The fact someone is being investigated for something does not of course mean they have necessarily done anything wrong. They have not been charged, let alone convicted of anything
You don't think it's of note that over 150 serving officers are being investigated for either sexual misconduct or racism? Righto.
No, What is significant is how many are found guilty of having committed any offence.
The fact someone makes an allegation does not necessarily mean any offence has occurred.
If I say the admin/ moderators on here have sexually assaulted me - is that significant and would you be saying it was significant? Hopefully you wouldn't because it is merely an allegation
There is a world of difference between an allegation and an offence having being convicted
I'd consider it f*cking significant.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:41 pm
by BoniO
We need to remember that Spenny is the man who advised his drugged up or drunk client who committed a motoring offence to make himself scarce and avoid the police until he "sobered up". All absolutely legal I'm sure but as morally corrupt as a Tory Goverment.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:51 pm
by spen666
BoniO wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 2:41 pm
We need to remember that Spenny is the man who advised his drugged up or drunk client who committed a motoring offence to make himself scarce and avoid the police until he "sobered up". All absolutely legal I'm sure but as morally corrupt as a Tory Goverment.
Actually i did not.
I advised him of the consequences of handing himself in immediately and the consequences of handing himself in at a later date. In other words doing what a lawyer must do. Advising my client of the consequences of of each of his courses of action. If I had not so advised, I would have been in breach of my professional duties and could have been struck off.
Oh, and that advice was given when a LABOUR government was in power.
Now to get back to the point of this thread. It is actually a positive sign that there are so many allegations made against police officers. It means members of the public have confidence that their complaints will be properly investigated.
The number of complaints does not necessarily mean any offence has occurred. The number of convictions/ disciplinary offences is the measure of how many bad apples there are
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:18 pm
by Proposition Joe
Actually, that's kind of bs. I work in a complaints environment and the number of complaints - even if not all are upheld - very much points to trends and attitudes within an organisation. So yes, the number of complaints about these issues is significant.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:39 pm
by spen666
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:18 pm
Actually, that's kind of bs. I work in a complaints environment and the number of complaints - even if not all are upheld - very much points to trends and attitudes within an organisation. So yes, the number of complaints about these issues is significant.
Most complaints against police officers turn out to be made by people with grudges against police officers and are not upheld.
Innocent until proven guilty
The increase in numbers of complaints on its own is not evidence of anything other than the fact more people are making complaints. That could be simply because people have more confidence in the complaints process now.
What is significant is the number of complaints upheld, not the number made
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:46 pm
by Proposition Joe
Yes, and the number of complaints made is very often a handy tell about issues within an organisation. You know this, but carry on ignoring it and repeating the same words.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:53 pm
by spen666
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:46 pm
Yes, and the number of complaints made is very often a handy tell about issues within an organisation. You know this, but carry on ignoring it and repeating the same words.
No I am not, but you are ignoring the fact that most complaints made about police officers are malicious and made by people with grudges against the police. They are without substance.
if I make allegations that each of the administrators / moderators on here are paedophiles, does that mean this board is run by paedophiles? By your logic it would.
Unsubstantiated complaints tell us nothing other than there are unsubstantiated complaints
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:42 pm
by CEB
You haven’t actually engaged with the crucial point PJ made - that the number of complaints made about an organisation is often very telling about the issues within it.
You can’t brush that off with “Most complaints are malicious” unless you want to come over as David Brent in the office training day
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:22 pm
by Proposition Joe
the fact that most complaints made about police officers are malicious and made by people with grudges against the police. They are without substance.
Source please, Spenny
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:23 pm
by Proposition Joe
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:42 pm
You haven’t actually engaged with the crucial point PJ made - that the number of complaints made about an organisation is often very telling about the issues within it.
You can’t brush that off with “Most complaints are malicious” unless you want to come over as David Brent in the office training day
CEB, go and get the guitar
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:29 pm
by StillSpike
"Scotland Yard said the number of restrictions and suspensions of officers had gone up after “concerted efforts” to encourage employees to recognise and report wrongdoing, as well as other factors such as mandatory training that makes it a duty to report misconduct."
Ah - so these complaints aren't being made by rozzer-hating weirdos then, they're being made by actual Police officers and other staff.
"The figures released by Scotland Yard also show results were awaited in the case of investigations under way into more than 230 officers over sexual assault allegations alone. Results were awaited arising from probes launched into allegations of racism against 556 officers."
Ah - so 150 is the number of officers placed on restricted duties - there's hundreds more investigations under way also.
"Scotland Yard said the number of restrictions and suspensions of officers had gone up after “concerted efforts” to encourage employees to recognise and report wrongdoing, as well as other factors such as mandatory training that makes it a duty to report misconduct."
Ah - so these complaints aren't being made by rozzer-hating weirdos then, they're being made by actual Police officers and other staff.
"The figures released by Scotland Yard also show results were awaited in the case of investigations under way into more than 230 officers over sexual assault allegations alone. Results were awaited arising from probes launched into allegations of racism against 556 officers."
Ah - so 150 is the number of officers placed on restricted duties - there's hundreds more investigations under way also.
Correct. Spen hasn't bothered to read the article.
Slack for a lawyer type who should know how important it is to read and understand documents in full.
"Scotland Yard said the number of restrictions and suspensions of officers had gone up after “concerted efforts” to encourage employees to recognise and report wrongdoing, as well as other factors such as mandatory training that makes it a duty to report misconduct."
Ah - so these complaints aren't being made by rozzer-hating weirdos then, they're being made by actual Police officers and other staff.
"The figures released by Scotland Yard also show results were awaited in the case of investigations under way into more than 230 officers over sexual assault allegations alone. Results were awaited arising from probes launched into allegations of racism against 556 officers."
Ah - so 150 is the number of officers placed on restricted duties - there's hundreds more investigations under way also.
Whether someone is on restricted duties or not is not evidence of them having done anything wrong.
In the same way as someone on court bail before trial is not guilty because they are on bail, or for that natter remanded.
These figures relate to investigations not findings of guilt
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2023 6:16 pm
by StillSpike
The 150 out of nearly 800 are just the really bad ones, it seems, and have been placed on restricted duties because, and I quote:
The new Met commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, spoke last November of how some officers were working under “very restrictive” conditions because “frankly we don’t trust them to talk to members of the public”.
“It’s completely mad that I have to employ people like that as police officers that you can’t trust to have contact with the public,” he told BBC Radio 4 at the time.
Another rozzer-hating weirdo, the - er Met Commissioner, there.
"Scotland Yard said the number of restrictions and suspensions of officers had gone up after “concerted efforts” to encourage employees to recognise and report wrongdoing, as well as other factors such as mandatory training that makes it a duty to report misconduct."
Ah - so these complaints aren't being made by rozzer-hating weirdos then, they're being made by actual Police officers and other staff.
"The figures released by Scotland Yard also show results were awaited in the case of investigations under way into more than 230 officers over sexual assault allegations alone. Results were awaited arising from probes launched into allegations of racism against 556 officers."
Ah - so 150 is the number of officers placed on restricted duties - there's hundreds more investigations under way also.
Whether someone is on restricted duties or not is not evidence of them having done anything wrong.
In the same way as someone on court bail before trial is not guilty because they are on bail, or for that natter remanded.
These figures relate to investigations not findings of guilt
You’re right - being placed on restricted duties isn’t evidence of them having done anything wrong. The evidence of wrong doing will be what led to the restricted duties; you know, in the same way that being in prison isn’t actually evidence of having committed a crime, it’s the evidence and verdict at trial that demonstrates they committed a crime.
Can you confirm you have seen the evidence that was used to justify restricting the duties of those officers? Yes or no will do
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:46 pm
Yes, and the number of complaints made is very often a handy tell about issues within an organisation. You know this, but carry on ignoring it and repeating the same words.
No I am not, but you are ignoring the fact that most complaints made about police officers are malicious and made by people with grudges against the police. They are without substance.
if I make allegations that each of the administrators / moderators on here are paedophiles, does that mean this board is run by paedophiles? By your logic it would.
Unsubstantiated complaints tell us nothing other than there are unsubstantiated complaints
Ah - so these complaints aren't being made by rozzer-hating weirdos then, they're being made by actual Police officers and other staff.
Ah - so 150 is the number of officers placed on restricted duties - there's hundreds more investigations under way also.
Whether someone is on restricted duties or not is not evidence of them having done anything wrong.
In the same way as someone on court bail before trial is not guilty because they are on bail, or for that natter remanded.
These figures relate to investigations not findings of guilt
You’re right - being placed on restricted duties isn’t evidence of them having done anything wrong. The evidence of wrong doing will be what led to the restricted duties; you know, in the same way that being in prison isn’t actually evidence of having committed a crime, it’s the evidence and verdict at trial that demonstrates they committed a crime.
Can you confirm you have seen the evidence that was used to justify restricting the duties of those officers? Yes or no will do
Erm serving a prison sentence is a punishment AFTER a conviction.
Being placed on restricted duties is done before any findings have been made. It is a type of suspension from work pending an investigation.
Whether someone is on restricted duties or not is not evidence of them having done anything wrong.
In the same way as someone on court bail before trial is not guilty because they are on bail, or for that natter remanded.
These figures relate to investigations not findings of guilt
You’re right - being placed on restricted duties isn’t evidence of them having done anything wrong. The evidence of wrong doing will be what led to the restricted duties; you know, in the same way that being in prison isn’t actually evidence of having committed a crime, it’s the evidence and verdict at trial that demonstrates they committed a crime.
Can you confirm you have seen the evidence that was used to justify restricting the duties of those officers? Yes or no will do
Erm serving a prison sentence is a punishment AFTER a conviction.
Being placed on restricted duties is done before any findings have been made. It is a type of suspension from work pending an investigation.
But without the suspension. So not a type of suspension at all.
I have a real concern for the looseness of your language and interpretation. Your poor clients don't stand a chance. You're no Petrocelli.
You’re right - being placed on restricted duties isn’t evidence of them having done anything wrong. The evidence of wrong doing will be what led to the restricted duties; you know, in the same way that being in prison isn’t actually evidence of having committed a crime, it’s the evidence and verdict at trial that demonstrates they committed a crime.
Can you confirm you have seen the evidence that was used to justify restricting the duties of those officers? Yes or no will do
Erm serving a prison sentence is a punishment AFTER a conviction.
Being placed on restricted duties is done before any findings have been made. It is a type of suspension from work pending an investigation.
But without the suspension. So not a type of suspension at all.
...
Erm no
It is a type of suspension as you are on RESTRICTED duties, so suspended from doing the duties you are not restricted to.
Erm serving a prison sentence is a punishment AFTER a conviction.
Being placed on restricted duties is done before any findings have been made. It is a type of suspension from work pending an investigation.
But without the suspension. So not a type of suspension at all.
...
Erm no
It is a type of suspension as you are on RESTRICTED duties, so suspended from doing the duties you are not restricted to.
But not suspended from work which is what a suspension actually is.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:30 pm
by Proposition Joe
While you're here spen, where was the link to the study or survey that found "most complaints made about police officers are malicious and made by people with grudges against the police. They are without substance"? I've looked online but can't find it.
Whether someone is on restricted duties or not is not evidence of them having done anything wrong.
In the same way as someone on court bail before trial is not guilty because they are on bail, or for that natter remanded.
These figures relate to investigations not findings of guilt
You’re right - being placed on restricted duties isn’t evidence of them having done anything wrong. The evidence of wrong doing will be what led to the restricted duties; you know, in the same way that being in prison isn’t actually evidence of having committed a crime, it’s the evidence and verdict at trial that demonstrates they committed a crime.
Can you confirm you have seen the evidence that was used to justify restricting the duties of those officers? Yes or no will do
Erm serving a prison sentence is a punishment AFTER a conviction.
Being placed on restricted duties is done before any findings have been made. It is a type of suspension from work pending an investigation.
Is that why they released Peter Sutcliffe the night after plod found the hammer & let him run free until his Conviction at Trial ?
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 12:01 pm
by Dunners
Blimey.
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:06 pm
by tuffers#1
Re: To Serve and Protect
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:12 pm
by Proposition Joe
Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:30 pm
While you're here spen, where was the link to the study or survey that found "most complaints made about police officers are malicious and made by people with grudges against the police. They are without substance"? I've looked online but can't find it.
