Greater Manchester police and Social services
Discussion
From the report released last week, it is clear that decisions were taken at senior levels within both organisations to suppress and even cover up the abuse of Children.
Of course we have had the usual apology's and "Lessons have been learned", and no doubt the odd low level scape goat will be thrown to the wolves, but this is no longer acceptable. The senior staff get the big bucks and perks, how about they are finally held to account for what is criminal negligence or malfeasance in public office at the very least. Nor does held to account mean allowed to retire early on "Medical grounds" with a fat pension, but hopefully stood in a dock or fired with no pension rights.
If you agree then please take a moment to contact your MP, especially if you live within the GM area, demanding they push for action rather than the lame arsed "Public Enquires" we usually get fobbed off with.
Of course we have had the usual apology's and "Lessons have been learned", and no doubt the odd low level scape goat will be thrown to the wolves, but this is no longer acceptable. The senior staff get the big bucks and perks, how about they are finally held to account for what is criminal negligence or malfeasance in public office at the very least. Nor does held to account mean allowed to retire early on "Medical grounds" with a fat pension, but hopefully stood in a dock or fired with no pension rights.
If you agree then please take a moment to contact your MP, especially if you live within the GM area, demanding they push for action rather than the lame arsed "Public Enquires" we usually get fobbed off with.
Unfortunately, it is a case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" in the public sector.
Why would an MP help hold a senior police officer to account, when the next person being held to account could be them?
It is easier to brush it under the carpet with a "lessons will be learned", someone a few months from retirement steps down early and everyone gets to keep their gold plated pensions.
Why would an MP help hold a senior police officer to account, when the next person being held to account could be them?
It is easier to brush it under the carpet with a "lessons will be learned", someone a few months from retirement steps down early and everyone gets to keep their gold plated pensions.
When you become a middle/senior manager in the public sector, the sloping degree of your shoulder increases exponentially. Very few people high up in public sector accept direct responsibility. I've asked for signatures on important (private sector) contracts and it still amazes me how many people refuse for fear of invoking responsibility and see if they can palm it off on someone else. It's one reason why we add tens to hundreds of thousands on contracts because of these timewasters.
How has the police not referred itself to it’s watchdog like it does when it does things wrong?
Can the families of the children not make complaints? As Andy Burnham requested the recent report which tells us wha we already knew not automatically cause a referral? Seems as this issue is widespread in medium and large towns around the country, with the same result from police and social services, why is this not a big issue with chasing the people in power that ignored/enabled this to happen?
The worst one I know, was th police arresting one vulnerable child’s parents as they tried to rescue her from the groomers.... you couldn’t make it up. Yes there trials happening around the country of the perpetrators, but these are shrouded in secrecy for some, reason, totally different to normal cases like this, were the police release details, generally to encourage other victims to come forward.....
Don’t forget, the abuse is still happening right now, it’s not just historic.
Can the families of the children not make complaints? As Andy Burnham requested the recent report which tells us wha we already knew not automatically cause a referral? Seems as this issue is widespread in medium and large towns around the country, with the same result from police and social services, why is this not a big issue with chasing the people in power that ignored/enabled this to happen?
The worst one I know, was th police arresting one vulnerable child’s parents as they tried to rescue her from the groomers.... you couldn’t make it up. Yes there trials happening around the country of the perpetrators, but these are shrouded in secrecy for some, reason, totally different to normal cases like this, were the police release details, generally to encourage other victims to come forward.....
Don’t forget, the abuse is still happening right now, it’s not just historic.
CzechItOut said:
Unfortunately, it is a case of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" in the public sector.
Why would an MP help hold a senior police officer to account, when the next person being held to account could be them?
It is easier to brush it under the carpet with a "lessons will be learned", someone a few months from retirement steps down early and everyone gets to keep their gold plated pensions.
If enough constituents contact their MPs and they dont push for action they will be the next held to account when they want your vote, the smart rats jump off the sinking ship first, and HMS Excuses to the public is going down fast.Why would an MP help hold a senior police officer to account, when the next person being held to account could be them?
It is easier to brush it under the carpet with a "lessons will be learned", someone a few months from retirement steps down early and everyone gets to keep their gold plated pensions.
I know many just whinge and then do nothing, thats how things have got to this. Maybe it will not make a blind bit of difference, but would it kill you to at least try ?. Two mins to send an e-mail, maybe ask your friends to do the same, if MPs start getting even moderate numbers of voters pushing then its in their interest to be seen doing something.
MPs are there to represent you, if they dont, or wont, then let them know the next time your vote goes elsewhere. Lets have it right, if the MP is any f*cking good they should be going after the b
ds because its the right thing to do, a nudge from you might just give them the added incentive of the fear of being out of office if they dont.. Here's the article the OP would have benefited from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-5...
I remember writing in the thread about Rotherham we'll see more of these.
I agree with the poster above that the IPOC should be involved to see if there are any criminal matters / misconduct matters with any police involved. Whilst a lot of the senior police officers will be retired, one of the Chief Superintendents involved is now a Chief Constable, so there are still people in the service who may have committed misconduct, regardless of any criminal matters.
One a wider point of view, there were a few other factors that seem relevant to me / are cited by the various reports.
The understanding of grooming and related exploitation was a lot less understood than it is now. That includes wider exploitation such as modern slavery.
New Labour's focus on 'crime and the causes of crime' was well intended, but it made everyone focus and prioritise on the things they were measured upon i.e. detections, reductions etc. I wonder if that part explains some of the funding pressures on the operation in question.
People in the authorities were fearful of stating the realities of who was committing the crimes for fear of being labelled racist etc.
I like to think we've moved a long way in 15-20 years, but if there is criminal culpability by anyone involved, they should be held to account.
I remember writing in the thread about Rotherham we'll see more of these.
I agree with the poster above that the IPOC should be involved to see if there are any criminal matters / misconduct matters with any police involved. Whilst a lot of the senior police officers will be retired, one of the Chief Superintendents involved is now a Chief Constable, so there are still people in the service who may have committed misconduct, regardless of any criminal matters.
One a wider point of view, there were a few other factors that seem relevant to me / are cited by the various reports.
The understanding of grooming and related exploitation was a lot less understood than it is now. That includes wider exploitation such as modern slavery.
New Labour's focus on 'crime and the causes of crime' was well intended, but it made everyone focus and prioritise on the things they were measured upon i.e. detections, reductions etc. I wonder if that part explains some of the funding pressures on the operation in question.
People in the authorities were fearful of stating the realities of who was committing the crimes for fear of being labelled racist etc.
I like to think we've moved a long way in 15-20 years, but if there is criminal culpability by anyone involved, they should be held to account.
techiedave said:
Tory cuts
We (joeys) don't understand
Not been cited yet but you wait once the underlay sweepers/ we know best chaps rock up.
Not sure anyone is going to cite 'Tory cuts' given the years in question... We (joeys) don't understand
Not been cited yet but you wait once the underlay sweepers/ we know best chaps rock up.
La Liga said:
Here's the article the OP would have benefited from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-5...
I remember writing in the thread about Rotherham we'll see more of these.
I agree with the poster above that the IPOC should be involved to see if there are any criminal matters / misconduct matters with any police involved. Whilst a lot of the senior police officers will be retired, one of the Chief Superintendents involved is now a Chief Constable, so there are still people in the service who may have committed misconduct, regardless of any criminal matters.
One a wider point of view, there were a few other factors that seem relevant to me / are cited by the various reports.
The understanding of grooming and related exploitation was a lot less understood than it is now. That includes wider exploitation such as modern slavery.
New Labour's focus on 'crime and the causes of crime' was well intended, but it made everyone focus and prioritise on the things they were measured upon i.e. detections, reductions etc. I wonder if that part explains some of the funding pressures on the operation in question.
People in the authorities were fearful of stating the realities of who was committing the crimes for fear of being labelled racist etc.
I like to think we've moved a long way in 15-20 years, but if there is criminal culpability by anyone involved, they should be held to account.
Exactly - nothing to do with cuts - more to do with the focus on detectionsI remember writing in the thread about Rotherham we'll see more of these.
I agree with the poster above that the IPOC should be involved to see if there are any criminal matters / misconduct matters with any police involved. Whilst a lot of the senior police officers will be retired, one of the Chief Superintendents involved is now a Chief Constable, so there are still people in the service who may have committed misconduct, regardless of any criminal matters.
One a wider point of view, there were a few other factors that seem relevant to me / are cited by the various reports.
The understanding of grooming and related exploitation was a lot less understood than it is now. That includes wider exploitation such as modern slavery.
New Labour's focus on 'crime and the causes of crime' was well intended, but it made everyone focus and prioritise on the things they were measured upon i.e. detections, reductions etc. I wonder if that part explains some of the funding pressures on the operation in question.
People in the authorities were fearful of stating the realities of who was committing the crimes for fear of being labelled racist etc.
I like to think we've moved a long way in 15-20 years, but if there is criminal culpability by anyone involved, they should be held to account.
techiedave said:
Tory cuts
We (joeys) don't understand
Not been cited yet but you wait once the underlay sweepers/ we know best chaps rock up.
Not sure anyone is going to cite 'Tory cuts' given the years in question... We (joeys) don't understand
Not been cited yet but you wait once the underlay sweepers/ we know best chaps rock up.
This from the report
Mrs Oliver also speculated that another factor was that
performance indicators at the time focused solely on acquisitive
crime (for material gain, such as burglary). Senior officers were
rewarded based on their success in addressing this. She said:
“CSE was still a hidden crime, so why open that box if they didn’t
have to?” There is some evidence for this assertion. GMP
informed the review team that the 2004/05 annual report by Sir
Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary
(HMIC), was similar to previous years, with a heavy focus on
performance-driven targets based on the Government’s priority
offences: vehicle crime, domestic burglary and robbery. The
emphasis was on not only reducing these crime types but also
increasing detection rates. HMIC’s baseline assessment of
Greater Manchester Police in 2005 showed positive results for
investigating crime and there was nothing in the report about
child sexual exploitation.
The senior command in GMP is known as the Cabal of corruption
This is worthy of a read as a taster of the culture in GMP Command
https://neilwilby.com/2019/08/12/catalogue-of-poli...
This is worthy of a read as a taster of the culture in GMP Command
https://neilwilby.com/2019/08/12/catalogue-of-poli...
Bigends said:
Exactly - nothing to do with cuts - more to do with the focus on detections
This from the report
Mrs Oliver also speculated that another factor was that
performance indicators at the time focused solely on acquisitive
crime (for material gain, such as burglary). Senior officers were
rewarded based on their success in addressing this. She said:
“CSE was still a hidden crime, so why open that box if they didn’t
have to?” There is some evidence for this assertion. GMP
informed the review team that the 2004/05 annual report by Sir
Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary
(HMIC), was similar to previous years, with a heavy focus on
performance-driven targets based on the Government’s priority
offences: vehicle crime, domestic burglary and robbery. The
emphasis was on not only reducing these crime types but also
increasing detection rates. HMIC’s baseline assessment of
Greater Manchester Police in 2005 showed positive results for
investigating crime and there was nothing in the report about
child sexual exploitation.
I think it applies nation wide. This from the report
Mrs Oliver also speculated that another factor was that
performance indicators at the time focused solely on acquisitive
crime (for material gain, such as burglary). Senior officers were
rewarded based on their success in addressing this. She said:
“CSE was still a hidden crime, so why open that box if they didn’t
have to?” There is some evidence for this assertion. GMP
informed the review team that the 2004/05 annual report by Sir
Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary
(HMIC), was similar to previous years, with a heavy focus on
performance-driven targets based on the Government’s priority
offences: vehicle crime, domestic burglary and robbery. The
emphasis was on not only reducing these crime types but also
increasing detection rates. HMIC’s baseline assessment of
Greater Manchester Police in 2005 showed positive results for
investigating crime and there was nothing in the report about
child sexual exploitation.
'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
La Liga said:
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
Were these trainees making policy decisions on child sexual exploitation or were more senior people running the show?La Liga said:
think it applies nation wide.
'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
The obsession, and that’s what it was with obtaining sanctioned detections under Todd in GMP at that time was all pervasive. 'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
Everyone was measured and put in league tables, and those in the bottom percentiles were likely to face sanction. Everyone was given a target as to the number of sanctioned detections they must achieve every month
They were not good times at all
The “GRIP” meetings were legendary and reduced senior officers to tears
Everything was about numbers .. and the quicker and easier the better
Any investigation that took up time and resources was very strongly questioned and if in any way possible was avoided
Earthdweller said:
La Liga said:
think it applies nation wide.
'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
The obsession, and that’s what it was with obtaining sanctioned detections under Todd in GMP at that time was all pervasive. 'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
Everyone was measured and put in league tables, and those in the bottom percentiles were likely to face sanction. Everyone was given a target as to the number of sanctioned detections they must achieve every month
They were not good times at all
The “GRIP” meetings were legendary and reduced senior officers to tears
Everything was about numbers .. and the quicker and easier the better
Any investigation that took up time and resources was very strongly questioned and if in any way possible was avoided
. Especially In the last month of the 'crime year' - March, there was a great panic to get detection figures that were in the red up to target by the end of the month...or else.
This often meant getting staff trawling through the previous years figured hunting for missed detections or chances to no crime reports, therefore reducing the number of offences to be detected against - an impossible task but used to get Detectives in a right sweat in their attempts to reduce figures.
In that last month we'd have managers almost begging us to look for detections and kill off crime reports in order that they could hit their targets which might only be out by the most minute margins imaginable - but in the red was in the red and they were in deep sh*t if the targets werent met.
Now fortunately a thing of the past.
Agammemnon said:
With all due respect to you I disagree; the perception is that this issue is ongoing and only just now being appreciated for what it is.
I finished up doing crime management and screening Trust me on this ...it is way way more ethical and transparent than ever it was back then
Earthdweller said:
Agammemnon said:
With all due respect to you I disagree; the perception is that this issue is ongoing and only just now being appreciated for what it is.
I finished up doing crime management and screening Trust me on this ...it is way way more ethical and transparent than ever it was back then
Access to cancel/reclassify crimes was restricted to me, one other staff member and the Force crime registrar. All bulk detections TIC's and conspiracies etc reviewed with a fine tooth comb before being authorised.
Still not perfect but light years away from how things were.
More importantly the Home office, under Theresa May dropped all prevention and detection targets years ago so there was no longer any need for the old practices to continue
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 22 January 21:34
Bigends said:
Earthdweller said:
La Liga said:
think it applies nation wide.
'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
The obsession, and that’s what it was with obtaining sanctioned detections under Todd in GMP at that time was all pervasive. 'What gets measured get managed'.
It's interesting because I joined in the middle of that so it was the norm for me. The singular focus on reductions / detections of specific crime types. I wonder how you judge that period relative to what went on before.
I also wonder how much training school had to do with the fear of being called racist. Trainees were bombared with so much diversity material, and taught very important lessons from the likes of Stephen Lawrence. I think in the well-intention quest to avoid being racist the ability to single out a specific group was lost.
Everyone was measured and put in league tables, and those in the bottom percentiles were likely to face sanction. Everyone was given a target as to the number of sanctioned detections they must achieve every month
They were not good times at all
The “GRIP” meetings were legendary and reduced senior officers to tears
Everything was about numbers .. and the quicker and easier the better
Any investigation that took up time and resources was very strongly questioned and if in any way possible was avoided
. Especially In the last month of the 'crime year' - March, there was a great panic to get detection figures that were in the red up to target by the end of the month...or else.
This often meant getting staff trawling through the previous years figured hunting for missed detections or chances to no crime reports, therefore reducing the number of offences to be detected against - an impossible task but used to get Detectives in a right sweat in their attempts to reduce figures.
In that last month we'd have managers almost begging us to look for detections and kill off crime reports in order that they could hit their targets which might only be out by the most minute margins imaginable - but in the red was in the red and they were in deep sh*t if the targets werent met.
The unit I spent my last four years on as an officer was basically a detections machine. Two of us would spend a day on a prison visit ( plus all of the pre-visit preparation) just to get a couple of shopliftings detected
Now fortunately a thing of the past.
Earthdweller said:
Agammemnon said:
With all due respect to you I disagree; the perception is that this issue is ongoing and only just now being appreciated for what it is.
I finished up doing crime management and screening Trust me on this ...it is way way more ethical and transparent than ever it was back then
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/14/police...
Obviously the events from that link would have been denied at the time- how can we be assured that your current assurances are the truth? Not you personally, obviously, but there is a credibility problem.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff