Police dropping people off in the middle of nowhere?
Discussion
If the story panned out as you described then it could have turned out differently if one of them was hit by a car etc.
No other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
No other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
Martin_M said:
If the story panned out as you described then it could have turned out differently if one of them was hit by a car etc.
No other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
Police arent there to punish - they have a duty of care towards othersNo other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
In the Michelle Wood case it is unbelieveable that they were found not guilty. The police are not obliged to take anyone home but it cant be right that a policeman can drop you in the middle of nowhere when they didnt necessarily have to take you anywhere. Imagine a man is discharged from A&E is driven in an ambulance to the middle of nowhere and let out.
Release the poor woman and open the doors of the station and let her go. A police station would be near to where other humans are and she would have been able to seek some help.
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
I think more sadists are slipping through the net.
Release the poor woman and open the doors of the station and let her go. A police station would be near to where other humans are and she would have been able to seek some help.
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
I think more sadists are slipping through the net.
Eclassy said:
In the Michelle Wood case it is unbelieveable that they were found not guilty. The police are not obliged to take anyone home but it cant be right that a policeman can drop you in the middle of nowhere when they didnt necessarily have to take you anywhere. Imagine a man is discharged from A&E is driven in an ambulance to the middle of nowhere and let out.
Release the poor woman and open the doors of the station and let her go. A police station would be near to where other humans are and she would have been able to seek some help.
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
I think more sadists are slipping through the net.
You are full of rubbish aren't you. "17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood and watched as he drowned." Release the poor woman and open the doors of the station and let her go. A police station would be near to where other humans are and she would have been able to seek some help.
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
I think more sadists are slipping through the net.
Why have you not mentioned the attempts made to save him by throwing life saving equipment in. Why did you not mention the officer who went into the river himself, risking his own life?
Some poor lad dies, and all you can do is try and spin it to support your sad outlook. Grow up.
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
speedyguy said:
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Bigends said:
Martin_M said:
If the story panned out as you described then it could have turned out differently if one of them was hit by a car etc.
No other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
Police arent there to punish - they have a duty of care towards othersNo other comments as such. Part of me thinks it's a good punishment if they were causing problems but the other part of me thinks it wouldn't be worth risking your livelihood over if it all went wrong.
La Liga said:
It's Ok until it goes wrong - albeit this isn't quite the same: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/lo...
The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
Why do you consider the prosecution farcical?The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
Mk3Spitfire said:
speedyguy said:
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Martin4x4 said:
La Liga said:
It's Ok until it goes wrong - albeit this isn't quite the same: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/lo...
The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
Why do you consider the prosecution farcical?The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
article said:
Mrs Justice Dobbs told the jury, at the end of the prosecution case on the sixth day of the trial, that there was insufficient evidence on which they could safely convict.
Unless anyone on here was in court throughout the trial to listen to the prosecution evidence then it is impossible to make an informed comment. The operative word there is safely. For a judge to stop the trial at that stage prior to any defence submissions suggest that the prosecution's case was going nowhere and had a guilty verdict nevertheless have been been obtained an appeal would almost certainly have succeeded.What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
Red Devil said:
Unless anyone on here was in court throughout the trial to listen to the prosecution evidence then it is impossible to make an informed comment. The operative word there is safely. For a judge to stop the trial at that stage prior to any defence submissions suggest that the prosecution's case was going nowhere and had a guilty verdict nevertheless have been been obtained an appeal would almost certainly have succeeded.
What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
However that doesn't explain why bringing the prosecution was farcical. It is harder to imagine how the officers behaviour could be any more negligent without becoming out-rightly deliberately criminal. It appears to be a case of some rouge officers punishing her for being out of order PITA.What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
I did see that statement by the judge, and that is what I find farcical in the face of all the other evidence presented in the article. These decisions by Judges to negate the jury are a farcical abuse of justice. The Jury did sit through all the evidence, the verdict should be their decision.
I never said it was farcical. That's your view not mine. I wasn't in court and I doubt you were either. If you are willing to have your opinions formed by the selective reporting of the media then by all means crack on, but please don't expect me to follow your example. On balance I would still prefer trials to be overseen by a judge rather than a newspaper.
Even a bum wipe as esteemed as the Torygraph.
Even a bum wipe as esteemed as the Torygraph.
ikarl said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
speedyguy said:
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
But surely all police cars are equipped with hazard lights i would have thought which is all a normal MOP would use when on the hard shoulder which I'm pretty sure that motorway has, then all the added 'visibility' of any extra lights available and contact with a police control room who could confirm signals would be set (albeit in completely the the wrong location) by the local RCC.
As noted it's a judgement call and 'a CBA dealing' attitude sometimes has unintended consequences which could have similarly occured in the OP's post.
Martin4x4 said:
Red Devil said:
Unless anyone on here was in court throughout the trial to listen to the prosecution evidence then it is impossible to make an informed comment. The operative word there is safely. For a judge to stop the trial at that stage prior to any defence submissions suggest that the prosecution's case was going nowhere and had a guilty verdict nevertheless have been been obtained an appeal would almost certainly have succeeded.
What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
However that doesn't explain why bringing the prosecution was farcical. It is harder to imagine how the officers behaviour could be any more negligent without becoming out-rightly deliberately criminal. It appears to be a case of some rouge officers punishing her for being out of order PITA.What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
I did see that statement by the judge, and that is what I find farcical in the face of all the other evidence presented in the article. These decisions by Judges to negate the jury are a farcical abuse of justice. The Jury did sit through all the evidence, the verdict should be their decision.
Martin4x4 said:
Why do you consider the prosecution farcical?
After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
Yes, that article gives no indications as to why the Judge may have made his decision... After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
Defence QC said:
"The death of any 25-year-old is a tragedy. Michelle Wood never complained of abnormality to the three officers at the time of her release. The three defendants were never told by the search officers that Miss Wood had these drugs and it was accepted that Sgt Hickinbottom was not under a duty to check the work of others." She felt the public would remember the graphic terms in which the case was opened to the jury, adding: "It was suggested that three police officers released Michelle Wood in a remote location when she was cold, wet and demonstrating clear signs of mental confusion. Each of these three propositions has been shown to be either wrong or wholly misleading. Miss Wood had in fact been driven 35 miles to the edge of Grimsby. She was wearing several layers of dry clothing under her trousers. Her outer clothing was damp, a fact not communicated to the defendant officers. It was an ordinary January night at about 8.30pm. There was considerable evidence from her sister that there was nothing unusual about her mental state on release. In fact she was described as cock-a-hoop. Her apparent mental confusion after she was dropped off was wholly attributable to her abuse of the drug Procyclidine, removed later from her possessions."
Eclassy said:
In the Michelle Wood case it is unbelieveable that they were found not guilty. The police are not obliged to take anyone home but it cant be right that a policeman can drop you in the middle of nowhere when they didnt necessarily have to take you anywhere.
It wasn't the 'middle of no where' - you should read up on the circumstances more. Then again, your reading / comprehension skills aren't equal to that of a basic report from the ES, so I shouldn't expect you to find any information on the Wood matter.
Eclassy said:
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
Met statement said:
East London Commander Lucy D'Orsi wrote: "Officers first tried to use a life aid and throw lines to him before an officer, who then needed assistance himself, entered dangerous water to try and safe Jack's life.
How biased must you be to completely ignore the Met's statement on the matter? And how stupid to mention the article which people can simply search and contradict your conclusion? The kid was a high risk missing person and they've tried to get hold of him to return him to somewhere safe. Unfortunately, he's gone into the river and they've tried to save him. Sadists, indeed. Please let us know of your made-up experiences with the police in a river or that of your mate's.
speedyguy said:
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Ridiculous. The police cant stop on a motorway when a human is in obvious danger! Yet people including some police had a go at the motorist who called in the M9 crash for not stopping to help.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
When I was a teenager (early 80's), there was an old plod in my town who, if he lifted you for drunken stupidity or some other minor misdemeanour, would offer you a night in the cells or "summary justice."
Summary Justice was whatever punishment he deemed fit; a slap across the face, a punch in the mouth, a kick in the balls etc.
Just the one and then you were free to go on your way.
Lots of guys chose summary justice as they knew it would be over and done with and their weekend wouldn't be ruined by being banged up. Seriously.
The guy was just an old sadist who, during daytimes or out of uniform, was a god-fearing, upright member of society.
Weekends, whisky and the uniform transformed him completely.
When a friend joined the plod in the early 90's and was first posted to the same station, he was still talked about as a legend of "old-school" policing...
Summary Justice was whatever punishment he deemed fit; a slap across the face, a punch in the mouth, a kick in the balls etc.
Just the one and then you were free to go on your way.
Lots of guys chose summary justice as they knew it would be over and done with and their weekend wouldn't be ruined by being banged up. Seriously.
The guy was just an old sadist who, during daytimes or out of uniform, was a god-fearing, upright member of society.
Weekends, whisky and the uniform transformed him completely.
When a friend joined the plod in the early 90's and was first posted to the same station, he was still talked about as a legend of "old-school" policing...
Fiona Okonkwo, 42, was walking her dog near the canal when the bleeding and terrified teenager ran past her pursued by up to nine police officers shouting for him to stop, before he jumped into the canal.
She told the Standard: “It looked like he couldn’t swim, he was bobbing up and down gasping for air for about 10 minutes. He was kicking his legs but was coughing and spluttering. He was gurgling as if he couldn’t get his words out
The police officers refused to jump in after him and said they can’t do it. I was going to jump in after him but they stopped me. The police told us there were weeds underneath the water, that it was too dangerous and they could get dragged down.
He was struggling, then he went under the water for the last time and didn’t come back up. I saw the bubbles where he took his last breath.
“It was only after about 10 or 15 minutes, after (Jack) didn’t resurface, that one of the officers jumped in.
Fiona is either a police hater or Eclassy in disguise
Another witness, boat owner Fred McGruer, 55, said police had tried to rescue the boy by throwing liferings and ropes but he had refused to grab hold.
Mr McGruer, a nurse, said: “There were police and onlookers, it was full of people. There was no one in the water helping him, that was the horrible thing about it.
“We watched him, a hundred or so people, going under the water and coming back up.The police were throwing rings to him, they were throwing ropes at him and obviously he didn’t want to come out, it was clear he didn’t want to be rescued so he didn’t take a hold of anything.”
It was only around 10 minutes after Jack sank beneath the surface that a police officer stripped off and went into the water, he claimed.
“That was the first time a policeman had been in the water. They said they weren’t allowed to go in, some of their colleagues had been hurt or injured rescuing people from water.
“By this time this other constable started taking his uniform off and he went in, it was far too late by that time.”
And Carinaman just happened to be walking past too.
Just believe what is said by the well paid police spin doctors. Never question it. "We always tell the truth even when we are lying"
She told the Standard: “It looked like he couldn’t swim, he was bobbing up and down gasping for air for about 10 minutes. He was kicking his legs but was coughing and spluttering. He was gurgling as if he couldn’t get his words out
The police officers refused to jump in after him and said they can’t do it. I was going to jump in after him but they stopped me. The police told us there were weeds underneath the water, that it was too dangerous and they could get dragged down.
He was struggling, then he went under the water for the last time and didn’t come back up. I saw the bubbles where he took his last breath.
“It was only after about 10 or 15 minutes, after (Jack) didn’t resurface, that one of the officers jumped in.
Fiona is either a police hater or Eclassy in disguise
Another witness, boat owner Fred McGruer, 55, said police had tried to rescue the boy by throwing liferings and ropes but he had refused to grab hold.
Mr McGruer, a nurse, said: “There were police and onlookers, it was full of people. There was no one in the water helping him, that was the horrible thing about it.
“We watched him, a hundred or so people, going under the water and coming back up.The police were throwing rings to him, they were throwing ropes at him and obviously he didn’t want to come out, it was clear he didn’t want to be rescued so he didn’t take a hold of anything.”
It was only around 10 minutes after Jack sank beneath the surface that a police officer stripped off and went into the water, he claimed.
“That was the first time a policeman had been in the water. They said they weren’t allowed to go in, some of their colleagues had been hurt or injured rescuing people from water.
“By this time this other constable started taking his uniform off and he went in, it was far too late by that time.”
And Carinaman just happened to be walking past too.
Just believe what is said by the well paid police spin doctors. Never question it. "We always tell the truth even when we are lying"
@La Liga
Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Jury disagreed/refused to accept a Judges direction (has it ever happened). Would the Judge be obliged to recluse themselves. We occasionally see the opposite, Jury nullification in trails like Spy Catcher, Clive Pointing, Oz, Penguin for example.
Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Jury disagreed/refused to accept a Judges direction (has it ever happened). Would the Judge be obliged to recluse themselves. We occasionally see the opposite, Jury nullification in trails like Spy Catcher, Clive Pointing, Oz, Penguin for example.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff