Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by scotscop, Feb 9, 2004.

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. 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:
  3. Whoops, mis-read it - I thought this was the Submarine Old Comrades Association poaching for business!!
  4. So now we get our own Fox Mulder!

    No doubt funded by speed camera fines and lottery grants!
  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,

  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.
  8. 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. for a CRB check yes they should be..would you like it to happen to any other kids or vulnerable people?
  10. 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?
  11. Nine times out 10 the police do act!! it's the CPS that don't normally follow things up "as it's not in the public's interest"
  12. 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 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.
  14. Ventress

    Ventress LE Moderator

    I too was led astray, to those mad rum drinkers!
  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!!!