'Justice for Henry Hicks'
Discussion
Greendubber said:
No DNA on it so it could have been planted? Go and educate yourself about DNA. I suggest you then read La Ligas VERY relevant post about this case. No THC in his blood, oh right well that confirms it cant have been in his pocket doesnt it?
Hopefully you'll stop making yourself look stupid soon.
Not before you do. Hopefully you'll stop making yourself look stupid soon.
desamax said:
Not before you do.
Oh dear.Its clear you dont know much about DNA otherwise you would know that by merely having something in your pocket does not mean it'll have your DNA on it.
The point about the guys blood means NOTHING.
Its clear you dont understand what the outcome of this case means so far so I'll tell you again to go and read what La Liga took the time to explain and is currently going ignored by you.
There is nothing in this thread suggesting anyone thinks we live in a police state so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
So go on, enlighten yourself....take a read.
desamax said:
The outcome means gross misconduct charge.
Simple
You do love telling. Lol
Read this....posted and explained earlier on....Simple
You do love telling. Lol
"Desamax is certainly an articulate and intelligent chap. His comprehension and understanding of the subject matter is first rate.
Let me try to help him a little. It's a narrative verdict. Therefore blame isn't attributed to any individual/s for the cause of death by the jury. The jury have concluded the matter was a pursuit as defined by police policy, just as they've concluded Hicks's riding contributed to his death. The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario). There evidently aren't any criminal matters so using words like 'bent' and 'corrupt' etc clearly aren't supported by any evidence. The absence of criminal matters means the context is one of policy and procedure"
Simple enough??
desamax said:
As no THC was found in the lads blood.
You don't need to smoke it to deal it, do you? desamax said:
The outcome means gross misconduct charge.
Simple
No, it means the IPCC have directed to Met to look at a misconduct hearing. Simple
The outcomes of a hearing range from 'no further action' through to dismissal. We don't know which outcome/s will be chosen, but at this stage it's possible they'll be found to have done nothing wrong.
[quote=La Liga]o, it means the IPCC have directed to Met to look at a misconduct hearing.
The outcomes of a hearing range from 'no further action' through to dismissal. We don't know which outcome/s will be chosen, but at this stage it's possible they'll be found to have done nothing wrong.
[/quote
No "may" or may not, in this statement.
You guys can put a good spin together.
Maybe you should go into politics.
"The Independent Police Complaints Commission has carried out an investigation into the collision that led to Henry's death. Given the circumstances that day it is only right and proper and in the best interests of Henry's family, the community of London and our officers that it was an independent investigation.
"That investigation has made a number of recommendations for the Metropolitan Police, including that four officers have a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
The outcomes of a hearing range from 'no further action' through to dismissal. We don't know which outcome/s will be chosen, but at this stage it's possible they'll be found to have done nothing wrong.
[/quote
No "may" or may not, in this statement.
You guys can put a good spin together.
Maybe you should go into politics.
"The Independent Police Complaints Commission has carried out an investigation into the collision that led to Henry's death. Given the circumstances that day it is only right and proper and in the best interests of Henry's family, the community of London and our officers that it was an independent investigation.
"That investigation has made a number of recommendations for the Metropolitan Police, including that four officers have a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
desamax said:
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
That they recommend there is sufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.The alternate being if there was no case to answer it meaning there would be insufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.
If the recommendation is that there should be the hearing, the hearing then decides if there is actually sufficient to warrant misconduct/gross misconduct & penalty. (If it was determined prior to the hearing what would be the point of a hearing?)
vonhosen said:
desamax said:
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
That they recommend there is sufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.The alternate being if there was no case to answer it meaning there would be insufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.
If the recommendation is that there should be the hearing, the hearing then decides if there is actually sufficient to warrant misconduct/gross misconduct & penalty. (If it was determined prior to the hearing what would be the point of a hearing?)
desamax said:
No "may" or may not, in this statement.
You guys can put a good spin together.
Maybe you should go into politics.
"The Independent Police Complaints Commission has carried out an investigation into the collision that led to Henry's death. Given the circumstances that day it is only right and proper and in the best interests of Henry's family, the community of London and our officers that it was an independent investigation.
"That investigation has made a number of recommendations for the Metropolitan Police, including that four officers have a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
Is it really that hard to make the quote function work? You guys can put a good spin together.
Maybe you should go into politics.
"The Independent Police Complaints Commission has carried out an investigation into the collision that led to Henry's death. Given the circumstances that day it is only right and proper and in the best interests of Henry's family, the community of London and our officers that it was an independent investigation.
"That investigation has made a number of recommendations for the Metropolitan Police, including that four officers have a case to answer for gross misconduct.
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
As I said:
La Liga said:
The outcomes of a hearing range from 'no further action' through to dismissal. We don't know which outcome/s will be chosen, but at this stage it's possible they'll be found to have done nothing wrong.
mph1977 said:
vonhosen said:
desamax said:
Explain what "having a case to answer" means to a layman ? Please
That they recommend there is sufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.The alternate being if there was no case to answer it meaning there would be insufficient for a misconduct hearing to take place.
If the recommendation is that there should be the hearing, the hearing then decides if there is actually sufficient to warrant misconduct/gross misconduct & penalty. (If it was determined prior to the hearing what would be the point of a hearing?)
The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario).
I'm trying to get the hang of this malarkey, care to retract the above?
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I think the crown has some good barristers too.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'.
[/quote]
I don't think coroner should be influenced, look what happend when Sth Yorkshire police did it in the 80s
I'm trying to get the hang of this malarkey, care to retract the above?
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I think the crown has some good barristers too.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'.
[/quote]
I don't think coroner should be influenced, look what happend when Sth Yorkshire police did it in the 80s
For anyone with an impartial view
Jun 28, 2016
Four Metropolitan Police (MPS) constables based at Islington Police Station will face gross misconduct hearings in relation to the pursuit of Henry Hicks immediately prior to his death in December 2014.
Henry Hicks, 18, and from Islington in north London, died on Dec 19 2014 following a pursuit by two unmarked police vehicles. He lost control of his moped and crashed into two stationary vehicles belonging to members of the public.
At a HM Coroner’s inquest today in London, a jury determined that Henry was being pursued by the police at the time of the collision.
In the investigator’s opinion, the officers conducted a pursuit without authorisation from a senior officer in the control room. MPS policy is that pursuits have to be immediately notified to the control room and authorised in all but exceptional circumstances. It is the opinion of the investigator that the officers also did not consider the risks to Henry of the pursuit or make any consideration as to whether he may have been a juvenile.
The MPS agreed with the investigator’s findings for the two drivers but disagreed with the findings for the two radio operators (passengers). The IPCC has therefore used its powers to direct the MPS to also hold misconduct hearings for the two radio operators.
A second IPCC investigation examined complaints made by Henry’s family about the number of occasions he was subjected to stop and search, between October 2011 and when he died; and the extent they were appropriate and in line with relevant local, MPS and national police policies.
The investigation identified inconsistencies with the records obtained from the MPS and those obtained from Henry’s family as many of the stops on Henry did not appear to have been recorded properly. Based on an analysis of available information, the investigation established that Henry was subjected to a stop and search 71 times in this period as well as 18 stop and accounts. It is possible that at least a further 19 stop and searches were conducted and numerous stop and accounts but due to the condition of the data entries the IPCC investigator was not able to fully establish the numbers.
Henry was arrested seven times during the same period.
The IPCC investigator identified a breach in policy by MPS officers in failing to record stop and searches on at least nineteen occasions and failing to record stop and account on at least three occasions. The investigator has made provisional recommendations which are currently being considered by the Commissioner who has indicated that she will be making formal recommendations to the MPS following the investigation.
IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said:
“Our investigation has found that four officers may have acted improperly in their pursuit of Henry prior to his death and we have ensured that all four will face a misconduct hearing.
“Of significant concern to the IPCC in the second investigation, as it was to Henry’s family, was the manner in which police in Islington used their powers of stop and search and stop and account in relation to Henry over a four year period. Despite being legally a child for the majority of this period, and the number of times he was stopped, little monitoring or review appears to have taken place by senior management within the borough command.
“I am very concerned about whether an appropriate balance was struck between using police stop powers to detect crime and managing the risk of undermining relations between young people and the police in the borough. The police also appeared to have risked creating a perception of targeting an individual young person.
“We were provided with information from a number of sources about officers acting unprofessionally in their interactions with Henry and while the investigator did not find sufficient corroborative evidence to meet the threshold of proof, serious questions remain unanswered about these interactions with a young man who was between the ages of fourteen to seventeen for most of the period examined.
“Today our thoughts are with Henry’s family and friends for what has been a tremendously difficult time.”
The two investigation reports will be published following the misconduct hearings for the officers concerned which will be arranged by the MPS.
Jun 28, 2016
Four Metropolitan Police (MPS) constables based at Islington Police Station will face gross misconduct hearings in relation to the pursuit of Henry Hicks immediately prior to his death in December 2014.
Henry Hicks, 18, and from Islington in north London, died on Dec 19 2014 following a pursuit by two unmarked police vehicles. He lost control of his moped and crashed into two stationary vehicles belonging to members of the public.
At a HM Coroner’s inquest today in London, a jury determined that Henry was being pursued by the police at the time of the collision.
In the investigator’s opinion, the officers conducted a pursuit without authorisation from a senior officer in the control room. MPS policy is that pursuits have to be immediately notified to the control room and authorised in all but exceptional circumstances. It is the opinion of the investigator that the officers also did not consider the risks to Henry of the pursuit or make any consideration as to whether he may have been a juvenile.
The MPS agreed with the investigator’s findings for the two drivers but disagreed with the findings for the two radio operators (passengers). The IPCC has therefore used its powers to direct the MPS to also hold misconduct hearings for the two radio operators.
A second IPCC investigation examined complaints made by Henry’s family about the number of occasions he was subjected to stop and search, between October 2011 and when he died; and the extent they were appropriate and in line with relevant local, MPS and national police policies.
The investigation identified inconsistencies with the records obtained from the MPS and those obtained from Henry’s family as many of the stops on Henry did not appear to have been recorded properly. Based on an analysis of available information, the investigation established that Henry was subjected to a stop and search 71 times in this period as well as 18 stop and accounts. It is possible that at least a further 19 stop and searches were conducted and numerous stop and accounts but due to the condition of the data entries the IPCC investigator was not able to fully establish the numbers.
Henry was arrested seven times during the same period.
The IPCC investigator identified a breach in policy by MPS officers in failing to record stop and searches on at least nineteen occasions and failing to record stop and account on at least three occasions. The investigator has made provisional recommendations which are currently being considered by the Commissioner who has indicated that she will be making formal recommendations to the MPS following the investigation.
IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said:
“Our investigation has found that four officers may have acted improperly in their pursuit of Henry prior to his death and we have ensured that all four will face a misconduct hearing.
“Of significant concern to the IPCC in the second investigation, as it was to Henry’s family, was the manner in which police in Islington used their powers of stop and search and stop and account in relation to Henry over a four year period. Despite being legally a child for the majority of this period, and the number of times he was stopped, little monitoring or review appears to have taken place by senior management within the borough command.
“I am very concerned about whether an appropriate balance was struck between using police stop powers to detect crime and managing the risk of undermining relations between young people and the police in the borough. The police also appeared to have risked creating a perception of targeting an individual young person.
“We were provided with information from a number of sources about officers acting unprofessionally in their interactions with Henry and while the investigator did not find sufficient corroborative evidence to meet the threshold of proof, serious questions remain unanswered about these interactions with a young man who was between the ages of fourteen to seventeen for most of the period examined.
“Today our thoughts are with Henry’s family and friends for what has been a tremendously difficult time.”
The two investigation reports will be published following the misconduct hearings for the officers concerned which will be arranged by the MPS.
Desamax, if you are going to continue to post on this thread (I notice you don't post on any others) then for goodness sake learn to use the quote system.
Until you are sure you thoroughly understand it and are doing it properly then look at your own post after you have posted it, and if it's wrong then 'edit' it, or 'delete' it and have another go.
Until you are sure you thoroughly understand it and are doing it properly then look at your own post after you have posted it, and if it's wrong then 'edit' it, or 'delete' it and have another go.
desamax said:
The Met statement can be read in full if you wish, someone of your intellect should not rely on breif reports. Then make assumptions that are clearly wrong.
Would you be so kind as to tell me what assumptions I've made which are wrong. You won't be able to because I've literally just outlined the two possibilities i.e. that there 'may' or 'may not' be misconduct issues. Let me talk you through it step-by-step. I wrote:
La Liga said:
The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario).
BBC article said:
IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said the four officers "may have acted improperly" in their pursuit of Mr Hicks.
Ironically (I'm probably wasting my time using that word), it's you making the assumptions by stating there is wrong-doing before anything is proven. You don't know what you're talking about and I think it's beyond you to understand the basics. Either that or you're so ignorant to as ignore the explanations from those who have taken the time to explain how things stand at the moment.
singlecoil said:
Desamax, if you are going to continue to post on this thread (I notice you don't post on any others) then for goodness sake learn to use the quote system.
Until you are sure you thoroughly understand it and are doing it properly then look at your own post after you have posted it, and if it's wrong then 'edit' it, or 'delete' it and have another go.
Be reasonable. The quote system is really hard. Pressing one button and then writing words after the 'close quote' code takes some time to learn. It's a miracle nearly everyone on PH can figure it out straight away... Until you are sure you thoroughly understand it and are doing it properly then look at your own post after you have posted it, and if it's wrong then 'edit' it, or 'delete' it and have another go.
I'd speculate there's correlation between those who can't use it and whose perverse sense of right and wrong leads them to make any excuse for a likely drug dealer who fails to stop for the police, drives dangerously and rides on a stolen, illegally modified bike.
desamax said:
eldar said:
Why strange no DNA?
If you had some items on your persons, Finger prints, hair, etc. The met would have gone through this with a fine tooth Comb.
Clearly I am no BiB but I cannot help getting very confused with the basic premise that it is the fault of the Police when a fine, upstanding pillar of the community dies or crashes badly when trying to outrun the Police in typically a stolen or uninsured car/bike etc?
I do get the idea that the Police may abandon a chase if the pure fact that it is a pursuit is putting MoP at risk, but the line of blame and fault still surely rests 100% (or as near as) with the scrote and not the Police if it is just the scrote that gets hurt???
Don't run away and don't have an accident? Don't run away and don't get shot! Don't wave a gun at a copper and don't provoke an instinctive reaction etc. etc.
Really isn't rocket science and even if one makes a small allowance for the fact that the odd or occasional BiB may be slightly over zealous, I would bet my house on the fact that this chap was a wrong'un and deserved to be stopped and searched.
Would I place more credibility on the Police account of him or his own family vs the Police? That is a simple question for me personally I am afraid.
I do get the idea that the Police may abandon a chase if the pure fact that it is a pursuit is putting MoP at risk, but the line of blame and fault still surely rests 100% (or as near as) with the scrote and not the Police if it is just the scrote that gets hurt???
Don't run away and don't have an accident? Don't run away and don't get shot! Don't wave a gun at a copper and don't provoke an instinctive reaction etc. etc.
Really isn't rocket science and even if one makes a small allowance for the fact that the odd or occasional BiB may be slightly over zealous, I would bet my house on the fact that this chap was a wrong'un and deserved to be stopped and searched.
Would I place more credibility on the Police account of him or his own family vs the Police? That is a simple question for me personally I am afraid.
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact) and the family are considering private prosecution. I can't believe some grown adults on here are resorting to petty name calling a dead child. Who was NOT on trial at this inquest. The allegations made after his death at the inquest, makes me wonder if he was being harassed by the police. Because out of all them scores of stop and searches, not ONE conviction ! Now that could be very poor policing or he was a very cleaver child criminal. I know what I'm inclined to believe. Procudure should have been followed, by not implementing them, the four should Stand up and take it like men. And suffer the consequences of their errors.
If anyone still wants to score points and add spin. I suggest they visit the FB group the OP posted at the top of this thread. Where you will get a more articulate and informed answer to any queries you may have. And that will save the patronising comments.
If anyone still wants to score points and add spin. I suggest they visit the FB group the OP posted at the top of this thread. Where you will get a more articulate and informed answer to any queries you may have. And that will save the patronising comments.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff