Fly-on-the-Wall Police TV Show

Sorting out my son would trump anything.

He was an ex copper by the way. I wonder if he pretended to be a current one?
Unless or until you provide a link to the story, we will never know.
But I suspect that ex-coppers are still expected to abide by the rules of etiquette.
Perhaps there were other acceptable actions open to him that he did not or refused to consider.
 
Sponsored Links
Quick google, I haven't read it yet but it's the same guy on the TV

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.da...-detective-fired-catching-son-s-attacker.html
Thanks for that, Ian, and well done to you for finding it and providing it.

But despite all our contempt for the criminals, despondency for the
colleagues (who) had bungled the manhunt
and our
sympathy for the victims, my original suggestion, and subsequent suggestion still applies: there is professional etiquette to be respected, and there were other ways that he could have influenced the case without becoming directly involved.
Furious this had been overlooked, he approached the bar manager asking to see the footage..........
Angered, Pete fired off an email to the division head. ‘I said: “My son was nearly killed last week and he’s been charged with this? This has been an absolute disgrace from start to finish.”
There was no mention at all about him being disciplined. He resigned, then claimed constructive dismissal.
Yet instead of being commended for his actions, Pete was himself investigated for ‘inappropriate involvement in the inquiry’.
Today, he is no longer a police officer, having retired in disgust from Greater Manchester Police in February after 31 years’ service.
There was however a mention that due to his direct interference and involvement, it complicated the trial, and perhaps reduced the sentencing of the criminal.
If he had respected professional etiquette and approached the situation without becoming directly involved, I suspect the outcome would be very different, but I do accept that when one's kith and kin are attacked it is difficult to retain professional integrity.
 
I am shocked at your attitude Wannabe; your an appologist for an inept system, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I was well aware of the article before it was even posted on here, so I was talking from having read about it, yet all you've done is to justify "proffesional etiquete".

It would seem that you've read the article with the intention of justifying your position. Pete did try to get the case investigated properly, and when he managed that, the CCTV didn't get to the bail hearing on time, so the perpertator got bail. When the police deciced to charge him, it was on the lowest charge posible, and the CPS then admitted they hadn't reviewed the CCTV footage. And to top off the whole sorry episode, the original investigating officers then were exonerated over their incompetance, yet Pete was charged with innaproriate intereference. At no point did the sentence get reduced because of his involvement, even though the assailants solicitors tried to suggest that his client was only being charged because it was a coppers son that had been atacked.

As a result of the incompetance shown by the Manchester police force, and their blatant attempts to cover up their ineptitude, and further because of the attitude shown to Pete because he forced the police and the CPS to do their job properly, his relationship with his supperiors deteriorated to the point where he had no option to resign, hence the constructive dismissal case.

The so called proffesional ettiqette that you so happily stick up for, is why the NHS pays out so much for proffesional misconduct cases because no one is allowed to question inept doctors. This is why the whistle blowers charter was brought in, to stop all this "proffesional etiqette" rubbish.
 
Sponsored Links
I am shocked at your attitude Wannabe; your an appologist for an inept system, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
You obviously did not read or comprehend me when I wrote:
But despite all our contempt for the criminals, despondency for the "colleagues (who) had bungled the manhunt" and our sympathy for the victims, my original suggestion, and subsequent suggestion still applies: there is professional etiquette to be respected, and there were other ways that he could have influenced the case without becoming directly involved.

I was well aware of the article before it was even posted on here, so I was talking from having read about it, yet all you've done is to justify "proffesional etiquete".
You may see my comments as justification of professional etiquette. It was an alternative unbiased opinion, not support for, or justification for professional etiquette. But certainly, I do follow professional etiquette, and I expect other professionals in the same field to also follow professional etiquette.
While most professional etiquette is not written and explicit, certainly in some fields of expertise, it is written and explicit. I suspect that the legal/police professions it is absolutely explicit and sacrosanct!
On that basis, and that alone, the interfering police officer was wrong! He could have and should have considered other alternatives.

It would seem that you've read the article with the intention of justifying your position.
You can draw what conclusions you wish.

Pete did try to get the case investigated properly, and when he managed that, the CCTV didn't get to the bail hearing on time, so the perpertator got bail. When the police deciced to charge him, it was on the lowest charge posible, and the CPS then admitted they hadn't reviewed the CCTV footage. And to top off the whole sorry episode, the original investigating officers then were exonerated over their incompetance,
I can only base my opinion on the information available to me. if you have more information, kindly provide it(with appropriate links) and perhaps we will all arrive at the same opinion.

yet Pete was charged with innaproriate intereference.
There was no mention of this in the article provided, even though he was obviously guilty of the inappropriate interference!

At no point did the sentence get reduced because of his involvement, even though the assailants solicitors tried to suggest that his client was only being charged because it was a coppers son that had been atacked.
Did you read my "perhaps"? It cannot be stated without condition, that the sentence was not reduced.

As a result of the incompetance shown by the Manchester police force, and their blatant attempts to cover up their ineptitude, and further because of the attitude shown to Pete because he forced the police and the CPS to do their job properly, his relationship with his supperiors deteriorated to the point where he had no option to resign, hence the constructive dismissal case.
Perhaps he became emotionally involved, which I accept is understandable. But it is why the professional etiquette exists!

The so called proffesional ettiqette that you so happily stick up for,
You are assiging an emotional bias to my comments, which do not exist. My comments are merely an unbiased alternative viewpoint which you, among others, had dismissed out-of-hand.

is why the NHS pays out so much for proffesional misconduct cases because no one is allowed to question inept doctors. This is why the whistle blowers charter was brought in, to stop all this "proffesional etiqette" rubbish.
Nonsense. Whistle blowing is entirely different to ignoring professional etiquette and interfering in another's work.
Indeed, if the police officer (ex-police officer) had "whistle-blown" on his colleagues it would have been an acceptable alternative action. He did not. He interfered, was emotionally involved, directly affected the outcome of the case and embarrassed himself and his colleagues.
That is several contravention of the professional etiquette, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. When you become a serving officer you explicitly accept that etiquette, for all its faults.

An analogy can be drawn by our involvement on this forum.
Suppose I see a comment which I think deserves to be deleted, so I report it to the mods. That is whistle blowing. The mods then take any action that they see fit. I must accept their decision! I cannot then directly interfere.

If I do directly interfere, perhaps by attempting to hack into the system, or some other unacceptable action, my conduct is illegal, unprofessional and downright wrong!
 
Last edited:
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Breast surgeon Ian Paterson case: 'Hundreds' of other victims - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39753498

Concerns ignored, further concerns not acted upon.

How many more gave up raising their (entirely justified) concerns?

Good old professional etiquette at play as well, no doubt. And a good job too (y)
 
Concerns ignored, further concerns not acted upon.

How many more gave up raising their (entirely justified) concerns?

Good old professional etiquette at play as well, no doubt. And a good job too (y)
I think you are misappropriating the definition of professional etiquette:
Sir Ian said that while there had been colleagues of Paterson who tried to bring the matter to managers' attention......
  • In 1996, Paterson was suspended by a previous employer, but two years later he was appointed to the Heart of England NHS Trust
  • In 2004, an internal report on his conduct made recommendations that were not acted upon, and he continued to operate until mid-2011, the Kennedy report said. He was eventually excluded by the trust and 642 patients were recalled
  • In 2012 he was suspended by the regulator the General Medical Council
He said it was important to "stand up to charismatic, powerful, apparently good-performing professionals".
"Lots of people in the National Health Service do the easy job - they work around them. 'Oh yes, he's difficult, we'll try another route'.
You cannot confuse and conflate incompetence with respect for professional etiquette.

Similarly, the police investigation in the Manchester case may well have been inept, but it does not excuse another officer for ignoring explicit written codes of conduct!
Two wrongs.... etc.
Especially so, in some professions, is it paramount to accept and respect professional etiquette and explicit codes of conduct, for the benefit of the greater cause.
If some professionals, especially within law enforcement, decide that the code of conduct should be ignored because they find it unpalatable, they are as bad as the criminals that they pursue.
 
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Breast surgeon Ian Paterson case: 'Hundreds' of other victims - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39753498

Concerns ignored, further concerns not acted upon.

How many more gave up raising their (entirely justified) concerns?

Good old professional etiquette at play as well, no doubt. And a good job too (y)

It has been reported that paterson owns a luxury home in birmigham ,numerous properties in Cardiff & manchester & a holiday home in the US ??
 
While "professional etiquette" may well have some merit, it also provides an easy route to ensuring that one's ineptitude / malpractice stays unchallenged.
Certainly, both the NHS and the Police have the stigma of "closing ranks", some of which may well be rooted in "professional etiquette".
 
It has also been reported that

The NHS has already paid out £9.5 million in damages and 8.5 million in costs following claims from 800 paitents :eek:

but hundreds of his private clients may never see a penny ? after his insurance company the medical defence union

said its cover was "discretionary" and has been with drawn . Hmmm do not quite understand what that means ?? but that is the quote ?

thought insurance was insurance that would have to pay out for negligence ???
 
And that is insurance companies for you. I wonder if it's just another case of professional etiquette, in which case, it's allright to do it.
 
"Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools".

Or something along those lines.
 
While "professional etiquette" may well have some merit, it also provides an easy route to ensuring that one's ineptitude / malpractice stays unchallenged.
Certainly, both the NHS and the Police have the stigma of "closing ranks", some of which may well be rooted in "professional etiquette".
I disagree, brigadier. I think that my statement is the more accurate and appropriate:
"it also provides an easy route excuse for others to avoid to ensuring that one's ineptitude / malpractice stays unchallenged."
 
...after his insurance company the medical defence union

said its cover was "discretionary" and has been with drawn . Hmmm do not quite understand what that means ?? but that is the quote ?
I suspect it means that he has made millions out of abusing his patients and employers, and they want him to be sued and pay compensation out of his own pocket.

Why should someone else pick up the tab and leave him swimming in cash?

Maybe fear of losing their money will be a warning to other greedy medics.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top