PC paedophile Ian Naude: Cheshire PC convicted of raping 13-
Discussion
Nanook said:
So if you manage to scrape through an interview, you're bulletproof?
After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I f
k up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.
So you'd plead guilty then? That's big of you. Would you mention that you was doing your best? That the problem was that you had had no training for just such an instance? Or that your colleagues, in the same role, all thought that what you'd done was the best option? If you were not in full possession of all the facts, but had to make the decision on what you knew, would you fail to mention that?After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I f
k up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.The one thing police work shows you, time and time again, is that blame is normally not all one way.
If a person was doing their best then . . .
Derek Smith said:
Nanook said:
So if you manage to scrape through an interview, you're bulletproof?
After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I fk up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.
So you'd plead guilty then? That's big of you. Would you mention that you was doing your best? That the problem was that you had had no training for just such an instance? Or that your colleagues, in the same role, all thought that what you'd done was the best option? If you were not in full possession of all the facts, but had to make the decision on what you knew, would you fail to mention that?After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I f
k up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.The one thing police work shows you, time and time again, is that blame is normally not all one way.
If a person was doing their best then . . .
BrabusMog said:
You're skewing things here. We are discussing the failure of one police force to know a new PC was being investigated by another force. This is what needs to be addressed. No wonder many people don't trust the police judging by attitudes displayed here. If you cock something up in the private sector you will be held to account, why should the police be any different?
Not just a failure on the way in don't forgot. When they were investigating him they were polite enough to tell him so he could destroy the evidence before having his collar felt.Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th November 14:43
desolate said:
esxste said:
Aviation is a shining example of why a no-blame culture is essential to dealing with human error.
Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
And it works because everyone wants to find the truth.Cover-up culture occurs when mistakes are punished as it gives ammunition to the corrupt. "Don't worry, I've got your back if you've got mine".
It's pretty easy to cover up stuff if no one is looking for it.
Nanook said:
So if you manage to scrape through an interview, you're bulletproof?
After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I fk up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.
Would you be held responsible if you were properly following the training, processes and procedures set out by your company? No. After that point, anything that happens cannot be your fault? You've proven you're a suitable candidate, anything further is the responsibility of the employer.
You don't think that's a bit of a naive view?
If I f
k up at work, and someone dies as a result, I'll find myself in court, to be tried and potentially take responsibility for my actions if I'm found to be at fault. That's how it should be IMO.Would your company be held at fault if they had trained you, had done everything within reasonable expectations to set out safe procedures and processes? No.
In terms incompetence, if you scraped through the interview, and were subsequently found to be incompetent; I'd expect the companies performance management to be doing its job, and your supervisor paying appropriate attention to your work and certainly not having you placed in a position where your incompetence could hurt or kill someone. And if you were incompetent and scraped through the interview process; I'd expect the interview process to be reviewed and improved.
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.
No one made a procedural / administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. BrabusMog said:
And as I have intimated but will now explicitly state - I don't understand how such an important part of the procedure can have failed so spectacularly, hence me stating it would be good to know exactly what they are going to do in the future. Maybe it's me being a bit pedantic as part of my job is to look at procedures, realise potential failings and recommend changes to improve the process. This failing has caused something terrible to happen, it's not unreasonable to be expect to be told how they intend for it to not happen again.
BBC article said:
The Independent Office of Police Conduct said it investigated Cheshire Police's vetting of Naude and "did not find a case to answer for misconduct for any individual officer".
But the force said the case had made it look "long and hard" at its recruitment and screening process.
"The national... Vetting Code of Practice states that there is no time frame as to when somebody is vetted before joining a police force," a statement added.
"However, Cheshire Constabulary has now changed its vetting processes.
"If there is a delay in the recruitment process of more than three months, once a person has been vetted, the force will carry out further checks on the national police systems.
"Furthermore, checks on the national police systems and complaints records of all officers who are reaching the completion of their probation period of two years are now undertaken."
But the force said the case had made it look "long and hard" at its recruitment and screening process.
"The national... Vetting Code of Practice states that there is no time frame as to when somebody is vetted before joining a police force," a statement added.
"However, Cheshire Constabulary has now changed its vetting processes.
"If there is a delay in the recruitment process of more than three months, once a person has been vetted, the force will carry out further checks on the national police systems.
"Furthermore, checks on the national police systems and complaints records of all officers who are reaching the completion of their probation period of two years are now undertaken."
desolate said:
It's a fair point and I really don't want to be too critical of La Liga who makes a lot of pertinent points BUT we also have a situation where someone made a critical error during the investigation and it's seen as a simple error worthy only of "words of advice".
Which is why many people think corruption is endemic within the force and the whatever the complaints body is called this year.
It's not a serious error. Which is why many people think corruption is endemic within the force and the whatever the complaints body is called this year.
It's sending an email to the wrong person by mistake.
La Liga said:
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.
No one made a procedural / administrative error that led to a 13 year old girl getting raped. BrabusMog said:
And as I have intimated but will now explicitly state - I don't understand how such an important part of the procedure can have failed so spectacularly, hence me stating it would be good to know exactly what they are going to do in the future. Maybe it's me being a bit pedantic as part of my job is to look at procedures, realise potential failings and recommend changes to improve the process. This failing has caused something terrible to happen, it's not unreasonable to be expect to be told how they intend for it to not happen again.
BBC article said:
The Independent Office of Police Conduct said it investigated Cheshire Police's vetting of Naude and "did not find a case to answer for misconduct for any individual officer".
But the force said the case had made it look "long and hard" at its recruitment and screening process.
"The national... Vetting Code of Practice states that there is no time frame as to when somebody is vetted before joining a police force," a statement added.
"However, Cheshire Constabulary has now changed its vetting processes.
"If there is a delay in the recruitment process of more than three months, once a person has been vetted, the force will carry out further checks on the national police systems.
"Furthermore, checks on the national police systems and complaints records of all officers who are reaching the completion of their probation period of two years are now undertaken."
But the force said the case had made it look "long and hard" at its recruitment and screening process.
"The national... Vetting Code of Practice states that there is no time frame as to when somebody is vetted before joining a police force," a statement added.
"However, Cheshire Constabulary has now changed its vetting processes.
"If there is a delay in the recruitment process of more than three months, once a person has been vetted, the force will carry out further checks on the national police systems.
"Furthermore, checks on the national police systems and complaints records of all officers who are reaching the completion of their probation period of two years are now undertaken."
desolate said:
It's a fair point and I really don't want to be too critical of La Liga who makes a lot of pertinent points BUT we also have a situation where someone made a critical error during the investigation and it's seen as a simple error worthy only of "words of advice".
Which is why many people think corruption is endemic within the force and the whatever the complaints body is called this year.
It's not a serious error. Which is why many people think corruption is endemic within the force and the whatever the complaints body is called this year.
It's sending an email to the wrong person by mistake.
BrabusMog said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
t's not a serious error.
It's sending an email to the wrong person by mistake.
It's warning someone of an investigation into their alleged activities, specifically rape.It's sending an email to the wrong person by mistake.
I'd call that serious.
Is this guy just lucky or what?
BrabusMog said:
Fair enough, I missed the BBC article and that's good to know. But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did. Again, typical hand wringing to suggest otherwise. People would have a better view of the police if they were actually open and honest as opposed to disingenuous and defensive.
How can you not 'back down' when what has happened is literally what you wanted to happen? See the bold of your quote below.
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.
It was found everyone followed procedure - what do you think the IOPC's involvement / conclusion meant? And you have been informed. You've been provided with what you wanted in that paragraph, and now you've been shown that you've decided to write some generalised platitudes.
desolate said:
This is my point.
Is this guy just lucky or what?
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. Is this guy just lucky or what?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th November 15:09
La Liga said:
BrabusMog said:
Fair enough, I missed the BBC article and that's good to know. But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did. Again, typical hand wringing to suggest otherwise. People would have a better view of the police if they were actually open and honest as opposed to disingenuous and defensive.
How can you not 'back down' when what has happened is literally what you wanted to happen? See the bold of your quote below.
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.
It was found everyone followed procedure - what do you think the IOPC did? And you have been informed. You've been provided with what you wanted in that paragraph, and now you've been shown that you've decided to write some generalised platitudes.
BrabusMog said:
La Liga said:
BrabusMog said:
Fair enough, I missed the BBC article and that's good to know. But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did. Again, typical hand wringing to suggest otherwise. People would have a better view of the police if they were actually open and honest as opposed to disingenuous and defensive.
How can you not 'back down' when what has happened is literally what you wanted to happen? See the bold of your quote below.
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.
It was found everyone followed procedure - what do you think the IOPC did? And you have been informed. You've been provided with what you wanted in that paragraph, and now you've been shown that you've decided to write some generalised platitudes.
You wrote, "But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did."
I assume the 'first quote' was talking about the non-existent administrative error that led to a 13 year old being raped.
La Liga said:
BrabusMog said:
La Liga said:
BrabusMog said:
Fair enough, I missed the BBC article and that's good to know. But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did. Again, typical hand wringing to suggest otherwise. People would have a better view of the police if they were actually open and honest as opposed to disingenuous and defensive.
How can you not 'back down' when what has happened is literally what you wanted to happen? See the bold of your quote below.
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.
It was found everyone followed procedure - what do you think the IOPC did? And you have been informed. You've been provided with what you wanted in that paragraph, and now you've been shown that you've decided to write some generalised platitudes.
You wrote, "But, I'm not backing down on the first quote, he was allowed in to a position of power which enabled him to do what he did.
I assume the 'first quote' was talking about the non-existent administrative error that led to a 13 year old being raped.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff