Home Politics & Debate

Sacked Wiltshire police sergeant to be reinstated

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Threxy wrote: »
    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.

    That was one of the reasons he was reinstated I believe, the officers just stood there watching and didn't help. As for why she wasn't handcuffed, people in cell blocks generally aren't.
    You come across as over-defensive tbh

    Maybe I am, least you put it nicer....
    , 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.




    it isn't right, and I've never said it was. I only disagreed with him being sacked because he was found not guilty. It's grossly unfair to take 2 bites of the apple when you're trying to get rid of someone, the employment tribunal obviously agree. And the ACC should have kept his mouth shut instead of publicly commenting before the case was finalised, by opening his mouth he gave the defence more amunition, it was clear there was some sort of vendetta against the guy and he wouldn't have had a fair hearing, at least thats what his solicitor will have argued.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »

    it isn't right, and I've never said it was. I only disagreed with him being sacked because he was found not guilty. It's grossly unfair to take 2 bites of the apple when you're trying to get rid of someone, the employment tribunal obviously agree. And the ACC should have kept his mouth shut instead of publicly commenting before the case was finalised, by opening his mouth he gave the defence more amunition, it was clear there was some sort of vendetta against the guy and he wouldn't have had a fair hearing, at least thats what his solicitor will have argued.

    And this gets down to the crux of it. As a result of it being very badly handled, it's pretty much impossible to not reinstate him. Show's the importance of management being professional and competent. Should have been suspended until everything was resolved, then fired.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Should have been suspended until everything was resolved, then fired.

    Exactly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    That was one of the reasons he was reinstated I believe, the officers just stood there watching and didn't help. As for why she wasn't handcuffed, people in cell blocks generally aren't.
    I thought unruly prisoners could be handcuffed at any time in police custody?

    Maybe I am, least you put it nicer....
    You come across as taking it personally which is why I said that. Tbh. I'm not relentlessly bashing the police but I don't support misconduct either.

    it isn't right, and I've never said it was. I only disagreed with him being sacked because he was found not guilty. It's grossly unfair to take 2 bites of the apple when you're trying to get rid of someone, the employment tribunal obviously agree. And the ACC should have kept his mouth shut instead of publicly commenting before the case was finalised, by opening his mouth he gave the defence more amunition, it was clear there was some sort of vendetta against the guy and he wouldn't have had a fair hearing, at least thats what his solicitor will have argued.
    I have no opinion on whether he should have been sacked or not really, the CCTV appears not to show the full story but just from what I watched it doesn't look right.

    Replied in bold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .


    I had along reply then I realised I can't be arsed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    .


    I had along reply then I realised I can't be arsed.
    Anti-climatic . . .
    :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lol. If I'd posted it I would have attracted more guff because I know everyone would have disagreed anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    lol. If I'd posted it I would have attracted more guff because I know everyone would have disagreed anyway.

    Wuss. Stand by your convictions :p (pun intended)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, if fair enough. Firstly to answer some of Threxy's points about handcuffs and the incident as a whole, always remembering that with hindsight things are easier. The whole incident was handled badly. From the way the lady herself was treated, right up to the premature release of the CCTV and the trial by media and rushed sacking of the sergeant.

    A lot of people have been commenting on how what he did was wrong, how he should have shown more restraint, how he should have done this or that, without having any real knowledge of the tactics/procedures that can be utilised.
    The Sgt isn't the only person in that custody suite who should have been fired. There were lots of cops in there who just left him to it. You never take a prisoner who is being violent or resisting to a cell alone. So when people ask why he couldn't be carried, he could of, if only someone had gone and picked up her legs. But nobody did. He should have handcuffed her, and used leg restraints on her and carried her safely before placing her on the cell floor.

    Instead he dragged her and the rest is history.

    My main issue with people, this site and the media in general is the general approach to just criticise everything the police do without thought or any knowledge of the training, tactics or procedures that we're all taught to use. Let's get something straight, society is violent. There are a lot of people out there who swan about stealing, fighting, raping and murdering who do so because they're either too scummy to give a toss about you and me, or because of some belief in a God given right to do what they want.

    You cannot deal with people like this by being nice. But you guys don't think that, you guys never see the shit heads, you assume we can just be polite and ask them to stop doing stuff. One particular incident springs to mind, in the Midlands a few years ago a video appeared on Youtube of cops tasering someone several times. The only reaction was "that's disgraceful", why taser him more than once. Never mind he'd just stabbed someone in the face, he was armed, high on drink or drugs and immune to the pain, the only important thing people saw in that video was the police were using force on him. The police are criticised, but nobody can think of a better way of dealing with it.

    Look at the riots, and the way protests are policed as well. Whatever we do, we get ripped apart for not doing the right thing. If we use force, we're being oppressive. If we don't, we're cowardly and aren't doing our job.
    The HMIC has authorised the use of water cannon, baton rounds and even firearms for use against rioters. At the moment people seem to be in favour, but they're in favour of the idea, because God forbid we actually every use any of them. The first arsonist who gets shot holding a petrol bomb and torching a family home will become a martyr and we will be no better than the Syrians. The first person to be injured by a baton round will be some whiny arsehole who decided setting fire to cars was their right and the police should jolly well stayed out of the way.

    So is it any real wonder why I get defensive?

    To sum it all though, it's well known that society gets the policing it deserves. Our society can't make its fucking mind up about what it wants, when people are watching TV they want tough cops who beat people into oblivion. When it's happening to them they want a nice friendly bobby with a felt hat who they can swear at, threaten to kill and know they can do so without getting arrested.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    The issue I have is that the police should be held accountable when they fuck up, and yet there's very little evidence to suggets they ever are.

    Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none
    Out of the total of 333 deaths, 87 people had been restrained, most commonly being physically held down by officers. In 16 of those cases, restraint was linked directly to the death, and four were classed as "positional asphyxia.


    You think they're acceptable statistics? The police are in a position of responsibility and therefore their actions should be constantly questioned and analysed, you shouldn't be getting defensive about that.
    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
    I don't disagree with the argument about training, dealing with what's in front of your nor with any argument about meeting fire with fire on occasion.

    But let's look at what people in society generally, but more specifically on this site, complain about. It's not those occasions when the police do things well, meet force with appropriate force, that rile people. It;'s when they don't and when, as Skive says, they aren't actually ever (apparently) held to account for their behaviour. Especially when that behaviour borders on criminal.

    Kettling is an over reaction in most cases IMHO, shooting an unarmed man and then lying about it is too. The stats that Skive refers to are shameful. Each of those cases suggests that the police - the enforcement arm of our criminal law system - are beyond the reach of the criminal law system. Is it really any surprise then when the average man in the street starts to question that and then a minority behaves in a fashion which suggests that they *also* should be above the law - the rioters specifically.

    Culturally, in the UK, the police work with the support of the public. It's one reason why the use of firearms by the police as standard is still considered unacceptable. Issues like the example in this thread, of the DeMenezes case, or the reaction to protesters, the arrests that followed the sit in during the student demonstration, all undermine that principle. It isn't our complaints that do that, it's the actions of those officers.

    On the flip side, working in the NHS, I can understand that it's only ever the bad that we do which gets noticed. If we do our job well then people just ignore that because... well... it's our job. Certainly it's frustrating not to get recognition but at the same time the thing we must always remember is that we serve the public. We are there for their benefit, not them for ours.

    For the police this means that they should... no... must be seen to be cleaner than anyone else. The are "the law" and therefore the tolerance levels to illegality and misconduct should be lower. It was absolutely appropriate that by using excessive force, this officer should be sacked. That he hasn't, that over 300 people have died in custody without criminal convictions and that an unarmed man can be gunned down in public without any disciplinary action suggests that actually the threshold is lower. That, IMHO, is simply not an acceptable position for society to hold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't disagree with either of you. I try and hold myself to fairly high standards, I behave when I go out, I don't drink and drive, I'm not rude and I don't get physical with people unless I can justify it. I know other cops don't, but they are a minority, and if they're caught doing something then they should expect to be punished. I know of someone right now who will lose his job and possibly end up in prison, I can't give you the details but it's something if you did nobody would bat an eye lid.

    But I do have a couple of things to say about each of your posts. Firstly, on the matter of a death in police custody. It's a VERY loose definition. If I detain you for a search and afterwards you cross the road and get hit by a car, by the definition and guidelines set out by the IPCC and HMIC you have died whilst in police custody. If you see me, run away before I've caught up with you, vault a wall and die after falling 30 feet because you didn't know what was on the other side, that too is a death in police custody. By your logic, should I then lose my job?
    What about the people who die because they've swallowed a fistfull of drugs/medication and don't tell anyone then pass away in their cell?

    I think before you start talking about cops being prosecuted after such a death, the deaths need to be redefined into 3 different categories. Death through direct police action, death through police negligence and unrelated death after or during police contact but not attributable to the actions/inaction of the officer involved. I'd be interested to know, out of the 333 (apart from the ones you've already told us) how many of those fit into each category.

    The first 2, quite rightly should see cops being sacked and/or prosecuted. That they don't is a failing of the justice system. The 3rd category though? Why should I lose my job because someone has effectively ended their own life through no fault of my own?

    Slarti, talking about kettling e.t.c. is a completely different ball game. There needs to be a definitive guide handed down from on high as to when certain tactics are sucessful. Peaceful protest? Then low-key policing is the order of the day. "Peaceful" protests that previously turned violent? What then? Benefit of the doubt? If we do that like we did with the 1st round of student protests, we're criticised. Rioting? At what stage do we start shooting people with water cannon and baton rounds?
    Until we have the proper guidance, and publication of that guidance to the general public as to what they could potentially expect from the police if they go on a jolly to the city, we're going to be shafted either way by the armchair brigade.
Sign In or Register to comment.