• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Operation Countryman & Historical Police Corruption

Here's a good example of the kind of regular 'dodges' set up by police forces. Judging by the fact that the Home Secretary increased the punishment on appeal, you can assume a fairly dim view was taken. Interestingly, the Tory Home Secretary at this time was David Maxwell Fyfe, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors and the man who refused to commute Derek Bentley's controversial death sentence.

Extracted from the Cabinet Papers for 1954.

March 1954 01.jpg


March 1954 02.jpg
 
Just been reading about the Dirty Squad in another context; they certainly grew into their name - a very, very seedy bunch, indeed.

It's worth pointing out that in an age where many bridle at any hint of internet censorship, and appear to believe that we have entering a new dark age from some not long passed golden era of broad social and literary freedoms, this lot were lining their voluminous pockets, and making lives miserable, on the basis of sensibilities regarding public morals that we would find utterly laughable now - not because we have become hardened, but because they were utterly laughable*.

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend both this chapter (available in full) and the book(s):

This.jpg


Chapter Continues:
HERE

Books available here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1445666251/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_5?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&psc=1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beautiful-...ngs,+low+morals&qid=1616519509&s=books&sr=1-2
 
This is an excellent read on the scandals of the late 60s and early 70s:

On Saturday, 29 November 1969, The Times ran a story headed, “London policemen in bribe allegations. Tapes reveal planted evidence.” The article alleged that three South London detectives had taken bribes, given false evidence in exchange for money and had “allowed a criminal to pursue his activities”

This story would, eventually, engender three major inquiries into corruption in the Metropolitan Police, producing in turn five major trials of London detectives. These revelations of deep rooted corruption forever tainted the myth of the incorruptible London bobby and a tradition of detective work that reached back to Victorian times, a tradition based on the tolerance, almost encouragement, of close intimacy between detectives and criminals was almost totally destroyed. Nearly 400 detectives left the Met in disgrace and hundreds more returned to uniform. The period became known as “The Fall of Scotland Yard” and the effects of that crash still reverberate today.

The Times journalists, Gary Lloyd and Julian Mounter, had secretly tape-recorded a small-time South London criminal and three detectives in conversations that left no doubt as to the extent of corruption that existed among sections of the Met’s Criminal Investigation Department. The conversations between Detective Sergeant John Symonds and the criminal featured the now infamous

‘… don’t forget always to let me know straight away if you need anything because I know people everywhere. Because I’m in a little firm in a firm. Don’t matter where, anywhere in London I can get on the phone to someone I know I can trust, that talks the same as me. And if he’s not the right person that can do it, he’ll know the person that can. All right?’

It was this ‘Firm in a Firm’ phrase which gave the Times allegations its horrific impact. It implied that there was a whole network of ‘bent’ detectives on the take, who were prepared to do favours to any criminal who could be induced to pay for them. The Times feared that the allegations would be brushed under the carpet if they went straight to the Yard with them, so publication was seen as the only way of ensuring the story came out into the open. The material the newspaper had, including some thirty hours of tape recordings, was duly handed over at Scotland Yard. ‘A little firm in a firm’ was taken as the headline for the Times leader which stated, that the allegations constituted

“The most serious charge that has been brought against the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Metropolitan Police for some years…. It is important in justice to the Metropolitan Police, and in particular to the plain-clothes branch, that the most stringent inquiry should now be made.”

The Metropolitan Police of 1969-1972 was a police force riven by internal power-struggles between its most senior officers and a deep mistrust between the uniform branch and the detectives of the Criminal Investigation Department. Created in 1879 (The Met’s earlier Detective Branch had been disbanded for corruption) the CID enjoyed prestige, had a separate system of promotion, higher rates of pay and its own command structure.

At its apex was the Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard. Under him were four Area CID commanders also based at the Yard. Under them were twenty three detective chief superintendents, one in each district, controlling a total of 2300 detectives with another 1,000 detectives based in the Yard’s specialist squads answerable to the ACC through their own commanders. The CID operated with no outside control as a force within a force with all the loyalties and codes of a closed, elite body.

Continued at length:
https://manyvoicesblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/frank-williamson-the-fall-of-scotland-yard/

Or for those who prefer to watch:

 
Last edited:
Not a Mason.
Almost embarrassingly honest.
Was never offered a bribe, and certainly never solicited one.
Would have alerted my supervisors to any corruption l suspected in fellow officers.


maximus otter
Is it wrong that part of me is a little bit disappointed at this statement?

It must have been difficult for the honest ones though such as 'Maximus 'Serpico' Otter', as I imagine your life would have been made hell, or certainly not very pleasant if you didn't go along with their corrupt ways. ?
 
Is it wrong that part of me is a little bit disappointed at this statement?

It must have been difficult for the honest ones though such as 'Maximus 'Serpico' Otter', as I imagine your life would have been made hell, or certainly not very pleasant if you didn't go along with their corrupt ways. ?
The problem is surely the same as it is in other walks of life. Nobody likes a whistleblower and most of us in jobs have family to support. It takes a very brave person to risk the permanent alienation of colleagues and the prospect of never being employed again.

I've never given a shit, myself, but it's certainly cost me. As I've mentioned before and don't need to go in to again. In my case I don't consider it bravery - I simply didn't think through the alternatives to the way I was brought up.
 
It seems appropriate to adduce the Daniel Morgan murder here, which doesn't obviously reduce concerns about corruption in the Met in a later time-frame: the 80s and 90s. I was riveted by the first series of the Untold podcast a couple of years ago, and didn't realise that a second series had been released. Quite apart from the shocking details of the murder itself and complete failure to hold anyone to account for it - it is difficult to avoid the sense of ranks closing - it also raises intriguing avenues of enquiry about the uncomfortable close relationships between Met officers and Fleet Street.
Here's a good read: Who Killed Daniel Morgan?: Britain's Most Investigated Murder
 
Nobody likes a whistleblower and most of us in jobs have family to support. It takes a very brave person to risk the permanent alienation of colleagues and the prospect of never being employed again.
Whistleblowers often end up with PTSD and generally will not even be interviewed or discuss what happened. I wanted to interview some for my dissertation and was told (1) that'd make it a PhD thesis, it'd be a huge undertaking and (2) good luck. Even if you find any they probably won't talk to you, because the last thing they want is to relive that.
 
Last edited:
The problem is surely the same as it is in other walks of life. Nobody likes a whistleblower and most of us in jobs have family to support. It takes a very brave person to risk the permanent alienation of colleagues and the prospect of never being employed again.
Well, possibly, but when it concerns the police or army where you (could) be in more dangerous situations, having no backup due to being ostracized would be far worse than Dave in I.T causing problems for you.
 
I've been dipping into Sir Robert Mark's autobiography, In The Office of Constable (1978) and thought I'd post some illuminating extracts on the culture at the time he served as Assistant Commissioner D-Department (from February 1967), Deputy Commissioner (from April 1968, Under Waldron who had previous served as Simpson's deputy) and Commissioner of the Met (from April 1972).

The first explains the horribly inefficient structure that had evolved.

SmartSelect_20220910_002756_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002541_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002434_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002445_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002604_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002615_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002625_Gallery.jpg

This was when the cracks in the dam appeared.

SmartSelect_20220910_002637_Gallery.jpgKakaoTalk_Photo_2022-09-10-01-12-20 001.jpegKakaoTalk_Photo_2022-09-10-01-12-21 002.jpeg

The second extract summarises the institutionalised nature of corruption and internecine rancour:

SmartSelect_20220910_002710_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002721_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002734_Gallery.jpgSmartSelect_20220910_002744_Gallery.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top