Suspicion of PtCoJ by Private Forensics Company
Discussion
http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=285...
A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
It seems to me that somebody needs to look at the cozy arrangement where companies providing speed cameras are also allowed to test and calibrate them, contrary to most industries such as electrical, gas, oil and food standards where testing is carried out by independent companies, to prevent the "fixing" of data to the advantage of the bodies being tested.
For instance REDSPEED placed an ISO9001 quality standard mark on their calibration certificates in contravention of the Qualifying body's rules - a clearly obvious and questionable practice, yet they are still able to test their equipment and report it's accuracy without question or oversight by any independent scrutiny.
Of course they will say it is OK - their business model depends on it - profits would fall if like their original incarnation Monitron (in Australia), they were forced to reimburse fines because the equipment was found to be faulty! The present company rose from the ashes of the old which collapsed... they wouldn't want to go through that again!!
Wasn't Frank Garret barred from giving evidence as an "expert" witness in cases involving the LTI 20/20 devices he was responsible for importing and selling to UK authorities?
A motorist has had his court case for drug driving dropped by the CPS after Nick Freeman cast doubt on the forensic test results carried out on his clients blood sample.
In a further twist, it was revealed that:
Police Professional said:
Earlier this week two scientists from RTS were arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice after it emerged that some test results may have been manipulated.
The article goes on to quote the laboratory concerned, as pointing the finger at quality control issues.However the finger of suspicion is likely to be pointed at the wisdom of employing private companies who put profits before the accuracy of their work.
It seems to me that somebody needs to look at the cozy arrangement where companies providing speed cameras are also allowed to test and calibrate them, contrary to most industries such as electrical, gas, oil and food standards where testing is carried out by independent companies, to prevent the "fixing" of data to the advantage of the bodies being tested.
For instance REDSPEED placed an ISO9001 quality standard mark on their calibration certificates in contravention of the Qualifying body's rules - a clearly obvious and questionable practice, yet they are still able to test their equipment and report it's accuracy without question or oversight by any independent scrutiny.
Of course they will say it is OK - their business model depends on it - profits would fall if like their original incarnation Monitron (in Australia), they were forced to reimburse fines because the equipment was found to be faulty! The present company rose from the ashes of the old which collapsed... they wouldn't want to go through that again!!
Wasn't Frank Garret barred from giving evidence as an "expert" witness in cases involving the LTI 20/20 devices he was responsible for importing and selling to UK authorities?
It is easy to claim that if something is privatised, there is a profit motive driving the results, but it is equally true that some state sponsored organisations employ people who deliberately thwart the correct process out of a misplaced sense of duty or pride.
For instance police officers have been known to "fit up" suspects, but not for personal financial gain.
The answer in both instances is for better independent oversight in order to ensure that no shortcuts are taken, and that any private involvement does not allow profit to interfere with the proper and thorough work that is to be undertaken.
For instance police officers have been known to "fit up" suspects, but not for personal financial gain.
The answer in both instances is for better independent oversight in order to ensure that no shortcuts are taken, and that any private involvement does not allow profit to interfere with the proper and thorough work that is to be undertaken.
aw51 121565 said:
Stepping back a bit... Capita? They "make it up" at will for fun - but manage to win ever more gubberment contracts.
Go on then... Deloitte? They were recently banned from procuring for government contracts for six months after an oversight (see recent Private Eyes); not that this stopped them tendering and ministers considering their tenders while still banned from tendering!
G4S? The 2012 Olympics scandal regards providing "security" for said event - they are still a provider of government services, despite the need for the Army to be involved in filling in the gaps in said event after they fu err messed up in terms of staffing...
Not sure where the truth lies, but I'm minded to keep it in the government rather than arguing that a private organisation got it wrong?!? Consequences (& culpability), and all that
plus a complaint to one body versus a complaint to "who knows who?" which just dissipates into scotch mist because responsibility is shared (NHS vs. care uk, as an example) 
.
But then I'm a luddite who thinks government services should be provided by the government, back in the days when it was credible and beyond reproach
.
Funny you should mention Capita, in the light of today's revelation that it is to be investigated by the BBC over the License fee collection...Go on then... Deloitte? They were recently banned from procuring for government contracts for six months after an oversight (see recent Private Eyes); not that this stopped them tendering and ministers considering their tenders while still banned from tendering!
G4S? The 2012 Olympics scandal regards providing "security" for said event - they are still a provider of government services, despite the need for the Army to be involved in filling in the gaps in said event after they fu err messed up in terms of staffing...
Not sure where the truth lies, but I'm minded to keep it in the government rather than arguing that a private organisation got it wrong?!? Consequences (& culpability), and all that
plus a complaint to one body versus a complaint to "who knows who?" which just dissipates into scotch mist because responsibility is shared (NHS vs. care uk, as an example) .But then I'm a luddite who thinks government services should be provided by the government, back in the days when it was credible and beyond reproach
.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048
BBC News said:
A spokesman added: "Capita is required by the BBC to ensure households are not breaking the law. Officers are expected to act in a professional manner.
"We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
REALLY?? It has been reported here that they make claims they are not legally entitled to make!"We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."
Ian Geary said:
A problem is that repeated outsourcing has led to many public bodies ever being able to bring stuff back in house.
The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
Cumbria County Council used to farm out admin to Capita, as well as some highway projects.The market is set up for the big players to hoover up contracts as they can resource all of the hoops using generic off the shelf paperwork, then fill it at bottom dollar knowing buyers are too small to take them on, or too powerless to have an real alternative.
It would be good if the public sector could make all those private sector type efficiencies without the hassle of having to change staffing conditions, change organisational culture or actually pay to bring in people with experience of doing things more effectively. But there's so few examples of it happening I suspect it isn't really possible.
Ian
A lot of it was brought back in house after they decided Capita weren't as efficient as they said they were, and they were cutting corners.
There is presently a spat over Amey and highways maintenance which looks like costing the county a lot of money!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff