Police admit taking on recruits with minor convictions

[Swoop]

Todays Harold...
9.30am Monday November 13, 2006

Police are adamant standards are not dropping after admitting taking on recruits with criminal convictions.

Eight people with criminal convictions have joined the police college in the past four months, The Dominion Post reported today.

Management would not provide details, but said the convictions were all minor. Many were diversions.

The Government has promised 1000 extra frontline police in the next three years, and police last month launched a major advertising campaign for recruits.

Accepting recruits with minor convictions was not new, police said.

Since July 1 this year, 306 recruits have entered the Royal New Zealand Police College at Porirua in five intakes.

Two wings accepted one person with a previous conviction and three wings had two recruits with a criminal history.

Police recruitment manager Inspector Dawn Bell told The Dominion Post if an applicant declared a conviction, police would run background checks and review their files.

They looked at the age of the person at the time of the offence and what had happened subsequently, and made a decision based on the merits of the applicant.

Certain convictions such as serious dishonesty, drug offending, serious violence, and drink driving were automatically rejected.

In November 2005, police began fingerprinting applicants before they began Police College.

Since then, none had been caught who failed to declare a criminal history.

[jrandom]

Ho hmm, hrmmm.

This is the kind of bottom-shelf news item that papers typically run when nothing much is happening in the world and the layout guys can't stretch the existing content any further.

[Toaster]

I'm pretty sure it can't be anything to do with dishonesty/theft etc. Might be very minor things like... was disorderly when 16 year old back in 87' etc. (I HOPE!!!)

[Indiana_Jones]

I don't have a problem with people joining who have minor convictions, Unless it was like the week before they signed up lol.

-Indy

[McJim]

I should hope they've all got convictions and the courage to adhere to their convictions.....oh, I see, you meant CRIMINAL convictions, not just the will to do good then.

Until the police force becomes a better paymaster they will always have to make concessions and use judgement to employ new officers - pay is insufficient for the responsibilities in New Zealand.

I say sell their fleet of Commodores and move to Vectras to save fuel costs THEN pay the officers a proper salary with the savings to get a better standard of officer.

[Toaster]

I just left the police for a better paying role at my old employer... for the sake of lifestyle as well as money. It was very sad to leave. I worked my butt off to get through the physical tests and have a completely clean record. I am gutted they are dropping the entry standards.

[jrandom]

I worked my butt off to... have a completely clean record.

[boggle]

Isn't having a completely clean record more about what one does not do?

I, for instance, have a completely clean record, achieved without any effort whatsoever.

[Toaster]

[boggle]

Isn't having a completely clean record more about what one does not do?

I, for instance, have a completely clean record, achieved without any effort whatsoever.

Yes, true and good point. Same here despite many a temptation to do the wrong thing - big time.

Eitherway, we are free to choose however we want to live, we just aren't free from the consequences of those choices.

[Skyryder]

I don't have a problem with people joining who have minor convictions, Unless it was like the week before they signed up lol.

-Indy


I do. It shows a less than honest mentality and they got caught which shows a less than competent mentality.

Skyryder

[jrandom]

It shows a less than honest mentality...

Bollocks. Plenty of minor convictions have nothing to do with dishonesty. What about Joe Bloggs who got nicked with a $50-bag of dope, got diversion, and has kept his nose clean since? How on earth would that disqualify him from being a cop?

[Jonny Rotten]

SWEET this means i still have a shot at getting in to the cops

[scumdog]

Bollocks. Plenty of minor convictions have nothing to do with dishonesty. What about Joe Bloggs who got nicked with a $50-bag of dope, got diversion, and has kept his nose clean since? How on earth would that disqualify him from being a cop?

But it does, let me tell you that.

But they never got ME for gun running, bootleg bourbon making or transporting porno videos.

[Grahameeboy]

But it does, let me tell you that.

But they never got ME for gun running, bootleg bourbon making or transporting porno videos.

Insider trading.............that's why, especially the porn...I thought they sent you guys on courses??

[jrandom]

But it does, let me tell you that.

I know.

The point I'm making is that it shouldn't, which is why I find myself guardedly pleased at this apparent development.

[scumdog]

I know.

The point I'm making is that it shouldn't, which is why I find myself guardedly pleased at this apparent development.

Yeah the bosses are to scaredy-cat in case somebody less tolerant than you said "Huh, how can he book me for the same thing he has done himself" (whatever bullshit logic THAT is, like would you say to your doctor "Shit, how can you treat me for skin cancer when you've had it youself")

[boomer]

I asked a recruitment officer a couple of years ago about 'previous'. His stance was yes dependant on severity. Needless to say i didn't get to pass go or collect the $10.50 pay packet per week.

[boomer]

(whatever bullshit logic THAT is, like would you say to your doctor "Shit, how can you treat me for skin cancer when you've had it youself")

You must be speshal branch?

[scumdog]

I asked a recruitment officer a couple of years ago about 'previous'. His stance was yes dependant on severity. Needless to say i didn't get to pass go or collect the $10.50 pay packet per week.

$10:50? $10:50? they offered you THAT much??
Shee-it, wish I got that much an hour for the hours I do.

[Mom]

I asked a recruitment officer a couple of years ago about 'previous'. His stance was yes dependant on severity. Needless to say i didn't get to pass go or collect the $10.50 pay packet per week.

$10.50 per week!..........a real shame you missed out there boomer........:innocent:

nice to see you yesterday.......wish I could have put my helmet and jacket down someplace

[boomer]

$10.50 per week!..........a real shame you missed out there boomer........:innocent:

nice to see you yesterday.......wish I could have put my helmet and jacket down someplace

indeed, likewise. I would have offered but it was Dovers mate offering teh hidy hole not mine :innocent:

As for missing out on the $10.50, they did me a favour, i'd be a P addict by now.

[boomer]

$10:50? $10:50? they offered you THAT much??
Shee-it, wish I got that much an hour for the hours I do.

you do it 'cos you enjoy it, not for the spondoolies. I think your on-line name makes it pretty obvious :dodge:

[Mom]

LOL..not a problem I got some good work based kudos for carting my gear around ( I started a new job on Monday last week) I love the wide eyed "NO WAY" look some people get when they see me in my weekend persona.........and no no surely not......a 'P' addict.........certainly not with that hair cut....LOL.......come to Maha's BBQ and say g'day

[Lou Girardin]

I'd rather they hired cops who've committed minor convictions in the distant past, than one's who'll commit major offences in the future.

[scumdog]

you do it 'cos you enjoy it, not for the spondoolies. I think your on-line name makes it pretty obvious :dodge:

No I don't, it's just my sense of civic duty!! And it's a hobby too!


And I just love sinking the slipper into lifes losers too - after 25 years at the freezing works you tend to have a good idea what they look like!!

Scumdog is a high-class bend-dexter Scottish name!

[Skyryder]

I'd rather they hired cops who've committed minor convictions in the distant past, than one's who'll commit major offences in the future.

The problem with that LG is that those who have committed minor offences in the past may be more likely to commit major offences in the future than those who have a clean slate. It's a mindset thing. Those with minor convictions clearly believed that they would not get caught. Put that mindset into a police uniform with all the powers inherent in that uniform, then it is only natural that given the right sort of 'temptation' this mindset may predetermine the officers action at the expense of justice.


Skyryder