The honesty of Met chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe called into question

Gree 100% with everything you wrote Mirage.

They don't give a stuff, they hold the masses in utter contempt, they are sociopaths whose life work is about power and self promotion.

V

jeanmonroe wrote:Signed by the assistant chief constable of Leicestershire it runs:

“While one or both of them (the McCanns) may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about that, DCI Redwood?

And would you care to pass a comment on that, on the record, 'statement'?

A one word 'reply will do.

You can select one from the following, if you like.

LUDICROUS
HURTFUL
RIDICULOUS
UNHELPFUL
DISGUSTING
DISPICABLE
BALONY
BULLS*IT
PATHETIC
DEVASTATING (perhaps not)

You forgot one. -  TRUTHFUL. 

Understandably, most of us avoid the graphic details of what we think may have happened to the missing child, Its too real, it takes us into areas we want to avoid, so we focus on the crimes that have been committed since 3rd May.

However, the reality is, at the heart of this, lies a heinous crime and the body of a child has been disposed of.  It chills me to the bone to imagine the mentality behind those who are willing to cover it up.  

Last night I watched a documentary about Marc Dutroux, a serial killer and child molester who murdered 6 young girls in Belgium.  As horrific as Dutroux's crimes were, it was more horrific to discover the authorities actively assisted in covering up what he was doing.  A senior official even went so far as to deny hearing the voices of two little girls imprisoned in the basement of Dutroux's house when it was searched - the little girls were later found dead.  The people of Belgium took to the streets in protest and their entire judicial system was overhauled, but it will never be forgotten that the crimes that were uncovered went right to the heart of the Belgian government.  

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell wrote:
Last night I watched a documentary about Marc Dutroux, a serial killer and child molester who murdered 6 young girls in Belgium.  As horrific as Dutroux's crimes were, it was more horrific to discover the authorities actively assisted in covering up what he was doin

I'm unfamiliar with the case and didn't see the documentary - what was the authorities motivation for the cover up?

Cristobell wrote:

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Well i'll kick off with this question.

WHY did Theresa May 'appoint' BHH to be Met Comissioner, after Stephenson 'resigned' and with the 'review' and her 'money no object' already set up?

She had many 'options' for the post of Met Comissioner.

Did she 'appoint' a symphathetic 'supporter' of the McCanns, re his Liverpool tenure, having firmly nailed her colours to the mast to achieve a satisfactory 'review/investigation' outcome for the McCanns?

DCI Redwood ultimately 'reports' to her 'appointee' BHH.

Who has spoken, publicly, on the 'torment' of 'the poor McCanns'

I fully expect another 'revelation' tomorrow(23rd) or Monday (24th) from the Met, or even BHH himself,  before the libel court case sits in session again on Tuesday 25th February 2014.

Team McCann? BHH certainly seems to be a player on that 'team'!

As Cameron was on Team Nigella, even though there was a 'live' court case in progress.

ETA: On the BIG QUESTIONS 'show (BBC 1, 10:00am) tomorrow hosted by Nicky Campbell they are asking about 'hate crime'

A pound to a penny, he manages to get the McCanns 'mentioned' as 'victims' of 'hate crime'

And skips over their total neglect and their, and their's ONLY, consciously, creating the opportunity that enabled their daughter's 'disappearance'

AndyB wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
Last night I watched a documentary about Marc Dutroux, a serial killer and child molester who murdered 6 young girls in Belgium.  As horrific as Dutroux's crimes were, it was more horrific to discover the authorities actively assisted in covering up what he was doin

I'm unfamiliar with the case and didn't see the documentary - what was the authorities motivation for the cover up?

It was an old docmentary that I watched on Youtube Andy, and there is a mile of information about him on the internet. He was part of an evil paedophile ring that went right to the heart of the Belgian government.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mirage - sadly I have to agree with your post - having come to the same conclusion, as I suspect you have, quite some time ago. 

I really don't see how this case will come to an acceptable resolution any day soon. Those who feel that stuff is happening behind the scenes,  I applaud your optimism, but mine, I'm afraid, left me along time ago on this case. All the hope I have is in Snr Amaral. Who is one of those very rare people not to cave in to outside pressure. He wasn't and still isn't prepared to tow the line. This man is so brave and I truly believe that if it wasn't for him that this case may have been, imo, whitewashed in the public eye. But as it is....He's still holding on in there, this small man - who is not swayed by politicians/Popes/Millionaire Business Men and Celebrities. Let's hope he stays well and strong.

Cristobell wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
Last night I watched a documentary about Marc Dutroux, a serial killer and child molester who murdered 6 young girls in Belgium.  As horrific as Dutroux's crimes were, it was more horrific to discover the authorities actively assisted in covering up what he was doin

I'm unfamiliar with the case and didn't see the documentary - what was the authorities motivation for the cover up?

It was an old docmentary that I watched on Youtube Andy, and there is a mile of information about him on the internet. He was part of an evil paedophile ring that went right to the heart of the Belgian government.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So the cover up wasn't to protect Dutroux, it was to protect the rich and powerful paedophiles at the heart of the Belgian government. Given the recent articles about various senior Labour politicians, and the older articles about the imminent arrest of a former Conservative minister for paedophilia, I can't help but wonder if we aren't seeing a similar scandal to that of the Dutroux cover up being played out today for very similar reasons: That there is a paedophilia element to the MM case and our authorities are very concerned that skeletons may start coming out of the cupboard if its investigated properly

What a thought-provoking post, Cristobell.
Like you, there are 'places I don't want to go'. Who amongst us was not shocked by 'p.129'?

I think it would be true to say that despite the fact that the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the accounts presented of what happened on 3rd May 2007 are what keep us searching for the Truth, what motivates forum members is the fact that a defenceless three year old has disappeared.    Bernard Hogan -Howe may well feel compelled to refer to the torment  of the parents. I am saddened that he did not refer to the suffering of 'that little girl' Madeleine.

Actually, there could be some truth in BHH's use of the word torment.  I think if they were  involved, then they will be tormented by their memories, Kate in particular.  Suffering or pain would have been a better word to use, as would be used to describe any grieving parent who has lost a child. 

Pain and suffering following the loss of a loved one but Torment conjures up more a feeling of guilt to me, although I don't think Howe used it with that in mind.

Cristobell wrote:

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell, if the McCanns tell us they were stupid for leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment, then I have become convinced that there was no stupidity, no 3 toddlers alone. The McCanns trade being 'guilty of neglect' for 'the possibility of an abductor'. They tell us from the start that their abductor(s) are paedophiles in case Madeleine's body is ever found with signs of abuse. They tell us the twins were drugged by an abductor to account for the twin's behaviour as observed by the PJ. Everything we are told we are only told because it plays some part in keeping them above justice, I am now certain of that.

My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

For some reason Amaral and Pat Brown both take a kind of 'middle ground' by putting forward the view that Madeleine died by tragic accident as the result of neglect by the parents. That leaves us all wracking our brains trying to work out what strange set of circumstance could drive a group of people to collude together to simulate abduction. It's hard because the only thing we can think of is child sexual abuse; that alone seems to justify the lengths they've gone to.

But if there's no neglect, then there's also no tragic accident. But there is simulation of an abduction and concealment of a child's body - the dogs tell us that.

Occam's razor tells me death, not accidental and - because they tell us so early on - involving child sexual abuse and drugging.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell, if the McCanns tell us they were stupid for leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment, then I have become convinced that there was no stupidity, no 3 toddlers alone. The McCanns trade being 'guilty of neglect' for 'the possibility of an abductor'. They tell us from the start that their abductor(s) are paedophiles in case Madeleine's body is ever found with signs of abuse. They tell us the twins were drugged by an abductor to account for the twin's behaviour as observed by the PJ. Everything we are told we are only told because it plays some part in keeping them above justice, I am now certain of that.

My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

For some reason Amaral and Pat Brown both take a kind of 'middle ground' by putting forward the view that Madeleine died by tragic accident as the result of neglect by the parents. That leaves us all wracking our brains trying to work out what strange set of circumstance could drive a group of people to collude together to simulate abduction. It's hard because the only thing we can think of is child sexual abuse; that alone seems to justify the lengths they've gone to.

But if there's no neglect, then there's also no tragic accident. But there is simulation of an abduction and concealment of a child's body - the dogs tell us that.

Occam's razor tells me death, not accidental and - because they tell us so early on - involving child sexual abuse and drugging.

Good post PP, pretty much what I've thought since the beginning once the story telling began. In my opinion it is one of only a very few possible reasons for the Tapas silence/behaviors and also the support from on high where as has been demonstrated many times, paedophilia is rife. I do think however that it could have been accidental but there was an obvious need to get rid of the body.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell, if the McCanns tell us they were stupid for leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment, then I have become convinced that there was no stupidity, no 3 toddlers alone. The McCanns trade being 'guilty of neglect' for 'the possibility of an abductor'. They tell us from the start that their abductor(s) are paedophiles in case Madeleine's body is ever found with signs of abuse. They tell us the twins were drugged by an abductor to account for the twin's behaviour as observed by the PJ. Everything we are told we are only told because it plays some part in keeping them above justice, I am now certain of that.

My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

For some reason Amaral and Pat Brown both take a kind of 'middle ground' by putting forward the view that Madeleine died by tragic accident as the result of neglect by the parents. That leaves us all wracking our brains trying to work out what strange set of circumstance could drive a group of people to collude together to simulate abduction. It's hard because the only thing we can think of is child sexual abuse; that alone seems to justify the lengths they've gone to.

But if there's no neglect, then there's also no tragic accident. But there is simulation of an abduction and concealment of a child's body - the dogs tell us that.

Occam's razor tells me death, not accidental and - because they tell us so early on - involving child sexual abuse and drugging.

ppp i think you,ve nailed it. it would also explain the behavior of rm.rushing to pdl.acting as patsy and possible provider of storage space for a body!

btw  as  for time of death i,ll go for  late tuesday 1st may when mrs fern heard the crying and early wednesday 2nd may when km was calling her friend,at the crack of dawn.imo

The MET is an organization that is rife with politics and corruption, always has been and always will be. So rife in fact that in the past 'whistleblowers' have had to leave the country for fear of repercussions. 

As previously mentioned HOWE is a political appointment and as such answers to MAY.

REDWOOD answers to HOWE and make no mistake he has been told what the outcome of the 'investigation' is.

ProfessorPPlum and i also agree with your addition Hong Kong Phooey ; -)

I only stumbled on this forum 6 months ago. I have been on here everyday since.
Finally joined today : -) so 1st post.

Would like to a say a big THANK YOU to all of you for sharing  your fascinating insight and research which i have become totally addicted to.

 

ProfessorPPlum wrote:My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

Exactly spot on.  They refuse to say sorry for something they did not do.  They have absolutely refused to take any responsibility for those actions, as we know it was the abductors fault.

[quote="Stay Free"

I only stumbled on this forum 6 months ago. I have been on here everyday since.
Finally joined today : -) so 1st post.

Would like to a say a big THANK YOU to all of you for sharing  your fascinating insight and research which i have become totally addicted to.

 [/quote]

You're not 'our Kate' from Rothley, are you?

Because her 'tag' would surely be STAY FREE!

JOKING!     

  Stay Free

jeanmonroe wrote:[quote="Stay Free"

I only stumbled on this forum 6 months ago. I have been on here everyday since.
Finally joined today : -) so 1st post.

Would like to a say a big THANK YOU to all of you for sharing  your fascinating insight and research which i have become totally addicted to.

 

You're not 'our Kate' from Rothley, are you?

Because her 'tag' would surely be STAY FREE!

JOKING!     [/quote]
Hahaha. Great minds think alike and you beat me to it, Jean. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell, if the McCanns tell us they were stupid for leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment, then I have become convinced that there was no stupidity, no 3 toddlers alone. The McCanns trade being 'guilty of neglect' for 'the possibility of an abductor'. They tell us from the start that their abductor(s) are paedophiles in case Madeleine's body is ever found with signs of abuse. They tell us the twins were drugged by an abductor to account for the twin's behaviour as observed by the PJ. Everything we are told we are only told because it plays some part in keeping them above justice, I am now certain of that.

My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

For some reason Amaral and Pat Brown both take a kind of 'middle ground' by putting forward the view that Madeleine died by tragic accident as the result of neglect by the parents. That leaves us all wracking our brains trying to work out what strange set of circumstance could drive a group of people to collude together to simulate abduction. It's hard because the only thing we can think of is child sexual abuse; that alone seems to justify the lengths they've gone to.

But if there's no neglect, then there's also no tragic accident. But there is simulation of an abduction and concealment of a child's body - the dogs tell us that.

Occam's razor tells me death, not accidental and - because they tell us so early on - involving child sexual abuse and drugging.

Good post PP, pretty much what I've thought since the beginning  once the story telling began. In my opinion it is one of only a very few possible reasons for the Tapas silence/behaviors and also the support from on high where as has been demonstrated many times, paedophilia is rife. I do think however that it could have been accidental but there was an obvious need to get rid of the body.

Excellent post. The neglect is purely to enable an abduction. Nothing more. Well, it also served a purpose as i got people discussing the issue of neglect for years and years, rather than getting closer to the real story.

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:The MET is an organization that is rife with politics and corruption, always has been and always will be. So rife in fact that in the past 'whistleblowers' have had to leave the country for fear of repercussions. 

As previously mentioned HOWE is a political appointment and as such answers to MAY.

REDWOOD answers to HOWE and make no mistake he has been told what the outcome of the 'investigation' is.

Its not going to be easy for Redwood to find a solution which fits the bill...

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

As the case of Missing Madeleine stands, a little girl is missing, and the most likely explanation is that she died as a result of an accident while her parents were at dinner.  The actions of the McCanns that night, were unbelievably stupid, leaving 3 toddlers alone in an unfamiliar apartment was an accident waiting to happen.  

If the British Government are prepared to spend £7m+ and counting, to clear the names of this unsavoury pair, then the questions we ask must become much, much, bigger.

Cristobell, if the McCanns tell us they were stupid for leaving 3 toddlers alone in an apartment, then I have become convinced that there was no stupidity, no 3 toddlers alone. The McCanns trade being 'guilty of neglect' for 'the possibility of an abductor'. They tell us from the start that their abductor(s) are paedophiles in case Madeleine's body is ever found with signs of abuse. They tell us the twins were drugged by an abductor to account for the twin's behaviour as observed by the PJ. Everything we are told we are only told because it plays some part in keeping them above justice, I am now certain of that.

My wife keeps saying how she is struck by the fact that the McCanns never showed any guilt, regret or shame for leaving the children alone so that Madeleine could come to harm. I keep thinking how, on the few occasions they have ever spoken about their 'regret' about leaving the children unattended they look and sound like they're lying. They don't show guilt for leaving the children alone because....they didn't leave them alone in an unlocked apartment. Occam's razor yet again.

For some reason Amaral and Pat Brown both take a kind of 'middle ground' by putting forward the view that Madeleine died by tragic accident as the result of neglect by the parents. That leaves us all wracking our brains trying to work out what strange set of circumstance could drive a group of people to collude together to simulate abduction. It's hard because the only thing we can think of is child sexual abuse; that alone seems to justify the lengths they've gone to.

But if there's no neglect, then there's also no tragic accident. But there is simulation of an abduction and concealment of a child's body - the dogs tell us that.

Occam's razor tells me death, not accidental and - because they tell us so early on - involving child sexual abuse and drugging.

I'm beginning to think along those lines too PP. Its the lack of grief that is bugging me. Time and time again, we have seen tragic parents on our television screens who are literally poleaxed with grief. They cannot mention the name of their missing/murdered love one without their eyes filling with tears. Their faces crumple, they don't remain serene, delicately wiping away a single tear that leaves their make up intact (see Antenna interview).

Studying the behaviour of Narcissistic mothers, they often divide their children eg, Golden Child/Black Sheep. The Black Sheep will take the blame for everything. Its horribly cruel, but sadly, horribly common. The McCanns have never looked devastated by their loss, in fact in the pictures of that summer of 2007, they look as though they have been relieved of a huge weight. I have no wish to be cruel, and I hate myself for saying it, but the more they push the 'perfect happy family', the more suspicious I become.

jeanmonroe wrote:[quote="Stay Free"

I only stumbled on this forum 6 months ago. I have been on here everyday since.
Finally joined today : -) so 1st post.

Would like to a say a big THANK YOU to all of you for sharing  your fascinating insight and research which i have become totally addicted to.

 

You're not 'our Kate' from Rothley, are you?

Because her 'tag' would surely be STAY FREE!

JOKING!     [/quote]

Hi Jeanmonroe.
Love your posts  

When i was thinking of a username , your line of thought had occurred to me : -)

However, it is simply my favourite song by one of my favourite bands.

Stay Free - The Clash   

Scotland Yard's IT chief gets £400,000 package

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Civilian worker Ailsa Beaton handed substantial salary and compensation package, new figures reveal, while chief police officers across England and Wales received perks and bonuses

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is the highest-paid chief officer in England and Wales, with a total package of £281,000

David Barrett

By  David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

8:00PM BST 08 May 2014

 
A police employee took home a pay package totalling nearly three times the Prime Minister’s salary last year, it has emerged, as comprehensive figures on senior police salaries were published for the first time.


Ailsa Beaton, the Metropolitan Police’s former director of information, received just under £400,000 last year, including nearly £170,000 in compensation for “loss of office”.


The IT specialist’s total remuneration for 2012/13 was £397,514, including a basic salary of just under £194,000, figures from the College of Policing disclosed.


The civilian employee’s package, which also included more than £33,000 in pension contributions, approached nearly three times the salary of David Cameron, the Prime Minister, which currently stands at £142,500 and which is seen as an upper benchmark for public sector pay.


The reason for Miss Beaton’s compensation package has not been explained by Scotland Yard, though it did say it was under a “contractual liability” to pay the sum.

However, a damning report by the London Assembly - published shortly after she left the force - said the Met’s ability to solve crime was being hampered by out-of-date technology, some of which dated back to the 1970s.

Miss Beaton worked at Scotland Yard for 12 years and was responsible for devising how the force would use social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, and for introducing a range of new computer systems including mobile technology for frontline officers.


Miss Beaton, 56, who was awarded an OBE in 2010 for services to policing, still works in the public sector as a non-executive member of the Information Commissioner’s Office, and is also an independent director of the company which oversees the banking industry’s Bacs payment scheme.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Miss Beaton received a voluntary exit payment in line with standard civil service terms. This is the same package that has been, and continues to be, offered to many hundreds of Met police staff as we seek to transform our organisation and reduce our support service costs.

“Miss Beaton was eligible to depart under a voluntary exit arrangement because of the new corporate direction regarding our IT transformation and its requirement for sustained leadership over a period longer than which Miss Beaton could reasonably commit to.”

The College of Policing’s figures also showed how Norfolk chief constable Phil Gormley - who has since moved to become deputy director of the National Crime Agency - received benefits in kind worth £58,038 last year.

The sum was paid on top of his £168,000 salary, helping to bring his total remuneration to £261,981.

Although Norfolk is one of the country’s smaller forces with 1,500 officers, the payment helped catapult Mr Gormley into the top 10 highest-earning chief constables in England and Wales.

Today’s data also disclosed how several chief constables accepted bonuses despite widespread concern that the payments were inappropriate at a time of shrinking numbers of frontline officers.

Many chief constables have refused to take bonuses.

But Carmel Napier, the former chief constable of Gwent, received a bonus of £6,653 for the year ending March 2013, while her force was losing frontline officers. In the year to September Gwent’s total number of officers fell by more than 3 per cent to 1,367.

Miss Napier, who left the force last June, told MPs she was told to “resign or be humiliated” by the new police and crime commisioner, Ian Johnson, who denied putting any inappropriate pressure on the officer.

Money confiscated by police

Sara Thornton, the Thames Valley chief constable accepted a bonus of £8,015 in the figures covering 2012-13, although officer numbers in her force remained stable over the period.

Other bonuses paid to senior officers which were disclosed in the documents included:

• Almost £14,000 awarded to an unnamed deputy chief constable in Hampshire, on top of their £109,940 salary.

• An assistant chief constable in Norfolk, who was also unnamed, took home a £10,282 bonus on top of their £127,128 salary last year, while another West Mercia officer of the same rank collected a £10,585 bonus.

• An unnamed assistant chief constable in Merseyside received a £1,573 bonus on top of their £93,000 salary.

Latest Home Office figures show the number of police in England and Wales has reached the lowest level since 2002, with 128,251 officers, down 3,500 or 2.6 per cent year-on-year.

The new Pay and Rewards Register brings together details from forces’ accounts on a single website for the first time.

It shows chief constables in England and Wales were paid more than £7.5 million in combined salaries, benefits and pension contributions last year.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who leads the biggest police force in England and Wales, received the highest pay package, including pension contributions, in 2012-13 at £281,273.

Alex Marshall, College of Policing chief executive, said: “The publication of this new register is part of the college’s integrity programme, and allows the public to scrutinise what pay and rewards chief officers receive.”

The British public may be able to scrutinise what pay and rewards senior officers get, but the Powers That Be take sod all notice of our complaints about it all.  Just like the politicians laugh in our faces.

They really do think we are taken in by all their BS.