But...there seems to be a view here that he resorts to sarcasm and the opposites don't. I don't think any of us are blameless in this respect - I've certainly posted comments that I would later have watered down. Conversely, I rather wish I'd been more on the nose the other night.
But to get back to the issue in question - I'm rather at a loss at why everything in that article is taken at face value as if he's the new messiah. If an ex-Commissioner wrote an article in The Guardian would you really not question anything he had to say? And that blinkered attitude here rather pisses me off.
I questioned whether the authors background was suitable for the post in question, but the reply I got completely ignored that aspect by Grufty before things resorted to a catfight.
I also said "I don't think he can have it both ways when he says "these statistics disclose a complaints system that fails to identify or punish the minority who abuse their office, and it serves the decent majority ill."", etc. Again this part was ignored in the catfight!
I also felt that the author of that article contradicted himself. His remark that the public can't call on the IPCC but that "Police officers are regular visitors to the IPCC, and staff make frequent visits to police professional standards (complaints handling) departments to discuss cases" makes the whole thing sound rather sinister IMO, whereas the reality of it is that this would be the officers leading the investigation not the rank and file, or those subject of the complaint.
Later he says "I handled the West Midlands, which has the second largest police force in the country, yet the IPCC has no office in the region, employs virtually no one from there and, since I left, has no commissioner resident in the region" which surely reinforces what I'm saying.
I guess what I'm saying is that the article is one persons view and it sounds like he has an agenda.