Monday, March 19, 2007
For whom does the Police Federation speak?
The Police Federation has announced it is cutting all ties with the Police Ombudsman’s office as its campaign against Nuala O’Loan would seem to be intensifying in the aftermath of the publication of the Ballast report. In his statement justifying the development, Federation chairman, Terry Spence, stated, “Her office has managed to give the impression, on the back of a report, that there was widespread collusion among the RUC with the paramilitaries, which is clearly a nonsense but deeply upsetting to RUC officers.”
But who does the Federation represent today? Is it more interested in defending/ excusing the activities of the now defunct Royal Ulster Constabulary, or is it a Federation interested primarily in speaking on behalf of the current membership of the PSNI?
As the number of catholic/ nationalist members of the PSNI grows in the time ahead, it will be interesting to see if the Federation is capable of adapting to represent the views of those with a nationalist outlook and with a less rosy view of the role and legacy of the RUC. This will be one worth watching.
Chris Donnelly @ 03:20 PM
His response would tend to suggest to me that the problem is widespread, for why else would you refuse to cooperate? Surely if the problem was minor and local then it would be in the interest of the PSNI to address the issue positively and cooperate?
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 03:53 PMThe RUC is not “now defunct”, it has simply added five words to its name and changed the uniform.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 03:56 PMEveryone knows that the Federation are an embarassing rump of flat-earthers who still haven’t grasped that not only are there Fenians about the place but that they’re now joining the police in droves. Still - it’s strangely enjoyable to listen to the hysterical death-rattle of these oafs. Give it five years and they’ll be consigned to the proverbial historical dustbin.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 03:58 PM“But who does the Federation represent today? Is it more interested in defending/ excusing the activities of the now defunct Royal Ulster Constabulary, or is it a Federation interested primarily in speaking on behalf of the current membership of the PSNI?”
I wonder will a parallel, rival organisation evolve, representing the more enlightened recruits to the PSNI.
Also, if SF recommend that new recruits to the PSNI boycott the PF, would that provide a new excuse for the DUP not to share power?
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 04:18 PMAs Bemused says, attrition will soon get rid of the few remaining bad apples.
I see no reason why of all the people should not give the PSNI their full support.
And if I remember correctly, a poll a few months ago implied that that was the case for over 80% of both major communities.Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 04:27 PMPolice Ombudsman
In Castlereagh District at DPP.Meeting the numbers of complaints against was discussed.
N. O Loan has large Web Pages devoted to numbers of Alledged Complaints in each DPP District ,for the year in question it was 57. I asked the Ombudsmans Office for final figures i.e. Complaints which were upheld and those without foundation. At first I was fobbed off but I persisted and eventually her office gave me the figures.For Castlereagh that year… 2 Upheld/55 not upheld.... You can search both her Website and her Annual Report ,which again devotes much space to Complaint numbers you will find NO final figures and will have quite a job to obtain them. This is quite frankly unbalanced and unworthy of an OmbudsmanPosted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 04:33 PMPrick Federation.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 04:37 PMIf the report was deeply offensive then give evidence and prove the Omburdsman wrong, whinging about it and then refusing to give any evidence sounds like something a bully being faced-up to would do.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 04:51 PMthe feberation exists to represent its members, not a catholic/nationalist anti-ruc stance
The RUC is the PSNI which Sinn Fein have now accepted in its totality, whinging about it wont change that fact
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 05:53 PMhttp://www.policefed-ni.org.uk/index.php
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 06:49 PMThe policing board is trying to hold onto, what it perceives as some thread or decency within the RUC, that never existed.
That is why republicans won’t let political policing corrupt any future policing service.Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 06:53 PMThe Federation has one purpose and one purpose only i.e to represent the interests of its members. Long may it continue to do so without interference from outside.
It is not the job of SF or any other party to advise serving officers to join or not to join this organisation. That is the choice of each person.
Furthermore it is the responsibility of the Ombudsman’s office to gain the support of the police. Her failure to do so is an indictment on her.Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 06:59 PMSounds like they have something to hide…
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 07:02 PMFrom the website:
The Police Ombudsman’s Mission is:
. To ensure maximum awareness of the Police Ombudsman complaints service and that it is fully accessible and responsive to the community.
. To provide a robust and effective investigation process leading to evidence based recommendations.
To analyse and research the outcomes of complaints so as to inform and improve the policy and practice of policing.Confused:
“Furthermore it is the responsibility of the Ombudsman’s office to gain the support of the police. “Source?
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 07:07 PMThe role of the Police Federation is to act in the best interests of its membership. Terry Spence is doing that job very well. The Federation is not there to act for unionists or for nationalists but solely for its membership.
A typically piss-poor sectarian and bigo-ted article from Chris Donnelly.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 07:12 PMTo Joe
Source
Common sense ------- How else can she do her Job?
Her responsibilities are clearly defined by Law.
If she fails to carry this out because of her failure to work with essential Groups she has failed and should be replaced.Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 07:31 PMthe RUC has’nt gone away you know.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 07:33 PM“As the number of catholic/ nationalist members of the PSNI grows in the time ahead, it will be interesting to see if the Federation is capable of adapting to represent the views of those with a nationalist outlook and with a less rosy view of the role and legacy of the RUC. This will be one worth watching.”
Exactly Chris, and well done starting this thread.
However you have to worry when the PF cuts its “ties” with the POO? What ties? They are meant to be independent. One is a quasi trade union, the other a regulatory body of sorts. I would worry if my trade union had ties to OFCOM!
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 08:25 PMAhem!
http://www.policefed-ni.org.uk/hs181001.shtml
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 08:29 PMThe number one priority of an organisation like this should be to make sure their individual members get good legal representation and so on. So whether an officer is accused of being involved in collusion or is the whistleblower, the PF should give them the practical legal support to ensure a fair trial.
But by publicly making quasi-political statements like this, I worry that they might leave an officer high and dry if he/she departed from the party line.
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 11:13 PMSo the police are giving partial support to law and order?
Posted by on Mar 19, 2007 @ 11:36 PM-
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 08:48 AM
What the Police Federation won’t do in order to try and prevent investigations into collusion:
The Police Ombudsman, Mrs O’Loan and her senior staff, continue to meet with Representatives of the PFNI on a regular basis to discuss problem areas. These discussions have proved a useful means of advancing issues on behalf of members, such as:
• Protocol in respect of the investigation of a death by Police Ombudsman Investigators;
• Post-Incident Management procedures;
• Section 44 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 & Section 63 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998;
• Police officer satisfaction forms;
• Maladministration complaints;
• PONI ‘Mystery Shopper’ Exercise;
• Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Report;
• Mediation and Informal Resolution.Some Union! Trying to protect the bad apples by ceasing work on ‘advancing issues on behalf of’ ordinary members.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 10:45 AMConfused
“Furthermore it is the responsibility of the Ombudsman’s office to gain the support of the police. Her failure to do so is an indictment on her.”
Surely it’s the job of the Ombudsman to oversee the police, so that the public can have trust in police? Surely it’s the responsibility of serving police officers to co-operate with any of the other legally-mandated arms of our law and order system?
And can you tell me any ombudsman’s office that is popular with those it’s supposed to oversee? (You think the guys at Internal Affairs are the toast of the NYPD? They’re utterly despised.)
And wouldn’t it be more of a problem if the police loved the ombudsman?
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 05:26 PMDo police officers automatically become members of the Fed or can they decide not to become members? If so, would be interested to learn how many people have decided not to sign up.
Posted by on Mar 20, 2007 @ 11:33 PM
