Just how will these PIP 'witness statements' be protected from the requirements of advance disclosure in court proceedings to the defence lawyers, the miscarriage of justice industry and the rabid anti policer media? I may be missing the point here, but it does seem to be a minefield which can jump uop and bite some officers in the backside at a later date.

The other side of the coin to this is the IOPC who can't be trusted. We've had accounts in PO where officers have been under IOPC review for years as 'witnesses' for them to suddenly announce they could be suspects. The new PIP procedures seem a distinct improvement on the scenario described in 2005. Clothing seized, no opportunity to seek advice from a solicitor or Fed rep prior to giving an account... It reads like an IOPC 2023 New Years wish list!!

Does it need a genius to better differentiate between Professionalising Investigation Programme PIP and post incident procedure PIP? Surely the former expression needs changing...