Two programmes, one a live meeting of the Home Affairs Committee and the other on Channel Four about the saga of covert police office Mark Kennedy highlights that the Home Office is still not fit for purpose in terms of having control of key and highly sensitive areas of political activity. The Department proved a graveyard for successive Home Secretary under Labour and now looks as if the position of the Home Secretary has become a major issue for the Labour Opposition. However on the facts available The Home Secretary and her chief Executive are right although a significant mistake was made.
When recently considering the role that the Association of Police Officers played in the UK excluding Scotland I was amazed to find that not only is it registered as a private company but that until recently it had direct control in the sense that it provided a base for the unit which operated police men and women in covert operations in relation to the policing of protests, combating racism and keeping surveillance of extreme groups of the right and left.
I want to make clear I am not objecting to the existence of such units but that they were housed in an almost free standing way under the umbrella of ACPO rather than as part of a National Crime Agency directly controlled by the Home Office and the Home Department Government Ministerial Team.
Following disclosures about the role of Mark Kennedy as a covert operations officer The Home Affairs Committee questioned the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in March of this year about aspects of the situation was being investigated by the Independent Police Commission and where according to their web site there is as yet no published report
At the hearing the deputy Commissioner was asked that in view that there were still four units under the control of ACPO: the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit; the National Domestic Extremism Team; the National Public Order Intelligence Unit; there is also the Welsh Extremism and Counter-Terrorism Unit; plus the four others that are controlled by SOCA, yourselves, CO19, as well as M15 and the Counter-Terrorism Unit. “There seem to be an awful lot of units around this particular area. Does this cause you concern when you are going to be having this particular baby passed to you?”
“Acting Commissioner Godwin: I think that we need to make sure that we understand, one, what has been going on and, two, what we need to do for the future. Hence, I very much welcome Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is reviewing all those issues about: what is extremism and what is protest; what do we deploy in terms of protest; what are the rules that we comply with in terms of serious necessity proportionality?
Chair: At the moment, is this unit still under the auspices of ACPO, or has it been physically handed over to yourselves—because I understand there is a meeting on Friday for Chief Constables to ratify this decision?
Acting Commissioner Godwin: Yes, that is correct. So at the moment it is in the transition but it does require the agreement of Chief Constables to pass that judgement. Service and the SOCA ones, but those under ACPO come within the business area of ACPO (Terrorism and Allied Matters). So that particular business area of ACPO makes those decisions that then go through ACPO.
As a result of the concerns that were raised about those particular units, in terms of the lead force arrangements, we offered to take it back into Governance and Control. We have a Covert Standards Unit now in the Met; we have a Covert Command; we have a professional commander that makes sure that we comply with the guidance and the standards, and that is why it is going across. Those units will be sanitised in the sense of some merging and making them more readily appropriate for the challenges that we face, and all this will be dealt with through the HMI review.
Mark Reckless: You have been giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee and you have told us it is required to go through these processes, but ACPO is a private company. I don't understand why it is required, or for that matter allowed, that this unit transfers from you to ACPO and then back to you, on the basis of some constitution set out in Articles of a private company. What I want to know, as far as this Committee is concerned, is on what statutory basis, in terms both of the MPS and Ministers, is the decision made?
Acting Commissioner Godwin: In that case, in terms of the statutory basis, I can't tell you. I'm not briefed on that. In terms of the means of operating with ACPO in 2005 when these decisions were first taken, then that would have gone through the ACPO rules at that point, and as a result of that there is asset that has paid for these units that come from a number of police forces. As a result of that, it has to go through that process to hand that asset over to us to manage on behalf of the national police.”
If I found the position extraordinary before I am rendered almost speechless, I can only assume that then Labour Government, as it did on many issues such as UK Border control decided that the establishment of an agency provided a cushion for politicians if anything went wrong. There is no other logical explanation. I accept that the way these units operated is that officers were recruited from various police forces and remained on the financial books of the individual forces that were able to call upon officers to undertake work within their force areas or as in the instance of Mark Kennedy on behalf of other European Union Countries upon appropriate payment. It is to be hoped that the new National Crime organisation will produce a single command and control structure with a single operating guidance and operational practice standards framework, monitoring, work assessment and training system
The case of Mark Kennedy, now in his early forties illustrates the problems of the old system. Mr Kennedy is the son a former police officer who as he explained in last night’s Channel Four programme, first became an undercover officer working to stop drug trafficking on estates in one part of London. His task was to get to know those pushing drugs and to purchase drugs from them while other colleagues videoed or took photographs of the transactions and this was followed by their arrest and prosecution. His work was such that he was then recruited by one of the national undercover task force units then based at Scotland Yard but with subsequent overall management oversight from the Association of Chief Constables and which is now being hand back to the Metropolitan presumably prior to becoming of the National Crime Organisation.
From what was said in the programme and in the response of the Met’s Deputy Commissioner his primary role was to provide intelligence about the number of people planning to participate in actions so the police could plan to have available a proportional level of response in the area of extreme right and left groups. He undertook this role for a period of 8 years.
He had only one link the police during that time. A personal supervisor with whom he was required to maintain contact at least once a day and who advised of his missions and collected the information he was asked to provide. In the programme he explained that he was provided a legend, a history, for his role as Mark Stone who became known as Flash because in addition to having a van which he put at the disposal of whichever group or activity he was assigned to he also had funds to put at the disposal of groups of interests.
He claims to have been very effective in the provision of information about action/ activities which given the length of his period of undercover appears to confirm this observation and because it is said that his individual involvement would have cost something of the order of £1.5 and £2 million. He was also considered of sufficient value to be sent to assist a number of European Governments.
In the Channel 4 programme stated that he was used by the police forces of 22 countries and that he was responsible for the closing down of the Youth House community centre in Copenhagen which attracted International publicity and that he was used by German police between 2004 and 2009 and allegedly committed two crimes on their behalf, one of which was arson.
According to a German MP Andrej Hunko quoted in the Wikipedia notes he raised questions in the German Bundestag concerning what the German authorities knew about Kennedy's activities amongst the Berlin protest movements. Kennedy had been arrested in Berlin for attempted arson, but was never brought to trial. Hunko also asked: "How does the federal government justify the fact that [Mark Kennedy], as part of his operation in Germany, did not only initiate long-term meaningful friendships but also sexual relationships, clearly under false pretences?" The Bundesregierung refused to answer any questions concerning PC Kennedy for operational reasons.
The question of his personal relationships was extensively covered in the programme. When Mr Kennedy was first deployed he was married with two children. He explained that before he established an ongoing relationship with someone which lasted four years he found returning home increasingly more difficult switching from one role to another and found it more difficult to communicate with his wife because of the official secrecy of his role but not with the woman who became his activist role wife because of their common interests and empathy.
He admitted that he had not disclosed the relationship to his handler although he admitted that his wife detected something had fundamentally changed and Police and other commentators made it clear that any relationship was outside the rulebook and had to be reported and that it was surprising that his handler would not have known just as Mark himself thought his relationship would have been picked up by those keeping groups and individuals in them under other forms of surveillance. One of several moments when he appeared not have appreciated the inconsistency of his position was when asked how he justified starting and continuing a relationship with someone without being honest about himself. His response then as at other times revealed more clearly what had happened.
While throughout his time undercover he believed in what he was doing and its importance in helping to keep the population of the UK safe he gradually faced the problem that he found those with who he worked genuine people of conscience and concern and who showed him a love and concern which he did not find elsewhere.
This became a major issue when as part of one activity in the UK he came across a police officer beating a female protestor who was effectively breaking in to an establishment. He went to the aid of the individual remonstrating with the police officer to an extent he physically intervened although the extent to which he did this is disrupted. He was then severely beaten on the head with an open woman and on his body which cause at least one breakage which required hospitalisation. He managed to photograph himself which he sent to his handler. There was a move to charge him with assault which as in at least another instance where he was arrested no charges were brought, presumably because of interventions at appropriate levels.
Afterwards he spoke with great feeling how his by then friends took loving care of him and gave him support which he felt just as strongly had not come from his employers.
It was after his spell in Europe and return to the that he participated in an event intended to take control of a large power station complex in Nottinghamshire, one which I believe I passed earlier this year on leaving Nottingham Cricket Ground and going on to a Travel Lodge at Donnington. He said that participants met at a school where accommodation had been hired or provided and that everyone present had been arrested after a raid and arrested on conspiracy to commit a crime. He was the only one who was quickly released and therefore his cover was blown. A friend had said to him during the period after the raid while they were in police custody that it was evident someone had betrayed them.
I am not clear about the sequence of the two events which led to his preparedness to give evidence on behalf of those prosecuted and who were to be brought to trial. My understanding is that he went on a short visit to stay with a relative in the USA and that on return he was advised that there was no alternative role for him after some twenty years as a police officer. His reaction was then to join his friends where he quickly found himself in a situation of interrogation about who he was and in which he admitted the truth and expressed an apology. He made the point that he was not threatened and the reaction was one of shock and disappointment. He had had no contact with them since and his tone suggested this was a situation he regretted especially the ending of the relationship with the young woman although he understood how she would have viewed him
He gave the impression of being now someone in no man’s land without a job and unlikely to get one, having also lost all contact with his children as well as wife/former wife. It was evident from the programme that while he intellectually understood the issues he was still in emotional turmoil about what had happened. As an outsider but someone with considerable knowledge as well as experience about how such situations occur I am sad for him because both reactions of fellow activists and his employers have been correct, with one exception and for which he should have been prepared. He missed the moment when he had choice. That is the moment when he first became attracted to the young woman and wanted an ongoing relationship with her. At that point he should have decided to resign from his position, to tell the young woman he had done so and that he shared her opinions and wanted to share in her lifestyle, or to have walked away.
When I was in training we were told of a mental health officer who had commenced a relationship with a client and her children. He was told to end the relationship or resign from his position which he chose to do and was reported to be happily married. There are many Catholic priests who have resigned their position in order to marry. The position of detached workers let alone undercover ones is even more precarious and required close but sympathetic management. One of the biggest disasters was a detached female worker attempting to help drug misusers who became an addict and a single parent. These situations and I could mention countless others occurred between thirty and fifty years ago.
I am therefore concerned that with each generation of managers and politicians we repeat the failures of the past and we fail to learn from what we already know.
It is also inevitable that in the state he was in there was no future for Mark as a policeman as similarly a soldier with post traumatic stress would be a danger if allowed to continue on active duty. The issues as with service men and women in general is the support including medical support and recuperation services made available. Those who handled and managed his work ought to have read the signs within weeks let alone months of the relationship being established quite apart from sending someone repeatedly time and time again over the top so to speak into enemy territory.
If as he states he did not reveal his true identity to others until after he was rejected and told effectively to go away then those involved should accept some responsibility for what happened. It is worth reminding that Mark went on active service for his country for a decade in which the last eight was under deep cover and where he suffered friendly fire on more than one occasion. The programme concluded that no one person with whom he was closely associated in the UK was charged with a criminal offence and he made the point that others have made including Michael Meacher that given the pressure on police resources in general it might have been a better use of time and money to have concentrated on anti Terrorism, International crime and major crime in the UK affecting children and adults.
It is not as simple as that though and I remind yet again that fifty years ago those involved in the non violent direct action movement against the possession and potential use of weapons of mass destruction assumed there were plants among our numbers and that we were under constant surveillance. I understood the necessity of this on the part of the state having early on encountered the approach of the Socialist Labour League to the possession of the workers bomb and their programme of using people and sacrificing them as part of their ideological master plan, or that characters like the man who became the agent of Lord Russell had no intention of following the principles of Satyagraha and which led to my resignation from the Committee 100 when my personal warning to Lord Russell was rejected and which led to his disingenuous memorandum against his former agent several years later.
It was also evident today that what started as a simple misunderstanding has rocketed into a major political confrontation between the Coalition and the Labour Opposition over the future of the Home Secretary and her knowledge and political control of the UK Border agency, another arm‘s length body which the Labour government was so keen on. I have gone on record as saying that I have a high regard for the Home Secretary especially after the August rioting and her response to those who wanted to give the police an unconditional blank cheque. In fact I have gone as far as saying that if Cameron should fall because what could emerge about Andy Coulson she would make the obvious choice to replace him.
However I have to say she immediately fell into the trap sometimes made politicians under Party political fire to make public their belief that they were let down by their officials. She then repeated this in such away as to make the position of the civil servant untenable and so in such a manner that her legal colleagues must have winced with every utterance.
The important thing in such a situation is due process and from what the Chief Executive said I cannot fault the technical approach he took. He received information from a Government appointed Inspector that it appeared the manager of the service had defied the decision of a senior Minister of the Government on a political and policy matter where she had given care consideration and had said no. The Chief Executive interviews the individual who admits the action and then overnight provides further information in mitigation which without further checking appeared to confirm the central allegation. He suspended the man, that is he did not prejudge the outcome of any subsequent disciplinary hearing which he might be called upon to hear, After the official part of he meeting ended which was witnessed with note taking, there was an informal discussion about the taking of retirement with an advance packaged which appear to the chief executive a good way to resolve the position. However before making a formal offer he needed to discuss with the highest civil servant at the Home Office, not regarding the suspension as such which was his prerogative but a settlement which would have prevented a long drawn out process and enable a senior civil servant with close forty years experience and 15 in a high position, plus a CBE three years ago to leave with dignity. Mr Brodie found himself suspended, subject to a disciplinary inquiry, and then to International news media speculation and to be rubbished by his political master not once but twice. He consulted his professional body and negotiating body for such situations and presumably was advised to resign and commence action for a wrongful dismissal.
Worse was to come because despite not making personal statements to the media except through his appropriate body of representation he was immediately summoned to appear before the Home Affairs Committee who chairman represents the opposition in terms of their critical reaction to the position of the Home Secretary. Understandably the Conservative Members reacted in defence of their Minister,
It no longer matters who was right and wring but now neither side can lose face by admitting any errors to shortcomings. In the words of the immortal poet no good will come of it.
The Home Secretary has blundered because it one thing to speak out as a Labour Education Minister did after the publication of an independent report of Harringey Social Services Department and even then the High Court ruled against his pronouncements before due process had been completed. In this instance she made a public statement on a disciplinary matter before there has been any kind of investigation and unless that investigation is independent any lawyer will argue that the position of their client had been badly compromised because she spoke without have the access to the full facts. Nor am I sure that the Home Affairs Committee did any of the parties any favour by asking about the subject of the disciplinary inquiry and the process of the personal matter in public.
As it has been made public and all and sundry are able to make observations and come to conclusions. Given his years of experience and that he applied for three things to be part of a trial change in procedure and had been told yes to two and no to one, he should have immediately done one of two actions. At the meeting or immediately afterwards he should have checked with the Home Secretary that she understood the third action would happen under the Health and Safety measures however rare or frequently they occurred or to have made it clear to his officers at all levels that in the implementation of the Health and Safety measure the Home Secretary had made it clear this measure was exclude regardless of its level of effectiveness or priority. It was not for the Home Secretary to assume otherwise especially as this particular check had only been introduced in March 2010.
The onus on the officer was first to ensure the position of democratically elected Ministers was on a matter of policy was carried out whether he agreed with or not. It does not matter that he did not intentionally set out to defy the Minister he clearly failed in the circumstances to ensure the organisation was aware of her ruling or to have obtained immediately clarification of her and the Government’s position. It is what you do as a chief officer of any organisation accountable to elected politicians. The Home Secretary was clearly badly advised to pass judgement as to personal culpability without hearing the full story which she would have done once the disciplinary process and policy and practice investigation had been undertaken. I sympathise that she was under attack from the Labour Opposition who sensed another scalp coming closely after that of the Defence Minister and rattling the Prime Minister over phone hacking. With the entire public sector getting ready for open confrontation over the Pension Issue can the government afford to also alienate the top civil service as it has done recently with ACPO, even if they had right on their side?
When recently considering the role that the Association of Police Officers played in the UK excluding Scotland I was amazed to find that not only is it registered as a private company but that until recently it had direct control in the sense that it provided a base for the unit which operated police men and women in covert operations in relation to the policing of protests, combating racism and keeping surveillance of extreme groups of the right and left.
I want to make clear I am not objecting to the existence of such units but that they were housed in an almost free standing way under the umbrella of ACPO rather than as part of a National Crime Agency directly controlled by the Home Office and the Home Department Government Ministerial Team.
Following disclosures about the role of Mark Kennedy as a covert operations officer The Home Affairs Committee questioned the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in March of this year about aspects of the situation was being investigated by the Independent Police Commission and where according to their web site there is as yet no published report
At the hearing the deputy Commissioner was asked that in view that there were still four units under the control of ACPO: the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit; the National Domestic Extremism Team; the National Public Order Intelligence Unit; there is also the Welsh Extremism and Counter-Terrorism Unit; plus the four others that are controlled by SOCA, yourselves, CO19, as well as M15 and the Counter-Terrorism Unit. “There seem to be an awful lot of units around this particular area. Does this cause you concern when you are going to be having this particular baby passed to you?”
“Acting Commissioner Godwin: I think that we need to make sure that we understand, one, what has been going on and, two, what we need to do for the future. Hence, I very much welcome Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is reviewing all those issues about: what is extremism and what is protest; what do we deploy in terms of protest; what are the rules that we comply with in terms of serious necessity proportionality?
Chair: At the moment, is this unit still under the auspices of ACPO, or has it been physically handed over to yourselves—because I understand there is a meeting on Friday for Chief Constables to ratify this decision?
Acting Commissioner Godwin: Yes, that is correct. So at the moment it is in the transition but it does require the agreement of Chief Constables to pass that judgement. Service and the SOCA ones, but those under ACPO come within the business area of ACPO (Terrorism and Allied Matters). So that particular business area of ACPO makes those decisions that then go through ACPO.
As a result of the concerns that were raised about those particular units, in terms of the lead force arrangements, we offered to take it back into Governance and Control. We have a Covert Standards Unit now in the Met; we have a Covert Command; we have a professional commander that makes sure that we comply with the guidance and the standards, and that is why it is going across. Those units will be sanitised in the sense of some merging and making them more readily appropriate for the challenges that we face, and all this will be dealt with through the HMI review.
Mark Reckless: You have been giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee and you have told us it is required to go through these processes, but ACPO is a private company. I don't understand why it is required, or for that matter allowed, that this unit transfers from you to ACPO and then back to you, on the basis of some constitution set out in Articles of a private company. What I want to know, as far as this Committee is concerned, is on what statutory basis, in terms both of the MPS and Ministers, is the decision made?
Acting Commissioner Godwin: In that case, in terms of the statutory basis, I can't tell you. I'm not briefed on that. In terms of the means of operating with ACPO in 2005 when these decisions were first taken, then that would have gone through the ACPO rules at that point, and as a result of that there is asset that has paid for these units that come from a number of police forces. As a result of that, it has to go through that process to hand that asset over to us to manage on behalf of the national police.”
If I found the position extraordinary before I am rendered almost speechless, I can only assume that then Labour Government, as it did on many issues such as UK Border control decided that the establishment of an agency provided a cushion for politicians if anything went wrong. There is no other logical explanation. I accept that the way these units operated is that officers were recruited from various police forces and remained on the financial books of the individual forces that were able to call upon officers to undertake work within their force areas or as in the instance of Mark Kennedy on behalf of other European Union Countries upon appropriate payment. It is to be hoped that the new National Crime organisation will produce a single command and control structure with a single operating guidance and operational practice standards framework, monitoring, work assessment and training system
The case of Mark Kennedy, now in his early forties illustrates the problems of the old system. Mr Kennedy is the son a former police officer who as he explained in last night’s Channel Four programme, first became an undercover officer working to stop drug trafficking on estates in one part of London. His task was to get to know those pushing drugs and to purchase drugs from them while other colleagues videoed or took photographs of the transactions and this was followed by their arrest and prosecution. His work was such that he was then recruited by one of the national undercover task force units then based at Scotland Yard but with subsequent overall management oversight from the Association of Chief Constables and which is now being hand back to the Metropolitan presumably prior to becoming of the National Crime Organisation.
From what was said in the programme and in the response of the Met’s Deputy Commissioner his primary role was to provide intelligence about the number of people planning to participate in actions so the police could plan to have available a proportional level of response in the area of extreme right and left groups. He undertook this role for a period of 8 years.
He had only one link the police during that time. A personal supervisor with whom he was required to maintain contact at least once a day and who advised of his missions and collected the information he was asked to provide. In the programme he explained that he was provided a legend, a history, for his role as Mark Stone who became known as Flash because in addition to having a van which he put at the disposal of whichever group or activity he was assigned to he also had funds to put at the disposal of groups of interests.
He claims to have been very effective in the provision of information about action/ activities which given the length of his period of undercover appears to confirm this observation and because it is said that his individual involvement would have cost something of the order of £1.5 and £2 million. He was also considered of sufficient value to be sent to assist a number of European Governments.
In the Channel 4 programme stated that he was used by the police forces of 22 countries and that he was responsible for the closing down of the Youth House community centre in Copenhagen which attracted International publicity and that he was used by German police between 2004 and 2009 and allegedly committed two crimes on their behalf, one of which was arson.
According to a German MP Andrej Hunko quoted in the Wikipedia notes he raised questions in the German Bundestag concerning what the German authorities knew about Kennedy's activities amongst the Berlin protest movements. Kennedy had been arrested in Berlin for attempted arson, but was never brought to trial. Hunko also asked: "How does the federal government justify the fact that [Mark Kennedy], as part of his operation in Germany, did not only initiate long-term meaningful friendships but also sexual relationships, clearly under false pretences?" The Bundesregierung refused to answer any questions concerning PC Kennedy for operational reasons.
The question of his personal relationships was extensively covered in the programme. When Mr Kennedy was first deployed he was married with two children. He explained that before he established an ongoing relationship with someone which lasted four years he found returning home increasingly more difficult switching from one role to another and found it more difficult to communicate with his wife because of the official secrecy of his role but not with the woman who became his activist role wife because of their common interests and empathy.
He admitted that he had not disclosed the relationship to his handler although he admitted that his wife detected something had fundamentally changed and Police and other commentators made it clear that any relationship was outside the rulebook and had to be reported and that it was surprising that his handler would not have known just as Mark himself thought his relationship would have been picked up by those keeping groups and individuals in them under other forms of surveillance. One of several moments when he appeared not have appreciated the inconsistency of his position was when asked how he justified starting and continuing a relationship with someone without being honest about himself. His response then as at other times revealed more clearly what had happened.
While throughout his time undercover he believed in what he was doing and its importance in helping to keep the population of the UK safe he gradually faced the problem that he found those with who he worked genuine people of conscience and concern and who showed him a love and concern which he did not find elsewhere.
This became a major issue when as part of one activity in the UK he came across a police officer beating a female protestor who was effectively breaking in to an establishment. He went to the aid of the individual remonstrating with the police officer to an extent he physically intervened although the extent to which he did this is disrupted. He was then severely beaten on the head with an open woman and on his body which cause at least one breakage which required hospitalisation. He managed to photograph himself which he sent to his handler. There was a move to charge him with assault which as in at least another instance where he was arrested no charges were brought, presumably because of interventions at appropriate levels.
Afterwards he spoke with great feeling how his by then friends took loving care of him and gave him support which he felt just as strongly had not come from his employers.
It was after his spell in Europe and return to the that he participated in an event intended to take control of a large power station complex in Nottinghamshire, one which I believe I passed earlier this year on leaving Nottingham Cricket Ground and going on to a Travel Lodge at Donnington. He said that participants met at a school where accommodation had been hired or provided and that everyone present had been arrested after a raid and arrested on conspiracy to commit a crime. He was the only one who was quickly released and therefore his cover was blown. A friend had said to him during the period after the raid while they were in police custody that it was evident someone had betrayed them.
I am not clear about the sequence of the two events which led to his preparedness to give evidence on behalf of those prosecuted and who were to be brought to trial. My understanding is that he went on a short visit to stay with a relative in the USA and that on return he was advised that there was no alternative role for him after some twenty years as a police officer. His reaction was then to join his friends where he quickly found himself in a situation of interrogation about who he was and in which he admitted the truth and expressed an apology. He made the point that he was not threatened and the reaction was one of shock and disappointment. He had had no contact with them since and his tone suggested this was a situation he regretted especially the ending of the relationship with the young woman although he understood how she would have viewed him
He gave the impression of being now someone in no man’s land without a job and unlikely to get one, having also lost all contact with his children as well as wife/former wife. It was evident from the programme that while he intellectually understood the issues he was still in emotional turmoil about what had happened. As an outsider but someone with considerable knowledge as well as experience about how such situations occur I am sad for him because both reactions of fellow activists and his employers have been correct, with one exception and for which he should have been prepared. He missed the moment when he had choice. That is the moment when he first became attracted to the young woman and wanted an ongoing relationship with her. At that point he should have decided to resign from his position, to tell the young woman he had done so and that he shared her opinions and wanted to share in her lifestyle, or to have walked away.
When I was in training we were told of a mental health officer who had commenced a relationship with a client and her children. He was told to end the relationship or resign from his position which he chose to do and was reported to be happily married. There are many Catholic priests who have resigned their position in order to marry. The position of detached workers let alone undercover ones is even more precarious and required close but sympathetic management. One of the biggest disasters was a detached female worker attempting to help drug misusers who became an addict and a single parent. These situations and I could mention countless others occurred between thirty and fifty years ago.
I am therefore concerned that with each generation of managers and politicians we repeat the failures of the past and we fail to learn from what we already know.
It is also inevitable that in the state he was in there was no future for Mark as a policeman as similarly a soldier with post traumatic stress would be a danger if allowed to continue on active duty. The issues as with service men and women in general is the support including medical support and recuperation services made available. Those who handled and managed his work ought to have read the signs within weeks let alone months of the relationship being established quite apart from sending someone repeatedly time and time again over the top so to speak into enemy territory.
If as he states he did not reveal his true identity to others until after he was rejected and told effectively to go away then those involved should accept some responsibility for what happened. It is worth reminding that Mark went on active service for his country for a decade in which the last eight was under deep cover and where he suffered friendly fire on more than one occasion. The programme concluded that no one person with whom he was closely associated in the UK was charged with a criminal offence and he made the point that others have made including Michael Meacher that given the pressure on police resources in general it might have been a better use of time and money to have concentrated on anti Terrorism, International crime and major crime in the UK affecting children and adults.
It is not as simple as that though and I remind yet again that fifty years ago those involved in the non violent direct action movement against the possession and potential use of weapons of mass destruction assumed there were plants among our numbers and that we were under constant surveillance. I understood the necessity of this on the part of the state having early on encountered the approach of the Socialist Labour League to the possession of the workers bomb and their programme of using people and sacrificing them as part of their ideological master plan, or that characters like the man who became the agent of Lord Russell had no intention of following the principles of Satyagraha and which led to my resignation from the Committee 100 when my personal warning to Lord Russell was rejected and which led to his disingenuous memorandum against his former agent several years later.
It was also evident today that what started as a simple misunderstanding has rocketed into a major political confrontation between the Coalition and the Labour Opposition over the future of the Home Secretary and her knowledge and political control of the UK Border agency, another arm‘s length body which the Labour government was so keen on. I have gone on record as saying that I have a high regard for the Home Secretary especially after the August rioting and her response to those who wanted to give the police an unconditional blank cheque. In fact I have gone as far as saying that if Cameron should fall because what could emerge about Andy Coulson she would make the obvious choice to replace him.
However I have to say she immediately fell into the trap sometimes made politicians under Party political fire to make public their belief that they were let down by their officials. She then repeated this in such away as to make the position of the civil servant untenable and so in such a manner that her legal colleagues must have winced with every utterance.
The important thing in such a situation is due process and from what the Chief Executive said I cannot fault the technical approach he took. He received information from a Government appointed Inspector that it appeared the manager of the service had defied the decision of a senior Minister of the Government on a political and policy matter where she had given care consideration and had said no. The Chief Executive interviews the individual who admits the action and then overnight provides further information in mitigation which without further checking appeared to confirm the central allegation. He suspended the man, that is he did not prejudge the outcome of any subsequent disciplinary hearing which he might be called upon to hear, After the official part of he meeting ended which was witnessed with note taking, there was an informal discussion about the taking of retirement with an advance packaged which appear to the chief executive a good way to resolve the position. However before making a formal offer he needed to discuss with the highest civil servant at the Home Office, not regarding the suspension as such which was his prerogative but a settlement which would have prevented a long drawn out process and enable a senior civil servant with close forty years experience and 15 in a high position, plus a CBE three years ago to leave with dignity. Mr Brodie found himself suspended, subject to a disciplinary inquiry, and then to International news media speculation and to be rubbished by his political master not once but twice. He consulted his professional body and negotiating body for such situations and presumably was advised to resign and commence action for a wrongful dismissal.
Worse was to come because despite not making personal statements to the media except through his appropriate body of representation he was immediately summoned to appear before the Home Affairs Committee who chairman represents the opposition in terms of their critical reaction to the position of the Home Secretary. Understandably the Conservative Members reacted in defence of their Minister,
It no longer matters who was right and wring but now neither side can lose face by admitting any errors to shortcomings. In the words of the immortal poet no good will come of it.
The Home Secretary has blundered because it one thing to speak out as a Labour Education Minister did after the publication of an independent report of Harringey Social Services Department and even then the High Court ruled against his pronouncements before due process had been completed. In this instance she made a public statement on a disciplinary matter before there has been any kind of investigation and unless that investigation is independent any lawyer will argue that the position of their client had been badly compromised because she spoke without have the access to the full facts. Nor am I sure that the Home Affairs Committee did any of the parties any favour by asking about the subject of the disciplinary inquiry and the process of the personal matter in public.
As it has been made public and all and sundry are able to make observations and come to conclusions. Given his years of experience and that he applied for three things to be part of a trial change in procedure and had been told yes to two and no to one, he should have immediately done one of two actions. At the meeting or immediately afterwards he should have checked with the Home Secretary that she understood the third action would happen under the Health and Safety measures however rare or frequently they occurred or to have made it clear to his officers at all levels that in the implementation of the Health and Safety measure the Home Secretary had made it clear this measure was exclude regardless of its level of effectiveness or priority. It was not for the Home Secretary to assume otherwise especially as this particular check had only been introduced in March 2010.
The onus on the officer was first to ensure the position of democratically elected Ministers was on a matter of policy was carried out whether he agreed with or not. It does not matter that he did not intentionally set out to defy the Minister he clearly failed in the circumstances to ensure the organisation was aware of her ruling or to have obtained immediately clarification of her and the Government’s position. It is what you do as a chief officer of any organisation accountable to elected politicians. The Home Secretary was clearly badly advised to pass judgement as to personal culpability without hearing the full story which she would have done once the disciplinary process and policy and practice investigation had been undertaken. I sympathise that she was under attack from the Labour Opposition who sensed another scalp coming closely after that of the Defence Minister and rattling the Prime Minister over phone hacking. With the entire public sector getting ready for open confrontation over the Pension Issue can the government afford to also alienate the top civil service as it has done recently with ACPO, even if they had right on their side?
No comments:
Post a Comment