Jump to content
×
×
  • Create New...

Met Fed calls on chiefs to end 'trial by media' after IOPC verdict


Recommended Posts

Equin0x
2 minutes ago, BlueBob said:

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?

Yeah I see the issues and I don't know what the answer is honestly. But I'm still not comfortable with the idea of the police being allowed to investigate themselves. There's conflict of interest. How do you think it should work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 25
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Equin0x

    10

  • Zulu 22

    6

  • BlueBob

    3

  • Dave SYP

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

Hahahaha! Hahahaha!

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

Posted Images

Dave SYP
23 hours 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.

 

Often a different force (not neighbouring or connected) has investigated officers wrongdoings with fair and just results.   Most large organisations in civvy street and in the military often do the same. They have a clear, unobstructed insight into rules, policies, procedures and discipline and are most often seasoned investigators without any hints of prejudice in any way. Their methods and findings are clear, concise and provide unclouded evidence on which to form a basis for prosecution, summary evidence in a disciplinary case or to find there is no case to answer. I don’t think you can get better than that!? I am all for clarity, fairness and a thorough investigation of complaints, but I do draw the line at woolly outside interference! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
2 minutes ago, Dave SYP said:

Often a different force (not neighbouring or connected) has investigated officers wrongdoings with fair and just results.   Most large organisations in civvy street and in the military often do the same. They have a clear, unobstructed insight into rules, policies, procedures and discipline and are most often seasoned investigators without any hints of prejudice in any way. Their methods and findings are clear, concise and provide unclouded evidence on which to form a basis for prosecution, summary evidence in a disciplinary case or to find there is no case to answer. I don’t think you can get better than that!? I am all for clarity, fairness and a thorough investigation of complaints, but I do draw the line at woolly outside interference! 

If it's a different force then I'm more comfortable with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
1 hour ago, Equin0x said:

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.

I think that you are being quite insulting in your insinuations that officers cannot be neutral. Every officer on this forum would perform their duty as required. I have represented officers at Disciplinary hearings and, I have also arrested Officer's  on three separate occasions for criminal offences. That is never pleasant but when it happens we do everything in our power to root out any bent officer. I note that you, conveniently choose to ignore that cases get referred to our PSD'S by the IOPC as that would negate your point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueBob
3 hours ago, Equin0x said:

Yeah I see the issues and I don't know what the answer is honestly. But I'm still not comfortable with the idea of the police being allowed to investigate themselves. There's conflict of interest. How do you think it should work?

Mmmm, you initially seemed so thoughtful and assured at non-police doing the job and yet have given it so little thought.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
BizzieBee
12 hours ago, Equin0x said:

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.

I have been following this post (and your others) over some days - with interest. 

I think I like your posts and you bring some balance to the table. We are all guilty (as human beings!) for the want to be right but you’ll often find in Policing that point is significantly stronger. Dominant personalities, jaded by ‘the job’ and constant battles with people who rarely understand the job. But your posts appear to be inquisitive and supportive - the latter something we don’t usually get with the former. 

Just my two-pence worth RE IPOC. They aren’t independent. Whatsoever. They are an ill-informed and largely inept Quango, pandering to the general population and jump on high-profile bandwagons to make names for themselves and try to instil confidence in their ‘impartiality’. When you dig into their roots, their recruitment, their media posts... you’ll see nothing impartial about them. But, that’s just my opinion which may differ from yours - and that’s fine. 

Thanks for your balance and keeping us grounded terra firma. If you want a better insight and are distrusting, give a volunteer role a go - Civilian or Special. You’ll get a good insight. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
6 hours ago, BizzieBee said:

I have been following this post (and your others) over some days - with interest. 

I think I like your posts and you bring some balance to the table. We are all guilty (as human beings!) for the want to be right but you’ll often find in Policing that point is significantly stronger. Dominant personalities, jaded by ‘the job’ and constant battles with people who rarely understand the job. But your posts appear to be inquisitive and supportive - the latter something we don’t usually get with the former. 

Just my two-pence worth RE IPOC. They aren’t independent. Whatsoever. They are an ill-informed and largely inept Quango, pandering to the general population and jump on high-profile bandwagons to make names for themselves and try to instil confidence in their ‘impartiality’. When you dig into their roots, their recruitment, their media posts... you’ll see nothing impartial about them. But, that’s just my opinion which may differ from yours - and that’s fine. 

Thanks for your balance and keeping us grounded terra firma. If you want a better insight and are distrusting, give a volunteer role a go - Civilian or Special. You’ll get a good insight. 

I wasn't insuniating that police officers can't be neutral. I'm sure most of them are, but I think it would only be natural to find it difficult maintaining that neutrality when investigating one of your own. You bond with fellow officers, as a group you face stuff the rest of us don't, so there might be a decision even on a subconscious level to relate more to the officer than the member of the public complaining about them. That's where I think it's a good idea for an independent organization with no connections to come in and establish what happened. I see the IOPC criticized a lot on here so whether they are actually fulfilling that role of a truly neutral and independent organization may be another question entirely, I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SimonT

The thing is, you assert that they may be subconscious in their bias. Thus may be the case, but has it been shown?

If I'm asked to look into an officer from 200 miles away, how attached to them will I be? Even subconsciously. Maybe I will be, but if that's the case there should be some actual evidence, rather than just some reckoning.

If the ipoc were known as good and fair they would have less if a bad time. But they aren't. They have a long way to go 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sceptre
On 14/04/2021 at 13:55, Equin0x said:

I wasn't insuniating that police officers can't be neutral. I'm sure most of them are, but I think it would only be natural to find it difficult maintaining that neutrality when investigating one of your own. You bond with fellow officers, as a group you face stuff the rest of us don't, so there might be a decision even on a subconscious level to relate more to the officer than the member of the public complaining about them. That's where I think it's a good idea for an independent organization with no connections to come in and establish what happened. I see the IOPC criticized a lot on here so whether they are actually fulfilling that role of a truly neutral and independent organization may be another question entirely, I don't know.

To play devil's advocate, do you also feel strongly that the GMC should not employ doctors or is this a consideration you feel only applies to the police?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Equin0x
49 minutes ago, Sceptre said:

To play devil's advocate, do you also feel strongly that the GMC should not employ doctors or is this a consideration you feel only applies to the police?

I'm fine with both as long as they do actually remain neutral. And I'm sure most officers can but think there's always a worry that if you're part of the policing community you might have a tiny, even unconscious, willingness to relate more to a fellow officer than a random member of the public complaining about them. The potential for bias is there, and should be mitigated against. Exactly how that can be done, I'm not sure, it's a difficult one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zulu 22
11 hours ago, Equin0x said:

I'm fine with both as long as they do actually remain neutral. And I'm sure most officers can but think there's always a worry that if you're part of the policing community you might have a tiny, even unconscious, willingness to relate more to a fellow officer than a random member of the public complaining about them. The potential for bias is there, and should be mitigated against. Exactly how that can be done, I'm not sure, it's a difficult one.

Sorry but, yet again, you do not know what you are talking about, except a perverse perception.  I can assure you that any investigation by a PSD in the Police is, in many ways more thorough than the IOPC.  Any complaint is investigated and all officers accept that if a complaint is justified then it should, and is investigated with vigour.  Many officers being investigated are of the opinion that the PSD are trying to nail them to the wall. It just happens to me a matter of fact that many complaints of misconduct are vexatious and have no merit. When investigated those cases turn out to be just that. However when a complaint is justified Police Officers do not shy away from seeing an investigation to the correct conclusion.

Police Officers do not protect officers who have fallen below the required standards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock