Dirty Cops let off

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by FNUSNU, Aug 9, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 'Scotland Yard chiefs have agreed a secret amnesty for more than 1,000 officers and staff who misused corporate credit cards, it has been revealed'.


    Those fckuers are vetted and are supposed to be of the highest integrity, they should be setting the standard. I suppose there is so many of them, sacking them all would do serious damage to the CT job the Police are doing. It should not go completely unpunnished though. Get them on JPA too, along with thegypo MPs!!
  2. Is it now official policy, then, that if enough people commit the same crime at once, they get let off en masse as it's too much like hard work to charge them all?
  3. <dons tinfoil hat>

    I just wonder if there is any corelation between those getting 'amnesty' and those looking at the 'accidental overclaiming' by MP's...
  4. In South Wales there are so many serving and ex officers on suspension and bail, that percentage wise it makes the South Wales Police an Organised Crime Gang
  5. Those who used their card incorrectly (and without malice) are getting guidance on using them correctly. Sounds ok to me.

    Those who abused their cards, or possibly committed fraud are getting investigated.

    So what is the problem?
  6. Not too sure why they need cards.
    £100 cash float accounted for each month was, as I remember, the way one force covered
    out of pocket expenses.

    Pool cars are fueled so what other purpose is there? and hardly covert- I assume they have Met Police somewhere on the card?

    No reason for any missuse so no amnesty!
  7. If true, this report demonstrates the depth of corruption amongst our Guardians of The Law. We must assume that these officers are not untypical - or are they specially selected on the basis of their criminality?

    It is a reasonable assumption therefore that the majority of the police are complicit - if not directly engaged in criminal activities themselves.

    What is depressing is the lack of public outrage. It seems that we now have accepted that everyone involved in Law Enforcement and Lawmaking is bent.
  8. How do you get from 1183 officers to the majority of officers then to everyone in Law Enforcement being bent?

    Your head is wobbling that much, it is apparent you cannot see straight.
  9. Whist in no way trying to excuse or defend genuine corruption and dishonesty, on reading the full article I find the Headline and first paragraph to be potentially misleading.

    Reading along...

    which is later explained as...

    ...which for all we know could be buying a train ticket or hiring a car on the wrong account, or even buying their son a birthday present and then paying it back - which to my mind is not crime, although probably a bit stupid really and obviously against the rules.

    If my rusty GCSE maths works, those 2 officers, plus the 3 that the article states have already been convicted, represent about 0.14% of those issued with a job credit card - IMO hardly widespread fraud and probably equal to, if not lower than, dishonesty in any other profession, although that is purely opinion. (If anyone can correct my maths please PM me the formula as I was struggling!)

    Lastly, I wonder who the source of this "secret amnesty" is? An MP hoping to divert attention away from their expenses, or to show that "eveybody is at it" perhaps?
  10. How do we know that cards were used 'incorrectly'? What would be the 'correct' use of such cards? And who has decided that some have used these cards 'without malice' On what basis?

    How do we know that those abusers or frauds are 'being investigated'? And so what? Why, if they are thought to have abused or committed fraud, are they not suspended and charged? This is now two and a half years down the line. How many will have 'retired', how many are still serving, how many have been suspended? These are serious allegations, yet it appears that they are allowed simply to continue in their jobs.

    It may well sound OK to you. Are you objecting to this news being published, then?

  11. So please explain why all these officers have not previously been reported by their colleagues? And you seem to think this only happens in one police force - is this so?

    And let's not start the usual ad hominem smokescreen garbage, eh?
  12. Because it says so in the article, and as we know everything in the media is true! :wink:

    Edited to add: My italics
  13. Why would I object to it being published?

    I was just pointing out that your rant about corruption being endemic with the Police is not borne out by this article.

    If they were all investigated, and all let off then you would have a point, but this does not seem to be the case.

    Stop foaming at the mouth, you sound like you are rabid.
  14. I take your point, however we have to work on the basis of what has been published, do we not? Unless anyone here has direct personal experience of this matter and can therefore contribute further (more accurate?) comment and fact, that is.
  15. unsworth the report says there being investigated, those that have committed crimes are being convicted and doing time.

    So if you believe the content of the report as true you have to believe all of it.

    those the report says have not committed criminal offences are undergoing training not to repeat any mistakes. That could mean using wrong account or showing it in the wrong account. So how are there colleagues going to inform on them if it was not a criminal act.

    IMHO corporate cards are more grief than there worth.