In a Panorama programme screened this week the Scandal of Cops who are found to have committed an offence being allowed to walk away is exposed. In this article from the Gaurdian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/31/police-officers-escaping-punishment-resigning-panorama?newsfeed=true our old friend Peter Fahy
aka Commandant Le Farce, tells us " there was a "judgement to be made" about whether officers should be taken off the payroll and out of the force through a "long, drawn out and potentially costly procedure".
Doesn't that give officers carte blanche to do what they like instead of having to face punishment? Surely if they resign it means they did something wrong and that also means that they should, just like everyone else, be punished for what they have done. If what they have done, is not serious enough for them to lose their jobs then why should they resign? A police officer who resigns loses not only their jobs but their pension rights so it is quite a big step to take. If an officer takes that path then it means that they have been investigated and found to have committed a serious offence.
If the logic of Fahy is to be followed it means that the rioters should not have been subject to the full force of the law but quietly asked to go away and not do it again as it would be too costly to bring them to trial. We at Justice 4KJ have seen all too clearly how the complaints system works at close hand. The police investigate themselves, the IPCC investigate nothing and the GMPA back Fahy whatever he does.
What can be done about the present situation? Nothing really. Whoever you put in place will be corrupted by power in the end. Even if you had a group of independent lay people in each force area overseeing the way complaints are handled they would soon become seduced by mixing with the big boys like Russell Berstein and Paul Murphy into becoming placemen to be manipulated at will.
If Barnard were investigated would he be brought to Justice? Only time will tell.