Whilst it is fair and appropriate to state that a Criminal conviction is, in itself, not an impedance to joining the police force, one does have to ask if all of these are appropriate.
The article does go on to state in one Police force alone –
Two officers have been convicted of burglary
Two officers have been convicted of common assault
Two officers have been convicted of theft
Four officers have been convicted of disorder
One officer has been convicted of a S39 assault
One officer has been convicted of criminal damage
One officer has been convicted of obtaining money by deception
One officer has been convicted of careless driving
Or is this taking the old adage of ‘you need a thief to catch a thief’ too far?
Wayne Couzens
Wayne Couzens Is the police officer, in the Met Police’s parliamentary and diplomatic protection unit, who raped and killed Sarah Everard.
Couzens has a string of sexual offences dating back to 1995. He even flashed people at a fast-food restaurant days before murdering Sarah.
It is then completely unbelievable that he passed police vetting to join both the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and the Met. Let alone to become an armed officer!
Surely this is tantamount of a dereliction of duty by the vetting offiers.
Fairly simply – it borrowed too much. Between 2009 & 2017, its loans increased just shy of 3 times. Whilst its long-term assets grew by 14%. (Over leveraged). It also effectively borrowed from suppliers by not paying them. This tool is used by several large corporations, especially smaller companies. The smaller company thinks it’s getting a deal with a big company that will aid its expansion, but in reality, because the larger company fails to pay on time, the smaller company gets into cash flow problems and then tends to contract or, sadly, go out of business altogether.
Did the government keep giving Carillion contracts because it had such a long working relationship, or should it have investigated the company’s finances to ascertain its financial strength – a fundamental exercise at a business school?
Capita
A litany of complaints.
Questionable financial security
A massive number of Government Contracts.
Troubled outsourcer Capita drafts in Carillion adviser Lazard to advise on financing options
The outsourcer has tried to distance itself from Carillion, which collapsed into liquidation just months after issuing its profit warning. Yet the hiring of Lazard may be seen as a concession that the company is in turmoil.
How many more contracts should the government trust Capita with?
Fujitsu
The Post Office saga is now well known.
I still cannot understand how the Post Office / Fujitsu allowed the software to be installed, knowing it was faulty, and then prosecuted all those Sub-postmasters.
Where did all the money go?
Who is paying the compensation – the Post Office, the Taxpayer, or Fujitsu?
So many questions – so few answers!
Why are the British Government still using Fujitsu?
“HMRC, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority all signed contracts with Japanese IT firm Fujitsu after its role in the Horizon scandal was made known.“
The Horizon sandal raised its head in 1998 and carries on – inculcating the Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments – suggesting that we cannot trust one party more or less than the other!).
Fujitsu was the company behind the failed NHS software debacle, and then they sued HMG. (then Her Majesty’s Government).
G4S
A litany of failures.
2012 Olympics
“G4S’s conduct during the London 2012 Olympic Games was described as “totally chaotic” and “an utter farce” by former police officers”
“G4S has already accepted responsibility and paid around £44 million to the SFO for overcharging the Government, including for tagging offenders who had died.”
Whilst the government is spending so much time and money on the Rwandan deal, which may or may not happen, that, at most, would only take some of the illegals.
Still leaving 672,000 net legal immigrant (year to June 2023)
If the boat people were genuine asylum seekers, why did they ditch their papers, making it so much harder to prove their case?
Perhaps we ought to treat those who come into the country with their papers more favourably than those who don’t?
