Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
That was probably the best answer to give in court. It's a standard question and I imagine his legal advice supported that answer.
In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
La Liga said:
That was probably the best answer to give in court. It's a standard question and I imagine his legal advice supported that answer.
In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
What about the IOPC? What is your view on them?In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
pavarotti1980 said:
La Liga said:
That was probably the best answer to give in court. It's a standard question and I imagine his legal advice supported that answer.
In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
What about the IOPC? What is your view on them?In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
I think at the top level they are very good i.e. when they're doing investigations around police shootings / other major incidents.
I think they take too many things on which are of a lower level which can compromise investigative quality. Although their remit is probably out of their hands. On a similar note, I think it's a mistake to have removed supervised investigations. I also think it was a mistake a few years ago to try and avoid ex-police officers working for them.
In my experience internal police investigations into other police officers were far superior to the IPCC ones. That doesn't come as much of a surprise as PSDs are often loaded with very experienced detectives who are on a different level to most non-police investigators the IPCC recruited from.
In terms of being cynical and thinking the IOPC are 'out to get officers'. That wasn't my experience and I don't see evidence of that. When I was interviewed they were fine. Just people doing their job.
pavarotti1980 said:
Alpinestars said:
Good.
So that’s how it works.
He was asked whether he’d do anything differently with the benefit of hindsight. He said no - that doesn’t bode well, and was a pretty poor response.
IOPC wait for the conclusion on criminal trial before forcing a misconduct hearing on the Met in this instance (they didnt want to instigate misconduct proceedings at all)So that’s how it works.
He was asked whether he’d do anything differently with the benefit of hindsight. He said no - that doesn’t bode well, and was a pretty poor response.
In hindsight his response of not doing anything differently was right since he was found not guilty
If you’re a copper and would have done the same, I’d worry for you and your community.
Just because he was not found guilty does not mean he didn’t do anything wrong, or could have done something different.
La Liga said:
t's hard to give a comprehensive view as I only had limited experience with them (the IPCC as they were then).
I think at the top level they are very good i.e. when they're doing investigations around police shootings / other major incidents.
I think they take too many things on which are of a lower level which can compromise investigative quality. Although their remit is probably out of their hands. On a similar note, I think it's a mistake to have removed supervised investigations. I also think it was a mistake a few years ago to try and avoid ex-police officers working for them.
In my experience internal police investigations into other police officers were far superior to the IPCC ones. That doesn't come as much of a surprise as PSDs are often loaded with very experienced detectives who are on a different level to most non-police investigators the IPCC recruited from.
In terms of being cynical and thinking the IOPC are 'out to get officers'. That wasn't my experience and I don't see evidence of that. When I was interviewed they were fine. Just people doing their job.
A lot of that ties in with my mates experience of them barring the prolonged period of time to investigate which left him suspended for a while. I think at the top level they are very good i.e. when they're doing investigations around police shootings / other major incidents.
I think they take too many things on which are of a lower level which can compromise investigative quality. Although their remit is probably out of their hands. On a similar note, I think it's a mistake to have removed supervised investigations. I also think it was a mistake a few years ago to try and avoid ex-police officers working for them.
In my experience internal police investigations into other police officers were far superior to the IPCC ones. That doesn't come as much of a surprise as PSDs are often loaded with very experienced detectives who are on a different level to most non-police investigators the IPCC recruited from.
In terms of being cynical and thinking the IOPC are 'out to get officers'. That wasn't my experience and I don't see evidence of that. When I was interviewed they were fine. Just people doing their job.
He was more concerned with PSD than IPCC/IOPC as he felt PSD were "out to get you"
La Liga said:
That was probably the best answer to give in court. It's a standard question and I imagine his legal advice supported that answer.
In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
He’s allowed to make a mistake in law. He definitely made mistakes otherwise one could argue he wouldn’t have been in court. In terms of misconduct, there are two interviews when interviewed as a police officer. The first is the criminal interview, the second a misconduct one.
On most occasions the misconduct one isn't necessary as the interviewee will be happy the answers to the criminal one can cover both.
On some occasions, the interviewee may choose to provide different answers (as in going from 'no comment' to commenting) / expand in the misconduct interview.
Of course, he mistook the driver for TJ.
In terms of 'doing something differently' it is likely to have been discussed with his legal team as it's a very common question.
It's very easy to personalise the matter, when really you're just on a list of investigations owned by one investigator, who probably doesn't care about you.
They are matters which can drag on for a long time and the fact they impact on promotion / sideways moves is unjust and wrong.
In terms of 'doing something differently' it is likely to have been discussed with his legal team as it's a very common question.
pavarotti1980 said:
A lot of that ties in with my mates experience of them barring the prolonged period of time to investigate which left him suspended for a while.
He was more concerned with PSD than IPCC/IOPC as he felt PSD were "out to get you"
My experience is neither were 'out to get you'. He was more concerned with PSD than IPCC/IOPC as he felt PSD were "out to get you"
It's very easy to personalise the matter, when really you're just on a list of investigations owned by one investigator, who probably doesn't care about you.
They are matters which can drag on for a long time and the fact they impact on promotion / sideways moves is unjust and wrong.
Alpinestars said:
That’s a very poor analysis and I’m not sure you understand what the jury opinined on.
If you’re a copper and would have done the same, I’d worry for you and your community.
Just because he was not found guilty does not mean he didn’t do anything wrong, or could have done something different.
Im not a copper so you dont have to worryIf you’re a copper and would have done the same, I’d worry for you and your community.
Just because he was not found guilty does not mean he didn’t do anything wrong, or could have done something different.
I have never said i would so the same but if asked the same question and I said yes surely that would undermine the whole defence to the charges?
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Tuesday 31st July 11:09
pavarotti1980 said:
Alpinestars said:
That’s a very poor analysis and I’m not sure you understand what the jury opinined on.
If you’re a copper and would have done the same, I’d worry for you and your community.
Just because he was not found guilty does not mean he didn’t do anything wrong, or could have done something different.
Im not a copper so you dont have to worryIf you’re a copper and would have done the same, I’d worry for you and your community.
Just because he was not found guilty does not mean he didn’t do anything wrong, or could have done something different.
I have never said i would so the same but if asked the same question and I said yes surely that would undermine the whole defence to the charges?
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Tuesday 31st July 11:09
It will be an interesting misconduct hearing.
Especially as Savage came out and said officers in The Met are scared to make arrests.
The bosses won't like that (I know that doesn't form part of the misconduct case but Savage won't have done himself any favours with the force heirarchy).
Especially as Savage came out and said officers in The Met are scared to make arrests.
The bosses won't like that (I know that doesn't form part of the misconduct case but Savage won't have done himself any favours with the force heirarchy).
Alpinestars said:
No it really wouldn’t. We’re talking about building a rapport with the jury. They know he didn’t do the right things. It’s also not illegal to get something wrong. In fact the legal test was “did he hold an honest belief, even if mistakenly”. There would have been nothing wrong with saying I could have asked him his name, I could have radioed for help, I could have told my accompanying officer, I could have told him I’d arrest him and use force if he doesn’t comply. Etc. It would not have undermined the legal tests.
Clearly he had a reason to do so and will have been advised accordingly by his legal team.Maybe his legal team are wrong as well?
Alpinestars said:
stitched said:
Alpinestars said:
stitched said:
I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?
It’s not just that, Savage has a job to do. He’s made it a lot more difficult for himself. I have some empathy towards people, and I didn’t think a one off incident warranted the loss of a career. Seeing someone in person reinforces empathy. Or at least mine.
But I still believe he was guilty. He made up all the stuff about weapons imv. And he should have been punished in some way for the way he acted. Especially against an innocent member of the public.
It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
Red Devil said:
Ah, but was it a one-off though?. What's your take on his interaction with Kyle Adair-White that I mentioned earlier?
It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
Having a damaged mudguard on a moped suggests it/ the rider has been involved in crime ?It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
PC Savage certainly appears, er, creative.
If there was nothing more to that stop I would say the search of Adair-Whyte was unlawful.
On the plus side at least the moped didn't have a windscreen to tempt him.
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 31st July 13:51
Alpinestars said:
pavarotti1980 said:
Clearly he had a reason to do so and will have been advised accordingly by his legal team.
Maybe his legal team are wrong as well?
Maybe they should have had you on the team as you seem to know it all. Maybe his legal team are wrong as well?
Red Devil said:
Ah, but was it a one-off though?. What's your take on his interaction with Kyle Adair-White that I mentioned earlier?
It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
I was aware of that interaction. Not followed it much, but it got a bit of bad press on social media from what I recall. I suspect this trial will put a check to his actions going forward as he’s put himself under the spotlight. It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
Alpinestars said:
Red Devil said:
Ah, but was it a one-off though?. What's your take on his interaction with Kyle Adair-White that I mentioned earlier?
It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
I was aware of that interaction. Not followed it much, but it got a bit of bad press on social media from what I recall. I suspect this trial will put a check to his actions going forward as he’s put himself under the spotlight. It would appear that he may be prone to making erroneous assumptions rather than establishing the facts as well suddenly upping the ante.
Alpinestars said:
Maybe they should have had you on the team as you seem to know it all.
Given i havent suggested anything at apart from stating the legal team know best for their client im not sure what you seem to think i have assertedGreendubber said:
There's maybe a suggestion to be made that you should have been on the prosecution based on the last 10 pages or so, you've plenty to say about how wrong it all is that he was found NG.
Public gallery + notes = expertThat sounds like a journalist to me and we all know how accurate they are
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Tuesday 31st July 14:11
vonhosen said:
If he honestly believes he did nothing wrong then perhaps not.
As far as a misconduct hearing goes it is irrelevant what Savage believes.It is what the panel believe.
The not guilty verdict certainly puts Savage in a (much) better position but I don't think he's out of the woods just yet.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff