Discussion
Shouldn't the detective be charged with this if she tried to cover up her failings?
https://www-hastingsobserver-co-uk.cdn.ampproject....
https://www-hastingsobserver-co-uk.cdn.ampproject....
flashbang said:
Shouldn't the detective be charged with this if she tried to cover up her failings?
https://www-hastingsobserver-co-uk.cdn.ampproject....
https://www-hastingsobserver-co-uk.cdn.ampproject....
IOPC spokesperson said:
.......we decided their actions did not reach the criminal threshold, and no file of evidence was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
She had to intend to pervert the course of justice in order to be charged.
Shes clearly given some sort of explanation to the investigators. Possibly a simple omission in the first place which she hadnt sorted out and which has just grown and grown
Shes clearly given some sort of explanation to the investigators. Possibly a simple omission in the first place which she hadnt sorted out and which has just grown and grown
Edited by Bigends on Friday 25th December 17:27
un1corn said:
Christ, did you even f
king read the article?
“During our investigation Officer A was interviewed under criminal caution but we decided their actions did not reach the criminal threshold, and no file of evidence was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Yes. I was asking for opinions. Have you even read the thread? The irony.... king read the article?“During our investigation Officer A was interviewed under criminal caution but we decided their actions did not reach the criminal threshold, and no file of evidence was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
flashbang said:
un1corn said:
Christ, did you even fking read the article?
“During our investigation Officer A was interviewed under criminal caution but we decided their actions did not reach the criminal threshold, and no file of evidence was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Yes. I was asking for opinions. Have you even read the thread? The irony.... king read the article?“During our investigation Officer A was interviewed under criminal caution but we decided their actions did not reach the criminal threshold, and no file of evidence was sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Spruce Goose said:
Watching a few of the YT videos, it is clear the Police look after there own. Surely if he did this for this case you would check his precious cases because i'm sure it wouldn't be his first time.
The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.The Spruce Goose said:
vonhosen said:
The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.
I would say that is very naive viewpoint, there are multiple very public cases that the IOPC and predecessor IPCC have failed in there duties, whether through ineptitude or direction.[quote=vonhosen]
I never said the IOPC aren't capable of buggering it up & making mistakes (just like you are capable of it too).
[quote=vonhosen]
You said
[quote=vonhosen]The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.[quote=vonhosen]
Yet in 2011 the old one, a review said
''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on..
I never said the IOPC aren't capable of buggering it up & making mistakes (just like you are capable of it too).
[quote=vonhosen]
You said
[quote=vonhosen]The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.[quote=vonhosen]
Yet in 2011 the old one, a review said
''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on..
The Spruce Goose said:
vonhosen said:
I never said the IOPC aren't capable of buggering it up & making mistakes (just like you are capable of it too).
vonhosen said:
You said
vonhosen said:
The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.
vonhosen said:
Yet in 2011 the old one, a review said
''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on..
Can you do anything without buggering it up?''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on..
The Spruce Goose said:
vonhosen said:
The IOPC aren't interested in looking after 'her' or any other officer.
I would say that is very naive viewpoint, there are multiple very public cases that the IOPC and predecessor IPCC have failed in there duties, whether through ineptitude or direction.Or is there a set of rules which defines what being 'looked after' amounts to?
The Spruce Goose said:
Yet in 2011 the old one, a review said
''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on.
In my experience internal police investigators were far more competent than investigators without policing experience (ones found in the IOPC). ''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on.
I like how you're quoting the Home Office Select Committee (chaired by Keith Vaz at the time, no less), as if it's fact.
There's nothing wrong with having a mix of people who have never been in the police and ex-police officers who have decades of experience investigating matters.
Don't mistake being cynical for knowing what you're talking about.
I did some work, independently, for the IPCC, and neither its investigators nor its commissioners appeared to be biased in favour of police officers under investigation. I have no experience of the IOPC.
When I have worked on police disciplinary cases, I have seen examples of the internal police investigators being unduly hard on other officers rather than the other way around.
When I have worked on police disciplinary cases, I have seen examples of the internal police investigators being unduly hard on other officers rather than the other way around.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 26th December 07:35
Here is one of the most interesting cases of a police officer gone wrong in recent years. I met Dizaei several times, although not in connection with his own troubles. A fascinating and talented bloke, and by many accounts good at catching crims, but up to no good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dizaei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dizaei
Breadvan72 said:
Here is one of the most interesting cases of a police officer gone wrong in recent years. I met Dizaei several times, although not in connection with his own troubles. A fascinating and talented bloke, and by many accounts good at catching crims, but up to no good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dizaei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Dizaei
Wiki said:
During the Leveson Inquiry, Dick Fedorcio, the then director of public affairs at Scotland Yard, admitted to allowing News of the World journalist Lucy Panton to use his office and computer in Scotland Yard to write a critical story about Dizaei. The inquiry heard that Panton also used Fedorcio's email address to forward the story to the office. In the email she said she could not delete the email and points out it "would not be helpful for people to know" she was using Fedorcio's computer.
Surely that is not best policing practice.
The Spruce Goose said:
La Liga said:
Don't mistake being cynical for knowing what you're talking about.
You have to scrape around for 9 year old reports by MPs (who won’t have any experience) because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The Spruce Goose said:
Yet in 2011 the old one, a review said
''Police watchdog 'appears biased''...But it reserves its most scathing criticism for the use of former police officers as investigators. The report calls the practice "clearly inappropriate" and adds: "Public confidence in the impartiality of the IPCC is bound to be damaged by these practices.''
Guess what the IPOC still does the same, use retired Police officers to investigate there own..
So retired police AREN'T going to look after their own, come on..
You need to be able to ‘read’ reports to understand them.
It says ‘appears biased’. There’s a massive difference between appearing biased and being biased. It goes on to propose that public confidence is bound to be damaged by these practices. In other words, there’s no evidence of impartiality referenced. It’s just that, in the bit you quoted, of the appearance of impartiality that is being criticised.
The problem from the IOPC’s perspective is that it is investigating those whose job it is to investigate others, the experts in other words. Who else to use? Doris and Albert pulled at random from the Clapham omnibus? Best of luck with them. Or do you trawl those who have organised anti-police demonstrations? If the latter, then you get the same problem in reverse, except that the knowledge and skill of investigation is all on one side.
What you are suggesting is that the IOPC investigators will put themselves at risk for an offender who happens to be a police officer. I think that says more about you than the ex police officers.
Can I ask what your plan is? Who should we have as investigators? People with a great deal of desire for a fair but effective investigation process for police officers have thought this one through and their idea is to have strong and invasive supervision from non-police staff.
As for appearing biased, it is a perenial irritation for police officers. The police have restrictions based on their private lives: some quite invasive, others far reaching but generally applied reasonably. One particular aspect is that the police must not appear as if their independence is compromised. In other words, police activity outside their job can be restricted even if there is no evidence of compromised independence and further, even if they partake in a role where there is no opportunity for corrupt behaviour but the general public might believe there is then they can be obliged to refrain from it.
In other words, the report, or that non-scathing part you reproduced, is all about appearance of a potential for bias and not about actual bias.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff