PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-

PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-

Author
Discussion

Halb

Original Poster:

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-year-old girl

PC and a paedophile, he's gonna be lit up like a christmas tree in gaol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-4...

grumbledoak

31,504 posts

232 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
I think 13 is a bit old for a paedo.

Not that he doesn't belong in gaol.

Gameface

16,565 posts

76 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
grumbledoak said:
I think 13 is a bit old for a paedo.
You're wrong.

Alucidnation

16,810 posts

169 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Why?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
It's the irrelevant pedantic point over definitions, "It's not paedophilia it's hebephilia", even though the legal system and everyday usage doesn't make the distinction.

ash73 said:
Major fk up in the vetting process; someone needs to lose their job over this.
You're wrong. They followed the the national vetting code of practice, and the IOPC found no misconduct. The primary issue here is the gap between vetting and starting as a police officer.

He's obviously not told the forces who were investigating him in early 2017 he was becoming a police officer, and there was no process to re-check the Police National Computer after passing the vetting in October 2016.

I expect that gap will be plugged and officers will be re-checked prior to being sworn in.


I expect, and hope, he'll receive a long custodial sentence.











anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
No they shouldn't.

You can't design something to cover ever eventuality. Sometimes it requires real life application to highlight gaps / areas to improve etc.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
ash73 said:
Lessons learned blah blah. Incompetent idiots failing to take responsibility, more like.
Or a gap highlighted by exceptional behaviour.

The IOPC, who know more than you, looked at it and found that not to be the case.

I'll trust their judgement over yours.


Sheepshanks

32,538 posts

118 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:

a gap highlighted by exceptional behaviour.
Let's hope it's exceptional.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
ash73 said:
Then whoever wrote the code of practice should lose their job, this is totally unacceptable.
Do you think perhaps the interview should ask if you are a kiddy fiddler? You know, weed them out !?!? I think maybe you need to be hired by the Police to teach them how to investigate..


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
La Liga said:

a gap highlighted by exceptional behaviour.
Let's hope it's exceptional.
I don’t think there are too many people who try to join whilst acquiring multiple sexual offence allegations and then go on to attract another in the early days of their service.





gooner1

10,223 posts

178 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
La Liga said:
Sheepshanks said:
La Liga said:

a gap highlighted by exceptional behaviour.
Let's hope it's exceptional.
I don’t think there are too many people who try to join whilst acquiring multiple sexual offence allegations and then go on to attract another in the early days of their service.
How many is "too many" ? getmecoat

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Few enough to justify describing it as ‘exceptional’ wink

Actually, I expect he’s the first to have slipped between the vetting / starting date like this.

XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
If you are that way inclined, joining the police is an extremely drawn out and roundabout way to obtain access to children. The traditional route via the church, youth organisations and sport would seem a lot easier

Frank7

6,619 posts

86 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
ash73 said:
Major fk up in the vetting process; someone needs to lose their job over this.
I realise that my example isn’t in the same league as this copper’s offence, but in 1970, when I first applied to the Public Carriage Office, at that time under the auspices of the Metropolitan Police, to sign up to do the Knowledge, to be a Black Cab driver, I agonised over a £20 fine I’d had in 1968 for chinning a guy who’d pushed my girlfriend to the floor, while running out of a Chinese restaurant, without paying.
Eventually I declared it, and was told, “Keep your nose clean for 12 months, then reapply, you’ll be okay then.”
I said, “What would have happened if I hadn’t declared it?”
They said, “We’d have checked your criminal record, found out, and denied you a cab driver’s licence.”
So I’m surprised that the copper’s record wasn’t checked before giving him a Warrant Card.
It sounds like he was asked, “Done any crime?” He said, “No”, and he got the job.

Bigends

5,412 posts

127 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Its concerning that he'd accidentally been copied into emails relating to the investigation into his offending as a result of which he tried to ditch evidence.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Frank7 said:
So I’m surprised that the copper’s record wasn’t checked before giving him a Warrant Card.
It sounds like he was asked, “Done any crime?” He said, “No”, and he got the job.
It was checked. He had no criminal record either when he was vetted or when he was sworn in, nor was pending anything when vetted.

The issue was the period of time between vetting him and him starting. There was no mechanism to identify that he had been subject to serious allegations in another force area during this time period.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Bigends said:
Its concerning that he'd accidentally been copied into emails relating to the investigation into his offending as a result of which he tried to ditch evidence.
Agreed. What a stupid error. I bet someone was relieved when he still got convicted.

R1 Dave

7,158 posts

262 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Frank7 said:
ash73 said:
Major fk up in the vetting process; someone needs to lose their job over this.
I realise that my example isn’t in the same league as this copper’s offence, but in 1970, when I first applied to the Public Carriage Office, at that time under the auspices of the Metropolitan Police, to sign up to do the Knowledge, to be a Black Cab driver, I agonised over a £20 fine I’d had in 1968 for chinning a guy who’d pushed my girlfriend to the floor, while running out of a Chinese restaurant, without paying.
Eventually I declared it, and was told, “Keep your nose clean for 12 months, then reapply, you’ll be okay then.”
I said, “What would have happened if I hadn’t declared it?”
They said, “We’d have checked your criminal record, found out, and denied you a cab driver’s licence.”
So I’m surprised that the copper’s record wasn’t checked before giving him a Warrant Card.
It sounds like he was asked, “Done any crime?” He said, “No”, and he got the job.
Vetting is pretty stringent but in this example it sounds like he passed vetting prior to being investigated so when the checks were done there would be nothing to find.

Troubleatmill

10,210 posts

158 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Sickening.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Thursday 15th November 2018
quotequote all
Compare the vetting procedure when Harwood rejoined the police:

"Job history?"

"In another police force, investigated for excessive violence, left on health grounds"

"Welcome to this police force"

They learnt a whole new set of lessons then, too. Hopefully we'll soon have a new opportunity for yet more lessons to be learned. The way things are going we'll have an incredibly well-educated set of institutions. The best thing about it is how nobody is ever found to have done anything wrong- exoneration all round and everybody wins (except for the victims, of course).

I'm proud to pay towards the whole thing.