Police pay child rapist informant...

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by zztop, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    ...to gain intelligence on child grooming network. 18 ******* are now in prison.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40879427

    Many are up in arms at this and that police should not have used this method of gaining evidence. In my time, I know that informants would be an extremely efficient way of getting information compared with traditional methods. But this is a particularly awful crime whereby "observing" is, in itself, an unedifying thought as the victims are suffering at that time. But police say they had no better options and that the informant was crucial in securing convictions.

    Without knowing the exact details, I am behind this sort of police work, as I think the end really does justify the means with 18 men locked up for many years.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. inayellowshirt

    inayellowshirt From the other place

    No problem with it bringing down all those vile people
     
    Ghost of Barry Endean likes this.
  3. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    Not 100% comfortable with it. If there is a clear justification, as there was in this case, then I think the payment is a necessary evil.

    The end did justify the means in this case for sure.
     
  4. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    Not at all comfortable with this. As I understand the story, the informant was a convicted paedophile and was paid £10k to take minors to what has been described as "a party" to entrap the gang. The evidence from the informant was said to be wholly unreliable and it was the victims testimony that secured the convictions.

    I accept that the police have a difficult job but what other methods did the police use to bring down the group? Did the police try undercover detectives or other means first?

    Something is clearly wrong that taxpayers paid a convicted paedophile to enter into a situation which put minors at further risk not only from the evil gang but also from their own informant.
     
  5. If the police felt that it would bring a better chance of prosecution, or lead to successful prosecutions more quickly, who are we to question them? Criticism seems completely knee-jerk. Whilst his crimes were abhorrent, this guy has presumably served his time; surely paying informants is standard procedure.

    The more low-life the informant, the more depraved the crimes prosecuted are likely to be. Druggies grass on dealers. Burglars grass on fences. Paedos grass on paedo rings.
     
  6. Godfather

    Godfather bricklayer extraordinaire

    I'm generally against entrapment but I'll let it slide for this one.

    It's all about ethics and methodology, my worry would be that they might entice a person who might otherwise never a commit crime into doing just that.

    If using informants, any intel would need to be thoroughly tested and all evidence watertight or we are just asking for trouble.
     
  7. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    Yes I agree that informants do inform on others of the same ilk but to get a convicted paedophile to a place of temptation and pay that person £10k seems completely inappropriate. I don't think it is a knee jerk reaction to ask what other methods the police used to try to bring down the ring before paying someone to do what they have enjoyed doing illegally in the past.
     
  8. zztop

    zztop Eurovision Winner 2015

    I dont know much about this case, nor what help he actually supplied to the police. But when I was involved with informants, the fact that the police were paying someone made him an "unreliable witness" anyway. Rarely would they be used with the intention of giving evidence in a court, but merely to get info on who was involved, where, when, how which then gives the police a better chance of homing in on the right people, and possibly reducing the options for covering tracks and false alibis etc, as they can investigate, before arrest.

    I think the police would have been fully aware off the cost to taxpayers as they have to jump through many hoops to get approval for even small amounts, let alone this amount. They clearly felt it would be a cheaper option than more surveillance and a longer investigation.

    Regarding undercover detectives, since the uproar over the past few years from the human rights brigade, undercover work has been greatly reduced. In this scenario, it would probably have involved someone being deep undercover for some considerable time. Very expensive and risky, and I would expect some form of personal involvement in the crimes would have to be demonstrated, before trust amongst the gang was earned. Completely unsatisfactory, I suggest.
     
  9. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    If your options are limited to eating a **** sandwich or eating 100 **** sandwiches, the course of action is pretty obvious despite the fact that it's clearly not a desirable outcome.

    I'm sure the Po had no more desire to pay the man than any of the rest of us (probably less), but they nailed 18 evil bastards who would otherwise have preyed on further victims, so more power to 'em.
     
    zztop likes this.
  10. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    It feels like we have lost sight of the potential victims who were minors. Yes the police needed to catch this ring as soon as possible but do we really need to put vulnerable individuals up as bait? What would have happened if the investigation had not led to convictions due to the entrapment method used by the police? To somewhat awkwardly use your analogy, the informant enjoys **** sandwiches and we paid for him to feast on a **** sandwich buffet. Definitely not ideal regardless of the outcome.
     
  11. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Zero mention of grooming girls and taking them into dangerous situations per police orders. Those allegations came much later, after he'd "fallen out" with his handler. Considering the man's background I suspect he was lying to try and get the handler in trouble, so I don't give that part much credence at all.
     
  12. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    10k sounds relatively cheap for such a success.
    The amount that would have to be paid on overtime cracking the case without the mole, let alone the diversion of resources, would have been far, far greater.

    For a stretched force to take such action, which was so obviously politically and tabloid sensitive shows to me that the rewards were worth the risk.
     
  13. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    I don't agree that 10k was cheap. Remember this is a convicted criminal who I would suggest is neither reformed or remorseful for his actions otherwise he would have supplied information without seeking payment. He only has to supply information three or four times a year and he is probably earning more than people in essential services such as nurses. Does that seem right?
     
  14. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    If a single man can re-infiltrate a gang, have to get involved with something he is probably trying to forget, run the risk of serious harm and bring in criminals much easier and at a much cheaper cost than police officers due to his previous knowledge - I would say that he is reformed and that 10k pounds is a good use of taxpayers money, yes.

    It is up to the system to punish and rehabilitate. Unemployment of ex-criminals is a burden on the state. If employing an ex criminal to bring down a whole load of criminals - that might otherwise take up a couple of years of detectives time - is possible for 10k, I'd be happy to do it more.
     
  15. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    I have been trying to find an article where it said the informant was taking minors to parties but without joy. I think I must have heard it on BBC breakfast news. On the programme yesterday morning they spoke with the lead prosecuting Counsel in the Rochdale case. It was he who raised questions regarding the methods employed by the Police. He secured convictions in Rochdale and by his account in other areas of the UK, by methods other than employing an informant. If he raises questions then perhaps we have to look at the tactics used by Northumbria Police.

    This was a war that needed to be won and thankfully the convictions were obtained but do we need to win the war at any cost? I think you have to look at how to avoid casualties along the way and I don't think it is wrong to ask questions to see that this was done.
     
  16. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    It doesn't seem right, but then equally you've made an assumption which isn't right either so you're misleading yourself. He's not paid £10,000 a go. The remuneration offered depends on the value of the information to the police/society when weighed against loads of factors.

    I've no idea where "reformed or remorseful" comes in to the equation either. Most sources run by the police are either active criminals or at least capable of being recognised as such in their social groups. That's the point - they have the legitimacy which enables them to get information the police could either never get or would only get through significantly greater expense and time committed. In a lot of cases there's personal risk for them in what they do. That level of risk feeds back into the sum paid. I have to say it's very naive to think that people will do something for nothing.
     
  17. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    I think we may both be using guess work. When suggesting he was a single man effectively forced into infiltrating a gang then it does sound reasonable but I have not seen that assertion made anywhere. If that is true then I accept your argument although it may also be that the police encouraged him back to his previous misdemeanours which doesn't sit right if he was truly a reformed and remorseful individual.

    However as I understood it, this was a criminal who was paid for information he already held. I may be wrong but the reporting I have seen has been along those lines.
     
  18. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I am not sure that the tactics used by the police force were necessarily the best to get the job done. As far as I am aware no paid informants were used to secure convictions in other areas of the UK. The way I have been reading the reports it seems that the only method employed was the criminal informant who was paid £10k after the police force had made errors in an earlier case. I have copied some lines below from the BBC website reporting on the case

    "Now that reporting restrictions can be lifted, it can be revealed that a police officer was sacked for failing to investigate a sex offender's phone.

    It related to an earlier Operation Sanctuary investigation, which resulted in the conviction of Bahmani Ahmadi.

    Mr Ashman said the officer should have been much more diligent, and that his dismissal should provide reassurance that the police culture in Northumbria had changed".

    I accept that payments are made to informants to help secure convictions but £10k seems a lot and I would think that their may be informants queuing around the block expecting that sort of money. I also understand that the remuneration depends on the value of the information but the size of payment does worry me as future informants may withhold information unless they receive that amount of remuneration now some sort of precedent has been set.
     
  19. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    If the bit in bold means 'for this specific type of crime' then maybe not but of course it depends on the availability of such an informant. As I say they have to have a level of legitimacy in the social circle they're informing on. I'm 100% sure other methods will have been used or explored too. You mentioned Nazir Afzal earlier. He seems to be on the media circuit at the moment providing his insight to various matters of policing and how to investigate things. To the best of my knowledge the bloke is obviously bright but has never done a day of either and as a prosecutor he'd have had limited influence on the conduct of specific investigations.

    As for the impact on future investigations - the precedent is quite simply. Deliver 20 convictions for a similar amount of risk/work/reliable information and you get £10,000. Don't and you won't. Most informants know the going rate and it's not left to the whim of individual officers to make it up as they go along.
     
    Simmos likes this.
  20. Simmos

    Simmos First Year Pro

    You say that you are 100% sure other methods were used and explored. From what Nazir Afzal said during the interview I watched, he was not as sure as you and thought questions needed to be asked. This forms the basis of my posts. If Northumbria Police could only secure a conviction using informants then it was a price worth paying but I don't feel it is wrong to ask questions to find out what was considered bearing in mind convictions obtained around the UK with similar facts without criminal informants being used.
     

Share This Page