In some ways complaints against the police are no different from other complaints by consumers of public services. Complaints are unresolved problems where redress is needed, and effective mechanisms for dealing with them are an essential aspect of the accountability of that service. However, accountability mechanisms have an added dimension for the police service, as the police are in a very different position to other providers of public services. They are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, and this role means that they have a range of powers and equipment to enable them to carry out their law enforcement function. For example, they have powers of arrest, they can deprive citizens of their liberty, and they can question and detain. They can impose upon personal and community freedom in a way that no other body of persons can. They have considerable coercive powers, and the way they exercise those powers involves a significant amount of discretion. Police misconduct thus presents a particular threat to the rights and liberties of individual citizens. Moreover, it can also undermine the credibility of the criminal justice system, the effectiveness of policing, and the legitimacy of government (see Bayley 1995: 93). Tackling police misconduct is difficult because of the organisational culture of policing, where group loyalty militates against officers testifying against each other. Pressures on the police to secure convictions, particularly in high profile cases, also leads to ‘noble cause’ corruption, where police officers, convinced of the guilt of suspects, “routinely” deviate from rules and regulations in order to secure convictions (Punch 2003: 187). As a result of this, it is of major importance that there is some external control over police powers, and adequate systems of accountability. We need civilian oversight so sign now, thank you