BBC News - 'Cut police pensions' to punish misconduct, MPs say In the history of complaining (Predominantly against Kent Police) a number of officers have retired during complaint process or filing an action: Three Chief constables One Special Branch DI One DCI One Ch Supt One inspector One Supt What complainants want is the day in court. Not some unconstitutional Police college quasi judicial process. The police officer, like everyone else, has a right of trial by peers under the disciplines of evidence. Keith Vaz seems totally unaware of the constitution. The police already have the equivalent of a Hippocratic Oath and it carries criminal answerability to the Queen (In matters that for an unsworn person would be civil). The constable oath which is binding unto death beyond police service. For example in 1989 a Reliance Security Guard left his employ, during police inquiries, at Deal Royal Marines Barracks. On April 10th 1989, as a result of a glowing reference later safeguarded from police as evidence, the guard took a new job in domestic electronics. Allegedly police colluded with Reliance to end then man's employ by helping him into different work. Kent Police had been sent crime complaint of obtaining employ by deception at the barracks. A false REME Record. REME Corps Secretariat and the local REME Assn welfare officer were able to confirm that the man had no record of having served. Prima facie case. The same man in 87 had used his REME service story to try to join the TA Home Service Force. The same man was attempting to get payment from REME Assn welfare funds. The Police, clearly, had left themselves open to a number of criminal charges: (1) Aiding and abetting obtaining employ by deception (2) Misprision of Treason (3) Treason (4) Conspiracy to pervert justice (5) Prevention of Terrorism offences As we all know in September 1989 the tragic bombing of the barracks occurred. Leaving Kent Police a bit of a security warning cover up problem. I wouldn't want some internal quasi police court scalding them for errors of judgment. Let the complainants and the accused plod have their day in criminal court. In August 1997 when Kent Police Authority called on Chief constable for inquiry and report re Deal Barracks and paramilitary and sabotage activity in Kent there were 36 murders implicit in the call. In addition there was one suicide already subject to an HM Coroner request to re-investigate and one other death that had attracted a questionable misadventure verdict. There were other concerns that had not been weighed. Former Reliance guards, uninvestigated by Kent Police, working at Chunnel Security and at 24 hour local authority emergency call centre. And there were 25 other lines of inquiry or complaint in the security warnings. Access to explosives, susoected attempts to access MOD estate drawings (the architecturalo drawings of all MOD estate South East) etc etc The Home Secretary Straw thought that the one death of Stephen Lawrence (Kent Plod investigating Met handling) was far more important than the 38 deaths in the Kent Police Authority call for report. Sir Ronnie Flanagan queried the position of Jack Straw in this matter, at the time Kent Chief constable had been sent to Ulster to invigilate the Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry 1999. When Straw refused to compel inquiry and report in the 38 deaths case, Kent Chief constable was replaced on the Rosemary Nelson case. In 2003, due to a report of concern from Gen De Chasterlain, the issue looked like being resurrected at ministerial level. And by complete coincidence Kent Chief constable retired without notice. His successor also retired. Not long after a Judicial Review file against him was stolen from the Registry of Royal Courts of Justice and never accessed a judge. How often do police tell us if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear ? Well let that apply to them. Determinations in a Court of Law please. The Attorney General position is that he feels that he is "Absolute custodian, in secret, of public interest" My position is that he is wrong. The constitution already defines the public interest above the Attorney General pay grade. A constable is answerable at law to the Queen sole fount of justice. That should even give every constable the right of access to the Court under Article 6 of ECHR and under the authorities attached to the CROWN (not govt) office of constable. Be careful police it looks like you will end up more subject of secret quasi courts than even terrorist suspects. I hope David Davies is watching. He is tidy on such constitutional issues. As you would expect of a former SAS fellow.