I am aware of the reason given for not prosecuting and that reason was not insufficient evidence, it was that he was a very skilled driver.
Would the police not know when he left one police station and arrived at the other, do not high performance police cars have GPS or even on board camera that record the speed of the car.
There is nothing I've seen that says his speed was captured by a recognised, calibrated device, which it would need to be for a prosecution. The word of a prisoner seems to have led to disciplinary action, which requires less proof than a criminal matter.
You initially asked why he wasn't prosecuted for dangerous driving, and I explained that, but many people wont realise that, and adopt the position you've taken, and believe such a speed is automatically enough to convict for dangerous driving.
You alleged it in these cases. It's been explained how disciplinary actions are nothing to do with criminal procedures. People cant resign to escape criminal prosecution if that course of action is deemed necessary.
Being allowed to resign rather than going through a full disciplinary hearing is common in all workplaces. Even you know that.
I'm not defending anything, which is your usual accusation. I'm explaining how procedures work in practice. Which cases am I defending?
Yes you are, and you manifestly always do. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary view.
In my own organisation a member of staff would not have their resignation accepted in the normal way if there were accusations hanging over them. But resignation is standard practice in the police, hence the reason it's being brought up officially.
There is nothing I've seen that says his speed was captured by a recognised, calibrated device, which it would need to be for a prosecution. The word of a prisoner seems to have led to disciplinary action, which requires less proof than a criminal matter.
Insufficient evidence was not given as the reason for not prosecuting.
You initially asked why he wasn't prosecuted for dangerous driving, and I explained that, but many people wont realise that, and adopt the position you've taken, and believe such a speed is automatically enough to convict for dangerous driving.
Speeding in its self is an offense my comparison was to a Formula one racing car driver, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, that they could be a highly skilled driver and not driving dangeroulsy. But, I doubt that would be used to justify not prosecuting the racing car driver for speeding, the racing car driver would be prosecuted..
That is not necessarily public perception.
Take the negative publicity over the traffic police officer earlier this year speeding at 140 mph for no good reason. Decision not to prosecute because he was a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously. If he had been a Formula one racing car drive, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, I doubt the decision would have been no action due to being a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously.
Yes you are, and you manifestly always do. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary view.
In my own organisation a member of staff would not have their resignation accepted in the normal way if there were accusations hanging over them. But resignation is standard practice in the police, hence the reason it's being brought up officially.
You know nothing about how the Police operate. Which of these cases should have been seen through to a disciplinary hearing?
If you seriously don't believe resigning is an option common to most places, then you have your head in the sand.
What exactly have I defended here? Apart from pointing out reality, what are you saying I've defended?
Are you saying no one should ever be allowed to resign, and should remain on the payroll until all enquiries are concluded? The worst that can happen is then getting rid of them, so what is the point?
Insufficient evidence was not given as the reason for not prosecuting.
Speeding in its self is an offense my comparison was to a Formula one racing car driver, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, that they could be a highly skilled driver and not driving dangeroulsy. But, I doubt that would be used to justify not prosecuting the racing car driver for speeding, the racing car driver would be prosecuted..
Racing drivers have very different skills, but the circumstances would justify the charge, if appropriate. Why would a Police trained driver be prosecuted for dangerous driving when they are trained, and expected to be able to drive at such speeds, unless there was evidence of dangerous driving? At what speed would you automatically deem to be dangerous?
Was the speed here recorded on a calibrated device? I've not seen anything saying it was. If it wasn't, where is the evidence?
You know nothing about how the Police operate. Which of these cases should have been seen through to a disciplinary hearing?
If you seriously don't believe resigning is an option common to most places, then you have your head in the sand.
What exactly have I defended here? Apart from pointing out reality, what are you saying I've defended?
Are you saying no one should ever be allowed to resign, and should remain on the payroll until all enquiries are concluded? The worst that can happen is then getting rid of them, so what is the point?
I admit I don't know that much, but I defer to the IPCC to whom this appears to be an issue.
If you are not defensive about the police, what do you think about the IPCC raisintg concerns ?
Without knowing the details of specific cases, it is impossible to comment on how they were dealt with. That IPCC statement is from a new Head who is like all new bosses, and wants to get a message across.
The implication is one that you, and others, regularly come out with, which is that "the Police always look after their own". My experience of that is very different, as is the views of the other people on here who have done the job. Professional Standards people deal with these cases, and no one wants them investigating you, because I've never seen a case of them turning a blind eye to corruption. They do need the same level of evidence to act as with all other cases though.
Lalaland has explained in great detail how common these complaints are, and they soon add up in numbers, but the vast, vast majority are malicious.
Those who do wrong should be dealt with, as I've always said, and it is easier than ever now to get rid of wrong 'uns, and it happens. I know quite a few cases from my old force where people have been sacked, or allowed to resign, whereas it wouldn't have been possible a few years back, and it is excellent news.
Without knowing the details of specific cases, it is impossible to comment on how they were dealt with. That IPCC statement is from a new Head who is like all new bosses, and wants to get a message across.
The implication is one that you, and others, regularly come out with, which is that "the Police always look after their own". My experience of that is very different, as is the views of the other people on here who have done the job. Professional Standards people deal with these cases, and no one wants them investigating you, because I've never seen a case of them turning a blind eye to corruption. They do need the same level of evidence to act as with all other cases though.
Lalaland has explained in great detail how common these complaints are, and they soon add up in numbers, but the vast, vast majority are malicious.
Those who do wrong should be dealt with, as I've always said, and it is easier than ever now to get rid of wrong 'uns, and it happens. I know quite a few cases from my old force where people have been sacked, or allowed to resign, whereas it wouldn't have been possible a few years back, and it is excellent news.
Re BiB above - that's a very glib and unthinking dismissal.
There's always an excuse as to why they shouldn't be taken seriously with you.
Re BiB above - that's a very glib and unthinking dismissal.
There's always an excuse as to why they shouldn't be taken seriously with you.
Please tell me what is being said then, with some detail. You completely ignore all attempts at detailed discussion, because, as you admit, you don't understand, or have any knowledge. You jump in though when you see someone who says something you like, and stick with it like a limpet.
You've ignored my comments about how people are got rid of a lot easier now, and how I'm pleased with that, and merely repeated stuff about how I always defend wrongdoers, which I've just explained why I don't .
Give some detail, and discuss cases. A headline saying nothing is meaningless.
This thread is not about that anyway, it was about people resigning when up for discipline offences. You've still not said what's wrong with that, other than "down with that kind of thing".
Please tell me what is being said then, with some detail. You completely ignore all attempts at detailed discussion, because, as you admit, you don't understand, or have any knowledge. You jump in though when you see someone who says something you like, and stick with it like a limpet.
You are as capable of understanding it as I am.
The problem with you is that you do have knowledge of how the police operate, and you use that to browbeat others with, in order to promote the idea that nothing is actually wrong, and that nothing needs to change.
Racing drivers have very different skills, but the circumstances would justify the charge, if appropriate. Why would a Police trained driver be prosecuted for dangerous driving when they are trained, and expected to be able to drive at such speeds, unless there was evidence of dangerous driving? At what speed would you automatically deem to be dangerous?
Was the speed here recorded on a calibrated device? I've not seen anything saying it was. If it wasn't, where is the evidence?
I was talking about the offense of speeding not dangerous driving. In my last post you are replying to I stated speeding is in its self an offense, and pointed out my original comparison was with someone else not driving dangerously, and that the issue I originally raised was driving at 140mph on a public road for no good reason, that is braking the speed limit.
My point was public perception of the law being applied equally, I used it as an example because of the publicity surrounding it and the reason given for not prosecuting, the reason given was not lack of evidence or the police officer being exempt from the law due to section 19, it was that they were a highly skilled driver.
The 140mph was however just a minor example I used to illustrate a point, not some pivotal event that destroyed public confidence in the police and should shape government policy and regulation of the police.
The far greater issues that need dealing with are those raised by the Home Secretary in their statement about the findings of the Ellison Review on police corruption and investigations into police corruption. That and other recent revelations are undermining public confidence in the police for example the operations of undercover police in protest groups, plebgate, the actions of the police after historic events like Hillsborough, and even the lack of action at the time in historic child abuse allegations. Those are far more damaging to public confidence in the police and according to our politiciants we should be concerned and something does need to be done, things do need to change,
The problem with you is that you do have knowledge of how the police operate, and you use that to browbeat others with, in order to promote the idea that nothing is actually wrong, and that nothing needs to change.
So, still nothing to actually say about the cases being referred to, which is understandable, because there is no specific ones mentioned, In which case, how can you say it is chicanery?
I do understand how it works, and try to explain it, but rather than discussing what I say, you shout "defending", and now "browbeating".
I have said when something is wrong, and will continue to do so, but I wont when there is no detail about what is being discussed, or when I disagree with another poster, or article.
There has always been things wrong within the Police, as with all other walks of life, and I've seen plenty of examples, among the norm, which is where people do their best.
The organisation is being shafted by the Govt at the moment, moreso than ever before, and I bear that in mind when listening to what they have to say.
I was talking about the offense of speeding not dangerous driving. In my last post you are replying to I stated speeding is in its self an offense, and pointed out my original comparison was with someone else not driving dangerously, and that the issue I originally raised was driving at 140mph on a public road for no good reason, that is braking the speed limit.
My point was public perception of the law being applied equally, I used it as an example because of the publicity surrounding it and the reason given for not prosecuting, the reason given was not lack of evidence or the police officer being exempt from the law due to section 19, it was that they were a highly skilled driver.
The 140mph was however just a minor example I used to illustrate a point, not some pivotal event that destroyed public confidence in the police and should shape government policy and regulation of the police.
The far greater issues that need dealing with are those raised by the Home Secretary in their statement about the findings of the Ellison Review on police corruption and investigations into police corruption. That and other recent revelations are undermining public confidence in the police for example the operations of undercover police in protest groups, plebgate, the actions of the police after historic events like Hillsborough, and even the lack of action at the time in historic child abuse allegations. Those are far more damaging to public confidence in the police and according to our politiciants we should be concerned and something does need to be done, things do need to change,
When things are done wrong, they need to be looked at properly, and everything considered. The problem is, a perception is made by some that things are done wrong through corruption, whereas in the main, it is through mistakes, some understandable, some not.
I have no problem with criticism of wrongdoing, but the reasons should be taken into account, and with historical issues, the systems in place at the time should be considered, not modern day procedures.
As for the speeding, I'll say again, I've seen nothing to say the evidence for a prosecution was there. Have you? The reason for not prosecuting dangerous driving seemed to be the skill of the driver, and lack of evidence of danger.
Yes you are, and you manifestly always do. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary view.
In my own organisation a member of staff would not have their resignation accepted in the normal way if there were accusations hanging over them. But resignation is standard practice in the police, hence the reason it's being brought up officially.
Deep Purple hasn't defended anything, much the same as myself he has pointed out that nobody is avoiding prosecution by resigning, and that doing so to avoid disciplinary happens in pretty much every civilian job. If it doesn't happen in your particular place of work then that is the exception and not the rule. I've worked in a few organisations other than the place and know many more people who work in many others, it is common to them all because the highest penalty is always dismissal.
The head of the IPCC is concerned because only 0.2% of allegations of corruption resulted in convictions. Her concern is clearly that the number is too low, presumably she thinks that more should have resulted in convictions, yet she doesn't go as far as actually saying that. Is it that she can't substantiate such a claim? Has she not considered the fact that maybe those other cases quite simply as malicious, or there is insufficient evidence to prosecute?
Malicious complaints are part and parcel of the job, whether they are about corruption or not. Sometimes there is absolutely no logic behind it. I know of a case where an officer received a complaint for apparently driving at 100mph+. It went nowhere because the vehicle in question was barely capable of doing 80mph. For what reason would somebody need to make such a claim and what did they expect to be gained from it? An awful lot of complaints are about police officers' manner of driving, but more often than not the data recorder/black box/video camera in the vehicle shows that the claims are completely false. Some people just dislike the fact that we have certain driving exemptions or can justify doing certain things. They dislike the fact that we have the training and the confidence to overtake vehicles in situations they themselves wouldn't, or the fact that because we're around they have to stick to the speed limit and can't do 60 through that little village on their way to work on this one particular occasion. Some people dislike the fact that we can and will sometimes park in places that they can not. They will sometimes follow these dislikes through with malicious complaints. Where is the logic? There is none, but each malicious complaint is 1 complaint but 0 conviction. 9 malicious complaints and 1 founded complaint could end up with 10 complaints and 1 conviction. That 1% conviction rate is then jumped upon by politicians claiming that corruption is rife because the conviction rate is so low.
Malicious complaints are made about other things too, such as excessive force because a person who resisted wasn't happy with being restrained, or incivility because some people just do not like being told 'no'. I once attended a theft from inside a house, somebody had taken a small amount of cash from inside a safe in the address. I looked at the safe and spoke with our forensics officer over the radio who confirmed that due to the surface of the safe (a grainy metal material unsuitable for fingerprinting) they would not be attending as there are no forensic opportunities. I told the victim that forensics wouldn't be attending, which she took exception to. I explained why and apologised, and she demanded that they did attend. I told her that they wouldn't be attending and that it wasn't my decision either way. She complained that I was rude. I wasn't rude in any way whatsoever, I was apologetic, I explained the situation clearly, and went out of my way to assist her as the theft had left her in financial hardship. She complained because she didn't get her own way. It was a malicious complaint and was treated as such but it was a complaint nonetheless, and it didn't result in a conviction.
None of the above are complaints about corruption, but the same principle applies. Many complaints are malicious, and in some cases there is simply insufficient evidence to prosecute. I'm sure there are some complaints that could have gone further but didn't (and not always for sinister reasons), but I don't imagine for one second that it is anywhere near a significant amount. There will always be a contingent of dodgy people in the organisation (as with every organisation) and every effort should be made to root them out.
Can a police officer, where no criminal charges are brought, but who resigns before disciplinary action is taken by his/her force, can they be employed a while later as a police officer elsewhere in the UK or for that matter as a civilian with access to records?
Can a police officer, where no criminal charges are brought, but who resigns before disciplinary action is taken by his/her force, can they be employed a while later as a police officer elsewhere in the UK or for that matter as a civilian with access to records?
He can indeed, however the pre-employment vetting checks would uncover the fact that the officer had previously been subject to investigation (whether the investigation was completed or not) and anything relating to that investigation would be requested by the new potential employer. The person would then be questioned about it by the new employer, effectively being investigated. It's then down to the new employer to make a decision as to whether employ that person or not.
I believe Simon Harwood managed to slip through the net as he was previously employed by the Met, left prior to disciplinary proceedings and then joined Surrey Police (to whom he disclosed everything) before transferring back to the Met, in what is suspected to be a case of poor quality vetting. Vetting procedures nationally have been tightened up since, but there will always be times when things are missed.
Can a police officer, where no criminal charges are brought, but who resigns before disciplinary action is taken by his/her force, can they be employed a while later as a police officer elsewhere in the UK or for that matter as a civilian with access to records?
I would expect so. Considering criminal conviction is not always a bar to employment as a police officer or PCSO
More than 900 police officers continue to serve despite being convicted of crimes including violence, robbery and fraud.
In some cases continuing to employ officers appears to directly contradict Government guidelines which insist on ‘proven integrity’. They highlight that people with convictions for certain offences, including assault, dangerous driving and burglary, should not be recruited.
Many could not provide details of criminal records dating from before their staff joined, meaning the true figure is likely to be higher.
The Metropolitan Police, Britain’s largest force, employed the most staff with convictions, 356 officers and 41 PCSOs
I'm afraid this kind of chicanery has been going on for some time. Police avoiding disciplinary charges by resigning first. How very convenient eh ?
"Evening all (slight bend of the knee) I've been up to no good you know, kept all the fat brown envelopes given to me by wealthy local villains to turn a blind eye. Here's my face saving letter of resignation" ^_^
"Wealthy local villains" is like something out of television programmes and is so far from the reality of most police officers that it's just laughable. The vast majority of police officers spend all their time dealing with volume crime; petty thefts, shopliftingers, damage to cars and fences, minor assaults, harassment, domestic arguments, missing persons, road traffic collisions and people suffering mental health conditions. For the most part one week's victim is next week's suspect. It's just a constant game of role reversal with the police stuck in the middle, having to constantly set foot in to the same homes, homes that share more in common with the back yard of your local takeaway than your or my family home. Every once in a while there will be some interaction with normal members of the public, usually when they've had a crash, or have been burgled, or when we've gone to tell them that a loved one has died. 95% of police time is spent dealing with the same 5% of society, both as victims and suspects. "Wealthy local villains" simply don't feature in the life of most police officers. This isn't 'The Bill'.
He can indeed, however the pre-employment vetting checks would uncover the fact that the officer had previously been subject to investigation (whether the investigation was completed or not) and anything relating to that investigation would be requested by the new potential employer. The person would then be questioned about it by the new employer, effectively being investigated. It's then down to the new employer to make a decision as to whether employ that person or not.
I believe Simon Harwood managed to slip through the net as he was previously employed by the Met, left prior to disciplinary proceedings and then joined Surrey Police (to whom he disclosed everything) before transferring back to the Met, in what is suspected to be a case of poor quality vetting. Vetting procedures nationally have been tightened up since, but there will always be times when things are missed.
I get that and thank you, I'm reading this thread with some interest.
In civilian life if some one resigns from a company before a disciplinary action can be taken that company is free to employ that person again if they so wish.
The same company is free to employ that person again even if an action is found against them and they are dismissed.
I'm simply asking your view on this Somner, do you think it acceptable a police officer who resigns before a DA was taken against them, should be considered for re-employment as a serving police office or civilian working within the service ever again?
Just for balance; most of those 'criminal convictions' are for traffic offences, such as speeding; things that are not recordable crimes. Though how some people can keep their job with convictions for robbery and perverting the course of justice, is beyond me.
I get that and thank you, I'm reading this thread with some interest.
In civilian life if some one resigns from a company before a disciplinary action can be taken that company is free to employ that person again if they so wish.
The same company is free to employ that person again even if an action is found against them and they are dismissed.
I'm simply asking your view on this Somner, do you think it acceptable a police officer who resigns before a DA was taken against them, should be considered for re-employment as a serving police office or civilian working within the service ever again?
I'll start by pointing out that the role of police officer is a civilian role.
So long as the previous investigation is sufficiently reviewed by the next potential employer then I believe that employer should be able to make an informed and risk assessed decision. Due to the very nature of the job it is much more important to ensure that any previous disciplinary actions are taken in to account. In all fairness I think it's a far from ideal situation, but until the law is changed there is nothing to stop a police officer from resigning before action can be taken.
"Wealthy local villains" is like something out of television programmes and is so far from the reality of most police officers that it's just laughable. The vast majority of police officers spend all their time dealing with volume crime; petty thefts, shopliftingers, damage to cars and fences, minor assaults, harassment, domestic arguments, missing persons, road traffic collisions and people suffering mental health conditions. For the most part one week's victim is next week's suspect. It's just a constant game of role reversal with the police stuck in the middle, having to constantly set foot in to the same homes, homes that share more in common with the back yard of your local takeaway than your or my family home. Every once in a while there will be some interaction with normal members of the public, usually when they've had a crash, or have been burgled, or when we've gone to tell them that a loved one has died. 95% of police time is spent dealing with the same 5% of society, both as victims and suspects. "Wealthy local villains" simply don't feature in the life of most police officers. This isn't 'The Bill'.
People don't want to acknowledge this, because of strange perceptions that have been implanted within, and all the tripe we see on tv shows is believed to be reality.
Yes you are, and you manifestly always do. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary view.
In my own organisation a member of staff would not have their resignation accepted in the normal way if there were accusations hanging over them. But resignation is standard practice in the police, hence the reason it's being brought up officially.
Every job I've ever worked in I've known of people resigning, and it being accepted, before they've been disciplined.
When at college I worked for certain pizza establishments. I'm aware of several employees who got caught stealing cash, a very serious matter and yet they were allowed to resign rather than face disciplinary action. I've also worked for large international companies in a professional role and two people I know of were caught for serious matters, again one for theft and another for effectively sabotaging operations within the company - both were allowed to resign without facing disciplinary procedures. I could go on with plenty of examples of where friends and family work too. This is not isolated to any line of work and I'd suggest those companies or organisations that don't accept resignations are in a minority compared to those who do.
This is just one of those matters that raises emotions for some people because it involves the police. The media know certain people see such stories like a red rag to a bull so they print them, often missing out vital details to balance out the facts. The story gets taken in, rage gets pushed out. It sells the story.
Imagine tomorrow if the headline was 'staff at Primark quit before disciplinary action' or 'staff at Greggs quit before disciplinary action'. Nobody would particularly care except maybe the odd person with an axe to grind against those companies, maybe an ex employee or someone who's barred from the premises for example.
It's common practice, it goes on every day in the vast majority of companies, organisations, lines of work etc. and does it cause any harm? No. Does it save time and money? Yes. Does it stop any criminal proceedings? No. Problem? No...
In terms of the IPCC, they are an organisation funded by public money. They too could face the same cuts the NHS and police etc. are all being damaged with. So what better way to ensure you keep your cash than to raise the odd story or two about concerns with the police? It raises public emotion and potentially saves or even raises your funding.
It just seems odd to me that for years the IPCC and the body before that weren't overly vocal. Since the time of cuts and budgets being slashed they're in the press like a celebrity. Stories of concerns and worse still, making their investigations public while they're still involved in a live enquiry. All this builds up their profile and in my view, secures them further funding.
It's well known that the IPCC is trying to take the place of force's own professional standards branches. This would raise the expense to the public and achieve very little in terms of improvement to a system that already works very well. But press releases such as this fuel the fire and help them get closer to their target which also, by chance, would secure them more funding...
Instead of looking at the article and thinking, 'wow, that's a lot of cops escaping prosecution', if the facts were all included rather than being carefully left out we could be left thinking 'wow, that's a lot of malicious allegations'.
Two sides to every story, often the side that benefits the journalist or that meets their political view is the one you see and if you don't do some checking yourself you can be quickly mislead.
I've seen incidents that I've been involved in personally reported in the press. It's incredible reading them. It's almost like I wasn't there when I read the press version and compare it to what I actually KNOW happened. This isn't rare, this is common occurrence. As such my trust in the media has been shattered. I take what I read and see on the news with a pinch of salt often these days.
Comments
There is nothing I've seen that says his speed was captured by a recognised, calibrated device, which it would need to be for a prosecution. The word of a prisoner seems to have led to disciplinary action, which requires less proof than a criminal matter.
You initially asked why he wasn't prosecuted for dangerous driving, and I explained that, but many people wont realise that, and adopt the position you've taken, and believe such a speed is automatically enough to convict for dangerous driving.
Yes you are, and you manifestly always do. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary view.
In my own organisation a member of staff would not have their resignation accepted in the normal way if there were accusations hanging over them. But resignation is standard practice in the police, hence the reason it's being brought up officially.
You know nothing about how the Police operate. Which of these cases should have been seen through to a disciplinary hearing?
If you seriously don't believe resigning is an option common to most places, then you have your head in the sand.
What exactly have I defended here? Apart from pointing out reality, what are you saying I've defended?
Are you saying no one should ever be allowed to resign, and should remain on the payroll until all enquiries are concluded? The worst that can happen is then getting rid of them, so what is the point?
Racing drivers have very different skills, but the circumstances would justify the charge, if appropriate. Why would a Police trained driver be prosecuted for dangerous driving when they are trained, and expected to be able to drive at such speeds, unless there was evidence of dangerous driving? At what speed would you automatically deem to be dangerous?
Was the speed here recorded on a calibrated device? I've not seen anything saying it was. If it wasn't, where is the evidence?
I admit I don't know that much, but I defer to the IPCC to whom this appears to be an issue.
If you are not defensive about the police, what do you think about the IPCC raisintg concerns ?
link
Without knowing the details of specific cases, it is impossible to comment on how they were dealt with. That IPCC statement is from a new Head who is like all new bosses, and wants to get a message across.
The implication is one that you, and others, regularly come out with, which is that "the Police always look after their own". My experience of that is very different, as is the views of the other people on here who have done the job. Professional Standards people deal with these cases, and no one wants them investigating you, because I've never seen a case of them turning a blind eye to corruption. They do need the same level of evidence to act as with all other cases though.
Lalaland has explained in great detail how common these complaints are, and they soon add up in numbers, but the vast, vast majority are malicious.
Those who do wrong should be dealt with, as I've always said, and it is easier than ever now to get rid of wrong 'uns, and it happens. I know quite a few cases from my old force where people have been sacked, or allowed to resign, whereas it wouldn't have been possible a few years back, and it is excellent news.
Re BiB above - that's a very glib and unthinking dismissal.
There's always an excuse as to why they shouldn't be taken seriously with you.
Please tell me what is being said then, with some detail. You completely ignore all attempts at detailed discussion, because, as you admit, you don't understand, or have any knowledge. You jump in though when you see someone who says something you like, and stick with it like a limpet.
You've ignored my comments about how people are got rid of a lot easier now, and how I'm pleased with that, and merely repeated stuff about how I always defend wrongdoers, which I've just explained why I don't .
Give some detail, and discuss cases. A headline saying nothing is meaningless.
This thread is not about that anyway, it was about people resigning when up for discipline offences. You've still not said what's wrong with that, other than "down with that kind of thing".
You are as capable of understanding it as I am.
The problem with you is that you do have knowledge of how the police operate, and you use that to browbeat others with, in order to promote the idea that nothing is actually wrong, and that nothing needs to change.
My point was public perception of the law being applied equally, I used it as an example because of the publicity surrounding it and the reason given for not prosecuting, the reason given was not lack of evidence or the police officer being exempt from the law due to section 19, it was that they were a highly skilled driver.
The 140mph was however just a minor example I used to illustrate a point, not some pivotal event that destroyed public confidence in the police and should shape government policy and regulation of the police.
The far greater issues that need dealing with are those raised by the Home Secretary in their statement about the findings of the Ellison Review on police corruption and investigations into police corruption. That and other recent revelations are undermining public confidence in the police for example the operations of undercover police in protest groups, plebgate, the actions of the police after historic events like Hillsborough, and even the lack of action at the time in historic child abuse allegations. Those are far more damaging to public confidence in the police and according to our politiciants we should be concerned and something does need to be done, things do need to change,
So, still nothing to actually say about the cases being referred to, which is understandable, because there is no specific ones mentioned, In which case, how can you say it is chicanery?
I do understand how it works, and try to explain it, but rather than discussing what I say, you shout "defending", and now "browbeating".
I have said when something is wrong, and will continue to do so, but I wont when there is no detail about what is being discussed, or when I disagree with another poster, or article.
There has always been things wrong within the Police, as with all other walks of life, and I've seen plenty of examples, among the norm, which is where people do their best.
The organisation is being shafted by the Govt at the moment, moreso than ever before, and I bear that in mind when listening to what they have to say.
When things are done wrong, they need to be looked at properly, and everything considered. The problem is, a perception is made by some that things are done wrong through corruption, whereas in the main, it is through mistakes, some understandable, some not.
I have no problem with criticism of wrongdoing, but the reasons should be taken into account, and with historical issues, the systems in place at the time should be considered, not modern day procedures.
As for the speeding, I'll say again, I've seen nothing to say the evidence for a prosecution was there. Have you? The reason for not prosecuting dangerous driving seemed to be the skill of the driver, and lack of evidence of danger.
Deep Purple hasn't defended anything, much the same as myself he has pointed out that nobody is avoiding prosecution by resigning, and that doing so to avoid disciplinary happens in pretty much every civilian job. If it doesn't happen in your particular place of work then that is the exception and not the rule. I've worked in a few organisations other than the place and know many more people who work in many others, it is common to them all because the highest penalty is always dismissal.
The head of the IPCC is concerned because only 0.2% of allegations of corruption resulted in convictions. Her concern is clearly that the number is too low, presumably she thinks that more should have resulted in convictions, yet she doesn't go as far as actually saying that. Is it that she can't substantiate such a claim? Has she not considered the fact that maybe those other cases quite simply as malicious, or there is insufficient evidence to prosecute?
Malicious complaints are part and parcel of the job, whether they are about corruption or not. Sometimes there is absolutely no logic behind it. I know of a case where an officer received a complaint for apparently driving at 100mph+. It went nowhere because the vehicle in question was barely capable of doing 80mph. For what reason would somebody need to make such a claim and what did they expect to be gained from it? An awful lot of complaints are about police officers' manner of driving, but more often than not the data recorder/black box/video camera in the vehicle shows that the claims are completely false. Some people just dislike the fact that we have certain driving exemptions or can justify doing certain things. They dislike the fact that we have the training and the confidence to overtake vehicles in situations they themselves wouldn't, or the fact that because we're around they have to stick to the speed limit and can't do 60 through that little village on their way to work on this one particular occasion. Some people dislike the fact that we can and will sometimes park in places that they can not. They will sometimes follow these dislikes through with malicious complaints. Where is the logic? There is none, but each malicious complaint is 1 complaint but 0 conviction. 9 malicious complaints and 1 founded complaint could end up with 10 complaints and 1 conviction. That 1% conviction rate is then jumped upon by politicians claiming that corruption is rife because the conviction rate is so low.
Malicious complaints are made about other things too, such as excessive force because a person who resisted wasn't happy with being restrained, or incivility because some people just do not like being told 'no'. I once attended a theft from inside a house, somebody had taken a small amount of cash from inside a safe in the address. I looked at the safe and spoke with our forensics officer over the radio who confirmed that due to the surface of the safe (a grainy metal material unsuitable for fingerprinting) they would not be attending as there are no forensic opportunities. I told the victim that forensics wouldn't be attending, which she took exception to. I explained why and apologised, and she demanded that they did attend. I told her that they wouldn't be attending and that it wasn't my decision either way. She complained that I was rude. I wasn't rude in any way whatsoever, I was apologetic, I explained the situation clearly, and went out of my way to assist her as the theft had left her in financial hardship. She complained because she didn't get her own way. It was a malicious complaint and was treated as such but it was a complaint nonetheless, and it didn't result in a conviction.
None of the above are complaints about corruption, but the same principle applies. Many complaints are malicious, and in some cases there is simply insufficient evidence to prosecute. I'm sure there are some complaints that could have gone further but didn't (and not always for sinister reasons), but I don't imagine for one second that it is anywhere near a significant amount. There will always be a contingent of dodgy people in the organisation (as with every organisation) and every effort should be made to root them out.
He can indeed, however the pre-employment vetting checks would uncover the fact that the officer had previously been subject to investigation (whether the investigation was completed or not) and anything relating to that investigation would be requested by the new potential employer. The person would then be questioned about it by the new employer, effectively being investigated. It's then down to the new employer to make a decision as to whether employ that person or not.
I believe Simon Harwood managed to slip through the net as he was previously employed by the Met, left prior to disciplinary proceedings and then joined Surrey Police (to whom he disclosed everything) before transferring back to the Met, in what is suspected to be a case of poor quality vetting. Vetting procedures nationally have been tightened up since, but there will always be times when things are missed.
"Wealthy local villains" is like something out of television programmes and is so far from the reality of most police officers that it's just laughable. The vast majority of police officers spend all their time dealing with volume crime; petty thefts, shopliftingers, damage to cars and fences, minor assaults, harassment, domestic arguments, missing persons, road traffic collisions and people suffering mental health conditions. For the most part one week's victim is next week's suspect. It's just a constant game of role reversal with the police stuck in the middle, having to constantly set foot in to the same homes, homes that share more in common with the back yard of your local takeaway than your or my family home. Every once in a while there will be some interaction with normal members of the public, usually when they've had a crash, or have been burgled, or when we've gone to tell them that a loved one has died. 95% of police time is spent dealing with the same 5% of society, both as victims and suspects. "Wealthy local villains" simply don't feature in the life of most police officers. This isn't 'The Bill'.
In civilian life if some one resigns from a company before a disciplinary action can be taken that company is free to employ that person again if they so wish.
The same company is free to employ that person again even if an action is found against them and they are dismissed.
I'm simply asking your view on this Somner, do you think it acceptable a police officer who resigns before a DA was taken against them, should be considered for re-employment as a serving police office or civilian working within the service ever again?
Just for balance; most of those 'criminal convictions' are for traffic offences, such as speeding; things that are not recordable crimes. Though how some people can keep their job with convictions for robbery and perverting the course of justice, is beyond me.
I'll start by pointing out that the role of police officer is a civilian role.
So long as the previous investigation is sufficiently reviewed by the next potential employer then I believe that employer should be able to make an informed and risk assessed decision. Due to the very nature of the job it is much more important to ensure that any previous disciplinary actions are taken in to account. In all fairness I think it's a far from ideal situation, but until the law is changed there is nothing to stop a police officer from resigning before action can be taken.
I am aware of that Somner, I thought that was a given.
I was differentiating between someone like myself and the role of a police officer.
Thanks for your reply.
People don't want to acknowledge this, because of strange perceptions that have been implanted within, and all the tripe we see on tv shows is believed to be reality.
When at college I worked for certain pizza establishments. I'm aware of several employees who got caught stealing cash, a very serious matter and yet they were allowed to resign rather than face disciplinary action. I've also worked for large international companies in a professional role and two people I know of were caught for serious matters, again one for theft and another for effectively sabotaging operations within the company - both were allowed to resign without facing disciplinary procedures. I could go on with plenty of examples of where friends and family work too. This is not isolated to any line of work and I'd suggest those companies or organisations that don't accept resignations are in a minority compared to those who do.
This is just one of those matters that raises emotions for some people because it involves the police. The media know certain people see such stories like a red rag to a bull so they print them, often missing out vital details to balance out the facts. The story gets taken in, rage gets pushed out. It sells the story.
Imagine tomorrow if the headline was 'staff at Primark quit before disciplinary action' or 'staff at Greggs quit before disciplinary action'. Nobody would particularly care except maybe the odd person with an axe to grind against those companies, maybe an ex employee or someone who's barred from the premises for example.
It's common practice, it goes on every day in the vast majority of companies, organisations, lines of work etc. and does it cause any harm? No. Does it save time and money? Yes. Does it stop any criminal proceedings? No. Problem? No...
It just seems odd to me that for years the IPCC and the body before that weren't overly vocal. Since the time of cuts and budgets being slashed they're in the press like a celebrity. Stories of concerns and worse still, making their investigations public while they're still involved in a live enquiry. All this builds up their profile and in my view, secures them further funding.
It's well known that the IPCC is trying to take the place of force's own professional standards branches. This would raise the expense to the public and achieve very little in terms of improvement to a system that already works very well. But press releases such as this fuel the fire and help them get closer to their target which also, by chance, would secure them more funding...
Instead of looking at the article and thinking, 'wow, that's a lot of cops escaping prosecution', if the facts were all included rather than being carefully left out we could be left thinking 'wow, that's a lot of malicious allegations'.
Two sides to every story, often the side that benefits the journalist or that meets their political view is the one you see and if you don't do some checking yourself you can be quickly mislead.
I've seen incidents that I've been involved in personally reported in the press. It's incredible reading them. It's almost like I wasn't there when I read the press version and compare it to what I actually KNOW happened. This isn't rare, this is common occurrence. As such my trust in the media has been shattered. I take what I read and see on the news with a pinch of salt often these days.