Port of Tilbury-Police Constable

[Fedster + 1,307]

Chiefs and the Home Office have been urged by the Federation leader of the UK's biggest force to end 'trial by social media' after another 'no action' conduct verdict.

Ken Marsh

Date - 9th April 2021
By - Chris Smith

The leader of the Metropolitan Police Federation has called for the government and force leaders to tackle social media firms that enable footage of officers dealing with incidents to be shared.

Ken Marsh said it was time to end “trial by social media”.

“It’s time to step in. We want something done,” he told Police Oracle. “Officers shouldn’t be subjected to this while simply doing their job.”

His intervention followed the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s latest verdict on a complaint about a stop and search at the height of lockdown which was shared on social media.

Their investigation followed incident in May last year when a driver was stopped in Tottenham by officers from the MPS Territorial Support Group (TSG).

He was stopped under the Road Traffic Act. Officers then searched the man’s car under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The driver complained to the IOPC that he had been stopped in an aggressive manner, that the grounds for the search were false, that the force used by the officers was unnecessary, and that they had failed to use PPE when searching him and his car.

The IOPC ruled that officers acted appropriately but should have worn Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during the search.

Its review included taking statements from the officers, watching social media footage, assessing body worn video of the incident, and checking MPS policies concerning stop and search and the use of PPE.

Evidence showed that the man failed to comply with the officers’ verbal demands and refused to show his hands, which led to him being handcuffed in his car.

Officers gave a number of reasons for conducting the search, including the manner of driving, the man’s movements inside the vehicle, and a smell of cannabis.

IOPC Regional Director Sal Naseem said: “We know that these types of incidents can have a detrimental impact on public confidence in policing, when there is only a partial picture available of what happened.

“Our independent investigation allowed us to establish the whole picture of what happened and did not find any evidence that this man had been treated differently because of his race, or any concerns around the conduct of the officers.”

He added: “We did find they should have used PPE and could have more clearly explained the reasons for the stop and search.”

The case was just one of a series last summer where the IOPC stepped in after social media coverage of officers investigating members of the public.

Mr Marsh said it was another case that had wasted officer time and public money.

He told Police Oracle: “Yet again my colleagues, after thousands and thousands of pounds have been wasted, have been found to be doing their job exactly as they should.”

A Metropolitan Police statement said: "The Metropolitan Police Service received a complaint about the stop and made a voluntary referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

"The IOPC investigation has concluded and following consultation with the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards, it was agreed one part of the complaint would be upheld. This was in relation to the lack of use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by the officers who carried out the search," it said.

"Those involved have been given reflective practice over the correct use of PPE. The review found no further evidence of wrongdoing and confirmed that the officers did not breach the Standards of Professional Behaviour. The complainant has been informed of the outcome."

View On Police Oracle

[Dave SYP + 2,961]

Years ago referrals were made only to HMIC for allegations of a most serious nature. Each force has a sizeable PSD now and as such should investigate their own or each other’s minor infractions. Chief Constables should be thinking of the individuals in these cases, not just theirs or the force’s reputation. Repeating myself again, I put down to my age, but I do say with some regularity that there’s too much outside interference from politicians national and local in policing these days. I believe it’s this interference that drives these decisions to ‘refer’.
Chief Constables and Commissioners are paid a lot of money to run their forces efficiently. Let them do the job without let or hindrance from ‘slightly gifted amateur’ influenced interference. 

[Equin0x 161]

On 11/04/2021 at 07:55, Dave SYP said:

Each force has a sizeable PSD now and as such should investigate their own or each other’s minor infractions.
Chief Constables and Commissioners are paid a lot of money to run their forces efficiently. Let them do the job without let or hindrance from ‘slightly gifted amateur’ influenced interference. 

I'm not sure I like the sound of that. If the police are accused of something, I'd say it's a conflict of interest for them to also be leading the investigation into themselves. Referring to a neutral organization with no interests or involvement seems to be common sense.

 

[SD + 688]

48 minutes ago, Equin0x said:

Neutral organization

Hahahaha! Hahahaha!

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

1 hour ago, Equin0x said:

I'm not sure I like the sound of that. If the police are accused of something, I'd say it's a conflict of interest for them to also be leading the investigation into themselves. Referring to a neutral organization with no interests or involvement seems to be common sense.

 

SD is being polite. You really do not know anything and continue to show a remarkable ignorance of all things relating to the Police.

[Equin0x 161]

3 hours ago, SD said:

Hahahaha! Hahahaha!

Who do you think should investigate accusations against the police then?

I'm well aware the IOPC gets a lot of flak from officers and often accused of being more interested in witch hunts than being truly impartial. Maybe that criticism is justified, maybe not, I don't really feel I know enough about that to offer an opinion. Do you at least agree with the principle that accusations should be handled by a neutral party? Even if you think there are improvements that could be made to the way IOPC handle them.

 

[BlueBob + 692]

Without getting into a whole new post about IOPC, the Op seems to highlight 2 things.  If the force ( in this case the Met) has a robust and valid PSd, why refer so much to the IOPC.  To my mind it undermines the whole PSD process, so why not just shut them down and send everything to IOPC.

Secondly, are the Fed bonkers .  They are asking that social media doesn’t record policing when it suits, and I can see where they are going, then as soon as something big comes along, they are pleading for any social media the public has.

[Equin0x 161]

49 minutes ago, BlueBob said:

Without getting into a whole new post about IOPC, the Op seems to highlight 2 things.  If the force ( in this case the Met) has a robust and valid PSd, why refer so much to the IOPC.  To my mind it undermines the whole PSD process, so why not just shut them down and send everything to IOPC.

Secondly, are the Fed bonkers .  They are asking that social media doesn’t record policing when it suits, and I can see where they are going, then as soon as something big comes along, they are pleading for any social media the public has.

Investigations should be handled by a neutral party, normally the police are that neutral party but if the accusation is about the police themselves it's a bit different. There is a conflict of interest, they have a stake in the game so to speak. I'd prefer that accusations against the police are handled by another agency.

As for filming police, I don't see the problem and think it's good for transparency. My alarm bells would be ringing if an officer didn't want to be filmed, as I would be wondering why they didn't want a record of what they were doing.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Equin0x

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

2 hours ago, Equin0x said:

Investigations should be handled by a neutral party, normally the police are that neutral party but if the accusation is about the police themselves it's a bit different. There is a conflict of interest, they have a stake in the game so to speak. I'd prefer that accusations against the police are handled by another agency.

This case shows that incidents and complaints are dealt with properly without any cover up. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9463303/Met-police-officer-jailed-two-years-breaking-mans-knee-middle-street.html   When there is a "Bad Apple" it is sorted out, not covered up.

As for filming police, I don't see the problem and think it's good for transparency. My alarm bells would be ringing if an officer didn't want to be filmed, as I would be wondering why they didn't want a record of what they were doing.

Absolute nonsense, as per usual. Obviously you have never known a PSD investigation. They are seldom neutral but many times go way and beyond to prove an officer has committed some obscure disciplinary offence.  I have acted as a friend at several discipline hearings and have been amazed at the lengths they have gone to to try and "nail"  an officer.  At one hearing the Chief Constable openly criticised the conduct of the investigation.

On the other hand I have also known them go the other way and actually prove the officers complete innocence. They have actually proved that the offence was a fabrication but, sadly they have not prosecuted the complainant for wasting Police time.  It is customary and in cases a statutory obligation for the IOPC to investigate more serious matters and/or matters referred to them by the Force.

As for filming of officers why would that be in order.  Perhaps you would agree to someone coming to your place of work and film you without your permission. You would be surprised at how many of the circulated filming have been purposely set up to try and make some vague point. Many of thee films have been discredited by Body Camera's worn by officers.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Zulu 22

[Equin0x 161]

2 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

Absolute nonsense, as per usual. Obviously you have never known a PSD investigation. They are seldom neutral but many times go way and beyond to prove an officer has committed some obscure disciplinary offence.  I have acted as a friend at several discipline hearings and have been amazed at the lengths they have gone to to try and "nail"  an officer.  At one hearing the Chief Constable openly criticised the conduct of the investigation.

On the other hand I have also known them go the other way and actually prove the officers complete innocence. They have actually proved that the offence was a fabrication but, sadly they have not prosecuted the complainant for wasting Police time.  It is customary and in cases a statutory obligation for the IOPC to investigate more serious matters and/or matters referred to them by the Force.

As for filming of officers why would that be in order.  Perhaps you would agree to someone coming to your place of work and film you without your permission. You would be surprised at how many of the circulated filming have been purposely set up to try and make some vague point. Many of thee films have been discredited by Body Camera's worn by officers.

If an officer has committed a disciplinary offence, even an obscure one, what's wrong with the authorities going above and beyond in proving it? Investigating stuff like that is literally their job, rather than criticize them for trying to "nail" an officer who did something wrong, maybe you should criticize the officer for doing wrong in the first place. You say that you were a police officer right? Imagine that one of the people you nicked later said "I was amazed at the lengths Zulu22 went to try and nail me for my crimes. He went above and beyond in trying to prove I had committed them".

As for why people would want to film police officers, some people don't trust you anymore and feel safer if there is a recording of what happened. I'm sure the vast majority of officers are decent people who can be trusted but sadly there are a few out there who aren't. We've probably all seen the officer who was caught on camera last year threatening to make something up against someone. Can I ask you to be honest, if there was no footage of that and the suspect later reported it and the officer denied it, who would you be more inclined to believe? The word of a police officer is often trusted more than the word of a suspect, but there are times like that when I think it's good there was a recording to prove what happened.

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Equin0x

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

You really do show a remarkable ignorance of Police matters and yet, you insist on showing how you know nothing about everything and everything about nothing.

Nobody has said that if an officer has done something wrong that he/she should not be investigated. You are ignorant of the fact that a large number of people make false allegations.  It has become a ploy that guilty people do because they believe that by doing so action against them will not be taken.  Where such false allegations are made then the officer has a right to have his/her name cleared.

As a Police Officer if I had known that a person had committed a crime I would always collect as much evidence as possible to prove their guilt. That would also include offences by Police Offices which happened on three occasions during my 30 years service.  That is never pleasant but is essential. There have even been occasions when I have proved that a person, did not, and could not have committed a crime.

[Equin0x 161]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

You really do show a remarkable ignorance of Police matters and yet, you insist on showing how you know nothing about everything and everything about nothing.

Nobody has said that if an officer has done something wrong that he/she should not be investigated. You are ignorant of the fact that a large number of people make false allegations.  It has become a ploy that guilty people do because they believe that by doing so action against them will not be taken.  Where such false allegations are made then the officer has a right to have his/her name cleared.

As a Police Officer if I had known that a person had committed a crime I would always collect as much evidence as possible to prove their guilt. That would also include offences by Police Offices which happened on three occasions during my 30 years service.  That is never pleasant but is essential. There have even been occasions when I have proved that a person, did not, and could not have committed a crime.

 

30 years service and yet you didn't know the difference between a PCSO and a Special. I have my doubts...

As for the rest of your post, the issue I have with what you say is impartiality. The police are usually the neutral party that investigates things without taking sides. But when the accusation is against the police, letting them investigate themselves seems like a conflict of interest to me. So I would say it makes sense to have an independent organization who handles complaints against officers. That principle itself is fairly sound, whether the IOPC lives up to it may be another matter. They get a lot of flak from here, some of it may be deserved and some not. I don't really know enough about that to offer an opinion either way.

[Zulu 22 + 4,574]

1 hour ago, Equin0x said:

 

30 years service and yet you didn't know the difference between a PCSO and a Special. I have my doubts...

I do not know where you got that incorrect pearl of wisdom from. Even the Station cat knows the difference between a PCSO and a Special. My credentials on here have never been in doubt . Not something we could ever say about yourself. If you are in any doubt just go to my profile and you will find that  my Community Reputation stands at 4,066  from 7,133 content count around 57%. Compare that with yours of  Reputation standing at  9  from 102 content count  round about 8.8%

As for the rest of your post, the issue I have with what you say is impartiality. The police are usually the neutral party that investigates things without taking sides. But when the accusation is against the police, letting them investigate themselves seems like a conflict of interest to me. So I would say it makes sense to have an independent organization who handles complaints against officers. That principle itself is fairly sound, whether the IOPC lives up to it may be another matter. They get a lot of flak from here, some of it may be deserved and some not. I don't really know enough about that to offer an opinion either way.

You carry on showing your total ignorance of Police and Complaints procedures. Your the PSD's a\re totally neutral and follow all evidence. Many times they prove an officers guilt but also they are not afraid when all the evidence points to the officer being totally with no guilt or blame. 

You obviously did not bother to read the link in an earlier post, i.e. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9463303/Met-police-officer-jailed-two-years-breaking-mans-knee-middle-street.html.  I will assist you with a quote from the article "Harrison had been convicted of grievous bodily harm following a majority verdict last month. Mr Abrahams reported the attack to the Independent Office of Police Conduct in January 2019 and the watchdog decided Scotland Yard should investigate the incident.   It appears that the IOPC had faith in the impartiality of the Met PSD, or they describe it "Directorate of Professional Standards"

You seem to disagree with the opinions of all of the Police participants on this forum irrespective of their reputation or experience.

It is the duty of every serving officer to root out any misconduct, criminal or otherwise. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Zulu 22

[Equin0x 161]

43 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

You seem to disagree with the opinions of all of the Police participants on this forum irrespective of their reputation or experience.

There are lots of people on here with lots of different opinions. Some I agree with, some I don't, all depends what the subject is. I've spent a lot of my life campaigning on various issues of civil liberties and freedom of speech, my views can lean towards being quite distrusting of authority so I often won't see eye to eye with what officers are saying on here. That doesn't mean I don't respect their experience or value their opinions and contributions. It's healthy to get out of our own little echo chambers and hear a different point of view sometimes and that works both ways.

On the actual subject, I'm trying to see if I can narrow in on the specific point we disagree about. Do you agree with the principle that investigations should always be done by someone who is neutral? Because that's what I believe, and the issue I have here is that if the police are allowed to investigate accusations against themselves, that neutrality becomes a bit fuzzy. It's surely a conflict of interest, if an accusation concerns you then you should have no part in that investigation and I would be much more comfortable with the idea of an independent organization handling all complaints against police.

 

[BlueBob + 692]

10 hours ago, Equin0x said:

Investigations should be handled by a neutral party, normally the police are that neutral party but if the accusation is about the police themselves it's a bit different. There is a conflict of interest, they have a stake in the game so to speak. I'd prefer that accusations against the police are handled by another agency.

Have you really thought about your idea and reply and its real world consequences?
If we followed your concept, this 'Independent body' would be wholly overwhelmed.  Lets think of the most basic allegation.... police vehicle on a call passes through a speed camera.  The allegation is of excess speed.  Your route would mean this goes to the independent organisation.  When and how would you differentiate?