This Pair Of Elitist Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Public Office…

Recently I com­ment­ed on a Letter an aspir­ing Jamaica Labor Party Politician wrote to a media house in Jamaica as an open let­ter to the Commissioner of Police com­plain­ing about what he per­ceived to be police mis­con­duct met­ed out to him at the Half Way Tree Police station.

The aspir­ing politi­cian is Kent Phillip Gammon deputy spokesper­son on Justice and a mem­ber of the Labor Party.
I will allow him to speak for himself.

This is an open letter to the commissioner of police, Dr Carl Williams.

Re: (1) The func­tion­ing of the Half-Way-Tree Police Station on Saturday, May 23, 2015; (2) attor­neys-at-law required to pro­duce iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards from the General Legal Council.

I wish to share my expe­ri­ence with your con­sta­bles on Saturday, May 23 at approx­i­mate­ly 4 p.m. at the Half-Way Tree Police Station.

(A) Facts

(1) That day, I was called ear­ly in the after­noon by a con­cerned cit­i­zen with respect to the tak­ing into cus­tody of Glenroy Ricardo Walker on Friday, May 22, along Anderson Road in Woodford Park in St Andrew by Jamaica Constabulary Force con­sta­bles. I was told he was being held at the Half-Way Tree Police Station.

(2) I was asked to attend upon the Half-Way Tree Police Station to ascer­tain: (i) whether Mr Walker was actu­al­ly in cus­tody there and (ii) what he was being charged for.

(3) On arriv­ing at the Half-Way Tree Police Station, I parked by the hold­ing area to the back of the said sta­tion. I went to the two plain-clothes per­sons seat­ed at the desk and intro­duced myself. No one seat­ed intro­duced them­selves as would be com­mon courtesy.

(4) I was asked by the two seat­ed per­sons to show iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. I told them I didn’t have any iden­ti­fi­ca­tion from the General Legal Council (GLC) to iden­ti­fy myself as an attor­ney-at-law. I was told by the man and the woman that I had to pro­duce an iden­ti­fi­ca­tion card.

(5) I stat­ed that lawyers didn’t get IDs from the GLC and repeat­ed that I didn’t have any such ID. I pro­ceed­ed to ask if they had in their cus­tody one Glenroy Ricardo Walker.

(6) The two plain-clothes con­sta­bles told me they didn’t know that name and that I was to go to the front of the Half-Way Tree Police Station for more infor­ma­tion. Another female cor­po­ral then sat on the bench by the female plain-clothes con­sta­ble and in an unpleas­ant tone asked me my name. I gave my name again and she, too, asked me for identification.

(7) I repeat­ed to her that I didn’t have any iden­ti­fi­ca­tion from the General Legal Council to prove I was an attor­ney-at-law. She then told me I was not allowed in that area and I had to leave now.

(8) I then went to the front of the Half-Way Tree Police Station, where­upon I called back the con­cerned cit­i­zen who had called me ear­li­er that after­noon about Mr Walker to ascer­tain if he had his infor­ma­tion in fact cor­rect. The con­cerned cit­i­zen gave me a tele­phone num­ber for one Superintendent Bailey and told me that that was where Mr Walker had been tak­en into custody.

(9) After call­ing but not get­ting through to the num­ber, Supt Bailey called me on my cel­lu­lar with­in a very short peri­od of time. I told him who I was, he had no clue who I was either, and after explain­ing all in para­graphs (1), (2) and (5) above, I asked him if he could help. He was quite unhelpful.

(11) I was then direct­ed to a sergeant seat­ed in a room by the front desk and I again told him who I was and asked if he had Mr Walker in cus­tody. He, too, asked me for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and I had to repeat I didn’t have any iden­ti­fi­ca­tion from the General Legal Council (GLC) to iden­ti­fy myself as an attorney-at-law.

(12) He then told me I had to check with the con­sta­bles at the back of the Half-Way Tree Police Station to ascer­tain if Mr Walker was actu­al­ly in their custody.

(13) Obviously get­ting nowhere with any con­sta­ble at the sta­tion, I left hav­ing wast­ed approx­i­mate­ly 30 min­utes at the said station.

(14) On Tuesday, May 26, I then spoke to the con­cerned cit­i­zen who had called me ear­li­er the after­noon on Saturday, May 23. He told me that Mr Walker had been released from cus­tody that same day.

(B) Issues

(1) Are attor­neys-at-law now required to pro­duce iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards at the Half-Way Tree Police Station, or any oth­er police sta­tion, for that mat­ter, when they attend upon police sta­tions to see clients or poten­tial clients.

(2) How is it that per­sons tak­en into cus­tody at the Half-Way Tree Police Station are not record­ed in your cus­tody book so that attor­neys-at-law can know if their clients and/​or poten­tial clients are in the cus­tody of the State, i.e., a police station?

© Submissions

(1) Attorneys-at-law should not be told they have to leave any area of the police sta­tion unless they pose a threat to the safe­ty of police con­sta­bles and/​or indi­vid­u­als in custody.

(2) Attorneys-at-law should not have to pro­duce any iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards from the General Legal Council to prove they are attor­neys-at-law to any police con­sta­ble when an attor­ney-at-law attends upon a police sta­tion seek­ing infor­ma­tion about cit­i­zens who are in cus­tody of the State/​police sta­tions and who are clients and/​or poten­tial clients of those attorneys-at-law.

(D) Closing Comments

– Kent Gammon is an attor­ney-at-law and deputy oppo­si­tion spokesman on justice.

Clearly this guy is a law onto him­self, he could have pro­duced his driver’s licence he did not think the police should demand one.
Secondly he stat­ed quote: Attorneys-at-law should not be told they have to leave any area of the police sta­tion unless they pose a threat to the safe­ty of police con­sta­bles and/​or indi­vid­u­als in custody.
♦ (1) Does Kent Gammon have his name and title imprint­ed on his stu­pid fore­head? If not why should the police believe he is who he say he is.
Guaranteed, had they allowed him the access he demand­ed with­out ID, his let­ter would have been about sup­posed lax in the sys­tem of security .
♦(2)  Attorneys-at-law should not have to pro­duce any iden­ti­fi­ca­tion cards from the General Legal Council to prove they are attor­neys-at-law to any police con­sta­ble when an attor­ney-at-law attends upon a police sta­tion seek­ing infor­ma­tion about cit­i­zens who are in cus­tody of the State/​police sta­tions and who are clients and/​or poten­tial clients of those attorneys-at-law.
What a Jackass , you damn well bet­ter believe you must pro­duce Identification , who the hell do you think you are that every­one should know who you are?
♦ (3) What I find most dis­turb­ing was this state­ment by Kent Phillip Gammon : The con­cerned cit­i­zen gave me a tele­phone num­ber for one Superintendent Bailey and told me that that was where Mr Walker had been tak­en into cus­tody. (9) After call­ing but not get­ting through to the num­ber, Supt Bailey called me on my cel­lu­lar with­in a very short peri­od of time. I told him who I was, he had no clue who I was either, and after explain­ing all in para­graphs (1), (2) and (5) above, I asked him if he could help. He was quite unhelpful.

I had a few choice words for Gammon on see­ing the post, I also had a few words of advice for Andrew Holness the leader of the Labor Party then.
Here are the com­ments I made then.…

Gammon’s petu­lant lit­tle out­burst is not about police being a law onto them­selves, by his very own admis­sion, he threw a hissy-fit because none of the cops knew who he was or want­ed to kiss his ass.
Not the Constable, Not The Commanding Officer Fitz Bailey.
Gammon’s let­ter is cer­tain­ly not about any­thing the police did wrong .
It’s all about try­ing to make sure more peo­ple know who he was.
An epic fail .
This guy, by his atti­tude will be a drag on the par­ty . Elections are com­ing up pret­ty soon, the par­ty does not need to have the likes of Kent Phillip Gammon drag­ging it down.
It cer­tain­ly does not need him mak­ing ene­mies with the Police department.
I sug­gest Gammon hum­ble him­self and get his behind off his high horse, if he doesn’t, Andrew Holness should do it for him by show­ing him the door pronto.

A MERE 10 DAYS LATER ANOTHER JLP POLITICIAN CAME OUT SWINGING AGAINST THE POLICE FOR NO OTHER REASON BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ADVANCING THEIR OWN AGENDA.

Citizens’ Action for Principles and Integrity (CAPI) is warn­ing that a pro­posed over­sight body for the Independent Commission of Investigation (INDECOM) will dimin­ish the intend­ed inde­pen­dence of the inves­tiga­tive body and may ren­der its effec­tive­ness. The joint-select com­mit­tee of Parliament exam­in­ing the INDECOM Act pro­posed an over­sight body for the inves­tiga­tive and pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al body as its zeal­ous pros­e­cu­tion of mem­bers of the secu­ri­ty force is hav­ing a demor­al­is­ing effect. In a news release Friday, CAPI’s co-con­venor Dennis Meadows argued that INDECOM as a com­mis­sion of Parliament already has par­lia­men­tary over­sight in addi­tion to judi­cial scruti­ny. He added that, INDECOM’s finances and oper­a­tions are over­seen by the Auditor General and the Office of the Contractor General. “The gen­e­sis of INDECOM was out of an urgent need for an inde­pen­dent body to inves­ti­gate the mis­con­duct of police and oth­er agents of the State”, Meadows insisted.