PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
Nanook said:
I'm not letting the severity of the outcome cloud my judgement, but it should impact the judgement.
If I jump a red light and nothing happens, i might get some points and a fine.
If I jump a red light, and kill someone, my punishment will be somewhat different.
Your example is taking about a different crime, where there’s a direct cause and effect. If I jump a red light and nothing happens, i might get some points and a fine.
If I jump a red light, and kill someone, my punishment will be somewhat different.
Here we’re talking about someone (I presume) somehow copying someone into an email. Whether the person copied in does nothing or goes on to commit mass murder, the causality is broken unlike the road traffic example.
Nanook said:
You truly seem to believe that the police can do no wrong, if they do, it's a process issue, but somehow no-one is ever to blame, and the police say so, and they know best. It's sad. I do hope you're not in any sort of position of power or authority, as you seem to lack the ability to think for yourself.
Total strawman. Although it’s always easier to go after the poster / misrepresent them rather than outline why the conclusions are incorrect (outline with some actual cohesive argument, not baseless opinion). An independent investigatory body have looked at the matter and drawn their conclusions inline with the laws around police misconduct. I am happy to accept their conclusion whether they find there is a case to answer or not unless I’m in a position to rationally and objectively disagree.
That seems to be the fundamental difference here; I don’t think I know better and recognise the limitations of not knowing the full circumstances.
That as opposed to people like you who seemingly think you know better than professional investigators who are privy to the full circumstances and have been able to place those circumstances against criminal and misconduct criteria.
I hope you’re not in an important decision making role. Not being able to recognise you have limited information and apparently dismissing the conclusions of an independent body, perhaps because they aren’t concluding what you want, indicates a lack of basic critical thinking skills.
desolate said:
The thorough investigation by whatever the police complaints set up is calling itself these days said it was just an accident, apparently.
So, nothing to see here, move along please.
It must be a conspiracy. It couldn’t be possible it was an accident that has been dealt with appropriately. So, nothing to see here, move along please.
The IOPC must flip a coin with who they decide to place through misconduct proceedings. Must have landed right for this person.
Nanook said:
The discipline procedures are something of a joke, as we regularly see and read about here and elsewhere in the news; my comments were not so much about this particular case, as they were about la liga's constant defence of the police and their processes, regardless of what has happened. It never seems to occur that the processes and procedures are the problem, like so many public sector areas.
Are they?Oh, we “regularly see and hear about here and elsewhere in the news.” Good mental gymnastics though. Kid yourself something you probably know little to nothing about is a “joke” then that allows you to form a base to convince yourself that you’re right. It couldn’t possiblly be you don’t understand the subject matter. It’s the system that’s wrong...
That’s me convinced. I can’t argue with that compelling evidence.
I think you’ve confused yourself. No where have I spoken about process regarding the accidental emails. I wrote something similar to “poor mistake needs addressing”.
Where I have spoken about process is the vetting and outlined why I believe that to be the case as well as places that within the context of misconduct criteria and law. Odd that no one who disagrees addressed those posts.
Lazy boring generisations about the public sector aren’t a substitute for substance.
La Liga said:
t must be a conspiracy. It couldn’t be possible it was an accident that has been dealt with appropriately.
The IOPC must flip a coin with who they decide to place through misconduct proceedings. Must have landed right for this person.
Well at least you have now moved on from calling me a liar.The IOPC must flip a coin with who they decide to place through misconduct proceedings. Must have landed right for this person.
I'll go back to where I started - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Nanook said:
I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm not 'going after' you, and I've given my reasoning on this very thread. You just disagree with it. You're entitled to do so, but it doesn't make you right.
You literally wrote this: Nanook said:
You truly seem to believe that the police can do no wrong, if they do, it's a process issue, but somehow no-one is ever to blame, and the police say so, and they know best.
Which is a total misrepresentation of my views and beliefs. The police can and do do wrong, which is why a fair few get dismissed / prosecuted every year. The difference is I don't pick and choose where I define 'wrong', I'm happy for it to be defined by criminal and misconduct matters.
Nanook said:
The fundamental difference here is that you don't know better, and it doesn't appear to cross your mind that perhaps there is a better way. The process is there, it's all good. The process has a flaw? It's ok, someone says they've fixed it. Problem solved, and no-one's to blame.
I know better than to second guess investigators who are privy to the full facts and evidence. I've outlined why I don't believe any individual has culpability vs the legal misconduct thresholds. Feel free to address that rather than again misrepresenting and assuming what I believe. In the real world you have to actually make a rational case for why there should be misconduct proceedings. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Your over-reaching with your assumptions as to what I believe regarding improving things etc. You should recognise when you're making assumptions that are allowing you to paint a picture of someone when you have no basis to.
Nanook said:
As for the last part of your comment, the irony of telling me the experts know better, whilst deciding that I'm not fit to make decisions on the things I'm a subject matter expert in is moronic, and the fact that I've mentioned my work, the implications of errors on my behalf, and the potential outcomes on this thread, tells me you should spend more time worrying about your own reading and comprehension, than my critical thinking skills.
The actual irony is I did no more than you did (see below quote). What's good for the goose is good for the gander:
Nanook said:
I do hope you're not in any sort of position of power or authority, as you seem to lack the ability to think for yourself.
desolate said:
Well at least you have now moved on from calling me a liar.
There was no immediacy, I said 'misrepresent' not 'liar', but it's a bit a of a pedantic point. desolate said:
I'll go back to where I started - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Indeed, those who don't now what they're talking about thinking they know better than those who've investigated the full circumstances. Nanook said:
I can't be bothered with the uber quoting, so you'll have to make do.
Yes, I gave my opinion on the way you represent yourself in these threads. I'm sorry you think it was an attack. As I see it, everything I said is valid and I stand by it.
I'm sorry you feel it's a misrepresentation, but from reading your comments on this thread and others, I do not believe it is.
I didn't say it was an attack, I said it was a misrepresentation. Yes, I gave my opinion on the way you represent yourself in these threads. I'm sorry you think it was an attack. As I see it, everything I said is valid and I stand by it.
I'm sorry you feel it's a misrepresentation, but from reading your comments on this thread and others, I do not believe it is.
The fact I've condemned police officers for misconduct and crimes on other threads literally voids your conclusion.
Nanook said:
The actual irony is that you attempted to pull me up for something you were doing yourself? And now you're saying "Yeah, well you did it to, thats the irony" . You've followed that with a quote when I said you appear to be unable to think for yourself, and you replied something along the lines of my 'lack of basic critical thinking skills'
Jesus man, that's idiotic. My 3 year old nephew can manage better than "whatever you said about me, that's what are" Insecure much?
It was more to highlight that you didn't recognise you'd done the same thing as you were doing. Jesus man, that's idiotic. My 3 year old nephew can manage better than "whatever you said about me, that's what are" Insecure much?
Nanook said:
What is your experience? What do you do? What have you done? Perhaps I'll consider what you say to be more valid when I know? Have you worked in these teams that investigate such issues? Do you have a good inside understanding of what goes on? It doesn't sound like it?
I try not to do the whole, "Well I've done X, Y and Z", as an argument, as it can be used as easy leverage and an easy 'go to' - plus how do you know if it's true? I could easily and convincingly (IMO!) claim a lot more than I've done. Instead, I try to outline the underlying reasons why I believe something is the case, as I've done with the misconduct threshold definition and route in which the vetting was created.
Regarding the IOPC (or IPCC as they were), my experiences with them indicate they'll have no hesitation in putting someone through misconduct proceedings if the evidence is there. They've were at the forefront in pushing for reforming in this area e.g. misconduct hearings in public, greater powers like compelling police officers to attend a criminal interview (which applies to no one else) etc. Internal police investigators tend to be more skilled investigators, which isn't a surprise given who they place within those departments. Which is why I think it was a mistake for the IOPC to declare they wanted fewer ex-police officers, but that's a side issue.
Generally speaking, the police have moved and are moving away from 'punishment and discipline' to 'learning and development' within their organisational culture when appropriate. This places mindset in a different context. Mistakes / accidents are dramatically different from negligence / intention.
If you theoretically have someone with 20 years of unblemished, distinctive service who has accidentally placed the suspect's last name in the CC box which has auto filled, what are people expecting to happen? Them to be sacked? People make mistakes at work all the time. Yes, this one had a bad outcome (him attempting to destroy evidence), but that's the nature of the business rather than gravity of the mistake.
In terms of vetting. The people involved from top to bottom have probably done their best to create a strategy / policy that minimises the chances of unsuitable candidates entering the police. It so happens an extreme person in highly specific circumstances exposed a flaw. What are people expecting to happen with X or Y individual involved at some point in the vetting process? Get sacked?
People mistake 'accountability' with scapegoating.
A constructive approach, where possible, is much better for an organisation than a big stick. If people involved a complex project and implementation see that people have been disciplined etc around a gap in vetting, then what sort of approach do you think they'll take? An overly cautious, bureaucratic and risk-averse one. There's ample evidence to conclude that the more scrutiny you place risk-based decision-makers under, the more risk-averse they become.
Not a culture we want in something as important as policing.
If someone's conduct reaches a misconduct / criminal threshold then hammer them. If not, then approach the matter in as constructive and-a-developmental manner as possible. There's no need for people to be punished to make an organisation better.
You did “go after the poster”. I was describing a debating fallacy, which is why I wrote it like that as opposed to “you’re going to after me” and personalising it, or using words like “attack”.
I didn’t claim nor represent my option as more valid based on experience. You’re misrepresenting again.
I have, earlier in the topic, outlined the structure of how vetting works / and cited the laws and codes of practice that created the current policies. I then linked this to the misconduct laws and definitions and why I didn’t believe anyone individual met those thresholds, along with inviting people to outline what specifically should have happened.
That’s substance along with facts that can be debated (which you’re welcome to do), and everyone has equal access to the information. Much better than throwing around alleged experience (how would you even be able to accurately weight my claimed experience?).
I’d speculate most have avoided those posts as they don’t have an answer and want to avoid being tied down when they’d prefer to keepthings vague and generalised. It’s less taxing to default to lazy ‘public sector’ stereotypes and mock ‘lessons learnt’ etc.
You say I’m not here to debate, what have you actually debated? You’ve given an opinion on me (not relevant to what has happened) and vaguely dismissed police misconduct as a ‘joke’ ‘because of what we see on here and the news’.
Compelling stuff.
As I say, you’re more than welcome to debate the specifics mentioned at the start of the post if you want to go a level above just giving opinions.
I didn’t claim nor represent my option as more valid based on experience. You’re misrepresenting again.
I have, earlier in the topic, outlined the structure of how vetting works / and cited the laws and codes of practice that created the current policies. I then linked this to the misconduct laws and definitions and why I didn’t believe anyone individual met those thresholds, along with inviting people to outline what specifically should have happened.
That’s substance along with facts that can be debated (which you’re welcome to do), and everyone has equal access to the information. Much better than throwing around alleged experience (how would you even be able to accurately weight my claimed experience?).
I’d speculate most have avoided those posts as they don’t have an answer and want to avoid being tied down when they’d prefer to keepthings vague and generalised. It’s less taxing to default to lazy ‘public sector’ stereotypes and mock ‘lessons learnt’ etc.
You say I’m not here to debate, what have you actually debated? You’ve given an opinion on me (not relevant to what has happened) and vaguely dismissed police misconduct as a ‘joke’ ‘because of what we see on here and the news’.
Compelling stuff.
As I say, you’re more than welcome to debate the specifics mentioned at the start of the post if you want to go a level above just giving opinions.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 17th November 13:48
La Liga said:
ndeed, those who don't now what they're talking about thinking they know better than those who've investigated the full circumstances.
Given the circumstances of the case and the track record of the police and their brothers in the oversight authority it's not unreasonable to be sceptical.Don't you think?
desolate said:
La Liga said:
ndeed, those who don't now what they're talking about thinking they know better than those who've investigated the full circumstances.
Given the circumstances of the case and the track record of the police and their brothers in the oversight authority it's not unreasonable to be sceptical.Don't you think?
Plenty of police officers face misconduct proceedings every year.
Why wouldn’t they have here if they met the thresholds?
Conspiracy? Incompetence? Or perhaps no one committed misconduct as per the definition I linked a while back.
La Liga said:
t depends how you view it.
Plenty of police officers face misconduct proceedings every year.
Why wouldn’t they have here if they met the thresholds?
Conspiracy? Incompetence? Or perhaps no one committed misconduct as per the definition I linked a while back.
Ian Naude: the luckiest nonce alive. Plenty of police officers face misconduct proceedings every year.
Why wouldn’t they have here if they met the thresholds?
Conspiracy? Incompetence? Or perhaps no one committed misconduct as per the definition I linked a while back.
Are you seriously telling me random newly admitted coppers are allowed to look up details of vulnerable kids on force equipment and NO ONE knows?
La Liga said:
link the source / quote that mentioned police systems.
Although the answer will probably the be same. It’ll depend what systems he was using and what information he was accessing.
I thought it was the guardian but I may be wrong and have conflated "access to vulnerable girls" with accessing their information. I am on my phone at the moment so cant check where I read it last night or if I am mistaken.Although the answer will probably the be same. It’ll depend what systems he was using and what information he was accessing.
I didn't realise that the police were in fact aware of one complaint against him and held up his recruitment and it's the second complaint that was missed by Cheshire despite it being investigated elsewhere.
Pretty astonishing stuff really, even if I am wrong about the access to further police information. (That wouldn't be a lie by the way as it was a belief honestly held at the time I made the statement. I'd just be wrong.)
He may have misused police IT systems. There’s lots of information on standard systems all officers have access to that could be misused.
His access wouldn’t be anything unusual.
He was subject of an allegation where no further action was taken, so whilst it’d be assessed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a barrier to joining (could be a false allegation etc).
His access wouldn’t be anything unusual.
He was subject of an allegation where no further action was taken, so whilst it’d be assessed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a barrier to joining (could be a false allegation etc).
La Liga said:
He may have misused police IT systems. There’s lots of information on standard systems all officers have access to that could be misused.
His access wouldn’t be anything unusual.
He was subject of an allegation where no further action was taken, so whilst it’d be assessed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a barrier to joining (could be a false allegation etc).
Agreed.His access wouldn’t be anything unusual.
He was subject of an allegation where no further action was taken, so whilst it’d be assessed, it wouldn’t necessarily be a barrier to joining (could be a false allegation etc).
He was subject to 2 separate allegations wasn't he? One that Cheshire were aware of (if I read correctly it held up confirmation of his recruitment) and one that they weren't.
He was shown to have a long track record of dodgy social media grooming.
Not sure how this was missed given two forces investigating him whilst he was being recruited. Or have I got that wrong as well?
Tbh it is all a bit depressing and wearing. Not sure I want to read anymore about this particular s
t show. It's easier to ignore it and pretend it's all ok.desolate said:
Ian Naude: the luckiest nonce alive.
Are you seriously telling me random newly admitted coppers are allowed to look up details of vulnerable kids on force equipment and NO ONE knows?
I would have thought the luckiest are those who are undiscovered or have had their misdeeds covered up by those who were in a position to do something about it. The Church, for example.Are you seriously telling me random newly admitted coppers are allowed to look up details of vulnerable kids on force equipment and NO ONE knows?
XCP said:
I would have thought the luckiest are those who are undiscovered or have had their misdeeds covered up by those who were in a position to do something about it. The Church, for example.
Yep fair enough.To be honest I wasn't really aware of this case until yesterday and thought nothing of it until I read that he had been emailed about the investigation.
I was then pretty astonished that this was just dismissed as an error. At the very least I would expect a criminal investigation and a statement from the police explaining the outcome.
La Liga, and no doubt others, think this is an overreaction but having slept on it I really don't think it is. It's a f
king outrage.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 17th November 13:44
La Liga said:
here were two accusations in different force areas between the vetting and him joining.
That’s the issue highlighted. There was no re-checking if the Police National Computer once he had passed the vetting. This allowed him to become a suspect in other force areas and it not be detected by Cheshire.
The Cheshire allegation is the rape one when he was serving.
So to get it straightThat’s the issue highlighted. There was no re-checking if the Police National Computer once he had passed the vetting. This allowed him to become a suspect in other force areas and it not be detected by Cheshire.
The Cheshire allegation is the rape one when he was serving.
Allegation 1 - investigated, exonerated, Cheshire police aware and allow recruitment
Subsequent allegation 2 - system failure as Cheshire police not aware so recruitment goes on (unfortunate timings)
Becomes a policeman
Gets accused of rape and is investigated and found guilty.
During this final investigation an admin error sees him receiving information about the investigation into him.
This investigation also finds that he has form for internet grooming.
Is that broadly correct?
desolate said:
La Liga said:
here were two accusations in different force areas between the vetting and him joining.
That’s the issue highlighted. There was no re-checking if the Police National Computer once he had passed the vetting. This allowed him to become a suspect in other force areas and it not be detected by Cheshire.
The Cheshire allegation is the rape one when he was serving.
So to get it straightThat’s the issue highlighted. There was no re-checking if the Police National Computer once he had passed the vetting. This allowed him to become a suspect in other force areas and it not be detected by Cheshire.
The Cheshire allegation is the rape one when he was serving.
Allegation 1 - investigated, exonerated, Cheshire police aware and allow recruitment
Subsequent allegation 2 - system failure as Cheshire police not aware so recruitment goes on (unfortunate timings)
Becomes a policeman
Gets accused of rape and is investigated and found guilty.
During this final investigation an admin error sees him receiving information about the investigation into him.
This investigation also finds that he has form for internet grooming.
Is that broadly correct?
It looks broadly correct, except there were two allegations after allegation 1 which were undetected.
The issue was the time period between passing vetting and starting. It allowed him to acquire two allegations in other forces without it being detected because there was no re-checking of the Police National Computer.
desolate said:
Yep fair enough.
To be honest I wasn't really aware of this case until yesterday and thought nothing of it til unread that he had been emailed about the investigation.
I was then pretty astonished that this was just dismissed as an error. At the very least I would expect a criminal investigation and a statement from the police explaining the outcome.
La Liga, and no doubt others, think this is an overreaction but having slept on it I really don't think it is. It's a fking outrage.
There would have been an investigation. To be honest I wasn't really aware of this case until yesterday and thought nothing of it til unread that he had been emailed about the investigation.
I was then pretty astonished that this was just dismissed as an error. At the very least I would expect a criminal investigation and a statement from the police explaining the outcome.
La Liga, and no doubt others, think this is an overreaction but having slept on it I really don't think it is. It's a f
king outrage.Why astonished if it was an error?
What do you expect to have happened?
La Liga said:
here would have been an investigation.
Why astonished if that's what it was an error?
What do you expect to have happened?
So if we accept this officer was investigated by 2 separate police forces for serious sexual offences it would like to know why it took a further allegation to find his social media history.Why astonished if that's what it was an error?
What do you expect to have happened?
I have my theory, what's yours?
desolate said:
La Liga said:
here would have been an investigation.
Why astonished if that's what it was an error?
What do you expect to have happened?
So if we accept this officer was investigated by 2 separate police forces for serious sexual offences it would like to know why it took a further allegation to find his social media history.Why astonished if that's what it was an error?
What do you expect to have happened?
I have my theory, what's yours?
The West Mercia allegation was in relation to social media, so I imagine they were looking at it.
In terms of investigatory depth, once he had been accused as a serving police officer and they had linked everything together, the investigation would be taken to a whole new level so you'd likely see things uncovered that wouldn't have been previously.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 17th November 13:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff