PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
BrabusMog said:
I was waiting for you to say that. So it wasn't an error that allowed someone under investigation to become a police officer? What was it then?
An administrative error would be doing something incorrectly, when doing it correctly would have not caused the same issue.In this case, it seems they followed their procedure correctly, but the procedure itself has a big hole in it.
InitialDave said:
BrabusMog said:
I was waiting for you to say that. So it wasn't an error that allowed someone under investigation to become a police officer? What was it then?
An administrative error would be doing something incorrectly, when doing it correctly would have not caused the same issue.In this case, it seems they followed their procedure correctly, but the procedure itself has a big hole in it.
InitialDave said:
An administrative error would be doing something incorrectly, when doing it correctly would have not caused the same issue.
In this case, it seems they followed their procedure correctly, but the procedure itself has a big hole in it.
Is that the new procedure produced after Harwood's rather disastrous hiring/vetting procedure?In this case, it seems they followed their procedure correctly, but the procedure itself has a big hole in it.
BrabusMog said:
I was waiting for you to say that. So it wasn't an error that allowed someone under investigation to become a police error? What was it then?
I'd describe it as a flawed process exposed by an atypical scenario. Here's why: An error, when you bolt it on to the rest of your sentence, implies individual mistake making and specificity.
No one in the vetting department made a mistake.
So then you have to lean on 'error' to mean everyone involved in the design, from the legislation to the codes of practice, to policy creation based on the COP has to somehow cover every single eventuality and scenario imaginable within the design. By that definition 'anything' complex and comparable probably has an 'error' because it likely doesn't cover everything.
The realities are that any large and complex organisation - even ones superior to the police e.g. from NASA, Google, Porsche (exploding engines) finds that the real world will highlight and stress-test things in unexpected / unimaginable ways and find flaws.
Hanging people out to dry (I'm not suggesting you're suggesting that) in these scenarios isn't the way to create a constructive, progressive organisational culture.
BrabusMog said:
InitialDave said:
BrabusMog said:
I was waiting for you to say that. So it wasn't an error that allowed someone under investigation to become a police officer? What was it then?
An administrative error would be doing something incorrectly, when doing it correctly would have not caused the same issue.In this case, it seems they followed their procedure correctly, but the procedure itself has a big hole in it.
BrabusMog said:
With respect, we aren't discussing a plane crash, we are discussing an administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. It is not unreasonable to expect anyone who made a procedural error to be disciplined (after a thorough investigation) and that doesn't necessarily mean their head/heads rolling. And if everyone followed the procedure to the letter, then it is not unreasonable to expect to be informed of changes to said procedure to ensure it doesn't happen again. Also, I haven't read anything on this thread that said nobody gets punished.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
No, the person sent an email by mistake. Don't conflate the actions of the criminal who received the email with the mistake of sending it.
You haven't got a very open mind have you? You seem very certain it was a mistake.Just like all the others.
La Liga said:
he force described it as an administrative error and no action was taken by the IOPC. That implies it was an error (as anything deliberate etc) would be a lot more serious.
f
k I hadn't realised that.It's all OK.
What next an article about how he raised loads of money for his lodge?
That would be a full house then.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
The force described it as an administrative error and no action was taken by the IOPC. That implies it was an error (as anything deliberate etc) would be a lot more serious.
fk I hadn't realised that.It's all OK.
What next an article about how he raised loads of money for his lodge?
That would be a full house then.
You should run your own organisation. Then you can sack anyone who sends an email to the wrong recipient.
La Liga you're quoting me out of context there - the conversation had moved on. Although, it most categorically was an administrative error, as the administrators made an error in allowing someone under investigation to become a police officer. If that's not an administrative error, I don't know what is. I admire your loyalty, but cannot stand your attitude.
InitialDave said:
I'm just saying that if the problem is people correctly following an incorrect procedure, then they're not to blame.
If I screw up then I expect to be accountable for my actions & "I was only following procedure" won't cut the mustard. I'm expected to think about my actions & their consequences.La Liga said:
arcasm doesn't mask that you tried to be clever with the 'open-minded' comment without bothering to read the article properly.
You should run your own organisation. Then you can sack anyone who sends an email to the wrong recipient.
If one of my employees used a work email to tell their mate that they had heard they were just about to get arrested for fYou should run your own organisation. Then you can sack anyone who sends an email to the wrong recipient.
king kids I'd tell the police.Not that it would get anywhere, but I'd feel as if I did my civic duty.
Seriously I am sure you think you are being reasonable but this sort of attitude is why normal people like me think the police are a lost cause.
The shining efforts of individuals within the force are used to cover up a corrupt, lazy and incompetent organisation.
Rovinghawk said:
If I screw up then I expect to be accountable for my actions & "I was only following procedure" won't cut the mustard. I'm expected to think about my actions & their consequences.
But - if you are following procedure, then in my opinion, you haven't screwed up. The procedure has. There are an awful lot of jobs where not following procedure will get you disciplined - even if following procedure causes another problem.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
arcasm doesn't mask that you tried to be clever with the 'open-minded' comment without bothering to read the article properly.
You should run your own organisation. Then you can sack anyone who sends an email to the wrong recipient.
If one of my employees used a work email to tell their mate that they had heard they were just about to get arrested for fYou should run your own organisation. Then you can sack anyone who sends an email to the wrong recipient.
king kids I'd tell the police.Not that it would get anywhere, but I'd feel as if I did my civic duty.
Seriously I am sure you think you are being reasonable but this sort of attitude is why normal people like me think the police are a lost cause.
The shining efforts of individuals within the force are used to cover up a corrupt, lazy and incompetent organisation.
BrabusMog said:
La Liga you're quoting me out of context there - the conversation had moved on. Although, it most categorically was an administrative error, as the administrators made an error in allowing someone under investigation to become a police officer. If that's not an administrative error, I don't know what is. I admire your loyalty, but cannot stand your attitude.
Now who is Teflon? The vetting process was designed and was fit for purpose over many years and used 10s of thousands of times without any major issue I am aware of.
An atypical, extreme scenario has come along and found a flaw in the process.
That flaw has been fixed.
It's no more complicated than that.
InitialDave said:
How the hell would I know?
I'm just saying that if the problem is people correctly following an incorrect procedure, then they're not to blame.
Harwood was able to leave one force prior to misconduct matters being finalised, wait a period of time then join another. I'm just saying that if the problem is people correctly following an incorrect procedure, then they're not to blame.
It resulted in this being created to prevent that: http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Ethics/int...
Another example of identifying a weakness and plugging the gap.
It was amusing once when RH tried to use Harwood as an example on another topic as 'lessons not being learnt', when it was a perfect example of the opposite. He didn't reply once it was pointed out to him. It must be frustrating not to understand simple things.
BrabusMog said:
Couldn't agree more and what's even worse is that he does multiple quotes out of context to justify an unjustifiable position. I guess us idiots that don't work for the police just cannot comprehend what it's like to be able to get away with incompetency and we shouldn't dare have the temerity to highlight it
I.e. you were quoted to highlight you trying to worm your way out of what you wrote. The IOPC don't agree with what you've written, and since they're privvy to the full facts and hardly known to shy away from officer misconduct, I trust their judgement more than yours.
desolate said:
If one of my employees used a work email to tell their mate that they had heard they were just about to get arrested for fking kids I'd tell the police.
Which is nothing like this scenario. king kids I'd tell the police.Why make things up?
La Liga said:
desolate said:
If one of my employees used a work email to tell their mate that they had heard they were just about to get arrested for fking kids I'd tell the police.
Which is nothing like this scenario. king kids I'd tell the police.Why make things up?
k me you definitely are a copper. False accusations of lying when things aren't going your way.Crack on officer, I'll be on my lawful way now.
BrabusMog said:
I haven't wormed my way out of anything, La Liga. Enjoy quoting your way through Friday night, I'm off to meet some pals and have a good time 
Ahhh, we're doing the 'least forum loser'. Cunning strategy
Well I'm off to meet more pals, earlier. And one will be a girl. So there.
Enjoy your night.
Nanook said:
The fact that the flaw wasn't discovered for some time evidently doesn't mean that the process was fit for purpose.
Someone wrote that process. Somewhere is a copy of this document, with a signature on the front, in the authorisation box or whatever form it takes.
I'm not suggesting we pull that person out of retirement and haul them over the coals, that wouldn't be for me to decide, but the idea that it wasn't a person at fault, it was just an issue with the process, isn't doing it for me.
It might be that these were unforseen circumstances, and simply could not have been predicted. Or it could have been an oversight, as we all seem to agree now that the process was clearly flawed.
As I wrote earlier, the national vetting Codes Of Practice didn't specify anything around re-vetting. Multiple people will have contributed to it, so I don't think asking individual people, "Why didn't you envisage this scenario?" is going to achieve anything. It's clearly no where near any misconduct level, so there would need to be some other purpose to do so. Someone wrote that process. Somewhere is a copy of this document, with a signature on the front, in the authorisation box or whatever form it takes.
I'm not suggesting we pull that person out of retirement and haul them over the coals, that wouldn't be for me to decide, but the idea that it wasn't a person at fault, it was just an issue with the process, isn't doing it for me.
It might be that these were unforseen circumstances, and simply could not have been predicted. Or it could have been an oversight, as we all seem to agree now that the process was clearly flawed.
Nanook said:
La Liga said:
It's clearly no where near any misconduct level, so there would need to be some other purpose to do so.
Oh. I'd have assumed that a flaw that allowed a man known to 2 different forces for sexual misconduct, to join the police and ultimately abuse that power by raping a 13 year old girl would be reason enough. There must be a high threshold for 'misconduct' these days.When seemingly reasonable people within the system can't see it you really do know that the whole thing is f
ked.Nanook said:
Multiple people will have contributed to it, but I'd imagine, if it's anything like any other process instruction I've ever seen, it will be signed off or authorised by one person.
Perhaps so. That doesn't mean they're responsible for every possible scenario that may or may not be covered by what they're signing off on. Nanook said:
Oh. I'd have assumed that a flaw that allowed a man known to 2 different forces for sexual misconduct, to join the police and ultimately abuse that power by raping a 13 year old girl would be reason enough. There must be a high threshold for 'misconduct' these days.
You shouldn't assume, you should think about it a bit more. It's not a partiality high threshold. It's standard HR-level balance of probabilities. Don't let the severity of the outcome cloud your judgement.
The key question is, which individual/s will have 'breached professional standards of behaviour', which is generally defined as unacceptable or improper behaviour?
The IOPC, who have all the information, didn't identify any.
desolate said:
And let's not forget that he was tipped off about his imminent arrest - that was just an error though.
Where does it say he was informed of an imminent arrest? It doesn't.
So not only are you being disingenuous with 'tipped off' (the actual text, "...copied into emails relating to the police investigation into his conduct", isn't quite as dramatic, is it?), you're making things up.
desolate said:
When seemingly reasonable people within the system can't see it you really do know that the whole thing is fked.
I think reasonable people who understand the system are happy to agree with the IOPC's conclusions over people on a forum without the full facts.ked.The email was a mistake.
The policy was exposed as flawed and has now been fixed.
No individual person's acts or omissions amounted to misconduct (no amount of sarcastic quoting from the lowest common contributor changes that).
Perhaps the above is simply true and people should, shock horror, consider it could be the case.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff