Seriously unimpressed
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
vonhosen said:
I already said I'm quite happy to see a completely separate investigative body as far as complaints are concerned.
I already said that if the rest of the police were happy with this then they wouldn't be paying 30k to avoid court cases.RH
They have left it vague. Not admitting liability but claiming to settle for 'financial' reasons. This would cover 'nuisance' claims as well as where the Police believe there was a possibility of them losing.
If they are settling a 'nuisance' claim at that level then I would suggest they are in breach of their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer.
It has also been claimed that the Met will defend where the risk of the claimant is 0% to 20%. It is ridiculous that claims are not defended where there is 0% chance of the claimant succeeding, which has been claimed in this case. That is misconceived or disingenuous.
Shuvi Tupya said:
ExChrispy Porker said:
I don't think lack of evidence is the issue.
It certainly doesn't seem to be in this case.
surely evidence is EVERYTHING if you are innocent until PROVEN guilty?It certainly doesn't seem to be in this case.
How is something proved if there is not enough evidence?
10 Pence Short said:
Introduce reasonable doubt.
Thanks.What is reasonable doubt?
"I was looking at my speedo, and i was doing 70mph so the officer must be mistaken."
We all know that in the real world that would not work.
What about if i had a video camera recording?
"sorry , your equipment is not acceptable in a court of law as you could have rigged it"
What about if i had a witness?
"your witness is not a police officer and therefore can not judge your speed"
So, how do i show reasonable doubt that the copper is wrong/ having a s
t day?(yes, i do know your story and realise that you have made mistakes)
Zeeky said:
It has also been claimed that the Met will defend where the risk of the claimant is 0% to 20%. It is ridiculous that claims are not defended where there is 0% chance of the claimant succeeding, which has been claimed in this case. That is misconceived or disingenuous.
How is that known?In my example the Met paid out on a case as a serving officer was no longer eligible to give evidence at court.
The was no discipline case to answer.
There was no question of wrong doing.
In normal circumstances the case would have been defended.
In this instance if one of those officers was precluded from giving evidence the result would be a pay out without liability.
If there is no question of wrongdoing then there would be no need for the Police officers to give evidence.
If the defence is dependent on witness evidence to prove that there is no suggestion of wrongdoing then that presupposes that the court accepts the evidence in the way the defence want it to be accepted. There is no guarantee of that.
You can only conclude there is no possibility of fault where the claim itself is misconceived.
I can't see how in the above case anyone can conclude it is not possible for a court to decide that the force was unreasonable.
If the defence is dependent on witness evidence to prove that there is no suggestion of wrongdoing then that presupposes that the court accepts the evidence in the way the defence want it to be accepted. There is no guarantee of that.
You can only conclude there is no possibility of fault where the claim itself is misconceived.
I can't see how in the above case anyone can conclude it is not possible for a court to decide that the force was unreasonable.
davemac250 said:
a serving officer was no longer eligible to give evidence at court.
How exactly is someone 'not eligible' to give evidence?davemac250 said:
The was no discipline case to answer. There was no question of wrong doing.
But they paid out 30k nevertheless.davemac250 said:
In normal circumstances the case would have been defended.
But you just said there was nothing to defend.RH
Rovinghawk said:
davemac250 said:
a serving officer was no longer eligible to give evidence at court.
How exactly is someone 'not eligible' to give evidence?davemac250 said:
The was no discipline case to answer. There was no question of wrong doing.
But they paid out 30k nevertheless.davemac250 said:
In normal circumstances the case would have been defended.
But you just said there was nothing to defend.RH
Don't try and play semantics with me, unless you take the time to read my posts. You'll notioce you have cross referenced two seperate incidents if you bother to take the time to read them.
And certainly don't then do selective posting to take things out of context.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff