PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
La Liga said:
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 f
ked.
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.
ks, officer. You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: f
k me it was multiple emails and not a single email. Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th November 17:40
La Liga said:
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.
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.
So Harwood isn't a major issue you're aware of over the many years the process has been used?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.
It was clearly not fit for purpose before Harwood & it's clearly not fit for purpose now, so you can take your remarks about lessons having been learned and ram them wherever would do you most good.
People screw up, others try to make excuses & explain it away (in your case in condescending tones) and nobody ever faces up to responsibility about their actions.
desolate said:
bks, officer.
You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: fk me it was multiple emails and not a single email.
1) I'm not an officer.ks, officer. You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: f
k me it was multiple emails and not a single email.2) You were the one talking 'b
ks' by making things up. 3) The IOPC have examined the full facts, and again, I trust their judgement more than yours.
La Liga said:
desolate said:
bks, officer.
You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: fk me it was multiple emails and not a single email.
1) I'm not an officer.ks, officer. You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: f
k me it was multiple emails and not a single email.2) You were the one talking 'b
ks' by making things up. 3) The IOPC have examined the full facts, and again, I trust their judgement more than yours.
2. I am not making things up at all - did the rapist receive an email or emails from someone working for the police about their investigation or not? If the answer is no then I am misinformed not lying. If the answer is yes then I am 100% correct whether the email(s) were sent inadvertently or not.
3. "You would say that, wouldn't you"
So we have a bloke questionable history who slips through the net on entry. f
ks at least one kid he has met during the course of his duties. Accesses information about other kids via work. Receives information from the police about the investigation into him. Is guilty as fking sinAnd you think this is simple admin error and I am a liar?
Really just have a look at yourself. Disgraceful.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
desolate said:
bks, officer.
You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: fk me it was multiple emails and not a single email.
1) I'm not an officer.ks, officer. You are evidently part of the problem, not the solution.
Enjoy your night out.
Edited to add: f
k me it was multiple emails and not a single email.2) You were the one talking 'b
ks' by making things up. 3) The IOPC have examined the full facts, and again, I trust their judgement more than yours.
2. I am not making things up at all - did the rapist receive an email or emails from someone working for the police about their investigation or not? If the answer is no then I am misinformed not lying. If the answer is yes then I am 100% correct whether the email(s) were sent inadvertently or not.
3. "You would say that, wouldn't you"
So we have a bloke questionable history who slips through the net on entry. f
ks at least one kid he has met during the course of his duties. Accesses information about other kids via work. Receives information from the police about the investigation into him. Is guilty as fking sinAnd you think this is simple admin error and I am a liar?
Really just have a look at yourself. Disgraceful.
desolate said:
2. I am not making things up at all - did the rapist receive an email or emails from someone working for the police about their investigation or not? If the answer is no then I am misinformed not lying. If the answer is yes then I am 100% correct whether the email(s) were sent inadvertently or not.
You said he was informed of his imminent arrest. From what I can see there is no information that says that's the case. That's what I was referring to when I said you were making things up.
Here's the sequence again:
La Liga said:
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:
3. "You would say that, wouldn't you"
So we have a bloke questionable history who slips through the net on entry. fks at least one kid he has met during the course of his duties. Accesses information about other kids via work. Receives information from the police about the investigation into him. Is guilty as fking sin
And you think this is simple admin error and I am a liar?
Really just have a look at yourself. Disgraceful.
As above, what I am referring to with you making things up. So we have a bloke questionable history who slips through the net on entry. f
ks at least one kid he has met during the course of his duties. Accesses information about other kids via work. Receives information from the police about the investigation into him. Is guilty as fking sinAnd you think this is simple admin error and I am a liar?
Really just have a look at yourself. Disgraceful.
The severity of the mistake isn't judged by outcome i.e. sending a mistaken email isn't worse / better depending on what he does or doesn't do with the information.
His rape has nothing to do with the emails sent. You're misrepresenting my position by presenting it as if I am placing that under the 'umbrella' of an administrative email error
If I need to have a look at myself, then so does the IOPC and anyone else who has made a judgement about the email error. Naturally, making a judgement with the full facts.
Again, I'm happy to take their side over yours given 1) they understand misconduct and 2) they have all the information.
From The Guardian
The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
When his phone was seized 756 images had been deleted from it.
Other devices, including a laptop and another phone, were later discovered in a field in Market Drayton after he gave a map of their location to his cellmate.
The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
When his phone was seized 756 images had been deleted from it.
Other devices, including a laptop and another phone, were later discovered in a field in Market Drayton after he gave a map of their location to his cellmate.
Bigends said:
From The Guardian
The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
When his phone was seized 756 images had been deleted from it.
Other devices, including a laptop and another phone, were later discovered in a field in Market Drayton after he gave a map of their location to his cellmate.
And apparently that makes me a liar. The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
When his phone was seized 756 images had been deleted from it.
Other devices, including a laptop and another phone, were later discovered in a field in Market Drayton after he gave a map of their location to his cellmate.
Bigends said:
From The Guardian
The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
Why did whoever was giving evidence presume that it was an accident? It might have been, it might not- nobody will ever know.The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
It would be more accurate to say that "he was copied into a police email revealing a plan to arrest him."
Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 16th November 20:42
Rovinghawk said:
Bigends said:
From The Guardian
The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
Why did whoever was giving evidence presume that it was an accident? It might not have been, it might not- nobody will ever know.The court heard that after the rape was reported Naude was accidentally copied into a police email revealing the plan to arrest him.
It would be more accurate to say that "he was copied into a police email revealing a plan to arrest him."
Bigends said:
I'd be interested to see what reason was given for copying the suspect into an email about him - sloppy work!
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.
Bigends said:
I'd be interested to see what reason was given for copying the suspect into an email about him - sloppy work!
An early subject covered with my trainees is that before they seal the envelope, hit the send button, etc they should check what they've written. It's usually for spelling & typos but can also be for omissions & unintended inclusions.I'm surprised the police don't teach checking something before issuing it.
Giving this some thought I doubt whether any police officers were actually involved in the recruitment process at the vetting stage. I used to interview applicants 30 odd years ago and even then all the work apart from the actual interview was done by police staff. It may well be that the email was not sent by a police officer as well.
I think we should bear that in mind.
I think we should bear that in mind.
Nanook said:
. . . 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.
You don't necessarily have to think for yourself but you could do your own research. The discipline procedures in the service are very strict. Overall figures are available for each force. If you do take the trouble to look such things up you'll find that every now and again, more than once every decade I believe, a police officer is found guily of a discipline offence. I always enjoy pointing out the bleedin' obvious, but the thread is about a police officer, albeit a probationer/trainee, who has been found blameworthy.
No police officer, serving or retired, has defended the offender in this case.
XCP said:
Giving this some thought I doubt whether any police officers were actually involved in the recruitment process at the vetting stage. I used to interview applicants 30 odd years ago and even then all the work apart from the actual interview was done by police staff. It may well be that the email was not sent by a police officer as well.
I think we should bear that in mind.
I see I'm not the only one who enjoys pointing out the bleedin' obvious.I think we should bear that in mind.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff