Seriously unimpressed

There's an institution that fits what you want: the courts.

I notice that the police aren't keen to go to an impartial body with high evidential standards such as you suggest.

RH

Slow down a bit, read my posts and answer them sensibly and you might get my drift. If you keep trying to play oneupmanship you are going to continue to struggle writing clear sentences and understanding what I have written.

But you're deluding yourself if you don't agree, Isn't that your logic?

Same as the logic of 'a claim is for money then the motive for claiming is "pure and simply money".'

I'm not sure I'm with you in trying to frame something as being purely about money.

Take a fictitious example...

You're a person of limited means and suffer a bodged operation at the hands of the NHS. It is clear from the evidence that there were deviances from procedure by staff involved in your care. You complain with the hope that lessons will be learned, but the result is not satisfactory.

In your frustration, you take legal advice and instigate proceedings against the NHS.

Half way through the process, the NHS offer you £30,000 as settlement. At the same time they point out that if you refuse the offer, they will pursue you for their costs in defending the claim if the offer is similar or lower at Court.

Your choice is then a difficult one.

You are the wronged party, as you see it, but if you fail to settle, the risk is that even if you win, the costs of the other party in defending the claim may be such that your own financial position is ruined.

I would challenge you to find many people so virtuous as to risk their own ruination, for the pride in getting a Court ruling that they as Claimant were in the right, only for the spoils of that decision to be eaten up by a costs order. This is especially true if those people had prior to that decision been offered £30,000 and no risk, in lieu of pursuing that risk further.

The risk is akin to playing the 'kick in the balls game'. No matter how long you stand up and how many blows you can take, you're still being kicked in the balls.

The IPCC oversee and lead the investigation, they play the tune.
I already said I'm quite happy to see a completely separate investigative body as far as complaints are concerned.

Having been subject of more complaints than I could count, and been a witness for both the 'prosecution' and the 'defence', and having been a discipline 'friend' for many years, I have to say this statement is hogwash.

You see, attention from the police is not, to my mind 'inherently objectionable'.

99.9% or more of interaction between the police and the public is when the police are helping that member of the public in one way or another. This could range from telling them where the nearest cashpoint is, to saving their life.

It is this kind of assumption that the police are 'inherently objectionable', that makes any meaning ful debate about policing impossible. If you are taking that assumption as a given, I really can't see the point in continuing.

I have read your supposition, please show why 'this man' would have been bankrupted, you know the figures to back the claim.
He isn't suing the officers, he is suing their employer who they were acting for & who is liable for their actions.
The employer who appears to have publicly supported their actions.


Again you are showing nothing, merely asserting.

I'll state again as you seem to have trouble reading what I have/haven't typed.
The claim is for money & that's a fact.
If you are going for more than that you aren't going to get it without your day in court.

So 'some are in it only for the money'.
They'll be the ones who I was referring to.

Of course. And your follow-up nonsense re-iterated the assertion. You then tried to change your story. As appears to be your form. That's why i'm keeping it on track.

No it isn't simple. You are trying to infer something that is not a given. Your choice of language doesn't alter its lack of credibility. Your contract with the Police service only gives you (other people's) money in return for your services. Money or benefits in kind as a reward is indeed simple & remains.

Your motivation for being a Polcie officer is not necessarily "purely and simply for the money". Without speaking to you I don't know. There are other ways of deriving satisfaction from your job.

Some claimants are motivated "purely and simply" by money. You appear to be one of them. Don't judge others by your own standards.

If motivation is irrelevant to the fact the claim is for money then the fact that the claim is for money cannot be proof of motivation.



They were supported by you by re-iterating your position. That is, that a money claim cannot be motivated by anything other than "purely and simply for the money." You are wrong. Very few people do things "purely and simply for money" even if that is the basis of the subject matter.

What else does your contract as a Police officer give you except money or benefits in kind? The inference is flawed. The inference can only be flawed because you are relying on a non-sequitur.

No matter how you phrase your argument or the language you use or the diversionary attempts to 'develop' your argument, it can never be substantiated because it is illogical.

I don't see the connection between the two.
No matter who does the investigating, the police will always pay out 'go away' money.