Talk:Independent Police Complaints Commission

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Powers

This section doesn't describe their powers, just who they are and what they do. Powers would be - for example - ability to arrest, confiscate and demand equipment and statements, charge senior officers, etc.

Praise

Is this 'all heap copious praise on the IPCC for its supine willingness to assist' really apprpriate for a neutral article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.61.226 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - I've removed it. Actually, that whole section is dubious - the references given don't seem to back up the claims they're supposed to. If better references can't be supplied, the whole section should be removed. Terraxos (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Statement

The edit by 195.92.40.49 at 14:49, 19 September 2007 has added what sounds like corporate mission or value statements and targets, e.g. "The IPCC is committed to getting closer to the communities it serves" and "The IPCC ... aims to make investigations more open, ...". Not sure if this is appropriate for wikipedia, though that edit has some useful corrections in so probably shouldn't be completely reverted. MBThomas (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ipcclogo.jpg

Image:Ipcclogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the IPCC

I would suggest the creation of such a section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, someone must surely have pointed out in a citable source that the fact the commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary, whose political future depends largely on maintaining the public standing of the police, creates a fundamental and irresolvable conflict of interest. Given that the commission isn't independent of the effective boss of the police (no doubt there is a standard issue denial that the Home Secretary is any such thing, but that is an insult to the public's intelligence), the use of the word "Independent" in this organization's name is either staggeringly naive or utterly cynical. "Government Police Complaints Commission" would be more appropriate. Alex Middleton (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not even a Guardian reader, I'm a small-c conservative who had confidence in the police for most of my life, and has lost it in the last few years, like many other law abiding people in this decaying country. Alex Middleton (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. [1] this would make a good start at least. Any more sources? Smartse (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed by Inspector Keith Cassels of Hertfordshire Proffesional Standards Dept(PSD) that it was Independent because it had Independent in the name! The article doesn't make clear that is actually the Profesional Standards Divisions of the force that you complain about that will actually pretend to do the investigation. I actually sent in a complaint to the IPCC that 2 PSDs had failed to respond to a complaint that was sent in via the IPCC the IPCC forwarded it to the PSDs to investigate. They claim that they will only pass comment when the PSD finish the complaint, which they will never do so the complaint will not be investigated. Great hey.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth including in this section would be that that, of 29,000 complaints made against police (2007-2008), only 100 of them were actually investigated solely by the IPCC. Another 397 were overseen by them in some capacity, constituting only 1.71% of complaints in total. Citation is point 4 here - it would be really good if anyone who's interested in this section could add citations here, and then we could more easily build the section. I would create the section now, but there doesn't seem much point when I can only cite this single complaint. Apparently, 89% of complaints against the police are deemed “unsubstantiated”, however I suspect rtaylor's website would not be considered a valid cite (self-published, yada, yada, yada) so if anyone is able to follow this up with an official source, that would be great. Stroller (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Turkeyphan^t 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded - criticisms section sorely needed. Out of the hundreds of complaints the IPCC has dealt with, only a tiny tiny proportion have resulted in any kind of action against the police officers accused. The role of the IPCC is to 'deal with' complaints by sweeping them under the carpet. Vorpaul (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent Police Complaints Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928005442/http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr070807_northumbria.htm to http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr070807_northumbria.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Independent Police Complaints Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304034556/http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/index/resources/evidence_reports/corp_reports-plans.htm to http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/index/resources/evidence_reports/corp_reports-plans.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independent Police Complaints Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer exists, superseded by IOPC

The IPCC was part of the Home Office, but no longer is as a result of it having been abolished and superseded by the IOPC. I'm not sure what the policy is regarding this page having the Home Office template (in which the IPCC is no longer listed) and several of the categories (which the IPCC no longer inhabits). Are they retained on this page because the IPCC was at one time in them?

Mark Duggan case

There should be some mention of the IPCC's extraordinarily poor performance in the Mark Duggan case, where it persistently mishandled communications with Duggan's family, and ultimately was not able to explain any of the peculiar anomalies in the case. This presumably played a role in the IPCC's abolition... AnonMoos (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Police beat me up

The new police used force to arrest me and almost killed me by forcing there knee in my neck I want justice it’s all on video 2600:8807:5880:2300:9987:194:F117:8E85 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]