iSAYSO
Ethics there is no official definition as far as the police are concerned
Looking at official replies from the police.
So we are left with this:
No recorded rule.
No recorded review.
No identified ethical standard.
No formal Police-wide definition of “ethics”.
Different departments applying different rules.
And a senior officer saying he was “comfortable” with what his officers were doing.
So the public question becomes unavoidable:
In whose best interests are these officers acting?
Because from our side, this does not look like a system designed to help the public, protect rights, or resolve concerns fairly.
It looks like a highly organised enforcement and debt-collection machine — one that can issue charges, pursue penalties, and rely on authority, but then produce very little when asked for the records, rules, reviews, and ethical standards that supposedly justify its conduct.
If Police want public trust, then “we are comfortable” is not enough.
Show the rule.
Show the review.
Show the record.
Show the ethical standard.
Show whose interests were being protected.
Because if there is no record of the rule, no record of the review, and no identified ethical standard, then the public is entitled to ask whether Police are acting in the interests of justice — or simply protecting the machinery of enforcement.