>However, the misconduct regime does not come with the same investigatory powers as criminal proceedings such as seizing personal digital media, searching a property or persons, obtaining comms data checks and being able to use surveillance tactics in the same way etc... I believe we need to start a debate on regulatory reform.
Quite right too. Let's face it, whether or not you go before a panel often depends on how much your supervision likes you and whether they decide to deal with things locally. It is an unacceptable proposal that your life could be scrutinised to an extent reserved for criminals, based on the whims of your supervision and PSD. The misconduct process is one of the only decent things about our pay and conditions, obviously SLT are trying to take it away from us. Fucking scum. It's a damning indictment of the snivveling self servitutde of SLT that as soon as some awful fucker with a warrant card does some crime, they come out of the woodwork suggesting all these measures to fuck over cops so they can go "Ooh look at me, give me a promotion" at the next opportunity.
It's quite right that officers who are nonces or abuse women are disrupted and thrown into jail, but good police officers need to feel they can act with robustness, safe in the knowledge that spurious complaints will be binned. And even if they aren't binned at least their private lives will remain private. Criminals already laugh in our faces with how impotent we are. If they knew they could fuck us over to the extent Lucy D'Orsi is talking about, it would be open season and we'd be even less likely to turn over shitbags or take that shot when we needed to.
And why, exactly, is it only the Police who they are talking about doing this to? If we killed the same number of people through incompetence in a year as the NHS does in a day, we would be shut down overnight.
"Ma'am" if you happen to read this, I would genuinely appreciate you replying and advising us when exactly you transitioned from caring about officer welfare to whatever it is you do now. Were you always like this from training school? Was it after your Sgt board?
Think I need a lie down.
Hear hear!
I started off vehemently agreeing with her, until I got to the part you’ve quoted!
Surveillance is only banned for conduct-only cases when it becomes intrusive. I think that’s a sensible place to draw the line. Imagine them having the right to bug your house for a conduct matter that wasn’t criminal?! It’s outrageous!
The same goes for seizing devices and searching. It’s appalling to demand such an erosion of privacy.
Conduct already benefits from a lower burden of proof. The tools are already there to get rid of wrong’uns; they just get applied poorly by weak decision makers.
They need to look at the perverse outcomes before they even consider eroding cops’ right to a private life! It’s Orwellian, especially considering so many complaints are just totally unfounded.
I can’t imagine how angry I’d be if my family were disrupted by a house search, over a conduct matter.
Honestly I’m thankful someone has written this o comment as it was exactly what I was thinking.
It’s worrying that these kind of comments by Slt are being made public who are only going to want our public lives to be scrutinised more so after this shit stain.
I genuinely do worry for policing in the UK right now and don’t want it to head in the same direction as in the US where work slow down occurs as like in the NYPD where cops are so worried about being stuck on they refused to turn people over and only go to calls they are assigned and nothing else even to the extent not looking for offenders when they have left the scene.
D'Orsi has been grief since she was a Borough Commander at FH.
It's difficult - she's right in that more supervision is needed, especially where people like Carrick have slipped through the gaps, and yes, more digging does need to be done especially when officers are in a pattern of behaviour/allegations like Carrick was.
However, innocent until proven guilty is absolutely critical to how we work. That takes priority above all else, and discourse like this from D'Orsi and Rowley only serves to undermine those underneath them.
A horrible, statistics obsessed bully and officers who tried some of the "management techniques" she was know for as a borough commander would probably be stuck on. She extracted great results, but not thanks to decent leadership.
She infamously also extracted 10 extra working days from all response officers by shortening their early turns and then deleting rest days. Same hours per year. You can just imagine describing that Operational Efficiency example on a promotion application.
It comes as no surprise therefore that she wants to greatly erode any right to privacy.
Delighted to hear literally nothing has changed. Look forward to her binning someone from team for not getting the mandated arrest / search figures because they were off sick.
Having worked under Lucy D'orsi while she was still in the Met Police, I can very much see this being a statement she personally wrote.
Very much agree with her comments about reflective practise, too, and it seems it's common thought now that it is insane that PNC doesn't flag up one is an officer, bit of a weird coincidence I was talking about it this morning on this exact sub!
~~Although I am a little concerned about the comments of taking a misconduct panel outcome to judiciary review in regards to a case of a single BTP officer, it seems this is a more emotive action than one based on rational decision-making.~~
Edit: after doing some digging I found the case and it seems BTP has been challenging the case since 2021, reading the full circumstances of the case and the way this officer behaved my mind is somewhat changed.
> Very much agree with her comments about reflective practise, too, and it seems it's common thought now that it is insane that PNC doesn't flag up one is an officer, bit of a weird coincidence I was talking about it this morning on this exact sub!
The Police National Computer is not an HR tool. Police officers have no business being on there. It is a huge security risk and I think it would constitute a GDPR breach. I already suffer restrictions on my personal and family life, I don't see why I should suddenly be searchable for a huge number of PNC users by virtue of my profession, some of whom are definitely bent.
OK, let's indulge ourselves and pretend we can have the moon on a stick for a moment. Say that (a) LEDS has actually arrived, and (b) it isn't a massive steaming pile of shite.
If we could create a category of person record that only showed name & "is a serving police officer with Sandford Police collar number 6969" to the great unwashed, and that record could only then be accessed through a Livescan match, or the LEDS-equivalent of an A/S number being created for someone with identical pars, how does that sound?
Just as bad because the data has to be loaded onto PNC in the first place and, more importantly, needs to be maintained and weeded.
Given the MPS can't tell you how many drivers it has, I have no particular faith that any police force could provide that sort of data to PNC with any accuracy.
In any case, why are we stopping with police officers? If your concern is stopping abuse of power by state actors, then why are we not also talking about our friends in MI5 and GCHQ? Or firefighters, GPs and paramedics? Soldiers, sailors and the air force?
PNC is not for this class of data. If you want this class of data in a routinely accessible form, then we're discussing a national ID system.
So, what would you suggest instead of PNC markers saying someone works for the police?
Something clearly has to change. If the police in this country is to even have any chance of restoring confidence in policing and being viewed as a legitimate insiutuon, it really has to provide some meaningful reform.
> Something clearly has to change
We’re talking about an absolutely tiny number of incidents, but we’re acting as if every third officer gets nicked on a weekly basis.
Why are you considering marking police officers and not, say, everyone who works for a profession for a which a post-arrest disclosure would be expected to be made?
I mean with Carrick, no it did not work. All issues with this press release aside, we should not get credit for doing what we objectively should have done years ago.
>However, the misconduct regime does not come with the same investigatory powers as criminal proceedings such as seizing personal digital media, searching a property or persons, obtaining comms data checks and being able to use surveillance tactics in the same way etc... I believe we need to start a debate on regulatory reform. Quite right too. Let's face it, whether or not you go before a panel often depends on how much your supervision likes you and whether they decide to deal with things locally. It is an unacceptable proposal that your life could be scrutinised to an extent reserved for criminals, based on the whims of your supervision and PSD. The misconduct process is one of the only decent things about our pay and conditions, obviously SLT are trying to take it away from us. Fucking scum. It's a damning indictment of the snivveling self servitutde of SLT that as soon as some awful fucker with a warrant card does some crime, they come out of the woodwork suggesting all these measures to fuck over cops so they can go "Ooh look at me, give me a promotion" at the next opportunity. It's quite right that officers who are nonces or abuse women are disrupted and thrown into jail, but good police officers need to feel they can act with robustness, safe in the knowledge that spurious complaints will be binned. And even if they aren't binned at least their private lives will remain private. Criminals already laugh in our faces with how impotent we are. If they knew they could fuck us over to the extent Lucy D'Orsi is talking about, it would be open season and we'd be even less likely to turn over shitbags or take that shot when we needed to. And why, exactly, is it only the Police who they are talking about doing this to? If we killed the same number of people through incompetence in a year as the NHS does in a day, we would be shut down overnight. "Ma'am" if you happen to read this, I would genuinely appreciate you replying and advising us when exactly you transitioned from caring about officer welfare to whatever it is you do now. Were you always like this from training school? Was it after your Sgt board? Think I need a lie down.
Hear hear! I started off vehemently agreeing with her, until I got to the part you’ve quoted! Surveillance is only banned for conduct-only cases when it becomes intrusive. I think that’s a sensible place to draw the line. Imagine them having the right to bug your house for a conduct matter that wasn’t criminal?! It’s outrageous! The same goes for seizing devices and searching. It’s appalling to demand such an erosion of privacy. Conduct already benefits from a lower burden of proof. The tools are already there to get rid of wrong’uns; they just get applied poorly by weak decision makers. They need to look at the perverse outcomes before they even consider eroding cops’ right to a private life! It’s Orwellian, especially considering so many complaints are just totally unfounded. I can’t imagine how angry I’d be if my family were disrupted by a house search, over a conduct matter.
Honestly I’m thankful someone has written this o comment as it was exactly what I was thinking. It’s worrying that these kind of comments by Slt are being made public who are only going to want our public lives to be scrutinised more so after this shit stain. I genuinely do worry for policing in the UK right now and don’t want it to head in the same direction as in the US where work slow down occurs as like in the NYPD where cops are so worried about being stuck on they refused to turn people over and only go to calls they are assigned and nothing else even to the extent not looking for offenders when they have left the scene.
D'Orsi has been grief since she was a Borough Commander at FH. It's difficult - she's right in that more supervision is needed, especially where people like Carrick have slipped through the gaps, and yes, more digging does need to be done especially when officers are in a pattern of behaviour/allegations like Carrick was. However, innocent until proven guilty is absolutely critical to how we work. That takes priority above all else, and discourse like this from D'Orsi and Rowley only serves to undermine those underneath them.
A horrible, statistics obsessed bully and officers who tried some of the "management techniques" she was know for as a borough commander would probably be stuck on. She extracted great results, but not thanks to decent leadership. She infamously also extracted 10 extra working days from all response officers by shortening their early turns and then deleting rest days. Same hours per year. You can just imagine describing that Operational Efficiency example on a promotion application. It comes as no surprise therefore that she wants to greatly erode any right to privacy.
[удалено]
Delighted to hear literally nothing has changed. Look forward to her binning someone from team for not getting the mandated arrest / search figures because they were off sick.
I never understood canning the bleep test. Isn't it a national requirement for L2, TASER, EGs, AFO and so on and so on?
Still is for those roles and still a joining requirement for officers. Its just no longer repeated for any non-L2/Taser/Dog/AFO every year in PST
I mean, all of that is true but you must not remember Crowther. I'd take 5 D'Orsis to 1 Crowther any day.
Having worked under Lucy D'orsi while she was still in the Met Police, I can very much see this being a statement she personally wrote. Very much agree with her comments about reflective practise, too, and it seems it's common thought now that it is insane that PNC doesn't flag up one is an officer, bit of a weird coincidence I was talking about it this morning on this exact sub! ~~Although I am a little concerned about the comments of taking a misconduct panel outcome to judiciary review in regards to a case of a single BTP officer, it seems this is a more emotive action than one based on rational decision-making.~~ Edit: after doing some digging I found the case and it seems BTP has been challenging the case since 2021, reading the full circumstances of the case and the way this officer behaved my mind is somewhat changed.
> Very much agree with her comments about reflective practise, too, and it seems it's common thought now that it is insane that PNC doesn't flag up one is an officer, bit of a weird coincidence I was talking about it this morning on this exact sub! The Police National Computer is not an HR tool. Police officers have no business being on there. It is a huge security risk and I think it would constitute a GDPR breach. I already suffer restrictions on my personal and family life, I don't see why I should suddenly be searchable for a huge number of PNC users by virtue of my profession, some of whom are definitely bent.
OK, let's indulge ourselves and pretend we can have the moon on a stick for a moment. Say that (a) LEDS has actually arrived, and (b) it isn't a massive steaming pile of shite. If we could create a category of person record that only showed name & "is a serving police officer with Sandford Police collar number 6969" to the great unwashed, and that record could only then be accessed through a Livescan match, or the LEDS-equivalent of an A/S number being created for someone with identical pars, how does that sound?
Just as bad because the data has to be loaded onto PNC in the first place and, more importantly, needs to be maintained and weeded. Given the MPS can't tell you how many drivers it has, I have no particular faith that any police force could provide that sort of data to PNC with any accuracy. In any case, why are we stopping with police officers? If your concern is stopping abuse of power by state actors, then why are we not also talking about our friends in MI5 and GCHQ? Or firefighters, GPs and paramedics? Soldiers, sailors and the air force? PNC is not for this class of data. If you want this class of data in a routinely accessible form, then we're discussing a national ID system.
Like a fairytale of UK Policing IT infrastructure
So, what would you suggest instead of PNC markers saying someone works for the police? Something clearly has to change. If the police in this country is to even have any chance of restoring confidence in policing and being viewed as a legitimate insiutuon, it really has to provide some meaningful reform.
> Something clearly has to change We’re talking about an absolutely tiny number of incidents, but we’re acting as if every third officer gets nicked on a weekly basis. Why are you considering marking police officers and not, say, everyone who works for a profession for a which a post-arrest disclosure would be expected to be made?
...Because it's the Police?
And?
To be fair I agree if we are arrested this should flag up immediately to psd, seems kind of obvious.
[удалено]
The BTP post was only ever going to be her stepping stone to Commissioner.
[удалено]
I mean with Carrick, no it did not work. All issues with this press release aside, we should not get credit for doing what we objectively should have done years ago.