advertisement


Another "bad 'un" for Cressida?

Dogberry

Dogberry

pfm Member
After the murder of Sarah Everard,Cressida rather laconically said the Met had a "bad,'un".
Now the Met.has shown to be institutionally corrupt in the investigation of the Daniel Morgan murder and Cressida Dick censured for hampering the corruption investigation.
 
Minorities get stop and search, Brazilian National dies, paedophiles walk, peaceful demo after copper kills girl is violently broken up, corrupt police working for Murdock, Cressida gets pat on back from pm.
She must have pics of Boris shagging pig!
 
Last edited:
Frizzy said:
Minorities get stop and search, Brazilian National dies, paedophiles walk, peaceful demo after copper kills girl is violently broken up, corrupt police working for Murdock, Cressida gets pat on back from pm.
She must have pics of Boris shagging pig!
Click to expand...

She is smart and seems adept at good cover ups, from a government perspective she is perfect for the job.
 
Last edited:
No mention of the 'National Security' issues that P.Patel quoted as the reason for delaying the report?
I suspect that those involved in the corruption and cover ups back then are now quite high up senior folk in the Met.
As for Cressida making available all the evidence, she may have done so in a slow and timely (for the Met) manner.
 
billo said:
No mention of the 'National Security' issues that P.Patel quoted as the reason for delaying the report?
I suspect that those involved in the corruption and cover ups back then are now quite high up senior folk in the Met.
As for Cressida making available all the evidence, she may have done so in a slow and timely (for the Met) manner.
Click to expand...

There was apparently a suspected close involvement of news international employees in this matter but since it seemed to have escaped mention I guess Rupes cleared it for publication thus sparing Priti Patel having to look up what “human rights” was which was another reason touted for possibly delaying publication.
 
Another case looming over the horizon is that of Epstein as a prosecution witness is being flown over from London to the USA to give evidence on the grounds of a statement she has given over here, yet the Met is still to talk to her or open a file. I wonder how much of a royal cover up this one will turn out to be?
 
Barely 48hrs after a report calls Cressida a lier and part of a conspiracy to conceal evidence the news has moved on to another scandal that would finish most governments, but not Boris, the class clown bumbles on, with a dark glint in his soulless eyes.
 
Dame Cressida's title clearly came this a price-tag attached (protesting the establishment, not the little people).

If she was properly accountable she shouldn't be able to resign, she should be sacked, which she should already have been after the Menendez cover-up.
 
Cressida’s back, just watched a particularly sickening exhibition of crocodile tears from the mets collaborator in chief.
It seems suspicious the Cousins has fessed up, so avoiding a embarrassing public trail.
The met is a shambles we should all be more outraged about.
 
I should think some awkward questions have been asked by ministers. Not about what the guy did, but about how he was a protection officer with a gun near them.
 
Is it usual for a policeman to remain in post after a criminal conviction (for indecent exposure a few years ago)?
 
Frizzy said:
Cressida’s back, just watched a particularly sickening exhibition of crocodile tears from the mets collaborator in chief.
It seems suspicious the Cousins has fessed up, so avoiding a embarrassing public trail.
The met is a shambles we should all be more outraged about.
Click to expand...
What is suspicious about a miscreant (Couzens btw) pleading guilty?
 
ciderglider said:
Is it usual for a policeman to remain in post after a criminal conviction (for indecent exposure a few years ago)?
Click to expand...

It’s very exceptional for an officer, or indeed police staff, to be retained on conviction for some of the offences being discussed. The relevant regulations have to be adhered to regarding dismissal, for obvious reasons.

Kent Police will have some interesting questions to answer…
 
That cousins is quite clearly a serial killer no one in their right mind at 48 years old just suddenly thinks ‘y’no what, think I’ll rent a car and abduct a woman, rape her, strangle her, burn her body in a plot of land I bought two years ago ‘to scatter my dead relatives ashes’ and I I’ll use my own bank card and provide my two mobile numbers one of which is logged with my employer, the metropolitan police, and I’ll hide all of the victim’s possessions in tunnels near where my dad had a garage and where I worked for seventeen years and no one will ever suspect me.

It’s clear that this guy’s colleagues have been covering up for him for years.

There’s bound to be more victims.

Peter Tobin is a case in point he was murdering young girls for tens of years and stopped when he was in jail for the rape and abduction of two young girls in Kent I think then was released and started killing again.
 
The question being, were the historic allegations nixed by the investigating officer due to the accused's status as a serving officer and, if this offending had been addressed, would he have had the oppurtunity to commit the crime to which he has recently confessed. All sounds very fishy. I'd like to see how this one gets buried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top