UK police brutality WHITEWASH. What a surprise!

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

There seems to be a general willingness to let police officers retire on medical grounds rather than face a disciplinary tribunal. Look at what happened to Duckenfield. He got such serious depression and PTSD as a result of what he allowed to happen at Hillsborough that he was allowed to retire early. This stopped all disciplinary procedures.

Rolfe.

Please evidence your claim about allowing ill health retiral to allow avoiding discipline. I for one would like to see no form of retiral or resignation allowed if facing discipline, other than service retirement, but still bound to face discipline.

Is there a case that Duckenfield was a decent guy who made a horrific mistake, stupidly was part of an attempted coverup and is now paying the price with depression and PTSD?

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Please evidence your claim about allowing ill health retiral to allow avoiding discipline. I for one would like to see no form of retiral or resignation allowed if facing discipline, other than service retirement, but still bound to face discipline.

Is there a case that Duckenfield was a decent guy who made a horrific mistake, stupidly was part of an attempted coverup and is now paying the price with depression and PTSD?

when the stupidity raises to the level of a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice the price to be paid is not depression and PTSD.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Theres also the case of Martin Tiplady OBE who was allowed to retire after ruining the Met's HR system, despite the fact that he was being investigate for having his hand up his subordinate's skirt.

[Nessie]

I would like to see some figures, otherwise this smacks of a mission to discredit without fact checking.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Please evidence your claim about allowing ill health retiral to allow avoiding discipline. I for one would like to see no form of retiral or resignation allowed if facing discipline, other than service retirement, but still bound to face discipline.

I merely said it seemed to be something that was often allowed. It happened to Harwood, although clearly his condition was reversible, and it happened to Duckenfield. In both cases it resulted in disciplinary proceedings being dropped.

I believe I have heard of other similar cases, but I haven't made a systematic study of it.

Originally Posted by Nessie

Is there a case that Duckenfield was a decent guy who made a horrific mistake, stupidly was part of an attempted coverup and is now paying the price with depression and PTSD?

I think I said in the relevant thread that I had some sympathy with Duckenfield. He was quite clearly not up to the job by some way, but if he hadn't been put in charge of a disaster waiting to happen, that might never have been realised.

I imagine it's difficult to fake PTSD. However, the fact remains that as a result the disciplinary charges against him were dropped and he was allowed to retire, no more said about it. Also, other disciplinary charges were dropped on the grounds of fairness - if the senior officer who was most heavily responsible wasn't being disciplined, then it would be unfair to discipline others.

Policemen are generally supposed to have a bit more "fortitude and phlegm" than the average punter. The job requires people to witness things the ordinary man in the street doesn't usually see. David Duckenfield didn't see as much as some that day so far as I can tell, but I imagine knowing he was responsible played a part too. It's obvious from the evidence that he fell to pieces. I don't know what to think about someone who makes it to such a senior police rank then falls to pieces under these circumstances.

However, in what other situation would someone be spared the consequences of their actions, just because they fell apart at the seams afterwards? Especially if their actions killed 96 people?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I would like to see some figures, otherwise this smacks of a mission to discredit without fact checking.

We're having a discussion on the internet. That's hardly a "mission". We note that in the two high profile cases currently under discussion, a policeman was allowed to retire rather than face disciplinary proceedings. We note we recall other similar cases.

If this is a very rare occurrence, perhaps you could look into the figures yourself?

Rolfe.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

.....

Policemen are generally supposed to have a bit more "fortitude and phlegm" than the average punter. The job requires people to witness things the ordinary man in the street doesn't usually see. David Duckenfield didn't see as much as some that day so far as I can tell, but I imagine knowing he was responsible played a part too. It's obvious from the evidence that he fell to pieces. I don't know what to think about someone who makes it to such a senior police rank then falls to pieces under these circumstances.

However, in what other situation would someone be spared the consequences of their actions, just because they fell apart at the seams afterwards? Especially if their actions killed 96 people?

Rolfe.

He could have risen through the ranks doing admin, not actual police work. That happens all of the time. Actual policing is limited to PCs and Sergeants, with the odd Inspector. From Chief Inspector and above they very rarely see any form of police work apart from the occasional operation, like a football match. Even then they spend their time away from what is really going on and in a control room.

Falling ill after it all goes horribly wrong is true for many people and occupations, from General Pinochet to Ernest Saunders.

[Rolfe]

Yes, I agree. I said as much in the other thread. He wasn't up to that job, but if there hadn't been a dangerous stadium and a string of other contributing factors, that might never have become apparent.

I have sympathy for that, but on the other hand this business of retiring on medical grounds then escaping all censure grates, because it's not the only time it's happened. I think a lot of people feel that they would not be allowed to pull the same trick if their negligence caused 96 deaths, so why should a policeman? I like your examples by the way!

I think maybe this is a topic for the other thread though, as this one is about Harwood.

To get back to Harwood, I see he has been sacked with extreme prejudice. However, Patel's incompetence saved him from a manslaughter conviction, and it appears that the Met specifically requested Patel do the post mortem despite his known incompetence. Possibly because of his known incompetence?

It doesn't look good.

Rolfe.

[Nessie]

That suggests Patel was so bad a botched result was guaranteed. So why was he allowed to still practice?

[Rolfe]

You'll have to take that one up with the GMC. They are rather inclined to give incompetent doctors repeated chances to mend their ways. Another old boys club looking after its own, in some respects.

Rolfe.