Truth and secrecy in the police

In my last post, the penultimate comment that anon left several weeks after I posted and which I only spotted today (I couldn't find the time or inclination to write anything of late), came as I was about to comment on this, today.

If there were senior Met officers involved in this allegation published in today's `The Guardian` and they happened to be members of the secret organisation referred to previously, The Freemasons, how could anyone be certain that the real truth was being delivered to the public? I am not saying that the Freemason's are corrupt per se, far from it, as I know of several former colleagues who joined this organisation, who freely told me so and who, to my certain knowledge were, and probably still are, totally honest and upstanding and doubtless do nothing but good for that organisation and what it stands for along with the vast majority of their fellows. Rotten eggs can appear anywhere.

I have recently heard things from very trustworthy people about some very serious past goings-on that do not appear to have been dealt with in the manner that would have been expected and with no logical explanation beyond the notion that someone's bad deeds were hidden, rather than exposed, with help that could only have come from fairly near the top of the food chain. Any secret society can end up with less that honourable members who did not join for the right reasons but did so merely in order to help themselves. When those less than honourable people happen to include very senior police officers, the pressures to save the skins of ones fellows within a secret fellowship create a game of very high stakes. When there is reasonable doubt in the trustworthiness of police or any other body of officialdom, there is a credibility issue and this needs to be reduced to the smallest possible level, with total eradication being the objective, very tall though that particular order may be. Secret organisations within bodies such as the police do not help to either eradicate or reduce that reasonable doubt.

Having heard what I've heard, including former Met Commissioner Paul Condon's `not on my watch` response in today's media, I'm sad to say that what has been printed in The Guardian does not leave me in disbelief. So, Baron Condon, how can you be sure you weren't given a runaround?  I reiterate, how will they ever unravel the truth?

Operation Yewtree (and other enquires that remain anonymous)

I wonder how this major enquiry is getting on?

I'm sure it must be difficult at times, facing all the dead-ends and obstructions. Even amongst honourable people there must be other pressures that thwart, frustrate and obstruct. Honourable people in all organisations (even organisations within organisations) have, amongst their number, dis-honourable people who for one reason or another have their own reason to remain quiet. How will they ever unravel the truth?