Last time I posted up about this, roughly a year ago, there were loads of responses. Well, i'm trying to spend some time devoted to the website now and now there's a bit more reason to post on it. I KNOW IT'S A BIT LONG BUT IF YOU HAVE A POLICE CORRUPTION STORY, PLEASE READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!
As a general rule, I'd say that most of us are pretty skeptical about the judicial system in dealing with bent coppers. Well don't just talk about it, do something about it.
Post it up on www.rat-on-a-pig.co.uk . I've managed to secure the 'patronage' of http://eddie.gn.apc.org/ who is:
Eddie Ellison is a retired Detective Chief Superintendent with, arguably, more operational policing experience in the field of controlled drugs than any other British detective. He spent two years as a Detective Sergeant operating at London's Heathrow Airport with H M Customs and Excise officers seeking to limit drug smuggling. That was followed by a further two years combating major drug suppliers and distributors across London and, returning to the Scotland Yard Central Drug Squad at the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, he took operational command of the growing Squad for three years. As Detective Chief Superintendent heading the Crime Policy Group of Specialist Operations Department he was later attached to the Association of Chief Police Officers review teams that restructured the Regional Crime Squads and Drug Wings and worked with the team that justified and created the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) ......... and, with that background, he argues for 'legalisation'!!!
He says the following::
Establish a centre for recording allegations against individual officers that peeps do not want to take forward at the time. That could be any organisation within the area, an individual or even a collector of e mails. But do be accurate, be correct in the details and identify the individuals. The important thing at the outset is to maintain the records to enable peeps to be contacted later when you decide what to do. In the meantime those records should not be able to be traced by the wrong group.
If you want to make a specific allegation then either go through a solicitor or PM me for specifics about making accusations to the right body.
Over a period of time, if gear is being ripped off, a pattern will emerge from a given area and then you can 'target' the individual, the squad or the unit in the same way as a police unit would target a major dealer. At that time, supported by all the victims, a peep can be assured of a good hearing and a 'sting' can be carried out. The same techniques can be used for good in both directions.
Now I'm posting this in ignorance of where you live or where the suggested rip offs are taking place. I will also make clear that there is a major industry existing that lives off investigating allegations against police officers. Similarly any officer who hears of such rip offs can, today, go to a host of investigators to pass on his fears. Careers are made by arresting bad cops and there is no lack of motivation from most of the internal investigating units. In view of that background, very much changed from my early years, it surprises me that on-line allegations regularly surface about squads ripping off dealers but very few allegations are made to internal investigating units. My position is not unique. There are a host of police able to take action if allegations are made but those allegations are very few, both in number and compared to the early police drug periods (late 60's early 70's) when allegations were rife.
Today we have an additional option - the press. This provides an alternative approach to the wrong type of policing but also relies on accuracy. The end product can be, sometimes, safeguarded by that approach rather than the internal investigations. That decision will depend on the type of allegation, the individuals concerned and the co-operation given by affected peeps.
Now my comments do not minimise anything you suggest, simply they serve to support getting at the 'wrong uns' by proper methods when it is justified.
I just realised that my suggestion about keeping details 'secret' until you are ready goes against the 'entertainment' value of this site and I don't want to be accused of that. You must decide what to do about something you don't want to tolerate. If you are satisfied with publicity without risking identification then lets hear about it in the open. But it may not solve the problem from either point of view. Just like any prosecution, accuracy is important and 'surprise' in an action is invaluable.
Now there are peeps hosting this site that, by now, may well be looking at my posts and wondering what the hell I'm doing giving any guidance since I'm merely a member. I accept that criticism and I'll shut up for a while. I do care about proper policing and I care about getting rid of the wrong ones.
Sorry admin, put me in my place if needed.
Regards
Eddie
Now please post those stories
As a general rule, I'd say that most of us are pretty skeptical about the judicial system in dealing with bent coppers. Well don't just talk about it, do something about it.
Post it up on www.rat-on-a-pig.co.uk . I've managed to secure the 'patronage' of http://eddie.gn.apc.org/ who is:
Eddie Ellison is a retired Detective Chief Superintendent with, arguably, more operational policing experience in the field of controlled drugs than any other British detective. He spent two years as a Detective Sergeant operating at London's Heathrow Airport with H M Customs and Excise officers seeking to limit drug smuggling. That was followed by a further two years combating major drug suppliers and distributors across London and, returning to the Scotland Yard Central Drug Squad at the rank of Detective Chief Inspector, he took operational command of the growing Squad for three years. As Detective Chief Superintendent heading the Crime Policy Group of Specialist Operations Department he was later attached to the Association of Chief Police Officers review teams that restructured the Regional Crime Squads and Drug Wings and worked with the team that justified and created the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) ......... and, with that background, he argues for 'legalisation'!!!
He says the following::
Establish a centre for recording allegations against individual officers that peeps do not want to take forward at the time. That could be any organisation within the area, an individual or even a collector of e mails. But do be accurate, be correct in the details and identify the individuals. The important thing at the outset is to maintain the records to enable peeps to be contacted later when you decide what to do. In the meantime those records should not be able to be traced by the wrong group.
If you want to make a specific allegation then either go through a solicitor or PM me for specifics about making accusations to the right body.
Over a period of time, if gear is being ripped off, a pattern will emerge from a given area and then you can 'target' the individual, the squad or the unit in the same way as a police unit would target a major dealer. At that time, supported by all the victims, a peep can be assured of a good hearing and a 'sting' can be carried out. The same techniques can be used for good in both directions.
Now I'm posting this in ignorance of where you live or where the suggested rip offs are taking place. I will also make clear that there is a major industry existing that lives off investigating allegations against police officers. Similarly any officer who hears of such rip offs can, today, go to a host of investigators to pass on his fears. Careers are made by arresting bad cops and there is no lack of motivation from most of the internal investigating units. In view of that background, very much changed from my early years, it surprises me that on-line allegations regularly surface about squads ripping off dealers but very few allegations are made to internal investigating units. My position is not unique. There are a host of police able to take action if allegations are made but those allegations are very few, both in number and compared to the early police drug periods (late 60's early 70's) when allegations were rife.
Today we have an additional option - the press. This provides an alternative approach to the wrong type of policing but also relies on accuracy. The end product can be, sometimes, safeguarded by that approach rather than the internal investigations. That decision will depend on the type of allegation, the individuals concerned and the co-operation given by affected peeps.
Now my comments do not minimise anything you suggest, simply they serve to support getting at the 'wrong uns' by proper methods when it is justified.
I just realised that my suggestion about keeping details 'secret' until you are ready goes against the 'entertainment' value of this site and I don't want to be accused of that. You must decide what to do about something you don't want to tolerate. If you are satisfied with publicity without risking identification then lets hear about it in the open. But it may not solve the problem from either point of view. Just like any prosecution, accuracy is important and 'surprise' in an action is invaluable.
Now there are peeps hosting this site that, by now, may well be looking at my posts and wondering what the hell I'm doing giving any guidance since I'm merely a member. I accept that criticism and I'll shut up for a while. I do care about proper policing and I care about getting rid of the wrong ones.
Sorry admin, put me in my place if needed.
Regards
Eddie
Now please post those stories