I have asked myself on a number of occasions just how open and transparent I think police organisations should be. I am often surprised with the answer I arrive at.
I normally start with the attitude that they should be totally transparent and open to public scrutiny and then I slowly but surly put caveats into the equations when I consider differing scenarios.
Would I expect police organisations to be open about ongoing undercover police operations? Not really.
Would I expect them to be open about their information sources? Not Really
Would I expect them to be open about the records they have on specific individual? Not Really
The list goes on, so having started from a point where I thinks police organisations should be totally transparent I come to a point where I accept they can not.
I then ask myself the question if this is the case what do I expect and end up with the answer that where police organisations are unable to be transparent about their status and operational aspects there must be in all cases a mechanises in place to ensure what is not transparent is at least held to account.
This appears to be the logical way forward so we see the establishment of Data Protection Agencies, Ombudsman’s, and Complaints Commissions etc.
Then I ask myself are these agencies who ‘guard the guards’ capable of being transparent and the answer I think is no, they have to retain the confidentiality of the organisation they are guarding?
So where does this leave me. It indicates to me that the scrutiny of the guardians of the guards is the key to transparency?
I thought I would post this to find out what other members though?
Topic Options
