Suspicion of PtCoJ by Private Forensics Company
Discussion
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=285...
A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
It seems to me that somebody needs to look at the cozy arrangement where companies providing speed cameras are also allowed to test and calibrate them, contrary to most industries such as electrical, gas, oil and food standards where testing is carried out by independent companies, to prevent the "fixing" of data to the advantage of the bodies being tested.
For instance REDSPEED placed an ISO9001 quality standard mark on their calibration certificates in contravention of the Qualifying body's rules - a clearly obvious and questionable practice, yet they are still able to test their equipment and report it's accuracy without question or oversight by any independent scrutiny.
Of course they will say it is OK - their business model depends on it - profits would fall if like their original incarnation Monitron (in Australia), they were forced to reimburse fines because the equipment was found to be faulty! The present company rose from the ashes of the old which collapsed... they wouldn't want to go through that again!!
Wasn't Frank Garret barred from giving evidence as an "expert" witness in cases involving the LTI 20/20 devices he was responsible for importing and selling to UK authorities?
A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
Police Professional said:
Earlier this week two scientists from RTS were arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice after it emerged that some test results may have been manipulated.
The article goes on to quote the laboratory concerned, as pointing the finger at quality control issues.However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
It seems to me that somebody needs to look at the cozy arrangement where companies providing speed cameras are also allowed to test and calibrate them, contrary to most industries such as electrical, gas, oil and food standards where testing is carried out by independent companies, to prevent the "fixing" of data to the advantage of the bodies being tested.
For instance REDSPEED placed an ISO9001 quality standard mark on their calibration certificates in contravention of the Qualifying body's rules - a clearly obvious and questionable practice, yet they are still able to test their equipment and report it's accuracy without question or oversight by any independent scrutiny.
Of course they will say it is OK - their business model depends on it - profits would fall if like their original incarnation Monitron (in Australia), they were forced to reimburse fines because the equipment was found to be faulty! The present company rose from the ashes of the old which collapsed... they wouldn't want to go through that again!!
Wasn't Frank Garret barred from giving evidence as an "expert" witness in cases involving the LTI 20/20 devices he was responsible for importing and selling to UK authorities?
Mill Wheel said:
Wasn't Frank Garret barred from giving evidence as an "expert" witness in cases involving the LTI 20/20 devices he was responsible for importing and selling to UK authorities?
Ah, the man from Tele-Traffic. I don't know about being barred but a judge had this to say about him (extract from court report).IN THE CROWN COURT AT NORTHAMPTON Case No: A20050106 85/87 Lady's Lane Northampton Northamptonshire NN1 3HQ England
Friday, 3rd November 2006 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE P MORRELL
REGINA v GREGORY MORONEY-BARNETT
But in the judgement of this court, Mr Garratt can not be regarded, in these circumstances , as being a truly independent expert and one whom that in the circumstances, could have been of assistance to the court when it came to the issue of the efficacy of the machine simply because he has a very substantial financial interest in the outcome of that dispute and therefore the in outcome of this appeal he was not an appropriate man for the Prosecution to instruct and his cost of £823 would be disallowed.
As for the forensics issue, the words of Professor Niels Morling prior to the closure of the FSS come to mind.
'Please consider what you will do next - ask where [you] will be in five or 10 years' time if this goes ahead?'
The Tories are obsessed with privatisation as if it is some sort of universal salve.
It reminds me of Lord Darlington's definition of a cynic: 'a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.'
It reminds me of a case in the US where a forensic scientist was arrested due to inconsistencies over years:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-lab-tech...
I imagine it's not malicious alterations, just laziness, shortcuts and insufficient oversight. (Not that excuses anything of course)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-lab-tech...
I imagine it's not malicious alterations, just laziness, shortcuts and insufficient oversight. (Not that excuses anything of course)
Red Devil said:
The Tories are obsessed with privatisation as if it is some sort of universal salve.
Not sure there's anything wrong with privitising some of this. We don't want the public sector manufacturing speed cameras, do we?Perhaps the answer is to provide access and limited financial incentive for another private company (or companies) to find inaccuracies.
It is not necessarily a problem with privatisation of forensic examination in this case. There could be any number of reasons for the CPS to pull the case.
However, there is a problem generally with employing staff of sufficient ability and commitment if pay is very low. I don't know whether it is the case in forensic laboratories but it can often be in privatised government services. They put the role out to tender and go for the highest bidder.
The privatisation of forensic examinations has caused a few problems in the service, according to what I've been told. There were also problems reported in Police Review and in New Scientist as well.
But the information from all sources might be wrong. The forensic labs might be filled with well qualified, well paid, highly motivated staff who whistle all day while they are working their very reasonable hours.
What needs to be done with forensic examination is not necessarily return it to the police but to ensure the work is done well and at a reasonable price.
However, there is a problem generally with employing staff of sufficient ability and commitment if pay is very low. I don't know whether it is the case in forensic laboratories but it can often be in privatised government services. They put the role out to tender and go for the highest bidder.
The privatisation of forensic examinations has caused a few problems in the service, according to what I've been told. There were also problems reported in Police Review and in New Scientist as well.
But the information from all sources might be wrong. The forensic labs might be filled with well qualified, well paid, highly motivated staff who whistle all day while they are working their very reasonable hours.
What needs to be done with forensic examination is not necessarily return it to the police but to ensure the work is done well and at a reasonable price.
It is easy to claim that if something is privatised, there is a profit motive driving the results, but it is equally true that some state sponsored organisations employ people who deliberately thwart the correct process out of a misplaced sense of duty or pride.
For instance police officers have been known to "fit up" suspects, but not for personal financial gain.
The answer in both instances is for better independent oversight in order to ensure that no shortcuts are taken, and that any private involvement does not allow profit to interfere with the proper and thorough work that is to be undertaken.
For instance police officers have been known to "fit up" suspects, but not for personal financial gain.
The answer in both instances is for better independent oversight in order to ensure that no shortcuts are taken, and that any private involvement does not allow profit to interfere with the proper and thorough work that is to be undertaken.
I heard it on good authority that a certain company have form in the manipulation of results. In fact, I have heard from a number of sources that it's endemic.
I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
Skyrat said:
I heard it on good authority that a certain company have form in the manipulation of results. In fact, I have heard from a number of sources that it's endemic.
I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
Surely they get paid for the work they do, not if the sample is above the limit? I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
I work for a large pharmaceutical company as a research chemist. Tin foil hats on. The things that are done would terrify you. New product fail the testing criteria? Write a deviation stating the testing criteria and acceptance limits were too strict and that the product is actually a pass. For example, a surgical implant device we produce; the device wasn't sealing blood quickly enough to stop the possibility of a patent bleed out. Senior management and QA advice? Pass it, get it on the market and fix the issues after product launch.
Makes my stomach turn.
Makes my stomach turn.
Tony1963 said:
98elise said:
.... Labour.....or were busy renationalising everything when they were in power?
Such as?I'm old enough to remember living with state owned utilities etc. in the main they were s
t. Ki3r said:
Skyrat said:
I heard it on good authority that a certain company have form in the manipulation of results. In fact, I have heard from a number of sources that it's endemic.
I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
Surely they get paid for the work they do, not if the sample is above the limit? I can't speak about every private forensic science provider in England, but I know a few of them are poor. It's a dangerous game to hand forensic science over to private companies whose primary aim is to make a profit.
Mill Wheel said:
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=285...
A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
Stepping back a bit... Capita? They "make it up" at will for fun - but manage to win ever more gubberment contracts.A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
Police Professional said:
Earlier this week two scientists from RTS were arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice after it emerged that some test results may have been manipulated.
The article goes on to quote the laboratory concerned, as pointing the finger at quality control issues.However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
Go on then... Deloitte? They were recently banned from procuring for government contracts for six months after an oversight (see recent Private Eyes); not that this stopped them tendering and ministers considering their tenders while still banned from tendering!
G4S? The 2012 Olympics scandal regards providing "security" for said event - they are still a provider of government services, despite the need for the Army to be involved in filling in the gaps in said event after they fu err messed up in terms of staffing...
Not sure where the truth lies, but I'm minded to keep it in the government rather than arguing that a private organisation got it wrong?!? Consequences (& culpability), and all that
plus a complaint to one body versus a complaint to "who knows who?" which just dissipates into scotch mist because responsibility is shared (NHS vs. care uk, as an example) 
.But then I'm a luddite who thinks government services should be provided by the government, back in the days when it was credible and beyond reproach
.aw51 121565 said:
Stepping back a bit... Capita? They "make it up" at will for fun - but manage to win ever more gubberment contracts.
Go on then... Deloitte? They were recently banned from procuring for government contracts for six months after an oversight (see recent Private Eyes); not that this stopped them tendering and ministers considering their tenders while still banned from tendering!
G4S? The 2012 Olympics scandal regards providing "security" for said event - they are still a provider of government services, despite the need for the Army to be involved in filling in the gaps in said event after they fu err messed up in terms of staffing...
Not sure where the truth lies, but I'm minded to keep it in the government rather than arguing that a private organisation got it wrong?!? Consequences (& culpability), and all that plus a complaint to one body versus a complaint to "who knows who?" which just dissipates into scotch mist because responsibility is shared (NHS vs. care uk, as an example) .
But then I'm a luddite who thinks government services should be provided by the government, back in the days when it was credible and beyond reproach .
Funny you should mention Capita, in the light of today's revelation that it is to be investigated by the BBC over the License fee collection...Go on then... Deloitte? They were recently banned from procuring for government contracts for six months after an oversight (see recent Private Eyes); not that this stopped them tendering and ministers considering their tenders while still banned from tendering!
G4S? The 2012 Olympics scandal regards providing "security" for said event - they are still a provider of government services, despite the need for the Army to be involved in filling in the gaps in said event after they fu err messed up in terms of staffing...
Not sure where the truth lies, but I'm minded to keep it in the government rather than arguing that a private organisation got it wrong?!? Consequences (& culpability), and all that
plus a complaint to one body versus a complaint to "who knows who?" which just dissipates into scotch mist because responsibility is shared (NHS vs. care uk, as an example) .But then I'm a luddite who thinks government services should be provided by the government, back in the days when it was credible and beyond reproach
.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048
BBC News said:
A spokesman added: "Capita is required by the BBC to ensure households are not breaking the law. Officers are expected to act in a professional manner.
"We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
REALLY?? It has been reported here that they make claims they are not legally entitled to make!"We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
A problem is that repeated outsourcing has led to many public bodies ever being able to bring stuff back in house.
The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
Ian Geary said:
A problem is that repeated outsourcing has led to many public bodies ever being able to bring stuff back in house.
The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
Cumbria County Council used to farm out admin to Capita, as well as some highway projects.The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
A lot of it was brought back in house after they decided Capita weren't as efficient as they said they were, and they were cutting corners.
There is presently a spat over Amey and highways maintenance which looks like costing the county a lot of money!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff