Public sector complaint systems guaranteed by statute.

All public sector complaint systems should be put on a statutory basis. If the letter of all promises, procedures, governance arrangements and published standards was applied things could change overnight. Public services would also improve almost overnight because complaints would be addressed properly because they have to be. This would cost very little money with a massive cost/benefit result with very little outlay. If complaint systems at councils, quangos, government departments and the rest were applied properly and honesty the improvements in service would be massive. Of course everyone makes mistakes but the maintenance of the status quo is the prime motivator which results in badly applied procedures and tendency to cover up purely to mainatin the status quo. If citizens had faith in complaint systems and the application of them then public service  improvement would result with very little extra financial outlay. The problem is that very few people have any faith in public sector complaint systems. The maintenance of the status quo and no accountability is the end result with no individuals being dealt with or brought to account. This results in little or no real improvement in that public service because mistakes, errors or worse ae not addressed properly. Serious, wilful and deliberate dishonesty from public servants, whomever they are, has to be gross misconduct at every juncture. This has to be implemented by statute and not via such as an airy fairy group of Nolan Principles that are meaningless and disregarded at will. If public servants knew that there was a draconian penalty for proven wilful and serios dishonesty, which would mean losing their job and all subsequent perks, things would improve naturally. But there is no such statutory basis as regards Nolan or any ethical arrangements in public life. If statutory penalties for serious dishonesty and misconduct were there and seen to be there then nobody wil risk the misconduct or dishonesty in the first place.

The same goes for the governance frameworks, audits, systems of internal control, annual governance statements and published standards. If these types of arrangement were put on a full statutory basis with real penalties for disregarding them then things will certainly change for the better. Any citizen can look at any quango, council or government department etc and the governance and control systems are massive and widespread. If these were followed in any way instead of being invariable ignored, as they are, then they would be taken seriously. These type of arrangements must be placed on a statutory basis with penalties tat are clear and transparent if they are not observed. The promises made are so ethical. proper, reasonable and honest that nobody can argue with the above. But, unfortunately, these glossy promises look good in practice but quite a lot are routinely disregarded. A statutory basis would put some real teeth and meaning into these arrangements with very little cost and a massive effect.

Why is this idea important?

All public sector complaint systems should be put on a statutory basis. If the letter of all promises, procedures, governance arrangements and published standards was applied things could change overnight. Public services would also improve almost overnight because complaints would be addressed properly because they have to be. This would cost very little money with a massive cost/benefit result with very little outlay. If complaint systems at councils, quangos, government departments and the rest were applied properly and honesty the improvements in service would be massive. Of course everyone makes mistakes but the maintenance of the status quo is the prime motivator which results in badly applied procedures and tendency to cover up purely to mainatin the status quo. If citizens had faith in complaint systems and the application of them then public service  improvement would result with very little extra financial outlay. The problem is that very few people have any faith in public sector complaint systems. The maintenance of the status quo and no accountability is the end result with no individuals being dealt with or brought to account. This results in little or no real improvement in that public service because mistakes, errors or worse ae not addressed properly. Serious, wilful and deliberate dishonesty from public servants, whomever they are, has to be gross misconduct at every juncture. This has to be implemented by statute and not via such as an airy fairy group of Nolan Principles that are meaningless and disregarded at will. If public servants knew that there was a draconian penalty for proven wilful and serios dishonesty, which would mean losing their job and all subsequent perks, things would improve naturally. But there is no such statutory basis as regards Nolan or any ethical arrangements in public life. If statutory penalties for serious dishonesty and misconduct were there and seen to be there then nobody wil risk the misconduct or dishonesty in the first place.

The same goes for the governance frameworks, audits, systems of internal control, annual governance statements and published standards. If these types of arrangement were put on a full statutory basis with real penalties for disregarding them then things will certainly change for the better. Any citizen can look at any quango, council or government department etc and the governance and control systems are massive and widespread. If these were followed in any way instead of being invariable ignored, as they are, then they would be taken seriously. These type of arrangements must be placed on a statutory basis with penalties tat are clear and transparent if they are not observed. The promises made are so ethical. proper, reasonable and honest that nobody can argue with the above. But, unfortunately, these glossy promises look good in practice but quite a lot are routinely disregarded. A statutory basis would put some real teeth and meaning into these arrangements with very little cost and a massive effect.

Ethical and impartial accountability of the police

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.

Why is this idea important?

This is not an idea it is an absolute must. The police must be subjected to more accountability and must have transparent penalties for misconduct. The police are almost impossible to remove whatever the offence. They are regularly subjected to "words of advice" for even serious misconduct or incompetence and this isn't even a discilinary sanction. The current system actually perpetuates and reinforces police misconduct and does not deal with it at all. The IPCC are almost always seen as biased by anyone who comes into contact with it. However the IPCC prefers to only ask people their opinion who have heard of it which is very, very different. Thus creating a massively misleading set of statistics which are shouted from the rooftops by the IPCC. This is basically the way that the IPCC operates in practice as regards police scrutiny. The default position of the police now is to vitually "non investigate" citizen allegations and take a chance at the IPCC on appeal. The IPCC almost invariably come down on the side of the police resulting in a very disgruntled complainant. There is absolutely no incentive for the police in any force to investigate complaints properly, ethically or even honestly because they almost always get a result from the IPCC. This is why the organisation is so overstretched at almost every level. Almost every investigation by the police ends up with some kind of appeal to the IPCC. Then the appeal is not dealt with properly because the IPCC are so overstretched because of their own previous failings. The whole system is retrograde and needs strengthening throughout in the public interest.

The law needs toughening up surrounding the IPCC and it has to be implemented quickly. The ideal position would be appropriate, reasonable, proper and ethical investigations by the police. This will never happen which is why the IPCC is in existence in the first place. However there is no incentive to the police to do any of this because the IPCC is so toothless and biased by default. This quango is essential in a democracy but it needs to be better, more impartial and stronger. One example of intrinsic bias that has to be addressed surrounds appeal documentation. The IPCC by default automatically sends the full appeal and full evidential documentation provided with the appeal to the force in question. However the appellant is not told this and the available IPCC publications actually mislead. Then the appellant is not even allowed to see the response from the police to the appeal and has no knowledge of what weight is given to it by the IPCC or even whether the police response is the truth. Effectively the police are given two bites at the cherry in a supposedly impartial and independent appeal by the IPCC. That is just one example of a procedural and systemic bias against the complainant at the IPCC. This contributes to a massive proportion of good appeals being rejected. This inbuilt type of bias has to be stopped by statute. An organisation cannot be impartial when the respondent gets two bites at the cherry and the appellant one.