Rank and seniority of Royal Navy officers are matters of public record. For the period when Adderley is claiming to have been in service, the Navy Lists, which are HMSO publications containing the appropriate information, have been digitised and are available online. I have checked the quality of the digital information by looking at the records of a number of Navy officers known to me (including my father, as it happens), and the information appears to be correct and complete. In the period in question, there were no officers - none at all - listed with the surname Adderley (or any credible misspellings). Accordingly, it seems quite unlikely that Adderley ever served as a Royal Navy officer.
Other than the important issues raised in the main article above, what absolutely appalls me is that no-one connected to the process of appointing Adderley, including the Commissioner, his staff and the Panel and its monitoring officer, seems to have bothered to make the necessary, simple and quick, basic checks of the information that Adderley provided in his application. Everybody worth his salt as a recruiter goes through a candidate's CV with care, checks for inconsistencies and anomalies and raises points with the candidate if anything "peculiar" is found - it's a basic part of the job. For example, making it to Commander rank at age 26 would be more-or-less a peacetime record, and then resigning immediately afterwards is very surprising indeed. I think that if ever there was an exhibition of culpable, unprofessional negligence, then the recruitment of Nick Adderley as Chief Constable may very well turn out to be it. If I was Mold (how often we find him at the middle of a bungle these days!), I would either be praying for a miracle or penning my resignation letter.
Why wouldn’t he receive his full salary during suspension. He’s under investigation and been found guilty of nothing, yet. This is normal employment practice.
As a former law enforcement matriculant, and indeed someone who was sexually assaulted by two of Nick's lackeys, I am very supportive of all matters police. Nick, however, is an extremely visible, and indeed quasi-militant, line stepper whose criminal misconduct spans public spaces. Good riddance to him and may his pre-termination be concluded expeditiously.
Rank and seniority of Royal Navy officers are matters of public record. For the period when Adderley is claiming to have been in service, the Navy Lists, which are HMSO publications containing the appropriate information, have been digitised and are available online. I have checked the quality of the digital information by looking at the records of a number of Navy officers known to me (including my father, as it happens), and the information appears to be correct and complete. In the period in question, there were no officers - none at all - listed with the surname Adderley (or any credible misspellings). Accordingly, it seems quite unlikely that Adderley ever served as a Royal Navy officer.
Other than the important issues raised in the main article above, what absolutely appalls me is that no-one connected to the process of appointing Adderley, including the Commissioner, his staff and the Panel and its monitoring officer, seems to have bothered to make the necessary, simple and quick, basic checks of the information that Adderley provided in his application. Everybody worth his salt as a recruiter goes through a candidate's CV with care, checks for inconsistencies and anomalies and raises points with the candidate if anything "peculiar" is found - it's a basic part of the job. For example, making it to Commander rank at age 26 would be more-or-less a peacetime record, and then resigning immediately afterwards is very surprising indeed. I think that if ever there was an exhibition of culpable, unprofessional negligence, then the recruitment of Nick Adderley as Chief Constable may very well turn out to be it. If I was Mold (how often we find him at the middle of a bungle these days!), I would either be praying for a miracle or penning my resignation letter.
You can judge a society by how it treats it's weakest and most vulnerable members. The way these poor refugees are being treated is shameful.
Why wouldn’t he receive his full salary during suspension. He’s under investigation and been found guilty of nothing, yet. This is normal employment practice.
He needs to have his pension removed and repay some if not all of the salary he defrauded from the public purse!
He’s lying. I joined up with him in October 84 and he was never an officer of any rank. He was a Seaman, for about 2 years.
As a former law enforcement matriculant, and indeed someone who was sexually assaulted by two of Nick's lackeys, I am very supportive of all matters police. Nick, however, is an extremely visible, and indeed quasi-militant, line stepper whose criminal misconduct spans public spaces. Good riddance to him and may his pre-termination be concluded expeditiously.