New police scandal
Discussion
Tea Pot One said:
The Daily Mail is misleading people about the police again ... Police are quite rightly required to declare any business interests ... Which is what this is ... Not necessarily second jobs ! I have two such interests .... And neither is - I would suggest - a job in the normal everyday meaning ... Unless you call occasional unpaid work and renting a flat to a relative as a 'job' ... But both will be in the newspapers latest attempt to discredit police at any opportunity !!
Quite.Mind you the Mail has been doing this for at least 20 years. At least they are consistent.
turbobloke said:
Thank goodness that some newspapers publish these stories.
You can't argue with factual reporting. As Teapot says the bare figures require explanation that is not given, so a misleading impression is created. It could be sloppy journalism, but I doubt it. It has been too consistent.I don't really see the issue here?
I'm assuming that if you're a serving officer that you have to declare a second job so is there really supposed to be a much greater chance of conflict of interest because you're a part time pallbearer and may get called to investigate your second employer vs. being called to a job where your wife, mother, brother, sister, best mate, second cousin twice removed might work?
I'm assuming that if you're a serving officer that you have to declare a second job so is there really supposed to be a much greater chance of conflict of interest because you're a part time pallbearer and may get called to investigate your second employer vs. being called to a job where your wife, mother, brother, sister, best mate, second cousin twice removed might work?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't really see the issue here?
I'm assuming that if you're a serving officer that you have to declare a second job so is there really supposed to be a much greater chance of conflict of interest because you're a part time pallbearer and may get called to investigate your second employer vs. being called to a job where your wife, mother, brother, sister, best mate, second cousin twice removed might work?
Well in my view, it's not new and it's not a scandal. I guess it'll get a few Mail readers frothing though.I'm assuming that if you're a serving officer that you have to declare a second job so is there really supposed to be a much greater chance of conflict of interest because you're a part time pallbearer and may get called to investigate your second employer vs. being called to a job where your wife, mother, brother, sister, best mate, second cousin twice removed might work?
turbobloke said:
Reminiscent of Labour's starlet Margaret Hodge berating company chiefs for not paying enough tax.
Margaret Hodge family company pays just 0.01pc tax on 2.1bn of business generated in the UK
As to Vaz, nothing more needs to be said.
See here for more details (para on the right).
'Outrage' at Police having second jobs.
Well, I demand the Special Constabulary are disbanded immediately. It's a shame the Gov have recruited an extra 20000 of them to fill the big hole they created. We can't possibly have them working for a living and doing Police work (for free) at the same time.
Well, I demand the Special Constabulary are disbanded immediately. It's a shame the Gov have recruited an extra 20000 of them to fill the big hole they created. We can't possibly have them working for a living and doing Police work (for free) at the same time.
turbobloke said:
Are the numbers wrong? There seems to be no suggestion that the numbers are made up or exaggerated,
23,000 police officers with second jobs, that's 10% of the total, so yes, grossly exaggerated and made up. Whilst it doesn't really matter as only the weak minded and the totally prejudiced against the police (the same ones) would be taken in. Even the DM journos were not taken in. They were telling lies.I feel certain that the police had nothing to do with the supply of such distorted and made up figures.
There's an additional story in the DMonline which, if you read the headlines, suggests that an 'officer' is teaching pole dancing.
But then people who are prejudiced against the police will continue to believe what they want to believe, and no doubt believe that it is somehow wrong for police officers to have a second job.
I don't care whether or not they have business interests, second or third jobs, whatever.
However, if one listens to some of the posts on here about 14 hour days, 8 days a week etc, it is at least surprising that so many are said to be able to do extra work.
So much has been said and written it is impossible to know who is lying the most.
As the crime rate is falling, despite the cuts, then the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But then again, maybe the crime rate isn't falling?
However, if one listens to some of the posts on here about 14 hour days, 8 days a week etc, it is at least surprising that so many are said to be able to do extra work.
So much has been said and written it is impossible to know who is lying the most.
As the crime rate is falling, despite the cuts, then the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But then again, maybe the crime rate isn't falling?
Scandal? Some SpAd is having a laugh at this one running.
So, the BiB have to declare business interests / additional employment - so they are much more transparent than other folk. They also cannot play around with not paying the right tax etc?
The bobbies are paid their basic for 40 hours a week but have restrictions placed upon their private lives as they are servants of the crown.
And as for Brian Paddick's fatuous comments....well? Is anyone suprised?
Sounds to me likecorrupt, self serving scum politicians judging others by their own standards.
So, the BiB have to declare business interests / additional employment - so they are much more transparent than other folk. They also cannot play around with not paying the right tax etc?
The bobbies are paid their basic for 40 hours a week but have restrictions placed upon their private lives as they are servants of the crown.
And as for Brian Paddick's fatuous comments....well? Is anyone suprised?
Sounds to me like
Derek Smith said:
I feel certain that the police had nothing to do with the supply of such distorted and made up figures.
Perhaps 2013 will be a better year for the police after the multiple scandals of 2012. Let's hope so. There's something very nasty about hearing the number of Chief Constables who have misbehaved, the number of coppers selling information to the press and the outright lies in connection with Downing Street security. When there's so much filth bobbing to the surface you can't help wondering what else is down there.sugerbear said:
The figures in the daily wail mentioned that the highest number were involved in letting. Can I hazard a guess that police officers have to declare they are renting out properties?
Yes, they do ... that is my 'business interest' ... my step father rents my flat !! I am sure all readers of the Daily Mail and PH needed to know that as it is obviously of concern !REALIST123 said:
As the crime rate is falling, despite the cuts, then the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But then again, maybe the crime rate isn't falling?
My force had a high rate of drug crime. According to the stats we were amongst the top 15 (circa, this was some time ago) forces: not too high/low but the press got hold of it and then the TV ran a programme of the rampant drug availability on our streets. A senior police officer looked into the matter, found that most of the drug crime was self generated so disbanded the drugs squad and guess what? Yep, we were suddenly amongst the best in the country.The reason, according to the CC's annual report, was putting those with drugs squad experience on division, to help the PCs.
We had an operation to remove drug sellers from a town centre. This was, to an extent, very effective but the problem was that the dealers went from locations where we knew thay'd be to more covert places. Given that this was at a time of cuts (nothing new under the sun) we were unable to commit units to look for them, not that I would have done as if it wasn't obvious only 'regulars' would know where they were. Once word got out we would take steps to move them on.
But if you cut police numbers, crime will drop. Of course it will. Much crime is generated from police sticking their noses into things which offenders wished didn't concern them.
10 Pence Short said:
Are you suggesting that the figures published by HMIC are lies?
Sorry to come to this reply late but I've just seen it.If you mean by lies, meant to confuse, bewilder, trick, misinform, muddle, mislead, not to mention deceive, then an unequivocal: Yes!
HMIC has always been a political animal, to a greater or lesser extent. Many of us thought it had reached its peak under Blair but we were doomed to disappointment. We now have a direct political appointment for the bloke in charge, a personal friend of the PM.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Perhaps 2013 will be a better year for the police after the multiple scandals of 2012. Let's hope so. There's something very nasty about hearing the number of Chief Constables who have misbehaved, the number of coppers selling information to the press and the outright lies in connection with Downing Street security. When there's so much filth bobbing to the surface you can't help wondering what else is down there.
Well, when MPs are defrauding expenses like there is no tomorrow, there is little hope is there? Rot starts at the top. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff