This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
When you have a patrol car almost go in to the side of you going round a roundabout then speed of up to about 100 in a 50 with no lights on before pulling into the cop shop.... obviously to get in for shift change or a cuppa.
No laws to stop them acting as they see fit.
No laws to stop them acting as they see fit.
Commissario
IIRC they do actually have to abide by force regulations which control when/where they can breach the normal traffic laws (and they don't need the lights on for that to apply), which is how a few years back one of the officer got found not guilty for doing unauthorised high speed runs (his force didn't require him to notify control/get permission at the time), however if any emergency service driver does break the normal traffic laws it is from memory considered to be "at risk" which means if they have an accident, or cause an accident by doing so they can still be done for it and potentially more harshly because they're meant to be trained to a much higher standard and apply that training to assessing the risks.
Basically if what you said is true and it was on camera/data logged on the car and a complaint was made or the police did a routine review the officers would likely be in trouble.
As a long-time subscriber to crimebodge, I have very little faith in the police.
They seem to attract very specific types of people, they need to do better background checks, or regular phycological testing to try weed out the nut jobs. But it's more then that, they have a history of overlooking misconduct from officers and protecting them. The culture in the police force needs to change.
They seem to attract very specific types of people, they need to do better background checks, or regular phycological testing to try weed out the nut jobs. But it's more then that, they have a history of overlooking misconduct from officers and protecting them. The culture in the police force needs to change.
Last edited:
Soldato
Ah well better late than never.
news.sky.com
Every police officer to be checked and urgent review into vetting after case of rapist PC David Carrick
David Carrick was identified as one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders after admitting to dozens of rapes and sexual offences over 18 years. The government has vowed to do "whatever it takes" to stamp out "misogyny and predatory behaviour" in the police.
I have no dash cam and tbh after hearing what our lases friends husband (police) said then I'd not want to put a target on my back, according to him they like to make life difficult for those that complain.
Not sure if true but I'd rather not tempt fate.
Ah well better late than never.
Every police officer to be checked and urgent review into vetting after case of rapist PC David Carrick
David Carrick was identified as one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders after admitting to dozens of rapes and sexual offences over 18 years. The government has vowed to do "whatever it takes" to stamp out "misogyny and predatory behaviour" in the police.
What stuns me most is that this is not a constant and on-going process.
We're more digitized than ever and cross-checking all Police Officers against the database every few months really shouldn't be that difficult....
typical sky click-bait - didn't really need to check, but what was actually said (so that would be without the implication sky gave that the may never have been checked)
“We will be asking all police forces to further check their officers and staff against national police databases. This will help identify anyone who has slipped through the net before vetting standards were toughened and remove those who are unfit to serve.”
The absolute travesty here is that he got away with it for so long with all the red flags that kept occuring and the amount of turning a blind eye that must have gone on. And this goes far beyond incompetence, but must be systemic. The vetting procedure and ongoing code of conduct monitoring is being implemented in a woefully inadequate way.
I think this comes down to a major problem in society in that a "Whistleblower" is still regarded as a negative thing, rather than a trait to be lauded. It's almost like the person doing the whistleblowing is the untrustworthy one, because they are informing on their colleagues/bosses/company, rather than it being lauded as a positive trait of honesty.
Combined with the type of job the police force is, where you work closely with and rely on colleagues for each others safety, then being known as a whistleblower would get you ostracised pretty quickly which puts a lot of pressure on people to keep quiet.
I think this comes down to a major problem in society in that a "Whistleblower" is still regarded as a negative thing, rather than a trait to be lauded. It's almost like the person doing the whistleblowing is the untrustworthy one, because they are informing on their colleagues/bosses/company, rather than it being lauded as a positive trait of honesty.
Combined with the type of job the police force is, where you work closely with and rely on colleagues for each others safety, then being known as a whistleblower would get you ostracised pretty quickly which puts a lot of pressure on people to keep quiet.
The fact is, as a police officer, you witness the absolute worst of humanity on a daily basis. I can't see how that won't affect someone over a length of time as you become jaded and lose faith in humanity, especially over the course of years.
Vetting across various forces has long been understaffed due to budget constraints, resulting in some forces having to outsource their vetting checks to other depts or other forces entirely. That, coupled with the recent drive to recruit more officers, as well as more focus on vetting processes since Sarah Everard, means it simply isn't feasible to be constantly vetting every employee. It's not just a case of checking "the database", there's a whole range of systems and checks to conduct.
I do think there may be a shift towards having vetting refreshed more regularly though or cursory checks conducted more frequently.
they just had nottingham police manager on pm who said they vet thoroughly every 3 years and thought that was class leading, but didn't say what met policy is.
[ Looks like iopc trying to be whiter than white on the Met racism accusations for the Bianca williams stop,
they switched out a white investigator for a coloured one, although beeb don't seem to have considered that angle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64304500
Ms Napier raised a formal complaint, stating the decision to overrule her assessment may have been "politically motivated". "In other words, what the investigation was going to be based on was watered down," she told Newsnight. "It casts serious doubt on its [IOPC] independence."
An internal inquiry into her claim concluded in the IOPC's favour, saying there was no evidence to support her allegations, and that even though it might be unusual to change a lead investigator's decision, it was allowed in the IOPC rules.
The inquiry did accept Mr Naseem had taken over decision-making on several occasions because the case would going to attract a lot of attention and was high profile.
]
[ Looks like iopc trying to be whiter than white on the Met racism accusations for the Bianca williams stop,
they switched out a white investigator for a coloured one, although beeb don't seem to have considered that angle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64304500
Ms Napier raised a formal complaint, stating the decision to overrule her assessment may have been "politically motivated". "In other words, what the investigation was going to be based on was watered down," she told Newsnight. "It casts serious doubt on its [IOPC] independence."
An internal inquiry into her claim concluded in the IOPC's favour, saying there was no evidence to support her allegations, and that even though it might be unusual to change a lead investigator's decision, it was allowed in the IOPC rules.
The inquiry did accept Mr Naseem had taken over decision-making on several occasions because the case would going to attract a lot of attention and was high profile.
]
They could do, there is a lot of police corruption in the UK in the form of police taking the mickey in areas where they have discretion; using "breach of the peace" as an excuse to simply arrest anyone for any reason because they've been annoyed by them* or using terrorism legislation as an excuse to bypass restrictions on what they can ordinarily do.
*There was a youtube video I saw highlighting this, one of the "auditors", it's a sort of US phenomenon that some loons in the UK have adopted, usually the "auditor" is the one being the bigger **** though.
The typical format that goes viral is the innocent "auditor" acts like a weirdo to attract attention, ends up with a police interaction, some low-ranking police officer takes the bait and gets enraged that the "auditor" is being evasive, refusing demands for ID etc.. until some supervisor/sergeant turns up and reminds the junior cop of the law and they leave.
In this UK one the "auditor" had actually found a legit issue, police vans clearly breaking parking rules and being parked all over the place, so he filmed them as "evidence" purportedly to send to the council or something, this attracted attention and he was approached by an inspector who ended up arresting him for breach of the peace, I'd assume that ordinarily if some junior guy/constable did that the custody sergeant might roll their eyes a bit or perhaps even have a word/tell the officer not to waste their time but I guess an inspector outranks a custody sergeant and perhaps feels they can do what they want in that police station. It all seemed very dodgy, knowingly arresting someone on what seems like obviously spurious grounds just because you're irritated by them really ought to be taken quite seriously as an abuse of power/corruption (especially given the issue they were documenting was quite legit in this case) though I'm not sure anything actually happened to the inspector as a result.
Last edited:
Commissario
I would have assumed any time you changed role to a more sensitive one it would have required at least a full check for any allegations/complaints made against you, as well as periodic checks and any new allegation raising a flag.
I'm guessing as you say budget constraints have played a big part, especially the government cutting back so many of the old "backroom staff" because "we're cutting police budgets but not the number of officers" nonsense they pulled.
Commissario
IIRC parking rules are one of the ones that any police vehicle can break without any issue (as long as they park safely, or even not "safely" if required* and within force guidelines), when the officers or even "civilian" staff are working**. I seem to remember a number of instances of the likes of private parking scum clamping police support vehicles and basically being told to remove the clamp or be arrested for interfering with the police/have the police object to them continuing to get licenced for parking control.
Even blue badge holders can often break some normal parking rules, including from memory parking on double yellows unless it's unsafe or there is a specific ban on them***, so if you're going to complain about the police parking you really need to know both the national law, the local bylaws and any specific exemption that the police/emergency services may have in that area as well as force guidance.
*IE parking to block a road, or protect another vehicle that's broken down.
**As the likes of forensics often need to park near where they're working, and don't have the time to go and find a nice public car park rather than say a "residents/customers only" parking spot.
***To quote the booklet my dad received a couple of months back "Badge holders may park on single, or double yellow lines for up to three house but in general not where there are restrictions on loading or unloading...you may wish to check with the local authority" (IIRC London is the main area where local authorities don't allow it).
Last edited:
Suspended
@dowie i always remember the first time i had an actual encounter with the police. Sitting outside a takeaway with 3 of my mates and one of their older brothers when we were 16. We'd just ordered and were literally sat on a wall outside talking when two officers turned up.
Asked us what we'd been doing and my mates brother told them we'd been at their house and had come to get some food. They mentioned a couple of the shops had called reporting a group causing issues. Mates brother pointed out it couldn't be us as we'd just arrived. They didn't care, dropped him to the deck and cuffed him. The takeaway staff came out and shouted it wasn't us. The officers ignored them. He was naturally kicking off on the deck over being arrested for nothing. So they changed what they were arresting him for from a public order offence to assaulting an officer. 6 witnesses there to say that was rubbish but they didn't care. They'd clearly come out to arrest someone and were looking for an excuse.
Asked us what we'd been doing and my mates brother told them we'd been at their house and had come to get some food. They mentioned a couple of the shops had called reporting a group causing issues. Mates brother pointed out it couldn't be us as we'd just arrived. They didn't care, dropped him to the deck and cuffed him. The takeaway staff came out and shouted it wasn't us. The officers ignored them. He was naturally kicking off on the deck over being arrested for nothing. So they changed what they were arresting him for from a public order offence to assaulting an officer. 6 witnesses there to say that was rubbish but they didn't care. They'd clearly come out to arrest someone and were looking for an excuse.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Police watchdog investigator quit over Bianca Williams stop and search complaint
Trisha Napier says investigation into treatment of Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos was ‘watered down’www.theguardian.com
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Nov 2019
- Posts
- 4,305
That's appalling.
No that's false; they can when it's necessary for them to perform their duties but this wasn't vehicles out on a call but several vans illegally parked next to a police station.
But it's rather irrelevant to the point anyway, the "auditor" in this case had a legit reason to be filming (he wanted to complain about the parking of police vehicles to the council) and the officer clearly abused his powers in making an arrest.
The wider problem with this stuff is that the more police officers like that abuse things like terrorism legislation in incidents that have naff all to do with terrorism or as in this case "breach of the peace" as a catch-all excuse to simply arrest someone who is being a pain then they give legislators concerns about trust and what powers they should be given in future. It probably is a useful to allow the police to have a degree of flexibility & discretion but when it gets abused they undermine things for everyone.
Last edited:
- Status