Thursday, February 15, 2007

Report on criminal activity by police censored by police

The Metropolitan Police Authority recently released a report onto its website. The report showed that "inappropriate relationships or criminal associations" among police officers and police staff were "significant threats" to the Metropolitan Police.

The report also highlights as a cause for concern the ever increasing number of police officers and staff who are taking illegal drugs. Cocaine and cannabis are named as "the drugs of choice" for police officers and staff, although I'm sure the public will be happy to know that drug testing has been introduced for the most junior police officers, leaving senior officers and staff still able to enjoy using their illegal drugs.

There were also further concerns raised in the report about the disproportionate number of police officers who were accused of domestic violence and sexual assault while off-duty.

The illegal misuse of the information contained in the Police National Database by police and staff was also highlighted, as was the illegal use of warrant cards and other security passes, both by retired and serving officers, and as was the growing number of complaints of discrimination lodged against the police.

I would expect that by now, you would be very interested in seeing a copy of this report for yourself. So, where can you find a copy of this report?

Well, last week it was available on the website of the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Briefly.

The findings of the Strategic Intelligence Assessment, carried out by the Met’s directorate of professional standards, were intended to remain secret.

A slip up on the part of the Metropolitan Police Authority meant that the report was available for a short time on their website.

The report, by Detective Chief Superintendent Gregory Faulkner, was to have been discussed in private, and the findings never released to the public.

Asked why this was the case, Assistant Commissioner John Yates said: “I do not want to explain why in a public forum.”

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home