Hillsborough Inquest

[Red 4]

A simple answer will suffice - do you think the reputation of South Yorks Police has been damaged in the last week ?

You're the one who referred to opinion polls - not me.

PS The Andrew Mitchell affair was very different, for many reasons.

You accused me of "doing a Burnham" and "bouncing around the decades" earlier
Here's a scoop - Hillsborough happened in 1989 and this saga has gone on for decades - everything that happened in between is relevant, but, for the sake of clarity, an answer to the question at the top of this post will do.

Ta.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

A simple answer will suffice - do you think the reputation of South Yorks Police has been damaged in the last week ?

Short-term yes, long-term no. If you look at the future surveying and measurements that'll be taken for SYP, I bet they'll be in line with the national picture. They remained so throughout the CSE revelations (or will that now become different like Pleb Gate?).

Red 4 said:

You're the one who referred to opinion polls - not me.

Yep, the ones which show that the trend is steady through the ups and downs, as opposed to making assumptions and links with no evidence. For example, this is from the latest HMIC Inspection from 2015 - post-CSE revelations, with a comparison pre-CSE revelations about victim satisfaction, which the report covers.

You'll note it's actually slightly better than the national average and there's no change pre and post CSE.



Hang-on? How can this be? Surely they have a culture of treating victims badly? That's only 'logical', right? The victims of CSE were poorly treated so that allows me to extrapolate that to everything (just like I can with senior officers!). Why doesn't it reflect in the data? Atypcial, statistical extremes don't influence the core, perhaps? Who knows? Regardless, it should ring some alarm bells about making lazy assumptions as to perceptions, confidence, trust, reputation etc.

Red 4 said:

PS The Andrew Mitchell affair was very different, for many reasons.

It also had a negative reputational risk.

Red 4 said:

You accused me of "doing a Burnham" and "bouncing around the decades" earlier
Here's a scoop - Hillsborough happened in 1989 and this saga has gone on for decades - everything that happened in between is relevant, but, for the sake of clarity, an answer to the question at the top of this post will do.

Ta.

Why? It had nothing to do with the source of the that point. You generalised and said senior officers are basically bad and in it for themselves:

Red 4 said:

My overwhelming opinion of the majority of the very senior ranks in the police service is that they could not give one jot about policing/ the public/ or even the truth.
They only care about themselves.

I replied my experience was the opposite:

La Liga said:

Having been one and known loads of staff officers to various SCTs, I reach the opposite conclusion.

You then decided to change the goal posts and change from a generalision, to specifics:

Red 4 said:

In that case, considering this thread is about Hillsborough, would you like to try and defend and justify the actions of the senior officers of South Yorkshire Police - both on the 15 April 1989, in the immediate aftermath, in the "cover-up campaign"/ slurring of Liverpool fans and in the 27 years following the disaster ?

I'm failing to see how the public interest has been at the forefront of their actions and has been put before their own self-preservation and the reputation of the force.

Good luck.

I replied that there's evidence of Duckenfield's wrong-doing. If there's evidence of wrong-doing by other senior officers in SYP since 1989 then I'll draw the appropriate conclusions.

It's not for me to have to defend people whom there isn't evidence of wrong-doing.

How are you going to narrow it down next time you don't like an answer? Google a police officer convicted of a crime and say, "Defend him, then!"

[Red 4]

Why are you posting a poll of victims of crime ?

Most people are not victims of crime and have very little contact with the police.

The point that was made was about public perception/ confidence and trust in the police in view last weeks' events and the determination of unlawful killing in relation to Hillsborough.

You appear to be trying to justify your stance by quoting whatever stats you think will support you, even if they are irrelevant to the thread.

You are, in effect, saying that South Yorkshire Police's reputation will be damaged but victims of crime are happy, so everything is fine !!

I think you may need to get away from policing circles a bit more.
There is outrage about Hillsborough/ the inquests/ South Yorkshire Police's behaviour - past and present.
I think you may be deluding yourself.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

Most people are not victims of crime and have very little contact with the police.

Indeed, but the point was about making assumptions and irrationally extrapolating.

However, as a treat, here's non-victim local perception. The far right column is 'overall'. You can look at all the previous ones to see there's been little deviation (including over the CSE period) on the CSEW site.



So so far I've proposed reputation is more resilient and less affected by short-term extreme events by providing the following:

- Ipsos MORI's 'trust in occupations' which has remained steady for over 30 years. A national measurement.

- Specific Met data around 'Pleb Gate' shows that atypical events don't necessarily reflect in perceptions.

- The HMIC's local victim measurements showing performance better than the national average and no deviation between (most) pre and post CSE revelations. A local measurement.

- The CSEW's local breakdown and national comparison for non-victim perceptions of the local police being inline with the national picture. I have also said there's little deviation over the years as per the site and data it contains.

You're basically contending I'm wrong with indications and 'evidence' that amount to, well, you just saying so, really.

You may spot there's a gap you can use next, that there isn't really any data about how someone in Somerset, for example, perceives South Yorkshire police between two points in time. Here I'd expect it to be the most probable for reputation to be influenced by disproportionate reporting, but again, I wouldn't make that assumption. However, I'd not add too much weight to that as I'd always take the locals' experience and perception above someone wholly disconnected.

Red 4 said:

The point that was made was about public perception/ confidence and trust in the police in view last weeks' events and the determination of unlawful killing in relation to Hillsborough.

As I said, short term yes, long term no.

Red 4 said:

You appear to be trying to justify your stance by quoting whatever stats you think will support you, even if they are irrelevant to the thread.

As opposed to your data and stats. Oh no, you have nothing tangible.

Red 4 said:

You are, in effect, saying that South Yorkshire Police's reputation will be damaged but victims of crime are happy, so everything is fine !!

There's no 'effect', I literally said I imagine a short-term impact, but the longer-term it will return to normal. I've provided you with the reasons and given national and local perception-based measurements as indications as to why I think the latter will be the case.

Red 4 said:

I think you may need to get away from policing circles a bit more.
There is outrage about Hillsborough/ the inquests/ South Yorkshire Police's behaviour - past and present.
I think you may be deluding yourself.

No doubt. But the question is what scale and what impact upon whatever perception-based measurement you want to define. The evidence I see nationally is that things such as trust, confidence and other perception-based measures remain steady and have done for many years, regardless of high-profile, negative incidents. The evidence I see locally corroborates the same.

[The Mad Monk]

Red 4 said:

I won't mention Orgreave or Rotherham child sex exploitation

Oh!

That's strange? I thought you just did.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The opportunity to right a wrong, set things straight, public service ethos etc. Easier to scuttle away though.

Regardless of what he wants to do, it's not in his control. He won't be offered a new contract. He was going to retire in any event in November.

If I'd worked hard in the public service for 30+ years and then got shafted at the end of my career, I doubt I'd be motivated to return. I expect most on here would be the same. We wouldn't know until in that position.

V8 Fettler said:

The competence of the SYP PCC has to be questioned, he had plenty of time to put into place contingency plans to deal with the possible inquest verdicts, instead he's flailing and failing.

It comes across as highly reactionary and ill-thought out. I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls made from central Labour.

Unfortunately, having seen the interviews with the other PCCs for South Yorkshire (the UKIP chap is especially comical), he's still the best of a bad bunch.

He won't be required to continue working after November 2016 because of a hangover from a pension scheme that should have been dismantled 20 years ago.

There are many people in the real world who would appreciate the opportunity to scuttle away from professional issues at the young age of 62 52, but most have to continue at the grindstone, paying their taxes and contributing to society.

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

He won't be required to continue working after November 2016 because of a hangover from a pension scheme that should have been dismantled 20 years ago.

There are many people in the real world who would appreciate the opportunity to scuttle away from professional issues at the young age of 62 52, but most have to continue at the grindstone, paying their taxes and contributing to society.

Those 'many people in the real world' should have thought about when they chose their occupation all those years ago, then. They probably thought 9-5 Monday to Friday without much trouble sounded better at the time.

I don't think you seem to get it's not in his hands to 'scuttle away' or not.

V8 Fettler said:

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere?

It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

He won't be required to continue working after November 2016 because of a hangover from a pension scheme that should have been dismantled 20 years ago.

There are many people in the real world who would appreciate the opportunity to scuttle away from professional issues at the young age of 62 52, but most have to continue at the grindstone, paying their taxes and contributing to society.

Those 'many people in the real world' should have thought about when they chose their occupation all those years ago, then. They probably thought 9-5 Monday to Friday without much trouble sounded better at the time.

I don't think you seem to get it's not in his hands to 'scuttle away' or not.

V8 Fettler said:

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere?

It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.

Many people's selected occupations from all those years ago have been changed completely over the intervening years, including pension entitlements, but clearly not senior plod. But it's only taxpayer's money after all.

Crompton's scuttling is beneficial to Crompton, SYP and the local PCC, and it's only taxpayer's money after all.

If the GMP investigation into Copley has been ongoing then why did she make herself available for the CC position and why did the PCC appoint her? Were there no reality checks prior to the appointment?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Many people's selected occupations from all those years ago have been changed completely over the intervening years, including pension entitlements, but clearly not senior plod. But it's only taxpayer's money after all.

So? It's not in the hands of any officers, senior or otherwise.

If you don't like the older pension arrangements then write some stern letters to previous governments.

V8 Fettler said:

If the GMP investigation into Copley has been ongoing then why did she make herself available for the CC position and why did the PCC appoint her? Were there no reality checks prior to the appointment?

Because complaints are frequent (confrontational job, you see) and often take some time to resolve - especially when there are criminal matters first. How do you know a 'reality check' hasn't been completed i.e. an assessment as to the probability of the complaint being upheld prior to her moving? You don't, but write like you do.

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere? It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.

I see you scuttled away from answering that question.

[Red 4]

V8 Fettler said:

If the GMP investigation into Copley has been ongoing then why did she make herself available for the CC position and why did the PCC appoint her? Were there no reality checks prior to the appointment?

The issues surrounding Dawn Copley relate to complaints made by a former Chief Inspector - John Buttress.

Buttress was dismissed by GMP last year following an investigation into mortgage fraud; something he was cleared of at court (but was still dismissed at a disciplinary hearing).

Buttress has accused GMP of corrupt practices, particularly within their PSD. Copley was head of PSD.
Essentially, Buttress has said he was victimised by senior officers because he stood up to them.

The investigation was conducted by Kent Police. The findings have recently been sent to GMP.
I suppose time will tell ...

[Red 4]

La Liga said:

However, as a treat, here's non-victim local perception. The far right column is 'overall'. You can look at all the previous ones to see there's been little deviation (including over the CSE period) on the CSEW site.

Thanks.

74% overall satisfaction rate with South Yorkshire Police ...

On first glance you could consider that is quite high.

However, it depends on how the figures are correlated.

You could also argue that over a quarter of those surveyed have no confidence in the force which puts things in a different light.

[anonymous-user]

Interesting insight into how the case was funded


http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/03/hi...

[XCP]

Red 4 said:

Thanks.

74% overall satisfaction rate with South Yorkshire Police ...

On first glance you could consider that is quite high.

However, it depends on how the figures are correlated.

You could also argue that over a quarter of those surveyed have no confidence in the force which puts things in a different light.

seems about average compared to other forces.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

It's not for me to have to defend people whom there isn't evidence of wrong-doing.

You seem to defend any & all, regardless of evidence.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

La Liga said:

It's not for me to have to defend people whom there isn't evidence of wrong-doing.

You seem to defend any & all, regardless of evidence.

It won't be too hard to find an example, then.

XCP said:

Red 4 said:

Thanks.

74% overall satisfaction rate with South Yorkshire Police ...

On first glance you could consider that is quite high.

However, it depends on how the figures are correlated.

You could also argue that over a quarter of those surveyed have no confidence in the force which puts things in a different light.

seems about average compared to other forces.

Indeed, and doesn't really deviate over different years. Reputation and perception are a lot more resilient than people think.

[V8 Fettler]

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

Many people's selected occupations from all those years ago have been changed completely over the intervening years, including pension entitlements, but clearly not senior plod. But it's only taxpayer's money after all.

So? It's not in the hands of any officers, senior or otherwise.

If you don't like the older pension arrangements then write some stern letters to previous governments.

V8 Fettler said:

If the GMP investigation into Copley has been ongoing then why did she make herself available for the CC position and why did the PCC appoint her? Were there no reality checks prior to the appointment?

Because complaints are frequent (confrontational job, you see) and often take some time to resolve - especially when there are criminal matters first. How do you know a 'reality check' hasn't been completed i.e. an assessment as to the probability of the complaint being upheld prior to her moving? You don't, but write like you do.

La Liga said:

V8 Fettler said:

The timing of the announcement of GMP's investigation into Copley is unlikely, GMP could see the likely path of succession for SYP and yet they appear to ambush SYP and the SYP PCC.

How do you know the source is the GMP? Why would they 'ambush' someone whom they backed to be promoted elsewhere? It sounds much more like it's from the person who appears to be making the primary complaint given their willingness to talk to the media. It's not a new investigation.

I see you scuttled away from answering that question.

You're being flippant regarding my concerns over the expenditure of taxpayer's money. Still, it's only taxpayer's money.

I'll write as I want, thanks; does that cause you an issue? If a reality check was undertaken then it was demonstrably a deficient process.

In light of Red 4's post, GMP, Kent and SYP could have managed this situation to ensure that Copley wasn't in post for just one day. All three forces and SYP PCC could have anticipated the various verdicts of the Hillsborough inquest and taken a measured, coordinated and controlled approach. Unlikely to occur with insular empires.

[4x4Tyke]

desolate said:

Interesting insight into how the case was funded

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/03/hi...

Yes, it also shows how the adversarial approach is completely inappropriate for inquests, because "Where there is blame there is a claim" creates a conflict of interest.

I've long thought the inquisitional approach is much more appropriate to inquests.

[XCP]

An Inquest is not supposed to be a trial. I know that seems hard to believe but there you are.

[anonymous-user]

XCP said:

An Inquest is not supposed to be a trial. I know that seems hard to believe but there you are.

The clue is in the name really.

I had presumed that Duckenfield was paid for by police federation, so I was a bit surprised to see that his defence was paid for by public funds.

[Red 4]

desolate said:

The clue is in the name really.

I had presumed that Duckenfield was paid for by police federation, so I was a bit surprised to see that his defence was paid for by public funds.

The Police Federation only provide legal assistance (in certain circumstances) to officers up to the rank of Chief Inspector.

Supers and above have their own staff associations.

South Yorkshire Police have paid £18,000,000 in legal costs relating to the inquests.
Don't forget though - this saga isn't over yet.

I'm sure Liga will say that's ok, even if South Yorkshire Police's legal strategy went against the public apology issued by Crompton 1n 2012 following the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

After all, despite what he said to the families, Crompton wanted to find more "innovative ways" of defending/ mitigating the case to avoid being "roadkill".

Still, SYP aren't the worst performing force according to Liga's polls, so all is good.