3 ms·

And the fact that he initially blatantly lied about AI being used

by jaapz 9mo ago

throwaway85825 9mo ago
There were multiple failings.
chrisjj 9mo ago
We do not know he lied.
- ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
  > On 6 January, Guildford told MPs on the home affairs committee that officers had found this material through a Google search that did not involve use of AI functions. "We do not use AI," he said in evidence to MPs. Yes, he lied to MPs.
  - chrisjj 9mo ago
    That requires but fails to show intent to deceive. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midlands-police-chief-apologises-ai-error-maccabi-tel-aviv-ban https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midland... “I had understood and been advised that the match had been identified by way of a Google search in preparation for attending HAC. My belief that this was the case was honestly held and there was no intention to mislead the committee.”
    - ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
      Maybe in a court of law, but "lying" is generally understood as making an untrue statement from a position of supposed knowledge, which this certainly is. It's an often used trick to make an absolute statement about something and then when later found out, they deny that they knew the specifics despite being in a position where that knowledge would be very much part of their job. Accountability is what we need rather than weasel words and assurances that can't be trusted. He certainly wasn't telling the truth.
      - chrisjj 9mo ago
        > Maybe in a court of law Common usage too. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
        ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
        I think you're being disingenuous as that's just one meaning of "lying". From your supplied link there's also: an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood. The point is that it was part of his job to know the answers to the questions put to him by the MPs which is why they were asking him those questions. If he didn't know the answer, then he should have made that clear, though that should also be grounds to get rid of him if he's that useless. If he wasn't deliberately lying (i.e. unintentionally lying), then that suggests incompetence and would be ample grounds to get rid of him. Anyhow, I'm not interested in arguing semantics as the MPs were misled by him and it may be impossible to determine his exact state of knowledge at the time or his intentions.
        chrisjj 9mo ago
        I think "he initially blatantly lied" does somewhat indicate the lie was the intended type. > If he didn't know the answer, then he should have made that clear That would have required him to know his knowledge was inaccurate. He says he didn't know. And though I'd agree about the likely impossibility of an exact determination, we are getting an investigation https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glp75xr6zo.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g...
        ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
        Fair enough - I wouldn't have used the term "blatantly" as it does seem as likely down to incompetence. I think that public officials need to be kept to a high standard of accuracy when responding to MPs. I've mentioned in some other thread how this can be compared with the Post Office scandal where the Post Office (can't remember who in particular) made explicit statements to MPs about the accuracy of the Horizon system. I welcome that investigation.

And the fact that he initially blatantly lied about AI being used

by jaapz 9mo ago

And the fact that he initially blatantly lied about AI being used

throwaway85825 9mo ago

There were multiple failings.

chrisjj 9mo ago

We do not know he lied.

ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
> On 6 January, Guildford told MPs on the home affairs committee that officers had found this material through a Google search that did not involve use of AI functions. "We do not use AI," he said in evidence to MPs. Yes, he lied to MPs.
- chrisjj 9mo ago
  That requires but fails to show intent to deceive. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midlands-police-chief-apologises-ai-error-maccabi-tel-aviv-ban https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/14/west-midland... “I had understood and been advised that the match had been identified by way of a Google search in preparation for attending HAC. My belief that this was the case was honestly held and there was no intention to mislead the committee.”
  - ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
    Maybe in a court of law, but "lying" is generally understood as making an untrue statement from a position of supposed knowledge, which this certainly is. It's an often used trick to make an absolute statement about something and then when later found out, they deny that they knew the specifics despite being in a position where that knowledge would be very much part of their job. Accountability is what we need rather than weasel words and assurances that can't be trusted. He certainly wasn't telling the truth.
    - chrisjj 9mo ago
      > Maybe in a court of law Common usage too. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
      - ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
        I think you're being disingenuous as that's just one meaning of "lying". From your supplied link there's also: an inaccurate or untrue statement; falsehood. The point is that it was part of his job to know the answers to the questions put to him by the MPs which is why they were asking him those questions. If he didn't know the answer, then he should have made that clear, though that should also be grounds to get rid of him if he's that useless. If he wasn't deliberately lying (i.e. unintentionally lying), then that suggests incompetence and would be ample grounds to get rid of him. Anyhow, I'm not interested in arguing semantics as the MPs were misled by him and it may be impossible to determine his exact state of knowledge at the time or his intentions.
        chrisjj 9mo ago
        I think "he initially blatantly lied" does somewhat indicate the lie was the intended type. > If he didn't know the answer, then he should have made that clear That would have required him to know his knowledge was inaccurate. He says he didn't know. And though I'd agree about the likely impossibility of an exact determination, we are getting an investigation https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glp75xr6zo.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g...
        ndsipa_pomu 9mo ago
        Fair enough - I wouldn't have used the term "blatantly" as it does seem as likely down to incompetence. I think that public officials need to be kept to a high standard of accuracy when responding to MPs. I've mentioned in some other thread how this can be compared with the Post Office scandal where the Post Office (can't remember who in particular) made explicit statements to MPs about the accuracy of the Horizon system. I welcome that investigation.