SOCA

#1
Serious Organised Crime Agency

"LONDON (Reuters) - The government will unveil plans today to create a national crime-fighting force modelled on the FBI, to tackle organised gangs who control the trade in drugs and illegal immigrants.

The body will merge more than 5,500 staff from four government agencies and will tackle drug trafficking, people smuggling and fraud."

And according to the ITV News it will be headed by the ex New York police chief.

Any thoughts...
 
#2
the idea can not be bad.
depends on the amount of imput from westminster. which i think will be great. this will be micro managed from downing st to make that tw#t at number ten look good. which must be a job that must be getting harder. :evil: :evil:
 
#5
I don't see that it will be headed by Bill Bratton.

His speciality is hi vis uniformed policing where as this is definatly a job for a career detective.

Trotsky's tips?

Chief Constable Michael Fuller or Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, both very senior and well respected detectives from ethnic minority backgrounds.



BUT at this organisation will not be part of the police I am sure a senior civil servant or lawyer will be appointed, probably from Customs and Excise as they are part of the all powerful treasury.

As for Bill Bratton, well the commish of the Met is due to retire next year and I would say his best bet is probably the yard,

Trotsky
 
#6
Forgive me for my ignorance but isn't this the job of NCIS already?

Is this another Blunkett; "Oh, something just happened so i'll get some PR by creating a new thing" type policy?

We don't need new agencies, we need more support for what we've already got.

This is where the spams come unstuck, they have the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, KFC and the new homelands security outfit and none of them talk to each other, it's a case of left hand and right hand over there.

By creating a new outfit in the UK to tackle organised crime, does this mean we haven't been dealing with it until now?
 
#7
One of the biggest problem facing the law in Britain has been not just lack of funding but lack of information sharing. Which is why so many organised groups, trafficking in anything from cigarettes to children are able to go on for so long.
The centralisation will pool resources streamline costing and allow the cases we see day and daily, Huntley, Black and all the other less high profile ones to be documented when they are committing less serious offences over the whole of the country then stored, called up and MO compared nationally, something the US have had the ability to do for over thirty years, allowing the early detection of probable offenders and there where abouts.
Is it a good thing, ask Caroline Hoggs mother.
Is it going to be effective, ask Jessica and Hollys parents how it might have changed things for them if Huntley had been properly checked and all his previous details uncovered.
 
L

Lady_Landy

Guest
#8
blessed baby cakes said:
Is it going to be effective, ask Jessica and Hollys parents how it might have changed things for them if Huntley had been properly checked and all his previous details uncovered.
Would this include every time he had been accused by anyone?
Do we really want a database of peoples unproven accusations stored on a National computer?
If enough evidence exists for a prosecution or a caution it should be stored but if there is not enough evidence or the complaint is not acted upon I don't believe the information should be stored (apart from police locally by their collator :wink: )
In my view unproven accusations should not be kept on National files as though they are valid and true and proven.
 
#9
Lady_Landy said:
blessed baby cakes said:
Is it going to be effective, ask Jessica and Hollys parents how it might have changed things for them if Huntley had been properly checked and all his previous details uncovered.
Would this include every time he had been accused by anyone?
Do we really want a database of peoples unproven accusations stored on a National computer?
If enough evidence exists for a prosecution or a caution it should be stored but if there is not enough evidence or the complaint is not acted upon I don't believe the information should be stored (apart from police locally by their collator :wink: )
In my view unproven accusations should not be kept on National files as though they are valid and true and proven.
for a CRB check yes they should be..would you like it to happen to any other kids or vulnerable people?
 
L

Lady_Landy

Guest
#10
ex-dvr1 said:
for a CRB check yes they should be..would you like it to happen to any other kids or vulnerable people?
If someone you piss off makes a false accusation against you to the Police- but there is no evidence- so the Police cannot act, do you still want that false accusation stored Nationally?
 
#12
Lady_Landy said:
ex-dvr1 said:
for a CRB check yes they should be..would you like it to happen to any other kids or vulnerable people?
If someone you piss off makes a false accusation against you to the Police- but there is no evidence- so the Police cannot act, do you still want that false accusation stored Nationally?
If an allegation is made and acted upon, then the system, i.e. the CPS, PF, or HO feels there is not enough evidence for a conviction, in the case of several high profile sex offenders, then yes that should be held...
People can access all sorts of information on individuals in oh so many ways, and for oh so many things.
If YOU have a problem, then YOU should argue that point and give reasons, and documented cases in which you feel these measures would be an infringement on the civil liberties of an individual.
For provable case of abuse within the system I will in turn provided a case where the system could have prevented an incident of abuse or death.

Although I have been told not to get into a mud-slinging match with some on this site....

However after many years working with and dealing on a daily bases with sex offenders and documenting the measures that SHOULD have brought them to justice sooner I fail to see that this is an argument that can be won...

I personally feel that if a person is wrongly accused once and it is held on the system, then if they are subsequently accused of the same offence the prior case has a very large bearing on the make-up of the individual.
 
#13
Could there not be a second layer of information held (perhaps for a specified length of time, as opposed to the rather woolley interpretaion that the DPA gives us at the moment) where info on "accusations/case not yet proven" type of scenarios can be kept?

It might be possible to allow access to this information, but perhaps not allow any of it as evidence in a current prosecution (unless that evidence can then be proved to be valid by the current investigation - for example, suspects being at a location at a certain time in the past could help support a current investigation).

As tax payer, I hate to think of all the millions of £s spent on police investigations that have gathered GBs of information that is just then chucked away.

Incidentally (and it is just incidentally) I am supporting a student of mine who is bringing a case against her ex-employer for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination. Her case is good enough for some very expensive solicitors to have taken it on on a no win no fee basis, and I will be a witness. Said ex-employer is now busy lining up various witnesses to conversations (or rather screaming from him) which we know, for a fact, were not present. The ex-employer claimed in a letter to have been trained in interrogation techniques by the CID and so knew he was allowed to secretly tape our meetings.................as you now guess, he is an ex-policeman. (btw, no tapes or transcripts have been produced)

I would like to think that the methods of this man are recorded somewhere, so the next time he acts illegally, the pattern of his behaviour can be recognised.
 
#15
This all well and good, but who decides what is a serious crime? A little old lady getting mugged for her pension in the street seems rather serious to me!!!
 
#16
Forgive me for my ignorance but isn't this the job of NCIS already?
Not in the sense that it replaces the NCIS, the investigation arms of the Inland Rvenue/ HM Customs & Excise and the IND as well as the Police IT Organisation. These organisations will cease to exist and funding for them will be transferred to SOCA.

I wait to be convinced that this will be an organisation with any teeth, and my fear of any central organisation is that with the ideology of this government they will be more focussed on socio-political agendas like "racism and sexism" (not that I am making light of either, but the emphasis seems to be on prosecuting thouhgt and soft crime than real problems) than on real criminal activity.
 
#17
Prodigal

Could there not be a second layer of information held (perhaps for a specified length of time, as opposed to the rather woolley interpretaion that the DPA gives us at the moment) where info on "accusations/case not yet proven" type of scenarios can be kept?
All information should be held for unlimited time. The beauty of a centralised computer is it can also tap into other systems, allowing for the ‘centralised’ sharing of information. This is a good thing as well, it will help discount people faster. Have you noticed how the whole country is now a network of computers and they all have the ability to prove/disprove a story? ‘It wasn’t me Gov. I was in Penzance cashing me giro!’ the DWP can track the giro, the PO can, in just about 90% of cases confirm/deny the story. In case you’re wondering how, the PO now has a centralised computer system as well.

It might be possible to allow access to this information, but perhaps not allow any of it as evidence in a current prosecution (unless that evidence can then be proved to be valid by the current investigation - for example, suspects being at a location at a certain time in the past could help support a current investigation).
There are levels in British law there always is. No previous held information can be used in a prosecution case. As to the idea they may have been in the vaccinate of a crime when previous contact with the police was necessary, I think that information has a direct bearing on the investigation if only to rule them out. That’s why the first thing to do in any investigation is discount the obvious, members of the general public….

As tax payer, I hate to think of all the millions of £s spent on police investigations that have gathered GBs of information that is just then chucked away.
Hopefully no longer the case.

Incidentally (and it is just incidentally) I am supporting a student of mine who is bringing a case against her ex-employer for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination. …..The ex-employer claimed in a letter to have been trained in interrogation techniques by the CID and so knew he was allowed to secretly tape our meetings…..I would like to think that the methods of this man are recorded somewhere, so the next time he acts illegally, the pattern of his behaviour can be recognised.
Proactively ALL information should be recorded on all no mirror cases, so, yes if the case goes to court, regardless of verdict it will be recorded and can be recalled if a similar situation ever arises again.

DPMGuy

This all well and good, but who decides what is a serious crime? A little old lady getting mugged for her pension in the street seems rather serious to me!!!
The decision has already been made. Just the system has to be eased in gently. It’s a crime of violence and would be recorded, the system is not meant to be ‘Big Brother’ but eventually the aim is it will hold information on every offence. Categorising them and having profiles assigned. We all know crime level is progressive, so today’s mugger of old ladies for their handbags can graduate to the full on house breaking and beating the occupant until they give you their pin number.

Woopert
Forgive me for my ignorance but isn't this the job of NCIS already?

Not in the sense that it replaces the NCIS, the investigation arms of the Inland Rvenue/ HM Customs & Excise and the IND as well as the Police IT Organisation. These organisations will cease to exist and funding for them will be transferred to SOCA.
New funding will also be made available, and like all Government projects, in the past, it will be performance related funding. (Okay that was sarcasm, we all know the Government can not be seen to fail in anything it initiates so will throw cash at it until it is at least limping on!)

I wait to be convinced that this will be an organisation with any teeth, and my fear of any central organisation is that with the ideology of this government they will be more focussed on socio-political agendas like "racism and sexism" (not that I am making light of either, but the emphasis seems to be on prosecuting thouhgt and soft crime than real problems) than on real criminal activity.
The decision to select crimes will now move from the political agenda, target related is the new buzz word for the SOCA, targets being set by independent measures on across the board non-transferable topics. Each department will still act autocratically to a degree, but being able to co-ordinate will be an advantage. Race and sex crimes will still be targeted, not that you even hinted at a suggestion they are of a lesser priority, but other target crimes will need to be met.

On a personal point if the centralisation of information means the whole system, which seems to have been running unchecked by public means is now in the public eye, it can only be a good thing. Next time we can ask why it wasn’t noted and know the lesson learned will be acted on at a national level.
 

New Posts