Professional Standards – But My Way

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Doorbundle says:

    This reads like a good, structured plan but is best swept under the carpet, as “Not thought of here”.

  2. Eastlindonmet says:

    Don’t know how accurate this rumour is but the source an A/DS “destined for high office” heard it from a very senior rank that the way to get promotion is to get officers the sack! The way it was told was 10 officers =£1 million saving for the year! The replacements will be from next year’s budget and cheaper! All from the same organisation that has stopped officers sending victims’ their crime reference by a text msg via the e-mail system to save money!

    • I had something similar but can’t verify it. Have also heard that the intention of Home Office is to ultimately reduce the total strength to 80k for England & Wales, every little helps eh.. Who knows what’s discussed at Ivory Tower meetings??

  3. rdresearch says:

    How about accepting 100% that every complaint is legitimate and well founded (over 80% are now dismissed, ignored, rejected, termed vexatious or an abuse of the complaints system); The police hold the hegemony and no complaints dept ever run by the police is going to stop their corrupt practices – such as spying on innocent people and discrediting witnesses or victims who complain of poor policing practices. See my website here: bit.ly/10KwenV – every comment I’ve received from the public holds my story to be an appalling means of the police to treat a bereaved next of kin – the police, however, take a different view – they all support the way that police officers lie their way out of corruption; they do this by a careful strategy of creating ‘the inferior other’. First the police do this by turning an innocent person into (1): a victim – as a victim, as everyone knows is in a passive, secondary position to someone who is strong and active; (2) a vulnerable person – this accentuates the victim into someone who is unable to look after themself or is at risk of harm (regardless of whether this is true or false – it’s all in the name) and (3) mentally ill – for under Depart of Health Guidelines the term ‘vulnerable’ actually applies to people who are mentally disabled and unable to look after themselves. I am not alone in having been branded in this way (because I hold 4 degrees, a PhD, am an author and can see through their transparant vicious game) It’s a common ploy that they police make nowadays (probably always) someone complains about a member of your force, turn the complainant into a mad person, that discredits them and your officers can feel free to continue. The money and resources that are required to do this, however, is laughable. In my case, instead of investigating a road death, (confirmation bias hypotheses quickly saw to that one) Sussex Police spent thousands on discrediting me – and getting nastier and nastier in the process – why? Because I wouldn’t accept (1) being mocked in a mortuary by family liaision officers and the coroner’s officer when I had to identify my (misdescribed) dead mother and (2) putting an incompetent SIO in charge so she could earn some brownie points. You might not believe in numbers but to the general public who unwittingly, with no fault of our own, find ourselves faced with men and women in uniform (particularly those cretinous family liaision officers), we are just numbers; we are not even seen as human – which, incidentally is the same attitude as the Nazis took toward the Jews and disabled and gypsies etc . Lower scale, obviously, but the same mentality

    • Quite simply your opening sentence is 100% inaccurate and demonstrates that you are not in possession of FACTS but only what you would like to be the truth. Some complaints ARE False and Vexatious, deal with it. Regardless of what happened to you, you cannot extrapolate that and apply it to every conceivable circumstance and complaint. Some complaints are valid, some are not.

      • soontobegone says:

        Well said.
        It appears rdresearch has had one very unpleasant event, for which l offer my condolences. However unpleasant that was it does not correlate that all cases are like this.
        Of course, rdresearch, if you are as intelligent as you suggest, you already know this.

  4. rdresearch says:

    Unlike the writer of this blog, real research proves otherwise. And I haven’t had “one unpleasant event” though if that’s how you describe a road death you’re a funny man; as for being placed on a mental health database – I can assure you (as I am sure you know) this is a common practice of the police as many members of the public have testified to me. I suggest you study for an MSc in Policing or actually speak to real victims and real witnessness who have been involved in investigations but who are shut up by PSD and the iPCC. You want an indepdent complaints system where all police are exonerated. I note you don’t say ‘Yes, what happened to you is appalling’. No. Because you know how common such practices are – I am sure you have even partaken in them youself.

    • Now that you have resorted to accusing others of things which you can’t possibly know to be true, you leave me no alternative but to decline to moderate any future, defamatory comments. I have sympathy for your experiences but I do not recognise the practices you describe, and I’m completely unclear what the relevance of an MSc in Policing is. Do you have one? Any further comments of a defamatory nature will be ignored.

  1. April 7, 2015

    […] If a certain well known Danish Brewery did Professional Standards Departments they MIGHT align with my version.I would base it more or less on the model that existed in the Met in the late 90s under Sir Ian Blair.  […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: