Police officers should face random spot checks on their phones to help tackle the 'revolting' online misconduct as shown by Met officer who shared photos of two murdered sisters, the chief inspector of constabulary has said.
Fair enough. I have a work-issued mobile phone, and no expectation of privacy on it.
Sir Tom Windsor has said that trawls of private and work mobile phones...
Oh, whoa! That can fuck off!
...would help deter officers using WhatsApp and other social media channels to share photographs of crime scenes and inappropriate jokes.
Maybe so, but if the police want to look at a suspected criminal's phone, they have to get a warrant, or have them actively under arrest.
Is this authoritarian whackjob actually suggesting the police should have fewer rights than the people they are dealing with?
He told The Times he supported the idea that staff and police officers are to be checked in the same way they are required to undertake random drug tests.It's not at all the same thing. Phones hold all kinds of private data. I assume when they do a random drug test they don't also test for veneral disease, pregnancy and cancer?
He called for a change of policing culture by weeding out police officers who showed a fondness for the exercise of 'power or violence', or 'display racist, homophobic or misogynistic tendencies'.
Has he looked in a mirror?
'Let's say rather than put the information on an electronic message, the person in question wrote it down, put it in an envelope and posted it to another person.
'Nobody would seriously assert that the paper correspondence should be confidential in all circumstances.'
Nobody would seriously assert that all their incoming and outgoing post should be checked for all police officers everywhere either. Although this idiot probably would, come to think of it...
Windsor warned, in the wide-ranging interview, that professional standards units and counter-corruption squads, whose job it is to uncover misconduct by officers and staff, were often staffed by weaker detectives.
And there's probably a reason for that. After all, they are clearly lead by weaker senior officers.
Higher standards to become a police officer were also under consideration.
This, in the profession that's weakened them to get more women and ethnic minorities across the line? It is to laugh.
Gosh...are you suggesting that the darling public service, which you so often laud here, would be so devious as to use their own criminal activities to lobby for legislation which enabled 'stealth-snooping' on citizens by the least trustworthy of all?
Tom Windsor, who was appointed to his present post by his mate, dipstick David Cameron, and who then instigated policies which Cameron had suggested years ago and told that they were idiotic. His knowledge of Policing obviously comes from the years he was a railways comptroller or something similar. I would support Windsor's suggestions on one condition, and that his own personal phone, and those of his fellow Police Inspectorate, be subjected to the same scrutiny he wants Police officers phones to be. Can't wait for the lawsuits to follow.
It won't happen, it's beyond ridiculous.
"...which you so often laud here..."
When they deserve it, yes, I do. To do otherwise would make me pretty unhinged and unbalanced, would it?
"His knowledge of Policing obviously comes from the years he was a railways comptroller or something similar."
"It won't happen, it's beyond ridiculous."
Let us hope so. But we've said that before, haven't we?
Post a Comment