In reply to elsewhere:
> Ancient cases illustrating front line & senior officers did not identify the bad apples and made sure cases became ancient rather than tried in court. Individual & group psychology hasn't changed since then.
Except that in one example you say the activities of the investigators within the Met (who were praised by the inquest) don't actually seem to be worth considering.
In the other case you appear unclear that the basis of the complaints about police alleged perjury don't really have any bearings on bad apples and group psychology.
Then you dismiss one (of many) examples of routine police heroism as "bollocks".
And you seem to summarise that as an overall negative picture of the police.
> My position is that the public and not the police are usually the first to identify the bad apples.
> The officers only came forward because of videos made by the public. Including video showing no criminality in the immediate area other that of than PC Harwood, an absence of rioting and lots of photographers. In the immediate area they were policing mainly people after work. Including Ian Tomlinson trying but failing to get through police lines to get home.
This is simply wrong. The police came forward when it was identified that Tomlinson had died. This was before any photos or videos had even been obtained by the press, let alone published.
> Ian Tomlinson was the not even the first person assaulted by that officer that day and the officer's career had survived 13 previous complaints so I am cynical that a first conviction is a first offence or that the complaints procedure works to exclude bad apples.
> I can understand that individual complaints may be too weak but seems far beyond balance of probabilities that 13 complainants probably unknown to each other conspired to target one officer over 15 years.
It was 10 complaints over 12 years.
I have previously said that Simon Harwood was a disgrace and sacking was entirely reasonable.
> What was/is the procedure to decide on required balance of probabilities to sack somebody based on a pattern of behaviour is established from multiple complaints that are not upheld? Such a mechanism would mean Ian Tomlinson would have survived that day. The multiple failed complaints appear to have made PC Harwood confident enough in his knowledge of what he could get away with to assault a few people in a single day.
Complaints are investigated on balance of probabilities. But it should be noted that, being in the police, getting complaints can often be part of the job. We operate in an adversarial criminal justice system and mud thrown at an officer can deflect a criminal conviction of a suspect.
> If he'd pushed over somebody else or pushed over Ian Tomlinson slightly differently PC Harwood would probably have remained a police officer with a long established pattern of behaviour.
Harwood had a bizarre record - medical retirement, followed by joining another force, followed by transferring back to the Met, meant that his appalling conduct record was missed. The procedures have been tightened up massively since then including the introduction of a national barring list.
> I think there are some positive developments. Is it correct that an officer can no longer dodge a disciplinary by retiring and there is a national list of people not to be re-employed?
Yes. A national barring list. The "dodging a disciplinary" can also be viewed the other way round. A cop that knows he is ultimately going to be sacked can now stay at home earning a full wage whilst the disciplinary process drags on - with the sanction of losing his job ( not anything more serious like a criminal conviction) which he fully expects to do. That generates complaints of the public paying his wages whilst he sits at home. The ability to resign whilst on a discipline process has been a bit of a difficult one to resolve with it being allowed and not allowed at various times over the last ten years or so.