3 ms·
The UK has the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) which is the latest version of oversight that has only existed for about 20 years, once it became in
by altacc 4y ago
The UK has the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) which is the latest version of oversight that has only existed for about 20 years, once it became increasingly clear how bias, corrupt and insular policing was. No system is perfect but it is having a good effect. They are independent and can investigate whatever they want and take referrals from the public and within the police. Any police interaction that results in a death or serious injury of anyone immediately triggers an investigation.
- lostlogin 4y agoI’m not sure that they are that highly regarded - especially given that one goal is to protect public confidence in the police. The criticism is pretty strong. https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretending-this-police-watchdog-is-independent/ https://novaramedia.com/2022/11/21/why-are-we-still-pretendi...
- pjc50 4y agoNot sure that's really helped with the recent reports about the Met.
- mrguyorama 4y agoI would take a smaller amount of the same problems over what we have right now in the states. Baby steps.
- goldenkey 4y agoHow did the IOPC handle the disappearance of all of the documents implicating high level officials in pedophilia, kidnapping, and murder? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_paedophile_dossier
- autoexec 4y agoI don't understand that scandal. It sounds like in 1981 this Dickens guy claimed to have discovered a ring of pedos, and using some special free speech power he publicly named one of the members, then assembled a 40 page document that listed 8 super powerful people who were supposedly involved in the ring because he wanted them all exposed. So a few years later in 1984 he hands his dossier over to another guy in Parliament, and it was supposed to go to the police, but then a bunch of it went "missing" so now everyone wants to know who the 8 people were and who covered it up, but why is there even a mystery about the people named in that dossier? For like 11 years after Dickens handed over the dossier he could have just said who they were. He still had that same immunity he used to name the first one and could have told the world, but he apparently just decided not to even after seeing nothing came from his "explosive" report that was supposed to change everything, and even after having previously threatened to do exactly that and use his immunity to name the others. So, why didn't he just do it? Why is the question all about where this guys one pedo report went. He knew what it said. Why didn't he just type up another one? Why not a bunch of them? How did he end up being the only person to get this information in the first place? He said that he'd been threatened after naming that first guy, but that didn't stop him from compiling and turning over his dossier. I guess maybe the 8 powerful mystery people threatened him harder until he shut up, but if we can't blame him for not just saying who they were because of those threats, how can the IOPC or anyone else who tried to investigate it later be blamed. Couldn't they have been threatened into silence the same way? It's really messed up if its all true, but the whole thing seems full of holes and uncertainty. Then again, that's just what I managed to get out of Wikipedia so what am I missing?
- Someone1234 4y agoSince the IOPC wouldn't exist for another four years, I'd imagine they didn't handle it at all.
- stuaxo 4y agoHow independent is it ... i.e. how staffed by ex-police is it ?