Do you think the Chief Constable should be made to resign over not keeping on record the fact that Huntley had been questioned (though never charged) various times regarding sex offences.

dunno about him frankly. its not like anything they should hav done would have prevented it.

If someone had looked up huntleys references when he applied for the job however....

I don't see how sacking nim now achieves anything. They should give him 6 months to a year to implement visible changes, prove that action has been taken, and then reappraise the situation. If nothings improved, then get rid of him.
The whole sorry affair has highlighted a problem that I suspect is countrywide.

I have to agree with that. Polticians look for scapegoats far too quickly. Put him on 'probation' and monitor improvement.

Funnily enough though, I think that the last thing that the Home Secretary would want is a Chief Constable in a position to be critical of the government for a year. Expect him to be removed any day soon.

If you take on board a job like Chief Constable you take on board the duties, responsibilities and accolades that go with the job.

He should certainly have OFFERED his resignation to the Police Committee, who could then give a considered response to his offer. He had operational responsibility for the Police Force under his command and there are times when the old 'buck stops here' has to be considered.

By not offering his resignation, he allowed the Police Authority to be put in an unenviable position of being put under political pressure, and he now will appear to be the target of a political witch-hunt, with the issue that triggered it - organisational, procedural and adminsitrative incompetence - being forgotten.

Cool political move.....

Joe ;-)

It's Blunkett who should be going.. The fact that the parents of one of the girls supports this police man should also be taken into consideration. I don't think you will find a more committed individual when it comes to reforming that police force, suspending him will achieve nothing. Blunkett is the only liability in this case...

its the justice system thats part to bame.
i still find it hard to belive that when someone has commited such evil crimes as rape/child abuse/murder ect, more often thn not they get released back into the comunity.
wtf is that all about?
thiese pople are scum of the earth and where appropiate should be exicuted, or at the very least locked up for life, and i mean 'life' not a measely 25years.

its annoying that once these people have been convicted of such harmfull crimes, that they are still entitled to human rights?

why is it that we keep the murders locked up, well fed, reasonably safe from harm, these people should be dead, not clogging up our prisons, that are allready at capacity,
and at a cost to the tax payers , after all we have our own mouths to feed, without feeding the phucken psycho's
:mad:

no i dont think he should resign, the police have enough to deal with without waisting time keeping an eye on the criminals the 'justice system*' is putting back into the comunity.
Ian Huntly should have been locked up for 'LIFE' a long time ago, then this incodent would never have happend.

Yes, Blunkett has gone a bit doolally recently. It's like he's trying to be Robocop or something. lol

And i personally believe that once a person infringes another's human rights (e.g: through murder, rape, armed robbery etc) then they would automatically forfeit their own human rights - once convicted - and be treated like the scum they are. I am sick of hearing about murderers on hunger strike or protesting etc because they're not allowed to watch TV in the "games room" in their local prison/hotel. At the risk of sounding cold - let them starve. Murderers used to be locked up for life in a cold dark dungeon, left to rot and think about what they had done. nowadays people are too eager to "re-intergrate" these monsters back into society, where they are helped along with housing, money, support etc - then they go out and do it again. Nothing changes for these people. So why waste tax payer's money on them? Get them chained up in gangs in a quarry breaking rocks all day for the rest of their lives, not house them in a nice job working with children, and give them a house next to a school where it's too easy for them to reoffend.

Sorry if that seems to harsh, but something has to be done to protect the children's human rights - not these sick monsters who only seek to destroy lives.

Apologies for the rant then, btw. :(

Originally posted by Nu_Skillz
Ian Huntly should have been locked up for 'LIFE' a long time ago, then this incodent would never have happend.
Not condoning him at all but Huntley could not have been locked up before, as I believe all cases against him were dropped at some stage before convicting him.
I think Westwood is right to stay on. The question over logging unfounded (without hindsight) accusations is difficult - it is a grey area under the Data Protection Act. Scurrilous or vindictive accusations should not be left to haunt innocent citizens thats for sure.
Little Witch:
"Murderers used to be locked up for life in a cold dark dungeon, left to rot and think about what they had done. nowadays people are too eager to "re-intergrate" these monsters back into society, where they are helped along with housing, money, support etc - then they go out and do it again. Nothing changes for these people. "
Most murders are carried out by family members or friends who, for whatever reason, have been pushed over the edge and are not pre-meditated. Is there a distinction to be made? Also, what about criminals who are suffering from psychiatric illnesses - should they be treated or simply locked up?

Most murders are carried out by family members or friends who, for whatever reason, have been pushed over the edge and are not pre-meditated. Is there a distinction to be made? Also, what about criminals who are suffering from psychiatric illnesses - should they be treated or simply locked up?

if anyone dose have mental problems then they do need treating, but at the same time they need to be kept from the public.
the question is weather they can actually be cured of their illness, and trusted back on the streets.
how do you determin when it is safe to release them?
due to the risk envolved, it would be safer to just keep them locked up, but give them a 'normal as can be life' by providing them with everything from food to entertainment and group outings where they are supervised.
not the most desired life to live i must agree, but better than a family loosing a loved one, or someone having to live with the horror of being raped.

Originally posted by LittleWitch
Yes, Blunkett has gone a bit doolally recently. It's like he's trying to be Robocop or something. lol

And i personally believe that once a person infringes another's human rights (e.g: through murder, rape, armed robbery etc) then they would automatically forfeit their own human rights - once convicted - and be treated like the scum they are...

So why waste tax payer's money on them? Get them chained up in gangs in a quarry breaking rocks all day for the rest of their lives, not house them in a nice job working with children, and give them a house next to a school where it's too easy for them to reoffend.

I completely agree - or rather, I would if I had absolute faith in the justice system to 'get it right'... although I do think those with serial convictions of most natures should be treated more harshly each time they are re-convicted. That way, they would have a deterrent from going back inside (i.e. they know it will be worse next time, rather than the same)

I see Bichard another crony was appointed to head the inquiry. I really don't know how they get away with it. :mad:

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
It's Blunkett who should be going.. The fact that the parents of one of the girls supports this police man should also be taken into consideration. I don't think you will find a more committed individual when it comes to reforming that police force, suspending him will achieve nothing. Blunkett is the only liability in this case...

I have to agree with neek

Originally posted by neeeeeeeeeek
It's Blunkett who should be going.. The fact that the parents of one of the girls supports this police man should also be taken into consideration. I don't think you will find a more committed individual when it comes to reforming that police force, suspending him will achieve nothing. Blunkett is the only liability in this case...

Blunkett is a liability and so is Blair for keeping him in that position.

As for Westwood, well his policies leave alot to be desired. He and his ilk gave Humberside 'high visibility' policing. No more coppers but dressed them all in yellow jackets instead!

You would expect any Chief Constable to have a policy on files, which he didn't seem to have. The Data Protection Act was possibly used to defend this inaction.

The Home Secretery is responsible for the Police forces in this country. So the first question to ask is, what guidance did the Home Office provide to police forces regarding the retention of records and the Data Protection Act? If clear guidance was issued, but not followed by Humberside Police, then Westwood should go.

If, on the other hand, no guidelines were issued by the Home Office, then it's the Home Office who have slipped up. If the Home Office have slipped up then, by his own logic, Blunkett should resign.

Question: Did Blunkett think he'd get some votes out of this?

Question: Anyone remember how Labour attacked the Tories when Micheal Howard, as Home Secretery, apprantly ordered Dereck Lewis, of the Prison Service to be sacked?

Blunkett began to run this spin because being foolhardy he expected huge public support at the expense of the scapegoat Westwood.

It has now backfired because Humberside Police Authority were wise to this spin and it has all gone pear shaped for Mr Blunkett.

The cost of a legal challenge would leave the taxpayers with a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The Bichard inquiry laid some of the blame with the Home Office.

I hear so many good things about Blunkett's days in Local Government.

Has Blunkett changed or is the way he acts now the only way you can get on in national politics?

He comes accross as like a bloke down the pub, saying the first thing that comes into his head - only trouble is, he is actually in a position to make major decisions.

Good things? David Blunket almost single-handedly bankrupted Sheffield.

Originally posted by Tony
Good things? David Blunket almost single-handedly bankrupted Sheffield.

Wrong, he almost single-handedly prevented Sheffield going down the same route as Liverpool which had to have goevernment intervention to avoid bankruptcy.

Actually Max, I've thought back a bit about it, and I was probably a little unfair, but he did preside over a shocking political period.

Originally posted by Tony
Actually Max, I've thought back a bit about it, and I was probably a little unfair, but he did preside over a shocking political period.

And still does IMHO :(

Originally posted by Tony
Actually Max, I've thought back a bit about it, and I was probably a little unfair, but he did preside over a shocking political period.

I think you mean during a shocking political period or despite a shocking political period, ie a tory government. :D

David Blunkett is a buffoon. Did anybody see him in the commons at PMQ's shaking his fists and laughing like a vindictive school kid at Blair's lies?

The man is as crazy as Blair.

He has used his power to bludgeon his way into making a scapegoat of Westwood in order to cover Home office shortcomings and incompetence and the chaos within.

Give me a police force that is able to work on initiative, not restraints from the likes of Blunkett and his band of amateurs.

I also make reference to that grinning Hazel Blears - What a Specimen she is!