Dirty Cops let off

#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'.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090809/tuk-met-amnesty-for-credit-card-abuse-6323e80.html

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!!
 
B

BambiBasher

Guest
#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
FNUSNU said:
'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'.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090809/tuk-met-amnesty-for-credit-card-abuse-6323e80.html

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!!
<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
Internal auditors decided 1,183 people who used a card, but did not break the law, should be put to one side and labelled "category B". These cases included those who purchased personal items and later repaid the money or bought equipment that should have been purchased by other means.

Meanwhile, claims found to be "potentially unacceptable", including cases of suspected fraud, were labelled "category A" and passed to anti-corruption detectives. Inquiries into abuse of the credit card system by officers are expected to continue until next March, two and a half years after they first began.
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
Unsworth said:
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.
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...

1,183 Metropolitan Police employees broke rules governing the use of American Express charge cards"
which is later explained as...

These cases included those who purchased personal items and later repaid the money or bought equipment that should have been purchased by other means
...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.

A total of 3,533 officers and staff were issued with the cards and at one point £3.7 million of public money was unaccounted for. The majority of this money has been paid back, but legal action is expected against two officers who owe £82,000 and £1,100
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
ringdoby said:
Internal auditors decided 1,183 people who used a card, but did not break the law, should be put to one side and labelled "category B". These cases included those who purchased personal items and later repaid the money or bought equipment that should have been purchased by other means.

Meanwhile, claims found to be "potentially unacceptable", including cases of suspected fraud, were labelled "category A" and passed to anti-corruption detectives. Inquiries into abuse of the credit card system by officers are expected to continue until next March, two and a half years after they first began.
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?
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
ringdoby said:
Unsworth said:
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.
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.

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
Unsworth said:
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 (alleged) 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?
Because it says so in the article, and as we know everything in the media is true! :wink:

Edited to add: My italics
 
#13
Unsworth said:
....wibble....
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
Squiggles said:
Unsworth said:
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 (alleged) 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?
Because it says so in the article, and as we know everything in the media is true! :wink:

Edited to add: My italics
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.
 
#16
Unsworth said:
And let's not start the usual ad hominem smokescreen garbage, eh?
Fair one. Criminals should be exposed and punished - regardless of profession, but people who make a non-criminal mistake or error of judgment should be educated not criminalised.

Let's also not start another Arrse Police-bashing thread either.
 
#17
ringdoby said:
Unsworth said:
....wibble....
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.
A simple Yes or No would have been sufficient. Rabid? Well as I said, let's not start the usual ad hominem stuff eh?

Just explain whether this is an isolated grouping of officers or whether this is a commonplace. Does this happen elsewhere? If so then my claim is valid. If not, then how did this grouping only appear within the Met?
 
#18
Tsgbunny1 said:
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.
My bold:

Yes indeed it could. Equally it might not. What does the Report say? And does the Report say that there are no others who will be prosecuted?
 
#19
I can't answer your questions, I am not police nor do I have anything to do with their systems or procedures.

I was trying to make the point that you seemed to have read into the article more that was actually printed, and used this as leverage to call all serving officers' integrity into question
 
#20
Unsworth said:
Yes indeed it could. Equally it might not. What does the Report say? And does the Report say that there are no others who will be prosecuted?
Which brings us back my my original point, the article is potentially misleading. It leaves a lot of gaps that some people reading will fill in their minds. It creates a lot of questions and answers very few, from both sides of the argument.

I wish they wouldn't report these things unless/until they have the full facts for which the reader to form an educated opinion.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads