gloryhornet

Resident Members
  • Content count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

gloryhornet last won the day on August 6 2011

gloryhornet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About gloryhornet

  • Rank
    Training
  • Birthday
  1. Spot on. It's in the government's interest to encourage a race to the bottom.
  2. Sounds like you need to be putting pressure on your housing association/local council to deal with the anti-social behaviour caused by their tenants (they have a legal obligation to do this).
  3. Firepower, I would suggest you read this: http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/public-sector-pensions-are-they-really-unaffordable-57/ It's about public sector pensions in general but basically explains the government lie. Their changes are ideological. If they came out and said that I might have a little more respect for them. Instead they claim they're unaffordable and need reforming accordingly. The police pension contributions go into the main Treasury pot. For years and years Police Officers paying into the pension were producing a surplus in the billions. If I recall correctly the Police Federation raised the issue of the likely upcoming swing to deficit some years ago and were ignored by the government of the day. Now we're there and they're wrecking a scheme which could have been managed much better earlier and avoided this. I should also point out the exact changes to the police pension scheme haven't been announced yet so it's difficult to comment without having the specifics to hand.
  4. Correct but really it was unlikely a judge ever would. It needs Parliament now to consider the implications of their legislation and to decide whether to overturn the judge's decision.
  5. Probably because it's a Daily Mail article so is likely to have over-exaggerated the whole episode and then missed out other 'inconvenient' details that didn't suit their agenda. I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it.
  6. I don't want to talk in any detail about the content of the Police National Computer on a public forum for obvious reasons but it's just factual in nature. There's no intelligence stored on it. I just can't get my head around how someone can justify expecting this record to be removed as well. Surely they should be lobbying employers and the US government and the like to not overplay the fact rather than trying to pretend it never happened?
  7. Where do you stand on records of an arrest being kept on the Police National Computer? I see there is an opinion that these should also be deleted where someone is innocent. Yet to my mind it is surely a simple fact - you've either been arrested or you haven't. Arrest does not imply guilt or criminality but only the suspicion of it. It's others (ie. The US government and certain employers) who stigmatise it.
  8. mediate - I believe the law you've been waiting for is the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Chapter 1 details all the amendments made. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/contents/enacted s63D(2)(b) PACE 1984 now covers firepower's scenario in that Chief Officers are obliged to destroy samples taken illegally or based on mistaken identity. s64 of PACE 1984 has been amended to cover the various circumstances in which DNA samples have to be destroyed.
  9. This was just a show trial, an unnecessary extravagance which the DPP decided to run to avoid further criticism aimed at the CPS. I suspect PC Harwood will not be a Metropolitan Police Constable for much longer. The four week public flogging he will endure at the hands of the IPCC will see to that. If I were him I'd be minded to resign the day before it begins and trot off into the sunset given the result seems a forgone conclusion anyway. SimonT is also spot on. The police tend to 'interact' with a lot of drugged up, alcoholic, sick/lame/injured and mentally ill folk. Often whole shifts on response go by without meeting a single person who can't be assigned one or more of those tags. People just don't know the reality and it's an inconvenient truth for the media so is never reported on.
  10. What do you mean by discrepancies? A spreadsheet for those who's forces haven't provided one would certainly be a useful tool to add to this site but how is going to be of any use to compare with?
  11. If the matter has gone to court then the interview tape would be the subject of the normal laws of disclosure. Ask your solicitor about these.
  12. An interesting concept put forward by the OP but not one I'd agree with. Why do any of us need to be warranted then? You might as well let the government crack on with total reform, ditch the office of Constable and create a private policing organisation from scratch. The system of Crown Servant, warranted powers, holding office etc is just a relic of the past right? I can see benefits to be had by making forces combine with one another. I can see benefits from some of the back office functions being outsourced and procurement being at least regionalised if not centralised. But any sort of privatised policing should be a no-no. These companies want to make a profit. They do it by taking a nice wedge from the government and signing contracts the terms of which are kept secret because of alleged 'commercial sensitivities'. They don't submit to outside scrutiny from the IPCC or even the likes of the Audit Commission because, whadda ya know, they're private companies. Then they start cutting back. There's no profit in running the system as it is now. So people are sacked, wages are squeezed, facilities are closed and procurement is done by the cheapest bidder. And what are you left with? Maybe what you deserve. My take is this - policing is one of a select few public services which shouldn't be run as a profit/loss interest. Yes, it's right and proper that money isn't unnecessarily wasted where possible. But if the cost of policing is £x billion then so be it. If a highly trained warranted detective costs say £150,000 to train (probably a lot more) how can you seriously sit there, write out all he does and put together some kind of budget training package to hire someone else from the private sector? Unfortunately this government has not played fair. They've told the public that it's all about saving money when in actual fact it's about their take on life. Idealism. They see the money that can be made - almost exclusively by them and their golf buddies with their non-executive directorships - if only they can break us. We must be doing something right if we're that ripe for asset stripping!
  13. The trouble is at worst G4S will take a bit of flak for a few weeks/months, will announce some kind of 'lessons will be learned' review which will result in an expensive re-branding and then they'll be back on track.
  14. Our force started paying it immediately. On response I've had around £100 a month so far. It's a disgrace that some forces haven't even sorted out the admin for it yet. I know it was dropped on them with only a month or so notice but it's not difficult.
  15. But they are spent immediately. Check the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 if you don't believe me. The issue is that on the one hand the law says you don't have to disclose cautions (so long as the 1974 Act applies to that job). Yet on the other hand the police can keep a record of them and disclose them to employers for CRB checks for anything.