PDA

View Full Version : UK Police behaving like gangsters


Pages : [1] 2

vulcanised
5th Aug 2010, 20:58
I have looked for the earlier thread but it seems to have vanished.

Do watch the video with this - it's quite alarming.

Video: Video: police officers filmed smashing up pensioner's car - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7928289/Video-police-officers-filmed-smashing-up-pensioners-car.html)

lomapaseo
5th Aug 2010, 21:05
Standard practice according to most of the car chase videos I have watched.

Tinted windows and failure to show your hands for good cause seem to be the essence of this outcome.

tony draper
5th Aug 2010, 21:05
The bloke had done a runner once and seemed unwilling to stop with the blues and two's flashing behind him,I think their action perfect justified and the buggah would still not get out of the car.

11Fan
5th Aug 2010, 21:15
High Speed Pursuit of a Pensioner. It got up to 41 miles an hour for a moment. :rolleyes:

vulcanised
5th Aug 2010, 21:20
The thing I found puzzling was the distance they hung back.

If he had hearing problems he probably wouldn't have heard the siren.

11Fan
5th Aug 2010, 21:23
If he had hearing problems he probably wouldn't have heard the siren.

From the article:


He said he thought that the blue lights and siren of the pursuing car meant the officer was giving him a police escort home.

G-CPTN
5th Aug 2010, 21:28
There are rules associated with Police chases - and they depend on the level of training that the pursuit driver has undergone. A certain distance must be maintained by 'untrained' drivers and even the fully-trained ones need authorisation from a senior officer to undertake some manoeuvres (such as pushing the rear during cornering).
Any transgressions during the chase will be recorded on the video.

They aren't supposed to cause the fugitive to crash . . .

When you read the number plate (and the darkened windows) this wasn't just 'an old man' tootling along minding his own business and forgetting to fasten his seatbelt. There was obviously some 'previous' which irritated the Police.

Checkboard
5th Aug 2010, 21:29
Mr Whatley, who never broke the speed limit during the [17 minute] chase, said he had become confused during the pursuit.

He said he thought that the blue lights and siren of the pursuing car meant the officer was giving him a police escort home.

But he finally pulled over when he was confronted by a police “stinger” device on the road into Usk.

If he's THAT stupid, perhaps he shouldn't have a licence at all! :bored:

gingernut
5th Aug 2010, 21:32
Apparently he was trying to smuggle a sheep over the border to Bristol.

Looked a bit OTT, but a genuine mistake ??

I must say, the "blues and two's" lot do seem to get a bit exciteable sometimes, and yeh, before you say it, I'll be glad thay do next time my smoke alarm goes off.

G-CPTN
5th Aug 2010, 21:37
The Police would know who they were chasing from a PNC check on the registration number (assuming the driver was the registered keeper). They might have suspected that the vehicle had been stolen (though the darkened windows would impede identification).

Who is Ezra?

11Fan
5th Aug 2010, 21:37
Proper end to a Police Pursuit

M0qa_OGMzys

tony draper
5th Aug 2010, 21:39
Was thinking that meself Captain Checkers,We have a family friend who right out of the blue had a small fit I suppose you would call it, no previous sign of epilepsy,he had to turn in his driving licence for two years I think it was and be free of any futher incidents like it before it was returned ,dunno what the law is concerning stroke victims or even people showing ealry signs of dementia driving,I supose there must be some?
:uhoh:

G-CPTN
5th Aug 2010, 21:48
A switched-on GP should advise his patient of any changes that might affect their ability to drive. Above age 70 a doctor's certificate is required every three years, I believe.

tony draper
5th Aug 2010, 21:52
Mebee the chap is like me and avoided his GP like the plague,probably five years since I visited mine, mainy because he was a idiot,one tends to visit the practice nursey.:)

gingernut
5th Aug 2010, 22:23
Mebee the chap is like me and avoided his GP like the plague,probably five years since I visited mine, mainy because he was a idiot,one tends to visit the practice nursey

Good man, shall enjoy our conversations for at least the next twenty years.:)

tony draper
5th Aug 2010, 22:40
I once spent half a hour discussing with afore mentioned GP one's attemp to give up smoking,one was actually fishing for a few Valium to prevent me going out into the night and killing folk in one's nicotine withdrawal rage,he nodded occasionall shook his head, I will say this he was a good listener,got up to leave as I reachd the door he looked up as he updated my notes and said "Just a minute Mr Draper,do you smoke"?
I kid you not,and no, I did not misshear,he had a terrible rep among his punters,however he has retired now,we have a new set for thee years and I int seen any of them yet.

Peter Fanelli
6th Aug 2010, 01:18
Apparently he was trying to smuggle a sheep over the border to Bristol.
Aaah, a New Zealander out on a date then.

glad rag
6th Aug 2010, 01:25
Hmm gp's bless.

I'm on aspirin have been for years along with cholesterol drugs.

Had a phone call from the practice "we think you should stop taking aspirin"

Can't say that I recognised the voice as my GP, so asked who they were and more importantly just how did they gain access to my notes.
Well things got interesting then as said bitch (oooeerrrr) got very all high and mighty and informed me that to continue with taking my perscription would be upon my own head and that there were new surveys published that proved that I was at more risk of bla bla.

So went to see my GP, solid bloke, we talked and discussed the situation, turns out there has been 1 survey done at ninewells, all the rest of the links throughout the organisations and internet come back to this one.
450 people took part, very few of my age group, and surprise surprise the peer group doing the driving were surgeons.
My GP said Glad, in two years time, I may well be telling you to go back onto asprin when another survey disproves the last.:sad:

Bally Heck
6th Aug 2010, 02:32
Don't irritate the police! Silly sod! Doesn't he know they are a law unto themselves?

birrddog
6th Aug 2010, 02:45
Seems a bit ott...

Would love to know what was going through the mind of the yob^H^H^Hcopper when he decided to jump on the hood of the car.

SoulManBand
6th Aug 2010, 03:03
Those cops are lucky to be alive. They approach a car they've been chasing, head on, no guns drawn, tinted windows. Then they struggle with a perp without making sure he isn't armed. There could have been 3 guys inside with shotguns.

PaperTiger
6th Aug 2010, 03:38
Actually SMB they had already stopped him once. He drove off before getting his ticket allegedly 'knocking over' (yeah :rolleyes: ) one in the process.

His major offence here was obviously good old Contempt of Cop; hence the Rambo-style retribution. Three lads in blue all lathered up - nothing good ever comes of that.

alwayzinit
6th Aug 2010, 12:37
I have said it before and still stand by the sentiment.

The Police "Service" HA! view the general public as the enemy, if, God forbid, you have the audacity to question what they are doing the chances are that you will be treated like a terrorist and battered at best, shot at worst. ( See Mr Tomlinson and the bloke with a table leg who got ventilated)

The view of the Police appears to be "Whatever we say, you, the Public MUST OBEY" even when they are spouting utter twaddle.

It appears that even with video evidense that shows the use of excessive force no action is taken against these thugs in uniform.

I believe there are now more police in the UK Services than in all 3 of the armed services put together, says something about from where the Threat is deemed to come.

It saddens me greatly that the Police has become separated from society by their them and us mentality.

As a boy I respected the Police and trusted them, over the years the now Police Service has morphed into a self serving entity that I view with great suspicion on the few occasions that our paths have crossed.

Sad days indeed.

Al Fakhem
6th Aug 2010, 13:00
Whilst on holiday in the UK five years ago, my elder son enquired about a career with the West Yorkshire police force. He was effectively told there was no hope unless he was black, Asian, or gay.:ugh:

tony draper
6th Aug 2010, 13:03
oops sorry Mr F misread your post.:uhoh:

radeng
6th Aug 2010, 13:06
According the Telegraph, two of them have been suspended and the Chief Constable is not pleased with them.

OneOffDave
6th Aug 2010, 13:20
The driver has previous for driving without MOT, tax or insurance. Was convicted for it in 2004 South Wales Argus, latest news, sport and info from Newport and Gwent, home of the Ryder Cup 2010 - Driver in assault protest is guilty (http://archive.southwalesargus.co.uk/2004/7/30/58738.html)

Captain Stable
6th Aug 2010, 13:21
OK - still doesn't justify the policemen's action.

OneOffDave
6th Aug 2010, 13:30
Smashing the windscreen is standard procedure in this sort of case as it hinders any further travel. Failing to stop for 17 minutes is just asking for trouble, and that excuse that he thought they were escorting him home is pathetic.

I'm sure the Daily Mail's take would have been very different if it had been a young lad in his 20s. They seem to want them stopped by all and any means.

He's lucky they didn't think he was enough of a risk to put in an armed hard stop on him as I suspect his behaviour could have got him shot.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 13:30
What really disappoints me when I read stories like this is the ever increasing number of folk who want to continually question the authority of the average bobby.

If a police officer asks me to stop, either verbally or by using his "blues and two's" then I would stop. I may well not like the request, I may well not agree with the request but I will stop.

I may even politely question why I have been stopped and I may even take the officers number for a further letter of complaint but I would do as I was told.

The reason the police now wear stab vests, carry mace, tazers, batons etc etc is because we are rapidly becoming a feral lawless society who take pleasure in confronting the law rather than trying to live within it's bounds.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 13:32
OK - still doesn't justify the policemen's action.

Spin it around and what would you have wanted them to do if they had not stopped him and this idiot had subsequently smashed into a bus shelter and killed innocent woman and kids.

If he had obeyed the lawful request to stop none of this would of happened, it really is as simple as that :ok:

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 13:47
When asked to produce an MoT and insurance documents, Whatley refused and when asked for personal details he also refused and he used abusive language and gestures.
Whatley had pleaded not guilty to each of the offences but after appearing in the morning, he failed to attend Abergavenny magistrates court yesterday afternoon and the case was heard in his absence.

Sounds like a difficult customer . . .

Ancient Observer
6th Aug 2010, 13:49
There are quite enough loonies driving around Abergavenny, so I do hope they've removed one of them.

Captain Stable
6th Aug 2010, 14:34
Sffp - there are plenty of ways to stop him. Your post supposes they had not stopped him. They did, and then vandalised his car. The report states that they had already deployed a Stinger tyre deflator. You can see in the video that there is one car ahead of him and one behind. Where was he going to go? Travelling at speeds up to 40 mph hardly shows a guilty mind.

Nothing wrong with asking him to step out of the car.

I would suggest that the main reason we lack all respect for the police nowadays is their own behaviour as exhibited here, in the attack on Ian Tomlinson, on the hitting of a female demonstrator, in the shooting of a man carrying a chair leg, in killing Jean Charles de Menezes, in raiding a house inhabited by a bunch of Indian gentlemen, arresting them all, shooting two, and then releasing them on the quiet without charge etc. etc etc. ad nauseam.

How many attacks on police have can you point to that call for the sort of overreaction demonstrated in this video? Bear in mind that the guy is elderly, could well have been confused and disorientated, and making a civilised stop and question might get the public a bit more on-side than this is calculated to do.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 15:14
CS,

Go take a read of the link that OneOffDave posted then have a look at this one

BBC News - Gwent Police officers 'smashed man's car window' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10879719)

You still think he is just some poor confused disorientated old chap :rolleyes:

OneOffDave
6th Aug 2010, 15:56
CS, he had already made off from a civilised stop when the officers were attempting to give him his fixed penalty notice for the seatbelt. Given his evident propensity for pulling off without warning, the police aren't going to let him do it a second time. People seem to be choosing to ignore this first stop and assuming that the blues coming on were the first he knew about it.

As for 40mph not being a sign of guilt, OJ Simpson never went that fast either.

While the keys are in his possession and the engine is running, he's in charge of a 2.5 tonne weapon. Officers are injured in traffic stops every week but they never make the paper unless they are seriously injured or killed.

I suspect the reason to too so many strikes to break the side window is that some luxury vehicle manufacturers are putting laminated glass in the side windows as well as the windscreen.

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 16:08
some luxury vehicle manufacturers are putting laminated glass in the side windows
In addition, these windows were fitted with tinting film (which increases the breakage resistance of the glass).
Did the Police try the door to see whether it was locked? No!

The vehicle E3RAS, is a 2003 Land Rover Range Rover Vogue Td6 Aut (Estate).

Captain Stable
6th Aug 2010, 16:55
Sffp, I didn't say he was a confused, befuddled old chap. I said that the police didn't know that he wasn't.

Dave, most of that information in the article will have come from the police. I do not, therefore, take it as automatically the 100% unvarnished, spotless truth.

I maintain still that the police, given that they had deployed a Stinger, had cars in front and behind him, could have acted with a lot more restraint, particularly with consideration for how their actions might be viewed. In the first place, as G-CPTN points out, before smashing windows, they could have tried to see whether the doors were locked.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 17:05
CS,

Yes the police did, he had already recklessly driven off before being cautioned when previously being stopped.

You are trying to defend the indefensible here chap :ok:

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 17:08
I wonder if his vehicle insurance will cover replacement of the glass?

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 17:16
I wonder if his vehicle insurance will cover replacement of the glass?

I wonder if his car had central locking :E

Nick Riviera
6th Aug 2010, 17:22
Just want to clarify a particular couple of points here. It says that he previously refused to produce an MOT when asked and also refused to give his personal details. I have always presumed:

1. You don't have to carry proof of MOT with you. You may get a producer that means you have 7 days to produce the document at a police station.

2. You don't have to give personal details to the police unless they have arrested you.

Am I wrong in believing these things?

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 17:28
It now transpires that the previous (2004) convictions were quashed when no challenge was offered to his appeal after the Police 'witness' was convicted of theft in a sting operation mounted by his Police colleagues. The inference was that the PC involved was inherently dishonest . . .

Pensioner set to sue police (From South Wales Argus) (http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/archive/2004/09/30/Gwent+Archive/4601150.Pensioner_set_to_sue_police/)

Mr Whatley said: "It is now my plan to commence civil proceedings against Gwent Police to seek substantial damages as regards the impact of the case on my health. However, I would like to make clear the respect I hold for police and the work they do."

So, maybe the guy had reason to be disrepectful of the Police? - or maybe he just had no respect for them in the first place . . .

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 17:35
Or maybe if he had stopped when asked and complied fully when asked he would still have a full set of windows and an unblemished car :ok:

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 17:37
The law of unintended consequences.

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 17:44
Aint that the truth :ok:

tarantonight
6th Aug 2010, 20:51
As some of you will know, I will defend my fellow boys in blue when appropriate. As with many situations we deal with, there is usually 'more to it than meets the eye', to coin a phrase.

Who is this pensioner? Is he is a retired businessman who used to run a furniture store, or is he a retired 'businessman' connected to an Organised Crime Group importing Class A Drugs / Firearms into the the UK and on whom intelligence is held stating he carries a shooter or two in his vehicle.

If it is the latter, such is life. If it is the former, 'we' have some serious questions to answer and the officers concerned do a massive disservice to our cause.

I have to say I find it hard to believe that Police Officers would resort to such actions with a member of the public. In fact more than that, Astounded.

TN.

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 21:50
We'll probably never know the truth.

I do know that some PCs carry grudges and will do 'almost anything' to get their man if thwarted . . .

I also add that I have had some generous breaks from others. :ok:

tony draper
6th Aug 2010, 21:59
I'm a great believer in Mr Orwells take on things.:)

We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

tarantonight
6th Aug 2010, 22:39
We do not yet know the full story, I think most (!) of it will come out
G-CPTN. I have been looking at previous threads and it seems the support for the Steroid packed Mr Moat appears higher than than that for the driver of the Range Rover - my earlier post refers, but worth a thought I think

Is this human nature at play here...............................

tarantonight
6th Aug 2010, 22:49
Nick Riviera,

You are wrong on point 2 in these cicumstances. Without wishing to sound pompous: If you are driving a motor vehicle on the road and stopped by the Police, the law states you are obliged to provide your personal details. Simple as that.

If you think about it, chaos would reign otherwise.

Regards,

TN.

G-CPTN
6th Aug 2010, 22:57
MOTs are automatically logged online (available to any Police Officer using the Police National Computer) and the same registration check will return name and address of registered keeper and whether the vehicle is registered (this can be problematical if the vehicle is covered by a company policy).

Gas Bags
6th Aug 2010, 22:57
Agree or not it appears the media are picking it up in Australia now as well....You have gotta love sensational journalism in the mainstream press!!!

This from news.com.au


http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-e4m3Yko6bFYVc.gif?labels=NewsAndReference,EntertainmentNews


http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/07/27/1225897/391814-leaders-map.gif (http://www.pprune.org/features/federal-election/leaders)
See how the eastern states get all the love.








news top stories


http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/08/06/1225902/299940-police-attack.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/world/police-smashed-elderly-drivers-windscreen-after-stopping-him-for-not-wearing-a-seatbelt/story-e6frfkyi-1225902293206)
Officers suspended after stopping 70-year-old driver for not wearing a seat belt, then smashing in his windscreen and dragging him out of his car. Picture: Gwent Police

Gas Bags
6th Aug 2010, 23:17
I cant speak for other Western countries but it is my observation that (certainly in Australia) a lot of the attitude and over the top behaviour that people are subjected to on the roads by Police can be attributed to a couple of things.

Police are segregated into different departments, i.e. General Duties, Detective, Traffic Police....etc. There is generally no movement between areas on a regular basis, and indeed some police officers even make a career out of a single area of the force.

Traffic Police get so insulated from the other departments within the force that they begin to see the area of 'crime' that they deal with on a daily basis as more and more serious. This can lead to over reaction by SOME members of the traffic department to a traffic violation being held in the same regard as a much more serious offence because to them it is, as they do not get to experience theft, robbery, rape, murder. It is also drummed into them from Police management that driving 5 km/h over the limit is indeed a very serious offence and should be treated by them as such.

That said I have always been cordial and polite when stopped by Police on the roads, even when I am innocent of anything, and never been subjected to any over the top behaviour from them.

I have 3 members of immediate family in the Police Force and they tend to agree with this theory. (They are not in the Traffic Police).

GB

Seldomfitforpurpose
6th Aug 2010, 23:33
That said I have always been cordial and polite when stopped by Police on the roads, even when I am innocent of anything, and never been subjected to any over the top behaviour from them.

I have 3 members of immediate family in the Police Force and they tend to agree with this theory. (They are not in the Traffic Police).

GB

Funnily enough I advocate that exact behavioural pattern and funnily enough 52 years in I have never had a problem with the police to date :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Aug 2010, 01:46
Seldom. Your post is good policy and if stopped, for sure I'd do the same.

On the other hand, as far as I am concerned, the police can spin on the nearest finger.

Once, I thought they were on my side. You know, they safeguarded me from criminals.

Now, plainly it is me that's the criminal and the police are right out there trying to catch me... you know, speeding in a car or using my phone in my (automatic) car etc..

The cops have lost it and lost it badly.

As for live ammunition.................

Perleeease.........:rolleyes: I wouldn't put them in charge of their own toilet tissue

Lantern10
7th Aug 2010, 08:02
I was once stopped police detectives, in an unmarked car, driving my girlfriend home, this was in the early 80's, in Leeds, UK. I got out of my car and walked back to the unmarked police car, preparing to show them my, fully legal, documentation. Upon approaching the car two of the detectives jumped out and bundled me, rather roughly I thought, into the back of said unmarked vehicle. Upon asking what all this was about one of the detectives said " I regognise you" I told him thet he was the detective to whom I had reported that my motorcycle had been stolen two weeks previously.

In all fairness they got my bike back a few weeks later, and even told me the address where it had been found.:ok:

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 08:06
Now, plainly it is me that's the criminal and the police are right out there trying to catch me... you know, speeding in a car or using my phone in my (automatic) car etc..
There are laws in UK about exceeding the speed limit and about using mobile phones whilst driving. by your own admission, if you're doing these things in the UK, then you are a criminal and you deserve to have the full force of the law applied. Or is it a case that some laws are OK to be broken and some not? If so who makes the decision as to which laws can simply be ignored?

The police exist to enforce the laws, the laws which government enacts through parliament, the government which represent 'the people'.

The police don't make the laws they enforce them. End of.

BD

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Aug 2010, 09:15
BDiONU,

Sadly you have just hit the nail squarely on the head. Society is where it is today because there are so many people who think they are doing no wrong, despite the fact they are breaking the law, and give the police a hard time for when the error of their ways is pointed out.

These are probably the same folk who think the traffic warden is a cnut when he/she gives them a ticket when they park illegally is :rolleyes:

papa juliet
7th Aug 2010, 09:24
My future son-in law is a policeman in the NSW traffic division and has, as I see it ,the most frustrating job imaginable.
We were talking about a man who has tried the tired old excuse of being confused,this excuses him from stopping when pusued by a marked police car, how can he hold a license?
My S I L tells the most horrific tales of road accidents and assaults on his colleagues while trying to do their job all the time being watched by a feral press.
These are some of the incidents at the top of his hate list;
Random breath testing, try charging the Yob who spits on you and then laughs and claims he was only "clearing my throat officer"
When on patrol they spot someones stolen pride and joy being hooned down the road by some juvenile yobbo they have to request permission to pursue it. If the driver then increases speed to 30km above the posted speed limit control has to be informed and invariably the pursuit will be terminated.
When the car is later involved in an accident the press will have a field day blaming the police for faliure to do their duty.
The general attitude of Magistrates,it seems similar to the UK in that you have to have stolen the Magistrates car to receive any form of suitable punishment.
It has now got so bad that police have been advised by their union in Queensland not to initiate any pursuits for fear of being disciplined should anything go wrong.
I always laugh at Drapes sometimes draconian remedies but I wish people could apply common sense rather than the law, but that would infringe their human rights, silly me

Captain Stable
7th Aug 2010, 09:41
The police exist to enforce the laws, the laws which government enacts through parliament, the government which represent 'the people'.That's a nice theory. :cool:

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 09:58
Sadly you have just hit the nail squarely on the head. Society is where it is today because there are so many people who think they are doing no wrong, despite the fact they are breaking the law, and give the police a hard time for when the error of their ways is pointed out.
Actually I think it's all related to one of the other hot topics in these threads (and many other places), people failing to accept responsibility for their own actions. By enforcing the law the police are acting as our conscience and too many people have simply forgotten or never been taught what that is. In addition with responsibility comes accountability but far too many people fail to recognise that link. There are very good reasons why it's illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving in the UK. If you choose to disregard that law and use your phone then you're responsible for making that decision and you will be held accountable (if spotted) by the police. There is and can be NO excuse for using a mobile phone whilst driving.

BD

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 10:00
That's a nice theory. :cool:
That the government represents the people? I love to dream sometimes ;-)

BD

Cacophonix
7th Aug 2010, 10:10
Personally I think people who are seen using a mobile phone while driving should be stopped, shot, stopped again and then shot once more just for good measure. ;)

Seriously though the police are not all angels and not all laws are sensible (although the law on mobile phone usage clearly is).

As for two policemen beating a 70 year old man's windscreen to a broken and cracked mass I think the actions of their superiors imply that what they did was disproportionate.

I thank GJ for reminding me of this hilarious sketch.

BO8EpfyCG2Y

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 12:21
As for two policemen beating a 70 year old man's windscreen to a broken and cracked mass I think the actions of their superiors imply that what they did was disproportionate.
As no one in this thread has all of the facts we can think what we like but we don't know for certain. Let's see what the enquiry decides :ok:

BD

Firestorm
7th Aug 2010, 12:56
I think that some of the change in attitude of the police can be attributed to them being dressed like a paramilitary force even in rural areas or when making a house call. I can understand the stab vest in an inner city area or at chucking out time in a city centre, but when police came to take statements from me in my own home after I reported a theft I don't think a stab vest and combat trousers are really necessary. Why is the dress down to polyester cycling shirts and combat trousers seen as a good thing? I think it diminishes the trustworthy authority figure that I associate with a white shirt and a tie (even if it is a clip on). The Door Minders in nightclubs are more smartly turned out nowadays.

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Aug 2010, 13:06
Firestorm you cant get much more rural than Whitehaven or Rothbury :=

I for one am sad that the police have to dress in the manner they do but am comforted by the thought that by doing so they mean business :ok:

dmanton300
7th Aug 2010, 14:03
As for two policemen beating a 70 year old man's windscreen to a broken and cracked mass I think the actions of their superiors imply that what they did was disproportionate.

No it doesn't. Given the fact that the footage was from the police vehicle's camera and would have been available for inspection literally from the time the car got back to the nick after the incident, and in fact would have been viewed countless times by a whole variety of people including command team from that time, what it actually implies is that the command team are a bunch of spineless greasy pole climbers swaying with an ill informed public opinion and reacting *many months* down the line to the perceived issue in a disgraceful attempt to curry favour in an attempt o divert negative publicity and so damage their aspiration for that next pip or crown.

Had they REALLY thought it was OTT, those officers would have been suspended within days (at most weeks) of the incident, not a year down the line and only following nominally negative publicity. Can you say "Scapegoats to soothe the ruffled feathers of an inherently anti-police media"?

Lions led by kow-towing donkeys indeed. . .

PaperTiger
7th Aug 2010, 14:43
There are laws in UK about exceeding the speed limit and about using mobile phones whilst driving. by your own admission, if you're doing these things in the UK, then you are a criminal and you deserve to have the full force of the law applied.You are guilty of a traffic violation, not a crime.

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Aug 2010, 14:54
You are guilty of a traffic violation, not a crime.

Does that mean you are traffic violator :ok:

Captain Stable
7th Aug 2010, 16:18
dmanton, I concur with your analysis.

However, after the fact, various members of the police farce realised that other members of society would consider the action of the officers in this case to be unacceptable. They then realised that they needed to do something.

But it is these very senior officers who need to go, not the officers in the video, because it is the senior officers who permit the sort of culture of "We're the police - we can do what we like" to permeate right through the police - to the extent that they scorn the public until public opinion weighs too heavily against them.

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 16:43
You are guilty of a traffic violation, not a crime.
If you're talking either speeding or using a mobile phone in the UK they're both criminal offences. UK doesn't have violations, USA does though.
The Department of Transport published regulations (The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No.4)) making it a criminal offence to use a hand-held mobile phone at any time while driving from 1 Dec 2009.

Speed limits on any stretch of road ("special roads" are motorways) are imposed by a local Order by the relevant Highway Authority (e.g. local councils or unitary authorities) but the parent legislation is found in Part VI of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Specifically, the offence is contrary to Section 89(1) of that Act: "A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence."

Prosecutions are criminal prosecutions (triable summarily in a magistrates' Court only, as the defendant cannot elect for trial at the Crown Court) although there is a system for offering a "fixed penalty" or a "conditional fixed penalty".

They're not recordable offences, but although they're criminal convictions, you do not have your fingerprints and DNA taken, so they're NOT recorded on the Police National Computer. They're kept on your Driver Record by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, and the DVLA/PNC link means that your driver history (including endorsements) is available online to the police. The criminal law and motoring law are NOT two distinctly different branches of the legal system anywhere in the UK, and statute law just means law that is enacted by statute (i.e. Parliament) as opposed to the Common Law, which evolves through history through the judgements by competent Courts.

BD

Seldomfitforpurpose
7th Aug 2010, 17:52
dmanton

Could not agree more with that summation. Sadly we have a very small but incredibly vociferous section of society that see police brutality at every turn.

I suspect that given chance to view the whole story most sensible folk in the country will see that this stupid man got no more than he deserved and most sensible folk would applaud the police for the action taken to get this maniac off the road :ok:

Krystal n chips
7th Aug 2010, 18:04
" A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence."

Prosecutions are criminal prosecutions (triable summarily in a magistrates' Court only, as the defendant cannot elect for trial at the Crown Court) although there is a system for offering a "fixed penalty" or a "conditional fixed penalty".

That's interesting...maybe this should have been explained to the footballer below...but nothing will happen to him due to his occupation..same as a Mr Rooney allegedly photographed urinating in a public street....:rolleyes:

BBC News - Norwich City's Grant Holt convicted after court no-show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10896918)

As for Police over reaction, there was thread on here a while ago about one of those Police, Camera etc shows...the event in question showed a complete arrogant tosser..that's the Police officer...sadly...dashing up to a car, dragging the innocent kid out of it...and then proudly boasting later...or playing to the camera..as to how he "never gives up" and how wonderful he was...fankly, he would be the last person I would want in a serious situation if I were a Police officer...however. As with all occupations, you get the egoistical and the pathological and the Police are no exception..the fact that most don't behave like this will probably be overlooked of course.

Parapunter
7th Aug 2010, 18:13
I wonder how many people must urinate in the street each weekend or commit motoring offences before your head is turned away from this odd fixation you seem to have with footballers?

Perhaps we should bring up Botham's weed patch or Flintoff's sailing skills to even things up a bit.:rolleyes:

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 18:13
That's interesting...maybe this should have been explained to the footballer below.
Sorry I don't understand your point, I stated magistrates court and the article made it clear:
"Magistrates had been asked to postpone the case in Market Drayton, Shropshire, to allow Holt to play against Watford on Friday, but rejected the request.
He will be sentenced at Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court on Wednesday."
Or is it that he was called to court? If so that's because the driver couldn't be issued with a fixed notice as the footballer failed to respond to the request to inform on who was driving. Therefore the driver couldn't be issued with a fixed notice and the footballer was called to court to explain his failure to notify the authorities as to the identity of the driver.

BD

Krystal n chips
7th Aug 2010, 18:29
The point is, after asking for a postponement..he simply didn't turn up.....how odd....and oh look, there was a match played today....true, the case was yesterday, but you know, on the surface there are questions are there not which need to be clarified....but doubtless there will be a perfectly rational explanation of course....:hmm:

Para..when they learn to behave like adults ( unlikely) I may have a different view of the occupation.. something about being responsible for your actions comes to mind...there again.

dmanton300
7th Aug 2010, 18:29
Well I;m gratified that one or two see my point at least! But I think a couple more points should be made. . very often what I do in the line of duty looks bad to an uninformed bystander. And most bystanders are uninformed. It's like the idiots who question why it takes six of us to take a violent person under control. . the reason? Because we are trying to control them SAFELY so that both they and us (and the public for that matter) are not placed under any more danger than needs be. If the gloves came off and we didn't have to worry about it, invariably it would take far less of us using far more force to control them. . but they'd get seriously injured in the process. What do we do? Six of us to achieve our objective and we get harangued for overreacting. Two of us and a hospitalised suspect and we get accused of brutality. See?

In that stop, and not being party to the whole story, nothing was done that would not be done by any force the length and breadth of the country. He was in 2.5 ton vehicle, had already made off from a stop prior to it's completion. From that second he was in play. The fact that he never exceeded the speed limit means nothing except the pursuit was carefully run and controlled. . it isn't our aim to push the other driver to bigger and bigger risks until he stoofs the vehicle, it's our aim to stop him and bring him under control as soon as SAFELY possible. I've been involved in pursuits through towns that never exceeded 15mph. It's *STILL* a pursuit if the other person refuses to stop and we have to follow him.

And once stopped (he thought he was being escorted. from behind. . on blues and twos?!?) the windscreen will be smashed if the driver isn't out of the vehicle in seconds and surrendering to custody. To stop him making off again. And if he refuses to open the door? The side window WILL be put through and he will be energetically removed from control of a 2.5 ton weapon as soon as possible. That's the way of it. This is, as ever, a mountain out of a molehill started by the uninformed media with an agenda.

Captain Stable. . just for info, these days, whenever I get involved in a public incident or have to lay hands on, you can rest assured that the first thought on my mind isn't "how shall I resolve this?" or "how shall we end this?", sadly these days it's "how will this look on youtube?" it shouldn't be, and it makes my job much more difficult, and increases the risk to the public (and I take seriously my oath to protect life & limb) myself and the suspect. But that's the outcome of trial by media. . I *AM* afraid of how my actions will be perceived in isolation, however well I try and execute my duty. . sad, eh?

Careful what you wish for. . .

Mr Chips
7th Aug 2010, 18:30
Why is the age of the driver relevant in this case? Is it only bad because the driver was an OAP? OAPs can be criminals too...

I remember some years ago when the police first got CS spray there was a shock horror tale of a police officer who sprayed an OAP who had bitten his hand. I asked a police officer whether it was the right thing to do, and his response was "it was that or use the baton"

Knock down a Police Officer, fail to stop, fail to comply should mean the same treatment whatever your age.....

Parapunter
7th Aug 2010, 18:45
Para..when they learn to behave like adults ( unlikely) I may have a different view of the occupation.. something about being responsible for your actions comes to mind...there again.

Right, so what we have here then is not an enormous generelisation on any level. I can see where you may be coming from - Marlon King, Joey Barton etc.

Would you care to comment on Linvoy Primus, Jason Roberts or Nial Quinn? No? because you don't know anything of them instead you choose to pander to a prejudice based on quite what I don't know.

Still, a blanket statement like 'when they learn to behave like adults (unlikely)' says far more about ignorance than you probably intended.

Captain Stable
7th Aug 2010, 18:52
And if he refuses to open the door? The side window WILL be put through and he will be energetically removed from control of a 2.5 ton weapon as soon as possible.Did you see any attempt - or, for that matter, even permitting him - to open the door? I didn't. They steamed in. For reasons I won't go into here, I am slightly better informed than your average uninformed bystander. In my judgement, and considering all the factors reported as involved here (including stinger deployed, cars front and rear etc.) and evident in the video, they overreacted grossly.

wings folded
7th Aug 2010, 19:03
You are guilty of a traffic violation, not a crime.

Where in the British judicial system does the notion of "violation" occur?

"Misdemeanor" is a term familiar to me within that framework, but "violation", so far as I know, has no legal significance under the law of England and Wales.

I am on standby to be corrected.

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 19:34
The point is, after asking for a postponement..he simply didn't turn up.....how odd....
"Magistrates had been asked to postpone the case in Market Drayton, Shropshire, to allow Holt to play against Watford on Friday, but rejected the request."

"It is not known why Holt failed to attend the hearing."

"The Championship footballer was tried and convicted in his absence, a spokeswoman for Market Drayton Magistrates' Court said."

"He will be sentenced at Shrewsbury Magistrates' Court on Wednesday."

I'm obviously missing the conspiracy theory here, what has he gotten away with because of his job?

BD

PaperTiger
7th Aug 2010, 21:14
Thank you beady and wings.

Guess I've been away too long. However making seatbelts, speeding (unless excessive 2x etc.) and phoning crimes seems a bit OTT. Although if you don't get a criminal record as a result then you're not a criminal shirley ?

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Aug 2010, 22:35
What's a crime anyway? The cop that stops you for speeding probably commits the same offence on his way home. Therefore he's a hypocrite.

Policepeople should be honourable, not hypocritical.

My point stands. Some on here seem to equate minor traffic offences with criminality. I don't.

Stabbing someone or burglary or anything worse is a crime.

Doing 34 in a 30 or 80 on a clear motorway is completely different to us sane people.:rolleyes:

As for the phone issue. Hands free are OK. So all the distraction of the actual call are plainly ignorable- right? You can use a 'hands free' all day-while driving, completely legally.

The physical act of using a handset is something that occupies one of your hands. A big deal if you're driving a manual for sure. But less of a deal in an auto.

Anyway. The cops can go take a running &&&& to themselves as far as I'm concerned, and that's the way it's staying with me until further notice.

This represents a major attitude change for me and I doubt I'm the only one.

Btw, you 'holier than thou' folk on here give me the bloody creeps!

BDiONU
7th Aug 2010, 23:10
What's a crime anyway?
Breaking the law.
My point stands. Some on here seem to equate minor traffic offences with criminality. I don't.
So where do you draw the line exactly?
Stabbing someone or burglary or anything worse is a crime.
Uhuh.
Doing 34 in a 30 or 80 on a clear motorway is completely different to us sane people.:rolleyes:
Uhuh. And the sentencing for these offences reflects the difference but irrespectively they're all crimes.
As for the phone issue. Hands free are OK. So all the distraction of the actual call are plainly ignorable- right? You can use a 'hands free' all day-while driving, completely legally.
And your point is what? That one is legal and the other illegal, I think I personally get that but unless the law is changed that's how things stand. You personally may not believe that there is a difference but m'lud on the bench would beg to differ and he has the power to punish you.
The physical act of using a handset is something that occupies one of your hands. A big deal if you're driving a manual for sure. But less of a deal in an auto.
Ignoring the legality issue just how does anyone know, from outside, that your car is an automatic? There are no distibguishing marks.
Btw, you 'holier than thou' folk on here give me the bloody creeps!
LOL! I speed, in fact I probably exceed the speed limit most of the time but I accept responsibility for doing so and will do the time or pay the fine without complaint. I don't do mobile phoning, not even hands free as I cannot concentrate on a work call and drive safely. Oh and I'm a retired ATCO so I'm perfectly capable of multi tasking aurally and physically.

BD

BarbiesBoyfriend
7th Aug 2010, 23:58
Bdionu

You completely ignore the thrust of my arguament............

Which is that by persecuting motorists who have committed 'minor' offenses, the cops have alienated themselves from those who they ought to be serving.

Go on, ignore that again in your next post.


btw, your 'multi tasking' comment is a laugh. Can you imagine me saying to a cop, 'why the hell shouldn't I use my phone when I drive? I can fly, talk, use the radio, eat and give a hostie a slap on the arse all at the same time, so why not drive my auto and yak?.

Don't forget to ignore my point about the cops ' war on the motorist though'- which apparantly, though never a declared war, is about to end.:rolleyes:.

Hypocrite. If you speed- and you stated so, point ye not at others who do the same.

Edit to respond to your reply to my point about autos. MY point is that it makes ALL the difference in the world between doing something dangerous and NOT doing something dangerous.
The law should reflect this. By not reflecting it, it becomes stupid.

Stupid laws, of which there have been very many, eventually get disregarded and the law becomes, an Ass.

When I drive, I use my good judgement to ensure my safety whatever the conditions.

Idiots better just stick to the rules. You seem very fond of them.

Edit again. You asked 'where do you draw the line....' , well, there is a real need for speed limits, some lower and some higher than those we have at the moment. I'd like to see cops enforce penalties for bad driving rather than speeding. For instance 70 in a 70 in 300m is bloody reckless and should be prosecuted. 88 in a 70, on a clear lightly trafficked motorway should be overlooked unless bad driving is involved.

Personal attacks, theft, fraud criminal damage and the rest are plainly criminal. Police should be catching these perps instead of annoying taxpaying citizens.

Like I said......take a running f&&& to youselves you Policemen. You not on my side.

Who'se side are you on, ever ask that?:rolleyes:

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Aug 2010, 00:06
People don't ''Multi task''. It's a myth.

Just some people have better prioritisation skills than others.

A human being, Male, female, or indifferent, actually mentally achieves one task at a time, then switches between them.

Blues&twos
8th Aug 2010, 00:10
the cops ' war on the motorist

Conducted largely based on how you drive in my experience.

I've been stopped twice in 26 years of driving everything from dustcarts to pallet trollies. Once for accidentally going the wrong way up a one way street, once for cutting it a bit fine when the traffic lights went amber. Fair enough on both occasions. Also let off on both occasions.

(I'm not a copper, by the way).

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Aug 2010, 00:15
Barbs,

Heres a thought for you to consider

"btw, your 'multi tasking' comment is a laugh. Can you imagine me saying to a cop, 'why the hell shouldn't I use my phone when I drive? I can fly, talk, use the radio, eat and give a hostie a slap on the arse all at the same time, so why not drive my auto and yak?."

I have no idea what you do for a living but lets ponder the fact that you may be a pilot and therefore you are as clever as and are capable of the multi tasking you laugh at.

But just suppose you are an average tattooed sun reading ****wit who has skipped out of school at 15 and are a regular substance abuser with a record as long as your arm, or even somewhere in between.

Do you reckon you can do the drive/phone thing safely :ugh:

Lowest common denominator, it really is not rocket science :ok:

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Aug 2010, 00:20
Seldom.

Yup, another smart arse pilot, that's me.

Why this 'lowest common thing'? Must we all be treated like the **** you describe?

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Aug 2010, 00:24
Blues and twos

The new Tory Gov have declared an end to the 'war on the motorist'.

You saying what exactly?

There never was one?

Or it's still on.:rolleyes:

You tell me.

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Aug 2010, 00:35
Seldom.

Yup, another smart arse pilot, that's me.

Why this 'lowest common thing'? Must we all be treated like the **** you describe?

Nope Barb's,

But if you had read my post properly instead of getting all hissy and pissy I know that most pilots can do all that you say but, and heres the but

Your average tattooed ****wit sun reader who left school at 15 does not have your super sharp skills almost certainly cant

Or am I missing something :ok:

parabellum
8th Aug 2010, 00:50
Barbie, you and a couple of other posters, shouldn't you be drawing a distinction between those who make the laws, (and to whom your complaints should be directed), and those who, as a public service for which you pay, are obliged to enforce them on behalf of the vast majority of law abiding citizens?


Like I said......take a running f&&& to yourselves you Policemen.

Judging an entire force on the basis of a few incidents, often not fully reported, simply isn't rational.

North Shore
8th Aug 2010, 00:58
Slight thread drift, when did the British police switch from the nah-nah siren to the American whoo-whoo one?

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Aug 2010, 01:04
Seldom, me old fruit.

There's neither hissing nor pissing going on over here, so chill.:ok:
I just asked why we all got to be treated like the Sun readers you described. So, why do we?

Parabellum.

I understand your point. Understand mine.

Police, when I was young (b.1960) were much respected. Used their judgement and let decent folk off with minor naughties. They knew, don't ask me how, decent folk who'd made a minor, forgiveable, transgession.............from you're actual crim.

Now, we all crims in the eyes of the idiot cop.

So, like I said earlier, go take a running F*** to yourselves.

Believe me dude, win lose or draw, I mean it. And so do plenty others.:ooh:

G-CPTN
8th Aug 2010, 01:05
'Twas after they abandoned bells . . . :E


(Research showed that the 'penetration' of the current siren was greater than the former version.)

parabellum
8th Aug 2010, 01:07
Believe me dude, win lose or draw, I mean it. And so do plenty others.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif


Time for bed Barbie, and don't forget to put the top back on the bottle!;)

Blues&twos
8th Aug 2010, 12:05
The new Tory Gov have declared an end to the 'war on the motorist'.
You saying what exactly?
There never was one?


Yes, there wasn't one. This is spin. A fairly unsophisticated attempt to make people think they're really great guys, whilst at the same time rubbishing the previous government.

On the siren type, anyone any idea why the wailers with intermittent short bursts of white noise were never widely adopted? The white noise was supposed to enable people to tell which direction the vehicle was coming from. They were very good at doing that in my opinion.

BarbiesBoyfriend
8th Aug 2010, 12:36
Parabellum.
Hic! Thankshhh.:ok:

Blues and Twos.
Ah-hah! Well that's that one cleared up then.......:hmm:

All the thousands of money raising Gatsos and the ever increasing fuel duty just random events. I notice one city in England just turned off ALL their speed cameras. Was it Oxford?

BDiONU
8th Aug 2010, 13:01
All the thousands of money raising Gatsos and the ever increasing fuel duty just random events.
Nowt to do with the police ;)
I notice one city in England just turned off ALL their speed cameras. Was it Oxford?
Swindon did so on 31st July last year (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html):
"Accident data shows that in the first nine months after the devices were scrapped in Swindon, there were 315 road casualties in the area as a whole, compared with 327 in the same period the previous year.
In total there were two fatalities – compared with four in the same period previously – and 44 serious injuries, down from 48."
Again nowt to do with the police it's local government 'Safety partnerships'.

BD

Tyres O'Flaherty
8th Aug 2010, 13:12
wasn't just the city, they're off all over the shire

Krystal n chips
8th Aug 2010, 13:23
BD

" I'm obviously missing the conspiracy theory here, what has he gotten away with because of his job?"

No conspiracy theory at all...just a point that his occupation seem to be under the impression they are exempt from the legalities of the UK....if, for example, I said "sorry, can't make it, an off gliding for the day...so carry on without me"...would the legal world be impressed?..probably not I would assume...so what makes him think ( I use the term reservedly here ) that he simply doesn't have to attend..other than the arrogance the occupation has overall.

Seldomfitforpurpose
8th Aug 2010, 13:48
BD

" I'm obviously missing the conspiracy theory here, what has he gotten away with because of his job?"

No conspiracy theory at all...just a point that his occupation seem to be under the impression they are exempt from the legalities of the UK....if, for example, I said "sorry, can't make it, an off gliding for the day...so carry on without me"...would the legal world be impressed?..probably not I would assume...so what makes him think ( I use the term reservedly here ) that he simply doesn't have to attend..other than the arrogance the occupation has overall.

Reading this thread you would be forgiven if you also add the occupation of pilot to those that think they are exempt from the legalities of the UK :ok:

Or could it simply be that in every walk of life you will find people who are not prepared to abide by the accepted norms of the society they live in.

TerminalTrotter
8th Aug 2010, 15:05
Blues&twos

I was involved in testing the white noise gadget many years ago. Id did seem to work, but because the hearers mostly had no idea what it was, they tended to stop for a look around, rather than get out of the way. The result was disconcerting for all concerned. I thought at the time that if the noise had been used in concert with the durr durrs, instead of as a separate sound at the end of the durr durr it might have worked better.

TT

It was yet another invention from Capn. Draper's neck of the woods if I remember correctly.

vulcanised
8th Aug 2010, 15:29
One or two of the fire engines round here use bull horns.

Can't recall having heard them used by any other services.

Blues&twos
8th Aug 2010, 16:12
Thanks TT! It's always utterly amazed me how unaware people are with regard to blues and twos (or blues and wails now I suppose). I can see that confusing them even more would be counter-productive.

Parapunter
8th Aug 2010, 18:01
I live two streets from a main hospital. I can tell you the make, model & year of the Ambulance from the siren (well the colour would be too easy).:{

parabellum
8th Aug 2010, 22:45
The New York fire engines have a horn on them that sounds like the Queen Mary entering harbour, they should try that on UK police cars!

MadsDad
9th Aug 2010, 09:48
The New York fire engines have a horn on them that sounds like the Queen Mary entering harbour

The fire engines round here (Zummerzet) have the same type of horn (in addition to the usual nna-nna ones).

radeng
9th Aug 2010, 13:04
With all the budget cuts, the police may well be back on bicycles....and feet.

Effluent Man
9th Aug 2010, 14:09
Last week Norfolk and Suffolk police did a combined ANPR operation.I was unfortunate enough to get pulled over.My car was on a trade policy so comes up as uninsured on the database.

The motor bike cop asked where I was going and I replied "Business". I don't know if he took this as a bit of p*** taking but I was en route to the bank.Anyway,he declared himself unhappy with my answer and said that he wanted to search the car,myself and two passengers.

What happened then has been declared "Bizarre" in a phone call to me by a Chief Inspector.Another motor bike cop turned up,two uniformed officers in an unmarked car,two female officers in a Focus estate and a plain clothes DC in a van.I co operated with the search which revealed nothing. The original officer now said that he was not satisfied and intended to send for a sniffer dog to search the car.

I pointed out that he had marked the search form "Stolen Property" and I asked how a dog might help,would it know what was stolen and what was not.He then accused me of being "Anti-Police" and I replied that he might have picked up on me being anti him.

Now I stood my ground and said that as the passengers and myself had been searched we must be free to go,if not he must arrest us.As he agreed we could go I took the keys from the ignition and put them in his hand saying "Search it as long as you want,I will come back later and pick it up".They now started to protest that I couldn't just walk off and I told them I could and I was. One of them said to his mate "We have never had anyone do this before" to which I replied "There is a first time for everything" and began to leave.

He called me back and said that I could go."With the car?" I asked.He said yes.I now told him that this revealed that all what had gone on before had been a put up job and that I regarded the last half hour as illegal detention.Since then I have had senior officers from both Norfolk and Suffolk who appear to blame each other.I have complained to the IPCC.

This of course raises the question of whether they have resources to play games with members of the public.

Duckbutt
9th Aug 2010, 15:39
The fire engines round here (Zummerzet) have the same type of horn (in addition to the usual nna-nna ones).


Those the ones that cause cows to stampede and kill the farmers?

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Aug 2010, 16:12
Effluent,

Imagine if, already knowing the potential "trade policy" issue with your vehicle you had politely told the traffic cop what the likely problem was and had been a little more good natured with your response to his innocent initial enquirey.

Would have saved you a few phone calls and your fellow passengers would have thought a lot more of you than they almost certainly do now.

Effluent Man
9th Aug 2010, 16:30
I had the certificate in the car with me and showed it to him immediately. I also had passport and driving licence.My passengers enjoyed the egg on his face immensely,especially when he virtually begged me not to walk off. He knew the situation perfectly well.IMHO the Merc got up his nose.The trade policy doesn't mollify them,they just say that people without insurance know this dodge and use it against them.

forget
9th Aug 2010, 16:33
Those the ones that cause cows to stampede and kill the farmers?

No. They'd be bull horns.

MadsDad
9th Aug 2010, 19:01
Those the ones that cause cows to stampede and kill the farmers?

The farmer who you are referring to was a mate of mines father. The driver concerned was referred for prosecution but everything seems to have gone quiet lately.

bubblesuk
9th Aug 2010, 19:22
Those of you that think the police don't pick on motorists are mistaken, it was admitted to me by a Tayside Police Detective and P.C. that they went after motorists as it was easier than going after "proper" criminals. This was while i was complaining about the stupidest speed trap i had ever seen.

Seldomfitforpurpose
9th Aug 2010, 19:29
Bubbles,

Were you speeding per chance :p

11Fan
10th Aug 2010, 04:36
Once picked off for speeding, although I was keeping up with the flow of traffic, I asked the Officer why he singled me out and didn't ticket the others as well.

He asked "Do you ever go fishing?"

"Yes" I replied

He responded "Did you ever catch all of the fish?"

It's a fair cop.

MG23
10th Aug 2010, 05:25
Once picked off for speeding, although I was keeping up with the flow of traffic, I asked the Officer why he singled me out and didn't ticket the others as well.

If speed limits were actually enforced, the laws would be changed by the end of the week because pretty much every driver in Britain would have been banned and the economy would collapse.

Back when I lived there I was always amused that the police could find a couple of dozen people to sit at the side of the road with a van looking for drivers to harass, but if you were burgled or your car stolen you'd be lucky to have anyone attend within 24 hours and they'd just give you a crime number to claim on the insurance.

Blacksheep
10th Aug 2010, 08:38
1. Speed Traps:
When I was pulled over for speeding there was just the one officer in the car, with his radar equipment. I quietly listened to the lecture and left the scene suitably chastened.

2. Burglary:
We were alerted by the sound of breaking glass next door, as someone forced entry into the house. We called the police and within less than two minutes there were two cars and a dog van on the scene. House was surrounded and the dog & handler went in. It was only the neighbours best mate, befuddled with drink, but we were impressed with the response.

3. Anti-terrorism:
Along with the entire Big Airways night shift, I was seriously harrassed by the Police at Heathrow for several weeks. Over the top and a gross misuse of the powers given to them to prevent terrorism. They weren't looking for terrorists at all; they were just looking for someone nicking booze using a fake customs seal.

The prisons are overflowing and on the whole I reckon they're doing a grand job. :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
10th Aug 2010, 11:03
BS,

I suspect that what you describe is par for the course for the vast majority of the UK population, sadly that is not "news" :(

vulcanised
5th Sep 2010, 20:56
Apparently the 'offence' was sleeping in her car.

What a way to treat a near 60yo woman.

BBC News - Wiltshire policeman faces sack for cell attack on woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11190650)

sitigeltfel
5th Sep 2010, 21:07
By carrying out the assault under the gaze of a CCTV camera he should be dismissed on the grounds of irretrievably stupidity.

Captain Stable
5th Sep 2010, 22:32
siti - he probably thought that all his mates would back him up.

Sadly (for him), one of his mates shopped him. And good on the bloke who did.

G-CPTN
5th Sep 2010, 22:51
And good on the bloke who did.
Is a she . . .

Tankertrashnav
6th Sep 2010, 00:10
Apparently the 'offence' was sleeping in her car.


To be absolutely fair the offence was refusing to give a breath test - which is punished in the same way as being over the limit.

That said I'm not excusing Mr Plod, who basically lost it. Reckon he'll being joining the swelling ranks of the unemployed pretty soon.

radeng
6th Sep 2010, 08:10
Of course, we don't yet know if she's going to Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, or suing the Wiltshire plod for damages. More of my council tax......Still, if they fire him - which they should - the saving on pension should pay any compensation!

In view of the fact that hospital treatment was needed, it would have been hard to cover it up.

I wonder if he'll get a prison sentence or just be patted on the head and told not to be a naughty boy?

Capetonian
6th Sep 2010, 08:34
To be absolutely fair the offence was refusing to give a breath test

I recall reading that the lady said she would willingly have given a breath test, so the statement above is an allegation only.

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 09:20
section 1 of the Road Traffic Act requires that the constable have “reasonable cause to suspect” that:

you are “driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place” and that you have alcohol in your body, or you have committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion, or
you have been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place with alcohol in your body and you still have alcohol in his body, or
you have been driving or attempting to drive or been in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place and have committed a traffic offence whilst the vehicle was in motion,

Capetonian
6th Sep 2010, 09:26
The police said Miss Somerville was arrested because she refused to submit to a drink-drive test, something she denies and for which she was never prosecuted. However, it is debatable whether they had any powers to insist that she did so. For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either committed a moving traffic offence, have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, for instance by driving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car.

From today's Torygraph.

Tankertrashnav
6th Sep 2010, 09:36
or given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, for instance by driving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car.


Or, for instance, being found asleep in a car which smelt like a brewery. Not saying that's the case here, but it's a possibility, we none of us know the whole story and I suspect we won't now.

Once again, that said, none of that excuses the treatment received by the woman concerned, and the only thing I'm wondering is whether Mr Plod will go to jail for this. After seeing that the Special who was filmed beating up a man he was arresting has just got 3 years, I dont think things are looking good for this guy.

Effluent Man
6th Sep 2010, 09:50
Well he certainly should not have done what he did,but I think the sack is pretty robust punishment.Had he punched the woman rather than throwing her to the floor it would have been different.His behaviour was reckless rather than deliberately violent.

My case took a bizarre twist last week when the officer in charge of the guy who stopped me phoned and tried to justify his action as "a simple mistake". His argument was that the dog was sent for as the officer was unaware that having searched my car any scent would have been destroyed. When I reminded him that the reason for the search was stolen property and asked had I had a kilo of cocaine stuffed under the drivers seat the dog would have not picked up the scent the line went quiet.

He eventually offered to reprimand the officer concerned,to which I replied "You mean have a laugh about it in the canteen?"

Parapunter
6th Sep 2010, 09:56
His behaviour was reckless rather than deliberately violent.That is not a view I can concur with since it is not borne out by the unpleasant video footage.

Whether or not the guy should be sacked is a matter for the Police, but to see the incident as anything other than violent is mystifying to me since, a level of violence was used that was wholly unnecessary to achieve the sergeants objective.

radeng
6th Sep 2010, 10:25
I disagree. It was deliberate, gratuitous violence - a view the court must have held to find him guilty of ABH.

Regrettably, even if they give him as much as 3 years, he'll be out after 18 months. But they should remember Voltaire - 'pour encourager les autres'.

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 10:51
i agree randeng,

was he aware that woman wasn't a hemophiliac, had a heart (or any other medical) condition, or perhaps osteoporosis?

the police are there to uphold the law not to use it as an authoritarian base.

The actions of this officer are a disgrace to the force.

Molemot
6th Sep 2010, 10:59
Three things about this case stand out to me. Firstly, this woman was asleep in her car; making no attempt to drive it. Why not simply leave her alone? If she was over the limit, she was acting an a responsible manner by not driving. If she hadn't been drinking, but was merely sleeping in her car...well, I've done that myself and don't consider it any business of the law.
Secondly, having awoken this hapless lady and finally dragged her off to the Police Station, she encounters the Sergeant in question..when she asked why she had been arrested - a perfectly reasonable question, to me - she gets shouted at, instead of answered.
Thirdly, and possibly the most disappointing thing of all...when this bullyboy Sergeant drags her off and throws her into a cell, not one of the other people on duty say anything or try to stop his disgraceful actions.

All this for simply being found asleep in a car!!!

forget
6th Sep 2010, 11:06
... not one of the other people on duty say anything or try to stop his disgraceful actions.

Why aren't the others being charged? Had they intervened, as surely the law requires them to have done, then she wouldn't have been hurled into the cell. What's the word that would be applied to mere civilians - accessory?

tony draper
6th Sep 2010, 11:09
I though sitting in the drivers seat of a car even if it is not moving whilst over the limit you would still be deemed to be in charge of the vehicle while intoxicated.
:confused:

Parapunter
6th Sep 2010, 11:17
Firstly, this woman was asleep in her car; making no attempt to drive it. Why not simply leave her alone?The suspected offence would have been drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. One can get very done for it. It transpires that to prove it one way or another, the copper asked for a breath test, which she apparently refused to give & was then nicked.

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 11:20
from the version i read, she was staying with the vehicle due to a flat battery and not wanting to leave company laptop and documents in the vehicle unattended.

as such, when approached initially by a PCSO she had explained the flat battery and asked if they had jump leads, prior to the arrest.

1. she had given fair explanation of her circumstance, while in no means engaging in illegal activity.

2. the conversation prior to the arrest would have given fair ability to assess of being drunk.

3. the vehicle was immobile due to the flat battery, so even if she were over the legal limit, was in a vehicle that was unable to be operated, nor was any officer witness to the vehicle being used on a public highway prior to the arrest.

4. a simple PNC check would have provided the officer with the information that she was very local to where she was, that vehicle was not reported stolen nor any outstanding warrants against the registered keeper.

(See above reg section 1 of the RTA)

under the circumstances, i would have also requested an explanation for the arrest, the charge and the supporting evidence and become rather irritated at the lack of an explanation. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of the population would in fact be rather indignant at being arrested with out charge, much less for committing no offense and even giving prior explanation to ones behavior.

not good policing at all.

Effluent Man
6th Sep 2010, 13:28
Presumably though,and again here I am not defending his actions,her refusal to take the test must have been motivated by the thought that she would fail.I have been tested on five or six occasions and it would not occur to me to refuse. If you do you are convicted anyway so you may as well have a sporting chance of passing.I think that she probably was drunk and this fact contributed in some measure to the outcome.Of course he wasn't drunk so should have had more self control.

Cacophonix
6th Sep 2010, 13:37
I think that she probably was drunk and this fact contributed in some measure to the outcome.Of course he wasn't drunk so should have had more self control.You think or you know Effluent Man? One should be very careful of dressing innuendo up as fact.

As for dealing with drunkards generally, the goon at the centre of this debacle should have been aware that throwing people under the influence around is likely to result in injury given the likelihood of their impaired motor skills.

This guy deserves prison time if the case is as it appears and being an ex copper (as is is likely if he is found guilty) he will do hard time if some of the other inmates have their way.

Capetonian
6th Sep 2010, 13:44
3. the vehicle was immobile due to the flat battery, so even if she were over the legal limit, was in a vehicle that was unable to be operated, nor was any officer witness to the vehicle being used on a public highway prior to the arrest.

If she were over the legal limit, and asleep in the car on the public highway, she would have been commiting an offence. That said, I don't think she was over the limit, and even if she were, the behaviour of the police as reported is inexcusable.

PaperTiger
6th Sep 2010, 14:24
Quit apologising. The cop was a goon, got caught and deserves whatever the court gives him. Probably more.

lexxity
6th Sep 2010, 14:42
I think this little gem (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11187747) belongs here.

Parapunter
6th Sep 2010, 14:47
Let's get one thing straight!

Irrespective of whether or not she was over the limit, committing/not committing an offence, an arrest does not give the local custody sergeant licence to throw her or any other prisoner around like a ragdoll!

This is the issue, it's what should separate the coppers from the crims.

Cacophonix
6th Sep 2010, 14:55
The officers have been suspended from driving and will be placed on restricted duties when they return to work.One hopes they mean acceleration restricted duties.

You have to laugh. Silly buggers, you can imagine how the conversation went when the two coppers clapped their eyes on the arrested one's machine! Advanced driving course 0, acceleration 1.

I suspect the insurance claim on this one is just going to run and run.

dazdaz1
6th Sep 2010, 15:02
Capetonian..."If she were over the legal limit, and asleep in the car on the public highway, she would have been commiting an offence"

Not quite correct, one has to be in possession of the car key either in the ignition or on ones body or anywhere in the car. For example if one was to sleep off the booze in back of car, having put the keys hidden in grass/under bush and plod taps on the window, there is sod (UK) all they can do as far as any drink driving offence, if they can't find the keys in car or on your person.

Not a lot of people know that.
D1

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 15:05
Parapunter,

The other issue predates the one you correctly set forth in that:

Is it acceptable for a person to be arrested without committing any offence and without charge ?

radeng
6th Sep 2010, 15:07
The logical extension is that your car is parked in your driveway. You are at home, way over the limit, with no intention of driving, but you are, naturally, in possession of your car keys. It would appear that you are committing an offence.....

Effluent Man
6th Sep 2010, 15:11
I am a bit uneasy that this chap is going to get crucified though.It has already been referred to that police receive a particularly hard time in jail. If he is jailed it should be an open prison as there is no risk of re offending.

He will already have lost potentially an awful lot of money by being sacked. Should he be punished more harshly than a man who gratuitously assaults someone in a pub? I know I am playing devil's advocate here but punishment should always be proportionate.

shedhead
6th Sep 2010, 15:16
punishment should always be proportionate
I agree, what would be an appropriate punishment for a well built, physically fit man who had violently assaulted a 59 year old woman for not doing as she was told?

Parapunter
6th Sep 2010, 15:18
Is it acceptable for a person to be arrested without committing any offence and without charge ?

Yes it is (slightly incredulous voice:})

The Police are well within their rights to arrest on suspicion as distinctly opposed to an absolute charge, in order to allow them to make enquiries whilst preventing the flight of a suspect. Pretty basic stuff.

Still a distraction though Bruce, the problem is not whether or not the lady suffered a dodgy arrest is it? I would have thought by far and away the more contentious issue is the subsequent behaviour of the fed(s) in the custody suite.

Not sure why anyone would wish to go down the path of the integrity of the initial arrest - to what end?

Capetonian
6th Sep 2010, 15:20
dazdaz1 You are correct, but hypothetically, if she had been in possession of the key she would have been commiting an offence, and that was my point, albeit not well expressed.

Effluent Man Your name is appropriate in the context of your utterings, at least on this matter.
I am a bit uneasy that this chap is going to get crucified though.It has already been referred to that police receive a particularly hard time in jail.
Really. I'm not uneasy at all, he deserves whatever he may have coming to him and should have thought about his actions in relation to his position in society before he acted. It's not as if he were threatened by a gang of knife wielding thugs and acted in fear or in self-defence.


If he is jailed it should be an open prison as there is no risk of re offending.
Why would that be? He sounds like a violent thug and I would consider that there is a risk he would reoffend.

He will already have lost potentially an awful lot of money by being sacked. Should he be punished more harshly than a man who gratuitously assaults someone in a pub?
Yes, he should be punished more harshly because he was in a position of considerable trust and he abused the trust and power invested in him.

Cacophonix
6th Sep 2010, 15:25
Clearly if this man goes to prison he should be afforded protection by the prison service if it appears he is at risk from kangaroo 'justice' from within.

We live in a civilised country where we are all due certain rights whatever our condition or backgound (something that this policeman would have done well to have considered in the first place).

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 15:30
parapunter. point conceded :ok:

and i agree with you on the physical assault aspect.


Aggravated assaults
Assault occasioning actual bodily harmThe offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is created by section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The prosecution must prove an assault, which includes a battery: Archbold's Criminal Pleading 2009 at 19-195(Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2009). Occasioning simply means that the injury was caused by the accused's assault, either directly or indirectly, provided that the injury be the natural consequence of the accused's assault: R. v. Roberts 56 Cr App R 95. 'Actual bodily harm' means any injury which interferes with the health or comfort of the complainant, which is not merely transitory or trifling: R. v. Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498. The offence is punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.

Wounding; Causing or Inflicting Grievous bodily harmThese offences are created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The distinction lies in the intent: under s.20, the infliction of a wound or grievous bodily harm need only be "unlawful or malicious" (in practice, malice in the case of these offences means no more than foresight of the risk of bodily harm: R. v. Barnes [2005] 1 Cr App R 30). For a prosecution under section 18 to succeed, the Crown must prove that the accused wounded, or caused grievous bodily harm, with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Strictly speaking, assault is not an essential ingredient of these offences. The test is whether the wound, or harm, resulted from the act of the accused: see Archbold's Criminal Pleading 2009 at 19-208. Grievous bodily harms means no more and no less than really serious bodily harm: DPP v. Smith [1961] AC 290. A wound requires the continuity of the whole skin to be broken: R. v. Wood [1830] I Mood. 278.

An offence under section 20 carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. An offence under section 20 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.


interesting.

dazdaz1
6th Sep 2010, 15:41
Capetonian..Yes I agree "dazdaz1 You are correct, but hypothetically, if she had been in possession of the key she would have been commiting an offence, and that was my point, albeit not well expressed."

My post was for the benefit of all other readers in the UK. But I see your point.

D1

Effluent Man
6th Sep 2010, 15:55
Capetonian, If he really was a violent thug I don't think he would have got to the age he is without being convicted for it.I think we can be reasonably assured that this is the first time he has committed an offence of this type.

And I am not saying that he should not be sacked,or even given a custodial sentence.(Although I think suspended would be appropriate) merely that he should not suffer disproportionately.I actually thought that Ian Huntley should not have been beaten up either.If that is going to happen then let us be honest enough as a society to sentence people to such draconian and bizarre punishments.I am sure that in this crazy world we would have no shortage of morons offering to carry them out.Sky could even televise them and the audience could eat popcorn and drink Dr Pepper while some poor sod gets seven bells beaten out of him.

Cacophonix
6th Sep 2010, 16:00
I am sure that in this crazy world we would have no shortage of morons offering to carry them out.Sky could even televise them and the audience could eat popcorn and drink Dr Pepper while some poor sod gets seven bells beaten out of him.You are right Effluent Man. Sadly I sometimes think that we are just a shimmy away here from barbaric societies like Iran where you can be publicly stoned to death if you are a woman accused of adultery.

I tend to think of the stoning scene in The Life of Brian when I think of 'popular' justice.

Capetonian
6th Sep 2010, 16:24
I regret to say that in a country where the justice system seems biased towards the criminal rather than the victim, I am in favour of severe punishment. There is of course a happy medium but in the UK you have strayed far from that and it needs to go the other way.

Effluent Man
6th Sep 2010, 16:36
The rubber necklace it is then;)

Bruce Wayne
6th Sep 2010, 16:38
I think we can be reasonably assured that this is the first time he has committed an offence of this type.


can we ?

The evidence was caught on CCTV and witnessed by a desk officer who reported it.

It's just as likely that this is the first time he was witnessed by an officer that chose not to tolerate such actions and that the supporting evidence (instead of the game of he said / she said) caught on camera.

I have no evidence to support that he had engaged in such actions previously, insofar as you do not have any evidence to support that he did not.

in which respect the statement is not a cogent argument due to the acceptability of premises.

And I am not saying that he should not be sacked,or even given a custodial sentence.(Although I think suspended would be appropriate)

so engaging in assault is exempted by being in a uniform ?

a police officer is exempted from the law ? to what degree?

the removal from his position as a police officer is due to the fact that as the perpetrator of a criminal offence his position as a police officer to uphold the law is untenable.

despite that, he still broke the law and should be subjected to appropriate legal proceedings and to be heard in court, without prejudice.

hellsbrink
6th Sep 2010, 16:46
And I am not saying that he should not be sacked,or even given a custodial sentence.(Although I think suspended would be appropriate) merely that he should not suffer disproportionately

Well, it depends on how you are defining "suffer disproportionately".

If it is in regard to the possible sentence, then he should be facing the maximum sentence possible as he was not only in a position of responsibility and authority, which he happily and deliberately abused, he also took an oath to uphold the law which he deliberately ignored. So, as far as the sentence goes, he should be treated harshly.

However, if you mean the treatment he may receive in the nick, then I have to agre that "vigilante justice" is a no-no (although I disagree with your viewpoint on Huntley, People like him, who abuse/murder children, lose all rights given to anyone in a civilised society by the nature of their crime, imo. He should have had a rope around his neck). If that means that the soon-to-be-ex policeman is held in solitary, for his own safety, for the duration of his sentence then so be it, although some would think that a damn good kicking inside would be poetic justice given the nature of his crime.

Oh, another question regarding this so-called police officer is "How many others has he assaulted, especially those who have been ratfaced?", and how many other attacks have been brushed under the carpet. I get the feeling this was not his "first time", but it will be his last.....

Krystal n chips
6th Sep 2010, 16:49
" I am sure that in this crazy world we would have no shortage of morons offering to carry them out.Sky could even televise them and the audience could eat popcorn and drink Dr Pepper while some poor sod gets seven bells beaten out of him."

No such a wild theory actually...during, ahem, a recent debate on here there were plenty of voices who would seem to confirm the no shortage hypothesis.

Anyway, regarding the officer in question, one question that hasn't been asked...or maybe I missed it is....was this an isolated incident..or has he being throwing his weght around under the guise of the uniform for some time....and no, I am not exhonerating his actions...the CCTV showed a fair amount of blood on the floor....so she must have hit with a fair amount of force even for a facial / head injury which are notorious for appearing worse than they are due to the proximity of the blood vessels to the skin....which makes you wonder how many others have also been recipients over the years if it wasn't an isolated incident....but if it was the latter, what induced him to act this way ?.....as always, nothing is as obvious as it may seem.

hellsbrink
6th Sep 2010, 17:11
KnC

Exactly my thoughts (see above) as I very much doubt he woke up one morning and decided he was going to beat up an alleged criminal for the hell of it.

Methinks that others who have mysteriously been injured after being "carefully placed" in a cell when guttered will be asking questions, but an obvious problem will be their recollection due to alcohol consumption* at the time.











*NOTE/ At no time am I suggesting that the woman assaulted, in this case, was either drunk or causing a problem.

radeng
6th Sep 2010, 17:57
Since when was it a crime to sleep in a car? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7983665/Since-when-was-it-a-crime-to-sleep-in-a-car.html)

Nasty picture. Wonder if there is any permanent scarring?

MagnusP
7th Sep 2010, 15:17
He's been given six months.

BBC News - Wiltshire policeman jailed for cell attack on woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026)

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2010, 16:03
Of which he will serve three . . .

Since the offence (two years ago) he has been suspended on full pay.

Tankertrashnav
7th Sep 2010, 16:14
His main punishment (well deserved) will be losing what, particularly with overtime payments, is a pretty well paid job, with the possibility of retiring at an early age with one of the best pension deals in the public sector (and yes, I know it's a contributory scheme). I assume in a case like this the guy just gets a straight refund of his contributions - or are they forfeited?).

radeng
7th Sep 2010, 17:00
As he's appealing against the sentence, he may well be out on bail until the appeal is heard. How soon the disciplinary hearing takes place is another matter

hellsbrink
7th Sep 2010, 19:37
Hmm.

Two of his colleagues may be in some do-doo too as the judge actually referred them to the chief constable over the rather unreliable evidence they gave during the trial.

Now, since there has been a small media circus around this whole thing I doubt this will be swept under the carpet as, simply, the judge dismissed their evidence as lies and the last I heard lying in court was not exactly a clever thing to do. A rather large can of worms could now be opened up if other now question other "evidence" they have given in previous trials.

Not a good day for Wiltshire Police........

G-CPTN
7th Sep 2010, 20:08
Why has it taken such a long time to come to court?

What prompted the female officer to report the incident when others seem to have been indifferent? Was it one case too far?

Maybe the redtops will uncover more . . .

Bronx
7th Sep 2010, 20:16
Two of his colleagues may be in some do-doo too

Maybe more than two, like the cops who arrested her and the cop who gave the order to keep her in handcuffs even when she was in hospital.
Lifted like a rag doll and hurled into cell: Shocking video of police brutality... on 5ft 2in tall 59-year-woman | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309136/Lifted-like-rag-doll-hurled-cell-Shocking-video-police-brutality--5ft-2in-tall-59-year-woman.html)

Solar
8th Sep 2010, 04:42
According to the news report he has apologised profusely since the case began, now if he was an MP the case would probably be dropped as he is sorry. As well as the prison sentence surely his pay while suspended should be returned.

I have lost a lot of faith in the police over the years, not that I had much anyway growing up in NI, but it totally dissapeared recently when I was arrested after reporting a case of domestic violence against my daughter owing to my ex-son in law claiming I had threatened to kill him via a phone call. The whole thing appears to be an exercise in ticking the boxes. So apparently all you need to do when you receive a phone call from someone you don't like is tell the boys in blue (green in our case) that the caller threatened you then sit back and see what happens.

A retired policeman told me that's unbelieveable that I could be arrested on the basis of a phone call.
The sad thing is that my solictor who was a bit gobsmacked as well tells me that when/if the case is dismissed the police destroy the fingerprints but retain the DNA and I will have to fight to get it destroyed. Normaly I wouldn't give a toss but in this case I'll be fighting it all the way.

hellsbrink
8th Sep 2010, 08:05
Bronx

I can't really say much about the others, although the one who said she must be cuffed in hospital should be answering some questions, but the two who lied in court should have been hauled up in front of the beak for perjury as the judge did deem they had told a rather big porkie in court.

As far as the rest goes, they'll be "reprimanded", put on some sort of "refresher course" and then be back to their normal ways once the dust has died down

Captain Stable
8th Sep 2010, 09:52
I think we can be reasonably assured that this is the first time he has committed an offence of this type.EM, you seem in several threads to make unsupported assertions as if they were facts. This is not a good habit.

We cannot be to any degree so assured as you claim. That two police officers who gave evidence on his behalf in the trial have been referred to the Chief Constable is worrying. In many, many cases in the past, police officers stick together, whatever the situation, to defend their colleagues against outsiders. That those "outsiders" are the public who pay their salary and whom they are paid to protect against illegal assault appears to escape their notice. But it is to us that they are accountable. If not us, then to whom? Nobody - and we then have a police force out of control - a police state.

Evidence was given in the trial that this police sergeant had been drinking. I suspect that he wouldn't have gone anything like as far as he did in this case had he not been drinking, and I also suspect that he would not have gone anything like this far if he had not assaulted prisoners before.

The job of a custody sergeant is one of higher responsibility than most in the police. His job includes the welfare of prisoners, whatever they have been accused of, and includes protecting them against possibly over-zealous officers, and ensuring their rights are protected.

This man failed on every count. He is a disgrace to the force. His actions have tarnished the badge of every police officer in Wiltshire Constabulary, if not the rest of the police in the UK. He deserves every second of the prison sentence handed down, and he deserves to lose his job and his pension.

Please stop condoning police brutality and lack of accountability with your so-called "facts".

hellsbrink
8th Sep 2010, 10:15
Evidence was given in the trial that this police sergeant had been drinking. I suspect that he wouldn't have gone anything like as far as he did in this case had he not been drinking, and I also suspect that he would not have gone anything like this far if he had not assaulted prisoners before.

And, obviously, that little nugget brings the integrity of every officer who has "worked" with this guy into question as it would seem that not one person who had contact with him did a damn thing about a colleague either being under the influence, or actually consuming alcohol, whilst on duty.

It says everything, when you think about it, and brings back the question about how many others has he mishandled as well as how many other times has he happily been under the influence at work.

vulcanised
8th Sep 2010, 13:16
One question occurs to me.

Where was the Duty Inspector during all of this? Or has he been abolished?


Good post CS!

vulcanised
16th Sep 2010, 18:06
Isn't it comforting to know he's still being kept in style at our expense:-

BBC News - Wiltshire assault officer on full pay pending hearing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11327248)

Captain Stable
17th Sep 2010, 09:35
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if he's out on bail, and pending an appeal, he is still a convicted criminal?

And the police are paying him...?

charliegolf
17th Sep 2010, 09:42
" I am sure that in this crazy world we would have no shortage of morons offering to carry them out.Sky could even televise them and the audience could eat popcorn and drink Dr Pepper while some poor sod gets seven bells beaten out of him."

No such a wild theory actually...during, ahem, a recent debate on here there were plenty of voices who would seem to confirm the no shortage hypothesis.


It doesn't require much bravery to spout on an anonymous forum! Most would, 'sadly', be 'busy' on the day.

CG

vulcanised
17th Sep 2010, 13:07
Those were exactly my thoughts, CS.

Assuming he's appealing over his sentence, I hope the judge agrees it's inappropriate and awards 12 months instead.

G-CPTN
8th Nov 2010, 19:21
BBC News - Officer branded dead girl 'scum' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11712755)

BBC News - Pc said girl killed by speeding officer was 'scumbag' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11711949)

See:- http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/369226-policeman-did-kill.html

Minutes after the fatal crash a dog handler sent to the scene was overheard referring to Hayley as a "scumbag".
Dog handler Pc Julie Neve was heard referring to Hayley as a "Scotchy Scumbag" after her death - a reference to the area of Scotswood close to Hayley's home.

The second officer faces action after behaving inappropriately during Dougal's trial at Newcastle Crown Court.
The teenager's family complained that Sgt Lynne McKevitt repeatedly tutted in court whenever Hayley's name was mentioned.

Checkboard
8th Nov 2010, 20:48
was heard referring to Hayley as a "Scotchy Scumbag"

hmmm .... but was he right?

gunbus
8th Nov 2010, 21:28
Disgusting she should be kicked out of the force,anyone know which Dog is the handler?

tony draper
8th Nov 2010, 22:22
If you hit somebody in the Scotswood road it is a high order of probability that it will be a scumbag.
:)
It used to be a hive of industry,now it is a hive of scumbaggery

DG101
8th Nov 2010, 22:27
What about this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-11446254) esteemed member of the law 'n order brigade? :uhoh:

vulcanised
8th Nov 2010, 22:43
More 'ethnic diversity' coming to grief.

hellsbrink
9th Nov 2010, 18:13
I fail to see how a copper who is an imbecile is somehow classed as behaving like a gangster.......

Guess I must be a gangster too going by some of the things I've said about people in various parts of the world.......

Ho hum

skyfish2
9th Nov 2010, 18:36
HELLSBRINK

That makes two of us

hellsbrink
9th Nov 2010, 18:42
Yeah, skyfish. I mean, it ain't as if that imbecile did anything like the rozzers allegedly did at the Mark Saunders inquest.........


A total lack of respect for the coroner's court.........

radeng
13th Nov 2010, 14:38
This one was either dim or lazy (or both), but he didn't get away with it.


Bourton-on-the-Water incident "well below professional standards" (From Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard) (http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/8635789.Policeman_jailed_after_death_of_a_man_in_the_Cotswol ds/)

G-CPTN
13th Nov 2010, 14:43
Not satisfied with dereliction of duty, he compounds it with lying . . .

G-CPTN
18th Nov 2010, 12:13
BBC News - Wiltshire policeman jailed for cell attack on woman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11214026)

Apparently the conviction has now been quashed on appeal . . .

BBC News - Wiltshire policeman cleared of assault on appeal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-11787126)

vulcanised
18th Nov 2010, 13:01
What was his defence? (which was accepted)

A door frame got in the way.

Just a variation on falling down the stairs.

radeng
18th Nov 2010, 18:04
He still has an internal disciplinary hearing to face. The evidence of the policewoman who brought it to managment's attention was apparently discounted, but I doubt that will be the case for the disciplinary hearing.

Capot
20th Nov 2010, 17:52
Rather than start a new thread....here's a story loosely connected to Police behaving badly.

As you drive towards Leeds centre from Junction 2 on the M621, on the A58, there's a short tunnel under the railway, on a sharpish bend just before a large roundabout and traffic lights. Anyone who is halfway familiar with that road knows that the probability of stopped traffic a few metres after the bend is very high indeed. It's a busy road.

So I'm stopped at those lights, 2-3 cars back, no-one behind me, about 40m from the curve in the road. I hear a Police car rapidly aproaching from somewhere. I look in the mirror and as I do I see a marked car, blue lights, siren, come round that bend at very high speed. The driver slams on the brakes, but there's nowhere to go; there's traffic in each lane.

Having braked so hard, on a bend at high speed, he loses control completely. and the car turns sideways on, brakes still hard on, driver uselessly waggling the wheel from side to side, and continues in the same direction sliding sideways. It stops sideways on, right-hand side forward, about 1m behind my car. For 10-15 seconds it is motionless, then as the lights go green and a space clears he's off again, smoking tyres, skidding from side to side as he tries to swerve round the traffic.

It's a piece of driving so bad, so stupid and so dangerous that if a member of the public had been caught doing it the Police would have had him in handcuffs and down at the nick, facing a minimum charge of dangerous driving.

But what I saw was two shaven-headed thugs in that car (possibly another in the back, not certain) laughing uproariously as they slid towards me, and as they waited to move off again.

Did I get a number? No, by the time I thought of it they were gone.

Why do I care? Because it is yet another illustration of the arrogance and contempt for the public that seems to be part of Police culture.

390cruise
20th Nov 2010, 18:16
A 40 mph limit with a tight righthand bend it was a road I know well.

I was doing 40 the lorry coming the other way perhaps about the same.

In an instant I was facing a police car overtaking the lorry I pulled on to the grass the lorry driver seemed to stop dead.The police car continued on his way. No sign of blue lights no sirens.

That lorry driver saved my life.

390

green granite
29th Nov 2010, 08:04
Vld1977

What a load of irrelevant rubbish, Carpetonian's post is about not punishing criminals adequately and making the victim's life a misery, nothing whatsoever to do with police brutality in the UK. 10 years for beating an old lady to death for the price of a fix is totally inadequate, any killing in pursuit of crime should be a mandatory whole life sentence.

Double Zero
29th Nov 2010, 12:32
On the other hand...

I will for a start admit this was about 1985ish.

I had sailed my little boat, with my fiancee and a chum, to East Cowes.

As we used to do when young, we walked a long way inland in search of somewhere different for the evening.

As we walked back in the dark along a country road - obviously on the Isle of Wight - a car was coming, so we stopped on the grass verge, close in single file.

Things became interesting when the car accelerated and swerved right at us, missing by not much.

As we walked into town, we recognised the car; parked outside the police station.

In answer to our query as to his behaviour, the fat plod, straight from a film about Southern USA cops and obviously drunk, replied 'we shouldn't be walking where we don't belong'...

Then there was the time after crashing my motorbike ( assisted off by a car ) - I couldn't find the anti-mist nosepiece from my crash helmet; it turned out the plod attending had taken it, " I always keep a souvenir from every accident " - he also happened to have motorbike...

When my boat along with several others was broken into on shore, we all stood back and waited - hours- for the scene of crime lot to turn up and take fingerprints.

When they finally did turn up, they refused to take prints, but did ask for my smashed alarm as another 'souvenir'.

When married and living in Somerset, my father in law and his chums never stopped talking about being in the Masons ( some secret society ). When out for a meal at a place in the middle of nowhere on the levels, in thick fog with a deep wide ditch ( Rhein ) either side of the road, I expressed concern that much drink was being taken, and what if they got stopped ? I was laughed at, "Oh, that's alright, one just makes the sign ".

We could sack every over-paid member of the police ( ie all of them ) and no-one would notice any difference, they certainly don't get into anything awkward like solving crime; and when they screw up, the old boy network ensures full paid leave followed by a mega-pension.

Cheerio
29th Nov 2010, 18:49
"Oh, that's alright, one just makes the sign".



There's good money waiting.......

gingernut
29th Nov 2010, 21:55
Anybody hear the police officer in "Coppers" wishing for more "sport" when he was appointed to keeping public order......worrying.

Watched some of the series, and a pattern of high alcohol use seems to be a theme amongst stressed officers.

dead_pan
29th Nov 2010, 23:19
I watched all bar the first episode of 'Coppers' - I thought it presented plod in a fairly positive light. They do have an unbelievably tough and stressful job. As one TV critic pointed out, they deal daily with situations which we would maybe encounter once or twice in our lives.

cargosales
13th Dec 2010, 22:54
Now I'm not exactly a huge fan of The Morning Militant errr I mean Morning Star but this video from the recent student demos in London has been brought to my attention

Only the last 40 seconds or so are of real interest / relevance.

McIntyre: 'Expose the truth' / Britain / Home - Morning Star (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98788)

On the one hand, we don't know what, if any, provocation was offered to the police by this person. Did he spit at them or abuse them in some way? We just don't know the answer to that.

On the other hand, one really has to wonder what on earth Plod were thinking in dragging someone with cerebral palsy out of his wheelchair and across the road, in full view of a lot of very emotionally charged people!

Interesting too is the reaction of the crowd to this act. One can easily understand how the tempers of erstwhile peaceful protestors become seriously inflamed by dumb acts such as this and how that escalates into violent acts and confrontations with aforementioned unthinking Plod.

Stoopid just doesn't cover it !! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

BarbiesBoyfriend
14th Dec 2010, 02:19
In my opinion, they're a shower of cu next tuesdays.

And if they are ever so unfortunate as to need my help, they can fugg right off, preferably straightaway. Or sooner if they can manage it.

Wankers.

stuckgear
14th Dec 2010, 09:33
Now I'm not exactly a huge fan of The Morning Militant errr I mean Morning Star but this video from the recent student demos in London has been brought to my attention

Only the last 40 seconds or so are of real interest / relevance.

McIntyre: 'Expose the truth' / Britain / Home - Morning Star (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98788)

On the one hand, we don't know what, if any, provocation was offered to the police by this person. Did he spit at them or abuse them in some way? We just don't know the answer to that.

On the other hand, one really has to wonder what on earth Plod were thinking in dragging someone with cerebral palsy out of his wheelchair and across the road, in full view of a lot of very emotionally charged people!

Interesting too is the reaction of the crowd to this act. One can easily understand how the tempers of erstwhile peaceful protestors become seriously inflamed by dumb acts such as this and how that escalates into violent acts and confrontations with aforementioned unthinking Plod.

Stoopid just doesn't cover it !! :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:


while not a fan of the police per se, they do have a tough job to do.

in respect of the student protester in the wheel chair with cerebral palsy;

in fact the person in a wheelchair is not a student but models himself as a self styled political activist. He recently spent 8 months in Gaza as a political activist for Palestine.

he placed himself on the front line of the demonstration/riot, and when turning ugly he was removed by the police for his own safety. with large objects being thrown at the police, including snooker balls, scaffold tubing, and sections of fencing, the police were moving in the mounted units and the wheelchair bound protester was removed for his personal safety in that 1. any projectiles falling short could have severely injured him (bear in mind the police do not have to hand the medical records of every protester there and not aware of their individual physical conditions) and 2. his personal safety would have also been at risk with horses being used for crowd control.

further to which if he was injured, the police do not have a platform to provide medical assistance or access to medical staff.

McIntyre, was removed to an area of safety, and his brother Finlay given access to provide his wheelchair.

Further, there were also several camera angles providing the footage, which would indicate that placing himself in a dangerous situation was a set up.

Because he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean he's not an a$$hole.

El Grifo
14th Dec 2010, 10:34
Might have just wheeled him away though. Less visually contaminating !!

hellsbrink
14th Dec 2010, 17:55
Might have just wheeled him away though. Less visually contaminating !!

And would take longer whilst the police were getting all the things listed by stuckgear thrown at them, and would mean it would take longer to deploy the mounted police and therefore would take longer to disperse the animals masquerading as "students on a peaceful protest". I guess the police would be wrong if they didn't act to sort out the rabble because one numpty places himself in the "danger zone".

As has been said, he DELIBERATELY put himself on the front line, and imo that was an attempt to cause the very situation that did arise so people would start bad-mouthing the police whilst ignoring the provocation from the "protestors".

El Grifo
14th Dec 2010, 18:06
No real axe to grind here hellsbrink but give yourself a break amigo !!

Easier and safer to drag him out of his chair then hold him on the ground than just to wheel him out of harms way ???

Bit of an agenda going on in your head methinks :ugh:

stuckgear
14th Dec 2010, 18:13
turns out he was already removed from the front line shortly before.

perhaps the police should have just left him the second time. :hmm:

El Grifo
14th Dec 2010, 18:17
Or simply wheeled him away for "processing"

Unless of course the were trying to provoke the crowd :}

stuckgear
14th Dec 2010, 18:26
nah grif, a wheel clamp would have done that :E

but then according to his own blog, he managed to use his legs to climb the staircase of millbank to the 9th floor.

:hmm:

El Grifo
14th Dec 2010, 18:49
Ok, Ok, Ok, Ok, Ok, we will settle on a wheel clamp :ok:

hellsbrink
14th Dec 2010, 18:55
Easier and safer to drag him out of his chair then hold him on the ground than just to wheel him out of harms way ???

Let's see, now. First, they removed him from the front line for his safety earlier, but he returns there. Missiles are being thrown, you have an uncooperative idiot trying to stir up trouble and you think that it is a good idea to piss about with the brakes on a wheelchair and then wheel him out of the way whilst under what could be a barrage of missiles and spit whilst knowing that there would be the clippity-clop of a couple of tons of French (or Belgian, love horsemeat I do) Breakfast thundering in your direction very shortly?

The police removed him in the fastest way possible, since he was not going to cooperate with them, in a more controlled manner than having him causing all sorts of issues as they tried to wheel him out of the way. The wuckfit should count himself lucky that they didn't take him straight into the back of a wagon.

cargosales
14th Dec 2010, 21:25
Let's see, now. First, they removed him from the front line for his safety earlier, but he returns there. Missiles are being thrown, you have an uncooperative idiot trying to stir up trouble and you think that it is a good idea to piss about with the brakes on a wheelchair and then wheel him out of the way whilst under what could be a barrage of missiles and spit whilst knowing that there would be the clippity-clop of a couple of tons of French (or Belgian, love horsemeat I do) Breakfast thundering in your direction very shortly?

The police removed him in the fastest way possible, since he was not going to cooperate with them, in a more controlled manner than having him causing all sorts of issues as they tried to wheel him out of the way. The wuckfit should count himself lucky that they didn't take him straight into the back of a wagon.

I've just looked again at the video clip and can't see a single missile being thrown, nor even anyone else around the chap being dragged from the wheelchair.

Please could you post some link(s) or other evidence to whatever it is that leads you to the belief that a) missiles were being thrown at that point in time and b) that protestors should be put straight into the back of a wagon'

stuckgear
14th Dec 2010, 21:56
sorry cargosales, there's a couple at least out there and were primarily on news websites before the 'poor crippled student' beaten by brutish police ploy was thrown out into the media..

i literally cannot be arsed to go find them.


as posted in alternative thread http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/436393-gilmour-jr-cenotaph-3.html#post6121252

here's some pics of Jody McIntyre, who refers to himself on his [email protected] page as 'Journalist & Revolutionary'

http://sjp.eusa.ed.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jody_mcIntyre.jpg


Quote:
it is time to globalise the intifada.
... his own words.

http://ww.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/output/mag-1289831854.jpg




according to hisown blog, he managed to use his legs to climb the staircase of millbank to the 9th floor.



his actions are reprehensible and the media just follows the if bleeds it leads tactic. police the gangsters ? not in this case.

cargosales
14th Dec 2010, 23:01
sorry cargosales, there's a couple at least out there and were primarily on news websites before the 'poor crippled student' beaten by brutish police ploy was thrown out into the media..

i literally cannot be arsed to go find them.

.

Well I suggest that you try to be arsed.

Especially if you are happy to misquote people, such as myself, when cross-posting to other threads.

If you cannot even be bothered to back up your assertions then they are hardly worth listening to, are they?

More facts and less waffle please chap !!

CS

G-CPTN
14th Dec 2010, 23:18
BBC News - Video of police pulling protester from wheelchair (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11993680)

rusty sparrow
15th Dec 2010, 00:17
A very one sided interview by the BBC, supporting the establishment as it always will.

What I see is an obviously disabled but brave young man expressing his right to protest. The police behaviour is inexcusable.

Whatever anyone thinks about the causes he supports (I'm 100% behind him on Palestine), he's not some posh little to55er like The Gilmore Youth, who was just along for the fun of it.

hellsbrink
15th Dec 2010, 20:35
Cargosales

The reports are out there.

Why not look yourself?

hellsbrink
15th Dec 2010, 20:44
A very one sided interview by the BBC, supporting the establishment as it always will.

What I see is an obviously disabled but brave young man expressing his right to protest. The police behaviour is inexcusable.

Whatever anyone thinks about the causes he supports (I'm 100% behind him on Palestine), he's not some posh little to55er like The Gilmore Youth, who was just along for the fun of it.

A "disabled young man, etc"? As has been clearly stated, he was a political activist who deliberately put himself in a position where he was provoking the police TWICE. The second time he was almost the equivalent of a steeplechase fence at Aintree. And you say he's not a tosser?

He went out to cause trouble, to get in the way of the legal duty of the police to ensure the march passed peacefully. Again, he's lucky he was treated the way he was, lucky that, unlike in some other countries, he wasn't carted away in the back of a police van. And if he is so "disabled", how did he get up to the 9th floor of Milbank?

What some people should remember is that there are two sides to every story, not just the "Look at me, I'm disabled" one. That idiot should have been carted away, he would have been told to move and, afair, ignoring the instructions of a police officer is a criminal offence.

But some people think that he is as much a hero as the guy that stood in front of a tank in Tianneman Square, and that is the saddest thing about the whole episode, it shows how much respect people in the UK have for law and order.

hellsbrink
15th Dec 2010, 20:52
By the way.

To all those who say that arsehole in the wheelchair is somehow innocent of anything apart from protesting over the Government raising fees for university students, just answer one thing.

Why was he, someone who is NOT a student, in the middle of the road on his own, in a wheelchair, when the violence, etc, was so high the police had to deploy the horses?

Let's see if one person who thinks the police were heavy-handed can answer that question sensibly.......... I doubt it very much............

RedhillPhil
15th Dec 2010, 21:12
It's a delicate thing this just a harmles person in a wheelchair business. A few months ago the papers were full of a bloke in Manchester being apparently ignored by rail staff as he tried to board a train in his motorised wheelchair. He'd filmed himself asking rail staff for assistance and being seemingly ignored. The Daily Wail had a field day. What wasn't made clear was that he's basically a professional nuisance who uses - or tries to use - the train because he's been banned from all the buses there and few taxi drivers will take him because of his attitude. Now, back to our police victim. Who truly knows what happened? How much provocation did he try? What instructions did the Socialist Workers Party give him? Be in no doubt, they and the rest of the rent-a-mob are behind this.

Captain Stable
17th Dec 2010, 12:08
Why was he, someone who is NOT a student, in the middle of the road on his own, in a wheelchair, when the violence, etc, was so high the police had to deploy the horses?A few points:-
You don't have to be a student to protest against the government's policies on tuition fees - directly affected will be school pupils, their parents, academics - only most of the population, in fact.
Do you allege that he had no right to be there? The right to protest has been very hard-won in this country.
Yes, police deployed horses. They deploy them quite frequently on the edges of demonstrations. What they don't always do, but did on this occasion (and f ew others) was to conduct a cavalry charge against peaceful protesters. There was no "had to" about it.
You have commented several times about the 9th floor of Millbank. Perhaps he went up in the lift, propped up on crutches? Who knows? Do you allege that he is not suffering from cerebral palsy? And if he went up Millbank by the stairs, does his blog say how long it took him? I knew a guy a few years ago who was suffering from MS who nevertheless "ran" in the London Marathon. It took him over 12 hours, but he did it. And I would still say hauling him out of his wheelchair would not be an act of kindness.
Yes, he put himself in the front line deliberately. Perhaps he didn't expect the police to be so heedless of his condition as to do what they did. Perhaps he WAS trying to see if they would. Like mindless woodentops, they fell straight into a fairly simple trap, wouldn't you say?I deplore the violence on both sides. The anachist tendency who merely want a good punch-up and an opportunity for mindless vandalism help not a lot what is, in my opinion, an extremely valid reason for protest against a policy which will help only rich thickos at university, will price out of the education market all social classes below those except the poorest 0.1%. And the police, whether they intended to do so or not, have provoked a lot of anger and mistrust, overreacted time and time again, and attempted to criminalise people for exercising their democratic right to protest and, in the process, have shown themselves to be an agent of the government rather than the servants of the public.

shedhead
17th Dec 2010, 12:13
I don't mind being corrected on this but from watching the video it looked like his fellow officers were non too pleased by his actions.

Evanelpus
17th Dec 2010, 15:56
You don't have to be a student to protest against the government's policies on tuition fees

That's true but if you look at the footage, the vast majority of trouble makers were 'young people' who had obviously come along just for fight, just look at the ******** son of the Pink Floyd guy.

They were pure and simple Rent a Mob.

Captain Stable
17th Dec 2010, 18:12
And your point is... what?

If they were "Rent-a-Mob", who paid them? Going on some of the video footage I've seen of police activity at G20, various other demonstrations, since they are being paid for what they do, the appelation "Rent-a-Mob" more accurately refers to them.

As I've said, I deplore the violence on both sides. But too many people are focussing too much on the violent demonstrators, ignoring the peaceful majority, and ignoring the iniquity of what they are protesting against. In this regard, the anarchist violent tendency do the cause a disservice.

However, the police need also to remember that they are supposed to be professionals doing a professional job for which they have spent a long time training, and for which training we have paid them. I don't like to see my money going to waste on a bunch of thugs who, in the mere action of removing their shoulder tabs or covering them up show that they, also, are there for a good punch-up.

El Grifo
17th Dec 2010, 18:20
Don't you just love it when after the blood and thunder brigade run out of repetoir, someone like the Cptn comes along with a piece of solid sense.

"Nail on the head" would be my description of his post.

Thanks Cptn :ok:

ORAC
21st Dec 2010, 12:29
Guido Fawkes: Wheels Come Off Protester’s Complaint (http://order-order.com/2010/12/14/wheels-come-off-protesters-complaint/)

Jody Macinytre, radical pro-Palestine supporter (http://ww.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/radar/jody-mcintyre)and sufferer from cerebral palsy has made much hay of the fact he was dragged out of his wheelchair by riot police at Thursday’s protests. Yet he has previously admitted to be coordinating breaking police lines. He claims on his blog (http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/week-72-tory-party-hq/)he is a revolutionary yet spent a BBC interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo)declaring his innocence and denied live on Sky that he was in fact a revolutionary before going on to claim that the police had no reason to move him out of the way. However he has revelled in, and incited, violence on his website.

His argument is undone when a quick glance at his blog shows that he has been at the forefront of the protests so far at Westminster and managed to walk all the way up to the top of Millbank back in November, blogging that “It was an epic mission to the top. Nine floors; eighteen flights of stairs. Two friends carried my wheelchair, and I walked.” Macintyre can’t hide behind his disability when the police treat him like any other violent trespassing thug. It’s called equality…

UPDATE: Further pictorial evidence (http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655)emerges of the police being as gentle as possible in moving Macintyre and in doing so the officers put themselves in personal danger from the hail of missiles. Here is a quote from Graham Mitchell the photographer “Mr McIntyre was in the front row of the crowd and in a very precarious position, especially as he is wheelchair bound. It was clear from my vantage point that the police moved him as gently as possible and in doing so the officers put themselves in personal danger from the hail of missiles. Once he had been moved away from the front line to a safe distance, the officers sat him on a low level wall. Mr McIntyre got up and started arguing with an officer. He was so wound up that he eventually tried to strike an officer and was only stopped from doing this due to the intervention of a famale passer-by.”

tony draper
21st Dec 2010, 12:34
Hmmm, a certain scene from Manhunter floats unbidden into one's thoughts.
:rolleyes:

MagnusP
21st Dec 2010, 12:35
If they were "Rent-a-Mob", who paid them?

All too often it's people like you and me whose hard-earned dosh vanishes as taxes in order to fund the benefits system.

Cacophonix
21st Dec 2010, 13:02
I wonder how many of those here who fulminate against 'political activists' and use words like 'arsehole' etc. would have felt if they had seen the police tactics I observed against pro hunt supporters in London a couple of years ago. The inappropriate use of truncheons and force generally was a sad thing to see in a supposedly 'freedom' loving and democratic Britain. A whole generation of peaceful, middle class, law abiding citizens learned a lot about how our police force can behave on that day.

I don't envy the police their job but when they are used for political ends (as they often here) we are all the worse off for it. The students had every right to protest peacefully and all freedom loving people should respect that.

NF

ORAC
21st Dec 2010, 13:26
The students had every right to protest peacefully What a pity they didn't all do so, and that their leadership were complicit in planning and colluding with the violence (http://order-order.com/2010/11/11/nus-wanted-demo-lition/). :cool:

Cacophonix
21st Dec 2010, 13:40
Orac

Captain Stable put it more eloquently than I can.

As I've said, I deplore the violence on both sides. But too many people are focussing too much on the violent demonstrators, ignoring the peaceful majority, and ignoring the iniquity of what they are protesting against. In this regard, the anarchist violent tendency do the cause a disservice.

However, the police need also to remember that they are supposed to be professionals doing a professional job for which they have spent a long time training, and for which training we have paid them. I don't like to see my money going to waste on a bunch of thugs who, in the mere action of removing their shoulder tabs or covering them up show that they, also, are there for a good punch-up.

stuckgear
21st Dec 2010, 15:30
If they were "Rent-a-Mob", who paid them?


paid, no. motivated, nay incited.. maybe...


The new boss of Unite, Len McCluskey has put both Dave and Ed in a tricky spot this morning. His Grauniad piece is a boorishly militant call to arms, suggesting that the unions need to take a leaf out of the student protesters book and start smashing stuff up. Well he doesn’t quite say that, but phrases like “preparing for battle” “assault” and “developing our resistance” don’t leave much to the imagination.


we must not let the law paralyse us

:confused:

Captain Stable
21st Dec 2010, 15:52
Orac, you have no evidence whatsoever that the leadership of the NUS were "in collusion" with the violent protesters. Read that page again.

I'm getting so fed up with the sheep who continually claim that "our government can do no wrong, why do we need to hold them to account? The police are models of professionalism, gentleness and courtesy, and anyone who might suggest any of their members might act otherwise is a violent dirt-encrusted lump of scum who should be hung from a lamppost as a warning to all other would-be terrorists".

MagnusP
23rd Dec 2010, 12:13
Looks like one of the bad apples has been sacked.

BBC News - 'Cell assault' sergeant sacked by Wiltshire Police (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-12068624)

radeng
23rd Dec 2010, 13:08
He gets the chance of an appeal to Chief Constable.

radeng
23rd Dec 2010, 14:23
Wiltshire police statement

Wiltshire police officer is sacked over jail cell assault case (From Wiltshire Times) (http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/8755596.Wiltshire_police_officer_is_sacked_over_jail_cell_as sault_case/)

stuckgear
23rd Dec 2010, 15:22
Looks like one of the bad apples has been sacked.



good job. Puclic servants like that need to be shown the door.



I'm getting so fed up with the sheep who continually claim that "our government can do no wrong, why do we need to hold them to account? The police are models of professionalism, gentleness and courtesy, and anyone who might suggest any of their members might act otherwise is a violent dirt-encrusted lump of scum who should be hung from a lamppost as a warning to all other would-be terrorists".


And it's equally tiring to hear the same line repeated, it's all the polices' fault when rioters and wannabe revolutionaries think it's cool to act outside of the law and wail over recourse for their own actions.

Captain Stable
23rd Dec 2010, 16:13
To a certain extent I agree with you, stuck. However, there is also a certain problem with the police's actions in public order incidents. Kettling, for example, is dangerous, traps all sorts of people, not only demonstrators, in conditions and over a length of time that is, to be quite honest, not only dangerous but also highly conducive to provoking anger. And in public order incidents, provoking anger against the police as opposed to against government policy (in the most recent examples) is not a very good idea.

Much better to police with a light hand - the Notting Hill Carnival was a good example. Originally, the police went in heavy-handed, dragging people out and searching them for drugs, arresting anyone who even looked at them sideways, and all sorts of problems arose. As soon as they worked out that being part of the event, enjoying it themselves, letting people see they weren't a threat if folk behaved themselves, and all was thereafter sweetness and light.

I don't know if you recall the Greenham Common protests. They were generally policed in a very even-handed manner. Whilst people protested peacefully and didn't try climbing over the wire or chucking rocks, there was no hassle.

Mounting cavalry charges against schoolchildren, covering faces with balaclavas and removing shoulder tabs is an advertisement to everyone around (including those with cameras), beating up newsvendors trying to get home the only way possible, kettling people for upwards of five hours so tightly that they can hardly breathe let alone move or sit down is counterproductive.

Note, please, that I do not condone violence by demonstrators, even when strongly provoked. I can, however, see that the police must bear a proportion of the blame when they do strongly provoke people.

Rollingthunder
23rd Dec 2010, 16:18
Try us here with the RCMP total failure. Total support for provincial poice forces instead of them, but how do we vet the personnel to not have neck sizes thicker than IQs?

Romeo Oscar Golf
23rd Dec 2010, 16:49
Methinks he doth protest too much(apologies to the original)


Note, please, that I do not condone violence by demonstrators, even when strongly provoked. I can, however, see that the police must bear a proportion of the blame when they do strongly provoke people.


I want to live in a world, (or at least UK) where people have rights because they have earned them and act responsibly (not a crap piece of paper issued ouside this country declaring that they have human rights) and if the leaders of these demonstrations cannot see that they are being manipulated and then failing to robustly disown the rabblemakers, they deserve all they get. After all, the probable police action should not be a surprise!

Tankertrashnav
23rd Dec 2010, 18:09
In a case like this (Sgt Andrews) what happens to the sacked policeman's pension. Police pension contributions are quite high - does he forfeit these, get them back as a lump sum, or get a deferred pension later on? Would be interested to hear from anyone who has the facts?

hellsbrink
23rd Dec 2010, 20:31
To a certain extent I agree with you, stuck. However, there is also a certain problem with the police's actions in public order incidents. Kettling, for example, is dangerous, traps all sorts of people, not only demonstrators, in conditions and over a length of time that is, to be quite honest, not only dangerous but also highly conducive to provoking anger. And in public order incidents, provoking anger against the police as opposed to against government policy (in the most recent examples) is not a very good idea.

So "Kettling" is not a good idea when you have a bunch of arseholes, heel-bent on causing trouble wherever they can, trying to break away from the "approved" protest route? It's better to let these shitheads run riot (and remember why, after one "May Day" march, the policy was introduced), it's better to have them invade premises like when they broke into Millbank, it's better to "let them have their fun"?

Give me strength, I've never read something so pig-ignorant for a long time.

radeng
23rd Dec 2010, 22:58
hellsbrink,

I think it's necessary to make sure that procedures are in place when 'kettling' to deal with medical emergencies. It's not cear if there are.

Seldomfitforpurpose
23rd Dec 2010, 23:23
hellsbrink,

I think it's necessary to make sure that procedures are in place when 'kettling' to deal with medical emergencies. It's not cear if there are.

If you have a medical condition that precludes you being kettled and you then subsequently put yourself in a position to be "kettled" then quite frankly you deserve every thing that comes your way :rolleyes:

hellsbrink
24th Dec 2010, 04:02
Sorry, but if you are "innocent" and caught up in the kettling you deserve everything you get. After all, knowing the protests are going on in the area should mean anyone with an ounce of common sense stays away from the area and does not bloody enter the area during the protest.

Again, I wonder how many of these "innocents" are fully paid up members of the SWP and other rabble rousers.