Three Chief Constables

During the time that I have been subjected to harassment by an ex-policeman, then by his friends, then by Sussex Police, there have been three chief constables responsible for the corrupt practice, dishonesty, incompetence, and failure to deal adequately with complaints that prompted me to describe the police service in South Wealden as lousy. The first of these was Mr Paul Whitehouse, who was to resign on 25th September 2001.

The harassment started in January 1999. Twelve months before, on 15th January 1998, the unarmed James Ashley had been shot dead in his St Leonards flat at about 4.20 a.m. by one of twenty-five heavily-armed police officers. According to The Guardian of May 23rd, 2001, the Kent and Hampshire forces who investigated the shooting, "found evidence that in the planning or later handling of the incident, crime was committed by the chief constable, his deputy, one of the assistant chief constables, a superintendent, a chief inspector, an inspector and three constables."

According to the BBC (26th June, 2001), "Mr Whitehouse has been severely criticised, especially after two of the officers prosecuted and acquitted in the aftermath of the raid were promoted and given backdated pay rises."

Mr Whitehouse did not announce his decision to resign (according to the BBC) until the "day after David Blunkett ordered the local police authority to consider sacking him to restore public confidence in the force." Yet "in an interview with BBC News 24, Mr Whitehouse said he took the decision to quit and had not been pressurised by the home secretary or the police authority." Would you buy a second-hand car from this man, let alone put him in charge of a force which costs us over two hundred million pounds a year, and which is supposed to uphold the rule of law?

The text of Mr Whitehouse's resignation letter reads:

"I am proud to have led Sussex Police. I believe it is one of the finest forces in the country where honesty, professionalism, bravery, determination and caring are not just words.

"They are the values that all our staff live and breathe every working day. I have been privileged to work with people who, like me, have always put the safety of the people of Sussex first."

I did not find any of the values that Whitehouse claims in the police officers with whom I came into contact as a result of my complaints to the police between 1999 and 2001, and I find his empty rhetoric reminiscent of that of the creep who was to succeed him.

Harassment I was subjected to during Whitehouse's time included verbal abuse and threats by ex-policeman Mabry on many occasions, delivery of many unwanted parcels, catalogues, brochures, and letters, unwanted telephone calls, and two threats by Mabry to beat me up. I also had my legs bruised by an eight-foot fence post thrown in my direction by Mabry's friend and next-door neighbour, Smith. There was at least a token investigation of unwanted courier and Royal Mail deliveries, but no record seems to have been kept. After I reported the first threat of assault, two police officers asked me what happened, asked Mabry what had happened, said to me, "He [Mabry] tells a different story," and drove off. I heard no more of it. After the second threat, I gave the police the name and address of two builders who were present at the time, but heard nothing more. On 21/7/03, a supervisor at the local police Incident Management Centre said, "As far as the 1999 incidents are concerned, I have been unable to find any record on our computer system." Presumably Whitehouse either as a matter of policy instructed officers to be very selective in the records they kept, or was so ignorant of his officers' practices that they were allowed to please themselves whether or not they recorded incidents.

In Parliament on 11 Feb 2002, Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) deplored "the inadequacy of police accountability" shown in the James Ashley case. She commented, "The Ashley case exposes a culture of secrecy and cover-up. The means of investigation [particularly by the Police Complaints Authority] have shown themselves to be powerless and ineffective." She added, "Major reform of police accountability is urgently required." The PCA became the Independent Police Complaints Commission on 1 April 2004, employing some of the same staff. Plus ça change . . . .

In January 2002 Chief Constable Jones took over, and policing in Sussex took a marked change for the worse. Instead of indifference and little more than token action on the part of the police, I was subjected to corrupt and dishonest practice by a police sergeant who based a report under my name on lies told him by the ex-policeman who had attacked me and knocked me to the ground, ignorant rudenesss from police officers, incompetent record keeping, wrongful arrest, destruction of my property, dishonest practice on the part of police constables and a detective inspector, gross incompetence on the part of my local police inspector, and for month after month the "culture of secrecy and cover-up" about which Mrs. Ellman had complained.

Fortunately for Sussex, CC Jones left to join a private company, ACPO, in April 2006, though whether that move will benefit the public must be in doubt, unless government take steps to put the police in the subordinate place where they belong. In his "new statement of purpose" for ACPO, Jones said, "Policing must be, and be seen to be, independent;" and added, "ACPO needs to develop a view on what we want and get government to deliver it." Jones seems here a step ahead of ACPO itself, which only announces on its home web page, "in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service." As yet we have only had individual examples of demonstrably unsuitable chief constables being ushered towards the door by government.

Joe Edwards appears to have taken over as chief constable in February 2006. He was present at a Sussex Police Authority meeting on 7th April 2006, when he said, "I think we've delivered excellence in local policing." No member of the Authority ventured to question or qualify that statement in any way, superlatives being the common currency between "Joe" and Authority members.

My own experience of Sussex Police during Mr Edwards' time in charge is of "a culture of secrecy and cover-up," details of which I shall be publishing on this page.

Complaints about the police:
According to the IPCC, "all complaints, by law, must be recorded by the police force itself." As I had made a number of complaints in writing to and about Sussex Police without receiving any acknowledgement, and as after complaining to HMIC I was able to file eight complaints which were dealt with inadequately by Sussex Police PSD and the IPCC, I wished to know which of my complaints had been officially recorded in registers available to the Sussex Police Authority.

If policing is a public service, and complaints must by law be recorded, one would think that excellence in policing would include providing information to complainants saying (a) that a record of the complaint had been registered, and (b) its precise wording.

On 12 April 2006 I emailed tim.mahony@sussex.police.co.uk: "I would like to know whether complaints that I have made about Sussex Police have found their way into the police complaints registers, and in what form. So I would like to know the precise wording of any of my complaints that have been officially recorded in the registers, and thereby made available to the Sussex Police Authority."

An emailed reply said, "Any such requests can become ‘subject access’ requests under the Data Protection Act 1998. Should you seek to know what information (if any) Sussex Police holds about you, you can complete the relevant Subject Access form. Payment of a £10.00 fee and proof of identification and address must accompany a completed application form. I attach a copy of the relevant form."

On April 20th, I sent off the form and fee, and on 1 June 2006, the Data Protection Unit wrote to inform me - very erroneously - that according to the PSD I had made one complaint in 2002 and two in 2004. The letter added, "The information the Chief Officer is required to supply under the provision of the Act, is enclosed." The information enclosed included nothing whatever that I had asked for under heading 1, registration of complaints, and only one - 2(a) - of the three items I had asked for under heading 2. See below for a complaint stemming from this item, about corruption and dishonesty in a police sergeant appointed as an investigating officer.

So "excellence in local policing" in Sussex means that if you have reason to complain to and about the police, you do not have the right to know whether your complaint has been registered.

Since I filed my eight complaints about Sussex Police, three other serious reasons for complaint have come to light. The police website gives writing to the Chief Constable as one way of making a complaint, so that is the route that I used.

Complaint 1
After I had been arrested on 12th August 2004, I was given three 'witness statements' which suggested that I had been harassing neighbours. It subsequently became apparent that the police had collected four such statements, the fourth being referred to in reports produced by Sussex PSD and the IPCC. The fourth statement, which was withheld from me - presumably by the dishonest PC Francis - was evidently written by ex-policeman Mabry (the most shameless liar I have met in my life) who was involved with the corrupt and dishonest sergeant who dealt with Mabry's assault on me in 2002.

On 30th May 2006 I wrote to the Chief Constable, ' I have a complaint which I would like recorded, and remedied as soon as practicable . . . . My complaint is that I was not provided with one of the statements from "4 close neighbours". I believe I have a right to a copy, and ask that you send me a copy as soon as practicable of the neighbour's witness statement not listed in my fourth paragraph.' [Full text available here.]

The reply to this, dated 4th July 2006, from N Moloney, Sergeant AM719, Professional Standards Department, said that the statement that I wanted

"was taken as part of the criminal investigation and prosecution against you. That case has concluded and therefore any statements that were taken are no longer subject to disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.

"This matter will require you to contact the Data Protection Officer at Sussex Police and request the statement through that office."

The text of my reply, dated 8th July 2006, reads as follows:
"You are wrong to think that the case brought against me by the dishonest PC Francis is 'concluded'. I take it from your letter that unless they are forced to do so, Sussex Police are unwilling to remedy as far as practicable their failure to comply with the first of the main provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Section 3 – (1) (a) or (b).

"Your minor rôle in the defence of the dishonest PC Francis and the corrupt and dishonest sergeant who caused a false report to be entered under my name on the Crime Reporting System after I had been assaulted and knocked to the ground by an ex-policeman named Mabry on 23rd March 2002 has been recorded on www.ggm11.plus.com/3cc.htm"

On 12th July 2006 I wrote to Sussex Police Data Protection Unit enclosing form A221 PNC and £10.

I repeated one of the requests from my previous application that had remained unanswered:
‘Home Office Circular 18/1994 says, “All formal cautions should be recorded and records kept as directed by the Secretary of State.” I wish to know whether that caution was recorded, and if so its exact wording.’

And I asked for a copy of the missing fourth witness statement:
‘Sussex Police took Witness Statements from four neighbours, but withheld the fourth statement. I want a copy of that fourth statement.‘

My first Data Protection application, in writing, and with the required fee and identification, would have been received by the police on 21st April 2006. I received a little of the information for which I had asked on June 5th, that is forty-five days later.

The Data Protection Act 1998 stipulates, ‘7. (8) . . . a data controller shall comply with a request under this section promptly and in any event before the end of the prescribed period beginning with the relevant day.' It adds, ' 7. (10) "the prescribed period" means forty days or such other period as may be prescribed;' and ' "the relevant day" . . . means the day on which the data controller receives the request.’

The data controller in that case acted neither promptly nor within forty days, and was therefore contravening the law.

My second application, if not processed promptly, should result in my receiving any data to which I am entitled on or before 22nd August 2006.

The acknowledgement of my second application was dated 24 July, and said that I would receive a reply within the next 40 days.

I received the answer to my second application on 10th August. It provided some of the information I had applied for on 20th April, as well as the two items for which I had asked on 12th July.

Registration of complaints
Having made a serious complaint to the police via the PCA in 2002 after I had been attacked and knocked to the ground by an ex-policeman, and having sent a whole series of complaints in 2004 and 2005 to the local PI, the SPA, the local CI, the CC and the PSD, I wanted to know which of these complaints had been recorded, and how they were worded. I wrote,
"I am principally interested in knowing which of my complaints about Sussex Police have been officially recorded in the complaints registers available to the Sussex Police Authority's Complaints Committee, and the exact wording of those records."

The first response, from an adminstration assistant in the Data Protection Unit, reads:
"I have spoken to the Professional Standards Department who have informed me that you have made three complaints to them. One in 2002 and two in 2004, the nature and the results of those investigations were conveyed to you at the time."

I had not asked only about complaints that had been referred to the PSD, I cannot identify the three complaints mentioned, and my request to know whether my complaints had been recorded and in what terms was ignored.

The second response, from the Information Compliance Manager of the Access to Information Team, Mr Burtenshaw, was a little more detailed. Referring to the complaint of 2002, Mr Burtenshaw said, "The complaint was regarding incivility. I am advised this was not officially recorded as a complaint and was closed as no further action was required."

So after being punched repeatedly and knocked to the ground by an ex-policeman, and after not being allowed by the investigating officer to explain previous threats to beat me up, and after not being allowed by the investigating officer to sign a statement, I am supposed to have complained of incivility! I cannot on the evidence of this statement add Mr Burtenshaw to a list of dishonest employees of Sussex Police, but at the least it points to gross incompetence if not corrupt practice somewhere in the shambles of the Sussex Police complaints system.

I complained on this occasion through the Police Complaints Authority. Initially, the PCA had advised me to speak to the local superintendent about my complaint, but when I tried to do so, I reached no further up the hierarchy than Sergeant Hansen, who insisted that I had been involved in an "altercation". As that was untrue, I filed my complaint with the PCA, who presumably sent a copy to Sussex Police as I was visited soon after by Acting Inspector Barrisford. I subsequently posted a copy addressed to PI Brown through the letterbox of Hailsham police station. The text is available here.

If what Mr Burtenshaw says is true, then Sussex Police did not even bother to record what to me was a very serious complaint, which could suggest that they treated the rôle of the Police Complaints Authority with contempt.

As regards two complaints of 2004, Mr Burtenshaw gives two reference numbers, mentions six subjects (two of which, oddly, are incivility and impoliteness), and says that they were officially recorded, but unsubstantiated. I was not given the wording of the complaints.

If Mr Burtenshaw's reply about the recording of my complaints is both true and complete, then most of my complaints will not have found their way into the complaints registers examined by the Sussex Police Authority. The eight most obvious omissions are the eight complaints I signed and sent to the Sussex PSD on 13th July 2005.

As to whether the caution which the dishonest PC Francis tried to give me has been recorded, I am to await a notice from the National Identification Service containing details of my Police National Computer record.

Finally Mr Burtenshaw refused my request to be sent a copy of the fourth witness statement which led to my arrest, citing Section 7(6)(a) of the Data Protection Act to justify his decision. That clause says that in considering any request, "regard shall be had . . . to any duty of confidentiality owed to the other individual".

Mr Burtenshaw does not mention Section 7(4)(b), which says that a data controller "is not obliged to comply with a request unless . . . it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual."

I will quote Mr Burtenshaw's reasoning in full, before commenting on it:

"The statement was provided as part of an investigation into an alleged criminal offence. In providing a statement there is an implied duty of confidentiality and duty of care towards the individual especially where that individual may be the victim of a crime. I therefore, do not consider it reasonable to disclose the information to you. I do not agree with your assertion that a witness statement is by design available to other members of the public. If the statement had been used in evidence at a court, and we cannot make the assumption that it would have been, it would still only have been disclosed within the confines of that court and not to the general public.

Mr Burtenshaw is in the pay of Sussex Police. In invoking the Data Protection Act Section 7(6)(a) instead of 7(4)(b), he is helping to defend the dishonest and corrupt sergeant who caused a false crime record to made after I was assaulted and knocked to the ground by ex-policeman Mabry in 2002; the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, who caused a false crime record to be made after I was assaulted by Mabry and two of his friends in 2004; the dishonest PC Wilkinson, who denied that when I complained to him of abusive language by my neighbours he had told me that we have freedom of speech in this country; the incompetent PI Brown; the ignorant CI Matthews; and the purblind DI Preddy, who wrote a dishonest report on the eight complaints I filed in 2005. My comment on Mr Burtenshaw's refusal, in sufficient detail to be passed on to the IPCC, will require a separate page.

Complaint 2
The ten pounds I sent to the Data Protection Unit on April 20th produced records relating to an assault on me on 23rd March 2002 which provided evidence of police corruption and dishonesty.

On 26th June 2006 I wrote to the Chief Constable:

"I have a complaint which I would like recorded immediately in a register of complaints available to the Sussex Police Authority.

"After I had been assaulted by my next-door neighbour, an ex-policeman named C. Mabry, on 23rd March 2002, the sergeant investigating the matter refused to allow me to make a witness statement, because I would not say that I wanted to drop the matter. My complaint is that Sussex Police in their Crime Reporting System largely ignored the evidence that I had provided, and instead corruptly and dishonestly entered under my name (Madden, Geoffrey Gordon) a record (Date: 23/3/2002, Serial 959) that is based in important ways on lies told to the police by ex-policeman Mabry.

"I have said in print on more than one occasion that Mabry is the most shameless liar that I have met in my life, which is not altogether surprising as he formerly belonged to a police force with an outstanding record for dishonesty and corruption, the metropolitan police.

"Sussex Police left these lies on the record, even though they should have received a copy of my own statement from the PCA, and subsequently I delivered another copy to PI Brown at Hailsham. My statement is also available online at ggm11.plus.com/pcacmplt

"I enclose copies of the two most important records from the Sussex Police Crime reporting System, with brief comments. [available here.]

"Incidentally, I am still waiting to receive a copy of a witness statement by a fourth neighbour, which I requested in my letter to you of 30th May 2006."

A reply dated 29 June 2006 from the Registry Administrator - Executive Support Unit said that the matter I had raised would be looked at and that I would be sent a full reply as soon as possible.

Complaint 3
This like Complaint 2 derives from data provided as a result of an application under the Data Protection Act, and concerns a thoroughly dishonest record of crime created by Sussex Police.

On 13th July 2006 I wrote to the Chief Constable:
"I have a complaint which I would like recorded immediately in a register of complaints available to the Sussex Police Authority."

I printed in the letter a copy of OIS Ser No: 1128 Date 24/7/2004 from the Sussex Crime Reporting System, the text of which, under my name, reads as follows:

I pointed out in my letter that "The investigating officer was the dishonest PC Francis CF898", explained that two written accounts and one plan of the incident had been in the possession of PC Francis, and that one account and the plan are available here and here. I summarised what had actually happened in a sentence: "Briefly, what happened was that my side gate was smashed open, six people led by an ex-policeman named Mabry invaded my back garden, three of whom – Mabry and Mr and Mrs McCombie – assaulted me."

On 20th July I received a letter dated 17 July from the Registry Administrator saying that the matter I raised would be "looked at and a full reply sent to you as soon as possible."

24th July 2006: Today I received a letter dated 21/7/06 from the PA to the Wealden District Commander. It says, "Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning allegations of assault by your neighbour. We apologise for the delay in replying but would like to assure you that this matter is being investigated thoroughly by one of our South Wealden Sergeants."

I am not certain to what recent correspondence this refers, but suppose it might mean the dishonest records made by police officers after I had been assaulted in 2002 and 2004, the subject of Complaints 2 and 3 above. The anomolies in police records to which these complaints refer would have been easier for Sussex Police Professional Standards Department and the IPCC to uncover than I, who had to make an application for information under the Data Protection Act, which somewhat fortuitously produced two key police records which had been deliberately falsified. Whether a South Wealden sergeant will be any more honest in his approach than the PSD and the IPCC were I shall be interested to discover. In view of South Wealden's lousy standard of policing over the last six years, and the number of dishonest officers employed at Hailsham, such a difference of approach would be surprising.

Soon after I wrote that last sentence, I found comical supporting evidence for my view in a local newspaper, the Eastbourne Herald for July 28th 2006, which printed on its first page in block capitals more than an inch high, "12 POLICE OFFICERS SUSPENDED OVER TUCK SHOP STOCK". The tuck shop belongs to Hailsham police station! The article itself starts, "TWO police officers have been arrested and another 14 people questioned after an alleged theft from a police station tuck shop." Sussex Police Professional Standards Department are on the case!

31 July 2006: Today, on a related topic, The Independent published an article under the heading, "Prison service 'institutionally corrupt' ". It starts, "More than 1,000 prison officers [out of a total of about 19,000] are believed to be involved in corruption, according to a leaked report into the Prison Service . . . corruption ranges from bringing mobile phones and drugs into the jail to accepting cash payments from inmates for transfers to less secure prisons . . . when intelligence is received about corrupt officers, often no action is taken to tackle it."

"The report is the result of an inquiry by the Metropolitan Police, " who have had a good deal of practice in dealing with corruption.

2 September 2006: Today I received the sequel to the "investigated thoroughly" promised in the entry for 24th July above in the form of a letter from the Sussex Police Professional Standards Department. The letter was dated 31 August and was written by Acting Inspector Niall Moloney AM719, whose signature is identical to that of Sergeant N Moloney AM719, who wrote to me on 4th July refusing my request for a copy of a witness statement (see Complaint 1 above). This reminded me of the occasion when I telephoned the police many months ago about the conduct of PC Francis, and was told that he was now Sergeant Francis. It also reminded me of the statement from the BBC quoted in the third paragraph of this page.

The letter of 31st August told me that the two complaints would not be recorded, and no attempt was made to respond to them.

On 2nd September I posted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission appeals against the police's response to Complaints 2 and 3. An accompanying letter gave an account of three preliminary replies from the police and concluded:

‘The final letter I received today. It says that the two complaints “will not be recorded”, but will be “filed with our original investigation file”.

‘Acting Inspector Moloney argues that the complaints that are being filed away unanswered are merely “a repeat of previous complaints you have made.”

‘This contention is either ignorant or dishonest. The earlier complaints were the subject of a report written by DI Preddy of the Professional Standards Department last year. The two new complaints followed my discovery of evidence which only came to light this year after I had applied to be given information under the Data Protection Act.

‘That data, from the Sussex Crime Reporting System, was enclosed with a letter of 1 June 2006. Neither the Professional Standards Department report on my earlier complaints nor the IPCC report on the same complaints dealt with these dishonest records.

‘As I am complaining about dishonesty and corruption in Sussex Police, I find it intolerable that such serious complaints are brushed aside in this way. If the IPCC deals with my current complaints as dishonestly as they did my previous complaints, I hope to raise the matter of police dishonesty with the Home Secretary, and with national newspapers as opportunity offers.’

2 August 2006: Today I wrote to the head of the local region of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, and included four quotations from the deliberations of Sussex Police Authority. Two days later I discovered an error in the letter, and emailed HMIC to apologise.

The error occurred in a comment I made on the following statement from the Chief Constable's Update Report to the Sussex Police Authority on 28th July 2006:

". . . it was very nice as we know that Sussex in terms of the – our thematic on on professional standards was was one of the five forces nationally to be graded as Good and a quiet word on the side was of those Goods Sussex was at the top, so really good work by staff and members involved in that." [1:27:20 on webcast]

I had assumed that the Chief Constable was referrng to HMIC's January 2006 Baseline Assessment on Sussex Professional Standards, which had been reported by the Chairman of the Complaints Committee (paragraph 2.2) as follows:

"In publishing the report HM Inspector Mrs Jane Stichbury stated that while there were no forces graded as `Excellent`, it was encouraging that several forces were very close indeed to achieving the top grade. There were five forces, including Sussex, where the performance across the board was very close to achieving the highest grade of Excellent`."

Examination of the printed version of the Chief Constable's report revealed that HMIC had published another Professional Standards Department report in June 2006, to which the Chief Constable refers in Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3:

'3.2 The HMIC report on Professional Standards Department was published in June. Good practice within Sussex Police was highlighted within the report concerning the analytical information that is produced from the Centurion computer system and the identification of vulnerable staff. Sussex was one of five forces nationally to be graded “good plus”.
'3.3 The report contained 19 recommendations and four suggestions. 14 of the recommendations are National issues, the other recommendations will be reviewed and considered by the Professional Standards Department.'

I wish to examine these two paragraphs of the Chief Constable's report and the way in which they were treated at the Authority's meeting on 28th July, and I think it would throw light on the way that the Sussex Police Authority works if I compare or contrast these two paragraphs with the two that follow them, and the way in which they were presented to the Authoity members. The next item in the report is:

'Suspect Identification and Recognition Database
'4.1 A new system aimed at identifying suspects that are wanted for crimes committed across Sussex has been launched. The Suspect Identification and Recognition Database (SIRD) – has the potential to hold thousands of images of those caught on CCTV committing crime, from shop lifting through to violent assaults.
'4.2 Officers using laptop computers are working with partner agencies – such as local schools, probation and the prison service – to identify the people held on the database and bring them to justice. It will also be accessible by all other police forces across the country.'

The HMIC report has 81 words devoted to it in the Chief Constable's text report, the SIRD 93 words. The HMIC report, Raising the standard, "A thematic inspection of professional standards", consists of 274 pages. The Chief Inspector in the Preface says, 'the recommendations within this report will contribute substantially to the sustainable improvement of police professional standards.' The Sussex Chief Constable is less interested in HMIC's attempt to improve professional standards than in hyping the work of his own force. The SIRD appears to be a collection of computer files containing people's photographs. A policeman with active brain cells seems to have discovered that you can show photographs to other people on a computer screen, and that if the files are on a network, people in other parts of the country can see the photographs too. The Chief Constable's spoken comment on 4.1 and 4.2 was as follows:

‘The SIRD suspect identification recognition database fantastic innovative piece of IT usage by Inspector James Assa [Sp?] who's led on that and it's the first and only system of its kind I think in the country now – a lot of interest from other forces in that as an intelligence database – a brilliant bit of work.’

Without corroborative evidence, I wouldn't take the Chief Constable's word for anything. I'll print two more examples of his puffing after dealing with 3.3.

As regards 3.3: The report contains not four suggestions, but ten. What the Chief Constable means by "National issues" I have no clear idea. Four of the report's recommendations are addressed to all forces, and five to chief officers, so which five recommendations will be selected for consideration by Sussex PSD it is impossible to know.

3.2 One of the aims of the HMIC report is to highlight "good practice": the phrase is used fourteen times in the text in the first fifty pages, at which point the singling out of good practice in named forces begins, setting off the text in blue boxes The achievements of Sussex are put into context if one makes a quick count of individual forces' boxed achievements. Top of the list comes MPS, with eleven appearances. Thames Valley, Dorset and Cheshire feature on five occasions; and Devon and Cornwall, South Yorkshire and Surrey on four. Sussex appears three times, though one of its moments in the limelight shows it to be only potentially good, and another is so incredible that I am amazed that it has been included at all.

The somewhat circumscribed way in which Sussex policing is potentially rather than indubitably good reads:

"In Sussex, the force is some 95% compliant with ACPO's security and vetting policy. A detailed matrix exists for the identification of vulnerable staff, and a good and timely system of monitoring and aftercare arrangements is in place for these staff. This system of identification and monitoring is seen as an area of potential good practice."

The incredible entry reads:

"Good practice: A dedicated learning group
"Sussex Police has a system whereby a ‘learning the lessons’ pro forma is completed for every complaint and the results analysed and considered at a ‘learning the lessons group’ chaired by a chief officer and attended by a police authority member. This group has identified a number of issues which, once addressed, made a significant operational difference – for example, an inefficient duty solicitor scheme and a lack of knowledge among staff on particular legislation."

Perhaps this entry is very badly written, the word complaint not being qualified or limited in any way. As it stands, it is patently untrue. Further, the use of the Centurion database by Sussex is not labelled as ‘good practice’ in the report: it features as a case study to illustrate the usefulness of the database.

The Chief Constable's final assertion in 3.2, “Sussex was one of five forces nationally to be graded ‘good plus’ ”, I find utterly mystifying. I will continue to search the report for any such suggestion, as I have only read the report once, but at the moment that assertion seems not only untrue in itself, but impossible to envisage given the number of other forces whose work was singled out as ‘good practice’.

Some light was thrown on the subject of the last paragraph by a letter I received from HMIC, which I expect to comment on at a later date.

Two examples of the Chief Constable's style of presentation to the Sussex Police Authority:

Now we're visibly pretty good at some of that in Sussex we're acknowledged as being very solid and indeed leading the way in many aspects of local neighbourhood policing. We're also acknowledged as being class leaders in some of the elements of the higher end of the risk spectrum, and I'm thinking there particularly around our management of major crime, the investment we've made in there, the successes we can demonstrate through that investment and the management of critical incidents and particularly armed threats to public safety – we're probably, it's not overstating it to say, acknowledged as the leading force in our methodology and management. [Webcast, 28-07-06, 15:43 ff.]

Roads policing . . . they really do deliver the goods, absolutely superb outturn and really showing what strategic road policing means. They are a crime-orientated very mobile very flexible department having a colossal impact on disrupting criminal activity and network. You may have heard me sort of summarise what policing is all about – keeping people safe, catching criminals, and caring for those who need our care. And the roads policing department are doing that in bucketfuls. [Webcast, 28-07-06, 01:29:37 ff.]

Such pronouncements prompted a verse in The Laughing Policeman, accessible on YouTube using this link.

That verse in the song may have been my last comment on the Chief Constable. On 26th April 2007, at the start of a Sussex Police Authority meeting, the Chairman announced: "Joe Edwards is to retire as Chief Constable of Sussex at the end of September."

As my dissatisfaction with Sussex Police looks likely to continue, I will probably have to either change the title of this page or start a new one called The Fourth CC.