I am the Vice Chairman of the sub-committee which commissioned the report and I was at the meeting on the 13th of July where we discussed it. I wanted to make our position on this issue clear, this is the formal response to Sir Ian's statement:
Following a press statement by Sir Ian Blair earlier this evening the Metropolitan Police Authority issued a preliminary response. The Authority had previously regarded the consideration of the report prepared by Sir Ronnie Flanagan as an exempt piece of business. The Authority now wishes it to be made explicit that its decision, as recorded in the minutes of its exempt meeting, does not amount to an exoneration of Sir Ian Blair's conduct. In particular the sub committee did not accept the third conclusion reached by Sir Ronnie Flanagan that:"There is no basis upon which police misconduct proceedings could be recommended against anyone involved in this investigation. It should be noted that this conclusion has nothing whatever to do with Sir Ian Blair's decision to retire. It would apply with equal force, should he still be serving."In reaching this decision the Authority wishes to make it clear that the sub committee were only considering the conduct of Sir Ian Blair. It did however conclude that in respect of the investigation of the conduct of Sir Ian Blair the matter was now closed. Further work will be commissioned to analyse the report and reflect on lessons to be learnt for both organisations. When that work is complete the prospect of publishing the report, possibly redacted, will be re considered.
Posts
17 comments:
Perhaps his press statement should read . . .
"Phew! . . . Got away with it! LOL"
Yet another Labour WHITEWASH.
Sorry James - this post is a clear display of what I believe to be probably the biggest problem with Politics in the UK today.
I consider myself to be a fairly well educated man, possibly slightly above average intelligence (on a good day), and I have no idea what the hell that Press Release actually says (if indeed it says anything).
Until Politicians understand that you may as well not say anything at all unless you can talk in a way that most people can understand, and force through whatever needs to be done to facilitate that sea change in engagement with real people, then you'll continue to leave the majority of the population outside of politics - which is dangerous for all of us and, of course, our democracy.
Not having a pop at you at all - just venting frustration at this display of what is fundamentally wrong with all levels of public service and government today, namely the fact that it's no way of governing for today.
:-/
So the administration that promised openness and accountability is now only releasing information that will suit their own agenda.
Sorry this won't do, James. This reeks of the Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton gambit of only releasing partial information, as a release of the full information would reveal the full facts and paint this matter in an entirely different light. Stop covering up the facts here.
Obviously in your world of political spin, Mr. I-want-to-bring-transparency-to-government, 'Credibility' means doublespeak. 'Openness' means releasing only those documents that hurt the political opposition and 'Accountability' means personally attacking anyone who raises a legitimate point or attempts to defend themselves.
After twelve years of Labour's political spin and misinformation, we're all sick of it. Let's have some honesty back in politics.
So why won't you release the report? Because you don't agree with it? Can't you just release it along with the committee's response to it?
I agree with Alex, the wording of your statement would be a great candidate for an obfuscation contest.
Is what you are saying something along the lines of we didn't look into Ian Blair's possible misconduct and so therefore we can't make a comment on it, or just that we haven't got round to announcing anything yet so Ian Blair is being presumptuous in publishing his own press release?
Which one, or something else? Maybe someone with the brain the size of a planet could elucidate the rest of us plebs.
Jon
What on earth is exempt business? Do please try to put records of public interest into readable english.
Before accusing me of selective releasing of information it is worth remembering who put the first statement into the public domain.
The report was an internal document to help inform the decision of the committee and would be released at the same time as our response to it.
Most of the sub-committee are non political and our decision not to fully accept the conclusions of the report was unanimous.
James,
Lets not obsfuscate.
Is he a wrong 'un, and did bad, or is he just a prat and went a bit too far.
Does he get a metaphorical rap on the knuckles and is allowed to keep his retirement package, OR, does he get the full Old Bailey treatment and a bang up with loss of pension.?
Lets have some clarity here, Commissar Blair was afterall spending the taxpayers loot and we should know what's going on.
James,
I think you should have got someone who was not involved in the sub-committee to review your press release before you published it:
the sub committee did not accept the third [blah blah blah] should he still be serving."
Could easily be reworded by removing the double negative as follows:
The Sub committee believe police misconduct proceedings could be recommended against Sir Ian Blair at some time in the future.
Ian Blair's statement seems very similar to Boris's claims that he was cleared in the Damian Green affair. This was reported by you as Boris in the Clear, despite the report that concluded that Boris had acted in an "extraordinary and unwise way".
So now you want to make your position clear but fail to say whether or not the report did clear Ian Blair of any wrongdoing as his solicitor has claimed. Perhaps the report said that he acted in an "extraordinary and unwise way", I assume that now counts as cleared of all charges.
Do you have any understanding of the meaning of the word 'clear'? From where I'm sitting it is all as clear as mud.
Sir Ian Blair was a victim of unsubstantiated media innuendos - a vile and humiliating method of casting aspertions on his competence; used routinely by the 'ruling party' in ousting those it does not favour, politically. Mr Coulson is the latest victim.
Sir Ian Blair refuted the media announcement that he had 'resigned' confirming he had, in fact, been sacked. Shortly after his 'trial by media' and sacking, an unprecedented Zanu style police raid was authorized on Damian Greene's parliamentary office and family home. The Officer in Charge has, reportedly, been given Sir Ian Blair's former post.
What a coincidence !
Would Sir Ian Blair have allowed the (reportedly) 'terrfying police raids' on an 'opposition' MP ? I doubt it - he's 'old school'.
In 'normal' disciplinary matters, the breach of conduct issue is clearly specified and the accused has the right to representation in response. In Sir Ian's case, alleged 'failings' are neither specified or clarified - just mere 'innuendo'. The committee hearing appears to be a 'sham' - banana republic kangaroo court.
James, your response is totally inadequate. This has all the marks of a communist 'show trial' and really does you a great disservice. Let's have some honesty and integrity please. Release the whole report if you have nothing to fear from its contents.
The truth will out eventually, it always does.
Anyone bother to ask themselves how Sir Ian is so confident about the content of a private MPA report which is not in the public domain?
Stop attempting to smear the man with innuendo, James. Release the report so that we can all see the truth and make our own minds up.
All of this Mandelson/Campbell/Draper dabbing in the dark arts is absolutely disgraceful and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
It is neither up to me nor Sir Ian to decide to release the report, only the committee can make that judgement.
There are statements in it from a number of people who would all need to agree to have their submissions put in the public domain.
The only reason these questions are being asked now is because Sir Ian made a statement about an unpublished report, claiming it exonerated him when it did not.
I have read the the report and I am not ashamed of any of my actions. We have, at every stage, tried to be fair to Sir Ian. He has chosen to misrepresent an internal report and claim it says something it does not and demand it is put in the public domain when he knows full well it cannot.
The 'committee' presumably checked the political affiliations of it's members as well as 'the people who gave statements'.
Many believe Sir Ian Blair was removed for political reasons. Would he have allowed the horrifying raids on an 'opposition MP', his home and family ?
James Cleverly can only act on the information he is given; the question is it's reliability and political influence.
In one media attack on Sir Ian Blair in relation to Menezes, the original news video footage showing Menezes walking away from police was reversed depicting him walking towards the police. In identical fashion, 'news' footage alleged the Queen stormed out of a photographic session. It was challenged by Buckingham Palace, with due apology; film footage was taken as she ENTERED the session. The left wing biased BBC were responsible for both 'incidents' - no longer trustworthy.
It seems Sir Ian is bound and gagged by the 'kangaroo court' - deprived his right to publicly address and/or redress allegations made against him. Totally despicable in a democracy.
I'm confused as to the purpose and legitimacy of James Cleverly's involvement in a 'kangaroo court' police disciplinary issue - especially one involving the Head of the Metropolitan Police.
In any legitimate disciplinary Tribunal, the 'accused' is legally protected and is merely 'suspended' until such time as the Tribunal pronounces it's evidenced based conclusions.
Sir Ian told the press months ago that he did not retire (prior to contract expiration), but was "sacked", suggesting, at least, constructive dismissal whilst under contract. Months after suffering 'trial by media', a 'closed door committee' (reportedly)'considers' the 'case' long after Sir Ian confirmed he was 'sacked'.
It seems Sir Ian's employer - HM Government has fallen foul of it's own employment rules and regulations.
Post a Comment