The Leaders




Carlton 'Clueless' Adams George 'lack of action' Jackson Jon-boy Smith

There are two rules in the Bermuda police service:

One for the lower ranks

One for the senior / complainant ranks

Take 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.

Take the example of the discipline case detailed on this site at Oppression.

The officer against whom Socky complained was found not guilty.  Ask yourself why.

The 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 glass.

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’?

The 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. 

In 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 wrong:

His evidence was worthless – pathetic and blinkered

His investigation was limited – he asked no questions and did not consider the circumstances in detail

His 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 learning!

How did the case conclude?  The person against whom Socky complained was found not guilty.  Why?

Socky 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.

Usually 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.

I 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 already. 

The conclusion of the Oppression complaint was this:

The 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:

Ø      oppressive conduct

Ø      inability to investigate

Ø      malicious prosecution

Ø      failure to maintain pocket book record

Ø      failure to update the police computer

Ø      wasting police time

How 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.

However, 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.

It 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.

Socky was the subject of a complaint (as above).  The matter was never investigated!

Technically, the complaint remains unresolved, outstanding.  There is a prima facie case that Socky is an incompetent, unprofessional bully. 

If 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 enquiry.

A 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 Officer’s inability.

At 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: credit card

Contender 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 simple. Keep George amused; put him in a  round room and ask him to stand in the corner; bless him.

But 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. 

George means well but appeared torn between two camps; being loyal to those with whom he worked and sacrificing them for his own ends.

Whilst 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 stupidity?).

Having 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 .

The above must seem harsh, so some examples:

George never admitted to tape recording a conversation with a Barrister.  It happened.  The transcript of the conversation between George and Julian Hall 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.

It 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?

In 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.

Not 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 the office.

As 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? It 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!

No 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?

And 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'.

However, they exist (as is demonstrated by this site, 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.

You 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.

Not 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. 

The 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.

The 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:

In exchange for an immunity from prosecution, the writer will provide the available 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.

What 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.

Jonathan joined the Service in 1979 and therefore we had the same service when we worked together in 1989 investigating two other 'Smiths' for importing cocaine.  

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 cause in-fighting.

Though I feel sure you do not need me to provide advice:

watch you back Jonathan





To e-mail click here:


to visit click here



IMPORTANT NOTICE: has taken reasonable care in sourcing and presenting the information contained on this site, but accepts no responsibility for any financial or other loss or damage that may result from its use. is not an official or authorised Bermuda police web site.