anonymous police disciplinary
Discussion
I doubt this is standard practice, but in circumstances such as these, maybe it can be justified (family situations, sensitive police work maybe etc). However, I also think that those accused under yew tree, and subsequently found to be innocent (such as Jim Davidson etc) should also have been allowed anonymity until guilt was proven, as it undoubtedly proved embarrassing and costly to them and their careers.
All internal police misconduct should be private.
If the matter goes to court then it should be public.
If the matter goes to court then it should be public.
Clueless MP said:
“It is astounding that this has happened again, and it is just another example of the growing disregard for transparency in public life,” he said.
How is it 'growing' when hearings, for the first time, can be heard in public? Clueless MP said:
“The rules should be that, unless there are really compelling reasons, any kind of public hearing, public information or information in the public sector ought to be made available as widely as possible. I think it bedevils the whole of society at the moment.”
So should private, then. If the private sector want equality on pay (except for shares / options / commission / other bonuses, naturally) and pensions, then they should want equality for things like this, too. pork911 said:
the echo report suggests not and the police could have explained the reason without identifying anyone
Kilfoyle, the labour MP for Liverpool, who I'm certain is an intelligent chap, said:"“The rules should be that, unless there are really compelling reasons, any kind of public hearing, public information or information in the public sector ought to be made available as widely as possible.”
Shame nobody thought to tell him that that is precisely what the rules are.
The chair, a barrister, so legally qualified and not employed by the police, reckoned:
"I have concluded that it is necessary and proportionate to anonymise the name of the officer and that this necessity outweighs the public interest in naming the officer in the course of the hearing and the notice.”
The report says that two chairs, both independent, agreed.
We don't know why the person was not named. To explain the reason, as you suggest, might be counterproductive and perhaps compromise a case. Or a marriage if the Echo suggestion is true.
Then again, it might be a conspiracy.
Derek Smith said:
pork911 said:
the echo report suggests not and the police could have explained the reason without identifying anyone
Kilfoyle, the labour MP for Liverpool, who I'm certain is an intelligent chap, said:"“The rules should be that, unless there are really compelling reasons, any kind of public hearing, public information or information in the public sector ought to be made available as widely as possible.”
Shame nobody thought to tell him that that is precisely what the rules are.
The chair, a barrister, so legally qualified and not employed by the police, reckoned:
"I have concluded that it is necessary and proportionate to anonymise the name of the officer and that this necessity outweighs the public interest in naming the officer in the course of the hearing and the notice.”
The report says that two chairs, both independent, agreed.
We don't know why the person was not named. To explain the reason, as you suggest, might be counterproductive and perhaps compromise a case. Or a marriage if the Echo suggestion is true.
Then again, it might be a conspiracy.
like, perhaps, being as transparent as they can without compromising a case (if indeed that is the reason)
if it's an officer's marriage, tough s
tif it's his mental health reaction to the consequences of his actions, hmmmm
pork911 said:
no shades of grey between entirely proper and a conspiracy?
like, perhaps, being as transparent as they can without compromising a case (if indeed that is the reason)
if it's an officer's marriage, tough st
if it's his mental health reaction to the consequences of his actions, hmmmm
Isn't the norm to suggest the two extremes? Listing all 50 shades of grey would be pointless.like, perhaps, being as transparent as they can without compromising a case (if indeed that is the reason)
if it's an officer's marriage, tough s
tif it's his mental health reaction to the consequences of his actions, hmmmm
The system is that there is an independent person who decides on whether the name of the person subject to discipline should be disclosed. In this case, there were two, both of whom came to the same conclusions. Unless every little decision of a disciplinary hearing is subject to micro-managing, you have to have someone who sits in judgement.
In this case two.
The Guardian states it is appealing the decision. So there are safeguards.
A person is punished by the board. Publication of the details should not be a further punishment. If there is a criminal offence, then they should be published, but in a case where there is no victim perhaps the persons detailed to make the qualitative decision thought the ends of justice for a minor case did not require publication of the name.
Why does anyone want to know the name of the person?
The decision, or decisions rather, could be in error but it is, of course, a value judgement and in such cases there will be different opinions. Perhaps it might be best if someone who is legally trained and subject to oversight and discipline made the decision.
That said, the details of the discipline hearing have been made public.
Derek Smith said:
A person is punished by the board. Publication of the details should not be a further punishment. If there is a criminal offence, then they should be published, but in a case where there is no victim perhaps the persons detailed to make the qualitative decision thought the ends of justice for a minor case did not require publication of the name.
Why does anyone want to know the name of the person?
The decision, or decisions rather, could be in error but it is, of course, a value judgement and in such cases there will be different opinions. Perhaps it might be best if someone who is legally trained and subject to oversight and discipline made the decision.
That said, the details of the discipline hearing have been made public.
a minor case, with no victim, no criminal offence and this just involving a 'person' Why does anyone want to know the name of the person?
The decision, or decisions rather, could be in error but it is, of course, a value judgement and in such cases there will be different opinions. Perhaps it might be best if someone who is legally trained and subject to oversight and discipline made the decision.
That said, the details of the discipline hearing have been made public.
- quite some interpretation, on even the minimal details this as transparent a process as is apparently possible has revealed
pork911 said:
a minor case, with no victim, no criminal offence and this just involving a 'person'
- quite some interpretation, on even the minimal details this as transparent a process as is apparently possible has revealed
Perhaps I missed something. What criminal offence are you suggesting? Who was the victim?- quite some interpretation, on even the minimal details this as transparent a process as is apparently possible has revealed
There are offences involved with prostitution but I fail to see which one this could be on the minimal details published.
If there are indeed associated criminal offences then it is entirely possible that they are being dealt with separately. If so then it is right and proper that the person's name is not disclosed at this time.
Why do you, personally, want to know the police officer's name?
Isn't it enough that the police have disciplined the officer for the discipline offence?
we will never know since the lack of transparency is of course only here being used for entirely valid reasons (which we do not know)
however its not quite the same as a binman screwing a prostitute in a bin wagon now is it
as for names, there was me thinking the starting point was to be transparency unless valid reasons against this
we don't know much details, what disciplinary action was taken, the reasons for anonymity
but hey its an entirely private matter that should be of no concern at all to the public
however its not quite the same as a binman screwing a prostitute in a bin wagon now is it
as for names, there was me thinking the starting point was to be transparency unless valid reasons against this
we don't know much details, what disciplinary action was taken, the reasons for anonymity
but hey its an entirely private matter that should be of no concern at all to the public
pork911 said:
we don't know much details, what disciplinary action was taken, the reasons for anonymity
but hey its an entirely private matter that should be of no concern at all to the public
One officer was sacked, the other resigned, presumably as an alternative to being dismissed. but hey its an entirely private matter that should be of no concern at all to the public
What is in the public interest and what the public are interested in are not always the same thing.
La Liga said:
All internal police misconduct should be private.
If the matter goes to court then it should be public.
MP in I'm a hypocrite shocker. If the matter goes to court then it should be public.
Clueless MP said:
“It is astounding that this has happened again, and it is just another example of the growing disregard for transparency in public life,” he said.
How is it 'growing' when hearings, for the first time, can be heard in public? Clueless MP said:
“The rules should be that, unless there are really compelling reasons, any kind of public hearing, public information or information in the public sector ought to be made available as widely as possible. I think it bedevils the whole of society at the moment.”
So should private, then. If the private sector want equality on pay (except for shares / options / commission / other bonuses, naturally) and pensions, then they should want equality for things like this, too. 'MPs to use Human Rights Act to claim anonymity if arrested by police'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Bigyoke said:
One officer was sacked, the other resigned, presumably as an alternative to being dismissed.
What is in the public interest and what the public are interested in are not always the same thing.
I'm well aware of that thanks, and it is clearly an entirely private employment matter What is in the public interest and what the public are interested in are not always the same thing.
La Liga said:
Clueless MP said:
“The rules should be that, unless there are really compelling reasons, any kind of public hearing, public information or information in the public sector ought to be made available as widely as possible.”
So should private, then. As is so often the case, their colleagues have closed ranks and spoken in support of these clowns. Again the 5 standard excuses can be looked at. Numbers 1 & 5 are currently in play; any bets as to how long before number 2 gets a mention?
1 The Anthony Blunt excuse There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything, but security prevents its disclosure
2 The Comprehensive Schools excuse It's only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit
5 The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual which has now been dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures
This is hardly a new phenomenon. It's worth noting that many years ago in Birmingham various police officers were caught misappropriating lost property (specifically money handed in) and money from cookie jars after old folks were carted off to homes. Not only were there no criminal charges but WM police decided it wasn't in the public interest to publish the names of those disciplined or what (if any) punishments were handed out. The only certainty was that they had to give back the money they took.
As for Derek not knowing what offences had potentially been committed, how about some form of misconduct in public office?
Rovinghawk said:
I don't have to pay for the private sector so it's none of my business. I don't have any choice about having to pay taxes for those guys when they are rather clearly not doing their job. Based on that I'm an interested party with a wish to know.
Your interest extends to know the brief circumstances and outcomes, as you do here. It's no business of yours to know the names of those involved in an internal matter, just as it's not mine to know the name of someone BT sack. Alternatively, the extra intrusion deserves extra compensation and protections. I doubt you'll be in favour of that.
I hope the Federation spend lots of time and money on future injunctions.
Rovinghawk said:
As is so often the case, their colleagues have closed ranks and spoken in support of these clowns.
Where? Two are mentioned in the article. One resigned the other was dismissed after the hearings. The maximum sanctions available. It makes no difference whatsoever knowing their names.
pork911 said:
as for names, there was me thinking the starting point was to be transparency unless valid reasons against this
And there's me thinking that two independent legally qualified people decided that there were valid reasons.La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
As is so often the case, their colleagues have closed ranks and spoken in support of these clowns.
Where? Two are mentioned in the article. One resigned the other was dismissed after the hearings. The maximum sanctions available. It makes no difference whatsoever knowing their names.
We don't know why the names were withheld. If the Guardian persists in its challenge then a third person, or even persons, will look into the matter and might come up with a different conclusion, but there is a certain bewildering lack of logic in suggesting that the police have protected their own.
These officers might be charged with one or more criminal offences. The discipline board doesn't deal with serious crimes, certainly not mal/misfeasance.
It's a funny old world when the police are criticised for closing ranks when two of their'own' are punished at the highest level.
I don't see why it seems that everyone expects to know everything these days. Why are they interested? If it's not you in trouble, or charged with sorting it out, who cares?
If a couple of bin men got caught doing whatever it was, or a couple of shopkeepers, would they still be interested?
Isn't it enough to that we have to hear about every fart of every celebrity, every goo goo of a princes baby, how many times some z-lister had to eat baked beans to fatten up for such and such a role?
News should be just that, news, what actually affects us or the country we live in, a couple of naughty plod isn't news (Christ, I'm surprised there isn't a couple getting done every week, this is the real world after all). The way the media make the most out of every little thing and expects us to care is mental.
For example, there's immigrants in Calais, we know, do we need them interviewed, on the news every day for hours on end moaning about how bad it is? Must be better than getting beheaded and bombed back home though I suppose, or why are you in Calais? We know about it BBC, if you want to report an update every week or so, do it, but don't bang on about it as though every Joe blogs gives a damn, cos we don't, not really, we all pretend to be concerned, but life goes on. Most probably see them as a massive social security bill waiting to happen, which turns into a massive tax/NI hike for the rest of us, with the EU laughing their heads of and continuing to take their billions in payments from us
If a couple of bin men got caught doing whatever it was, or a couple of shopkeepers, would they still be interested?
Isn't it enough to that we have to hear about every fart of every celebrity, every goo goo of a princes baby, how many times some z-lister had to eat baked beans to fatten up for such and such a role?
News should be just that, news, what actually affects us or the country we live in, a couple of naughty plod isn't news (Christ, I'm surprised there isn't a couple getting done every week, this is the real world after all). The way the media make the most out of every little thing and expects us to care is mental.
For example, there's immigrants in Calais, we know, do we need them interviewed, on the news every day for hours on end moaning about how bad it is? Must be better than getting beheaded and bombed back home though I suppose, or why are you in Calais? We know about it BBC, if you want to report an update every week or so, do it, but don't bang on about it as though every Joe blogs gives a damn, cos we don't, not really, we all pretend to be concerned, but life goes on. Most probably see them as a massive social security bill waiting to happen, which turns into a massive tax/NI hike for the rest of us, with the EU laughing their heads of and continuing to take their billions in payments from us
Derek Smith said:
pork911 said:
as for names, there was me thinking the starting point was to be transparency unless valid reasons against this
And there's me thinking that two independent legally qualified people decided that there were valid reasons. That together with anonymity AND lack of disclosure of the reasons all adds up to a wonderfully transparent process doesn’t it?
But of course it’s an entirely private employment matter, concerning incidents involving a private company, between colleagues only and no one at all outside that company, in a private car etc – or maybe it isn’t?
anyway, the prostitute was presumably asked to confirm there was no abuse of power at all and that this was just a love affair across the tracks of society, no different than if it had been a colleague
As for severity of punishments, any repayment of wages for time spent on the job, on the job? contribution to valeting costs? would their pensions be affected in any way?
ah well, two people have decided anonymity is justified here so along with that we don't even need to know the reasons, fair enough, what have the police got to do with the public anyway?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff