord not only within the ranks but with the public at large. Better voiced within and a change if possible brought about. A team with ten centreforwards isn't going to win much.
But then, now, I am fairly fireproof.
dvd
But then, now, I am fairly fireproof.
dvd
JMGS4 said:
Or maybe my sense of ethics is too outmoded?
NOT outmoded and I understand where you're coming from......
However if the Police cannot even criticize openly (or veiled) their "employers" we're running the risk of a bad police state similar to the DDR or Germany under the NSDAP!!!
Any employee is entitled to criticise especially when the employer or people influencing them are making dubious decisions (which is what is happening nowadays).
Sure at some time the BiB in questiion may well resign and judging by what I've hear there are a huge amount leaving the Police force just because of this, and this is why the government is bring in these Disney Police (PCSOs and other uniformed untrained eejits), with whom as I am led to believe the BiB want nothing to do......
Any BiB who blogs will of course run the risk of a rap over the fingers but a Met-wide ban cannot be legal and certainly will not stand up in any Human Rights case.
I get what you're saying too, but I do differ.
Here's the point I differ on: little can be gained by open criticism by a serving officer of the actions of the police force as a whole and certainly not on a case by case basis. Without doubt, a web log is not the forum to do that. I can totally understand the reluctance to openly confront more senior officers and run the risk of having your card marked, but surely that's why the Federation is there. Unison can also represent police officers, IIRC. If there isn't an internal procedure to tackle these problems, then that should also be addressed.
If you want to take these issues to a public forum, then don't do it 'in uniform'.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff