Another wrong un at Bedfordshire Police
Discussion
http://www.thecomet.net/news/bedfordshire_police_o...
Whst the hell is going on at Beds Police? This latest conviction means that more than 20 officers and 2 civilian staff have been suspended in the last two years alone.
with nine being convicted of criminal charges. http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/bedfordshire-poli...
I think neighbouring Hertfordshire seems to be going the same way, with senior officers admitting in a recent interview on local radio that they cannot rule out more serious cases of misconduct coming to light.
Must be pretty galling for all the decent coppers to have scumbags like this giving them all a bad name. And given that trust in policing, particularly in Beds, is as bad as I csn ever remember it, the last thing anyone needed.frown
Whst the hell is going on at Beds Police? This latest conviction means that more than 20 officers and 2 civilian staff have been suspended in the last two years alone.
with nine being convicted of criminal charges. http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/bedfordshire-poli...
I think neighbouring Hertfordshire seems to be going the same way, with senior officers admitting in a recent interview on local radio that they cannot rule out more serious cases of misconduct coming to light.
Must be pretty galling for all the decent coppers to have scumbags like this giving them all a bad name. And given that trust in policing, particularly in Beds, is as bad as I csn ever remember it, the last thing anyone needed.frown
pim said:
West Yorkshire police and the Metropolitan police not far behind.
One of our friends lost faith in the whole system this is Humberside police she left.Nine years in the force.
We're actually supposed to call it "the service" now.One of our friends lost faith in the whole system this is Humberside police she left.Nine years in the force.
Official vocab guidelines state that "force" is too aggressive
Most bent coppers, in my experience, unfortunately not that limited, become corrupt because they are stupid. They don't think of consequences. There is a group of intelligent coppers who, had they used their brains constructively, would do will in whatever job they chose. I've never worked out why that type goes bent.
When I joined the police there was a core of bent coppers, a firm within a firm. They were untouchable because of their connections, the great and the good: lawyers, those in positions of power locally, MPs as well. Who do the straight ones go to? Those that did stick their heads above the parapet got hurt. I know one who merely peaked over the top and he had his children threatened.
In the middle 80s, with the increase in pay and prospects, the service got an influx of high achievers. I always thought that a corner had been turned, but a significant proportion of the later hierarchy seemed as useless and self-serving as ever. They were after what they could get out of the job, but they were sharp enough, at least most of them, to avoid criminal behaviour.
That the police are now being reported for behaviour that would have been hushed up, even in the 80s, is one positive to take from this. I remember reading that most bent behaviour is reported by other officers initially and supported by colleagues. This might explain the number of reports of discipline and criminal behaviour. Most of it appears mild. In the 70s, the police organised three armed payroll raids in London, one of which included the deliberate killing of one of the guards.
In any group you will get the bent ones. There's no way out of that. The way to judge the company or corporation is they way they deal with those with aberrant behaviour.
My son is a journalist, the least trusted profession in many people's eyes, yet they watch the news in sandy places and see reporters and their support crews, risking their lives to send us information that we can't doubt because we see it. Why do we say that journos are untrustworthy when we avidly watch them on the front line? When I edited a magazine he bought me a book on journalistic ethics and morals (don't get the two mixed, they are entirely different) and he is, I know, proud that he complies with them. Come to that, I'm proud of him.
Those journos who commit crime and have no ethics, from reports down to the dirty depths of editors and publishers, stab the ones doing such great work in the back.
There are the bent in all jobs. The police, it would appear, are dealing with theirs. At least it is better than in the 70s and 80s when police officers had to run from their forces to protect their families.
When I joined the police there was a core of bent coppers, a firm within a firm. They were untouchable because of their connections, the great and the good: lawyers, those in positions of power locally, MPs as well. Who do the straight ones go to? Those that did stick their heads above the parapet got hurt. I know one who merely peaked over the top and he had his children threatened.
In the middle 80s, with the increase in pay and prospects, the service got an influx of high achievers. I always thought that a corner had been turned, but a significant proportion of the later hierarchy seemed as useless and self-serving as ever. They were after what they could get out of the job, but they were sharp enough, at least most of them, to avoid criminal behaviour.
That the police are now being reported for behaviour that would have been hushed up, even in the 80s, is one positive to take from this. I remember reading that most bent behaviour is reported by other officers initially and supported by colleagues. This might explain the number of reports of discipline and criminal behaviour. Most of it appears mild. In the 70s, the police organised three armed payroll raids in London, one of which included the deliberate killing of one of the guards.
In any group you will get the bent ones. There's no way out of that. The way to judge the company or corporation is they way they deal with those with aberrant behaviour.
My son is a journalist, the least trusted profession in many people's eyes, yet they watch the news in sandy places and see reporters and their support crews, risking their lives to send us information that we can't doubt because we see it. Why do we say that journos are untrustworthy when we avidly watch them on the front line? When I edited a magazine he bought me a book on journalistic ethics and morals (don't get the two mixed, they are entirely different) and he is, I know, proud that he complies with them. Come to that, I'm proud of him.
Those journos who commit crime and have no ethics, from reports down to the dirty depths of editors and publishers, stab the ones doing such great work in the back.
There are the bent in all jobs. The police, it would appear, are dealing with theirs. At least it is better than in the 70s and 80s when police officers had to run from their forces to protect their families.
I'm not sure Beds police has a greater proportion of bad policemen / policewomen than any other Constabulary. Perhaps it's a statistical cluster over a few incidents (e.g. death in custody) and not indicative of anything greater.
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
La Liga said:
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
They know there are bent cops, there always are. They are the ones to go for.
singlecoil said:
Your links don't work.
Try these:http://www.thecomet.net/news/bedfordshire_police_o...
http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/police-officer-ja...
Derek Smith said:
La Liga said:
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
They know there are bent cops, there always are. They are the ones to go for.
In my book, that's a white wash and reinforces the view that the police are part of the "establishment" and are above the law.
"Nothing to see. Move along now".
jogger1976 said:
Derek Smith said:
La Liga said:
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
They know there are bent cops, there always are. They are the ones to go for.
In my book, that's a white wash and reinforces the view that the police are part of the "establishment" and are above the law.
"Nothing to see. Move along now".
You, for instance, suggest the police are above the law when both LL and I are suggesting that the IPCC and internal discipline would be better spent going after the corrupt ones. Do you want read something out of your book on that point?
Given his post, I assume LL is as concerned as I am about corrupt officers. Indeed, police officers in general are. Corruption will never, unfortunately, be eradicated, but unless the efforts of the regulatory bodies go after the corrupt ones, they will spread like a cancer.
jogger1976 said:
Derek Smith said:
La Liga said:
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
They know there are bent cops, there always are. They are the ones to go for.
In my book, that's a white wash and reinforces the view that the police are part of the "establishment" and are above the law.
"Nothing to see. Move along now".
I can expand a little more to assist by writing, "Historical events where is little to no possibility of any prosecutions". The IPCC did a two year 'scoping exercise' over Orgreave and essentially concluded there'd be no chance of prosecuting anyone for various reasons available on their website.
So again, I'd rather the IPCC and others focus their finite resources into preventing further harm through tacking any officers operating in a corrupt manner now.
Derek Smith said:
jogger1976 said:
Derek Smith said:
La Liga said:
One of the reasons I'm not keen on the IPCC and others pursuing historical events like Orgreave is because I feel their efforts could be directed to current events. The reality is there will always be corrupt police officers and I'd rather channel the resources and efforts into getting rid of them rather than unnecessarily dwelling on the past.
They know there are bent cops, there always are. They are the ones to go for.
In my book, that's a white wash and reinforces the view that the police are part of the "establishment" and are above the law.
"Nothing to see. Move along now".
You, for instance, suggest the police are above the law when both LL and I are suggesting that the IPCC and internal discipline would be better spent going after the corrupt ones. Do you want read something out of your book on that point?
Given his post, I assume LL is as concerned as I am about corrupt officers. Indeed, police officers in general are. Corruption will never, unfortunately, be eradicated, but unless the efforts of the regulatory bodies go after the corrupt ones, they will spread like a cancer.
But in all seriousness, thanks for the info regarding Orgreave from La Liga, as I was not fully aware of this. I had assumed (like many) that it would be another attempted Hillsborough style whitewash. If nothing can be proven, then this is unfortunate, but I guess things must move along.
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
jogger1976 said:
Err, I did make a point Derek.Not sure how you and La Liga failed to notice it. Not very good detective skills from either of you.
But in all seriousness, thanks for the info regarding Orgreave from La Liga, as I was not fully aware of this. I had assumed (like many) that it would be another attempted Hillsborough style whitewash. If nothing can be proven, then this is unfortunate, but I guess things must move along.
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
How much time has been taken up on 'historical' child abuse investigations?But in all seriousness, thanks for the info regarding Orgreave from La Liga, as I was not fully aware of this. I had assumed (like many) that it would be another attempted Hillsborough style whitewash. If nothing can be proven, then this is unfortunate, but I guess things must move along.
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
I could throw it back to you and ask whether you think Rolf Harris should have been prosecuted, but won't.
Instead I'll answer your question, I think child abuse is one of the most heinous of crimes. It leaves scars that last a lifetime. Offenders in the news, being lauded and praised can make the victims' situation worse. Most, it would seen from the child abuse in churches, want acknowledgement of the offence, for it to be accepted that they are victims.
So: if it makes the victims feel better and perhaps find a way of moving forward, I'm all for it.
Perhaps you haven't seen what happens to many victims of sexual abuse. Lucky you. If you have then multiply it for children who are disbelieved.
I say go for the throat.
That's a personal opinion.
Derek Smith said:
jogger1976 said:
Err, I did make a point Derek.Not sure how you and La Liga failed to notice it. Not very good detective skills from either of you.
But in all seriousness, thanks for the info regarding Orgreave from La Liga, as I was not fully aware of this. I had assumed (like many) that it would be another attempted Hillsborough style whitewash. If nothing can be proven, then this is unfortunate, but I guess things must move along.
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
How much time has been taken up on 'historical' child abuse investigations?But in all seriousness, thanks for the info regarding Orgreave from La Liga, as I was not fully aware of this. I had assumed (like many) that it would be another attempted Hillsborough style whitewash. If nothing can be proven, then this is unfortunate, but I guess things must move along.
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
I could throw it back to you and ask whether you think Rolf Harris should have been prosecuted, but won't.
Instead I'll answer your question, I think child abuse is one of the most heinous of crimes. It leaves scars that last a lifetime. Offenders in the news, being lauded and praised can make the victims' situation worse. Most, it would seen from the child abuse in churches, want acknowledgement of the offence, for it to be accepted that they are victims.
So: if it makes the victims feel better and perhaps find a way of moving forward, I'm all for it.
Perhaps you haven't seen what happens to many victims of sexual abuse. Lucky you. If you have then multiply it for children who are disbelieved.
I say go for the throat.
That's a personal opinion.
Don't worry, I won't trouble you again.
jogger1976 said:
Just on a similar note, what are both your thoughts on the amount of Police time that had been taken up on historical child abuse investigations?
The police investigating the allegations or the police being investigated for not doing it properly in the first place? Also do you mean CSE or Yewtree historical child abuse?
We are seeing continued prosecutions of offenders and no doubt we'll see more of them in both area, so I'm fully supportive of the current activities. My general rule of thumb is wherever there's a realistic prospect of a conviction then it's time well spent.
Regarding investigating the police (especially around CSE) there may well be some serving officers who've committed misconduct / criminal offences that can realistically be prosecuted. There's also a vested interest in addressing, at whatever level, serving officers who have failed because they are still (unless it's so serious) going to be policing in the future.
I know it's a phrases trotted out often, but 'lessons need to be learnt' in terms of 'organisational learning' so it doesn't happen again. Drawing comparisons with Orgreave once more, that sort of thing on that scale could never occur again because the 'learning' has already been done in the way public order strategy and tactics have evolved over the decades since.
In business you'd call it the 'opportunity cost'. If you're looking at one thing it stops you looking at another so the benefits of each thing need to be weighed up.
jogger1976 said:
No need for the patronising reply Derek.I was merely asking a question, as I assumed that you and La Liga, as serving and former Police Offciers, would have an opinion.
Don't worry, I won't trouble you again.
?Don't worry, I won't trouble you again.
I answered your question as clearly and simply as I felt necessary. The subject is something that I feel strongly about. Very strongly. I'm certain that goes for most, if not all police officers.
You are reading into an honest and heart-felt reply something that isn't there.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff