Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[Derek Smith]

rewc said:

The BBC are reporting that:
"A police officer's claim that he witnessed a row outside Downing Street involving ex-chief whip Andrew Mitchell is being probed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
It said it was "considering the validity of the officer's claim", which he apparently made to his local MP.
The police constable was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office on Saturday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20764044

Adds a new dimension to the incident. There are a considerable number of alternative middles to this and probably just one ending: a bad one.

[XCP]

ClaphamGT3 said:

If this is as flagrant a breach of Code G as some are making out, why did the police arrest him, the police detain him and the police question him?

Why didn't they just say that they didn't think that there were grounds for arrest?

It would not be the first time that investigations against police officers have played fairly fast and loose with PACE and its codes of practice.
I have first hand experience.

[Rovinghawk]

If it's wrong, why are the police doing it?

RH

[XCP]

I think there is a view amongst some that police officers are not entitled to the same protections under the law as the rest of society.
This shows itself quite widely when allegations are made against officers. PRofessional standards use tactics they would never get away with with members of the public.
And CPS charge officers at a much lower evidential threshold.

I am not saying that all this is taking place in the current case, but sadly, nothing would surprise me.

[Jasandjules]

Rovinghawk said:

If it's wrong, why are the police doing it?

RH

It may shock you but people do things that are wrong all the time.

[rewc]

XCP said:

I think there is a view amongst some that police officers are not entitled to the same protections under the law as the rest of society.
This shows itself quite widely when allegations are made against officers. PRofessional standards use tactics they would never get away with with members of the public.
And CPS charge officers at a much lower evidential threshold.

I am not saying that all this is taking place in the current case, but sadly, nothing would surprise me.

So how many Police Officers are convicted at court for offences that would not be pursued against ordinary members of the public?

[10 Pence Short]

And I'd also love to know what this supposed 'lower evidential threshold' is? I'm sure the courts are complicit in this, in not allowing representation to argue the law in their favour, too. It's all the lizard men controlling our very lives.

I would be more inclined to view some officers as seeing themselves above the law and not being too happy when the theory is, from time to time, disproved.

[anonymous-user]

XCP said:

I think there is a view amongst some that police officers are not entitled to the same protections under the law as the rest of society.
This shows itself quite widely when allegations are made against officers. PRofessional standards use tactics they would never get away with with members of the public.

....

Having acted for a police officer who was clobbered by the internal affairs dudes, I agree with this. Their tactics were very heavy. Of course, weeding out dirty cops is of paramount importance, but sometimes the cop catcher cops get a bit carried away.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 18th December 09:21

[anonymous-user]

I would say that, nowadays, if you occupy a public position (police officer, politician, etc), you are possibly more, rather than less, likely to be prosecuted in a marginal case than you would be as Joe Public. This may be a healthy sign, but it can be hard on the individual.

[Derek Smith]

Jasandjules said:

Rovinghawk said:

If it's wrong, why are the police doing it?

RH

It may shock you but people do things that are wrong all the time.

The problem is that instead of following normal procedures and using the highly experienced and knolwedgeable officers who deal with such matters on a daily basis, when something 'important' happens where there is advantage to be gained, senior officers take over and run such enquiries. The norm is that they will not seek advice, I think because they have told so many stories about what they have done in the past that they feel that to admit that they haven't got a clue what's going on would be a problem.

When a divisional inspector I've been called to the cell block on a number of occasions in disuptes between the custody officer, who deals with such things every day, and detectives, or worse still, chief inspectors, who feel that they should be allowed special dispensation because they are important. They refuse to listen to the custoday officer so all I used to do was point out that the CO is the authority unless they wish to wake up the superintendent and discuss the matter with him or her.

It is probable that many senior officers, and it seems more than possible this includes those involved in this case, were unaware of Code G and its history.

A major function of a divisional inspector in my time was to be review officer and deal with cell block problems but whenever something new happened I, like every inspector on division, would seek the opinion of the custody officer. I had a Codes of Practice book in my back pocket all the time but there's nothing so useful as an experienced officer.

I've recently moved and I threw out a load of documents from my days in the police. One was a memo from the chief super in charge of my nick telling the CO that no prisoner arrested for assault police or a serious public order offence on Christmas eve would be released on bail. It took nearly four hours and two inspectors to convince the super that he had exceeded his authority and that it was the custody officer who had to decide. I kept it 'cause it was funny but rather depressingly the chap transdferred to Devon and Cornwall and was promoted. So not so funny.

There would have been high level meetings regarding this arrest, chaired no doubt by an officer feeling the pressure. Decisions would have been made on a hope basis rather than on the CoPs. That's my experience.

[Derek Smith]

Breadvan72 said:

Having acted for a police officer who was clobbered by the internal affairs dudes, I agree with this. Their tactics were very heavy. Of course, weeding out dirty cops is of paramount importance, but sometimes they cop catcher cops get a bit carried away.

The problem is that the guilty polcie get away with it due to improper procedures. You'd think, wouldn't you, that if you were about to arrest someone who knows about the law and deals with arrests, prisoners, CoPs and such on a daily basis and knows all the tricks used by defences that they would stick religiously (although that's not close enough) to the rules. But time and again the silly buggers ruin it by doing the basics wrong. And the bent ones go free.

I wondered at one time if it was deliberate, a way of allowing mates to get away with criminal and corrupt behaviour but I eventually came round to the belief, evidenced, that it was due to incompetance.

The bent ones come back strengthened, knowing that if they were to be disciplined/charged again they can claim they were being picked on.

Bit of a rant, but one that senior officers have coming.

[ClaphamGT3]

So what XCP, Derek et al are, in effect, saying is that the police service is top to bottom inept and that the command structure is broken.

Worrying.

[Derek Smith]

ClaphamGT3 said:

So what XCP, Derek et al are, in effect, saying is that the police service is top to bottom inept and that the command structure is broken.

Worrying.

I've worked with custody officers for whom I've had tremendous respect and, it has to be said, admiration. Every word they say, everything they write and everything they do is recorded and if they make one error a serious offender can get off the charge. Not only that if they make a minor error, one which has no effect on the care of the prisoner be CO can still be punished.

I was custody officer for six months a little while after the change came online. No one knew what to do because of the fact that those who trained you had no idea either so I had help. In other words, for me it was quite easy as I had help and lawyers magistrates and judges knew nothing of the CoPs.

By the time I was in charge of a shift it was more or less established what the role included. I have little doubt that it is the most pressured role in the police. With prisoners, arresting officers, doctors, solicitors, worse still solicitors clerks, and it has to be said inspectors all wanting their bit of view and you knowing that you have to know everything about the law and practice when it comes to the care of prisoners, identification of them, charging them, releasing them, dealing with their medical needs, fighting off those who are ignorant of the practices, and to have the cheek to suggest these officers are inept.

I used to plan, organise and run six identity parades a day. I did it for two years and never lost a case on ID evidence. I consider myself not to be inept.

I'm saying, in effect, the police officers who do the work betrayed by the ambitions of those whose only desire is to be promoted.

Everyone is entitled to their own prejudices. Those who do not like the police are fully entitled not to like the police. What you should not do is to put words in the mouths of those whose opinions differ from yours. I've worked in the public sector and in the private sector. My experiences with the inept are just about equal in both sides.

[Rovinghawk]

ClaphamGT3 said:

So what........... Derek et al are, in effect, saying is that the police service is top to bottom inept.

Except Derek, apparently.

RH

[rewc]

Perhaps changes were needed in Custody Suites?

"The IPCC investigation has concluded that police officers and staff in the custody centre failed to carry out their duties in respect of the supervision, treatment and care while in detention as required by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Dorset Police procedure."

"Civilian custody staff also made false entries in the custody record and following our investigation three detention officers will each face a disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct. The duty inspector and one of the two custody sergeants involved will each face a misconduct hearing while the other sergeant will receive a written warning."

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr170107_david.a...

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

Not only that if they make a minor error, one which has no effect on the care of the prisoner be CO can still be punished.

But they can assist in torturing prisoners (the IPCC's words) and get away with it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19956724

I find little to admire about any of this when the guy who did it was guilty but his accomplice was not.

RH

[aw51 121565]

Rovinghawk said:

But they can assist in torturing prisoners (the IPCC's words) and get away with it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19956724

I find little to admire about any of this when the guy who did it was guilty but his accomplice was not.

RH

What's that got to do with Plebgate, latterly (as per this thread) Gategate-gate?

[Rovinghawk]

Sorry- I thought the thread was about naughty behaviour & subsequent legal action.

RH

[anonymous-user]

Are we up to Gategategategate yet?

[IroningMan]

I reckon at least one of those gates will turn out to have been a stable door.