Home Politics & Debate

Sacked Wiltshire police sergeant to be reinstated

SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect.New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-16007845

Does anybody think the police are ever held to account for dodgy policing?
Read the comments and overwhelming support for this guy on this Police blog.

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/sgt-mark-andrews-gets-his-job-back-shock/#comments

Does anybody trust the police anymore? I don't.
Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is a mystery
But today is a gift
That’s why it’s call the present
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why should a man found not guilty at court lose his job?

    And to be fair, I don't think you've ever trusted the police tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where does it say he was found not guilty?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His conviction was subsequently quashed

    In the original article. Wether he did it or not is irrelevant, surely in any line of work it's unfair to be found not guilty by an appeal court made up of qualified judges only to be sacked by a tribunal because they think you made the job look bad?

    For the record, he went over the top. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Whowhere the laws not perfect, people get away with stuff. In fact it seems it's even less perfect when the police are involved. My issue is that this is just another example of the police being above the law, behaving badly and getting away with it.

    There have been hundreds of deaths in custody since 1998 and yet no officer has ever been successfully prosecuted for misconduct or neglect over any of them.

    A 6'3'' officer who thinks it's ok to throw around a near 60 year old, 5'2'' woman, because he has lost his temper, is not somebody who should be trusted with the responsibility of upholding the law.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive, why are you annoyed? The Judge said that Sgt Andrews didn't "mean" to drag her across the floor and injure her so clearly there was no crime. :rolleyes: I'm looking forward to that ruling being used as case law.

    Once again it appears that the law enforcement system looks after it's own. Justice isn't blind, but it does have a strange handshake and rolled up trouser leg.

    @WhoWhere - not guilty in law does not equal not sackable. His actions, whether legal or not, have undermined his position and that of his colleagues and the force. I'd perfectly understand if his employers considered that to be Gross Misconduct.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm astounded that he was acquitted on appeal. It does make one lose all faith in the criminal justice system, if one ever had any faith in it anyway. At magistrates level generally you're OK if you avoid the district judge but at crown court level it's all a nudge and a wink to the judge. Know him at the Freemasons, or know him on the golf course, and you'll be fine. You onyl have to see the pathetic sentences handed down to thieving MPs to see that- 12 months for nicking £20k versus 6 months for nicking a £0.39 bottle of water.

    As for the police officer, he shouldn't have a job after what he did. But he does, so we are where we are. And people will continue to claim that only the guilty have something to fear. Maybe they should go tell that to any number of innocent people who've been battered, beaten and even killed by coppers.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Once he was acquitted it follows logically that he could get the job back. If there's a problem here it's not that he has his job back, it's that he was acquitted.

    It's like complaining that the cook made you the wrong kind of food when it's the waiter who gave the wrong order. Complain about the waiter.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Once he was acquitted it follows logically that he could get the job back. If there's a problem here it's not that he has his job back, it's that he was acquitted.


    You don't have to have been convicted of a crime to get the sack.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Skive wrote: »
    You don't have to have been convicted of a crime to get the sack.
    Neither can (or should) you get the sack for something that has now been "proven" you didn't do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    You don't have to have been convicted of a crime to get the sack.

    If it were you I'm sure you'd feel differently, I know I would.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Neither can (or should) you get the sack for something that has now been "proven" you didn't do.

    As Man Of Kent said not guilty in law does not mean that he's not sackable. He quite clearly does not belong in a police uniform.

    Whowhere wrote:
    If it were you I'm sure you'd feel differently, I know I would.

    What are you talking about?
    I wouldn't have assaulted a near 60 year lady. He's scum and he's got a away with it. But then really do we expect anything else from the police? Just look at the comments on the police blog link I posted and it's clear he's got overwhelming support from other officers.

    Does it not bother you that when the police fuck up, they never seem to be held to account?

    And
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Neither can (or should) you get the sack for something that has now been "proven" you didn't do.

    It wasn't proven he didn't do it, it was proven that his actions did not constitute assault.

    Regardless of whether he assaulted the woman or not, he's clearly not fit to be a custody sergeant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There should be a big gap you'd hope between criminal behaviour and professional misconduct for a police officer.

    A police officer (especially during working hours) should be a model of the spirit of the law, not skating around the border of the definition of the law.

    Criminal or not - I fail to see how it's not professional misconduct.

    I could easily lose my job for improper behaviour along those lines - don't see why the police should be any different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »

    What are you talking about?

    I mean that if you were accused of a crime at work that you were found not guilty of at court you'd probably want to keep your job and would feel aggrieved if they sacked you. I can't talk for some anonymous "cops" posting on an anonymous blog, I can only talk for myself. Everyone I work with seems to carry themselves with an air of professionalism. We seem to be the only force that has actually got a professional standards unit that actually does what they're paid for, at least if the weekly disciplinaries are anything to go by.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread isn't about you or your force, or if you'd feel bad for doing wrong and being sacked for it though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I mean that if you were accused of a crime at work that you were found not guilty of at court you'd probably want to keep your job and would feel aggrieved if they sacked you.

    That depends on whether you were sacked because you were convicted of a crime, or for an act of gross misconduct (which doesn't actually need criminal sanction). If the former, then yes an aquittal should lead to a review and possible reinstatement. If the latter then misconduct still applies.

    Please, I would love to understand on what basis you think he should actually retain his job - having seen the video.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That depends on whether you were sacked because you were convicted of a crime, or for an act of gross misconduct (which doesn't actually need criminal sanction). If the former, then yes an aquittal should lead to a review and possible reinstatement. If the latter then misconduct still applies.

    Please, I would love to understand on what basis you think he should actually retain his job - having seen the video.

    As I said before, he was sacked for comitting a crime that he was found innocent of. If he was sacked for misconduct the appeal panel wouldn't have let him return. If anything the whole reason he's really back is because the force jumped the gun and sacked him too fast and for the wrong reason and because the ACC couldn't keep his mouth shut. Because of their mistake, he's being allowed back.

    He doesn't deserve to be a cop, but he also doesn't deserve to be treated unfairly. It's no good having employment law if bosses can selectively apply it in order to save face.


    Java, I know it isn't. But I was asked, so I answered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He was sacked because he "was not of sufficient standard to be an officer in the force" apparently. Nothing about being convicted of any crime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He was sacked because he "was not of sufficient standard to be an officer in the force" apparently. Nothing about being convicted of any crime.

    I struggle to see how that can't still stand.

    Although WhoWhere may be onto something - if due process wasn't followed when he got sacked in the first place then the force have effectively shot themselves in the foot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    As I said before, he was sacked for comitting a crime that he was found innocent of. If he was sacked for misconduct the appeal panel wouldn't have let him return. If anything the whole reason he's really back is because the force jumped the gun and sacked him too fast and for the wrong reason and because the ACC couldn't keep his mouth shut. Because of their mistake, he's being allowed back.

    He doesn't deserve to be a cop, but he also doesn't deserve to be treated unfairly. It's no good having employment law if bosses can selectively apply it in order to save face.

    Exactly, he's being allowed back on a technicality, which is bullshit. I don't see any reason why the force shouldn't be allowed to now sack him for misconduct instead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see any reason why the force shouldn't be allowed to now sack him for misconduct instead.

    How's that fair? You can't just keep sacking someone because you keep fucking up the procedure and you can't accept the result.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is it not fair to sack him if he should have been sacked in the first place. It's the reinstatement that was a screw up. Yes, having reinstated him they may need to do some careful management of the situation, and possibly not get rid of his pension entitlement etc, but there's no justification for keeping him in his current role.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I saw the video of this on YouTube. I don't really know what to think. I can see why he was under pressure being left to deal with a non-cooperative drunken woman by himself, but I don't really like how he just drags her across the floor like some ragdoll and tosses her into a cell. Being a lot bigger and younger than she is, why didn't he actually just pick her up rather than drag her?

    There's probably quite a bit none of us know about the case, though, whether it would incriminate the police officer in question or not, I don't know but it's the Judge's word that counts afterall I guess.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because sometimes dealing with drunk and unruly people, makes it difficult to actually pick them up. I know the dragging her across the floor is a bit dodgy, but that wasnt what actually hurt her.

    He should definitely have been a lot more careful and perhaps had the help and involvement of another officer, but personally to me, looks like it was her suddenly letting go of the door frame as to why she suffered the injury. He was at fault, but the direct cause of the injury was down to an inadvertent turn of events.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Threxy wrote: »
    Being a lot bigger and younger than she is, why didn't he actually just pick her up rather than drag her?

    Pick her up and carry her? Really, do you think it's that easy? It's hard enough holding onto a drunk person when they're in cuffs, let alone carrying them when their arms are flailing all over the place.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    It's very simple. Police have a duty to protect those in their care, when they fail in that duty they should be held accountable.

    There is no excuse. This officer should not be in the employment of the police.


    Here's some interesting reading.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Christopher_Alder
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Pick her up and carry her? Really, do you think it's that easy? It's hard enough holding onto a drunk person when they're in cuffs, let alone carrying them when their arms are flailing all over the place.

    Yes, it is that easy.
    The way he drags her is disgusting, but to be honest, I can live with that.

    The way he actually LAUNCHES her into the floor of the cell is completely unacceptable. How can you even TRY and defend that? You really are a fucking obsessive pig defender, aren't you?

    He could have just as easily dragged and/or pushed her into the cell or even made sure she was down on the bed without launching her head first into the floor.

    It is a very valid point that he IS a big bloke and she IS a small woman. I could have easily restrained and/or carried her without harming her. For you to even reference 'flailing arms' says a lot about your physical capabilities.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im in agreement with the poster above to most points, except the "yes it really is that easy" part.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How can you even TRY and defend that? You really are a fucking obsessive pig defender, aren't you?


    I don't remember defending his actions, I don't remember claiming launching her into the ground was an acceptable thing to do either. i do remember pointing out that picking someone up who is resisting isn't actually very easy at all. But hey, obviously I know fuck all. We can all bow down now that you've arrived to chip in with your 2 pence worth after 7 years of absence, your experiences of picking women up and carrying them away is quite clearly evidence that you know more about all this than I do, but then I suppose being a weight lifting roidhead is the best qualification you can have for something like this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Pick her up and carry her? Really, do you think it's that easy? It's hard enough holding onto a drunk person when they're in cuffs, let alone carrying them when their arms are flailing all over the place.
    Like you said, in the video she's not in handcuffs and if someone's handcuffed from behind they can't exactly wave their arms about. Why wasn't she handcuffed if she was a pain? Why wasn't there anybody around to help? I haven't read too much of the case, so I would genuinely like to be enlightened.

    You come across as over-defensive tbh, but I just don't see how it's acceptable for an ex-forces, young policeman who's obviously quite well built to just drag a 60 year old petite drunk woman (regardless of her behaviour) across the floor and then toss her into a cell, police deal with drunks all the time, this appears to be a rather isolated case so obviously something was wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.