Police and Crime Commisioners Wow Just Wow
Discussion
In any real world organisations with some sense and standards neither Crompton or Wright would have passed the paper sift for the positions they hold/held.
That Wright could get into office as a PCC given his past shows how ill thought out and implemented the whole jobs for the boys, gravy train the PCC lottery is. You gotta be in it to win it.
That Wright could get into office as a PCC given his past shows how ill thought out and implemented the whole jobs for the boys, gravy train the PCC lottery is. You gotta be in it to win it.
La Liga said:
What's wrong with Crompton?
A few seconds' googling brings this up:http://www.upsd.co.uk/david-crompton/
Obviously the source has a bias, but it's a good place to start looking. Before you start the "it's all police-hater stuff" defence, consider this part from the same site:
http://www.upsd.co.uk/danny-major/
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 22 September 21:29
Rovinghawk said:
Before you start the "it's all police-hater stuff" defence, consider this part from the same site:
http://www.upsd.co.uk/danny-major/
What difference does it make that the accused is an officer? There's some controversy with the conviction which he can twist into alleging there's a bigger, more senior issue so he'll do it. He does the same with the apparent West Yorkshire racism, where he takes disciplinary procedures / prosecutions against minority officers and somehow concludes it was based on race. http://www.upsd.co.uk/danny-major/
That specific example has been to CCRC who rejected a retrial. I suppose the CCRC is corrupt, too, as an extension of those irrational conclusions.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 22 September 21:46
Rovinghawk said:
You asked what's wrong with Crompton- I supplied some suggestions.
I would have thought a quick "Thanks for answering my question" would be the order of the day.
Unfortunately I wanted facts. Not a website that looks like Carinaman put it together. I would have thought a quick "Thanks for answering my question" would be the order of the day.
Alexis Jay states in her report about CSE in Rotherham that, "the Police are now well resourced for CSE and well trained." In the time frame she specifies, who has been the Chief there and driven the improvements, which has probably been hard given the previous reluctance? Now that's fact, not wibble.
La Liga said:
Unfortunately I wanted facts.
Here's a little excerpt from the first link I gave you:"Crompton was also a key player in the attempt to reduce or remove pensions from retired Injured on Duty officers that ended up costing the police hundreds of thousands of pounds, another High Court drubbing and the legal costs to go with it."
You can check whether it's the truth and decide whether it's an acceptable answer to your query as to what's wrong with him.
You're welcome.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Unfortunately I wanted facts.
Here's a little excerpt from the first link I gave you:"Crompton was also a key player in the attempt to reduce or remove pensions from retired Injured on Duty officers that ended up costing the police hundreds of thousands of pounds, another High Court drubbing and the legal costs to go with it."
You can check whether it's the truth and decide whether it's an acceptable answer to your query as to what's wrong with him.
You're welcome.
Website said:
The Court ruling by HH Brian Langstaff impacted on police authorities up and down the country, including West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire (to whom West Yorkshire are contracted to provide Treasurer and audit services)
Up and down the country? So lots of police authorities were doing the same. This is supported by the quote from the solicitor who represented them: Ron Thompson said:
“Police authorities should be contacting all the pensioners they have reviewed in this manner and see if they want to sort it out,” he added. “There will be hundreds, if not thousands, of injured ex-officers in this country who have had their pensions reduced unlawfully.”
So why were all these police authorities doing this? Website said:
who adopted controversial Home Office guidance encouraging them to slash spending on injury pensions.
Oh, so there was Home Office guidance. I presume this 'business area' was in one of Crompton's portfolios whilst serving in West Yorkshire. So according to the author, Crompton has followed Home Office guidance, which apparently lots of police authorities did, and then there's been a legal challenge to show the guidance to be wrong.
Wow, talk about a smoking gun! I totally change my mind about the whole thing. To think, a senior officer actually following guidance from the Home Office. I've never seen such corruption.
I read the page quickly, too. It didn't take long to see the gaping flaws.
We'll have to revert to the original "what's wrong with him?"
He's overseen a change in the way CSE is dealt with so much so the report complements it. He's also very keen to have a large scale I dependent review of what the report covers.
Seems what I want a CC to do to me.
We'll have to revert to the original "what's wrong with him?"
He's overseen a change in the way CSE is dealt with so much so the report complements it. He's also very keen to have a large scale I dependent review of what the report covers.
Seems what I want a CC to do to me.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Court location should be the most cost-effective location overall for the tax payer, which might not be the most convenient location for plod.
The police don't dictate the rules governing court locations. It's not set in stone, but there's this whole "idealism justice thing" that the people of the area the offence is committed should see justice tried and done in their area. Selfish gits! V8 Fettler said:
Where should the crime be recorded? If you mean where should the police record the crime, it should be recorded on a national database managed by a national police force, because that would be cost-effective for the tax payer.
No, it's geographically recorded in South Yorkshire. A national police force doesn't currently exist. V8 Fettler said:
Officers travelling to court with reference to the search process and results? Present the search report to the defence prior to the trial, if they accept it then no requirement for an officer involved in the search to attend court (savings for the tax payer)
Present it to the defence pre-trial? Obviously. Your economic efficiencies are based on the hope the evidence is accepted, in which a high-profile case is probably not going not occur. So you're relying on something occurring in an area you have no experience to dismiss the economic arguments raised by those who do have experience. A little flawed. From a pure business-case point of view, you'd make economic judgements from a probable basis, would you not? You've concluded it's an "insular little empire" too quickly, and now stubbornly won't move from that position and are trying to justify it no matter what. There are all the other aspects which present a risk beyond the economic that Derek has pointed out. You'd do well to re-read those as they need to go into the decision-making pot.
Normal practice is that other police forces do other things for other forces (unless it's high profile / specific / other justification), so you painting a culture of "insular" is, again, wrong.
V8 Fettler said:
if the defence requires clarifications then deal with these before the trial. Then there will be no ambushes by either side at the trial wrt the search process and the results of the search. This would undermine a few grandstanding legal bods, but so be it. Edit: perhaps this occurs already (?)
Of course! Clarify it pre-trial. I'll tell the Judge that next time the defence want me to appear for something like continuity. "Your honour, I'm not coming to give evidence at the defence's request, they should have clarified it pre-trial!" It's easy to just re-write the rules and laws to try and bend it around your arguments. You've already had lots of time and effort explaining why what was done was done and why, and why it's much more probable to be economically efficient. If you continue to think you know best then fine, it makes no difference to the way those who do will operate.
Yes, I know that a national police force doesn't exist, I'm proposing that it should exist
Please tell me that you are not in a position of responsibility within the legal sector.Is it still possible for a search to be ruled unlawful during a trial? That's nonsensical, think of all the taxpayer's money that would be wasted if the trial then foundered. If the defence want to challenge a search then that should be dealt with by a judge before the costs of a trial escalate. And if the defence can't get it right pre-trial then why should they have a second attempt during the trial?
Why should a police force cross boundaries just because a case is high profile? There's no logic there, sounds like grandstanding at the taxpayer's expense to me.
Provided justice isn't compromised any more than it is currently, why shouldn't the rules be re-written if it saves taxpayer's money?
Unfortunately, you are generally correct in stating that "those who do" pay little attention to the taxpayer. As an example, compare the costs of the procurement processes of the myriad insular little empires with the costs of procuring under a national contract.
Just say no to post dissection
Edited by V8 Fettler on Monday 22 September 22:45
V8 Fettler said:
The taxpayer should dictate court location by demanding the most efficient use of tax money. Justice tried and done in their area? How does that work with the Old Bailey and the RCJ?
It's the accused who needs to travel to where they offended, not the other way around. So now you have more cost by shipping the witnesses across to whatever part of the country the accused happens to be at (think of the costs of that). That'll really encourage witnesses, usually the most important part of a prosecution, to attend court and be willing to give evidence, won't it? V8 Fettler said:
Yes, I know that a national police force doesn't exist, I'm proposing that it should exist
I know you knew it didn't, but it's practically irrelevant here, isn't it? V8 Fettler said:
Is it still possible for a search to be ruled unlawful during a trial? That's nonsensical, think of all the taxpayer's money that would be wasted if the trial then foundered. If the defence want to challenge a search then that should be dealt with by a judge before the costs of a trial escalate. And if the defence can't get it right pre-trial then why should they have a second attempt during the trial?
Why bother with juries at all? Why not just have people thrash everything out before and have a Judge decide guilt. It'll save the tax payer money, after all 
An accused has a fundamental right for any witness to be questioned in front of the people judging him or her. You may be happy to forego this right under some carte-blanche 'saving money' guise, but I don't think many would be. There are also reasons the prosecution may want all the witnesses present for a serious trial.
V8 Fettler said:
Why should a police force cross boundaries just because a case is high profile? There's no logic that, sounds like grandstanding at the taxpayer's expense to me.
It's perfectly logical and it's already been explained to you. There's less investigatory risk with fewer people involved, fewer property stores etc. Fewer people also = cheaper. Especially when it's probable they'll have to travel, and have hotel etc costs, resulting in a greater net expense. It's not hard to grasp. You can't have it both ways here. Complain about costs and what occurred, then when it's pointing out it is highly likely to be cheaper, fall-back on "well it should be changed". You're either critical at the practical level, or not.
It's nothing to do with "grandstanding"
It's about having local control of an investigation your team is responsible for for better control. V8 Fettler said:
Provided justice isn't compromised any more than it is currently, why shouldn't the rules be re-written if it saves taxpayer's money?
I agree with the principle, but not based on your assessment since you can't see the cost implications and have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence is disclosed and presented. V8 Fettler said:
Unfortunately, you are generally correct in stating that "those who do" pay little attention to the taxpayer. As an example, compare the costs of the procurement processes of the myriad insular little empires with the costs of procuring under a national contract.
Each force recruits according to its current demand and projections. Paper-sifting and assessments are done at the optimum scale so the costs are relatively fixed. National recruitment would cause localised issues i.e. a high-scoring skew down South doesn't help the Northern Constabularies who may have all the available spaces. What you see occurring in one sector doesn't transpose to another. 
La Liga said:
Website said:
who adopted controversial Home Office guidance encouraging them to slash spending on injury pensions.
Oh, so there was Home Office guidance. I presume this 'business area' was in one of Crompton's portfolios whilst serving in West Yorkshire. So according to the author, Crompton has followed Home Office guidance, which apparently lots of police authorities did, and then there's been a legal challenge to show the guidance to be wrong.
Wow, talk about a smoking gun! I totally change my mind about the whole thing. To think, a senior officer actually following guidance from the Home Office. I've never seen such corruption.
But the thing is that it was a direction from the Home Office. Failure to conform to 'guidance' (i.e. order) would have rendered the force open to criticism by HMIC.
So just when you are not able to defend yourself because of your injury, the government put the boot into you.
It's over now, but I still resent the Blunkett inspired attack on the injured.
La Liga said:
The same as charge wording does, oh wait...
I've never been charged, so wouldn't know the wording, but if that also presumes guilt then I'd have to disapprove.La Liga said:
Just because your pension-baiting didn't work 
That wasn't baiting, that was providing an answer to your question.It doesn't, nor do I.
You could reasonably infer that (and you know it) since in the same post I expressed support for the justice system and how it shouldn't be compromised for the sake of cost saving.
You're just being pedantic because I omitted the word "allegedly".
Being similarly pedantic, I hope you don't mind, you didn't answer my question. My question was "what's wrong with Crompton?", not "what does some wibble-master spin to try and make him wrong on his s
t website?" That one was answered very well.
You could reasonably infer that (and you know it) since in the same post I expressed support for the justice system and how it shouldn't be compromised for the sake of cost saving.
You're just being pedantic because I omitted the word "allegedly".
Being similarly pedantic, I hope you don't mind, you didn't answer my question. My question was "what's wrong with Crompton?", not "what does some wibble-master spin to try and make him wrong on his s
t website?" That one was answered very well. La Liga said:
You're just being pedantic because I omitted the word "allegedly".
Important omission, to be fair.La Liga said:
Being similarly pedantic, I hope you don't mind, you didn't answer my question. My question was "what's wrong with Crompton?"
I googled "Crompton Police Wrong" & that's what came up. Sorry it wasn't to your liking.Could you try a search of your own with either a different search engine or different keywords & see what comes up?
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
You're just being pedantic because I omitted the word "allegedly".
Important omission, to be fair.Rovinghawk said:
Could you try a search of your own with either a different search engine or different keywords & see what comes up?
I'm only interested in credible sources. From the factual things I can see he's doing the right things in his post and is the sort of CC we want leading the police. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff