Inspection of vetting, misconduct, and misogyny in the polis
Discussion
Report at link below. Top headline in the BBC etc.
But all they appear to have done is appoint people - who clearly had the starting premise that "something must be done" - to review past decisions on file, many years ago, with all the limitations that entails. And unsurprisingly in a minority of cases they disagree with some of the decisions.
Everything isn't perfect of course. But the methodology used here is nothing if not political
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/pu...
But all they appear to have done is appoint people - who clearly had the starting premise that "something must be done" - to review past decisions on file, many years ago, with all the limitations that entails. And unsurprisingly in a minority of cases they disagree with some of the decisions.
Everything isn't perfect of course. But the methodology used here is nothing if not political
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/pu...
"Criminals and sexual predators allowed into police, says report"
"It's far too easy for the wrong people to get in," said Inspector of Constabulary, Matt Parr. "Of 725 sample cases closely examined in the review, there were concerns about 131 officers cleared to serve in police forces - but the watchdog said the true total could be much higher"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63478011
"It's far too easy for the wrong people to get in," said Inspector of Constabulary, Matt Parr. "Of 725 sample cases closely examined in the review, there were concerns about 131 officers cleared to serve in police forces - but the watchdog said the true total could be much higher"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63478011
BBC said:
Currently, the report says, forces are under enormous pressure to recruit more people.
Cuts to public spending brought in by the Conservative-led government since 2010, combined with experienced officers leaving, mean an extra 50,000 recruits are needed. The government promises 20,000 new recruits by March - so far 15,000 have joined.
But Mr Parr said there was "simply no excuse" for lowering standards to meet recruitment targets.
Its all very well for Mr.Parr to says there's simply no excuse, but when Govt's have created a system that makes wanting to be a copper an unattractive job option for an increasing number of society, lowering of standards is probably the only way that the HR depts of forces see as being able of meeting the targets that the very same Govt system are forcing on the Police Service.Cuts to public spending brought in by the Conservative-led government since 2010, combined with experienced officers leaving, mean an extra 50,000 recruits are needed. The government promises 20,000 new recruits by March - so far 15,000 have joined.
But Mr Parr said there was "simply no excuse" for lowering standards to meet recruitment targets.
Govt and Joe Public want their cake and eat it, but neither wants to pay for it.
The Armed Forces are probably facing a not too dissimilar situation.
Govt mentality is trying to make Armed Forces and Police etc to be run like a commercial business, which it is never going to be, especially if the people in the 'HR' sections are so detached from what actually goes on in the real world of both.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: They gave some examples on the news this morning of the type of people who had got through or who were sacked and then reinstated on appeal.
You wouldn't want some of them anywhere near you or your family in any capacity let alone in a Police uniform in a position of trust and power.
Some of them yes I agree, though it has obviously been cast in the worst light possible to serve the political purpose. You wouldn't want some of them anywhere near you or your family in any capacity let alone in a Police uniform in a position of trust and power.
But some of the examples they are quoting are simply that there were unproven allegations against someone years ago.
Don't we value innocent until proven guilty?
The bit on the itv/bbc/sky news that is missing. Has anyone that had their past glossed over been sacked?
If you were sat at your desk in the city claiming some sort of qualification or clean record and it was untrue you would be escorted out of the building.
Whats the panic about this with the police? The crime clear up rate is so low it would hardly make a dent if 1000s were
let go.
Not being an ogre here as anyone that has been a model hot fuzz copper could just get a warning.
If you were sat at your desk in the city claiming some sort of qualification or clean record and it was untrue you would be escorted out of the building.
Whats the panic about this with the police? The crime clear up rate is so low it would hardly make a dent if 1000s were
let go.
Not being an ogre here as anyone that has been a model hot fuzz copper could just get a warning.
Ntv said:
Some of them yes I agree, though it has obviously been cast in the worst light possible to serve the political purpose.
But some of the examples they are quoting are simply that there were unproven allegations against someone years ago.
Don't we value innocent until proven guilty?
Sorry what's the political purpose?But some of the examples they are quoting are simply that there were unproven allegations against someone years ago.
Don't we value innocent until proven guilty?
aeropilot said:
BBC said:
Currently, the report says, forces are under enormous pressure to recruit more people.
Cuts to public spending brought in by the Conservative-led government since 2010, combined with experienced officers leaving, mean an extra 50,000 recruits are needed. The government promises 20,000 new recruits by March - so far 15,000 have joined.
But Mr Parr said there was "simply no excuse" for lowering standards to meet recruitment targets.
Its all very well for Mr.Parr to says there's simply no excuse, but when Govt's have created a system that makes wanting to be a copper an unattractive job option for an increasing number of society, lowering of standards is probably the only way that the HR depts of forces see as being able of meeting the targets that the very same Govt system are forcing on the Police Service.Cuts to public spending brought in by the Conservative-led government since 2010, combined with experienced officers leaving, mean an extra 50,000 recruits are needed. The government promises 20,000 new recruits by March - so far 15,000 have joined.
But Mr Parr said there was "simply no excuse" for lowering standards to meet recruitment targets.
Govt and Joe Public want their cake and eat it, but neither wants to pay for it.
The Armed Forces are probably facing a not too dissimilar situation.
Govt mentality is trying to make Armed Forces and Police etc to be run like a commercial business, which it is never going to be, especially if the people in the 'HR' sections are so detached from what actually goes on in the real world of both.
I have a relative who has a law degree, and a masters in police management and was a special while doing both. She struggled to get into the police as a regular because every available place was over subscribed. It was probably 2 or 3 years before she managed to get in.
With that much competition for places they should be able to pick and choose. She's been in a few years now but I can't see it's changed that much.
We have a few police on here so it would be good to hear from them on the subject of recruitment.
Edited to add....
Still a popular career it would seem. 20k new places over the next 3 years, and 100k applications recieved in the 1st year!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/100000-apply-to...
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 2nd November 18:22
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/police-officers-who-sen...
Presumably they will stay employed.
.
Presumably they will stay employed.
.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Thursday 3rd November 15:42
Biggy Stardust said:
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/police-officers-who-sen...
Presumably they will stay employed.
.
Presumably they will stay employed.
.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Thursday 3rd November 15:42
GB News said:
The defence added that because of the high-profile nature of the murder of Sarah Everard, the case had attracted much greater attention than would normally be expected and that the officers had also lost their career, reputation, and livelihoods.
It doesn't explicitly say but I'd take that as meaning presumably and hopefully and rightly not.Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about somebody being jailed for sending offensive messages within a conversation intended to be private.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
foxbody-87 said:
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about somebody being jailed for sending offensive messages within a conversation intended to be private.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
I do generally agree, but think the can of worms is well and truly open. Gaping open in fact. How many politicians these days stress the importance of freedom. A quaint old concept! I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
There are bad 'uns no doubt. And improvement is no doubt possible. What particularly struck me was the report's idea that a mere allegation years before, an allegation - nothing else, was sufficient to bar someone from joining the police.
Dear dear me. How we have indeed embarked on a journey into ever greater tribalism and division.
foxbody-87 said:
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about somebody being jailed for sending offensive messages within a conversation intended to be private.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
I think the situation changes somewhat when the messages are being sent to an officer that kidnapped, raped and killed someone? (Assuming we are talking about the same people)I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
MrBogSmith said:
They should lose their jobs, but it isn't a crime.
I'm curious as to how they could be convicted if no crime was committed. I therefore respectfully suggest that you are wrong. I'm presuming that the judge knows the answer to this as knowing the law is fairly fundamental to his occupation.
MrBogSmith said:
Hopefully the appeal will clarify it.
Unless an appeal clears them I'll suggest that they are now criminals. Sacking them for their criminal acts seems reasonable to me, especially in light of the thread subject. We neither need nor want scummy people in the police; I respect your right to a different opinion on this.foxbody-87 said:
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about somebody being jailed for sending offensive messages within a conversation intended to be private.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
Private hate speech is still hate speech.I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
The fact that the crime wasn't done publicly isn't a great defence, tbh.
Biggy Stardust said:
foxbody-87 said:
Something doesn’t quite sit right with me about somebody being jailed for sending offensive messages within a conversation intended to be private.
I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
Private hate speech is still hate speech.I understand sacking someone for expressing certain views that don’t tie in with their employers values or that being the employer into disrepute, or even police intervention if active plans or threats are being made to cause harm, but accessing a private conversation and sending someone to jail for saying things, however horrible, opens a massive can of worms in my opinion.
The fact that the crime wasn't done publicly isn't a great defence, tbh.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff