The police have apologised to the landlord of a pub for "misleading" the council following calls for its licence to be revoked.'Misleading'? I think we know a stronger, and far more accurate word than that, don't we, LC?
The future of the Dog and Duck on Mutley Plain was thrown into doubt at the end of last year after a damning police report claimed there had been a rise in crime linked to the pub.
In the meeting itself Supt Tamasine Matthews, on behalf of Devon and Cornwall Police, said one incident - a man brandishing a hammer - happened "outside" the pub.
But landlord Andy Kelland, who has owned the pub for over 14 years, has always disputed this, claiming the incident happened much further up Mutley Plain.We've been here before, of course. The police want to ensure they have a quiet life, civil liberties be damned. So they will, given half a chance, do all they can to ensure that.
But it's not usually the case that they lie, though it does seem to be occurring more and more.
After officially lodging a complaint with the Complaints Appeal Unit, Supt Matthews has now admitted the phrasing should have been 'nearby' or 'close to' the pub.We'll skip over the glaringly obvious injustice of anyone being held to account for what happens outside - rather than inside - their establishment. Even the landlord admits it's not the Ritz:
Mr Kelland, 64, who lives in Mannamead, says he is now disputing other claims about crimes linked to the pub, which he argues never should have been used as evidence at the licensing committee meeting in September.
"We're not a pristine establishment," he admitted.
"We do have incidents here, however we are a working man's boozer and probably not the place where you would bring your 90-year-old granny to have a cup of tea.
"But it is very disappointing this has happened because it has cost me a huge amount of money to defend this and I have had quite strict conditions placed on my licence."Process, punishment. One might suggest that perhaps the lying officer might expect to see some of that herself...
The letter from Supt Matthews itself, sent to Mr Kelland on January 8 and received on January 11, says: 'I am writing to apologise to you on behalf of myself, Mr Seymour [a licencing officer] and the organisation for the inaccurate information presented to the Plymouth City Council licensing sub committee concerning the location of a violent incident within the application for a review of the licence of the licence of the Dog and Duck public house.
...
'I hope you will accept this written apology as finalisation of this matter.'Translation: "Please don't sue!"
That thing again: all it takes is a dossier from the Department of Smears to threaten a man's business, but when Superintendant Fraudypants gets exposed as a lying liar, then the Filth will look at the option of setting up a working party to explore the possibility of potentially moving forward with some action at some point in the future.
ReplyDeleteI would strongly recommend engaging M'Learned Friends - except that any redress comes from our pockets, so the useless/incompetent/bone-idle/mendacious guilty don't really give a toss. Until there is some direct personal penalty, nothing will ever change.
ReplyDelete"Dog and Duck on Mutley Plain"
ReplyDeleteSrsly?
"...Until there is some direct personal penalty [for public sector employees], nothing will ever change."
ReplyDeleteExactly. I've been saying same for years.
This is a trend that I have noticed for a few years. It could just be my perception, but the general public I deal with are getting more honest and are taking a higher moral stance, whereas employees of the state are going in the opposite direction, telling lies and half-truths to strengthen their position, and sometimes for no apparent reason at all. There have always been cases of corruption or miscarriage of justice, but minor officialdom could more or less be trusted to just do their job without trying to put one over on you. I suspect the internet is having a correctional effect on the population at large who can now be publicly shamed for just about anything they have ever done, like a worldwide version of the stocks. Maybe this effect is just taking longer where transgressions are veiled by officialdom. (parklife).
ReplyDelete@Pcar
ReplyDeleteIt has long (for decades) been one of my personal gripes that in my employment I was responsible for my actions inasmuch as a cockup at work could cost me at best, my bonus and at worst, my job. In the public sector there have been few, if any, personal liabilities irrespective of the size or cost of cockups.
"...setting up a working party to explore the possibility of potentially moving forward with some action at some point in the future."
ReplyDeleteThen promoting her when the dust settles.
"...except that any redress comes from our pockets, so the useless/incompetent/bone-idle/mendacious guilty don't really give a toss."
Spot on!
"It could just be my perception, but the general public I deal with are getting more honest and are taking a higher moral stance, whereas employees of the state are going in the opposite direction..."
I mow automatically assume lying rather than give the benefit of the doubt. It saves time.
"In the public sector there have been few, if any, personal liabilities irrespective of the size or cost of cockups."
And that trend continues...