Friday, 17 June 2011

Sergeant Kerwan is VERY upset


3 years ago I resigned from the English Police acrimoniously. My requests for an exit interview were denied or ignored and finally after 18 months of tenacity I was granted one, with the Assistant Chief Constable for Professional Standards. He made promises that he failed to keep when, a year or so later, the realignments and postings were announced in the wake of the British government's drastic budget cuts.

Today I finally have closure on this. Whisper on the underground grapevine is that Sergeant Kerwan is "VERY upset". 

Good.

Below are the e-mails....anonymous of course.


(And for anyone who still hasn't caught on. Sergeant Kerwan is an anagram of "Sergeant Wanker" and Daryl Esobe is an anagram of "Lardy Obese")

----------------------------------------------------


From: Lance Manley
Sent: 10th June 2011, 10.03pm
Subject: Promises


Dear Assistant Chief,

On 21st December 2009 you met with me and my former Federation rep to discuss my grievances against your constabulary and more specifically against my former supervisor Sergeant Kerwan and his deputy Daryl Esobe.
.
To my surprise and delight the meeting was everything I'd hoped it would be and was not the fob off I expected.

You were a complete gentleman, listened to everything I had to say and made assurances to me concerning the future of both that sergeant and his department.

I remember most when you said "I promise you now that sergeant will not hurt anyone else. While that will not help you, it will mean he can't do it again".

You elaborated on the above statement with "sometimes people are attracted to the job of probation trainer sergeant for the wrong reasons" and said further "that sergeant may have resented the fact that you knew you were more intelligent than he is".
You also reassured me that his department would be closed and said "I have to merge from 6 areas to 4, in light of what you´re telling me I will definitely be getting rid of that one".
Overall the one thing you said that made me realise you were giving credence to what I told you was "there are many things you've told me that I can't prove or disprove. It's your word against theirs. However, if you tell me they picked you up on how you walked then I have to believe you because you couldn't have made that up".

Now...from what I understand he is not only still in his post but is performing this role in  in the wake of the realignments after the government's horrendous budget cuts. Also, that he has not only "hurt" other people but has really excelled himself in the last year or so, with his treatment of 5 separate probationers.

I realise that since we spoke you have had an announcement from the government about hideous funding cuts so it is certainly not your fault that any decisions concerning the sergeant's future could not happen as soon as I would have liked

However...I would ask that you confirm to me that you intend to keep your promises. As I stated to you at the time I am not after compensation, I just want justice which is to know that he cannot ruin the lives of any more constables by being directly involved with  their development.

Something you do not know is that I had an autographed copy of my book STAB PROOF SCARECROWS in my bag which I fully intended to give you after that meeting was over. I instead chose not to as you were a gentleman and for the first time I was listened to fairly and objectively. To leave you with the book would have felt like I was insulting you.

So...with the Federation as my witness please can you confirm that you intend to keep the promises you made to me in that meeting.

Yours,
Lance Manley LLB (Hons)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Assistant Chief Constable
Sent: 13th June 2011, 9:34am
Subject: Re: Promises

Dear Mr. Manley,

Thank you for your note of the 10th June.  I do remember the meeting you refer to for I too thought it was a positive meeting with a reasonable outcome, in all the circumstances.

Sadly my recollection of some of the specific points is not at all as you have represented them.   By setting them out as quotations you imply that they are a verbatim record, perhaps from a contemporaneous note or recording, but they are not.

I did not accept that any individual officer had hurt or damaged you.  Though clearly I would accept that the whole process may have caused you some distress and discomfort.

I do accept that the quality of processes may not always be as good as they might be and that the rationalisation of them and changes in assessment and other processes may standardise and ensure consistent quality.  That is not to say that you were treated unfairly overall or that you could have become an effective officer had you joined elsewhere.

I do recall that you drew attention to some critical comments which were just so absurd that your accounts of them must have been true.  This was part of the basis on which I accepted that your supervision and training may have had some shortcomings.

I did not offer you any undertaking to remove any individual from post, it would hardly have been fair to do so and as most of the discussion was about the fairness of treatment that would not have been appropriate.

I fear that whilst there is much we agreed upon in our meeting there was no agreement about specific members of staff as you outlined.  Thus I cannot agree to your request.

Yours sincerely,
Assistant Chief Constable

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: Lance Manley
Sent: 15th June 2011, 12.18pm
Subject: Perspective

Dear Assistant Chief Constable,


Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your directness and honesty and having read this e-mail it appears we had different perspectives of what was discussed.

You did not promise to remove anyone from post, however you specifically stated that my old sergeant would be "supervised more closely" in future and that you would be closing down his department in light of what I told you (and due to the necessity to reduce from 9 areas to 7). However, as stated below, I am well aware of the chaotic time you have had in the last 18 months with wrenching changes and upheaval around both ACPO and the ranks.

My dissapointment stems from the fact that you were clearly speaking honestly to me in that meeting and were visibly embarrassed by what I told you. For me to be treated so badly by a sergeant  who sat there smiling as I cried and later tried to entrap me into lying to him and used backdated feedback to justify action plans (amongst MANY other things), who is now keeping his post while other officers have been laid off or given placements they don't want...well, it's distressing to say the least.

My former Chief Inspector Erika Postlethwaite said almost exactly the same things to me as Sergeant Kerwan. Difference was that Erika is a a professional and intelligent senior officer whereas Sergeant Kerwan is not. I bear her no grudges for anything she told me and to this day she has my complete respect.

Finally, I wish to reassure you that I did not make notes after that meeting, nor was I wearing a wire. The book I have had published was printed a week before I met with you. I have what is known as EEM or Enhanced Emotional Memory. It's like photographic memory but only for emotionally charged  situations.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to both grant me an exit interview and for this detailed reply.

Yours,
Lance Manley LLB (Hons)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Assistant Chief Constable
Sent: 16th June 2011, 11.01am
Subject: Re: Perspective

Dear Mr. Manley,

I am glad that we can still part on reasonable terms. 
  
Best wishes for the future.
Assistant Chief Constable 





No comments:

Post a Comment

Your turn to speak...
Feel free to disagree but insults and insinuations
will get your comment deleted.