Discussion
Martin4x4 said:
Why the WOW? I know it, I'm sure you & 10PS know people can be arrested on ground of 'reasonable suspicion' and that the police have _responsibilities_ to protect vunerable people. The EAW includes extradition for the purposes of being interviewed c.f. Assange's deportation on these grounds.
Yes, but you appeared to be taking the view that it was not necessary for anyone to have committed a crime "in this sort of case". The police can lawfully arrest the wrong person, but the starting point has to be that someone committed a crime. Breadvan72 said:
A bit of a cheap shot, and certainly not directed at you, but I can think of one police force where that hasn't always been the case.
There will always be forces/officers that are better than others and it'll only ever come out when something goes wrong but that's a lot to do with the nature of the work as well as the people investigating it (or not). Greendubber said:
It's section 46....
A police officer can remove a child for up to 72 hours without the need for a court order. Known as PPO around my way, perhaps the terminology is incorrect but essentially the police can remove a child if the grounds are there which could have been the case for this example. I've done it loads of times.
After all the police don't often give the media all the evidence mid way though an investigation, I'm sitting on the fence until I've heard everything as I'm not willing (unlike some) to draw conclusions from the press reports.
Been known as PPO's for decades, we've all been there and done it. PPO is probably slang/ jargon for the power. People still refer to 'breathalysers' which disappeared decades ago too.A police officer can remove a child for up to 72 hours without the need for a court order. Known as PPO around my way, perhaps the terminology is incorrect but essentially the police can remove a child if the grounds are there which could have been the case for this example. I've done it loads of times.
After all the police don't often give the media all the evidence mid way though an investigation, I'm sitting on the fence until I've heard everything as I'm not willing (unlike some) to draw conclusions from the press reports.
Sometimes jargon can cause misunderstandings as in this thread.
Greendubber said:
Breadvan72 said:
A bit of a cheap shot, and certainly not directed at you, but I can think of one police force where that hasn't always been the case.
There will always be forces/officers that are better than others and it'll only ever come out when something goes wrong but that's a lot to do with the nature of the work as well as the people investigating it (or not). Breadvan72 said:
Yes, but you appeared to be taking the view that it was not necessary for anyone to have committed a crime "in this sort of case". The police can lawfully arrest the wrong person, but the starting point has to be that someone committed a crime.
or they suspect that they have?0000 said:
Martin4x4 said:
The EAW includes extradition for the purposes of being interviewed c.f. Assange's deportation on these grounds.
Two nights in custody so far. How much more interview time do you think is reasonable in this case before making a decision?The Spanish judge remanded them in custody for 72 hours.
Breadvan72 said:
Plod may perhaps have been misled by some arrogant doctors who had had their sense of amour propre offended, but Plod should exercise some critical judgment and not just jump into action.
Possibly, or possibly by the managers. We don't know yet. My money goes on the managers.Vaud said:
0000 said:
Martin4x4 said:
The EAW includes extradition for the purposes of being interviewed c.f. Assange's deportation on these grounds.
Two nights in custody so far. How much more interview time do you think is reasonable in this case before making a decision?Breadvan72 said:
Plod may perhaps have been misled by some arrogant doctors who had had their sense of amour propre offended, but Plod should exercise some critical judgment and not just jump into action.
In fairness to Plod, I'm not sure how far you can reasonably expect them to second-guess the medics if they're being told (however incorrectly) that the child's life is imperilled by parents having done a bunk with him.I do agree though that it looks with the benefit of hindsight as if there was a significant over-reaction, and event since then have been coloured by a need to cover the corporate backside.
Have the police actually now accepted and confirmed that no crime has been committed? I'd be interested to know what supposed offence was cited to the judge who issued the EAW.
IanA2 said:
Possibly, or possibly by the managers. We don't know yet. My money goes on the managers.
Sorry but my partner is a midwife and this is bulls
t. The managers would only get involved when the medical staff call them in and report to them. They will make the call but it would be on the advise of the medical staff. It would be the medical staff reporting the facts to the police. Blaming the managers is just another excuse in this case. Whilst they might not be popular, the fundamental call will have come from a Doctor/Senior Nurse here. Let's not pretend otherwise. For it is them who's care the lad was under.
0000 said:
Vaud said:
0000 said:
Martin4x4 said:
The EAW includes extradition for the purposes of being interviewed c.f. Assange's deportation on these grounds.
Two nights in custody so far. How much more interview time do you think is reasonable in this case before making a decision?Breadvan72 said:
Yes, but you appeared to be taking the view that it was not necessary for anyone to have committed a crime "in this sort of case". The police can lawfully arrest the wrong person, but the starting point has to be that someone committed a crime.
No. I haven't seen it reported why the Spanish Judge jailed them, beyond them refusing repatriation, but my guess to stop them fleeing again.I would much rather they accepted the order and returned with the child and resolved this in ... an appropriate manner. If they wanted a second opinion I sure the care could be picked up by another UK hospital.
I see the childs long term interests as the most important objective, not the parents feelings/opinions, especially when the whole situation demonstrates their extremely poor judgement in this regard. However what is to stop them doing the same thing again?
If you can suggest an alternative way to resolve this, I'm ears but I don't see that. I see their supporters seeming blocking the most reasonable and now least bad choice given the mess this has devolved into.
photosnob said:
IanA2 said:
Possibly, or possibly by the managers. We don't know yet. My money goes on the managers.
Sorry but my partner is a midwife and this is bullst. The managers would only get involved when the medical staff call them in and report to them. They will make the call but it would be on the advise of the medical staff. It would be the medical staff reporting the facts to the police. Blaming the managers is just another excuse in this case. Whilst they might not be popular, the fundamental call will have come from a Doctor/Senior Nurse here. Let's not pretend otherwise. For it is them who's care the lad was under.
IanA2 said:
We don't know yet, time will hopefully clarify who did what.
There is something I do know. That no NHS manager would/could conduct a risk assessment without the input from medically trained staff. They are no more than highly paid paper pushers. The idea that they would be responsible for this is silly. Either: The Police and Doctor were correct (seems unlikely now), the Doctor/Consultant has thrown the teddy out of the pram and decided to mix fact and fiction, or the Police have cocked up and made a mess off this. It's probably a mix of all three.
Ultimately, the parents are in prison, and no one has actually stated what crime they have committed. That to me is worrying - remand in this country is not meant to be used lightly, I've been silly enough to admit I've been very stupid/naughty in the past on here before. Yet I've never spent a night in prison. The fact that parents who want the best for their child are currently is offensive to me.
Martin4x4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, but you appeared to be taking the view that it was not necessary for anyone to have committed a crime "in this sort of case". The police can lawfully arrest the wrong person, but the starting point has to be that someone committed a crime.
No. I haven't seen it reported why the Spanish Judge jailed them, beyond them refusing repatriation, but my guess to stop them fleeing again.I would much rather they accepted the order and returned with the child and resolved this in ... an appropriate manner. If they wanted a second opinion I sure the care could be picked up by another UK hospital.
I see the childs long term interests as the most important objective, not the parents feelings/opinions, especially when the whole situation demonstrates their extremely poor judgement in this regard. However what is to stop them doing the same thing again?
If you can suggest an alternative way to resolve this, I'm ears but I don't see that. I see their supporters seeming blocking the most reasonable and now least bad choice given the mess this has devolved into.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff