Leon Briggs Death in custody misconduct hearing collapses.
Discussion
La Liga said:
I think one of the mistakes they made was no longer (or minimising) the recruitment of ex-police officers.
Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Not intending to stir the pot, but it does seem to me that the reason you, as a policeman or ex-policeman, don't see any problem recruiting ex-police into the independent body tasked to review police activities as a problem, is exactly why it is a problem. Whether they act independently or not, they will not be perceived as independent by a huge chunk of society, not just the loons like David.Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Part of the function of the IOPC is PR.
hutchst said:
La Liga said:
I think one of the mistakes they made was no longer (or minimising) the recruitment of ex-police officers.
Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Not intending to stir the pot, but it does seem to me that the reason you, as a policeman or ex-policeman, don't see any problem recruiting ex-police into the independent body tasked to review police activities as a problem, is exactly why it is a problem. Whether they act independently or not, they will not be perceived as independent by a huge chunk of society, not just the loons like David.Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Part of the function of the IOPC is PR.
Greendubber said:
My last interactions with their investigators has been with graduates, who coincidentally needed me to explain use of force law to then as they had no idea what they were talking about.
Unless those graduates were probing your own level of understanding of use of force 
hutchst said:
Unless those graduates were probing your own level of understanding of use of force
Nope, absolutely not. Embarrassed themselves, got in a fluster, went red, stopped the interview and I was sent off to go back another day. 100% cringe, still nice to know my livelihood and a potentially my liberty are in the hands of those clowns. Serious investigations require serious investigators.
Unless there is a ready pool of such qualified people around any independent organisation is going to struggle, which is exactly what is happening. One wonders where such people are to be found, once anyone who has ever conducted a proper investigation has been excluded.
If I was in the mire the last person I would want investigating me would be a current or former detective. Give me a 'civvie' any day. I can still remember the involuntary shiver that I used to feel every time an Inspector from Professional standards rang me to make an appointment. And that was whether I had done anything wrong or not!
Unless there is a ready pool of such qualified people around any independent organisation is going to struggle, which is exactly what is happening. One wonders where such people are to be found, once anyone who has ever conducted a proper investigation has been excluded.
If I was in the mire the last person I would want investigating me would be a current or former detective. Give me a 'civvie' any day. I can still remember the involuntary shiver that I used to feel every time an Inspector from Professional standards rang me to make an appointment. And that was whether I had done anything wrong or not!
hutchst said:
La Liga said:
I think one of the mistakes they made was no longer (or minimising) the recruitment of ex-police officers.
Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Not intending to stir the pot, but it does seem to me that the reason you, as a policeman or ex-policeman, don't see any problem recruiting ex-police into the independent body tasked to review police activities as a problem, is exactly why it is a problem. Whether they act independently or not, they will not be perceived as independent by a huge chunk of society, not just the loons like David.Instinctively you think there’d be a conflict of interest, but the quality of investigation between internal investigations and the IPOC is night and day for less serious matters, from my experience.
My impression was the more serious matters are performed well (such as shootings), but this death in custody is clearly a serious matter and appears to have been mishandled.
Part of the function of the IOPC is PR.
It's hardly a hard one to spot.
The question is what's more important, PR or the quality of investigations and outcomes. The skill level between an experienced 30 year retired detective and some person who who has done some private sector work following around some bloke who claims not to be able to walk and is claiming benefits is somewhat different.
The IPCC investgators who interviewed me had done an investigation that you'd expect a student who had just come from training school to do. They're 'cutting their teeth' with serious police misconduct allegations. I thought that's what they were doing but the solicitor I was with said that was typical of lower-level matters i.e. not involving deaths. Police officers do the same with £ shoplifting where mistakes / a lack of experience don't matter.
You can run circles around them in interview because they they don't have and never have had 'skin in the game'. You're asking them to drive F1 cars having never been in a go-kart.
I bet if a retired Senior Investigating Officer were over-seeing this death in custody it wouldn't have been hashed up.
davidball said:
You need to step up your game.
Physician, heal thyself! Perhaps with some meds, in your case...
davidball will not believe this, but my experience in representing police officers being investigated by their force's internal investigation teams is that the internal investigators are extremely hot to trot and wish to find guilty every copper that is accused of misconduct.
Those outside professions always think that professional regulators give the professions an easy ride I have done loads of professional regulatory work in many fields, acting for both regulators and the regulated. Some regulators are in fact not at all like pissycats, and if anything go in too hard. I belong to a profession that has an abysmally poor and weak regulator, but it is an external one. Its predecessor, the internal one, was tougher.
The IPCC were a bit meh in my experience. The IPOC appear to be not very good.
Unlike davidball, however, I have these quaint and old fashioned notions of presumption of innocence, burden and standard of proof, and fair process, so I cannot say one way or another whether any officer did anything wrong in the case under discussion.
davidball apparently has omniscience and always knows in perfect detail that every police officer accused of misconduct is 1000000% guilty, and that the system is 2000000% corrupt. How wonderful to have such knowledge! How sad to waste them by posting endless repetitive threads on an semi-obscure part of a car forum!
Those outside professions always think that professional regulators give the professions an easy ride I have done loads of professional regulatory work in many fields, acting for both regulators and the regulated. Some regulators are in fact not at all like pissycats, and if anything go in too hard. I belong to a profession that has an abysmally poor and weak regulator, but it is an external one. Its predecessor, the internal one, was tougher.
The IPCC were a bit meh in my experience. The IPOC appear to be not very good.
Unlike davidball, however, I have these quaint and old fashioned notions of presumption of innocence, burden and standard of proof, and fair process, so I cannot say one way or another whether any officer did anything wrong in the case under discussion.
davidball apparently has omniscience and always knows in perfect detail that every police officer accused of misconduct is 1000000% guilty, and that the system is 2000000% corrupt. How wonderful to have such knowledge! How sad to waste them by posting endless repetitive threads on an semi-obscure part of a car forum!
Breadvan72 said:
Did you give yourself a special hug when you typed that? Bless!
I didn't but you keep referring to the IOPC as the IPOC.. You have done so in numerous posts.I know you always like to be right but If you:re going to try and come across as Mr Know it All you could at least try and get the name of the office right.
Sorry to have offended your (massive) ego.
It's IOPC though. FYI.
Breadvan72 said:
Impressive! Would you like me to send you some links to traffic warden job apps? I would send you a free hat, but I suspect that you already own one.
Traffic wardens haven't existed for years but I'm curious to know why you think I would even consider applying for such a position.I seem to have touched a nerve by pointing out your schoolboy error.
You were incorrect. Diddums. With support maybe you'll get over it.
Red 4 said:
IOPC.
I have no idea what the IPOC is but Breadvan and La Liga don't seem to like it very much.
Not sure what you're on about, I've been talking about the Integrated Plate Boundary Observatory Chile. I have no idea what the IPOC is but Breadvan and La Liga don't seem to like it very much.
https://www.ipoc-network.org/welcome-to-ipoc/
La Liga said:
Red 4 said:
IOPC.
I have no idea what the IPOC is but Breadvan and La Liga don't seem to like it very much.
Not sure what you're on about, I've been talking about the Integrated Plate Boundary Observatory Chile. I have no idea what the IPOC is but Breadvan and La Liga don't seem to like it very much.
https://www.ipoc-network.org/welcome-to-ipoc/
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Impressive! Would you like me to send you some links to traffic warden job apps? I would send you a free hat, but I suspect that you already own one.
Traffic wardens haven't existed for years but I'm curious to know why you think I would even consider applying for such a position.I seem to have touched a nerve by pointing out your schoolboy error.
You were incorrect. Diddums. With support maybe you'll get over it.
Breadvan72 said:
Did you give yourself a special hug when you typed that? Bless!
Breadvan72 said:
BTW: -
1. David Steel. Not Steele.
2. Jimmy Savile. Not Saville. Maybe read a newspaper or look at a website every now and then?
Edited by SteveScooby on Wednesday 26th February 17:14
Breadvan72 said:
You can look up the difference between a character reversal typo, and mis-spelling common and well publicised words. It's free on Google! It is true, however, that a davidball thread isn't worth spilling milk over.
You could but what would be the point of that ?Sometimes you refer to the IOPC correctly and sometimes you don't (you have written IPOC more than once so it wasn't a typo).
You just don't want to admit that you got it wrong do you ?
I was just correcting you because you allude to having experience of police discipline matters and you may look an arse if you use an incorrect abbreviation/ acronym.
It seems my attempt to prevent you from looking an arse has failed. There's no stopping you !
Typo indeed !
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff