Roll up ! Roll up ! See how we discipline our officers.

[sparkythecat]

As Police misconduct hearings can now be heard in public, Lancashire Police are advertising their misconduct hearings as a spectator sport.
Seems a bit OTT to me

https://lancashire.police.uk/misconduct

[Rovinghawk]

It could negate claims of whitewash and generate some trust.

[Gavia]

Hasn't this been the case for quite a while now?

[sparkythecat]

Gavia said:

Hasn't this been the case for quite a while now?

Since May 2015, but I've never seen them advertised like this before.

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

It could negate claims of whitewash and generate some trust.

Nothing will convince some people. Evidence is of no consequence to them.

[Somewhatfoolish]

That page said:

It is alleged that on 24 January 2016 PS David Reeder failed to accurately record information on the custody record in respect of a detainee at Blackpool Central Police Station.

It is also alleged that PS Reeder made derogatory comments about the detainee and other persons in custody and further failed to challenge the behaviour of a colleague who made abusive comments about the same persons.

The conduct is alleged to amount to gross misconduct for breaches of the standards of professional behaviour in the areas of duties and responsibilities, authority respect and courtesy, equality and diversity and challenging and reporting improper conduct.

How on earth is this gross misconduct?

Pathetic

[SVTRick]

Somewhatfoolish said:

How on earth is this gross misconduct?

Pathetic

You would soon start moaning like a $20 hooker if someone done that to you on here.

[Vaud]

Somewhatfoolish said:

How on earth is this gross misconduct?

Pathetic

I guess it depends on what information was not recorded.

Suppose it was the fact that the detainee had a medical condition with regular drugs needed / stated they were suicidal, etc?

[Derek Smith]

Remember this is discipline gross misconduct and not the criminal one.

Deliberately not recording an entry in a custody record is serious.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Derek Smith said:

Nothing will convince some people. Evidence is of no consequence to them.

Most people don't want their beliefs threatened with facts.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

Rovinghawk said:

It could negate claims of whitewash and generate some trust.

Nothing will convince some people. Evidence is of no consequence to them.

When you have trust issues, blaming those who don't trust you isn't really going to improve things whereas showing them the process rather than closed doors & bland assurances might help matters.

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

Derek Smith said:

Rovinghawk said:

It could negate claims of whitewash and generate some trust.

Nothing will convince some people. Evidence is of no consequence to them.

When you have trust issues, blaming those who don't trust you isn't really going to improve things whereas showing them the process rather than closed doors & bland assurances might help matters.

You continue to use examples that have been proved false. If you fail to move on and ignore facts then you should be blamed, and often.

The odd thing is that there is much to complain of in the organisation and operation of the English/Welsh police forces. If you, and others blocked to evidence, concentrated on those factors that are failings then we could have a dialogue. But by blaming people who have been proved innocent of your allegations you show yourself closed to reason. Discipline hearings at various forces have been open for some years, so what is the point of arguing against your suggestion of closed doors and bland assurances?

You have an agenda that is closed to argument. La Liga, for one, has agreed with some criticisms of the police, especially the hierarchy yet has been accused of being an apologist for the service.

There are two ways of judging service: 1/ is it as good as you want, and 2/ how it compares to others out there at the same price. If anyone expects 100% correct results from any service subject to having to react to unpredictable demands is living in cloud cuckoo land. All that can be done is to do one's best, and if that's not good enough, get better.

With regards quality at a price, there is no other force in the world that delivers as well as the English/Welsh forces.

That said, there's room for improvement.

Dick did her specific role well. The outcome was not her fault. Like it or not, that is what the court found.

[anonymous-user]

There's definitely things to criticises the police.

The boneheads on here don't ever get to those issues because they get hooked-in by superficial click-bait media stories, which they fall for every time whilst thinking they're savvy operators, which are often gross misrepresentations / over-simplifications of what occurred.

Somewhatfoolish said:

That page said:

It is alleged that on 24 January 2016 PS David Reeder failed to accurately record information on the custody record in respect of a detainee at Blackpool Central Police Station.

It is also alleged that PS Reeder made derogatory comments about the detainee and other persons in custody and further failed to challenge the behaviour of a colleague who made abusive comments about the same persons.

The conduct is alleged to amount to gross misconduct for breaches of the standards of professional behaviour in the areas of duties and responsibilities, authority respect and courtesy, equality and diversity and challenging and reporting improper conduct.

How on earth is this gross misconduct?

Pathetic

Is does strike me that the top two outcomes (only available with gross misconduct) are a little beyond the conduct, but it depends on the conduct.

[sparkythecat]

The hearing is over and the result has been posted hereon the same website

"On hearing all the evidence the panel of the hearing found the allegation did not amount to gross misconduct but did amount to misconduct; PS Reeder received a Written Warning."

[anonymous-user]

Sounds like it could have been dealt with via a misconduct meeting rather than a hearing as we speculated. On the face of it, it never sounded like gross misconduct.

I wonder if the pressure for transparency means they are willing to do hearings (which can be heard in public) rather than meetings ('closed' doors).

[XCP]

More than likely.

[creampuff]

Doesn't sound like it could ever have been gross misconduct. I wonder if this is the symptom of the same culture which has brought us IHAT?

[XCP]

If the public want public hearings, public hearings they will get.

[Elroy Blue]

Two IPCC investigators have 'stood aside' due to their withholding evidence that could have cleared an Officer. They are now being investigated for perverting the course of justice.
They haven't been separated, they haven't been suspended, nor will their hearing be held in a public circus.
The IPCC also decided to officially announce the news on budget day. Nothing like burying bad news.
It would seem their view of hanging Officers from the lamppost doesn't apply to them in any way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-392068...

[carinaman]

Elroy Blue said:

Two IPCC investigators have 'stood aside' due to their withholding evidence that could have cleared an Officer. They are now being investigated for perverting the course of justice.
They haven't been separated, they haven't been suspended, nor will their hearing be held in a public circus.
The IPCC also decided to officially announce the news on budget day. Nothing like burying bad news.
It would seem their view of hanging Officers from the lamppost doesn't apply to them in any way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-392068...

Thanks I missed that.

BBC News link above said:

In July, the IPCC acknowledged there had been "procedural shortfalls" in its investigation of Mr Gatland, who alleges 14 police witness statements were withheld from the IPCC inquiry.

Sounds like a very serious injustice.

I wonder how much evidence never gets looked at due to IPCC 'procedural shortfalls'?

I hope all of the evidence is considered and justice is done.