HomeCrimeWhy aren’t the police on trial along with Carl Beech?

Comments

Why aren’t the police on trial along with Carl Beech? — 3 Comments

  1. The problem, is that instead of working with thoroughly researched data, the Police run with an idea and do everything in their power to prove someone guilty. They don’t take the data (evidence) first and work from that, as any academic or scientist does, to follow the lead of that evidence. They make up their mind who is quilty first (be it Ted Heath or Cliff Richard for example) and create the evidence in order to prove themselves right.
    The whole mindset is wrong. They need higher educational standards for entry in order to cope with a job, the results of which, which can ruin people’s lives.
    There seems to be a tabloid press approach, not factual at all.
    Training in research is essential, which includes recording and handling data, together with degree level understanding of psychology and human behaviour. Its unfair and unacceptable to expect people who are not qualified to handle such sensitive information.
    A Police Officer’s ‘gut instinct’ is a thing of the past and shouldn’t be their first port of call no matter how long-serving.
    This would prevent the pendulum swing from ignoring complaints completely, to believing every accusation which crosses their path without question.

  2. Sue, I agree to some extent, and the pendulum analogy is a good one, and research and training is important, but I don’t think requiring higher educational standards for entry provides any simple solution. Remember that many of the horror stories from the past concerning false accusations came from theories that originated in academia, or from people with degrees. And there are some Universities that are full of semi-conspiracy theorists and postmodern idiots who wouldn’t know evidence if it bit them on the bum.

    >A Police Officer’s ‘gut instinct’ is a thing of the past and shouldn’t be their first port of call no matter how long-serving.

    It’s fine having gut instinct in there, and early on, as long as it isn’t given too much credence.

  3. “take the data (evidence) first and work from that, as any academic or scientist does,”

    No they don’t, they start with a hypothesis, which is not much more that ‘gut instinct’ albeit inspired by some observation and data. Good academic research (there’s not a lot of it about) requires above all scepticism and the ability to stand back and knock down one’s own castles in the sand.

Leave a Reply to Hector Drummond Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.