This seems unbelievably harsh to me. The two officers were beyond stupid, but surely losing their careers and maybe a hefty fine would have been punishment enough, but prison? When you read about people who commit quite serious acts of violence and get a non custodial sentence this seems way over the top. They are a danger to nobody but themselves.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59474472
|
Agree.
Lose their career, fined ...but custodial ?
Plenty of events where lives have been seriously endangered I can think of which haven’t led to being incarcerated.
|
The language used on the social media posts, and the fact one of the posts included an officer superimposing his face on the picture of a dead girl? The fact he showed it to a probationary officer he was mentoring?
Jail is appropriate for that level of disgusting behaviour from someone who has abused public trust. I notice his superiors agree. The damage done to public trust is immense.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:34
|
Police need to ensure their officers behave to the highest of standards.
The actions of these two fell hugely below that which is acceptable from anyone, let alone those in whom the public are expected to trust.
IMHO their actions fully justify the sentences given.
|
>>This seems unbelievably harsh to me
That's what trial by media does for you.
Prison was totally inappropriate in this case and was simply driven by the media's need for revenge.
How this will help with rehabilitation, deterrence or anything else is quite beyond me. Dismissal would seem appropriate, ending their career as it would. Some form of unpaid community work or similar or other appropriate work would have served well.
But, who can outbid the media when it's baying for revenge and would like nothing more than to be able to bay about injustice? It's what their readers expect and want.
|
The general feeling amongst the Police community I still have contact with unanimously is of total abhorrence and the sentence is well deserved. However in the grand scheme of comparative punishment it can appear somewhat harsh.
There is a side of me which is starting to think that there is creeping in a sense of 'don't give a dam any more' driven by the relentless attack on policing from all quarters and lack of robust up front support from those that should be fighting the corner.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 01:07
|
>>There is a side of me which is starting to think that there is creeping in a sense of 'don't give a dam any more' driven by the relentless attack on policing from all quarters and lack of robust up front support from those that should be fighting the corner.
I can only imagine how thoroughly depressing it must be.
FWIW, I am right on the side of the Police - both as individuals and as a group which serves as well. Where would we be without them?
There are quite a few people in the UK who should experience a South American 'police' force for a while. They might whine quite a lot less.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 01:13
|
>There are quite a few people in the UK who should experience a South
>American 'police' force for a while. They might whine quite a lot
>less.
You think that's justification for not fixing the problems that crop up with our own police? There are much worse so we should stop 'whining'?
Last edited by: Kevin on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 07:01
|
>> You think that's justification for not fixing the problems that crop up with our own
>> police? There are much worse so we should stop 'whining'?
If I had meant that then I would have said that.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
|
But that's exactly what is implied by that sentence or why did you mention it and what did you mean?
|
>> that's exactly what is implied by that sentence
No it isn't.
>>what did you mean?
Exactly what I said.
|
|
Have it your own way. I can't be bothered trying to work out what you actually did mean if you don't want to enlighten me.
|
>>Have it your own way.
How else would I have it?
>> I can't be bothered trying to work out what you actually did mean
You probably just got a bit tired trying to make it say what you wanted it to say.
|
|
kevin is (it pains me to say this) right. It is the direct implication of wot you said.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
>> kevin is (it pains me to say this) right. It is the direct implication of wot you said.
Really? Where did I say that the problems should not be fixed? Where did I say that the state of other police forces was justification for not fixing it?
I said exactly what I meant to say, just not what Kevin wants me to have said.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
So why introduce South American police into this? And why the song and dance?
BTW. If you think that I'm trying to trip you up by asking you a straightforward question, you really need to see a shrink.
|
>> So why introduce South American police into this? And why the song and dance?
Read what I wrote, that's what I meant.
>> BTW. If you think that I'm trying to trip you up by asking you a
>> straightforward question, you really need to see a shrink.
More fantasy? Why would I think that? For that matter, why would I care?
|
>> Read what I wrote, that's what I meant.
Read to me as verging in 'whataboutery'..
|
|
So what? That's just a comment you make when you've run out of ideas and "whatever" doesn't seem to fit.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 11:02
|
Cut the carp.
If I say or write something that people don't understand I normally try to explain it better. You're just muddying the waters with Humpty Dumpty'isms.
“it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
|
|
...are you trying to maintain it was an inappropriate sentence, Kevin...
|
|
Leading question, Your Honor!
|
If you cannot understand the first thing I wrote, I don't know that you'll understand any explanation.
>>it means just what I choose it to mean
I did not say that either.
Read what I wrote. That is exactly what I meant. I cannot help, nor do I care, that you want it to be something else or that you're struggling with it.
|
"So why introduce South American police into this? And why the song and dance?
BTW. If you think that I'm trying to trip you up by asking you a straightforward question, you really need to see a shrink."
I would suggest that attempting to twist a random observational comment into a full on argument is making a song and dance. A hint of looking to be offended.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 12:40
|
I certainly wasn't looking to be offended - I don't work like that.
I asked a reasonable question and received a flippant reply. If you don't like me following that up - tough.
|
|
Get over yourself, you were looking for a fight and now you've got your panties in a knot because you can't find one.
|
People in general should have standards. Professional people - Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers should all live up to higher standards
Police Officers should also live up to professional standards -they may be exposed to harrowing experiences on a daily basis - as such there are practices "reasonable banter" to help relieve some of that stress on a day to day basis.
On the "reasonable banter scale" what these 2 did was well off any scale that a man in the street would regard as acceptable. Prison will be very hard for them. Is a prison service deserved? Yes, but the length of sentence is probably to make an example to the rest of the police about seriously criminal behaviour.
|
|
I wonder how often judges are swayed by public opinion when sentences are handed out.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
>> I wonder how often judges are swayed by public opinion when sentences are handed out.
Far more often that they should be, I fear. Though who can blame them? I assume that they are also driven by guidelines from wherever they receive guidelines.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
>> Far more often that they should be, I fear. Though who can blame them? I
>> assume that they are also driven by guidelines from wherever they receive guidelines.
Its hard to know, it's not something many, if any at all, would ever admit to. But in some cases you get the feeling there's an element of 'reflecting public opinion ' the blackman case is a good example.
I think they would receive them for legislation created in the HoC.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:35
|
|
I think there is always the public perception that the Police should be held to the highest standards possible, and when they fail (in this case spectacularly) subject to the harshest penalties. If there was ever a sniff of "treated leniently because they were a copper" the whole policing by consent principle falls to pieces.
|
In this case? Not a valid statement. Driven by the publics need to send the Metropolitan Police a message? Yes. This, following on from the Sarah Everard murder sees the Met held in complete contempt by the public they serve. The message here is "who the hell are you employing to be policeman"
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:36
|
>>Driven by the publics need to send the Metropolitan Police a message? Yes
I'm not sure that's much different, is it?
I strongly feel that a better, and stronger, message could have been sent without the prison sentence. I am not in any way saying that there should be leniency, simply that prison is the wrong penalty.
What is prison for if not for revenge? Ok, in a small section it is for removal and protection, but in this case? Rehabilitation? Deterrence?
|
>> >>Driven by the publics need to send the Metropolitan Police a message? Yes
>>
>> I'm not sure that's much different, is it?
motive is the difference here i think, the press merely reflected public disapproval, not stoked it up to sell column inches. Sure they saw a good lurid story when it happened, but sometimes a: they are right and b: they have to bow to and report public opinion, rare i know but reflects this case.
|
The sentence does seem too harsh, but then the offence was on the extreme side - as detailed on this tread, they weren't just curious photos of a dead body, they were specifically edited.
The police must show respect for the individuals in society, even the dead and what these poor girls parents had to suffer was no doubt made worse by the people that should have protected them.
We see newspaper reports of seemingly worse offenders getting suspended sentences, community service etc. and I don't necessarily buy in to the sentiment that the officers should be held to a higher standard, after all, we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. Instead there should be a move away from the internal and IOPC handling of complaints and each one should be dealt with as a potential crime as would a complaint against a member of the public. For example, a claim of assault against an officer should be just that. There was a recent case (last couple of years) where a driver was assaulted by a police officer because the driver couldn't move his car out of the police officers way (not an emergency). The police and IOPC did nothing. A private prosecution had to be taken and only then did the CPS take interest and eventually pick up the case, resulting in a conviction for assault and the officers eventual sacking. The particular officer had a string of complaints against him.
If the police claim that there are too many complaints to deal with in that manner then that is telling in itself.
Should there have been a prison sentence of these two. Yes. Over 30 months - no. Perhaps 6 and even then the possibility of it being suspended.
|
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/R-v-Jaffer-Lewis-sentencing-061221.pdf
Gives a different light on it and it is clear that it was not just taking photos etc.
Something that I had not considered was that the two officers in question could have contaminated the crime scene by straying from their assigned posts. They were not wearing "full barrier’ forensic clothing" and it appears that this was used by the murderer's defence team in court.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 10:33
|
>> www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/R-v-Jaffer-Lewis-sentencing-061221.pdf
I read that link.
It does seem a well thought out judgement, and clearly justifies Manatee's suggestion of dropping them down a deep hole.
That said, a sufficiently deep hole not being available, I still think there were, or at least should have been, better punishment alternatives which would have served us better.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:36
|
It is harsh no doubt, especially at nearly 3 years. But they have basically been jailed for being thick and childish. What sentence will those who recruited and managed these people serve? The PC's were responsible, the Met is accountable.
Were they also badly trained?
I agree that police can very reasonably be expected to hold to a good standard of behaviour, if only because it's their job to make sure the rest of us behave. Truth is we all should, especially if we want to hold them to responsible for their behaviour. Who'd be a public servant if the law said that they got double the punishment of the rest of us should they transgress?
Personally I wouldn't mind if they were dropped down a hole never to be seen again, but I don't see the value in housing and feeding them for 16 months. Kick 'em out, prosecute them, maybe even give them a couple of weeks' chokey to reinforce the point but I don't see the value in housing and feeding them for 16 months. Since we can't actually lose them down a hole, if would make sense to offer some sort of rehabilitation.
|
>>if would make sense to offer some sort of rehabilitation.
Social work, perhaps. Grafitti cleaning, litter picking, I don't care really. Just something which is hard work and punishment for them and causes them to be some benefit to society for once. Not prison which serves no purpose and costs a fortune.
|
|
I wonder what the sentencing would have been if they contaminated the crime scene in such a way that the actual murderer got off?
|
>> I wonder what the sentencing would have been if they contaminated the crime scene in
>> such a way that the actual murderer got off?
or if it ends up as grounds for an appeal.
|
>> I wonder what the sentencing would have been if they contaminated the crime scene in
>> such a way that the actual murderer got off?
Always a difficult one;
If I am driving my car too fast and I spin out on a corner and hit a farm gate, what would be an appropriate punishment?
What about if there are two little children sat on the gate?
The guilt levels are the same, the actions are the same, the results and repercussions quite different.
|
Not a dissimilar observation to 'Careless Driving' Sec 3 RTA.
A trial was about the standard of driving, not the consequences. As a result there was public outrage at the low level of sentencing when death resulted from that standard of driving but the death was not introduced in evidence.
Hence the introduction of 'Death by careless' Sec 2 B.
|
It's difficult though.
I knew a similar but opposite one where the driver had a heart attack out of the blue and consequently drove into a bus queue, injuring and killing, but of course he was guilty of nothing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 15:04
|
Misconduct in Public Office is a Crown Court offence - maximum sentence life. They pled guilty.
Mark asks the sentence would act as a detterent.
I think it will.
|
>> I think it will.
Records over the years tend to show that it does not. Fundamentally because wrong-doers never think that they will be caught. And many, like these two I suspect, don't even really understand that what they're doing is so wrong until they are caught. "s'only a couple of pictures and a larf, innit".
I certainly don't think that two yeas of working for the community for free in the full view of everybody would be less of a deterrent.
The real work is, of course, further back up the line. At the interview, selection and then employment point.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:36
|
>> Mark asks the sentence would act as a detterent.
>>
>> I think it will.
I think that's right. Misconduct in Public Office does not, on the whole, happen by accident. Nor is it an acquisitive crime with some prospect of reward.
Officers tempted to fool around with the dignity of crime victims and risk contaminating the scene and forensics will remember this case and think thrice.
|
>> Officers tempted to fool around with the dignity of crime victims and risk contaminating the
>> scene and forensics will remember this case and think thrice.
I genuinely hope you're right. And they certainly should.
|
>> I genuinely hope you're right. And they certainly should.
The point is the fact it happened is appalling. Deterrence should have nothing to do with it, you shouldn't have to deter Police officers from this kind of behaviour. *
They are bing punished. Call it revenge if you like. Frankly no-one gives a rats bum what hardship they get in jail, and its worth the public purse keeping them there to make sure it does.
*Now this is the point. How did we end up with officers capable of this kind of thing. How is it we are talking about "deterring them". Given this pair and PC Wayne Cozens why isn't there urgent action to look at the vetting and recruitment of new officers, and vetting of existing officers.
The met has a history of failure.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 8 Dec 21 at 13:36
|
"The met has a history of failure."
Given the number it employs, I think that's a bit harsh.
|
>> "The met has a history of failure."
>>
>> Given the number it employs, I think that's a bit harsh.
Check out the corruption in the 60's 70's, The exploits of the SPG in the 80s, Met coppers in the miners strike, the Racism in the 90's, the shooting of menendez, and now this year with perverts.
Harsh is too mild. it has a History of failure. Even one of its chief constables was disgusted with it.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 16:32
|
>> Check out the corruption in the 60's 70's, The exploits of the SPG in the
>> 80s, Met coppers in the miners strike, the Racism in the 90's, the shooting of
>> menendez, and now this year with perverts.
>>
>> Harsh is too mild. it has a History of failure. Even one of its chief
>> constables was disgusted with it.
As if to emphasise this we now have the inquest verdicts for the four young men killed by Stephen Port:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/10/mets-failings-contributed-to-deaths-of-stephen-ports-victims-inquest-finds
The Guardian may be quoting selectively but some of the attitudes about young gay men disclosed in the verdicts sounds awfully similar to the behaviours that led to McPherson's conclusion of institutional racism.
|
I think The Granuad is quoting selectively, but it doesn't seem to alter the facts much.
The incompetence seems undeniable and shocking though I'm not so sure about homophobia. I don't think that's quite right.
It seems like they may have made inappropriate assumptions or generalisations about the people based on their perceived lifestyle. That's the wrong thing to do always, it may even be prejudice, but phobia?
However, ignoring that question just how was the investigation handled *that* badly?
|
>> It seems like they may have made inappropriate assumptions or generalisations about the people based
>> on their perceived lifestyle. That's the wrong thing to do always, it may even be
>> prejudice, but phobia?
For some reason homophobia seems to be the recognised term for the sort of assumptions, biases and generalisations that, applied on the basis of ethnicity, would be described as racism.
|
Here's what Macpherson said about the Met in his report on the Lawrence inquiry when defining institutional racism
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin.
It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.
Adapt those words for attitudes to the LBTGQ+ community and you've pretty clear summary of the attitudes in the Port inquiry.
|
I have little time for the alphabet club who primarily seem to insist that they must be treated differently in order to prove how they are treated equally.
That to one side, The Met does seem to be in a fairly awful state. I have had many dealings with various police forces over the years, and the only one I ever got an unjustified time from was the Met. Though that could have been coincidence and was, in any case, a long time ago.
|
>> I have little time for the alphabet club who primarily seem to insist that they
>> must be treated differently in order to prove how they are treated equally.
The assertion I've bolded is exactly the sort of thing that convinces me you're as conservative as I am Labour. Even if they are asking to be treated differently, and I don't believe you can evidence that than doing so may be no more than a reasonable adjustment.
In the Port case I'd say it's almost incontrovertible that if the bodies of 4 young women, all killed in the same way by the same drug, had been found as these men were we'd have been looking at an inquiry on a much larger and more thorough scale.
|
>> >> I have little time for the alphabet club who primarily seem to insist that
>> they
>> >> must be treated differently in order to prove how they are treated equally.
>>
>> The assertion I've bolded is exactly the sort of thing that convinces me you're as
>> conservative as I am Labour. Even if they are asking to be treated differently, and
>> I don't believe you can evidence that than doing so may be no more than
>> a reasonable adjustment.
>>
>> In the Port case I'd say it's almost incontrovertible that if the bodies of 4
>> young women, all killed in the same way by the same drug, had been found
>> as these men were we'd have been looking at an inquiry on a much larger
>> and more thorough scale.
Mostly I genuinely do not understand what you just said.
But the beginning part of "my attitude to the alphabet club means I am conservative" makes no f.sense at all.
How is my disdain for virtually all such groups relate to my political beliefs?
If I was conservative, for what reason would I deny it?
Why does it matter to you so much?
Are you just upset that I don't like party politics because then your trite arguments have no use?
And WTF has any of that to do with the drugs used in 4 murders?
You may be better writing this stuff before your Sunday afternoon bottle of wine. I still wouldn't agree with you but then it might at least be coherent.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 12 Dec 21 at 18:45
|
>>Deterrence should have nothing to do with it, you shouldn't have to deter Police officers from this kind of behaviour.
That is a very good point.
>> and its worth the public purse keeping them there to make sure it does.
This not so much. Why pay them to sit on their a*** in jail when they could be out doing some work that nobody else either wants to do or pay to be done?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 16:35
|
>>no-one gives a rats bum what hardship they get in jail
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I absolutely think that they should suffer hardship, I just don't think it should be in something as expensive and ineffective as jail.
|
>>The point is the fact it happened is appalling. Deterrence should have nothing to do with it, you shouldn't have to deter Police officers from this kind of behaviour.
The integrity of Police Officers should be above reproach way way above normal expectations - but then again so should a heap of other professions. Society has blurred those defining lines.
>>The met has a history of failure.
Indeed some of the major changes in policing have come historically from issues within the Met and West Mids. However the Met has a massively diverse policing issues.
>>why isn't there urgent action to look at the vetting and recruitment of new officers, and vetting of existing officers.
I really don't think some of the behaviours would be identifiable at interview and selection process stages. They can be hidden
>>Officers tempted to fool around with the dignity of crime victims and risk contaminating the scene and forensics will remember this case and think thrice.
I'm really not so sure there's an element that really don't get it. Symptomatic of the generation and society we live in. If you were to see some of the the carp that Professional Standards gets in its trays. But it must be stressed THAT WORKS BOTH WAYS. Officers subject to petty, vidictive and manufactured complaints from people who cannot accept consequences and authority.
The social media generation really don't get what a hostile place and dangerous place it is. Once anything is out there its there in perpetuity.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 18:40
|
>..why isn't there urgent action to look at the vetting and recruitment of new officers, and
>vetting of existing officers.
I hope you're including the senior brass in that vetting.
There have been at least two recent cases in Hampshire (racism in Basingstoke & sexual in S'Hampton IIRC) where the brass had allowed a culture of abuse to fester until events made it impossible to ignore. The perps eventually got their just desserts but the brass are still polishing their seats.
I think that people rarely do things without reward or at least the prospect of reward, and in this particular case, what reward were these two hoping for by doing what they did? Approval or kudos from their peers? What sort of culture existed that made them think their actions would be anything but abhorrent and does that culture still exist although less overt.
|
>>Approval or kudos from their peers?
Sadly I think it is exactly that. A group called "COVID C**ts"?? Kind of tells you exactly what you're dealing with. And U think they do believe that it makes them a big man in their group. Worse, I think they're probably correct.
>> does that culture still exist although less overt.
I think it is a .Oder human culture, not a police culture, and yes I not only think it exists I think it is gaining strength.
|
>>The social media generation really don't get what a hostile place and dangerous place it is.
>>Once anything is out there its there in perpetuity.
You get idiot users of social media all over the place and we have our fair share Google "Sterling Lads" for a group of bankers that used social media to fix FX rates and Tom Hayes who got 11 years.
We have strict policies on social media usage and people have been sacked for stupid posts.
>>The carp that Professional Standards gets in its trays
I hear police complain that PS are ineffective. I hear MOPs complain that their complaint is not being taken seriously.
>>Officers subject to petty, vidictive and manufactured complaints
And many legitimate complaints that are not dealt with properly and require legal action to get sorted. One recent one, a man was arrested illegally because what he was accused of was not a crime and the police rejected his complaints twice. In the end it had to go to law and he received a hefty pay out.
The police and those in public office aren't the only ones who can be prosecuted for misconduct. I can, and I can even go to prison (up to 5 years) for not reporting suspicions of a crime and it has been held that if I should have been suspicious but wasn't, that counts too. Are the police are held to that standard? I can be barred from the industry and I get vetted annually including a DBS check just in case I did something in the previous 12 months and have to show that I am of good character. Perhaps the same should apply to the police.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 7 Dec 21 at 21:54
|
The police and those in public office aren't the only ones who can be prosecuted
>> for misconduct. I can, and I can even go to prison (up to 5 years)
>> for not reporting suspicions of a crime and it has been held that if I
>> should have been suspicious but wasn't, that counts too. Are the police are held to
>> that standard? I can be barred from the industry and I get vetted annually including
>> a DBS check just in case I did something in the previous 12 months and
>> have to show that I am of good character. Perhaps the same should apply to
>> the police.
>>
I would imagine it would depend on role in the police, in regular duties there's probably not that many. More specialised roles, I'd be surprised if there wasn't more in depth checks at set time scales.
|
>> Whoever facilitated this seems to have got off without personal punishment!
Sentence on 08/12 with Judge's remarks published today:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/FCA-v-Natwest-Sentencing-remarks-131221.pdf
Fine of £264,772,619.95.
One suspects that some members of the Relationship Management Team were incentivised to turn a blind eye but I cannot see anything to suggest proceedings have followed.
|
>>One suspects that some members of the Relationship Management Team were incentivised to turn a blind eye
I'll admit to having only skip-read it, but doesn't Para 10 suggest that the judge thought that was not the case?
|
>> I'll admit to having only skip-read it, but doesn't Para 10 suggest that the judge
>> thought that was not the case?
Para 10 says:
Throughout the Indictment Period, it is accepted both that NatWest sought
to discharge its monitoring obligations under the Regulations and that it
failed to do so as regards the counts to which it has pleaded guilty
Not sure exactly what it says but not a clear statement that Fred Blogs of that team was charged and either convicted or acquitted.
There's also a statement later that when Nat West began investigation at request of law enforcement the Relationship Management Team were kept out of the loop.
|
NatWest tried to do the job...
"NatWest sought to discharge its monitoring obligations"
But it was crap and didn't...
" it failed to do so"
Who knows for sure, but it looks like an R.J. Hanlon moment to me.
>>at request of law enforcement the Relationship Management Team were kept out of the loop.
Presumably SOP? You don't want the possibly guilty involved in the investigation, surely?
|
>> www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/natwest-admits-money-laundering-charges-21799935
>>
>> Whoever facilitated this seems to have got off without personal punishment!
>>
"55 per cent taxpayer-owned"
Oh, so all those people in the UK not paying tax at this moment have no involvement? Or is it just those that were paying tax at the moment the money was handed over? Or is it that paid tax over the period of time the money was accumulated? Or was it borrowed and therefore it's those who pay tax during the repayment period?
Emotive s***e from a rag.
|
It should have been pretty easy to pick up an account with 20 times the expected turnover, without manual intervention.
When I worked for NatWest many years ago, the neighbouring branch of what was then Midland Bank picked up excessive turnover on one of its business accounts - turned out to be three failing textile firms, one banked at Midland, one at NatWest, and one at Barclays IIRC, that were propping up their businesses by teeming and lading. They were writing each other cheques for fictitious transactions and drawing against the uncleared effects. A couple of JPs were charged with fraud IIRC.
|
>>drawing against uncleared effects.
That’s cross-firing.
I am always suspicious when a client banks with too many banks.
Some branch teams and the cash processing centres spotted the huge cash transactions and reported to the bank’s anti money laundering / financial crime team by the cashiers. The branches that didn’t report correctly need a rollicking, they were bringing in sacks of cash FFS!
The bank’s AML team have a lot of questions to answer here. They should not rely on RMs saying everything is ok etc.
All our staff and all NW’s staff have 6 monthly training on this.
|
Woman arrested after trying to help the subject of Stop/Search.
For whatever reason of her own she chooses to be uncooperative. As a direct result the Custody Sergeant decides, more or less as a punishment, to order a strip search, carried out with enthusiasm by his female colleagues.
Misconduct proceedings against the Sergeant are dismissed.
Almost nine years later discovery in her civil action against the Met turns up tape/CCTV of the event including, as well as crystal clear evidence of a punishment strip search the most appalling misogynist 'chatter' amongst the police going through her belongings together with what seem to be personal remarks about her body hair.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/24/met-apologises-to-academic-for-sexist-derogatory-language
One hopes there's no double jeopardy rule to save the Sergeant's misconduct from being re-charged.
|
This guy got £35,000 for a punishment search...
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/innocent-man-pepper-sprayed-police-13338693
Should come out of the officers' pensions.
|
And anything that is not necessary should be treated as assault - but too much time has passed to charge now I expect.
The met and other forces handcuff automatically now, which they are not supposed to do automatically, and often cite "well I don't know you do I". Well the cuffed person doesn't know the police person either.
Another new thing that they do is on traffic stops is reach in to your car and take your keys which again they have no legal power to do unless you look like you are going to make off.
|
>> The met and other forces handcuff automatically now, which they are not supposed to do
>> automatically, and often cite "well I don't know you do I". Well the cuffed person
>> doesn't know the police person either.
Err yes they can cuff you if you under suspicion, under arrest or pose a threat - and not providing basic information (like identity) is sufficient for suspicion.
>> Another new thing that they do is on traffic stops is reach in to your
>> car and take your keys which again they have no legal power to do unless
yes they do have the legal power. And they can take your phone (cos I know thats your next complaint) for chain of evidence reasons if you are arrested.
|
From the Govt:
www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights
iaingould.co.uk/2020/07/09/handcuffed-for-no-reason-a-dangerous-police-habit/
Cuffing is a use of force. If someone is being searched and they are being totally compliant then cuffing could be considered excessive use of force and therefore a crime.
iaingould.co.uk/2021/03/26/know-your-rights-when-it-comes-to-police-traffic-stops/
"There is no obligation on the part of the driver to get out, or hand over his keys (although the Police Federation are campaigning for an amendment to the law which would give Police Officers the authority to require drivers to turn off their engine when stopped and also to demand, where appropriate, that all occupants leave a vehicle)."
The police can take your phone. Only if they suspect there is evidence of a crime on it. They can do the same with dashcams and any other equipment / devices.
|
here is no obligation on the part of the driver to get out, or hand
>> over his keys (although the Police Federation are campaigning for an amendment to the law
>> which would give Police Officers the authority to require drivers to turn off their engine
>> when stopped and also to demand, where appropriate, that all occupants leave a vehicle)."
>>
I vaguely remember seeing someone on tv refuse to get out. He just sat inside and spoke to the (clearly frustrated) police through a tiny gap in the window.
|
"I vaguely remember seeing someone on tv refuse to get out. He just sat inside and spoke to the (clearly frustrated) police through a tiny gap in the window."
Unfortunately the joined up practical application of powers are lost on some particularly the young in service. You could be assured that someone who comes across a clued up Bobby and becomes petulant or obstructive would be sat in the back of a Police car with a bill for some glass. All well within the law. You won't see those interactions on Youtube.
|
Unfortunately the joined up practical application of powers are lost on some particularly the young
>> in service. You could be assured that someone who comes across a clued up Bobby
>> and becomes petulant or obstructive would be sat in the back of a Police car
>> with a bill for some glass.
Even if they were compliant in any other respect? I can't say I've watched or followed loads of police interactions with the public on YT/FB etc.
|
That is of course a valid question.
Drivers of vehicles have certain lawful obligations. In order to fulfill those obligations there has to be a communication process. Once a driver starts to frustrate that process or be belligerent then they start to dig a hole for themselves.
They can comply with requirements by still being belligerent and frustrating in which necessary job done and move on.
Youtube is the haunt of a lot of people and their followers who think they know the law but in reality have a very poor understanding.
Just as a starter. You must provide your documents on demand to a PC at the roadside. If you can't the offence of failing to produce is committed there and then. Yes you can produce within 7 days and database checks can be completed etc etc but you commit the offences at that point.
Having committed an offence you have to provide your details. Name and Address etc. the Police have to check these are authentic and suitable for summons service. If not you can be arrested.
|
They can comply with requirements by still being belligerent and frustrating in which necessary job
>> done and move on.
>>
From what i remember that is pretty much what happened. Answered every question, all details provided etc but only dropped the window a fraction to speak to the police officer. ID etc posted through the slot in the door frame.
|
Having committed an offence you have to provide your details. Name and Address etc. the
>> Police have to check these are authentic and suitable for summons service. If not you
>> can be arrested.
>>
That reminds me of a police interceptors type show of a chap who refused to ID himself at the road side for not wearing a seatbelt. He refused at the station, he then refused to give fingerprints, took 8 people to force his fingers on the machine, came back no ID. He was sent court, I think he ID himself then. Took quite a while though.
|
So from this then it is now (or always has been) mandatory to carry ID in the UK as a driver?
|
In an archaic way, no its not. All of the required details for the privilege of driving is online and checkable by the police. You merely have to confirm to the coppers satisfaction at the scene, that you, are the same person with the same legal authority to drive he can see online.
Fail to convince the plod on site, and its back to archaic physical paperwork production (which these days is a "look see! you are lying and I can prove it - fess up" exercise.)
|
"So from this then it is now (or always has been) mandatory to carry ID in the UK as a driver?"
In a round about way - yes. During dealings with you the PC should satisfy themselves by a variety of means that you are who you claim to be. Even a bank card might tick the box. So if you have no driving licence on you have you any other ID or information that would satisfy said PC. Voters register being one of them. Back in the day someone could provide a rehearsed fictitious address but they probably wouldn't have explored
the finer detail like what were the names of the neighbours :)
|
>> From the Govt:
>>
>> www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights
No its not considered excessive use of force. They can cuff you legally - get over it.
>> "There is no obligation on the part of the driver to get out, or hand
>> over his keys
And there is nothing legally to stop the police taking the keys out of your car if they see a need to. Get over it.
>> The police can take your phone. Only if they suspect there is evidence of a
>> crime on it.
Nope, they can seize your phone the moment you are arrested. Its chain of evidence even if it proves to be of no consequence.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 24 Jan 22 at 17:32
|
>>
>> Another new thing that they do
>>
Zippy, it's not like you to have a chip on your shoulder about authority in general and the police in particular.
Note. For anyone who is not sure, that is intended to be heavy sarcasm.
|
"Another new thing that they do is on traffic stops is reach in to your car and take your keys which again they have no legal power to do unless you look like you are going to make off."
How do you know these things - is it from personal experience or a chap down the pub?
I was stopped lat at night earlier in the year on the M11 for exceeding the speed limit. After the usual enquiries "what do you think I am stopping your for?" and a check of my licence I was waved on my way with a "take care"" and the comment "I wouldn't want to spoil a nice clean licence like that"
|
>> "Another new thing that they do is on traffic stops is reach in to your
>> car and take your keys which again they have no legal power to do unless
>> you look like you are going to make off."
>>
>> I was stopped lat at night earlier in the year on the M11 for exceeding
>> the speed limit. After the usual enquiries "what do you think I am stopping your
>> for?" and a check of my licence I was waved on my way with a
>> "take care"" and the comment "I wouldn't want to spoil a nice clean licence like
>> that"
>>
Most of my many stops have been harmless, often with good humoured police officers and at one time I used to get stopped a few times a every week - mainly because I was driving very late at night. I know how to behave and have been "let off" speeding offences with similar comments to yours.
I would say 90% of stops have been really pleasant, even the breath-tests (smell of aniseed taken for spirit) have been fine. 7% have been OK, sort of matter of fact and don't do it again sort of things. 1% the police officer had to go because he was about to burst out laughing. 2% of traffic stops were conducted in a way that was downright rude and condescending.
Once, on being politely but insistently grilled about why I had so many keys on my keyring (my keys, my parents keys, girlfriend's flat's keys, office x 2, shed, bike lock and others - load of them). It was getting late and I said, I totally understand why you are asking, let me show you some ID. I fished for my work ID from my Belstaff jacket and handed it to the lead officer. There was a "sea change" in attitude and I was even offered an escort to where I was going! It was an impressive ID.
On a very different occasion, I was driving down the A1, quite some time ago now, and was getting sleepy, so I pulled off the A1 found a quiet road and parked up for a while for a rest. I got a rap on the windscreen and asked what I was doing. I told the officers I was driving from Newcastle to the South Coast, got sleepy so pulled over for about an hour to rest and eat my sandwiches.
One of the policemen then said he could smell cannabis and searched my car. There was no cannabis, he knew there was no cannabis and there was certainly no smell of cannabis. I hate the smell of the stuff - if I could have smelt it I wouldn't have stayed there. The officer was basically abusing his powers.
|
What I don't quite get get is why you ae stopped so often.
I think the stop I mentioned was probably the first for 30 to 40 year. No wonder crime rates are going up with most of the nation's police forces actively targeting you.
|
>> What I don't quite get get is why you ae stopped so often.
>>
>>
>>
I enjoy reading about zippy's endless interactions with the police, helps to keep everyone else's average down.
|
> Most of my many stops have been harmless, often with good humoured police officers and
>> at one time I used to get stopped a few times a every week -
>> mainly because I was driving very late at night.
That seems a very odd reason to stop someone, like many on here i used to drive at all hours. Never been stopped by the police.
|
|
Good job pretty much all cars are keyless now then, isn’t it. They’d never reach mine through the window ;)
|
|
Was it Saabs that had a button you had to press to get the keys out?
|
>> Was it Saabs that had a button you had to press to get the keys
>> out?
You had to put the gear lever in reverse.
|
>> Was it Saabs that had a button you had to press to get the keys
>> out?
Some BL models from the early seventies when steering locks were first mandatory had such a set up.
|
|
Wasn't BL, it'll come to me. I just can't think what it is right now!
|
>> Wasn't BL, it'll come to me. I just can't think what it is right now!
Whatever it is, I've driven one. It took me ages to figure it out. Can't remember now what it was.
|
>> >> Wasn't BL, it'll come to me. I just can't think what it is right
>> now!
>>
>> Whatever it is, I've driven one. It took me ages to figure it out. Can't
>> remember now what it was.
I remember it on one car, what was it? damn thats annoying me now. It was common place in American cars, but it crept into one or two cars here.
Edit think it was some Fords.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 24 Jan 22 at 17:36
|
|
Hmm got me thinking, might be an american vehicle I've driven, possibly a bobtail.
|
|
Missed the edit, i think you might be right with ford as they made the bobtail.
|
|
I think in my first Fiat Uno you could turn the ignition key beyond ‘off’, and then press a button on the outer edge of the ignition key barrel to let you remove the key and leave the parking lights on. Or, to put it another way you couldn’t accidentally leave the lights on, it took effort. Don’t think it was steering lock related though, although it zags a little while ago!
|
|
...a number of Fiats, I think. Press a detent, then turn the key further for the side/parking lights.
|
On the Almera I had before the current car the key jammed in the ignition switch and nothing I or greater minds could do would shift it. Fortunately I had a second key and fob so I had to park it up everywhere like that, but with the interior of the car being fairly dark it did not notice unless you had a close peer through the window.
Zippy, you really ought to get rid of that back to front baseball cap and rip the boom box out, then you wouldn't keep getting stopped.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 24 Jan 22 at 19:13
|
>> Was it Saabs that had a button you had to press to get the keys
>> out?
>>
My one and only Saab was an H reg 9000 2.3 turbo. Incredibly fast in a straight line....used to visit friends who lived in La Louviere ( south of Brussels) where we found out just how fast it was. Also incredibly thirsty. Very comfortable Bridge of Weir leather seats. Sunroof. Obviously.
Bought from a London dealer who’d gone into liquidation...third hand. Sadly it died of major electrical gremlins which would have cost more to fix than it was worth.
|
All best practice.
Police Officers are taught to put a person arrested or detained (Sec 1 PACE) in handcuffs. Part of the continual risk assessments undertaken by front line Officers. Handcuffs can be applied and removed sympathetically.
As for car keys. Drivers should be politely asked to remove their keys and place them on the dashboard. Whilst it is not a legal requirement to comply it may be the the first step in the PC becoming more wary of the person they are dealing with.
The only thing black and white in Policing is the chequered band around the caps.
|
>> All best practice.
>>
>> Police Officers are taught to put a person arrested or detained (Sec 1 PACE) in
>> handcuffs. Part of the continual risk assessments undertaken
Now Met police officers have to ponder 44 questions before applying cuffs:
emergency-services.news/the-44-questions-metropolitan-police-officers-are-expected-to-ask-themselves-before-putting-someone-in-cuffs/amp/
Giving time for the scallywag to flee! :-)
|
Blimey, quite a list!!!
1. Is what I am considering consistent with the Code of Ethics?
2. What would the victim or community affected expect of me in this situation?
3. What does the police service expect of me in this situation?
4. Is this action or decision likely to reflect positively on my professionalism and policing generally?
5. Could I explain my action or decision in public?
6. What is happening?
7. What do I know so far?
8. What do I not know?
9. What further information (or intelligence) do I want/need at this moment?
10. Do I need to take action immediately?
11. Do I need to seek more information?
12. What could go wrong (and what could go well)?
13. What is causing the situation?
14. How probable is the risk of harm?
15. How serious would it be?
16. Is that level of risk acceptable?
17. Is this a situation for the police alone to deal with?
18. Am I the appropriate person to deal with this?
19. What am I trying to achieve?
20. Will my action resolve the situation?
21. What police powers might be required?
22. Is there any national guidance covering this type of situation?
23. Do any local organisational policies or guidelines apply?
24. What legislation might apply?
25. Is there any research evidence?
26. If decision makers have to account for their decisions, will they be able to say they were proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
27. Reasonable in the circumstances facing them at the time?
28. Does anyone else need to know what you have decided?
29. What happened as a result of your decision?
30. Was it what you wanted or expected to happen?
31. How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?
32. What information or intelligence was available?
33. What factors (potential benefits and harms) were assessed?
34. What threat and risk assessment methods were used (if any)?
35. Was a working strategy developed and was it appropriate?
36. Were there any powers, policies and legislation that should have been considered?
37. If policy was not followed, was this reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances?
38. How were feasible options identified and assessed?
39. Were decisions proportionate, legitimate, necessary and ethical?
40. Were decisions reasonable in the circumstances facing the decision maker?
41. Were decisions communicated effectively?
42. Were decisions and the rationale for them recorded as appropriate?
43. Were decisions monitored and reassessed where necessary?
44. What lessons can be learnt from the outcomes and how the decisions were made?
|
31. How were the principles and standards of professional behaviour demonstrated during the situation?
That one has HR written all over it.
"Are you daydreaming Constable?"
"No Sergeant, I'm reflecting on the confrontation with the drunken yobs last night and asking myself how I demonstrated the principles and standards of professional behaviour during the situation".
|
|
45. What would Cressida do?
|
>> 45. What would Cressida do?
Answer Get Sacked
shes history
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-60340525
|
|
Only a few hours after saying she was going nowhere. I'm surprised she stayed this long.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 10 Feb 22 at 19:20
|
|
Just shows she didn't have a clue what was going on around her.
|
|
Its not her job to micro manage the bottom end. If there are perceived cultural and attitude issues within the Met will a change at the top make any difference? I don't think so. Highly political position and probably fed up to the back teeth with Khan.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 10 Feb 22 at 23:00
|
|
Like the Star Trek movie ‘The Wrath of Khan’ .....beam me up Scotty.
|
>Its not her job to micro manage the bottom end.
It was her job to put a management structure in place that could run the "bottom end" properly while she kept out of their way and shielded them from meddling politicians.
>If there are perceived cultural and attitude issues within the Met will
>a change at the top make any difference?
Perceived?
Let me see if I can think of any recent cultural or attitude issues with the Met... how long have you got?
>Highly political position and probably fed up to the back teeth with Khan.
Can't disagree with that. Might have been easier though if she'd concentrated on getting results first.
|
It is difficult to trust anyone at the top of government now. John Major in his speech today got it spot on!
Does Khan want someone in place to make sure the long arm of the law reaches out to the Partygate participants.
Does No 10 want Cressida out to delay the police investigation and hope it dies in the long grass.
Is the Mayor is right in judging her performance seriously sub-par. Her performance in investigating the nonsense at No 10 was dire, but the job is a difficult one.
Why was she given a two year contract extension - Khan had been Mayor since 2016 and must have already formed a judgement.
In making her recommendation to the Queen, the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to have regard for the views of the Mayor of London. Did she fail to consult, or is Sadiq stirring it.
I don't normally do conspiracy theories - but a lack of integrity and the single minded pursuit of political goals leads me to question their veracity.
|
There are over 30,000 in the Met and a moderately small handful have come to light for being bad in one way or another.
I don't think that is necessarily an organisational problem, any more than say Harold Shipman and other medical staff who commit crimes are representative of the NHS. All organisations will have some
There are obviously some cultural problems but I admire the large unreported majority of police for dealing with a massive range matters without letting it affect them rather than focusing on a small minority who do. It doesn't excuse bad behaviours but I don't think many of us would cope with dealing with a tenth of what some officers do each day without some effect.
|
>>I don't think that is necessarily an organisational problem, any more than say Harold Shipman and other medical staff who commit crimes are representative of the NHS. All organisations will have some
Maybe. But I've worked in a couple of organisations where the bullies ruled, and also one where there was a much kinder culture. I'm suspicious of environments where the bad eggs feel they can show their colours.
No doubt they are a minority but they poison the well out of proportion to their numbers. And an organisation that allows that is disfunctional.
It's probably harder to deal with in a distributed organisation than in a centralised one.
|
|
It was her response to the latest inquiry findings that did for her. She should have had a plan in place to respond to the findings as it had been ongoing for a couple of years, and known about well before that. She didn't have one, all she could offer was apologies, and everyone just wasn't enough.
|
Boris has managed OK on apologies and no plan.
Well, half-apologies,
But I get your point
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 11 Feb 22 at 11:32
|
>> This seems unbelievably harsh to me. The two officers were beyond stupid, but surely losing
>> their careers and maybe a hefty fine would have been punishment enough, but prison? When
>> you read about people who commit quite serious acts of violence and get a non
>> custodial sentence this seems way over the top. They are a danger to nobody but
>> themselves.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59474472
Appeals dismissed and sentence upheld by a strongly constituted Couurt of Appeal.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Collins-Lewis-Jaffer-judgment-300522.pdf
|
>> >> This seems unbelievably harsh to me. The two officers were beyond stupid, but surely
>> losing
>> >> their careers and maybe a hefty fine would have been punishment enough, but prison?
I couldn't agree more. They must have been absolutely bonkers to do what they did - but prison? No, I can't agree with that, as RoR says.
|
I think the key thing here was that they could have totally mucked up the forensics by getting too close to the body. It's lucky that forensics were not compromised too much or they could be looking at a much longer sentence.
Also, take an indecent photo of a live person and share it around without permission, you would expect jail. There should be no difference re a dead person and what's more, they would have known what they were doing was inappropriate.
They deserve what they got.
|
|
They were lucky the Appeal court didn't increase the sentence. I would have done.
|
|
I thought you could take whatever photos you liked in a public place?
|
|
The moment it was taped off as a crime scene, it wasn't a public place.
|
>> I thought you could take whatever photos you liked in a public place?
>>
There can be expectations of privacy, even in public, and whilst most public photography is OK, some is not. For example, if a lady is in public, you should be allowed to photograph her at a reasonable distance, but if you focus on certain parts of her body you are likely to get in trouble.
|
The forensics issue would have been more of an inference from the defence that cross contamination may have occurred thereby prejudicing the case and a murderer walks free.
I'm in the appropriate punishment camp.
|
>> The forensics issue would have been more of an inference from the defence that cross
>> contamination may have occurred thereby prejudicing the case and a murderer walks free.
The murderer tried exactly that but the jury didn't swallow it.
|
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11069265/Officer-sent-naked-selfie-woman-reported-sex-assault-said-hed-sexually-assault-her.html
Are these people ever checked on. Don't their colleagues report outrageous behaviour?
This follows a report of a sergeant spanking a fellow officer at the same station!
|
>> Are these people ever checked on. Don't their colleagues report outrageous behaviour?
I have an iceberg theory where colleagues see only the visible and less damaging behaviuor which they navigate around rather than challenge.
|
I am starting to think that being an evil git is a requirement to be part of the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Team.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-64289461
Surely a whole life order is necessary here?
|
Maybe no excuse for "manhandling" her but the article does imply that she refused to prove she had paid her fare, saying she was in a hurry, though it was subsequently proved she did, and she was not entirely compliant and walked away from the officer and bus inspector when asked to prove she'd paid.
I'm not sure how a copper can arrest and detain someone (regardless of whether it was necessary in this case) who is walking away and disregarding them without touching them.
|
rice v connolly 1966 means you don't have to assist the police.
They need to have reasonable suspicion which is a low bar, but I don't think it was met here.
There is another video on youTube of this officer being an ass to a photographer - suggesting he is a certain type of officer.
|
>> rice v connolly 1966 means you don't have to assist the police.
However, there is the offence of "obstruction". Here there was reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. (yes fare evasion is a criminal offence) and the suspect was being deliberately obstructive just for the sake of it. The case here was about the manner of apprehension.
Typical of Sov cit types to quote legal precedent completely out of context.
|
>> However, there is the offence of "obstruction". Here there was reasonable suspicion that a criminal
>> offence had been committed. (yes fare evasion is a criminal offence) and the suspect was
>> being deliberately obstructive just for the sake of it. The case here was about the
>> manner of apprehension.
It's taken three years and involvement of the complaints branch to get to this point.
Whatever the armchair quarterbacks think the District Judge found that PC Lathwood did not have reasonable grounds for arrest. It seem made a misjudgement rather than it being a deliberate act of flouting the law but when officers have power to arrest and handcuff people misjudgements have serious consequences. The woman failed the attitude test big time but if I was late for an appointment and being hassled by a ticket inspector I'd probably walk too. If you watch the video she shows the inspector, who being an officious asshat as well, her pass.
Whether Lathwood should lose his job over it is a different question.
I have the impression that handcuffs are used far more than they used to be. Injuries as a consequence of their use are a recurrent theme in cases where victims of wrongful arrest claim compensation.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 19 May 24 at 12:43
|
>> I have the impression that handcuffs are used far more than they used to be.
>> Injuries as a consequence of their use are a recurrent theme in cases where victims
>> of wrongful arrest claim compensation.
>>
I think you are right, often accompanied by the "well I don't know you, so I am protecting myself".
Now, were are the stats re assaults on police vs police assaults on the public :-D
|
>> I think you are right, often accompanied by the "well I don't know you, so
>> I am protecting myself".
Reading through the thread I see the question came up before.
Injuries from heavy handed cuffing come up with monotonous regularity in the writing of lawyer blogger Ian Gould (referenced upthread)
|
From the Police Federation -
"Last year, there were 50,259 assaults on UK police officers – 40,330 in England and Wales, 6,657 in Scotland, and 3,272 in Northern Ireland. That equates to one officer being assaulted every 10 minutes."
"In the year ending March 2023, 40,330 assaults on police officers were recorded, which averages to 110 assaults per day,"
That's a 25% increase in a year.
I can't find a corresponding figure for how many people were assaulted by a police officer but my feeling is it isn't likely to be as high as one every 10 minutes.
|
>>Assaults...
Please remember, they count assault as threatening or moving towards, even if there is no contact, because the law states that " apprehend immediate unlawful violence" - all they need to say is that they believed that they were going to be assaulted.
Also, the police do assault people regularly, but don't see it as that, and much of it is considered appropriate - the application of handcuffs is an assault if not appropriate. Threatening to arrest someone if information isn't given - is an assault - e.g. if you don't give me your name and address, then I am going to arrest you - even if they have no rights to it.
|
>> Typical of Sov cit types to quote legal precedent completely out of context.
>>
It's a common confusion, exploited by crooked cops, to say that refusing to assist is obstruction. It isn't.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 20 May 24 at 12:58
|
>
>> I'm not sure how a copper can arrest and detain someone (regardless of whether it
>> was necessary in this case) who is walking away and disregarding them without touching them.
>>
Thinking is they ask for details, if not forthcoming warning liable to arrest.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tSDYSa5Jc
Police investigating an offence of fare evasion must have had information (rightly or in hindsight wrongly) that she had not paid her fare. As such they are entitled to investigate the offence. I see and hear the Officers trying to talk with her.
Shes immediately gone into full victim mode, shouting and bawling, creating a massive scene and physically avoiding interaction. This is the most common tactic of someone who is trying to avoid consequences.
All this infront of a young child. Disgraceful! It had the desired effect and immediately attracted an audience with cameras out all adding to the escalation whilst the Officers remained relatively calm.
Anyone who struggles in handcuffs is going to get marks on their wrists. If you've ever had your face clawed by fingernails form an irrate woman, or even a male, trying to do your job I can assure you will not be studying statistics to rationalist your decision making.
This is what happens when you try to take a softly softly approach. It backfires. Maybe, providing grounds where they should have just arrested her.
Its alright saying she doesn't have to do this and she doesn't have to do that but had she calmly engaged and shown her pass then it would have been done and dusted in seconds.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 19 May 24 at 16:10
|
AIUI the police were there with TfL ticket inspectors so there was only suspicion in so far as, for reasons of her own, she did not immediately engage with the ticket inspector who asked for her ticket after she had disembarked.
So far as I can see from another video he escalated it by being an asshat*. She showed her pass after some prevarication.
* I don't know what it is with ticket inspectors an asshattery; there's one at Northampton/MK who seems determined to be confrontational at any and every opportunity.
|
>>Ticket inspectors...
Special breed.
Threatened with fare evasion because I took a few moments finding my ticket that was buried amongst all of the other receipts in my wallet.
Utter ******!
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 19 May 24 at 16:48
|
>> Utter ******!
Its all part of the state surveillance of you Zipster
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 20 May 24 at 12:58
|
>> * I don't know what it is with ticket inspectors an asshattery; there's one at
>> Northampton/MK who seems determined to be confrontational at any and every opportunity.
Because they have to deal with stroppy smart ass members of the public who whine about the increased cost of public transport (due to fare evasion)
|
|
Funny, I have never encountered any problem that I can recall with ticket inspectors, bus drivers, the police or parking wardens in the last 75 years. Strange that. Wonder why some people have so many problems with anyone in authority?
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tSDYSa5Jc
>>
>> Police investigating an offence of fare evasion must have had information (rightly or in hindsight
>> wrongly) that she had not paid her fare. As such they are entitled to investigate
She is holding the pass in her hands.
Perhaps the officers should have asked to see that before going hands on with an arrest or just ask her for her version of events first?
|
"Perhaps the officers should have asked to see that before going hands on with an arrest or just ask her for her version of events first?"
And perhaps she should have produced her pass before going full Karen and creating a massive scene. She was talking to no one rationally, she was purely on creating a scene and portraying herself as a victim.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4tSDYSa5Jc
>>
>> Police investigating an offence of fare evasion must have had information (rightly or in hindsight
>> wrongly) that she had not paid her fare.
I believe the judge said they had no such grounds. Not engaging is not grounds for suspicion by all accounts.
|
>>I believe the judge said they had no such grounds. Not engaging is not grounds for suspicion by >>all accounts.
There is a bloke suing the the met police because he was searched in London after "looking strangely" at their van as he walked past them.
Another, in Portsmouth is suing because he was searched for walking out of his flat past the police.
Reminds me of: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6hdKsa6ls
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 19 May 24 at 17:46
|
There is a fine balance - enabling the police to do the job the public want, and ensuring the behaviour of some officers does not exceed reasonable bounds.
The pendulum has swung too far towards the sometimes questionable "rights" of the public. I want the police to deal effectively with crime - however minor. I do not want officers neutered by fear of subsequent prosecution.
We complain bitterly about their ineffectual response to minor issues - eg: e-bikes on pavements, shoplifting, car crime. But we are responsible for their poor performance.
It is a crime (however minor) not to pay the fare. The correct response of the potential non-payer should be to apologise quietly and seek to find the ticket as evidence they have paid.
The police are not perfect - they need to improve both their pre-employment checks and in service monitoring. However creating unnecessary barriers on their activities will inevitably end in a sub-standard service.
Recruitment of quality officers will be compromised rather than encouraged. Existing officers operate in fear of reprimand. This is not acceptable.
|
>>It's a fine balance
Yes it is. Unfortunately, whilst most police offices can and do act with integrity some get it so wrong - it's like they want everyone to be wrong all of the time.
Some are just corrupt - markers put on cars that they may be carrying wanted persons leading to armed police stops when the car owner is a blogger.
>>It is a crime (however minor) not to pay the fare. The correct response of the potential non-
>>payer should be to apologise quietly and seek to find the ticket as evidence they have paid.
Apologise - listen to yourself! First of all - it's innocent until proven guilty. Second, why should the falsely accused apologise? Surely the ticket inspector or police should apologise for getting it wrong - and of course they don't - from experience - no apology for false arrest.
>>Recruitment -
The police have been recruiting without face to face interviews FFS.
www.lbc.co.uk/news/18k-police-hired-virtually
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 19 May 24 at 21:28
|
Lots of companies hire by phone, does it make that much difference? It's not as though they go straight out on the beat without meeting their bosses and some training. And "sources stressed that those who were hired virtually do go on to attend a national assessment centre in-person for fitness tests and medical assessments."
Oh, and "All 43 forces are now completing face-to-face interviews with candidates."
Seems it was a Covid thing which dragged on a bit in some forces. You could call it a non-story.
Were Wayne Couzins or David Carrick (mentioned in your article) hired by phone?
Btw you know you can go out with the police for a shift, and experience first hand what they deal with and how they normally do it? I think all forces do it but here's the Met page
www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/st-s/stop-and-search/ras/met/ride-along-scheme/
|
>>Btw you know you can go out with the police for a shift, and experience first hand what they >>deal with and how they normally do it? I think all forces do it but here's the Met page
Yes.
Just google Hasting Police misconduct - you would need to be very brave - and wear a chastity belt to go out with some of that lot.
>>Recruitment on line...
This isn't some office clerk job. This is public safety. Face to face interviews should be compulsory.
And vetting is still in arrears: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59267652
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-66871951
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 19 May 24 at 21:52
|
1st article is 2021 so poss out of date info.
2nd is more recent (last autumn) but relates to somewhat historical issues due to being overwhelmed, and says "Staff were prioritising the recruitment of new people to the force which lead to lengthy delays of checks on non-police personnel, such as contractors and volunteers."
I would imagine that it more likely delayed start dates rather than put unvetted officers out on the streets but it does say that "27 workers had been moved into roles which had access to more sensitive information without the required enhanced checks."
Regarding Hastings, there seem to be a few outstanding cases so not sure which you are referring to. Clearly there have been some "bad eggs" but aren't there in every industry? I can think of a few bad bankers - Epstein and his Barclays friends, Fred the Shred. It does no harm whatsoever to clear them out but I imagine it's hard to recognise the signs until it's too late.
|
>>Hastings...
Two police detectives shot and killed an unarmed, naked drug dealer who was in bed. Got off scot-free after much evidence was "lost". At least the Home Secretary sacked the Chief Constable over it.
Very rare and expensive BMW "supercar" was impounded in the police station carpark. Suddenly the CCTV was turned off and the car went missing.
I handed in a new iPhone that I found to a policeman to take to lost property. It never got there - I have the email evidence.
Police officer working as a escort.
Police officer sexually assaulting colleagues.
Police officer who abused their position for sexual purposes - having sex with victims of crime.
Hastings police taser and pava sprayed a 93 year old, one legged, wheelchair bound man - yes he had a knife but couldn't do anything with it.
My favorite -there is a pathway through some woods here. The police have put a sign up - "enter at your own risk", because they can't be bothered to police it.
I handed some lost car keys at the carnival to a constable - incase someone came looking for them. A minute later I saw him put them in a bin. I complained to the Sgt - but he didn't care.
etc. etc.
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 19 May 24 at 22:25
|
|
Wow, that's quite a list!
|
|
In-laws were burgled and a masonic ring stolen. It was recovered, but the detective handling the case insisted on it being returned to them as "it wouldn't be safe here".
|
Police tried to interfere with democracy....
This stems from a Tory councillor saying that if a Christian preacher is arrested then the same rules must apply to other religious preachers equally.
Allegedly the police tried to get the councillor removed from the position that he was legally elected to.
The police state starts here :-D
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13434031/Police-accused-trampling-democracy-detectives-pressure-local-Tory-party-unseat-councillor-arrested-wrongly-accused-hate-crime.html
Warning Jacob Rees Mogg...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y90YhI9xgCI
|
I guess this is where the bad apples in the Met get their lead from. :-D
www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2xxp7vw0no
Last edited by: zippy on Mon 5 Aug 24 at 23:00
|
|
Nothing to see here, certainly not worthy of comment.
|
>> Nothing to see here, certainly not worthy of comment.
I suspect Rowley's fuse was already fizzing when he walked out of the Cabinet Office then some asinine journo asks a deliberately provocative question.
As Zero says, nothing to see: it looks as though the mike fell to the ground.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 Aug 24 at 10:01
|
Replace the microphone with a police radio and do the same to a police officer.
I would put money on the outcome not being the same.
|
|
Here, take this molehill, let see what you can make of it.
|
>> Replace the microphone with a police radio and do the same to a police officer.
>>
>> I would put money on the outcome not being the same.
That's true but TBH you're comparing Bananas with Elephants.
|
>> >> Replace the microphone with a police radio and do the same to a police
>> officer.
>> >>
>> >> I would put money on the outcome not being the same.
>>
>> That's true but TBH you're comparing Bananas with Elephants.
>>
Nope, just reversed roles: 1 x police 1 x civilian. Totally different potential outcomes.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 6 Aug 24 at 19:52
|
Appropriate Sentence - legacylad
