are two rules in the Bermuda police service:
for the lower ranks
for the senior / complainant ranks
Carlton ‘Socky’ Adams, in April 2001
this ‘policeman’ was made the Assistant Commissioner for police
for the island. Socky
is a Bermuda Officer who, incapable of rising above others, drags them below his level.
That Socky has been promoted well
beyond his ability is evidence those who make the decisions are easily
fooled, have their heads in the sand or have a lack of choice.
Socky’s promotion is political; it
makes no sense otherwise. Socky’s
promotion is not based on ability unless one considers his success
existing as a leach.
the example of the discipline case detailed on this site at Oppression.
officer against whom Socky complained was
found not guilty. Ask
answer is very simple; Socky could not
investigate his way out of a paper bag. or to quote a very British
phrase; he could not find his arse-hole with a mirror and a magnifying
Socky saw what, in his limited ability and prejudiced mind, is an
offence. His knee-jerk
reaction is to make the complaint.
Evidence is not considered; if the actions breach ‘Socky’s
law’, it follows the suspect must be guilty; surely no one would
question him – a ‘detective’?
reality is that Socky is a nasty piece of
work. One is ‘guilty
without question’ if Socky is involved in your case.
The niceties of proceeding within a structured frame and
compiling evidence, considering the alternatives are beyond the Socky
school of prosecution.
the case of Oppression, the person who
Socky complained against was found ‘not guilty’.
What a shock to Socky, what a knock-back, what an affront to his
masculinity; testosterone-charged Socky (oh
yes, he would brag about his sexual conquests) must accept that he was
evidence was worthless – pathetic and blinkered
investigation was limited – he asked no questions and did not consider
the circumstances in detail
reporting was incredible – not even a pocket-book entry and his
computer record did not exist. Despite
being a ‘supervisor’ Socky had not learned the basics of the
computer and was incapable of submitting a computer report.
The very person who should have been teaching was incapable of
did the case conclude? The
person against whom Socky complained was found not guilty.
could not prove his case – there was not offence. Socky had
hoped that his bullyboy tactics would succeed.
As far as he was concerned, the case was won; a Bermudian officer
had already capitulated under his tyrannical personality and entered a
plea of guilty.
people give in to Socky. The
charge made by Socky in Oppression
case was minor. However,
Socky saw it as an opportunity to place another notch in his belt. It is often suggested police officers are judged on the
number of people they ‘book’ (give tickets or arrest).
When you are seeking promotion, the easiest means of getting
noticed and ahead, is to complain against your fellow officers.
warn everyone – to Socky you are insignificant, a means to an end.
Socky has almost achieved his goal.
Beware; he has certainly been promoted well beyond his abilities
conclusion of the Oppression complaint was this:
person charged, a good, reliable English officer was found not guilty.
Socky was considered to be oppressive, naive and vindictive.
A complaint was submitted against him for:
to maintain pocket book record
to update the police computer
do I know? I made the allegation. Such
was Socky’s evidence that a senior officer met with me during the
trial (disciplinary hearing) of the English officer to discuss a means
to resolve the matter. I
was to plead that the offence could not technically have been committed.
This would not only bring an end to the prosecution case, it
would also be a means by which the allegation could be quashed without
loss of face to the prosecutors.
it had been the defence who had already raised this objection – we
knew our case was won. The
senior officer accepted that Socky was out of his depth and had
progressed the complaint with unknown vehemence.
Furthermore, it was evident Socky was incompetent; simplistic to
the point of being childish.
was agreed we (the defence) would back down; we would submit a case of
‘no case to answer’. We did so, but made allegations (as above) against Socky.
The court noted our comments.
The defendant was found ‘not guilty’ furthermore the person
who entered a plea of guilty had this rescinded.
was the subject of a complaint (as above).
The matter was never investigated!
the complaint remains unresolved, outstanding.
There is a prima facie case that Socky is an incompetent,
anyone wishes to contradict the content of the above, I refer him or her
to the papers relating to the case of PC Richardson – the Oppression
word to those who will be subjected to the Law of Carlton ‘Socky’
Adams; relax, the devil is in the detail or, more accurately, the devil
is unable to appreciate the detail – do not underestimate the
least the new rank should bring with it financial reward and Socky will
be able to pay more attention to his finances, paying his bills on time:
to the throne, this man should be approached with caution. Not demonstrating the outward maliciousness of Carlton Adams,
he is only slightly better endowed mentally.
The standing joke in the office was to ask George a question
whilst he was talking about a different subject.
As he attempted to address the new topic, the original was
forgotten. It mattered not
how important the material, diverting his single track mind was amusingly
Keep George amused; put him in a round room and ask him to stand
in the corner; bless him.
George has another side; his gruff, barking formality thinly coats the
hollow vessel that is the supposed investigator / leader.
In addition, he has an incredible equilibrium, possibly a low
centre of gravity; his
ability to sit on a fence appears masterly until you understand he is a
‘yes’ man without an original thought to contribute.
The silence is easily mistaken for contemplation but in truth it
is evidence of nothing more than a vacuum.
means well but appeared torn between two camps; being loyal to those
with whom he worked and sacrificing them for his own ends.
Socky, in a fair and just police service, would be a danger to himself,
George would never proceed beyond sergeant rank or be trusted to
undertake important decisions. George
appears to pass the buck with relative ease; no one would believe he
could have mastered the complications of a plan to orchestrate the
downfall of another. They’d
be right. George lets things happen around him and plods along without
causing waves, always at least one step behind.
George has a dark side but is sufficiently friendly
with his clique to ensure no one thinks ill of him; his indiscretions
are overlooked, tolerated (in 2002 it is alleged he rebuked a visiting
congressman for being late ... self importance, arrogance or plain
first hand knowledge of the man following many meetings and providing
much assistance when overseeing enquiries, I am able to confirm his
limited capabilities. I do not trust the
man. I do not accept his
word. He is one of the few
who are able to create the impression of being concerned and willing to
assist whilst only helping himself .
above must seem harsh, so some examples:
never admitted to tape recording a conversation with a Barrister.
It happened. The transcript of the conversation
between George and
will appear on the pages of
Furthermore, it was George who demanded the
original tape recording of my conversation with the US police officer in
which Dennis Ramsey (former head of Narcotics) and Julian Hall (former
Shadow Minister for Justice) were named in the drug importation
investigation. George was not content with a copy
of the tape.
I was concerned it would ‘disappear’.
After I was told my contract was not to be renewed, the tape was
never mentioned again – no one was interested in the information, they
just wished to ensure it was suppressed.
was George Jackson who presented me before the Commissioner of Police in
1990 and who was present when I was advised my contract was not to be
renewed. George said
nothing. Somehow he failed
to mention that it was he who ordered me to report directly to him and
not the then Chief Inspector, Dennis Ramsey; George's and my boss.
Somehow this important order was never raised. I was accused of ‘bucking authority’. Is it surprising that this impression was caused (or
enhanced) when I was operating under such a direction?
front of George Jackson the then Commissioner of Police, Clive Donald,
said I was not to return to the narcotics department or become
in any further narcotics investigation.
So incompetent were George and his narcotics office cronies that,
within days, I was telephoned.
George, contrary to the C.O.P's order, requested that I attend the narcotics office to assist
with another drugs raid; he left a message on my answer machine.
The tape forms only part of the evidence that George failed to
ensure the Commissioner’s order was carried out and that he was guilty
of acting contrary to the Commissioner’s direction.
only was I asked to return to the narcotics office to become involved in
a new investigation (which was a catastrophe – see: Seney),
but I was subsequently asked to return and assist with organising and
presenting the exhibits for the Miranda
enquiry. This did not
involve me returning for a day to catalogue times; it required weeks in
is evidenced by this site, I used the time wisely.
It was during this period that I photocopied hundreds (if not
thousands) of documents and acquired the evidence that now forms these
pages, the information contained within
Just how bright do you
believe George is now?
was George Jackson who provided me the ability to acquire the
information I required. Contrary
to the then Commissioner of Police’s order, he allowed me to return to
the narcotics office. How
naive is George? Extremely!
doubt George will, in the future, expect his officer’s to comply with
orders of senior Officers, his orders; dual standards?
If George flaunts orders, why should anyone believe he has any
respect for the chain of command?
what of his other indiscretions that are quietly ignored or swept under
the carpet? How about the
use of blank (signed) search warrants?
When I made the allegation these warrants were being used by the
narcotics office an investigation was initiated. Apparently, everyone was interviewed,
to include George. Did George admit to
knowing about them?
Presumably not, it has always been denied that they were used and to
admit to knowing of their existence and taking no action is acquiesce by
silence; makes you party to the 'crime'.
they exist (as is demonstrated by this site,
www.bermudapolice.com see – warrant)
furthermore, George was directly associated with them; he endorsed the
obtaining of them and their subsequent use.
This is a very serious allegation – George Jackson was
involved in the illegal obtaining of search warrants and the subsequent
illegal searches that followed.
may feel this is an easy allegation to make.
However, there is evidence of this that George has almost
certainly overlooked. In
one particular investigation it was George who actually instructed the
use of such a search warrant. His
statement (evidence) will not include this.
only did George know of their availability and use, he endorsed and
encouraged the use
of the documents. It follows that when there was an investigation and
the entire narcotics office was questioned about the existence and use
of warrants, George either remained silent (withheld information) or
provided a false account.
This is a serious
allegation about the island's second highest ranking police officer.
writer has first-hand knowledge of George’s involvement in this illegal
activity. There exists
therefore the potential allegation of the writer acquiescing by silence;
not bringing the activity to the attention of the appropriate
authorities during service. This
complicity is another reason every narcotics officer misled the investor
or lied when asked about the blank search warrants.
writer has nothing to gain from making false (perceived as malicious?)
allegations. The following
offer is extended to the Attorney General’s office and Commissioner of
Police, Jonathon Smith:
exchange for an immunity from prosecution, the writer will provide the
evidence that George Jackson was directly involved in the use of blank,
signed search warrants and that, in turn, George Jackson and the
narcotics officer misled investigators when questioned about same
Of course, time has
passed, the more time that passes, the less likely the facts can be
corroborated. Is this why no one has ever reopened the 1990
enquiry? Jonathan Smith was apparently considering it in 2002.
has Bermuda to lose? The
writer is thousands of miles away and of no concern to Bermuda.
However, the allegation is that your Deputy Commissioner is
dishonest and underhand. Furthermore,
officers in the Bermuda police Narcotics department lied when questioned
about the existence and use of said documents.
Bermuda has the opportunity to receive the evidence and in the
event it does not support the allegation, refute it.
As this would detract from the credibility of this site, the
writer does not make the allegation lightly.
joined the Service in 1979 and therefore we had the same service when we
worked together in 1989 investigating two other 'Smiths' for importing
I was surprised and flattered to be
selected to work so closely with Jonathan and have fond memories of the particular
investigation. We worked for a number of weeks, listening to and
transcribing tape recordings which had been supplied by the US
Authorities. The case involved two Bermudian males who had
imported cocaine via individuals who the US Authorities had
targeted. Our job was to listen to just over 100 tapes and select
the extracts which related to the Bermuda side of the dealing.
We watched the principle subject's
premises and eventually decided to make the arrests early one
morning. Four officers had worked on the enquiry:
Detective Sergeant Jonathan Smith
Detective Constable Ronald Green
Detective Constable Brian Russell
Ronnie and Brian had more service on
the island than I. However, Jonathan took Ronnie to deal with the
principle Smith suspect and I was given Colin
Smith to interview with Brian. Surprisingly (in my mind),
Jonathan gave me the lead on the enquiry.
The arrests took place without
problem. Jonathan and Ronnie took their 'Smith' away to Hamilton
police station where he was detained over the weekend. Brian and I
took Colin Smith to Somerset police station.
For three days we all interviewed our
suspects. Sadly, Jonathan did not get the 'result' he deserved for
his patience and commitment; his Smith said nothing.
Colin Smith on the other hand answered
questions confidentially and fully. however, not knowing that we
had listened to tapes involving him and the other Smith for weeks, all
he did was dig himself further into trouble.
By the end of the weekend, Colin Smith
had told so many lies that his only hope of survival was to throw
himself at the mercy of a Court and confess to everything. This is
precisely what he did.
Despite this, the matter was never
placed before a Court; more Bermuda drug dealers evaded
prosecution. Colin Smith is however a self-confessed drug dealer.
It was a pleasure to work with
Jonathan; a professional, competent person who appeared to be a
genuine person, intent on addressing crime.
I believe Bermuda has found itself a
good Commissioner of Police in Jonathan and only hope his positive
actions will not be undermined by those immediately below him.
Jonathan is young enough to be in the rank for several years. This
may not please those who see themselves acquiring the rank he holds.
Carton 'socky' Adams, for example, is
certainly due retirement. Will he be content to sit back and
accept that he will go no further?
How long before politics emerge to
I feel sure you do not need me to provide advice:
watch you back Jonathan