Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
Borghetto said:
Zod said:
You should stop by and re-read these extraordinary posts of yours. It is your attitude that is sickening.
As Andy said, your logic is backwards. Once we live in a society in which it is OK to shoot someone because you think he may be a terrorist, we have lost our freedom. Fortunately this was an aberration, albeit one that certain Police officers lid about in order to try to hide the extent of the negligence that caused De Menezes's death.
You need to separate the shooting which was carried out under great duress from any subsequent lies. The Policemen involved were brave, that certain officers lied after the event probably has more to do with people like you who are so quick to condemn. Tell the bomb victims and/or their families and friends of how important it is to put 'potential' bombers 'rights' before their loved ones. De Menezes death was a failure and his family were compensated accordingly. They received considerably more than the victims of the bombers - strange logic that; one that the like's of you would no doubt approve. So take your supercilious post and go find a lake to jump in.As Andy said, your logic is backwards. Once we live in a society in which it is OK to shoot someone because you think he may be a terrorist, we have lost our freedom. Fortunately this was an aberration, albeit one that certain Police officers lid about in order to try to hide the extent of the negligence that caused De Menezes's death.
Edited by Zod on Friday 28th December 19:45
I am a "victim" of 7/7 (although I'm not a very victimy type of guy) as my office was in Tavistock Square and I had glass from our windows showered all over me before having to help evacuate our people to safety then administer 1st aid to the injured.
Guess what? I think that the murder of DeMenezes was an outrage. I am glad that it was one of the main reasons why Ian Blair was fired and I still think it a travesty that Cressida Dick and the officers who pulled the triggers did not face criminal charges.
what half-wits like you never understand is that your idea of security is the same security that members of the Nazi party enjoyed thanks the Gestapo .
Elroy Blue said:
Despite a weak CPS and a ridiculous sentencing system, the prisons are full. How do you think those criminals got there, they didn't volunteer to attend.
You only see what you want to see and yours is the lazy, Daily Wail view.
Perhaps it suggests how ineffectual the police force is as a deterrent to the criminal classes?You only see what you want to see and yours is the lazy, Daily Wail view.
In reality, it is probably more a function of the fact that we have a prison estate scaled to serve a population of c. 40-50m citizens whereas our population is now nudging up to 70m
La Liga said:
According to people who feel compelled to post on a website forum. A very small amount of data in which it's not possible to draw larger conclusions.
There's an old adage in business; Make a customer happy and they'll tell someone. Disappoint one and they'll tell ten people.
I don't ignore negative (or positive) opinions on here, I merely keep perspective and add the appropriate weight.
If that's what you genuinely believe then you are breathtakingly deluded.There's an old adage in business; Make a customer happy and they'll tell someone. Disappoint one and they'll tell ten people.
I don't ignore negative (or positive) opinions on here, I merely keep perspective and add the appropriate weight.
Reliance on any statistical data to assess whether you are delivering customer satisfaction is something that no self-respecting marketing professional would ever do (think the opinion poll scene in Yes Minister)
In reality organisations that genuinely want to understand and influence customer perception use incredibly sophisticated analytic methods to do so. Organisations that say "a survey told us xx, so it must be true" tend not to really understand anything about what their customers think
Red 4 said:
Gaspode said:
Red 4 said:
Do yourself a favour. Check out the Winsor report.
Tom Winsor at a Policing conference said:
Winsor defended his policing reforms, which led to a 30,000-strong protest march by off-duty police officers in London last month.
Winsor stressed his analysis that the perception among some of the public was that policing was largely an intellectually undemanding occupation that had more in common with blue-collar factory workers with a "clock-in, clock-out mentality". He said it was essential to the future of policing that recruitment was done only on merit with a pay and recruitment structure that could attract the "brightest and the best" . He answered criticism that his proposals would lead to even less diversity in the nature of the police by insisting that recruitment had to be on the basis of merit, not sex or ethnic origin.
(my bold)Winsor stressed his analysis that the perception among some of the public was that policing was largely an intellectually undemanding occupation that had more in common with blue-collar factory workers with a "clock-in, clock-out mentality". He said it was essential to the future of policing that recruitment was done only on merit with a pay and recruitment structure that could attract the "brightest and the best" . He answered criticism that his proposals would lead to even less diversity in the nature of the police by insisting that recruitment had to be on the basis of merit, not sex or ethnic origin.
Do you think he was dissembling or mistaken in saying this? On what basis would you prefer that recruitment is done?
and "clock in, clock out" it certainly isn't !!!
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 31st December 20:55
Red 4 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Or £1.5k pa more than a private soldier in the British Army, which seems a bit perverse really when you think of the technical skills required and risk taken.
I suspect you have little knowledge of the armed forces (I have) or the police service (I have that too). 
Red 4 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Red 4 said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Or £1.5k pa more than a private soldier in the British Army, which seems a bit perverse really when you think of the technical skills required and risk taken.
I suspect you have little knowledge of the armed forces (I have) or the police service (I have that too). An astonishing lack of knowledge and experience there which raises my suspicions.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 31st December 22:27
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Monday 31st December 22:50
Rovinghawk said:
Mojocvh said:
But their integrity level, well, that is above question...
Game, set, match.RH
donutsina911 said:
Red 4 said:
But you think a private/ rating/ aircraftman, etc. has a similar role and responsiblities as a Police Constable ?
An astonishing lack of knowledge and experience there which raises my suspicions.
With Red 4 on this.
The average squaddie (infantry but excluding bootnecks) gets a few weeks of drill, some basic field craft and phys and weapons handling. No idea about RAF, but the Navy give 8 weeks or so at Raleigh teaching how to don a life jacket and tie a bowline before being punted into the fleet or to specialist training. The common denominator between the 3 services is that there's no real need for new entrants to think truly independently outside the chain of command or ever be exposed to scenarios where they have an ability to fck things up royally. I'd hazard a guess that a probationer plod is faced with the opposite environment. A fairer comparison would be between commissioned officers who (in many roles) have infinitely more scope for strategic thinking, decision making, risk and consequences than plod could ever dream of at the equiv age/experience level (23 year old navigator at sea, fast jet pilot, RM troop commander etc etc)
Risk of death is probably greater for tooth arms, but that's reflected in operational pay. £23k seems about right for a PC...looking at Inspectors/Chief Inspectors pay scales, the pay actually looks a bit shabby for the amount of responsibility.
An astonishing lack of knowledge and experience there which raises my suspicions.
With Red 4 on this.
The average squaddie (infantry but excluding bootnecks) gets a few weeks of drill, some basic field craft and phys and weapons handling. No idea about RAF, but the Navy give 8 weeks or so at Raleigh teaching how to don a life jacket and tie a bowline before being punted into the fleet or to specialist training. The common denominator between the 3 services is that there's no real need for new entrants to think truly independently outside the chain of command or ever be exposed to scenarios where they have an ability to fck things up royally. I'd hazard a guess that a probationer plod is faced with the opposite environment. A fairer comparison would be between commissioned officers who (in many roles) have infinitely more scope for strategic thinking, decision making, risk and consequences than plod could ever dream of at the equiv age/experience level (23 year old navigator at sea, fast jet pilot, RM troop commander etc etc)
Risk of death is probably greater for tooth arms, but that's reflected in operational pay. £23k seems about right for a PC...looking at Inspectors/Chief Inspectors pay scales, the pay actually looks a bit shabby for the amount of responsibility.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 31st December 22:27
rewc said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
"A statement from the three forces involved rejected calls for the officers involved to face misconduct proceedings insisting that they had demonstrated "poor judgment" rather than lied."That in itself is a worry. An Inspector and two Sergeants who were considered by their members as being suitable representatives of their trade association demonstrating poor judgement at a critical time.
I looks like the Police definition of a lie is not the generally accepted one of telling the truth.
The Police just do not appear to get it that this whole saga has caused immense damage to public's trust in them. I thought that the only person who would come out of this with his integrity intact was Mr Mitchell and its looking that way as more and more comes to light.
Certainly, they are making it very easy for the Government to sell the idea of wholesale police reforms to the public and they are very effectively removing the prospect of them having any influence over any reforms that are proposed.
What amazes me is how cack-handedly the police & the police federation are handling this - Don't they have PR people to advise them on this stuff?
They have allowed this to get to the point where who is right and who is wrong has become irrelevant - the public perception is overwhelmingly and irreversibly that the police have behaved dishonestly.
The motivation appears possibly to be to discredit the government's authority over the police in order to make it harder for the government to push through police reforms. In the event, they have handed the Government the moral highground to do whatever they want to the police service on a silver platter
They have allowed this to get to the point where who is right and who is wrong has become irrelevant - the public perception is overwhelmingly and irreversibly that the police have behaved dishonestly.
The motivation appears possibly to be to discredit the government's authority over the police in order to make it harder for the government to push through police reforms. In the event, they have handed the Government the moral highground to do whatever they want to the police service on a silver platter
La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
Garvin said:
I note the IPCC and Deborah Glass in particular are being criticised in some quarters for 'sticking their oar in' after the event so to speak. So the IPCC leave the force to do the investigation and merely supervise being kept informed of what is going on.
If you're going to end up a in position where you strongly disagree with the force's decision then you're not supervising very well, are you? What does that say of all the other investigations the IPCC takes a supervisory role? Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff