PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
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.
The fact is that many people (starting with me) are sick of sad & angry reactionaries constantly demanding that 'something must be done'. I'm also sick of them not being able to see the reality of what would happen after that something had been done. 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.
desolate said:
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.
It’s an email sent to the wrong person.
What do you expect to happen?
I see the IPOC / PSD will have looked at that aspect as part of looking at the overall matter and obviously concluded it’s an admin error.
Since they know the full facts I trust their judgement more than yours and your ‘none so blind’ rubbish.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
It is a procedural oversight. The thing about rules/procedures is that even if you think you've set them up to address whatever issue is at hand, there's probably a hole that you'll only realise when something both falls through it, and the consequences of it doing so are significant enough to be noticed.Perhaps a milder equivalent would be someone taking a job where they need a clean driving licence. They have to have their licence checked when applying, and it's a condition of employment that any points they receive while employed are declared.
You could have someone who got 6 points added to their licence between that first check and the day they start work, and never find out until the day they lose it for using their phone while driving and get another 6.
Had they not been caught, you'd never find out, and eventually the points would expire, with no one being any the wiser.
Should the rule have been "declare points even if already on your licence"? Well, probably, but you thought you'd covered that by checking at the application stage so you know where you are with a candidate. It's only after the event you go "bugger, we didn't account for the gap between interview and employment, did we?"
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.
Do they not know who is responsible for what within their organisation?Also "We were only following procedure" seems awfully close to defences at the Nuremberg trials which were considered to be unacceptable, the argument being that people should think about their actions rather than blindly complying with their superiors.
InitialDave said:
It is a procedural oversight. The thing about rules/procedures is that even if you think you've set them up to address whatever issue is at hand, there's probably a hole that you'll only realise when something both falls through it, and the consequences of it doing so are significant enough to be noticed.
I get the impression the types who don’t get this haven’t ever worked in any complex, risk-based environment. That’s why they make simplistic hindsight judgements. As if there should have been infallibility to foresee every possible circumstance and permutation the real world may throw at them.
La Liga said:
hy are you mentioning ‘serious crime’ and ‘criminal investigation’?
It’s an email sent to the wrong person.
What do you expect to happen?
I see the IPOC / PSD will have looked at that aspect as part of looking at the overall matter and obviously concluded it’s an admin error.
Since they know the full facts I trust their judgement more than yours and your ‘none so blind’ rubbish.
So disclosing information about an investigation to the person being investigated isn't a serious crime?It’s an email sent to the wrong person.
What do you expect to happen?
I see the IPOC / PSD will have looked at that aspect as part of looking at the overall matter and obviously concluded it’s an admin error.
Since they know the full facts I trust their judgement more than yours and your ‘none so blind’ rubbish.
I have to be honest, I didn't realise that so as you were.
InitialDave said:
Rovinghawk said:
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.
It is a procedural oversight. The thing about rules/procedures is that even if you think you've set them up to address whatever issue is at hand, there's probably a hole that you'll only realise when something both falls through it, and the consequences of it doing so are significant enough to be noticed.Perhaps a milder equivalent would be someone taking a job where they need a clean driving licence. They have to have their licence checked when applying, and it's a condition of employment that any points they receive while employed are declared.
You could have someone who got 6 points added to their licence between that first check and the day they start work, and never find out until the day they lose it for using their phone while driving and get another 6.
Had they not been caught, you'd never find out, and eventually the points would expire, with no one being any the wiser.
Should the rule have been "declare points even if already on your licence"? Well, probably, but you thought you'd covered that by checking at the application stage so you know where you are with a candidate. It's only after the event you go "bugger, we didn't account for the gap between interview and employment, did we?"
It's easy to make excuses but it's just as easy to put proper systems in place, especially once there has been a catastrophic cock up like this - instead of hand wringing they should be confirming what procedure has been put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again (apologies if they have and I've missed this but I haven't seen anything confirming what they will do in the future).
There's another one in the news ATM. I won't name and shame, but Google newark police officer charged grooming, and it's the first match.
I have a personal connection to him, he was engaged in spirited driving (read racing....) with my friend (whilst off duty) My friend lost control and was killed.
It seems he may be a bad egg in more than one way. I may go and sit in the public gallery when the verdict is announced.
I have a personal connection to him, he was engaged in spirited driving (read racing....) with my friend (whilst off duty) My friend lost control and was killed.
It seems he may be a bad egg in more than one way. I may go and sit in the public gallery when the verdict is announced.
desolate said:
So disclosing information about an investigation to the person being investigated isn't a serious crime?
I have to be honest, I didn't realise that so as you were.
I imagine it could be. For example, if the email was intentionally sent so he could destroy evidence.I have to be honest, I didn't realise that so as you were.
However, if a mistake as this apparently was, then it wouldn’t be.
La Liga said:
imagine it could be. For example, if the email was intentionally sent so he could destroy evidence.
However, if a mistake as this apparently was, then it wouldn’t be.
As I said earlier - I'll use the "it was a mistake" defence should it ever be required.However, if a mistake as this apparently was, then it wouldn’t be.
ETA: Edited as I was unnecessarily antagonistic - but it's just so f
king depressing.Rovinghawk said:
But lessons will be learned.
Which, if we don't see any more cops being sworn in (or whatever the term is for police) who have committed serious offences in the period between their initial vetting and job staring, will show that the lessons have been learned and addressed to cover those possibilities. BrabusMog said:
It's easy to make excuses but it's just as easy to put proper systems in place, especially once there has been a catastrophic cock up like this
One of the major issues with people in general is that they often don't understand the difference between an excuse and an explanation.But yes, proper systems are relatively easy to implement, it's the knowing that you need to and what "proper" involves which often is only found out the hard way.
“What seems prudent in foresight can seem negligent in hindsight”.
Multiple articles covering the matter contain statements about them changing things.
In the real world, that’s what can be realistically expected.
ETA: Edited as I was unnecessarily antagonistic - but it's just so fking depressing.If the person who sent the email made a mistake then they made a mistake, and it should be dealt with for what it is.
Multiple articles covering the matter contain statements about them changing things.
In the real world, that’s what can be realistically expected.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
I imagine it could be. For example, if the email was intentionally sent so he could destroy evidence.
However, if a mistake as this apparently was, then it wouldn’t be.
As I said earlier - I'll use the "it was a mistake" defence should it ever be required.However, if a mistake as this apparently was, then it wouldn’t be.
ETA: Edited as I was unnecessarily antagonistic - but it's just so f
king depressing.desolate said:
As I said earlier - I'll use the "it was a mistake" defence should it ever be required.
ETA: Edited as I was unnecessarily antagonistic - but it's just so fking depressing.
I think some people under estimate the glee with which PSD and others ( the 'rubber heel mob' in my day) investigate alleged criminal activity against police officers. Riding roughshod over PACE and charging officers in circumstances where a lack of evidence would preclude doing so for a member of the public are just two ways in which this is manifest in my experience. Things may have changed in the last 10 years of course. I doubt that the mindset has changed significantly though.ETA: Edited as I was unnecessarily antagonistic - but it's just so f
king depressing.La Liga said:
If the person who sent the email made a mistake then they made a mistake, and it should be dealt with for what it is.
If something similar happened in my working environment the person would be dismissed.edited to add a bit of nuance: that is unless the person involved was one of my mates or someone I had a connection with - I'd let them off then.
Had I made that same mistake I wouldn't be surprised if I was interviewed under caution.
InitialDave said:
BrabusMog said:
It's easy to make excuses but it's just as easy to put proper systems in place, especially once there has been a catastrophic cock up like this
One of the major issues with people in general is that they often don't understand the difference between an excuse and an explanation.But yes, proper systems are relatively easy to implement, it's the knowing that you need to and what "proper" involves which often is only found out the hard way.
InitialDave said:
BrabusMog said:
I'd say it was fairly essential to have a proper system in place for vetting potential candidates for the role of police officer.
They thought they did. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff