|
The Met are being sued by a PCSO who failed to declare a conviction when applying for a change of employment to a full constable. She claimed that this failure had occurred due to amnesia. One has to wonder how much use any police person is if they suffer from amnesia. The case is being vigorously defended by the MET
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jun 13 at 00:34
|
I only wish I could post all my knowledge on the subject matter...(for a period of my service, I was in charge of 9 council wards for policing needs and approx 50 PCSO's). You would not believe some of the shenanigans. Here's some tasters.
One bloke, who I'd previously had words with about selfish parking in a police station car park (a privilege not a right), when I confronted him for the very same, a second time, as I finished speaking with him (somewhat firmly) and he'd finished looking at me like a surly teenager, as I walked away I closed the door on his car, (he was still sat in it). The clown tried to make an allegation of assault against me, that I'd deliberately trapped his knee in the door???
I didn't even remember that I'd closed the door, I did it on auto-pilot...and would have remembered if it hadn't closed properly or it had been obstructed.... and over 15 of my staff, so 3 sergeants and about 12 Constables were watching, because it was breakfast time and we were directly outside three large plate glass windows on a ground floor canteen, the same canteen I'd been in, with them, eating my breakfast, when he parked his private car blocking in police cars that might need to whizz out on an emergency.
My bosses just laughed (although were supportive of me)..and refused to allow the 'crime' to be recorded...but I still had to sit through a 'Fairness at Work' procedure with one of my bosses...I managed to hold it until nearly the end, before I truly let rip. The bloke had issues with 'doing as he was told' yet was employed in a disciplined service? He didn't last long, nicked off duty for assault and criminal damage.
Then there was the one that was smelling of drink at work...got spoken to by her sergeant and told to go home, to be dealt with tomorrow...and...if she'd driven to work, leave the car and get the bus. The sergeant thought she might well have driven to work, didn't trust her as there were other issues as well, so arranged for a patrol car to sit up at the end of the road where they all parked...and sure enough out she came, got breathalysed, was over the limit and ended up with the tin tack...how much more leeway did she need?
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 16 Jun 13 at 19:03
|
Hey, Surrey Police employ proper coppers rejected by the Met.
You know whats worse?
The Met employ them back again after Surrey reject them.
You couldn't make it up.
|
>> The Met are being sued by a PCSO
I hope not funded by Legal Aid.
|
|
No legal aid for much these days - Briefs being made redundant as a result. Probably being paid for by a publically funded minority group.
|
|
Best make sure that one of the plastics (Oh! look at me in my uniform) doesn't try and land a section 59 on ya! Muppets.
|
>> >> The Met are being sued by a PCSO
>>
>> I hope not funded by Legal Aid.
As Rob says legal aid is pretty limited these days and will be more so in future.
If facts are not those the press chooses to present then there may be a valid challenge.
Coalition seems set on reducing citizens access to justice, particularly in relation to administrative decisions.
Bums will be bitten in due course but perhaps not before electoral popularity has taken its course.
|
"citizens access to justice,"
Unfortunately, I suspect that £millions are wasted by the fact that the first thing that every lousy scrote does, when it gets its collar felt, is to call for a lawyer ........... paid for, by us.
|
>> "citizens access to justice,"
>>
>> Unfortunately, I suspect that £millions are wasted by the fact that the first thing that
>> every lousy scrote does, when it gets its collar felt, is to call for a
>> lawyer ........... paid for, by us.
>>
Exactly.
I'm all for a crack down.
The very rich can afford lawyers and always will do.
The poor can, through Legal Aid.
And the great bulk of the country in the middle, cannot.
Anyone nicked for something is entitled to free legal advice anyway, so why not clamp down on the rest of it.
|
>> Exactly.
>>
>> I'm all for a crack down.
>>
>> The very rich can afford lawyers and always will do.
>>
>> The poor can, through Legal Aid.
>>
>> And the great bulk of the country in the middle, cannot.
>>
>> Anyone nicked for something is entitled to free legal advice anyway, so why not clamp
>> down on the rest of it.
Ex Copper wants crackdown is hardly headline stuff but here's an example of why access to justice matters.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22949861
Woman caught in kettling of a London demo and "tagged" - filmed close up under bright lights - for identification purposes by a civilian employee of the police and gave her name, address and date of birth to a police officer.
Question was whether in all circs police acted lawfully. The Administrative Court has found that they did not. The full judgement has been published but won't download. I'll add it later.
In the absence of a proper constitution Judicial Review or the Human Rights Act are the only viable avenues by which adminstrative action can be constrained. Putting hurdles in the way by increasing fees, reducing opportunity to 'renew' paper applications and cutting legal aid a tool for holding the executive to account is substantially blunted.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 15:53
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22949861
>>
>> Woman caught in kettling of a London demo and "tagged" - filmed close up under
>> bright lights - for identification purposes by a civilian employee of the police and gave
>> her name, address and date of birth to a police officer.
Oh!
How awful!
The poor woman!
Crikey!
She gave her name and address to a police officer - the shame! The humiliation!
BTW. I am a little surprised at you, Bromptonaut. All employees of the police are civilians and all coppers are civilians. Yes, I know you were repeating the BBC's description, but as someone involved in the legal business, you should know better.
|
"She gave her name and address to a police officer - the shame! The humiliation! "
Well give me your full name and address Duncan - I want to make a note of it
What - you don't want to. You say there is no legal reason why you should tell me.
That is precisely the view of the woman who was "kettled" and it seems hard to argue against.
|
>> BTW. I am a little surprised at you, Bromptonaut. All employees of the police are
>> civilians and all coppers are civilians. Yes, I know you were repeating the BBC's description,
>> but as someone involved in the legal business, you should know better.
My work in the legal business has avoided contact with the criminal side.
I am though well aware of the status of Police Officers. Nonetheless the term civilian is widely used, including amongst force members, to differentiate those with powers of a sworn officer from their support etc staff.
|
Perhaps police officers can be civilians when they aren't being police officers.
But I'm nearly sure Chambers (can't lay hands on it at the moment) says civilian means "not a member of the military or police forces".
|
>> But I'm nearly sure Chambers (can't lay hands on it at the moment) says civilian
>> means "not a member of the military or police forces".
My personal Collins refers to a person who's occupation is non military.
The fuller dictionary that was in the office library has gone (legitimately) to the home of one of the research officers as part of the pre-closure clearout.
|
>> But I'm nearly sure Chambers (can't lay hands on it at the moment) says civilian
>> means "not a member of the military or police forces".
>>
I understand that used to be the case.
However, some years ago all Police FORCES became Police SERVICES and I believe that at that time all police officers became civilians.
A fine point possibly, but to a pedant worth making!
;-)
|
>> Ex Copper wants crackdown
It has absolutely nothing to do with me being an ex-copper...and everything to do with me being a taxpayer and wishing our near bankrupt country to pull itself together.
...and if that means plenty of civil court activity is not paid for by Legal Aid..then 'yes please'.
If the lady that was kettled and required to give her name and address thinks that is a big deal....she ought to have a visit to some of the countries in the world where people's rights are routinely badly abused...and there's plenty of them.
The kettling is designed to prevent very serious disorder (which past events have shown to be very real) and prevent the rest of us from having to pay or suffer the consequences.
If you don't want to be kettled, don't go on that sort of march. I've never been kettled.
|
>> I've never been kettled.
Neither have I.... so I agree with you :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 19:47
|
|
I've just made the Missus a cuppa.
|
>> >> I've never been kettled.
It's possible I've told an untruth. An ex-girlfriend did throw a few kitchen utensils at me once..and one of them might have been the kettle...;-)
|
>> ...and if that means plenty of civil court activity is not paid for by Legal
>> Aid..then 'yes please
You like an elective dictatorship?
>>
>> If the lady that was kettled and required to give her name and address thinks
>> that is a big deal....she ought to have a visit to some of the countries
>> in the world where people's rights are routinely badly abused...and there's plenty of them.
But she doesn't live in one of those places. She lives in the UK where we have a right to march and demonstrate.
>> The kettling is designed to prevent very serious disorder (which past events have shown
>> be very real) and prevent the rest of us from having to pay or suffer
>> the consequences.
A few boiled over. Kettling has become a standard response to contain and curtail demos.
>> If you don't want to be kettled, don't go on that sort of march. I've never been kettled.
Wimp!! Never felt like saving the whales or defending a woman's right to choose abortion??
Ten years ago I chanced on a Reclaim the Streets/Critical Mass gathering between Euston and Russell Square. I rang my bell and joined in until my route diverged. Did I deserve to be 'kettled'?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Jun 13 at 20:01
|
''Unfortunately, I suspect that £millions are wasted by the fact that the first thing that every lousy scrote does, when it gets its collar felt, is to call for a lawyer ........... paid for, by us.''
And we can all be safe in the knowledge that the legal professionals won't abuse any part of that system for their own ends. Oh no. For the sake of my own sanity I'll try very hard not to revisit this thread. I'd be all night typing examples.
|
>> You like an elective dictatorship?
We haven't got one of those, have we.
>> But she doesn't live in one of those places. She lives in the UK where
>> we have a right to march and demonstrate.
Well actually you don't. It has become an accepted practice and I personally have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people exercising their freedoms..and then badly overstepping the mark and trashing other people's property, frightening the life out of other citizens, if not assaulting them and causing tens of thousands of pounds of damage. Presumably most people would want their police to try to prevent that?
>>
>>
>> A few boiled over. Kettling has become a standard response to contain and curtail demos.
No, not correct. There are a huge number of demos that most people never hear about and that do not have kettling as a tactic and have few or no police attend.
>>
>>
>> Wimp!! Never felt like saving the whales or defending a woman's right to choose abortion??
Nope. I spent 9 years of my career, at the beginning, in the London Borough of Westminster and policed many hundreds of them. It soon struck me that the same faces turned up, whatever the demo was about...you'd get the occasional one e.g. CND where Mr or Mrs Lefty Average would appear...but other than that, there was fair amount of 'rent-a-mob'. So 'no' I really cannot imagine I would ever attend a march, although I won't say never.
>>
>> Ten years ago I chanced on a Reclaim the Streets/Critical Mass gathering between Euston and
>> Russell Square. I rang my bell and joined in until my route diverged. Did I
>> deserve to be 'kettled'?
Depends. If the Public Order commander felt with intel, history of the last march, the way things were going, etc...that there was a fair likelihood of serious disorder..then 'yes'..and too bad that you'd bothered to poke your oar in...particularly as you know in advance about kettling and the potential for disorder.
I bear in mind the occasion when Police have policed something lightly, it's all gone breasts up...and a chunk of society then moan about bungling cops who didn't do anything.
>>
|
>> >> You like an elective dictatorship?
>>
>> We haven't got one of those, have we.
I'll reply more fully tomorrow but IMHO that's exactly what we have.
The phrase is associated for me with Lord Hailsham and Dimbleby lectures c1976 warning about Callaghan's tendencies.
Oddly he forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power.
|
>Oddly he forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power.
You'll have to expand on that statement for me Bromp. Did he forget it because Callaghan's "tendencies" were no longer a problem?
|
>>>Oddly he forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power.
>>You'll have to expand on that statement for me Bromp.
>Kevin,
>I cannot improve on Wiki:
WIKI QUOTE
"His paper was published as a criticism of the Labour government of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. He saw these weak[citation needed] governments as undemocratic, as despite their slim hold on the Commons they were able to pass a large number of their bills.[citation needed] He saw this as undemocratic as they did not reflect, as Hailsham saw it, wide enough support in the country. Many have interpreted Hailsham's criticism as being one against large majorities. In fact, he actually saw these as more democratic, as they had commanded more support at elections."
/WIKI QUOTE
The Tories were elected in '79 with a decent majority. Why do you find it odd that he "forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power"?
|
>> The Tories were elected in '79 with a decent majority. Why do you find it
>> odd that he "forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power"?
The wiki section you quote on greater legitimacy with majority is noted as 'citation required'. I cannot, without turning it into an academic quest, locate the full text of the lecture to clarify. The note on the BBC website refers to H making the case for a written constitution.
Hailsham's book, The Dilemma of Democracy, in which he expanded his theme appears to be out of print. There is a short extract from the book in a speech by Lord Steyn ( a Law Lord), tinyurl.com/qyodec6, which suggests Hailsham's issue was with the decline of checks and balances of parliamentary scrutiny and the growing dominance of a whipped and disciplined Commons.
Those checks have been further eroded since. Although Select Committees, which I might add to my short list of good things done under MT, have been an effective tool in pointing out error their reports are too often ignored.
Lack od scrutiny in Westminster together with powers of Ministers and officials to direct X or Y and to act under legislation that enables the later making of detailed provisions by order were the basis for my 20:24 post on Tuesday.
With hindsight I qualify my later 'that's exactly what we have' by adding the word potentially. The value of Judicial Review as well as the gamut of Appeal Tribunals and Ombudsmen is a a check on the exercise of those powers
|
Oddly enough Bromp I agree with both Hailsham and yourself about the decline of checks and balances.
I just wondered why you felt it necessary to imply that his warning was motivated purely by party politics.
|
>> I just wondered why you felt it necessary to imply that his warning was motivated
>> purely by party politics.
I'm not sure the original point was political, though it might have been. My issue was with his dropping the idea when back in office. It may well be that the differentiation between minority and majority governments was a cover for that shift.
Hailsham was a bit of an eccentric. I attended a Civil Service training course in the eighties where the head of his private office, a chap who subsequently died tragically young, came to talk about the 'fast stream'. Over lunch he regaled us with tales of the excitements of life with QH and his dog - an ill tempered Jack Russell.
|
>I'm not sure the original point was political, though it might have been.
Then why imply that it was?
>My issue was with his dropping the idea when back in office. It may
>well be that the differentiation between minority and majority
>governments was a cover for that shift.
A cover?
Are you serious FFS?
|
Kevin,
Hailsham was a combative politician. One reason he failed in his bid for the leadership after Macmillan was a perception of him as a 'loose canon'. His 1976 view of a lack of checks of the executive was a reasonable lawyerly perspective. If there's a political angle it's the failure to take it forward in government.
I'm sorry if the word cover misled, perhaps later rationalisation would have expressed it better. Imagine a Today type interview in 1982 where Brian Redhead might say:
'Lord Hailsham, in 1976 you gave an impassioned speech in favour of a written constitution and checks on Ministerial powers. How do you intend to implement such changes now you're in power?'
Hailsham:
'I'm glad you asked me that Mr Redhead. Different circumstances, large majority, democratic mandate, rhubarb, rhubarb'.
Seems a pretty plausible view of politics (either way) to me.
|
>> >>>Oddly he forgot it all as soon as the Tories were back in power.
>>
OFFICE.
|
"I bear in mind the occasion when Police have policed something lightly, it's all gone breasts up...and a chunk of society then moan about bungling cops who didn't do anything."
I believe that was one of the underlying factors at Hillsborough.
|
>> I believe that was one of the underlying factors at Hillsborough.
>>
Undoubtedly....combined with other factors...e.g. fencing, standing enclosures, etc.
|
Kettling to control, contain and calm a riotous crowd is perfectly acceptable both from a practical and civil liberties purpose.
Kettling to coral a crowd of people to enable police to photograph each individual goes way beyond abuse of civil liberties.
I've been kettled. It was at the end of the 2012 olympic parade, where all the games makers joined the end of the parade. There was about 10 thousand of us, and he we been allowed to get to the end it would have caused chaos. So we were kettlled into groups. It was all good natured, but showed me how easy it was for "non combatants" to be easily caught in the cordon.
We have a right to demonstrate and march "en mass" and that right extends to not being detained until questioned & photographed just for "being there" That is an abuse of our civil liberties.
|
"We have a right to demonstrate and march "en mass" and that right extends to not being detained until questioned & photographed just for "being there" That is an abuse of our civil liberties."
Totally agree. the police sometimes have to be reminded of the law as the judge did in the recent case.
|
>I rang my bell and joined in... Did I deserve to be 'kettled'?
You rang your bell???? You little radical you, Bromp. Of course you didn't deserve to be kettled - water cannon would be more appropriate, and funnier :-)
|
>>Of course you didn't deserve to be kettled - water cannon would be more appropriate, and funnier :-)
tinyurl.com/Bromp-in-Turkey
|
"If you don't want to be kettled, don't go on that sort of march. I've never been kettled."
Strangely enough it is still legal to protest.
If you have not committed any offence and are not charged with any why should you be obliged to give your name and address? As the judge said:
"The absence of any statutory power to obtain identification in the circumstances in this case establishes conclusively the unlawfulness of the police action in requiring (Ms Mengesha) to be filmed and give her name and address and date of birth before she was released from containment,' Justice Moses said."
|
Sometimes anarchist groups with a hard edge or troublemaking agenda attach themselves to big demos and start chucking scaffolding and bottles. But the policing of big demos (or major crowd events) is, whatever police officers may claim, often capricious and random in the extreme. Just for a start those scaffolding chuckers are quick on their feet and very combative, thus extremely difficult to kettle. I really do know something about crowd behaviour and police efforts at crowd control. That's why I tell my descendants not to go on marches however innocent they may seem.
Case in point: a year or two back there was a big silly demo against education budget cuts. Teachers and even university people went on it. Thus encouraged, one of my granddaughters went on the damn silly thing and got kettled somewhere in the West End. She didn't see anyone doing anything violent at any point. Nevertheless the poor child, then 14, with others was hemmed in tightly for a long time, quite badly scared and prevented from peeing.
With luck the experience will make her think twice next time. Of course I wouldn't call that police brutality. But I would call it capricious and random crowd policing. And I have seen a good deal of that.
|
PCSO Sues for Unfair Dismissla - Westpig
