Hillsborough Inquest
Discussion
It certainly looks a mess whichever way it's cut, regardless of whom it is down to.
The alternative view is that she got rid of someone (on the balance of probabilities) who acted in a dishonest manner. If it is as simple as that then it's a hell of a lot of grief for her for doing exactly what she should be doing.
The force statement, as you'd expect, certainly outlines a case for him and goes beyond his simple, 'I didn't read the terms and conditions' account.
The alternative view is that she got rid of someone (on the balance of probabilities) who acted in a dishonest manner. If it is as simple as that then it's a hell of a lot of grief for her for doing exactly what she should be doing.
The force statement, as you'd expect, certainly outlines a case for him and goes beyond his simple, 'I didn't read the terms and conditions' account.
La Liga said:
It certainly looks a mess whichever way it's cut, regardless of whom it is down to.
The alternative view is that she got rid of someone (on the balance of probabilities) who acted in a dishonest manner. If it is as simple as that then it's a hell of a lot of grief for her for doing exactly what she should be doing.
The force statement, as you'd expect, certainly outlines a case for him and goes beyond his simple, 'I didn't read the terms and conditions' account.
I take your point - I don't know the details of Buttress' case in any great detail, only what has been reported in the press; i.e. what he has said.The alternative view is that she got rid of someone (on the balance of probabilities) who acted in a dishonest manner. If it is as simple as that then it's a hell of a lot of grief for her for doing exactly what she should be doing.
The force statement, as you'd expect, certainly outlines a case for him and goes beyond his simple, 'I didn't read the terms and conditions' account.
It may (or may not) be sour grapes but there do appear to be some questions that need answering relating to GMP's PSD.
Last I heard, GMP had sent the report back to Kent "seeking clarification on a number of points".
The force statement basically says he applied for two single persons' CT, too. You may have read it as you certainly seem more up on it than I:
GMP said:
“The public rightly expect the highest professional standards from their police officers and these expectations are higher when they are senior officers. When we join policing we are aware of the responsibilities that come with the uniform.
“Chief Inspector Buttress has fallen below the accepted standards in relation to honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct in that he applied for a specific mortgage relating to a domestic dwelling when he was in fact renting out the farm house as a holiday rental. He also applied for two lots of single person's discount from the council for council tax for the same period on two different properties when aware that he was only entitled to one.
“When such allegations emerge it is important that an investigation takes place and that was what was carried out. The decision of the hearing demonstrates that we will take action to ensure standards are adhered to and we maintain confidence in policing.
“The code of ethics clearly sets out the principles and standards of behaviour that are required for everyone who works in policing. We believed Ch Insp Buttress had a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to breaching those standards which is why this was pursued. In the interest of transparency we felt that the evidence should be considered by an independent panel.
“This is the end of a process that began when the Crown Prosecution Service felt there was sufficient to take a criminal prosecution forward. Ch Insp Buttress may have been acquitted in a crown court where the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden of proof for breaching the standards of professional behaviour is based on the lower threshold of a balance of probabilities.
“He has been dismissed from Greater Manchester Police with immediate effect.”
“Chief Inspector Buttress has fallen below the accepted standards in relation to honesty and integrity and discreditable conduct in that he applied for a specific mortgage relating to a domestic dwelling when he was in fact renting out the farm house as a holiday rental. He also applied for two lots of single person's discount from the council for council tax for the same period on two different properties when aware that he was only entitled to one.
“When such allegations emerge it is important that an investigation takes place and that was what was carried out. The decision of the hearing demonstrates that we will take action to ensure standards are adhered to and we maintain confidence in policing.
“The code of ethics clearly sets out the principles and standards of behaviour that are required for everyone who works in policing. We believed Ch Insp Buttress had a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to breaching those standards which is why this was pursued. In the interest of transparency we felt that the evidence should be considered by an independent panel.
“This is the end of a process that began when the Crown Prosecution Service felt there was sufficient to take a criminal prosecution forward. Ch Insp Buttress may have been acquitted in a crown court where the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden of proof for breaching the standards of professional behaviour is based on the lower threshold of a balance of probabilities.
“He has been dismissed from Greater Manchester Police with immediate effect.”
desolate said:
I am not up on the detail of the Buttress case, but having read the post above there will be a lot of people with the wrong mortgage on a BTL who will be in fear of their jobs.
Is this high standard of probity going to be applied consistently?
Do you mean across the police or across the public? Is this high standard of probity going to be applied consistently?
Dishonesty is the big one internally for the police. No matter how minor, it's the one the PSDs get their teeth into. I'd expect all police officers to be looked at for that and the CT matter if it came to light.
Across the public? Well Butress was found 'not guilty' at court so that probably gives a good indication of how well these 'contractual' matters do in court. It's probably best left to the companies themselves to sort through the contracts / fees / penalties etc. That's if they even really care that much as long as they are getting their payments.
La Liga said:
The force statement basically says he applied for two single persons' CT, too. You may have read it as you certainly seem more up on it than I:
This is what former Chief Insp Buttress said;http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/23/gre...
Red 4 said:
I think we could do a whole new thread on GMP. Maybe even a new sub-forum.La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
What is Crompton's statutory retirement age?
It's length of service so the retirement age is variable depending on when someone started. I don't believe there's an upper age for Chief Constables on his pension scheme since they're contracted. V8 Fettler said:
No requirement for GMP or Kent to pass confidential info to SYP or the SYP PCC as the investigation into Copley proceeded, a yellow "caution" flag would have been sufficient.
So the make-it-up-as-you-go-along coloured flag still is an indication to the force they're investigating, for alleged corruption, they may need to do something then. V8 Fettler said:
GMP cannot possibly have all the information to hand unless GMP are now omnipresent.
They'll have all the information they need to make an assessment as to whether or not there's any realistic misconduct risk. The italics indicated that they are really only missing the account from the ex-CI, although since they interviewed him they'll have a lot of the aspects of that, too. V8 Fettler said:
GMP should have been the route by which the status, interim updates and results of the investigation into Copley should have been communicated to SYP and the SYP PCC.
Not when their department is being counter-accused.V8 Fettler said:
Clear lines of communication and reporting between the various empires is essential to reduce the risk of screw-ups.
Perhaps there were clear lines and it was the PCC who, at the last minute, decided to make a politically-influenced decision. V8 Fettler said:
If the SYP PCC was aware of the continuing investigation into Copley at the time she applied for the SYP DCC position then - demonstrably - SYP shouldn't have employed her where there was a possibility of her stepping into Crompton's shoes as a result of the Hillsborough inquest. All this was foreseeable and should have been considered as part of a risk management strategy, unless the various parties were relying on the gift of omnipresence.
I wouldn't avoid employing someone for that risk if they were right for the team. I think the approach they should have taken was a more resilient one i.e. kept her in post and simply said investigations are standard fare. There's are times to stand strong and not give in to irrational, short-term public sentiment.
Again, whom has forced this decision is unknown. I expect the right decision would have been more likely with the older, non-political Police Authority structure.
V8 Fettler said:
Thanks for the tip, perhaps your tips could become a regular feature on PH?
Hopefully less frequent than your mistakes on this matter. You did do well in that post not to assume, for no reason, someone was the source when they weren't (BTW, why did you assume the GMP were the source of Copley's investigation?) and find the wrong information about a matter that was rather easy to avoid.
You still haven't stated the statutory retirement age for Crompton, which is surprising given your declared expertise in police matters. My understanding is that it's 65, therefore he doesn't have to go at the age of 52, but of course that's more convenient for Crompton, SYP and the SYP PCC. It's only taxpayer's money after all.
Flagging possible risk issues has been around for decades (if not centuries) with red/yellow/green being the obvious gradings of risk; is it a new concept to you? A caution flag would have indicated to SYP that Copley's management responsibilities should have been restricted - and certainly not increased - until the inquiry was complete.
Who had direct responsibility for coordinating and managing communications between SYP, GMP and Kent?
How can Copley be "right for the team" when she has to stand down from the post of CC after one day?
Competent management and good teamwork by SYP and the SYP PCC would have ensured that the knee-jerk suspension of Crompton and Copley's ridiculous one day in post would have been avoided. Unfortunately, competent management and good teamwork were clearly lacking, but it's only taxpayer's money after all.
What mistakes? I place equal trust in the BBC and the SYP PCC.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hillsborough-docume...
Tomorrow night will be interesting.
Duckenfield only appointed by accident due to a prank by officers a few weeks earlier? WTF.
Tomorrow night will be interesting.
Duckenfield only appointed by accident due to a prank by officers a few weeks earlier? WTF.
V8 Fettler said:
You still haven't stated the statutory retirement age for Crompton, which is surprising given your declared expertise in police matters. My understanding is that it's 65, therefore he doesn't have to go at the age of 52, but of course that's more convenient for Crompton, SYP and the SYP PCC. It's only taxpayer's money after all.
I don't think expertise extends to knowing everything. Especially the irrelevant retirement age of a pension scheme that doesn't apply to me at a rank that certainly doesn't apply to me. He obviously doesn't have to go at 52 (the Commissioner of the Met is 57), just like he didn't have to go when he reached his 30 years. If he wanted to, he could re-apply for the post once his contract ends or at another Constabulary. It'd be down to the respective PCCs to decide which candidate they want to be the CC. It's not in the hands of CCs other than applying.
I'm not one to do the pedantic SPAG corrections, as my English is far from perfect. However, if you're going to keep writing the oh-so-cutting, 'It's only tax payers' money after all', then at least indicate it's more than one tax payer who possesses the money.
V8 Fettler said:
Flagging possible risk issues has been around for decades (if not centuries) with red/yellow/green being the obvious gradings of risk; is it a new concept to you? A caution flag would have indicated to SYP that Copley's management responsibilities should have been restricted - and certainly not increased - until the inquiry was complete.
Again, highlighting it to the force they're investigating. Ultimately, an assessment as to how likely any positive outcome would be could be made prior to any moves since Manchester would know pretty much all there is to know about the matter. It can wait until the report is sent. V8 Fettler said:
How can Copley be "right for the team" when she has to stand down from the post of CC after one day?
It appears to have been politically based rather than rationally based. I would hope we'd both agree political decisions aren't always the right ones. V8 Fettler said:
Competent management and good teamwork by SYP and the SYP PCC would have ensured that the knee-jerk suspension of Crompton and Copley's ridiculous one day in post would have been avoided. Unfortunately, competent management and good teamwork were clearly lacking, but it's only taxpayer's money after all.
Agreed. Naturally the responsibility has the potential to be rather singular (as I expect it is). I'm told the PCC had concerns over the discretionary funding aspects from the Home Office V8 Fettler said:
What mistakes? I place equal trust in the BBC and the SYP PCC.
1) Assuming the GMP were the source (a question you've scuttled away from constantly) and 2) Not figuring out it was highly probable there'd be a direct quote from the PCC and spending 10 seconds searching (I searched for "Alan Billings Dawn Copley"). At the very least the BBC writing, "South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Billings revealed he was not made aware of the Greater Manchester Police investigation prior to her appointment", should ring alarm bells. The key word being "reveal". The BBC even managed to get it right on the same day, locally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...Red 4 said:
Thanks for that, we'll see how it plays out. saaby93 said:
Jockman said:
Duckenfield only appointed by accident due to a prank by officers a few weeks earlier? WTF.
Poor bloke - must've been like walking into a giant mousetrap 
Then the consequences
So the SYP were still trying to offload blame during the latest inquest. They hired a communications specialist to try to spin the news in their favour.
SYP said her claims of "unethical practice" were "not substantiated".
Not substantiated by whom? Was there an independent assessment of her claims or was it a case of the SYP substantiating itself?
The SYP have been spending public money like water to perpetuate the cover-up and spin the media throughout this whole shocking saga. Is there no mechanism to recover monies from the people who took those decisions? Are they immune from the consequences of their actions?
SYP said her claims of "unethical practice" were "not substantiated".
Not substantiated by whom? Was there an independent assessment of her claims or was it a case of the SYP substantiating itself?
The SYP have been spending public money like water to perpetuate the cover-up and spin the media throughout this whole shocking saga. Is there no mechanism to recover monies from the people who took those decisions? Are they immune from the consequences of their actions?
Edited by davidball on Saturday 7th May 19:15
A powerful documentary about the story of Hillsborough is to be given its UK TV premiere on BBC2 this Sunday – the day after a special public screening in Liverpool.
‘Hillsborough’ was produced and directed by Sheffield film-maker Dan Gordon and its factual consultant was Professor Phil Scraton – the main author of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report and author of Hillsborough – The Truth.
The two-hour film, which includes interviews with Hillsborough families, police officers and survivor Dan Davies, has been updated following last week’s inquests verdicts, having initially been ready to be screened in 2014.
‘Hillsborough’ was produced and directed by Sheffield film-maker Dan Gordon and its factual consultant was Professor Phil Scraton – the main author of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report and author of Hillsborough – The Truth.
The two-hour film, which includes interviews with Hillsborough families, police officers and survivor Dan Davies, has been updated following last week’s inquests verdicts, having initially been ready to be screened in 2014.
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
You still haven't stated the statutory retirement age for Crompton, which is surprising given your declared expertise in police matters. My understanding is that it's 65, therefore he doesn't have to go at the age of 52, but of course that's more convenient for Crompton, SYP and the SYP PCC. It's only taxpayer's money after all.
I don't think expertise extends to knowing everything. Especially the irrelevant retirement age of a pension scheme that doesn't apply to me at a rank that certainly doesn't apply to me. He obviously doesn't have to go at 52 (the Commissioner of the Met is 57), just like he didn't have to go when he reached his 30 years. If he wanted to, he could re-apply for the post once his contract ends or at another Constabulary. It'd be down to the respective PCCs to decide which candidate they want to be the CC. It's not in the hands of CCs other than applying.
I'm not one to do the pedantic SPAG corrections, as my English is far from perfect. However, if you're going to keep writing the oh-so-cutting, 'It's only tax payers' money after all', then at least indicate it's more than one tax payer who possesses the money.
V8 Fettler said:
Flagging possible risk issues has been around for decades (if not centuries) with red/yellow/green being the obvious gradings of risk; is it a new concept to you? A caution flag would have indicated to SYP that Copley's management responsibilities should have been restricted - and certainly not increased - until the inquiry was complete.
Again, highlighting it to the force they're investigating. Ultimately, an assessment as to how likely any positive outcome would be could be made prior to any moves since Manchester would know pretty much all there is to know about the matter. It can wait until the report is sent. V8 Fettler said:
How can Copley be "right for the team" when she has to stand down from the post of CC after one day?
It appears to have been politically based rather than rationally based. I would hope we'd both agree political decisions aren't always the right ones. V8 Fettler said:
Competent management and good teamwork by SYP and the SYP PCC would have ensured that the knee-jerk suspension of Crompton and Copley's ridiculous one day in post would have been avoided. Unfortunately, competent management and good teamwork were clearly lacking, but it's only taxpayer's money after all.
Agreed. Naturally the responsibility has the potential to be rather singular (as I expect it is). I'm told the PCC had concerns over the discretionary funding aspects from the Home Office V8 Fettler said:
What mistakes? I place equal trust in the BBC and the SYP PCC.
1) Assuming the GMP were the source (a question you've scuttled away from constantly) and 2) Not figuring out it was highly probable there'd be a direct quote from the PCC and spending 10 seconds searching (I searched for "Alan Billings Dawn Copley"). At the very least the BBC writing, "South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Billings revealed he was not made aware of the Greater Manchester Police investigation prior to her appointment", should ring alarm bells. The key word being "reveal". The BBC even managed to get it right on the same day, locally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...The relevance of Crompton's statutory pension age is that previously you stated that he had no control over his retirement aged 52, yet clearly he does. There's no statutory impediment to prevent Crompton staying on to use his experience to serve the public. Scuttling is more convenient though, except for the taxpayer.
From the information available, is it not more likely that the primary driver for the suspension of Crompton was incompetence rather than political machinations? That could include incompetence by Crompton in placing himself in a position where suspension was likely, incompetence by the SYP PCC in failing to avoid knee-jerk management and incompetence at GMP, SYP, the SYP PCC and Kent in failing to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC were made aware of the ongoing status of the inquiry into Copley.
Again, the primary responsibility for ensuring that SYP and the SYP PCC were frequently updated re the status of the investigation into Copley should have sat with GMP; the complaint centred around Copley's employment by GMP, therefore the risks arising from that complaint should have been managed effectively by GMP. Was not the failure to ensure that the SYP PCC was made aware of the risks of placing Copley into the CC position an ambush by omission?
I'm surprised at your level of trust in the content of the SYP PCC's website, given your insinuations re the political basis for the sacking of Crompton
Empty roads beckon.
V8 Fettler said:
In common usage, the taxpayer can be singular or plural. You're flailing if you have to resort to the pedantic spellingism used by other PHers, and I'll not be wasting my time commenting on your speeling or grameer.
No, you'd probably be quite busy 
Instead, why not spend you time answering the this question you've repeatedly scuttled and flailed away from?
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.
V8 Fettler said:
The relevance of Crompton's statutory pension age is that previously you stated that he had no control over his retirement aged 52, yet clearly he does. There's no statutory impediment to prevent Crompton staying on to use his experience to serve the public. Scuttling is more convenient though, except for the taxpayer.
No, I said retirement is based upon length of service. He doesn't have a choice if he doesn't receive another contract. V8 Fettler said:
From the information available, is it not more likely that the primary driver for the suspension of Crompton was incompetence rather than political machinations? That could include incompetence by Crompton in placing himself in a position where suspension was likely, incompetence by the SYP PCC in failing to avoid knee-jerk management and incompetence at GMP, SYP, the SYP PCC and Kent in failing to ensure that SYP and the SYP PCC were made aware of the ongoing status of the inquiry into Copley.
Knee-jerk management based upon centralised political sentiment and pressure, it would seem. V8 Fettler said:
Again, the primary responsibility for ensuring that SYP and the SYP PCC were frequently updated re the status of the investigation into Copley should have sat with GMP; the complaint centred around Copley's employment by GMP, therefore the risks arising from that complaint should have been managed effectively by GMP.
Perhaps they did. Do you know otherwise? Perhaps it's just the fact there's an investigation per se that has caused the issue for the PCC - do you know otherwise? No, you're preaching about things you have no idea whether or not they occurred.
V8 Fettler said:
Was not the failure to ensure that the SYP PCC was made aware of the risks of placing Copley into the CC position an ambush by omission?
The PCC knew there was an investigation on-going (remember the correct reporting of the matter?). Therefore he could have assessed risks at the time. Who is to say he didn't? Where's the omission when he knew she was under investigation at the time of appointment and at the time of temporary promotion?
V8 Fettler said:
I'm surprised at your level of trust in the content of the SYP PCC's website, given your insinuations re the political basis for the sacking of Crompton
And the correct BBC website - did you miss that one, too? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff