If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes, absolutely.
Recruitment standards for the Police are already too low - there are no formal educational qualifications except a written test. The demands of modern Policing require a diverse set of applied skills and abilities which I would argue is comparable with other professions and should be valued as such.
This is of course only part of the solution, but the problem is that, as Skive points out, while the majority of coppers are good, the proportion that break the rules and cover up for their colleagues is far more than 'the odd one' - and some forces are much better than others - the Met has an endemic problem that stretches back to the very roots of the institution.
Key to this is that Officers have to take some responsibility. If they are not checking their colleagues - if they are not concerned with accountability - if they are not seen to have a concern with freedoms and rights then they will not (and should not) be respected.
Though amusingly from the accent of the speaker, if he's English I'm a Dutchman
Another whitewash coming up, no doubt.
Or an Irishman
"Hit" or pushed?
Seriously, that is what you described as police "violently attacking" people? Maybe I missed that part. I saw the police moving a group of people back. Everytime they stepped back, the police moved forward... they used their shields to push people back a little further.
Pedant
Exactly. The question you have to ask yourself is what percentage of police officers would report a fellow police officer who "went to far" when dealing with a criminal? What percentage would do so if the fellow police officer was also a friend. I suspect a miniscule percentage would not keep quiet. And what percentage of superior officers, if confronted with a report that they thought may constitute a crime, would try to deal with it in-house rather than actually charging them with anything? Again, I suspect almost all of them. It might be a bit different with proper pre-meditated criminal activity, but with something that can be construed as a mistake on the job, I'm not at all confident that anything is ever done in all but a tiny minority of cases. This one was only investigated because a video was leaked to a newspaper. So where were these "majority" of good cops who saw Ian Tomlinson being pushed over, keen to report this crime? There were plenty of police there, and yet not one came forward, or if they did, they were nothing was done by those in power. Is this the majority of good cops we keep hearing about, or was it just bad luck that only the corrupt members of the police happened to be the ones to witness this incident? I think not only should he be facing manslaughter charges, every single police officer that clearly saw this incident and didn't report it should be sacked. And I think those who deliberately misreported the incident should be charged with perverting the course of justice. Every single fucking one of them.
It's not a huge issue considering everything else that's been discussed, but I've just read this thread and wanted to point out that the IPCC didn't drag their feet - their findings went to the CPS almost a year ago and in plenty of time for assault charges to be brought as this story notes.
I work in another sector where people assume we're all (as it has been so eloquently put) c*nts. A lot of us are actually trying in earnest to do our job and even help people beyond our strict targets and time frames, but some get a power trip from their position and treat people badly.
The fact the police officer is getting away with this does not surprise me at all.
I don't really have much else to say... I tend to steer clear of police, especially when I am at demonstrations because I've seen some of act up and I wouldn't be able to defend myself if a man attacked me.
It's a good point but I would add one more qualifier, which would be that the Official (manifestly bogus) Met story was readily accepted without question until the video evidence emerged - this should have been investigated from the get go.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/03/cps-considers-pathologist-freddy-patel-suspension
This in the week that Police complaints data has been revealed - top of the list? Rudeness and assault.
Obviously there are many spurious complaints against Police Officers, but unfortunately even if the vast majority are unsubstantiated; that still leaves a large number of cases in which reputable, peaceful people have had to deal with some of the idiots in uniform that we have (the ones who have stupid Rambo names for each other, who think reasonable force is jumping on and beating up a woman who was not violent or resisting).
Again, I think this problem will continue until we start having rudimentary educational standards for admission, just like every other public service.
The Police service is by far the highest paid public sector position you can work in without any formal educational qualifications.
Elsewhere - (Would you believe it The Mail actually broke this story) but SHOCK OF THE WEEK: Police Officer actually convicted of an assault...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/05/police-sergeant-suspended-assault-woman
Not often I agree with a 'most recommended' quote on The Mail web but...
This quote from the victim is pretty chilling;
She's been assaulted - no other officer is interested in upholding the law.
Police Officers - if you want respect for your difficult job, start doing it.
Unfortunately it shouldn't make a difference - his examination removed any chance of subsequent examiners being able to prove anything.
So the autopsy can no longer be used to clear the officer, but there still isn't any evidence that the assault caused the death.
Anyone at all surprised? As usual, only when there is CCTV implicating one of their number do the police show any interest in actually upholding the law. Can anyone point out one example of a police officer being convicted of assault purely on the evidence provided by other police officers?
Congratulations to this officer though:
That's what we want to see more of. The good cops should realise that it will only benefit them in the long run.
As I understand it the two subsequent autopsies were in agreed with internal bleeding with blunt force trauma being implicated in both; surely that is enough to at least warrant a prosecution?
However, there are several more questions that relate to wider Police conduct:
This is added to the claim that she was told by other officers while in Hospital after suffering what are pretty horrific injuries that she was not allowed to call her partner because; 'It might be like that in American dramas, but not here'.
Regardless of the legal issues, if that was the utterance you would be forgiven for thinking that the Officer concerned's underlying attitude was 'Probably deserved it'.
Such people really do deserve the label of 'filth'.
I am also wondering about what kind of treatment the reporting officer will now face...
Unfortunately. It shouldn't be a very brave thing to do, it should be a routine thing to do.
In an ideal world it would be unnecessary rather than routine too
On another point, just listening to the guy talking to her though on the video, the way he attempts to clothe completely ridiculous behaviour in pseudo-proper officious language reminds me of so many Officers you see (recall the Kingsnorth video of the woman whose feet were being stamped on while she sat handcuffed & held at the shoulders by another officer, the one who simply responded to the assault by telling her that SHE was being filmed...; all of which was totally unnecessary as she had committed no offence and was released without charge, nor had shown any aggression or offered any resistance, despite which she was then body cuffed and thrown into the back of a van).
As far as I can gather this guy is the thin and acute end of a much thicker wedge...I do worry that we are going to end up with another tragedy like PC Keith Blakelock before certain sections of the Police learn to behave themselves...and the worst thing is that the victim will most likely be one of the dedicated and proper officers that aren't guilty of these kinds of behaviour.
UPDATE: might not be the last one from this station either - a lorry driver's case of mistreatment is being investigated by the IPCC apparently...
Well fiddle dee dee, why in the world do you suppose they did that?
If you mean the defence not sharing the autopsy then it is just as likely that it's because it comes to the same conclusion that Patel did (but has "credibility) as some ulterior motive which is what I think you are insinuating. Therefore they will use it to argue against any of the others... defence is under no obligation to share the information about a defence because it would give prosecution the opportunity to dispute. That's how the UK justice system works, policeman or not.
Well I don't think its 'equally likely' because the second two pathologists (the primary investigator being Dr. Nat Cary) both came to the same conclusion which was vastly different from Patel, who should not have even been on the Home Office register in the first place as he did not meet the criteria...
Yes I realise this; but the point is that when you have a coroner coming out announcing his intention to get his hands on this it seems rather signficant - the fact that it is standard practice to withhold potentially questionable evidence where possible does not detract from the fact that the evidence in question may be just so...
We will not know until (or if) this comes to court; however I think that it is more likely to be incriminating than redemptive, given the way this case has developed over the past two years - the plot has tended to thicken at every turn...