Police corruption

[buddy]

Just had a quick squint at the corruption of police forces since 2009. Really was a eye opener.
460 officers were suspended, and a further 200 were investigated. Almost 200 officers are suspended
for corruption every year.
By worse was Yorkshire police. but tellingly Essex police refused to disclose any information regarding
disciplinary action taken against it's officers.
It really is a state of affairs when 200 officers are suspended every year that's 1,400 officers since 2009.
Information is freely available on the net.
I wonder what the figure would have been in the 80,s

[nugnug]

well in the 80s it was a fact the policeman never did anything wrong so imagene it was much lower.

[Adam]

I always assumed police corruption was for financial gain.

Individual police on the take. Turning a blind eye for rich dodgy criminals in the area. In return the police may also get information from these big wigs about crime going on lower down the food chain.

You hear about the odd forced confession or innocent police mistakes in the heat of the moment.

[Adam]

The police win and lose cases in court. They also fail to get cases past the DPP when they believe the person is guilty. It goes with the job.

In the Bamber case, we are supposed to believe the police in unison fabricated a mountain of incriminating evidence to frame an innocent man. For no financial gain.

[buddy]

well in the 80s it was a fact the policeman never did anything wrong so imagene it was much lower.

No Nugs it was a lot worse in the eighties. Lots of cases were overturned from cases then.

[sandra L]

The police win and lose cases in court. They also fail to get cases past the DPP when they believe the person is guilty. It goes with the job.

In the Bamber case, we are supposed to believe the police in unison fabricated a mountain of incriminating evidence to frame an innocent man. For no financial gain.

Nearly 300 officers had their statements changed (with or without their knowledge) in the Hillsborough "investigation." Lies fed to the media from the off were perpetuated for years. Medical exams of the victims were manipulated and biased. The entire justice system turned a deliberate blind eye for 2 decades. And the Hillsborough disaster was played out in public view - how much easier to achieve the same ends in private?

Financial gain isn't necessarily a factor in police corruption (other than keeping their jobs.) In fact, police corruption, as such, isn't even a factor - it's the policing culture, then and now, that's the real problem - their view of themselves and their ability to "know" who are criminals, and what those criminals "probably did," coupled with a media willing to report any old nonsense, and a system designed to protect police officers and have their testimony accepted and believed, regardless of how illogical it may be.

[nugnug]

and those lies were perpretrated by kelvin mackenzie and the sun who also played a leading role in bambers conviction and a few others.

[lookout]

Liverpool is going for an all out ban on THAT newspaper entering its city.

[sandra L]

and those lies were perpretrated by kelvin mackenzie and the sun who also played a leading role in bambers conviction and a few others.

I read an academic article a few years back about particular publications which become "front-runners" or "fore-runners" (can't remember which, now.) Anyway, the deal is quite straightforward - the publication agrees to print all its coverage of a particular story in a way that is supportive of the official line, and in return, they get all the inside information, heads-ups for new developments, etc. That's why, for example, certain media personnel just happen to be in place when, say, a "surprise" dawn raid is about to take place. Or pictures which have only ever been in the hands of police as evidence (i.e. they've never been produced in court) mysteriously appear in these publications, having never before been in the public domain. Apparently it's a well known and accepted process which sometimes leads to rival publications vying with each other to be "chosen" as the front/fore runner.

What I find really interesting about it is the length of time the loyalty of such an arrangement continues, often for years, and even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary - while other publications, over time, may start to shift their positions, the front/fore runners remain immoveable in their approach - presumably to ensure they get chosen for the next big story?

[Stephanie]

What I find really interesting about it is the length of time the loyalty of such an arrangement continues, often for years, and even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary - while other publications, over time, may start to shift their positions, the front/fore runners remain immoveable in their approach - presumably to ensure they get chosen for the next big story?

Now this is interesting Sandra.

And this is what I have witnessed in relation to alleged miscarriages of justice cases.

I find it hypocritical and disingenuous that you aren't practicing what you preach about others.

[notsure]

I read an academic article a few years back about particular publications which become "front-runners" or "fore-runners" (can't remember which, now.) Anyway, the deal is quite straightforward - the publication agrees to print all its coverage of a particular story in a way that is supportive of the official line, and in return, they get all the inside information, heads-ups for new developments, etc. That's why, for example, certain media personnel just happen to be in place when, say, a "surprise" dawn raid is about to take place. Or pictures which have only ever been in the hands of police as evidence (i.e. they've never been produced in court) mysteriously appear in these publications, having never before been in the public domain. Apparently it's a well known and accepted process which sometimes leads to rival publications vying w
ith each other to be "chosen" as the front/fore runner.

What I find really interesting about it is the length of time the loyalty of such an arrangement continues, often for years, and even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary - while other publications, over time, may start to shift their positions, the front/fore runners remain immoveable in their approach - presumably to ensure they get chosen for the next big story?

interesting this, the cliff Richard story was similar. The BBC having been told of the raid with helicopters and such.

It's annoying they never hold there hands up and say they got it wrong they just talk around it until it goes away.

I would be interested to know how many of them get prosecuted.

[guest7363]

interesting this, the cliff Richard story was similar. The BBC having been told of the raid with helicopters and such.

It's annoying they never hold there hands up and say they got it wrong they just talk around it until it goes away.

I would be interested to know how many of them get prosecuted.

It was horrible what he went through Notsure.

[sandra L]

interesting this, the cliff Richard story was similar. The BBC having been told of the raid with helicopters and such.

It's annoying they never hold there hands up and say they got it wrong they just talk around it until it goes away.

I would be interested to know how many of them get prosecuted.

Not many would be my guess - apart from the phone hacking scandal, I can't think of any major enquiries into this sort of thing. The combination of the right of reporters not to reveal their sources and their tendency to claim that they published "in good faith" means they're generally covered. I was so pleased Christopher Jefferies sued the lot of them - and won, but again, that's rare.

I don't know how much effect media coverage has on outcomes of trials, but if we're asked to believe that people are encouraged to murder in the most brutal fashion because of videos they've seen etc, then that same reasoning would, you would imagine, apply to jurors who have been exposed to massively negative publicity about the individual in the dock?

[Stephanie]

I don't know how much effect media coverage has on outcomes of trials,

Yet you dedicated a whole chapter to this in you book No Smoke - Chapter 13

Page 205
Media coverage of criminal proceedings is. we believe, restricted by laws to ensure fairness.

"However, this is not always the case, and often, media coverage can, and does, have a direct impact on case. Sandra Lean

Selective memory or purposely misleading again?

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!

Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing. Have at it, Stephanie.

[sandra L]

I don't know how much effect media coverage has on outcomes of trials

Page 205
Media coverage of criminal proceedings is. we believe, restricted by laws to ensure fairness.

"However, this is not always the case, and often, media coverage can, and does, have a direct impact on case. Sandra Lean

We know media coverage has had impacts on some cases but there's not enough research on how much impact or on how many cases -the existence of "front-runners," for example, is not widely known about, but what would be the point of them if they did not (or at least were not believed to) have any impact on public perceptions and opinions?

If police investigators are encouraging and actively engaging in  the use of this type of media, they must be doing so for a reason. Since their goal is to obtain a conviction, by deduction, the use of "front-runners" is intended to garner public support for their chosen line. What we can't now for certain is how successful this approach is.

Would the public, generally, believe this is acceptable, or should it fall within the laws governing fairness and the right to a fair trial? Is it a well kept secret between police and the media for that very reason?