What I am saying is that the police who are speaking to them are the police who should be speaking to them. i.e. the people investigating, not just casual callers popping in for a cuppa and an attempt to influence.
how do you know that?
how do you also know that those who come in on legitimate business don't attempt to influence other things whilst there?
How do you know that they don't unduly influence the case they're involved with?
keith a wrote:
Well I'm not sure if you're suggesting that an IPCC deal with every single complaint or not. I would have thought it would be financially draining for an organisation to deal with the likes of "I didn't like the tone of his voice" type minor complaints that are likely to make up a significant amount of complaints.
I tihnk many on the business end of dubious policing do not have any faith in the complaints process. I think it seems plausible that a lot more than 0.8% of complaints warrant investigation. I think the police investigating themselves will have a bias in favour of the police. The fact that they are several times more likely to be exonerated than when independently investigated supports that.
keith a wrote:
if the IPCC are being 'cosied up' like that then it re-inforces my view that a background in housing and such-like is not the ideal preparation.
Why not? People retrain in all kinds of things - the only background that should exclude an independent investigator is one in the police.