The unappetising tale of punchy polis Sergeant Mark Andrews has taken another twist.
In July of 2008 Sgt Andrews was convicted of assaulting a woman who had been arrested and brought into the station.
It took more than two years - during which this violent clown was drawing full pay - for him to be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sent to prison for six months.
He appealed against that and was released after spending six days inside.
In the last day or so, dear old Wiltshire Constabulary has sacked him - presumably they've only just noticed an employee on £35k a year hasn't been in work much for the last 30 months.
Is that the end of the matter?
Don't you believe it.
The now plain Mr Andrews plans to appeal to the chief, although heaven knows on what grounds.
And if that appeal fails, he's going to appeal again to a tribunal.
Then there will probably more appeal hearings as he attempts to keep his pension.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-12068624
|
|
Yes, very difficult to understand how, if he was convicted in 2008, it takes this long to dismiss him. That part of the process should be executed far quicker. He can appeal all he wants then but shouldn't remain in employment while he does so. Since the force have dismissed him I can't see the appeal to the Chief achieving anything. It's the home Secretary next and the cost will be borne by the police federation - paid by member subscription.
|
Oops.
I made a balls of the OP by writing two contradictory statements.
The incident took place in July, 2008.
He was convicted in September of this year.
The rest of the chronology is correct.
Apologies.
|
|
The point's almost the same - it shouldn't take that long to get him to court.
|
...it shouldn't take that long to get him to court...
The evidence - whatever you make of it - was immediately to hand.
The only delay should have been while the victim sobered up. :)
|
From the report -
"The criminal appeal hearing concluded that Pamela Somerville had been lawfully arrested, was intoxicated, very unco-operative, verbally abusive, and disruptive to the processes which the law required the police to carry out."
He was found not guilty, so why shouldn't he appeal if he thinks his employer has dealt with him too harshly?
TBH, I have little sympathy with PITA drunks who make everybody else's life a misery and are responsible for over 50% of the NHS casualty budget. Having had to deal with them occasionaly in a previous employment the temptation to to be less than genteel can get the better of even the calmest type.
The silly cow should be banned from drinking if she can't handle it.
|
I would agree with all you say RR clearly she was a royal big time pain in the ass and hard to handle.
But at 33seconds he lost his temper and stepped over the line.
|
...The silly cow should be banned from drinking if she can't handle it...
She was not charged with any offence.
If the polis is entitled to rely on his eventual not guilty verdict, she can rightly portray herself as not having committed any crime.
|
...polis...
Quaint northern expression, obviously.
Sometimes seen it spelled 'poliss', but it's slang, so who knows?
|
>> She was not charged with any offence.
>>
>> If the polis is entitled to rely on his eventual not guilty verdict, she can
>> rightly portray herself as not having committed any crime.
>>
Probably 90%+ of the drunks the police deal with are not charged with any offence because there are so many of them the criminal justice system would collapse if any more than the most serious cases were proceeded with.
She was the type of time consuming anti-social chav who make many places no-go areas for the rest of us after dark and if she got a bit roughed up then tough.
|
...She was the type of time consuming anti-social chav who make many places no-go areas...
Robin,
Her behaviour in the police station was far from ladylike, but to call her a chav is incorrect.
She was 57-years-old at the time, and was arrested while asleep in her car.
The police officer who did arrest her might have been better employed tackling the people of whom you speak.
|
>> Robin,
>>
>> Her behaviour in the police station was far from ladylike, but to call her a
>> chav is incorrect.
>>
>> She was 57-years-old at the time, and was arrested while asleep in her car.
>>
That's my definition of a chav.
Age is immaterial.
|
...That's my definition of a chav...age is immaterial...
'Chav' is a slang term and can therefore mean pretty much what you want it to.
But all of the half-a-dozen or so references I've looked at on the net refer to chavs as young people or teenagers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
tinyurl.com/259lywh
This woman was 57.
|
>> The police officer who did arrest her might have been better employed tackling the people
>> of whom you speak.
>>
So once again (as in the initial post) proving that it is the bosses of this "polis"man who are to blame, not the polis-man.
|
>> pay - for him to be convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sent
>> to prison for six months.
>>
>> He appealed against that and was released after spending six days inside.
>>
Excuse me, do you mean appealed against the sentence or the conviction?
AFAIK, it was the latter and he was found "NOT GUILTY" after the appeal.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-12068624
"The appeal judge, Mr Justice Bean, said after the four-day hearing in November he was satisfied that Sgt Andrews did not intend to throw Ms Somerville into the cell and that injuries she suffered "were probably caused by her falling to the floor after letting go of the door frame"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11787126
"Wiltshire policeman cleared of assault on appeal"
|
...Excuse me, do you mean appealed against the sentence or the conviction?...
He was convicted, appealed the conviction and won.
That's why I refer to 'eventual not guilty verdict' in an earlier post.
|
>> That's why I refer to 'eventual not guilty verdict' in an earlier post.
>>
earlier?
in fact later than the OP, it was in your third post.
If he was not guilty, what is your complaint?
Last edited by: John H on Fri 24 Dec 10 at 11:33
|
...earlier?...
Yeah, earlier than this one.
For goodness sake.
|
|
Quite. He does seem to be an undesirable policeman, though - having been sacked by the police because of this. I have very little sympathy for the chap.
|
35k for a sergeant? Sounds ok to me. My pal, a long-serving and now retired constable, always used the collective noun a 'skive' of sergeants.
|
...35k for a sergeant?...
A guesstimate on my part, although no one's come forward to correct me, so it's probably not far off the mark.
|
|
Iffy - He's as entitled as anyone else to appeal against conviction. having had the conviction quashed he's entitled to be regarded as 'not guilty'. This applies to absolutely everyone out there. What other occupation then reserves the right to dismiss an employee on the basis of not having been convicted of an offence? This is the double jeopardy that Police officers find themselves in. Required to deal with lifes most testing people, who can sling whatever accusation they like at the officer. A court dismisses the conviction and they still lose their job. The internal process relies on the much lower 'balance of probability' burden of proof as opposed to that in criminal court of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. How can this be fair? I guess from the tone of your posts that you simply don't like the Police. Entirely a matter for you but what you regard as a 'wriggler', some may regard as having been dealt with harshly under the circumstances. Perhaps you'd wriggle with what was at stake, but I don't expect you to admit so. Very easy to criticise from your keyboard with probably no experience whatsoever of dealing with people like the lady in question, time and time again. It's a difficult and thankless job, methinks. Criticism frequently comes from those that aren't capable of doing the job but feel qualified to pass opinion. Support often comes from those that are capable but choose to leave it to others, and respect the difficulties faced.
|
Woodster,
I'm pretty sure there are instances where any employee can be charged with a criminal offence and acquitted but still dismissed. The facts may not support a conviction to tests and standard of proof in criminal law. They are enough, on the balance of probability, to support gross misconduct. Dodgy internet downloads in the office might be one such example.
Depriving him of accrued pension is another matter; that would be extremely harsh.
|
|
Other occupations are perhaps less likely to have allegations of assault made against them. many of the people dealt with by the police will make malicious allegations simply to make life difficult for officers and sully the waters in their case. What other occupations are likely to find themselves in a similar position?. If you download porn in the office then you've only got yourself to blame. Perfectly simple to determine if you've breached company regs in such a case.
|
Well said, Woodster.
I think someone "who could pay but won't" (i.e. Iffy refusing to pay his parking dues at the Mway service area) is a wriggler.
|
For most of us thread drift is a delight and something we all enjoy:)
For a few, it allows then to hark back and turn the knife once more.
In those cases it's just tiresome and boring....even more so on Christmas Eve.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Sat 25 Dec 10 at 04:13
|
>> In those cases it's just tiresome and boring....even more so on Christmas Eve.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Pat, thank you very much (not) for a very valuable contribution to this thread.
What has Christmas, a pagan festival, got to do with it?
|
Not a lot John, but then, neither had your remark either.
Pat
|
.... Iffy refusing to pay his parking dues at the Mway service area) is a wriggler...
John H,
There's no wriggling about it, it's just that I cannot give in to pig ignorant bullies.
But I don't mind wishing them Merry Christmas.
So Merry Christmas.
|
Woodster,
Police bunker mentality strikes again.
I support good cops, even average ones, but I can't support this guy.
Apart from anything else, he is stupid - any cop with half a brain who wanted to fill in a punter would find a way of doing it without being caught.
As regards hook wriggling, I expect I would do the same.
Although the difference is I don't meet the first requirement of being stupid, so I wouldn't put myself in his position.
|
|
Not bunker mentality at all. I manage and investigate such people and there's no place for officers that assault members of the public. Officers should be well aware that they will have to exercise considerable restraint in the face of provocation. Unfortunately, they're only human and sometimes, perhaps unsurprisingly, fail. Regardless, my point about the double jeopardy remains. My further point about some of the critics also remains. In your case, you simply respond by calling him 'stupid' and misuse the word 'ignorant' about your own parking matter. Considered thought indeed.
|
Woodster,
He is stupid - he got caught.
And he got caught in the most stupid fashion, on CCTV, not only that, but on CCTV which he knew was there.
One might have some sympathy with officers filmed on mobile phones in the heat of battle.
There is a bunker mentality in the police force, an attitude of 'us against the world'. T'was ever thus.
I've not even been particularly critical of the officer, yet such criticism as there is is met with howls of derision.
The link between this officer's actions and my refusal to pay £150 to park for 40 minutes escapes me.
And since one or two on here keep going on about that, I would remind them I paid a similarly speculative demand I received in a hospital, mostly because the demand was for a reasonable sum.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=3677
|
|
You haven't met with derision from me, I've sought to add food for thought stating that he has the same rights as everyone else to appeal, whilst suffering from a double jeopardy that seldom applies to others. Equally, I've stated that no officer assaulting members of the public enjoys my support, any more than they do yours. he's not stupid to have been caught, he's unsuitable for the work if he thinks it's acceptable at all. I'll go a stage further and say that in his position, if he had reached his limit with verbal abuse, then all he needed to do was direct officers to place the lady in a cell and authorise her detention in her absence. he needn't have touched her personally and would have removed the provocation. For these reasons, yes, he's stupid! I didn't introduce the link to your own matter, merely highlighted misuse of theword 'ignorant'. Childish perhaps -accepted.
|
|
Iffy, I propose we put an end to this. It's Christmas day and I don't know what I'm doing on here for sure! Going back to the food and wine. Enjoy yours, happy xmas.
|
...Iffy, I propose we put an end to this...
Fine with that.
We've each had our say.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
|
A master hook wriggler - Woodster
