Coppers confessing
Discussion
Mk3Spitfire said:
No. I do not agree. Actually, let me rephrase that. I agree it SEEMS that a lot of wrongdoing by one is being covered up. It SEEMS this way, because the press love reporting this kind of story. If you were to compare it to the amount of things that aren't covered up, I'm confident it would be a tiny fraction. People tend to read the Daily Fail and assume that because one of their over dramatised articles makes the most of one or two occasions, that the problem is huge. It's not. There are thousands and thousands of police officers in the UK. A minute amount of them are corrupt and dishonest. Problem is, people like our learned friends on here, can only focus on these money making, propaganda-esque stories as it reinforcers their hatred/negative image of the Police.
I've been on all sides of discipline enquiries. The one common thing in all of them was that prosecution witnesses were police officers. For my discipline hearing, the complainant was a police officer. Please note the lack of commas.
Elroy Blue said:
You clearly hate it here. It must be so terrible for you.
As somebody once said to you, just swivel.
Police Officer are some of the most dedicated and hard working people it has been my privilege to meet. They do more in a day to help the community than you'll do in a lifetime with all your whinging and 'woe is me'. You were comedy gold. Now you're just pathetic.
You are wrong. The three amigos Rovinghawk, Carinaman and Eclassy are achieving a massive amount for society by having as many digs at police on the Internet as possible. They represent the "man" and are in no way at all bitter.As somebody once said to you, just swivel.
Police Officer are some of the most dedicated and hard working people it has been my privilege to meet. They do more in a day to help the community than you'll do in a lifetime with all your whinging and 'woe is me'. You were comedy gold. Now you're just pathetic.
You just don't understand the massive positive impact it has or how much value it brings to everyday lives. I am definitely enriched and am impressed by how much they are achieving here.
julianc said:
Don't forget Derek's book - well worth the read. I'm still waiting for the sequel - eh, Derek? 
My apologies. Another book came along and took longer than I thought - twice as long - to get it where I wanted it. (Not interested in Mercedes SLKs are you?). There's still a bit more to go 'till it's good enough.So probably March/April next year.
Thanks for asking.
Derek Smith said:
I've been on all sides of discipline enquiries. The one common thing in all of them was that prosecution witnesses were police officers. For my discipline hearing, the complainant was a police officer.
Police disciplinary procedures, just like anything else can be misused. When you have judges like Constance Briscoe and her expert witness handwriting person why would anyone think that officers with an agenda or grudge wouldn't be tempted to misuse police disciplinary procedures. I know of at least two cases where the use of police disciplinary procedures has been questionable.
Police officers misuse laws to pursue personal agendas with MoPs, so wouldn't we think officers would also misuse them to target colleagues they had problems with? It happens in other public sector organisations, and the private sector but somehow the police as an organisation staffed with people with the same failings and temptations as anyone else would be immune to it?
Why else would Theresa May have said something about changing things to protect whistle blowers? But then again she says a lot of things doesn't she.
Thank you for your help again Derek.
carinaman said:
Police officers misuse laws to pursue personal agendas with MoPs, so wouldn't we think officers would also misuse them to target colleagues they had problems with?
How much time have you served in the Police? Have you ever experienced this actually happening? Or are you basing your opinion on articles in tabloid newspapers and obscure websites?
Serving Officers have already stated on this thread that they've never experienced this corruption which you and others would have us believe is rife.
Funnily enough the cut-and-dry disciplinary proceedings that lead to NFA against Police Officers don't make very good headlines.
340600 said:
How much time have you served in the Police? Have you ever experienced this actually happening? Or are you basing your opinion on articles in tabloid newspapers and obscure websites?
Serving Officers have already stated on this thread that they've never experienced this corruption which you and others would have us believe is rife.
Funnily enough the cut-and-dry disciplinary proceedings that lead to NFA against Police Officers don't make very good headlines.
I don't believe that there is a huge amount of corruption in our police force. I don't think most police officers are bad people or have bad intentions
What I am sure off is that there is a culture of looking after each other. The same as the NHS the Armed forces and any other collective big group has. Most people are not going to stand out from the crowd to report "minor" incidences. However the problem is as seen with phycological studies that what is minor and overlooked can sometimes snowball in the wrong environment. There is a clear evidence that this has happened and not just in the obvious ways - sometimes the group/flock mentality has allowed crimes to be committed.
The whole argument would be mute and academic if the police made the simple step of adding cameras to every police officer who makes arrests and got rid of the "none cctv" areas in custody suites. The cost of doing so would be minuscule compared to employing lawyers and investigating complaints. Most police officers would like it as it would stop stupid complaints and it would restore faith in the police to large sections of society.
With the above - I am sure it would lead to other problems. Officers no longer feeling able to use discretion over a spliff or stupid comment. But I feel that is beneficial to having people up and down the country being able to recount to others how they were attacked or verbally/racially abused by a police officer.
I am still yet to hear a single reason why forcing officers to have a relatively cheap camera attached to them hasn't been brought in yet. Nor am I seeing any justification for having none cctv cells or areas in custody suites.
I've worked with officers who were found to be corrupt. They all, with one exception where an error on the part of PSD meant intercept evidence was disallowed, went to prison.
I've made complaints about colleagues. I've had colleagues complain about me. On one occasion, a probationer complained about my use of force, after he missed the reason I batoned someone. As a Sgt, I've dealt with complaints where Pc's weren't happy with their colleagues use of force. One of these saw an officer suspended.
The people who claim there is a culture of protection in the police are simply wrong. I've got 13 years in, and the standard of integrity is the highest I've ever known it.
Re the comment above at CCTV free area in custody, in my force the only CCTV free areas are the solicitors consultation rooms. I'd be surprised if this isn't universal.
I've made complaints about colleagues. I've had colleagues complain about me. On one occasion, a probationer complained about my use of force, after he missed the reason I batoned someone. As a Sgt, I've dealt with complaints where Pc's weren't happy with their colleagues use of force. One of these saw an officer suspended.
The people who claim there is a culture of protection in the police are simply wrong. I've got 13 years in, and the standard of integrity is the highest I've ever known it.
Re the comment above at CCTV free area in custody, in my force the only CCTV free areas are the solicitors consultation rooms. I'd be surprised if this isn't universal.
Cameras are expensive. Multiply the cost of a unit by however many thousand officers there are in that particular force. There is then the cost of computer systems able to deal with the recorded data. There are training and retraining costs. Servicing and replacing broken or faulty units. It isn't just a one off cost, and it isn't a minor cost either.
No custody I use has "none CCTV areas".
No custody I use has "none CCTV areas".
Hampshire has cells which don't have cctv. And most cages in the back of vans don't (or didn't a couple of years ago). A nice place out of public view where a couple of officers can go to "stop someone hurting themselves". As I've said - most police officers are not like that, but they do exist.
I'd say it's a cost worth paying if is restores faith in the police for some people. It would also reduce the number of complaints I'd guess.
If we can't afford less than £100 for a camera then we are in trouble. Given how much it must cost investigating complaints and nearly universally settling out of court when it comes to that. The cameras would also have the benefit of being able to be used in public order situations as evidence.
And sorry guys - not being a dick. But you already have cameras... They are just the types you turn on and off when it works for you, I've had them pointed at me when I've been in the back of a cage before. So the computer systems and training are a bit academic.
I'd say it's a cost worth paying if is restores faith in the police for some people. It would also reduce the number of complaints I'd guess.
If we can't afford less than £100 for a camera then we are in trouble. Given how much it must cost investigating complaints and nearly universally settling out of court when it comes to that. The cameras would also have the benefit of being able to be used in public order situations as evidence.
And sorry guys - not being a dick. But you already have cameras... They are just the types you turn on and off when it works for you, I've had them pointed at me when I've been in the back of a cage before. So the computer systems and training are a bit academic.
Sorry to dissapoint you then but you are wrong. Our force and several others I deal with don't have cameras. If you had any clue what forces are having to cut back on to save the necessary millions of pounds of savings that have been imposed on them, you might understand a little more that it's not just a case of going out and buying a few thousand cameras for the cops. They have stopped using card, and are photocopying forms onto paper to save pennies. Yes, in an ideal world, but an ideal world is not where we live.
ks to you, sir.photosnob said:
I am still yet to hear a single reason why forcing officers to have a relatively cheap camera attached to them hasn't been brought in yet. Nor am I seeing any justification for having none cctv cells or areas in custody suites.
I'm a firm supporter of cameras on all officers. Over ten years ago the subject was broached in my old force after the Mets considered it. However the on-costs were considerable.
There was the infrastructure. Storage, itemising, other similar stuff. Whilst it seems a minor matter, then consider a force of 3000 officers, the majority of which would require a camera, each working a 40-hour week. Not insuperable, and nowadays the swingeing cuts would lower the cost considerably, if not entirely.
At the time the CPS demanded a full transcript of tape recorded interviews. So there would be a considerable requirement for documentation of all the tapes. If six officers turned up to a scene, there would be six videos.
Nothing that could not be done of course but the police have just had their budget slashed by in excess of 20%. On top of that, there's another 20% to come. There is no money to maintain present standards. The idea of fat being available to be cut is laughable. They've already slashed skin. With the further cut, it's the bone that's got to go so investment just to placate the public would be impossible to support. There is no business case.
My force has just got some of these for patrol officers. At £595 each they're not cheap, and lots more than the £100 suggested above (and even with discounts I'm sure are available,I bet they're still way above £100).
http://revealmedia.com/products/rs3-sx-camera-dems...
Then there's the software and computers to manage the footage, then the officer time spent on training, booking in and out, downloading footage, reviewing it for evidence, disclosing to solicitors pre interview, then copying it for the CPS and Courts (all done by officers now the support staff are practically non existent).
Don't get me wrong, I think they're brilliant and they do reduce complaints and increase early admissions/guilty pleas, but they're not the magic bullet some are suggesting. The cameras above can't physically hold eight/nine/ten/twelve hours of footage (the length of a shift) and the batteries don't last that long in any case (we can't even get radio batteries that last eight hours, for God's sake).
So they have to be manually switched on to record. Sometimes there isn't the time at a spontaneous incident, sometimes they don't work, sometimes an officer's fine motor skills can't slide and hold the record switch instead of using both hands for defence. Then the system for management and storage of footage has to be robust enough and encrypted (as do the cameras themselves), so not exactly the same as a cheapo laptop and a go pro.
I'm also in favour of full CCTV in custody. It prevents unfounded complaints, supports legitimate complaints and probably stops the (very few) officers who might be tempted to misbehave from doing so.
http://revealmedia.com/products/rs3-sx-camera-dems...
Then there's the software and computers to manage the footage, then the officer time spent on training, booking in and out, downloading footage, reviewing it for evidence, disclosing to solicitors pre interview, then copying it for the CPS and Courts (all done by officers now the support staff are practically non existent).
Don't get me wrong, I think they're brilliant and they do reduce complaints and increase early admissions/guilty pleas, but they're not the magic bullet some are suggesting. The cameras above can't physically hold eight/nine/ten/twelve hours of footage (the length of a shift) and the batteries don't last that long in any case (we can't even get radio batteries that last eight hours, for God's sake).
So they have to be manually switched on to record. Sometimes there isn't the time at a spontaneous incident, sometimes they don't work, sometimes an officer's fine motor skills can't slide and hold the record switch instead of using both hands for defence. Then the system for management and storage of footage has to be robust enough and encrypted (as do the cameras themselves), so not exactly the same as a cheapo laptop and a go pro.
I'm also in favour of full CCTV in custody. It prevents unfounded complaints, supports legitimate complaints and probably stops the (very few) officers who might be tempted to misbehave from doing so.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
it's a favourite topic of the anti public-sector types on PH to have a go at the Police, FRS and NHS pension schemes simply becasue they are run diffierently to the way in which the knoicker's schemes are run ... Derek was just pointing out how much a Police officer pays for their pension. 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff