Police car crash in Acre lane

[detective-boy]

... where someone had reported kids messing around after dark.

I doubt very much that that was the precise nature of the call ... not least because the shite call centres would have told anyone reporting "kids messing around after dark" to fuck off and stop bothering them ...

No way in a million years would they have allocated an immediate response (and no way would any unit have accepted it if they'd tried).

 

[detective-boy]

I've found the guy to be appallingly abusive and aggressive myself, and I'm not the only one, not by a long way.

So you expect to be able to follow me round from thread to thread, trolling with nothing more than abuse, alleging that I am a "shill" (you learnt a new word this month or something?) without getting told to fuck off? Who exactly do you think you are? Cunt.

 

[London_Calling]

I doubt very much that that was the precise nature of the call ... not least because the shite call centres would have told anyone reporting "kids messing around after dark" to fuck off and stop bothering them ...

No way in a million years would they have allocated an immediate response (and no way would any unit have accepted it if they'd tried).

This isn't yer proper urban crime environment here, and it was about 9.00pm on a weekday evening.

Though from what you say, neiter the location nor how busy business is, matters.

 

[gabi]

I have been investigated as a police officer.
I have conducted investigations into police officers.
I have trained senior investigators for the IPCC.
I have advised police officers subject to investigation.
I have provided consultancy on the subject of internal investigations into the police and other law enforcement agencies.

I KNOW how thorough internal investigations are and how that thoroughness compares to "ordinary" investigations.

Please outline your personal experience of the process and how you know otherwise.

I'm not a pig and never have been if thats what you mean?

I can only speak as a civilian I'm afraid. Your organisation routinely covers its own arse and I'm sure the same will be true here. If you are or once were part of that process then I'm not sure it's something I'd be bragging about.

 

[detective-boy]

I'm not a pig and never have been if thats what you mean?

What I mean is quite clear: you stated "... not in my experience", a phrase which implies, er, some actual experience (i.e. having personal knowledge of what happens as opposed to what you've read about or what someone else has told you about down the pub).

I am asking, quite simply, what you actual experience is.

Your organisation routinely covers its own arse and I'm sure the same will be true here.

You see, making absolute statements like that (as opposed to "I believe ..." or "Lots of people think ...") implies some sort of actual knowledge that that is what happens. (Not that is "my organisation", but let's allow that to pass ..)

People reading such statements are entitled to know what your qualifications for making such a statement are, especially when you imply that you have some.

I have explained the basis of my personal knowledge and experience, on which I base the comments that I post. Please could you do likewise.

 

[detective-boy]

Though from what you say, neiter the location nor how busy business is, matters.

Not much ... but not all forces are as appalling as the Met is in terms of their call-handling processes and many have lower thresholds for the nature of calls that they have the capacity to provide a response to. That said, pretty much all of them operate a call grading system and a call about "kids messing around after dark" with nothing else at all would not merit any immediate response at all - at best it would get a "soon as" response.

All forces also have similar driver regulations - individual officers are responsible for their use of lights and sirens, or breaching any road traffic laws, and they must be able to justify them by reference to the nature of the call they are attending as well as the prevailing road and traffic conditions. I cannot conceive of any way that such a call could possibly merit an emergency response. Drivers know that if they have a collision the context of the call responded to, etc. will be a matter of record and will be considered.

In this case there are two alternatives: (a) the call was significantly more than "kids messing around after dark" and genuinely merited an emergency response or (b) the officer was providing an emergency response that the call did not merit. Unless you actually have confirmed details of exactly what the call was (at the time as opposed to with the benefit of hindsight), I suspect it was (a). If it was (b) they will be in the shit, both for traffic offences at Magistrates Court and in terms of internal discipline / driver authorisation.

 

[gabi]

I have explained the basis of my personal knowledge and experience, on which I base the comments that I post. Please could you do likewise.

I've explained that you patronising turd. My qualifications? I'm human. I have eyes and ears.

Now. How many times in your time investigating your own did you sack the officer responsible?

 

[detective-boy]

I've explained that you patronising turd. My qualifications? I'm human. I have eyes and ears.

No, you haven't. That is a description of what you are not your fucking experience!

But it's plain that you simply have no personal experience of whether or not internal investigations are more or less thorough than "ordinary" investigations - you are simply spouting received wisdom ... which is absolute bollocks.

Why don't you just say that?

Now. How many times in your time investigating your own did you sack the officer responsible?

None. Because that is not something that investigating officers do ... but I don't suppose you have the slightest fucking interest in how the process works. So I shan't waste my breath. If anyone else wishes to know more, they can ask.

 

[gabi]

No, you haven't.

But it's plain that you simply have no personal experience of whether or not internal investigations are more or less thorough than "ordinary" investigations - you are simply spouting received wisdom ... which is absolute bollocks.

Why don't you just say that?


None. Because that is not something that investigating officers do ... but I don't suppose you have the slightest fucking interest in how the process works. So I shan't waste my breath. If anyone else wishes to know more, they can ask.

Jesus. I'd wanted to not believe you were a cunt, being the local bobby round here n all. Sadly I can't come to that conclusion. Your posturing and patronising is actually worse than I'd been expecting. You represent your force well.

'Received wisdom'.. Love it. Is that what your organisation refers to the media as these days?

 

[Roadkill]

Jesus. I'd wanted to not believe you were a cunt, being the local bobby round here n all. Sadly I can't come to that conclusion. Your posturing and patronising is actually worse than I'd been expecting. You represent your force well.

Oh FFS. It's blatantly obvious that you haven't the first clue what you're on about, and yet you won't listen to anyone who actually does have some knowledge, and to cover up for your wilful ignorance you bluster and sling abuse. Is there any wonder detective boy finds it a bit wearing?

 

[newbie]

Not much ... but not all forces are as appalling as the Met is in terms of their call-handling processes and many have lower thresholds for the nature of calls that they have the capacity to provide a response to. That said, pretty much all of them operate a call grading system and a call about "kids messing around after dark" with nothing else at all would not merit any immediate response at all - at best it would get a "soon as" response.

The met isn't like their more rural cousins where a call along the lines of "two respectable middle aged adults walking on a public footpath in broad daylight" can result in two blue flashing police cars from different directions.

 

[gabi]

Oh FFS. It's blatantly obvious that you haven't the first clue what you're on about, and yet you won't listen to anyone who actually does have some knowledge, and to cover up for your wilful ignorance you bluster and sling abuse. Is there any wonder detective boy finds it a bit wearing?

I've put my cards on the table roadkill. No, I havent seen the inside of a police investigation. I've only seen it from the outside, which is arguably the most crucial PoV to see it from.

He tells me the police put far, far more effort into investigating their own. From a layman's point of view this would appear to be wasted time and effort as its *very* rare that either they or their friends the IPCC finds any of their own guilty.

Still, keep up the good work licking his ass

 

[Roadkill]

I've put my cards on the table roadkill. No, I havent seen the inside of a police investigation. I've only seen it from the outside, which is arguably the most crucial PoV to see it from.

He tells me the police put far, far more effort into investigating their own. From a layman's point of view this would appear to be wasted time and effort as its *very* rare that either they or their friends the IPCC finds any of their own guilty.

And yet, it's still painfully obvious that you don't actually know how it works and, more importantly, you're not interested in finding out. I suppose it's much easier to hurl abuse from a position of ignorance - knowledge clouds the prejudices.

Still, keep up the good work licking his ass

See what I meant about gratuitous abuse and sniping? I can play that game too - fuck off you stupid, petulant, whingeing little child.

*e2a* The above is overly rude and I apologise. I shouldn't have let myself be drawn into a spat.

 

[detective-boy]

Jesus. I'd wanted to not believe you were a cunt, being the local bobby round here n all. Sadly I can't come to that conclusion. Your posturing and patronising is actually worse than I'd been expecting. You represent your force well.

'Received wisdom'.. Love it. Is that what your organisation refers to the media as these days?

How am I a "cunt", "posturing and patronising" simply for politely asking you for details of the "experience" that YOU stated was the basis for your disagreeing that inyternal investigations were more thorough than "ordinary" ones?

As for "received wisdom", that's the ill-informed and ignorant rantings of those who are unwilling to listen to any information that does not accord with their world view ... apparently like you.

But just because you keep shouting something, it doesn't make it any more true ...

(And, as I have already pointed out, it's not my organisation. I have not been a police officer for seven years. So I am not "representing" anyone so perhaps you'd care to stop misrepresenting that.)

 

[newbie]

If anyone else wishes to know more, they can ask.

Ok, I have a question I've been wondering about for years. AIUI if a policeman witnesses a member of the public commit a serious crime, like assault for instance, they are expected to intervene and make an arrest. Am i right they can be disciplined if they fail to do so, without reasonable excuse?

When conducting an investigation into an allegation that a police officer has committed an assault, are their on-the-spot colleagues ever investigated for failing to intervene and failing to carry out out an arrest?

 

[detective-boy]

The met isn't like their more rural cousins where a call along the lines of "two respectable middle aged adults walking on a public footpath in broad daylight" can result in two blue flashing police cars from different directions.

There is significantly more scope for boredom, certainly ... but even so "kids messing about after dark" with nothing else would only get an emergency response on a very slow day!

 

[gabi]

(And, as I have already pointed out, it's not my organisation. I have not been a police officer for seven years. So I am not "representing" anyone so perhaps you'd care to stop misrepresenting that.)

Apologies. Your posts do come across as though they are straight from Scotland Yard's press office so its an easy mistake to make.

 

[detective-boy]

I've only seen it from the outside, which is arguably the most crucial PoV to see it from.

If you have actually been involved closely with such a case (as a witness, or friend of a witness or something) then that is the sort of experience I was trying to get at ...

From a layman's point of view this would appear to be wasted time and effort as its *very* rare that either they or their friends the IPCC finds any of their own guilty.

But that (eventual outcome) is a different issue ... and one in which I would certainly share your concern. There are a number of reasons why lots of investigations fail to result in officers being found guilty (and there are significantly more officers found guilty of things than you are aware of as they frequently get no significant publicity from the media for some reason).

Poor investigation is not one of them. The internal investigations have for many years been significantly more thorough than an equivalent ordinary investigation (though, ironically, the quality of the most serious investigations has fallen since the IPCC were introduced because they insisted they wanted to recruit non-police / non-ex-police investigators and traded lack of experience and competence for the symbolism of increased independence).

One reason that there is no finding of guilt (and I would argue the usual one) is that no offences have been committed. An investigation is not a failure just because no-one is convicted of anything - it is a search for the truth and if that truth is that no offences were committed, so be it. The majority of internal investigations involve officers in the execution of their duty - this means that various powers exist to do things (e.g. conduct searches, make arrests) which would not be available to ordinary people in non-internal investigations. This means that very many internal investigations revolve around subjective things like the reasonable and necessary use of force - unless there is clear evidence, likely to result in a conviction, that excessive force was used, the CPS will (using their ordinary evidential test) not pursue a prosecution.

A second reason, until very recently, was that disciplinary proceedings were modelled on a pseudo-judicial model (as opposed to the far less formal employment law arrangements which would apply in other jobs). That meant that where criminal offences had not been committed, but disciplinary offences may have been, pretty much criminal law evidential standards and burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) were applied. This has long been recognised as an issue and within the last year or so things have changed and the standard employment law type process has been introduced. It is too early to say whether this has made any difference.

And finally, where only relatively minor breaches of disciplinary rules have been proved, excessive punishment, especially in cases where there is no history of other offences, cannot be justified. That is not any sort of cover up or protecting of their own - it is simply dealing with what has actually been proven on it's facts, not on it's context (in the same way as someone may be convicted of a minor traffic offence in the context of a fatal collision and receive only a fine).

There is certainly scope for concern over police disciplinary processes (personally I would like to see far more robust, proactive discipline used by first line supervisors) but it is important to understand what the issues are and what they are not. And the rigour of internal investigations (which is where we started on this thread) is not where the problems lie.

 

[detective-boy]

Ok, I have a question I've been wondering about for years. AIUI if a policeman witnesses a member of the public commit a serious crime, like assault for instance, they are expected to intervene and make an arrest. Am i right they can be disciplined if they fail to do so, without reasonable excuse?

Yes, in clear cut cases, they can ... in relation to intervention anyway, the law would not require them to make an arrest if they decided to use their discretion to deal with the matter in another way. The common law offence of malfeasance in public office could be (and has been) used.

When conducting an investigation into an allegation that a police officer has committed an assault, are their on-the-spot colleagues ever investigated for failing to intervene and failing to carry out out an arrest?

Yes, frequently. If an allegation of assault is made then the investigation will include the actions of all officers present and those involved subsequently in dealing with the alleged victim (e.g. the van driver, custody officer, gaoler, etc.).

If there is clear evidence, then those other officers may be prosecuted for offences such as the original assault (as secondary offenders), malfeasance in public office, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or whatever. This has happened from time to time.

But it is rare that there is clear evidence - the vast, vast majority of complaints involve circumstances in which some use of force can be justified and the issue is whether what was used was reasonable and necessary. In the case of force used in self-defence, it depends on what is in the mind of the person (officer or otherwise) using force at the time (thier honest belief about the situation). It is obvious, therefore, that there will be lots of occasions in which other officers present may not be in a position to even suspect that a criminal offence has been committed by a colleague and, even if they were, it is very difficult for evidence to prove that to the criminal standard to be found.

 

[detective-boy]

Apologies. Your posts do come across as though they are straight from Scotland Yard's press office so its an easy mistake to make.

Apology accepted.

That is going to be inevitable though, if we are both explaining what actually is the case!

 

[paolo]

personally I would like to see far more robust, proactive discipline used by first line supervisors

That chimes a chord with me based on some recent observations.

In both the case of the denumbering at G20, and the 6000 illegible stop and search forms (75% of those issued) at Kingsnorth, I thought:

Where was the supervision? Who is giving out bollockings for not meeting basic standards? In the case of the Stop and Search forms, the activity must have been totally unsupervised. A look at 100 of them would have soon shown up the issue. So either noone was looking, or they did look and they didn't care.

At G20, we've seen plenty of footage of denumbered PCs in the immediate area of more senior officers. Again, did none of them notice? Or did they think it wasn't their job? If it wasn't, who's was it? Only the respective boss of the denumbered officer?

Whilst it's possible that neither of these specific practices may ever be repeated on the same scale, what concerns me more is the suggestion that there is no culture of addressing plain-and-obvious transgressions on the spot, and that general practice may well continue. This isn't the "shopping-a-mate" category, more with regards to basic standards that are perphaps not seen as a specific crime in themselves, but can act as the foundation for perverting the course of justice later on.

The discipline needs to start right where the issue is happening, and not be left solely to complaints procedures where the evidence is often long gone by the time it gets looked at.

"PC Twat, put your fucking numbers on": Cost/effectiveness win.

Complaints procedure: Cost/effectiveness fail.

 

[newbie]

It is obvious, therefore, that there will be lots of occasions in which other officers present may not be in a position to even suspect that a criminal offence has been committed by a colleague and, even if they were, it is very difficult for evidence to prove that to the criminal standard to be found.

Proof to a criminal standard may be hard to establish, even in such obvious cases as all the officers who saw what happened to Ian Thomlinson, but did nothing at all to the person who clearly pushed him over. Of course they can claim reasonable doubt about what they actually saw, so of course they can't be held criminally responsible. And thus it is that the 'one bad apple' narrative gets trotted out over & again.

FSAICS the IPCC doesn't separate out complaints of this nature, and I can't find anything useful from the met, so your assertion that from time to time officers are prosecuted can't be backed with stats or details. Nor is there anything to give reassurance that officers are disciplined when the proof falls short of the standard required for prosecution, yet it's pretty obvious that they chose to look the other way.

thanks, anyway.

 

[detective-boy]

"PC Twat, put your fucking numbers on": Cost/effectiveness win.

Absolutely.

Applies across the board - shite call handling, shite station office service, shite road traffic collision reports, shite crime reports, stupid driving ...

There is a need for a lot more first line supervision and has been for years (and even if there are loads more sergeants and inspectors invented tomorrow it'll take a good while for sound proactive supervision skills to be be developed again).

 

[detective-boy]

Proof to a criminal standard may be hard to establish, even in such obvious cases as all the officers who saw what happened to Ian Thomlinson, but did nothing at all to the person who clearly pushed him over.

You refer to that as an "obvious case" ... but it is far from that.

As far as I know we have still not seen any footage of what happened in the 30 seconds / 50m before the push and that may well change things entirely.

If (as everyone seems to do) we assume that there was no prior interaction between Ian Tomlinson and the police line before the baton strike and push then it is a pretty obvious case of excessive force - I cannot conceive of an explanation of why the immediate use of such force to some person simply encountered as the line moved forward was either reasonable or necessary.

But, if (as I suspect is far more likely to be the case) there was some prior interaction - either him trying to force past the line or resisting them moving forward, or deliberately moving back excessively slowly, let alone any direct aggression - then the use of some force could well be justified ... and so it is no longer the sort of clear cut case that you suggest.

In public disorder situations there is lots of force used on lots of people and for lots of reasons - it would be unusual for any particular use of force to be such that it was "obvious" in the same way that a similar use of force, used by an officer wandering down the High Street with a colleague on Tuesday afternoon may be "obvious".

In any organisation, especially one which regularly confronts danger, members are prone to look out for one another and whilst we can all hope that it would happen, I think it is naive to expect minor breaches of the rules or the law to be routinely and immediately formally reported, even by next level supervisors. The police are pretty good at reporting more serious stuff most of the time (especially when it is an entirely innocent victim involved), though there have always been (and I suspect always will be) some bad exceptions. And there is also a very significant aspect of informal discipline, either by fellow officers or by first line supervisors, reading officers the riot act or making it plain that they were out of order. This is particularly so in cases where a bit too much force has been used (but where some was clearly justified) or where the victim is not a particularly pleasant individual themselves and it is considered that a formal complaint / criminal conviction would be disproportionate to the context of the incident.

Ethics, although apparently very straightforward, are a majorly difficult issue in much policing. It is not a subject which is discussed at the level of operational officers much, if at all, although it does tend to form the basis of intellectual debate at senior command level, particularly on training courses and at conferences.

(And, not wishing to miss an opportunity to do the joke, it is always worth noting that, anyway, the nearest the Metropolitan Police will get to Ethics is somewhere round about Womford ... )

 

[newbie]

You can characterise it as 'naive' to want police officers to place their duty to the public above closing ranks with their canteen peers if you want. I'd expect nothing less, because despite the platitudes we, the public, are much more used to the police closing ranks and making excuses than to them enthusiastically seeking out the bad apples.
Zero tolerance works only one way. Which is kindof why, despite being told that this collison will be investigated much more carefully than if it had involved ordinary drivers, it'll be somewhat surprising if there's any outcome at all.

 

[Missez]

There is significantly more scope for boredom, certainly ... but even so "kids messing about after dark" with nothing else would only get an emergency response on a very slow day!

Whereas in my experience "kids trying to kill each other with fireworks and the scene from my window looks like something out of a bad Vietnam movie" doesn't seem to merit any police response at all.

 

[detective-boy]

You can characterise it as 'naive' to want police officers to place their duty to the public above closing ranks with their canteen peers if you want.

It's not naive to expect them to act properly. It's naive to expect that they will immediately report every little thing wrong done by their colleagues - they are human beings and human beings simply do not work like that. And that is even before consideration of the grey area stuff I talked about where they quite genuinely may not recognise it as something "wrong" for a variety of reasons.

If that is what we want (and it's quite right that it should be) then we need to put in place other checks and balances to ensure that such situations are brought to notice ... which is why I argue that there need to be more first line supervisors; that first line supervisors should be more proactive and robust in maintaining standards; that members of the public should always complain when they see something which concerns them; etc.

 

[detective-boy]

Whereas in my experience "kids trying to kill each other with fireworks and the scene from my window looks like something out of a bad Vietnam movie" doesn't seem to merit any police response at all.

... as dozens of other callers to the police find every day judging by the people I speak to ... which is exactly why I question that there was an emergency response to a simple "kids messing around after dark" call.