Plod happy to risk killing an old bloke for a carrying walking stick

Status
Not open for further replies.
RTRsBM said:
So you are backtracking from suggesting the case would have been heard in public without the appeal? Again I'm not sure what point you're arguing.
Click to expand...
No im not backtracking. When did i say that (exception being a typ)

Misconduct can be heard internally and gross misconduct hearings are for public viewing. I am merely clarifying that it wasnt just a brush under the carpet job as the person complaining has to agree to the resolution in the first place.

Edit: Spotted the confusion. I typed internal initially. Should have read internal gross.
 
Last edited:


pavarotti1980 said:
No im not backtracking. When did i say that (exception being a typ)

Misconduct can be heard internally and gross misconduct hearings are for public viewing. I am merely clarifying that it wasnt just a brush under the carpet job as the person complaining has to agree to the resolution in the first place.
Click to expand...
How is it ensured that said person knows their rights and options?
 
Who decides which hearings are going to be about gross misconduct* and which ones are going to be about mere misconduct*?

* 'Alleged' gross and mere respectively, of course.

pavarotti1980 said:
They are told at the outset what the options are. Its statuatory guidance
Click to expand...
By whom, and who confirms that they've been informed correctly with no undue influences imposed upon them?
 
AlpineExile said:
Who decides which hearings are going to be about gross misconduct* and which ones are going to be about mere misconduct*?

* 'Alleged' gross and mere respectively, of course.

By whom, and who confirms that they've been informed correctly with no undue influences imposed upon them?
Click to expand...
https://www.northumbria.police.uk/a...s/complaints_and_recordable_conduct_handling/

Categorising will be done by DPS initially or IPCC if the force has been missed out of the complaint.

I think a degree of common sense needs to applied to how they are categorised. As well a lot of vexatious complaints will be received from "customers" who just like to cause a nuisance
 
Last edited:
pavarotti1980 said:
The same as almost all organisations both private and public. You deal initially with the organisation themselves and if not you go the ombudsman or in the police case IPCC.
Click to expand...

Would you say that this approach works well in other organisations? In your experience, is it more or less likely that an independent body would reach the same conclusion as an internal one? For me, the DPS is generally a waste of time and resources.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
The same as almost all organisations both private and public. You deal initially with the organisation themselves and if not you go the ombudsman or in the police case IPCC.
Click to expand...
But you are agree that it's the police themselves who decide whether the hearing is going to be about mere misconduct or about gross misconduct, right?
 
Jardin said:
Would you say that this approach works well in other organisations? In your experience, is it more or less likely that an independent body would reach the same conclusion as an internal one? For me, the DPS is generally a waste of time and resources.
Click to expand...
I think getting rid of DPS would give a more consistent approach. As i mentioned in experiences of people i know they have almost been over the top to prove they are doing a job.

AlpineExile said:
But you are agree that it's the police themselves who decide whether the hearing is going to be about mere misconduct or about gross misconduct, right?
Click to expand...
Yes in line with the guidance i linked before. These processes arent exclusive to the police

Exactly the same as when i complained to Yodel about a delivery driver. They said they would "have a word". I said no and they sacked him in the end after disciplinary.
 
Last edited:
pavarotti1980 said:
I think getting rid of DPS would give a more consistent approach. As i mentioned in experiences of people i know they have almost been over the top to prove they are doing a job.
Click to expand...

I can't say I have the same experience of them but I have only had involvement with them twice. On both occasions it ended up with the IPCC eventually anyway who certainly didn't agree with the DPS or their (in these cases) lack of resolution.
 
Jardin said:
I can't say I have the same experience of them but I have only had involvement with them twice. On both occasions it ended up with the IPCC eventually anyway who certainly didn't agree with the DPS or their (in these cases) lack of resolution.
Click to expand...
It certainly isnt ideal but the only way it can change at a local level is to scrap DPS's and find a different way of investigating. There needs to be police involvemet in the process from an investigation point of view but it could be that invesigations are done by other forces instead of the same force. i.e. Durham investigates Northumbria etc. almost like markign each others work at school i guess
 
pavarotti1980 said:
It certainly isnt ideal but the only way it can change at a local level is to scrap DPS's and find a different way of investigating. There needs to be police involvemet in the process from an investigation point of view but it could be that invesigations are done by other forces instead of the same force. i.e. Durham investigates Northumbria etc. almost like markign each others work at school i guess
Click to expand...
Why?

Or better still tell us why defence lawyers say, i.e. folk who know what crap the police get up to with detainees, are not involved?
 
pavarotti1980 said:
It certainly isnt ideal but the only way it can change at a local level is to scrap DPS's and find a different way of investigating. There needs to be police involvemet in the process from an investigation point of view but it could be that invesigations are done by other forces instead of the same force. i.e. Durham investigates Northumbria etc. almost like markign each others work at school i guess
Click to expand...

That could work. I'd still like an independent overview of it, but I think taking it to another force at least removes the possibility of collusion or unwarranted support.
 
AlpineExile said:
Why?

Or better still tell us why defence lawyers say, i.e. folk who know what crap the police get up to with detainees, are not involved?
Click to expand...
Because a lot of things would blow over the heads of a lay person. As mentioned in a previous post the IPCC regularly need to be appraised of the reasons why an officer would do things as they dont know. The same as other professional regulators have representation by the profession in all disciplinary. I will use an example i know of. Complaints about pharmacists are dealt with by the General Pharmaceutical Council. On the fitness to practice panel is a legal person (QC), an HR person and a pharmacy representative.

Jardin said:
That could work. I'd still like an independent overview of it, but I think taking it to another force at least removes the possibility of collusion or unwarranted support.
Click to expand...
The independant side of it is still the conduct guidelines from the Home Office but like you say removing the potential for it to happen is the biggest thing. Although there could be corrupt people anywhere.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Because a lot of things would blow over the heads of a lay person. As mentioned in a previous post the IPCC regularly need to be appraised of the reasons why an officer would do things as they dont know. The same as other professional regulators have representation by the profession in all disciplinary. I will use an example i know of. Complaints about pharmacists are dealt with by the General Pharmaceutical Council. On the fitness to practice panel is a legal person (QC), an HR person and a pharmacy representative.


The independant side of it is still the conduct guidelines from the Home Office but like you say removing the potential for it to happen is the biggest thing. Although there could be corrupt people anywhere.
Click to expand...

I thought the IPCC was always over 10% staffed by ex police officers to introduce expertise to their investigations?
 
Jardin said:
I thought the IPCC was always over 10% staffed by ex police officers to introduce expertise to their investigations?
Click to expand...
Allegedly. Im not sure how transparent they are which is somewhat ironic. the chair and the commissioners must not have worked in any police capacity thoguh

The big criticisms seem to be their inability to investigate things in a timely manner.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Because a lot of things would blow over the heads of a lay person. As mentioned in a previous post the IPCC regularly need to be appraised of the reasons why an officer would do things as they dont know. The same as other professional regulators have representation by the profession in all disciplinary. I will use an example i know of. Complaints about pharmacists are dealt with by the General Pharmaceutical Council. On the fitness to practice panel is a legal person (QC), an HR person and a pharmacy representative.


The independant side of it is still the conduct guidelines from the Home Office but like you say removing the potential for it to happen is the biggest thing. Although there could be corrupt people anywhere.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously trying to claim that defence lawyers, as I suggested, should be considered lay people? Why?

pavarotti1980 said:
Allegedly. Im not sure how transparent they are which is somewhat ironic. the chair and the commissioners must not have worked in any police capacity thoguh

The big criticisms seem to be their inability to investigate things in a timely manner.
Click to expand...
Linkie, please ...
 
Last edited:
pavarotti1980 said:
I think getting rid of DPS would give a more consistent approach. As i mentioned in experiences of people i know they have almost been over the top to prove they are doing a job.


Yes in line with the guidance i linked before. These processes arent exclusive to the police

Exactly the same as when i complained to Yodel about a delivery driver. They said they would "have a word". I said no and they sacked him in the end after disciplinary.
Click to expand...
What had the yodel driver done to get the sack for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top