Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow
Discussion
davepoth said:
I'm struggling to understand why they had to come down from Yorkshire at all. Don't they have police in Berkshire?
Don't you think that Berkshire might have its own policing requirements?Forget what you see on TV police shows.
One of the particular concerns of the SIO will be to ensure that all witnesses turn up to court. If the trial is to take place at one end of the country then it is risky to have officers from the other end as witnesses. They don't even need to be critical witnesses. The defence brief might well demand the search officers' attendance at court so these officers will have to stay overnight, maybe two or three nights, and someone has to pay for that.
One of the ways to generate a full witness order is to appear as if there might be a logistical problem for attendance.
Further, the SIO has officers who know the case. Whilst it is pointless being specific to this case when we know so little about it, what we can assume is that this is one where there will be an expensive defence team, so risks need to be limited. So the SIO wants officers in the case whose abilities he/she knows. Briefings are never so good as already having worked on the case.
There are lots of other aspects, one of which is the simple case of dates of non-availability. Whilst this isn't so important nowadays as officers can be messed around almost without concern for welfare or home life, there is still the problem of sorting out lots of officers. Limiting the range of officers on the list is part of the requirement.
I've worked on some major incidents and the one thing that has impressed me every time is the ability of the SIO to think of 'everything'. He or she will have others to help and advise of course - some detective sergeants are remarkable, really impressive - but the SIO needs to have quite a high intellect. Despite me being of the rank that could be an SIO, I know my limits and there's no way I could have been in charge - and there's lots of SIOs who would agree with me on that I'm sure.
So there's the budget limiting the range of the investigation so before this specific operation there would have been a meeting to work out the most efficient, i.e. cheapest, way of doing it. If it was as simple as using one minivan and getting the local police to wander around when they felt like it, then one might wonder why it wasn't suggested.
I'm out of the loop nowadays but some years ago a detective sergeant was complaining that there were two levels of DNA testing: quite quick or whenever. She reckoned that every DNA test had to go through a sifting system where the quicker test had to be justified. The way this had to be done to was show that it probably would save money.
This on a simple test, any number of which might be required given the specifics of the case. Then the top 10 or so went for the rapid test as that was all the budget could afford.
The thing is that I just know a little bit of the problem, certainly less than 5%, and I had 30 years in the job and having worked on major enquiries.
SIOs have impressed me over the years. I haven't the ability to keep so many threads going at once for an extended period. They can defend themselves I know, but can you see why, when people suggest they are idiots with no concern for costs, I get a bit irritated.
On TV we see the major problem for an SIO is a superintendent who doesn't think female SIOs can do the job, or that the super has PMT. If only.
One SIO I admired used to bring a camp bed to his office and sleep there for the first week of the enquiry. He was HOLMES but quicker. And yet people on here reckon he can't work out the bleedin simple.
For one attempted murder, this chap was up against one of the cleverest defence teams set up. He probably predicted this from the start. He made a decision early on in the enquiry, Action 2 in fact, which cracked the case. He took a risk with his career (and was punished for it) and yet, it seems, such people only want to pose.
SIOs aren't perfect and they make mistakes. Indeed, the 'hero' DI probably got as good as he was by making the occasional one. But really . . . the vast majority are well worth the awe I hold them in.
FiF said:
I'm sorry, but arguing about the detail and obfuscating with diversionary tales of derring do doesn't alter someone in the job, be it Met or SYP tipped the wink to the media.
NOT acceptable
Full stop. Rule off.
Do you think it might be an idea to start a thread about it then? NOT acceptable
Full stop. Rule off.
I was answering the criticism of police logistics. Sorry to confuse you. Perhaps I should have put a quote from Dave at the top of the post.
FiF said:
I'm sorry, but arguing about the detail and obfuscating with diversionary tales of derring do doesn't alter someone in the job, be it Met or SYP tipped the wink to the media.
Chief Constable David Crompton QPM said in front of Vaz that he didn't trust the BBC.Doing a quick search to ensure I got his name correct I came across this:
http://www.upsd.co.uk/david-crompton/
I think it was the third paragraph that referred to mates/cronies affiliated to Labour in South Yorks. Just mentioning that given the involvement of Labour 'politicians' in the cover up of the sex crimes against 1400 young girls.
It seems like the chap that wrote to his MP about witnessing Andrew MITCHELL being abusive at the gates of Downing Street with his nephew that was visiting from Hong Kong, Chief Constable Crompton is the son of a police officer.
'Let's raid Sir Cliff Richard's pad in Royal Berks. as it will move the spotlight away from us failing to address the sexual abuse suffered by 1400 girls over a 16 year period.....'. I am not sure how such an idea could compare to the badmouthing of the bereaved that lost family members at Hillsborough?
Of course a Chinese Wall could have been put in place if SYP had asked another force to raid the penthouse of Cliff Richard.
Should someone have thought 'Let's get another constabulary to do this so it doesn't risk looking like a news management/spin operation given what's about to come out about Rotherham'? AFTER the phone call from the BBC after someone from the Met called the BBC and said 'Cliff Richard'?
Or do I have the benefit of hindsight?
What was it the father of Ryan Giggs said after Moyse left early? 'I wouldn't trust him (Ryan Giggs) to run a bath'?
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 20th September 10:14
Rovinghawk said:
So they could be more comfortable?
If there's a good reason then please tell.
My understanding from friends in my own county is that you don't just have a 'pool' of spare officers in one location to draw from at no notice. Should a search team be needed it is likely you would have to draw from the county as a whole to provide the teams. Again, using my county as a reference it would mean officers might be called, for instance, to the met from newhaven, eastbourne, bexhill, Hastings and rye. It would be crazy going along the coast and then up the m23 in a big car - so hence lots of cars are used to travel direct. Diesel is cheaper than man hours I suppose.If there's a good reason then please tell.
But we now have PCCs bellyaching about 'mutual aid' and having to send officers to South Wales for the NATO summit meeting.
If one of us dies in a road accident on the other side of the country wouldn't our loved ones be informed by the local plod or would an officer or two have to drive several hundred miles from one side of the country to the other to break the bad news?
These days in the age of social media some relatives find out about the death of loved ones from social media before the police can get to the door step and ring the door bell. I am not sure how that change in the way we communicate and information is spread compares to what could have been an orchestrated for the cameras raid on the penthouse of Cliff Richard?
If one of us dies in a road accident on the other side of the country wouldn't our loved ones be informed by the local plod or would an officer or two have to drive several hundred miles from one side of the country to the other to break the bad news?
These days in the age of social media some relatives find out about the death of loved ones from social media before the police can get to the door step and ring the door bell. I am not sure how that change in the way we communicate and information is spread compares to what could have been an orchestrated for the cameras raid on the penthouse of Cliff Richard?
Derek Smith said:
FiF said:
I'm sorry, but arguing about the detail and obfuscating with diversionary tales of derring do doesn't alter someone in the job, be it Met or SYP tipped the wink to the media.
NOT acceptable
Full stop. Rule off.
Do you think it might be an idea to start a thread about it then? NOT acceptable
Full stop. Rule off.
I was answering the criticism of police logistics. Sorry to confuse you. Perhaps I should have put a quote from Dave at the top of the post.
V8 Fettler said:
Did someone say insular? It's a police investigation, to be conducted efficiently with my tax money. There should be no internal "them and us" creating barriers and inefficiency.
And which court would it be tried at and where would the crime be recorded? How efficient would it be to have officers from miles away travelling up for a several day Crown Court trial? Plus you'd have more officers involved overall. Derek also provides lots of other reasons I need not repeat.
You can't link this "insular" nonsense to anything that's occurred no matter which angle you take.
FiF said:
I'm sorry, but arguing about the detail and obfuscating with diversionary tales of derring do doesn't alter someone in the job, be it Met or SYP tipped the wink to the media.
The BBC source wasn't in the police. La Liga said:
he BBC source wasn't in the police.
So why did Crompton apparently apologise for the way it was handled and the briefing of a journalist as to the details of the where and when. Even if that journalist was not BBC directly allegedly. Never mind the original source. It's deliberate obfuscation like that which winds up people up who are otherwise supportive of police.
Anyway we've been reminded about off topic and
Where did he apologise for what you've said? I can't find any quotes. I can only find him apologising if the force were "insensitive". He hasn't apologised for the briefing and stands by the judgement given the specificity of information they received and the impression they were left that the story would have been run and potentially compromised the investigation had the police not brought the BBC on-board.
Isn't misrepresenting what someone's apologised for obfuscation?
Decisions we made at the time. Being a hindsight king and after seeing the outcome it's easy to say what crystal ball decisions would have resulted in a better outcome, but the real world doesn't work like that.
Isn't misrepresenting what someone's apologised for obfuscation?
Decisions we made at the time. Being a hindsight king and after seeing the outcome it's easy to say what crystal ball decisions would have resulted in a better outcome, but the real world doesn't work like that.
He apologised to Sir Cliff for the insensitive way it was handled. So if he's not apologising for handling that included briefing a lowish ranked reporter without considering talking to senior BBC managers then just what is he apologising for? Sending an overhead shot of the property to make sure there was no error of location. Or not just telling the reporter to FRO and then sending seven shades of s
t over the leak. Just what does the apology to Sir Cliff mean then?
And if he's not apologising for all that then doesn't that make it worse. Or is this sorry for being insensitive just another load of no meaning bs bingo forked tongue management speak beloved of police politicians. Pah!
Semantics do you no favours. And noting that the original source of the leak with whether direct or via intermediaries is most likely to have come from Yewtree and once again the Met. Always the bloody Met.
In South Yorkshire was disgusted by the behaviour of the Met when they came up on mutual support. But since buggered off away from SY have been saddened to see what strokes they've pulled or situations into which been manipulated.
t over the leak. Just what does the apology to Sir Cliff mean then?And if he's not apologising for all that then doesn't that make it worse. Or is this sorry for being insensitive just another load of no meaning bs bingo forked tongue management speak beloved of police politicians. Pah!
Semantics do you no favours. And noting that the original source of the leak with whether direct or via intermediaries is most likely to have come from Yewtree and once again the Met. Always the bloody Met.
In South Yorkshire was disgusted by the behaviour of the Met when they came up on mutual support. But since buggered off away from SY have been saddened to see what strokes they've pulled or situations into which been manipulated.
gpo746 said:
Happen if you kept it to police commisioners you would do better eh ?
We all know plod is losing touch with normal people no real need to rub it in.
Sorry, will now do so, unfortunately the skeletons are rattling in the closet at Chez Crompton.We all know plod is losing touch with normal people no real need to rub it in.
With that, I'm out unless it's completely related to PCCs.
FiF said:
He apologised to Sir Cliff for the insensitive way it was handled.
He said, "We had a job to do. I apologise to Sir Cliff if we were insensitive about the way we did that. We had an investigation, the problem for us was that investigation could never be done in a low profile way because it was fatally compromised from the outset."He also said, "I'm confident that we made the right decision in difficult and unusual circumstances."
You're talking one several-second line from a Q&A conversation, in a pressure cooker environment and extrapolating it to mean what you want it to.
FiF said:
without considering talking to senior BBC managers
It was considered. Have you actually read any of what was said? It's easy for Lord Hall to say after the fact that they wouldn't have run it. That doesn't help a judgement made AT THE TIME, which used examples of where such appeals had been unsuccessful to help make the decision. FiF said:
then just what is he apologising for?
I'm not sure what the insensitivity refers to. Perhaps the panel could have asked (I don't believe they did) for clarification for everyone's benefit rather than Vaz showboating with crap like this, "Criminals must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of dealing with your officers who appear to give in at the first opportunity." - what is he talking about? Idiot. FiF said:
And if he's not apologising for all that then doesn't that make it worse.
Why would he need to apologise for an investigation that went normally? The unusual facet was the BBC approached the police with specific information and they managed it as they judged best at the time. Practically, it made little difference as the coverage would have been just as great and it's just an irrelevant sideshow. FiF said:
Semantics do you no favours.
You call it semantics, I call it accuracy. FiF said:
In South Yorkshire was disgusted by the behaviour of the Met when they came up on mutual support. But since buggered off away from SY have been saddened to see what strokes they've pulled or situations into which been manipulated.
??? gpo746 said:
We all know plod is losing touch with normal people no real need to rub it in.
Do we all know, or are you thinking that your opinion is reality? From when to when? How do you measure that and make sure it's not just bias? National, independent surveys around police perception and trust have shown little deviation over the past decade. What do you know that they don't? Surveying also consistently shows that those who have had to use the police have a greater experience than they would have thought / perceived they would have, had they not dealt with them i.e. the satisfaction is greater than the confidence.
La Liga said:
National, independent surveys around police perception and trust have shown little deviation over the past decade. What do you know that they don't?
Surveying also consistently shows that those who have had to use the police have a greater experience than they would have thought / perceived they would have, had they not dealt with them i.e. the satisfaction is greater than the confidence.
Sir Humphrey had a great deal of advice on getting a survey to reflect whatever opinion the people commissioning the survey wanted:Surveying also consistently shows that those who have had to use the police have a greater experience than they would have thought / perceived they would have, had they not dealt with them i.e. the satisfaction is greater than the confidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why not 7 in one minibus? How many other insular little empires did South Yorks plod cross to get to Berks? Why didn't local Berks plod deal with it? Was it a different insular little empire?
Can you imagine how irritating it is when someone with no experience of police work can pick up the 'obvious' failings.I remember a book on the Bades in the Wood murders which criticised the police enquiry on so many levels that you would have thought that an author had organised it. One particular one, which great play was made, was using a detective to drive a car when there were so many traffic officers with nothing to do.
Whilst this was around 1986, even in those days economy was demanded and overtime was rationed. Mind you, at least it existed, unlike now. The SIO had a budget (on a double murder of two children under the age of 10) and had to work within it. He was a bit sharp and so used a DC who was involved in the case to save a little bit of money.
On costs are easy enough to understand. Yet here we had a frequently published author, with a number of books under his belt, could work out what every SIO can crack in a second.
So you want a minivan to be used. The logistics of this is not quite as simple as the simple might think. I could work through some of the likely problems but then I might try treacle bending.
But then, it takes so little thought to work it out that it shows laziness or, perhaps, bias.
I like the idea of the local police doing a search, at least if it wasn't my search team being used for a job based miles away. In this case there might well be a number of locations, perhaps half a dozen. The court case could then close search teams all over the country.
But don't let the idea that you know best stop you posting on the matter of inefficient police officers. It didn't stop the author I mentioned publishing a book 'proving' that Bishop was not guilty of the Babes in the Wood murder on the week that Bishop attempted to murder a 12-year-old using identical MO. He knew just how way off beam the enquiry was.
The police service is not perfect. But to suggest wanton waste just shows ignorance of police systems.
No experience of police work? Some as a supporting role for 1/2 dozen forces over 30 plus years, but certainly not as a police officer, I couldn't take orders from the incompetents above. Wanton waste? Not particularly, incompetent waste though.
V8 Fettler said:
I have little interest in how irritated you are Derek, I'm more irritated with the dire performance of South Yorks police, particularly as it involves my tax money.
No experience of police work? Some as a supporting role for 1/2 dozen forces over 30 plus years, but certainly not as a police officer, I couldn't take orders from the incompetents above. Wanton waste? Not particularly, incompetent waste though.
This ^^^. Exactly this, internationally. No experience of police work? Some as a supporting role for 1/2 dozen forces over 30 plus years, but certainly not as a police officer, I couldn't take orders from the incompetents above. Wanton waste? Not particularly, incompetent waste though.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff