I left the robing room at Court today and walked in to the hall way.  Talking in the hallway were two police officers in full uniform.  Before they saw me, one said to the other in a very worried voice, "we're not gonna get away with this".  The other agreed.

Co-incidentally, at the same Court two police officers were being called to give evidence about what they had seen on CCTV.  The only problem in that case seems to be that the CCTV they claimed to have watched in October 2010 was in fact LOST in January 2010...


  1. They must be corrupt then. Makes it a little easier to sleep at night that; assuming the cops are corrupt. Still, school fees are school fees and a skiing holiday is a skiing holiday. Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front? or you can always go for the process in some way, yes that's it, go for the process. And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL.

  2. Still playing to the rank and file in the peanut gallery, eh Gadget?

    Just out of curiosity as someone who claims to be a Inspector do you see nothing wrong in this? and how would you respond if the officers were under your command ?

  3. I'd think; well, they hear enough bullshit mitigation from solicitors, lies about 'oh, he's changed his life, he has a new girlfriend/baby etc' when they KNOW he will re-offend that they probably think it's OK. After all,. if the legal profession do it.......... but of course if they did something wrong they would be dealt with, unlike you lot.

  4. BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now:

  5. "Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front?"

    What an extraordinary point to make - isn't that one of the main tenets of the British legal system? The prosecutor lays it on thick, using a bit of artistic licence, based on the police statements, possibly similarly embellished and the probation officer is in the middle, possibly doing a bit of the same in one direction or the other. It's a game after all isn't it?

  6. thats right. it is all a game......something i learnt very quickly joining plod.

    i still after all these years have more distain for the solicitors who quite plainly give their "cutomers" stories to tell on interview than the villians themselves.

  7. what

    because the customers that you despise so much are not capable of making it up themselves?

    and gadget may be part of the thought police : able to know exactly how someone is going to behave in the years to come : but I dont know any solicitors who are.

    That said once gadget (in his own blog) decided that anyone who dared to plead not guilty should be remanded to prison he has rather jumped the shark.

    In his world the presumed innocent should all go to prison to think about how innocent they are. Maybe in North Korea ........

    and I would love to know how the rank and file like anon above deal the mental anguish that must be caused by the fact that the barrister who is acting for the prosecution this week (good guy) was acting for a "scrote" last week (bad guy).

  8. and of course now gadget is actually endorsing perverting the course of justice ......


  9. 'BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now'

    I'm reading, and the only thing I lose sleep over is having people like inspector gadget in positions of power in the police force. Is he for real? my grandfather fought to stop people like Gadget taking over.

    Answer me this Gadget why did you have a dishonourable discharge from the army ?

  10. "And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL."

    Funny, in my second ever post I said, "Do [solicitors] help clients fabricate their accounts to escape justice? Well, the truth is that yes some solicitors will do that... Should they do it? Of course not and the sooner such people are caught and thrown out of the profession the better."

    If only police inspectors were as good at basic investigation as they are at whinning about sking holidays and school fees.

    For the record, I have NEVER been on a sking holiday and my son does NOT go to a fee paying school.

  11. What I want to know is: why has Gadget been questioned twice about "inappropriate conduct" with children?

  12. Has Gadget been questioned at all over inappropriate conduct with children? Well, you know what they say... no smoke without fire.

  13. Ed (not Bystander)8 November 2010 at 17:07

    And not even only the one time, it seems.

    Gadget, got anything to say? Or are you just going to just keep quiet and hope it goes away?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

Driving without insurance

National Identity Cards