PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Jesus. Change the record. Please."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.
In any institution with human beings, mistakes will always be made. It’s naïve to think that any system can ever be perfect. Can systems and processes be improved? Probably, most of the time. But there will always be sets of circumstances so outlandish that no one would ever consider them in a month of Sundays.
That said, I’m surprised there wasn’t a process in place to check new joiners between their original vetting and start date. The linked secondary BBC article says Cheshire Police are going to be carrying out checks if there is a delay longer than three months between vetting and start. I personally think that’s too long and I think periodic checks should be conducted at least during an officer’s probation (which Cheshire say they will now do). I hope the vetting procedures nationally are reviewed in light of this, even though the IOPC says there are no individual failings in this case.
I know my force has a pro active anti corruption team but I don’t know if every force does. I think they should and I think it should be mandated/legislated for as well. Should every officer be routinely and periodically checked, throughout their service? That’s a more difficult question, I guess, because you’d have to balance the rights of the individual against the necessity to conduct the checks. We do have routine vetting checks, but they are fairly “low” in the whole vetting process (it’s “SC” for your average officer, higher for certain specialist roles). SC vetting is the lowest grade and it’s not done that frequently.
Increasing the number of “routine” checks for all staff would obviously require an increase in vetting department staff, which of course costs money, so it would mean reductions elsewhere. One argument would be there would be money saved by getting rid of corrupt/criminal officers/staff earlier on, but I don’t think there would be enough to offset the cost.
As for Naude, I hope he gets a very lengthy custodial sentence and a requirement to complete some sort of programme, which will hopefully address his behaviour and reduce the chances of him committing such heinous offences in the future, when he is eventually released. I suspect, however, the latter may be wishful thinking, because to commit such offences in the first place, he obviously has some extremely deep seated issues.
More than that, I really do hope his victims are able to make as full a recovery as possible. They’ve been horrendously abused by a despicable man and will no doubt carry a measure of that damage with them for their entire lives.
Derek Smith said:
Dibble said:
Jesus. Change the record. Please.
Some hopes. Logic, experience and evidence seem to have no effect. Systems and procedures materialise from the ether and nobody orginates them and nobody else checks? Amazing..
If 3 months or whatever is too long a gap now it was too long before now.
Logic experience and evidence can have no impact on incompetence - by the very definition of incompetence.
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
Dibble said:
Jesus. Change the record. Please.
Some hopes. Logic, experience and evidence seem to have no effect.Systems and procedures materialise from the ether and nobody orginates them and nobody else checks? Amazing..
If 3 months or whatever is too long a gap now it was too long before now.
Logic experience and evidence can have no impact on incompetence - by the very definition of incompetence.
Policies and procedures that are threaded throughout large and complex organisations rarely are a product of a single hand.
The simplistic idea that one person should be hung out to dry when a flaw is exposed doesn't reflect this reality. It's also a backwards, regressive way of managing people.
La Liga said:
he problem is they're only effective upon people with a certain degree of intelligence.
Personal attacks are the sign of a weak argument.The fact is that many people (starting with me) are sick of nobody ever being held accountable for their mistakes. I'm also sick of the excuses made every time.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
It's also a backwards, regressive way of managing people.
Dead right- we can't have people taking responsibility for their acts or omissions, can we? It might impact future career progression. So much better to just blame procedural oversights.XCP said:
Unless you cannot identify someone whose act or omission has led to this situation. As I understand it, there has been an independent investigation which has not identified any such person. I suppose the then Home Sec could be sacked. But I think there might be a slight problem on that score.
Interesting, it's almost as if a simplistic, sarcastic generalisations don't amount to identification of an individual and trump the IOPC's conclusions. Thankfully in the real world such people have no relevance to anything important.
La Liga said:
XCP said:
Unless you cannot identify someone whose act or omission has led to this situation. As I understand it, there has been an independent investigation which has not identified any such person. I suppose the then Home Sec could be sacked. But I think there might be a slight problem on that score.
Interesting, it's almost as if a simplistic, sarcastic generalisations don't amount to identification of an individual and trump the IOPC's conclusions. Thankfully in the real world such people have no relevance to anything important.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
XCP said:
Unless you cannot identify someone whose act or omission has led to this situation. As I understand it, there has been an independent investigation which has not identified any such person. I suppose the then Home Sec could be sacked. But I think there might be a slight problem on that score.
Interesting, it's almost as if a simplistic, sarcastic generalisations don't amount to identification of an individual and trump the IOPC's conclusions. Thankfully in the real world such people have no relevance to anything important.
XCP said:
Unless you cannot identify someone whose act or omission has led to this situation. As I understand it, there has been an independent investigation which has not identified any such person. I suppose the then Home Sec could be sacked. But I think there might be a slight problem on that score.
They might resign from their current job. Close to an acceptable alternative i guess.desolate said:
La Liga said:
No, but that is a poor mistake which would need addressing.
Surely the police must know?Have they instigated a criminal investigation?
The way I read it was an email about him that was mistakenly sent to his police email address. A bit of carelessness could easily see his last name accidentally typed into the CC / BCC (rather than the body) etc and it auto complete his email address. Or perhaps similar to when people text the person they’re talking about rather than to someone else.
It doesn’t need a criminal investigation. Words of advice would probably suffice.
La Liga said:
’m sure they know exactly who sent it.
The way I read it was an email about him that was mistakenly sent to his police email address. A bit of carelessness could easily see his last name accidentally typed into the CC / BCC (rather than the body) etc and it auto complete his email address. Or perhaps similar to when people text the person they’re talking about rather than to someone else.
It doesn’t need a criminal investigation. Words of advice would probably suffice.
Should I ever be questioned for a serious crime I'll try the "it was an accident" approach.The way I read it was an email about him that was mistakenly sent to his police email address. A bit of carelessness could easily see his last name accidentally typed into the CC / BCC (rather than the body) etc and it auto complete his email address. Or perhaps similar to when people text the person they’re talking about rather than to someone else.
It doesn’t need a criminal investigation. Words of advice would probably suffice.
It's fairly telling that because it was one your own that made the error it's not serious.
As they say - there are none so blind as those will not see.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff