Quick's marching orders: too harsh, or just right?

by Stephen Tall on April 9, 2009

Bob Quick, “Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer” as he’s known to every paper, has resigned after he was photographed yesterday outside Number 10 holding an outline briefing on an on-going counter-terrorism operation inadvertently exposing the names of several senior officers, locations and details about the nature of the overseas threat.

It prompts two questions in my mind.

First, are we holding public figures in senior office to the right standard?

No-one is suggesting Bob Quick deliberately leaked the briefing. Clearly he’d just been reading it in the car in preparation for a meeting, and didn’t think to put it back in his folder to conceal its contents from the media’s telescopic lenses. If all of us got fired for elementary blunders like that, few of us would be in a job. Then again, not many of us are employed as Assistant Commissioner (Specialist Operations) of London’s Metropolitan Police Service responsible for counter terrorism within the United Kingdom. Nor is this Mr Quick’s first offence: just last December, he hot-headedly accused the Tories of corruption, alleging they were undermining his leak investigation following the Met’s bizarre arrest of Damian Green.

Of course, politicians hold themselves to different standards: famously, not a single Labour politician resigned over the failure to find WMD in Iraq, their pretext for a war which was the most catastrophic British foreign policy blunder since Suez. And it’s not just politicians: Bob Quick’s old boss as Metropolitan Commissionaire Sir Ian Blair declined to take responsibility for the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, until he was eventually forced out of his job by London mayor Boris Johnson.

My second question is this: to what extent should politicians involve themselves in these hiring and firing decisions?

Michael Howard notoriously came unstuck when questioned by Jeremy Paxman about whether he had threatened as Tory home secretary to over-rule prisons director-general Derek Lewis when he suspended a prison governor. Since then politicians have been understandably reticent about appearing to interfere in operational management decisions over which they have no direct control (and, it could be argued, competence).

This seems to be at least part of the explanation for Tory shadow home secretary Chris Grayling’s hand-wringing performance on last night’s BBC Newsnight, refusing to answer the question of whether he thought Mr Quick should be fired, and instead falling back on those stand-by politician weasel-words, “there are serious questions to be answered”. (Which might also have something of course to do with Mr Quick’s role in the Damian Green affair).

I’ll leave the last word to Lib Dem shadow home secretary Chris Huhne who responded briefly to Mr Quick’s resignation with these telling words:

This was the right decision from Bob Quick. He resigned from a position of great responsibility in an honourable way. This should be a lesson to his political masters when they commit similar misjudgements and mistakes.”

No comments

Guilty – of being a pillock.

If only Cressida Dick had behaved as honourably after her much more serious mistake.

by simonsez on April 9, 2009 at 10:38 am. Reply #

Quick had to go.

His actions yesterday were inconsistent with a senior police officer, inconsistent with the safe handling of intelligence and have left the whole of the Merseyside force needing counselling!

Incompetence at its highest. If only the Home Secretary would take her cue from Quick.


by Dungeekin on April 9, 2009 at 10:42 am. Reply #

So, Quick went, honourably and as he probably should have done. And, like his name he didn’t hang about. However, this is not the most serious Police blunder in recent days – what of the investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson? That doesn’t seem to be being progressed with any speed or competence. I think that is the priority for the Police at the moment.

by Caron on April 9, 2009 at 10:48 am. Reply #

Has Quick resigned from this position and continues to be employed or has he resigned from the force.

by Kevin on April 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm. Reply #

Yes, Kevin has a very pertinent point. I don’t think he should be sacked as a copper, lose his pension, etc., even though this is a serious error. His experience is worth something at a different level in the Met.

by Terry Gilbert on April 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm. Reply #

The ambivalence of Mr Grayling may be due to a deeper issue.

On the one hand, we want to hold senior police officers accountable. On the other, we want to keep the ability of the police to investigate senior politicians without fear of removal by the Home Secretary.

If we could trust either party to be good solid people, then this conflict would be easy to resolve. However, human nature being what it is, we cannot

by Voter on April 9, 2009 at 9:11 pm. Reply #

It’s refreshing to see someone doing the decent and honourable thing for once.

by Iainm on April 9, 2009 at 9:26 pm. Reply #

The resignation does not strike me as particularly honourable.

It was a serious security breach universally recognised and the man jumped before he was pushed.

Seeing the writing on the wall may be astute but this does not qualify as honour.

Given the man’s previous history of lashing out at the Tories, he strikes me as something of a loose cannon.

We seem to continue to support poor performing police in this country

by Voter on April 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.