Another bad apple.

[anonymous-user]

Sounds pretty serious, I hope she recovers OK. I know we speak of the odd bad apple but it seems to be turning into an orchard now.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving...

[Chrisgr31]

pocketspring said:

Sounds pretty serious, I hope she recovers OK. I know we speak of the odd bad apple but it seems to be turning into an orchard now.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving...

How many police officers are there in the country? It doesnt matter what vetting you do it wont pick up someone who has not offended, or been brought to the authorities attention, before.

You are always going to get some bad apples and recent history means any you do get are going to be more high profile.

[Draxindustries1]

Chrisgr31 said:

pocketspring said:

Sounds pretty serious, I hope she recovers OK. I know we speak of the odd bad apple but it seems to be turning into an orchard now.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/serving...

How many police officers are there in the country? It doesnt matter what vetting you do it wont pick up someone who has not offended, or been brought to the authorities attention, before.

You are always going to get some bad apples and recent history means any you do get are going to be more high profile.

^
This
Any CRB check will reveal nothing with no offending or with someone who hasn't yet been caught with wrong doing.
The nurse Lucy Letby accused of killing dozens of babies is a classic case..

[edthefed]

Far more Police Officers than GPs

How many people GP Harold Shipman murder ?

How many GPs have sexually assaulted patients

Or how many MPs have been convicted of fraud, assault, theft etc and there are only 650 MPs

[anonymous-user]

A lot of what about replies there, if we could keep to the topic in hand that would be great. Police should be beyond reproach, theyre there to uphold the law therefore the pinnacle of our society. Maybe start bringing in evaluations for new recruits, not just interviews?

[LosingGrip]

pocketspring said:

A lot of what about replies there, if we could keep to the topic in hand that would be great. Police should be beyond reproach, theyre there to uphold the law therefore the pinnacle of our society. Maybe start bringing in evaluations for new recruits, not just interviews?

Do you know what initial training involves?

[ZedLeg]

Once again asking people to look up the full saying about bad apples.

It means the opposite of how it’s used in stories like this.

[anonymous-user]

LosingGrip said:

Do you know what initial training involves?

I mean psychological before they even start.

[edthefed]

pocketspring said:

I mean psychological before they even start.

You mean the psychological testing thats been used before and did improve things ?

Also remember the saying - pay peanuts get monkeys

If you are only paying circa £25k a year to somebody to work 24/7 365 days a year to deal with the very worst of society whilst carrying an enormous workload, no guaranteed meal break even on 12 hour shifts, be late off duty almost every day, have your days off regularly cancelled, your shift start and finish times changed at short notice on a regular basis

You might just struggle to attract people of the right calibre

The Govt cut the service by 23000 officers under austerity

Bogus Johnson then realised the folly of that policy and decided to recruit an "extra" 20,000 officers but in a very short time frame - guess what. No trainers, no training facilities, lack of supervisors etc etc as they had all been cut

And each force has been given a target pro rata of those 20,000 to recruit by end of March next year

If a force reaches there target - all those "extra" cops are fubded by the Govt, if the force misses there target - even by 1 then NONE of there extra officers are funded.

Guess what the "civilian" Heads of Recruiting are only interested in ensuring they reach that target

[MickC]

pocketspring said:

A lot of what about replies there, if we could keep to the topic in hand that would be great. Police should be beyond reproach, theyre there to uphold the law therefore the pinnacle of our society. Maybe start bringing in evaluations for new recruits, not just interviews?

The pinnacle of our society? I think that's a bit naive, to say the least. The job itself and the power it gives is going to attract some people who are not really suited to it. Obviously most go into the police for more altruistic reasons but how are you supposed to pick that up in interview or even evaluation of the first few months?

[QJumper]

MickC said:

The pinnacle of our society? I think that's a bit naive, to say the least. The job itself and the power it gives is going to attract some people who are not really suited to it. Obviously most go into the police for more altruistic reasons but how are you supposed to pick that up in interview or even evaluation of the first few months?

You beat me to it. The very nature of the job means that it's bound to attract some people who like the power, and have bullying tendencies, just as much as it attracts those who wish to do good for society.

I don't know if or how they can screen out those types but, at the very least, they should be more open about recognising this reality, rather than appearing to ignore it with the "one bad apple" excuse.

I also think that, when caught, any punishment should reflect the position of power and authority they hold, in the same way that say teachers are held to a higher standard, due to their authority over those more vulnerable. If punishment is greater for a crime against the police, which it generally is, then it should also be for crimes committed by a police officer. That may well happen in some cases, but from the outside it at least appears that there's a lot of "rallying round" and covering up, much like the church have tended to do. This may be more prevalent at the more lower levels of offending and abuse of power, but frankly that's where it should start, in an effort to nip things in the bud.

I generally have a fairly favourable view of the police, and appreciate that at times it can be a tough and thankless job. That said, the odd ocassions when I've come across the type who likes to throw his weight around, does put a dent in that confidence, which I'd rather not have.

[Greendubber]

QJumper said:

MickC said:

The pinnacle of our society? I think that's a bit naive, to say the least. The job itself and the power it gives is going to attract some people who are not really suited to it. Obviously most go into the police for more altruistic reasons but how are you supposed to pick that up in interview or even evaluation of the first few months?

You beat me to it. The very nature of the job means that it's bound to attract some people who like the power, and have bullying tendencies, just as much as it attracts those who wish to do good for society.

I don't know if or how they can screen out those types but, at the very least, they should be more open about recognising this reality, rather than appearing to ignore it with the "one bad apple" excuse.

I also think that, when caught, any punishment should reflect the position of power and authority they hold, in the same way that say teachers are held to a higher standard, due to their authority over those more vulnerable. If punishment is greater for a crime against the police, which it generally is, then it should also be for crimes committed by a police officer. That may well happen in some cases, but from the outside it at least appears that there's a lot of "rallying round" and covering up, much like the church have tended to do. This may be more prevalent at the more lower levels of offending and abuse of power, but frankly that's where it should start, in an effort to nip things in the bud.

I generally have a fairly favourable view of the police, and appreciate that at times it can be a tough and thankless job. That said, the odd ocassions when I've come across the type who likes to throw his weight around, does put a dent in that confidence, which I'd rather not have.

I don't think there's much rallying around when it's fellow officers the ones identifying wrong-uns and subsequently investigating them.

Edited by Greendubber on Sunday 20th November 19:25

[Nibbles_bits]

"Rallying around" and "Covering up".........

You mean investiaging and presenting the evidence to CPS ?

[carinaman]

From the same website:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wels...

Ricky Jones should have had his iPhone on him when he jumped in the Severn. I wonder if he saw Richey Edwards down there?

The article I saw about Ricky Jones said his wife's earnings were helpied fund his extra-marital affairs.

[Wackywoo105]

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

From the same website:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wels...

Ricky Jones should have had his iPhone on him when he jumped in the Severn. I wonder if he saw Richey Edwards down there?

The article I saw about Ricky Jones said his wife's earnings were helpied fund his extra-marital affairs.

Bit conflicted on that one. It was his private phone I presume, and the same for the other colleagues in the Whatsapp group? Public statement to the effect that they'll all be well in the brown stuff. If the police carry on like that they'll have no coppers left. I genuinely have no idea, but does signing up for the force mean that sharing a titty pic and some inappropriate comments with friends on your own phone makes you sackable? Seems both a tad harsh and enormously unrealistic, frankly.

[QJumper]

Greendubber said:

I don't think there's much rallying around when it's fellow officers the ones identifying wrong-uns and subsequently investigating them.

Nibbles_bits said:

"Rallying around" and "Covering up".........

You mean investiaging and presenting the evidence to CPS ?

Of course they do that as well, I didn't say otherwise, but it's that kind of defensive response that makes people question how seriously the police take the underlying issues.

When I spoke about rallying round and covering up, I suggested it was likely more prevalent at a minor level. The point being, that when a police officer is investigated for something serious, it sometimes transpires that the officer has previous form that wasn't appropriately acted upon. It's all very well saying so and so is being investigated for x high profile crime, when that crime might not have occured had he been dealt with properly for previous, perhaps lesser, misconduct.

Perhaps that's not possible, or is expecting too much of the police, I don't know. I think it's what people should expect though, and what the police should aspire to, if they want the respect of the public. Otherwise it's simply a case of saying that it is what it is, which is little more than a grudging acceptance, rather than respect.

[Greendubber]

QJumper said:

Greendubber said:

I don't think there's much rallying around when it's fellow officers the ones identifying wrong-uns and subsequently investigating them.

Nibbles_bits said:

"Rallying around" and "Covering up".........

You mean investiaging and presenting the evidence to CPS ?

Of course they do that as well, I didn't say otherwise, but it's that kind of defensive response that makes people question how seriously the police take the underlying issues.

When I spoke about rallying round and covering up, I suggested it was likely more prevalent at a minor level. The point being, that when a police officer is investigated for something serious, it sometimes transpires that the officer has previous form that wasn't appropriately acted upon. It's all very well saying so and so is being investigated for x high profile crime, when that crime might not have occured had he been dealt with properly for previous, perhaps lesser, misconduct.

Perhaps that's not possible, or is expecting too much of the police, I don't know. I think it's what people should expect though, and what the police should aspire to, if they want the respect of the public. Otherwise it's simply a case of saying that it is what it is, which is little more than a grudging acceptance, rather than respect.

No one takes 'bad apples' more seriously than police officers. They make us all look bad and we're happy to see the back of them.

[anonymous-user]

Southerner said:

Bit conflicted on that one. It was his private phone I presume, and the same for the other colleagues in the Whatsapp group? Public statement to the effect that they'll all be well in the brown stuff. If the police carry on like that they'll have no coppers left. I genuinely have no idea, but does signing up for the force mean that sharing a titty pic and some inappropriate comments with friends on your own phone makes you sackable? Seems both a tad harsh and enormously unrealistic, frankly.

It does at the moment. The laws governing what data can be acquired from a suspect’s device mean it has to be necessary and proportionate for police to believe the data will assist the investigation. That’s not the case when examining officers’ phones and professional standards departments can go on a fishing trip and look at whatever they like.

One example happened to me and was also the catalyst for me leaving. A colleague of mine was in a WhatsApp group with the rest of my team. It’s was a very professional group, didn’t chat about anything other than work and arranging cover for an on call capability our team provided. Work didn’t provide any other facility to do this on work phones. One of the lads separated from his partner who made a complaint about him being controlling. PSD seized his phone and examined it and found nothing incriminating on his phone. He actually had video and audio of arguments with his ex where she said she’d make the sort of complaint that’d end his career. Nothing came of that at all.

On the fishing trip however PSD looked at our work WhatsApp. Clearly this wouldn’t assist an investigation into if he was controlling of his partner but he’s a cop so the rules of investigation don’t apply. PSD went back 3 years through the WhatsApp group and found a message where my staff referred to the IT manager as a fat rude cow. The guy had long since retired but he’d been so frustrated after being in an ops room for 23 hours because IT had screwed up and the fat rude cow had been fat and rude to him instead of helping resolve the problem. That’s the worst they found and they had to go back 3 years to find it. They then interviewed me and wanted to discipline me for not calling him out and challenging him for it. My response was that I had but I knew he needed to vent and the most appropriate way of speaking to him wasn’t replying to him via WhatsApp when the poor bugger’s knackered and needs sleep. PSD said that as there were two blue ticks I’d clearly read it at the time and should have acted. I explained that WhatsApp, and proving digital evidence doesn’t work like that, I’m an expert in it but we went around in circles and what a court will accept as proof is far above what PSD claim as proof.

Ultimately they wanted me to accept a low level disciplinary warning but I refused due to the way they’d investigated it and disagreeing with the fact their challenge policy leads managers to use social media to manage staff. There are many issues with policing apart from this event but it was a big part of why I ended up taking a career break to start my business before formally leaving.

[anonymous-user]

sebdangerfield said:

It does at the moment. The laws governing what data can be acquired from a suspect’s device mean it has to be necessary and proportionate for police to believe the data will assist the investigation. That’s not the case when examining officers’ phones and professional standards departments can go on a fishing trip and look at whatever they like.

One example happened to me and was also the catalyst for me leaving. A colleague of mine was in a WhatsApp group with the rest of my team. It’s was a very professional group, didn’t chat about anything other than work and arranging cover for an on call capability our team provided. Work didn’t provide any other facility to do this on work phones. One of the lads separated from his partner who made a complaint about him being controlling. PSD seized his phone and examined it and found nothing incriminating on his phone. He actually had video and audio of arguments with his ex where she said she’d make the sort of complaint that’d end his career. Nothing came of that at all.

On the fishing trip however PSD looked at our work WhatsApp. Clearly this wouldn’t assist an investigation into if he was controlling of his partner but he’s a cop so the rules of investigation don’t apply. PSD went back 3 years through the WhatsApp group and found a message where my staff referred to the IT manager as a fat rude cow. The guy had long since retired but he’d been so frustrated after being in an ops room for 23 hours because IT had screwed up and the fat rude cow had been fat and rude to him instead of helping resolve the problem. That’s the worst they found and they had to go back 3 years to find it. They then interviewed me and wanted to discipline me for not calling him out and challenging him for it. My response was that I had but I knew he needed to vent and the most appropriate way of speaking to him wasn’t replying to him via WhatsApp when the poor bugger’s knackered and needs sleep. PSD said that as there were two blue ticks I’d clearly read it at the time and should have acted. I explained that WhatsApp, and proving digital evidence doesn’t work like that, I’m an expert in it but we went around in circles and what a court will accept as proof is far above what PSD claim as proof.

Ultimately they wanted me to accept a low level disciplinary warning but I refused due to the way they’d investigated it and disagreeing with the fact their challenge policy leads managers to use social media to manage staff. There are many issues with policing apart from this event but it was a big part of why I ended up taking a career break to start my business before formally leaving.

Jesus Christ!

That's beyond ridiculous. Who in their right mind would willingly surrender their private life for a job that appears to offer increasingly little reward and seems desperate to hang its own people in the name of public approval! Doubtless the service has its issues, but as someone said up thread if you're paying peanuts and treating your people like cannon fodder then you're unlikely to attract the best talent!

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st November 21:19