Police Dads Army
Discussion
Eclassy said:
Its been 21 months since we requested for CCTV footage from a custody suite. It should have been honoured in 40 days.
Their deadline for providing the video under disclosure is in about 3 weeks. Lets see what excuse they come up with.
https://youtu.be/uWyrHEGuf9U
this has been dragging on a bit hasn't it?Their deadline for providing the video under disclosure is in about 3 weeks. Lets see what excuse they come up with.
https://youtu.be/uWyrHEGuf9U
Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
It was solicitors down my way who were against CCTV in all areas of the station, especially the cell block and particularly the interview rooms. Probably because it would show the police not beating suspects.
Did I miss anything?
This: Did I miss anything?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-18032806
It tends to undermine your position.
You are one for the partial quotes, aren't you. My reply was to a post criticising the police for obstructing change.
I should imagine my point was a wee bit too subtle for you. I'll explain in a more straightforward way.
The daily grind used to be that the police beat every suspect, that they forced confessions, that the offender was totally innocent and was brow-beaten into saying whatever was the major piece of evidence. The accusations of police assaults dropped dramatically once CCTV cameras were installed, after much support from police officers. I expect a similar decrease in the complaints once body cameras are issued, again something which the majority of police officers support.
I know you don't like eye witness evidence, so it gives me great joy to tell you that if I, as duty inspector, was really busy on lates or nights and some bloke came in with an accusation of assault or improper conduct by police officers withing the CCTV area, the brilliantly inventive woman on the front desk would dial a false number on the phone and then talk with the CCTV room. She would ask them to get a copy of the video of the incident for the duty inspector.
The complainants then used to disappear. I've tried it and it worked. Three posh lads came in to complain that they had been hit on the body and head by three riot police officers. I'd viewed the video and it showed the officers defending two others who had arrested a couple of violent offenders and these three had tried to get the chaps released. The officers used side-handled batons in the approved manner, and certainly didn't strike anyone at any time, despite provocation. Had it not been for CCTV I'm sure it would have generated a complaint against the officers, a facebook page, and lots of comments on these threads from the committed anti-police who should be committed.
CCTV in the cell block was fully supported, demanded in fact, by the vast majority of police officers, purely for self-protection. My point stands.
.XCP said:
this has been dragging on a bit hasn't it?
Indeed it has. People are told to complain and sue the police but they are never told of the time or costs.The police can never be trusted. My mate complained and instead of the investigator refering to the recordings, he used balance of probabilities.
Subject Access Request made but not honoured. Not rejected, just not honoured and reason provided.
Claim issued and will go to trial next year. By the time this goes to trial it would have been 3 years from him making contact with police.
Like Derek posted the police are very quick to produce CCTV when it shows them in good light but when they have been engaged in illegal/unlawful acts, CCTV is not so easy to come by.
Would it help if you weren't making things up? Or does this add to the following list?
- The riot van circling around your BBQ where you told them it was public land.
- The knife incident the police didn't bother to take statements for.
- The tapping on your window by a man which you think is a serious crime.
- The warrant that was wrongly executed.
- The money the police stole from you.
- The mate arrested on appointment.
- When you were arrested.
- When they refused to provide CCTV.
- When the ICO inexplicably didn't intervene.
I bet there's a few more I've missed. Talk about unlucky...
- The riot van circling around your BBQ where you told them it was public land.
- The knife incident the police didn't bother to take statements for.
- The tapping on your window by a man which you think is a serious crime.
- The warrant that was wrongly executed.
- The money the police stole from you.
- The mate arrested on appointment.
- When you were arrested.
- When they refused to provide CCTV.
- When the ICO inexplicably didn't intervene.
I bet there's a few more I've missed. Talk about unlucky...
XCP said:
Rovinghawk said:
How does this undermine what Derek said? It shows, quite correctly, what occurred at a charge desk. Good.Derek was referring to solicitors not liking videoed interviews. The same way they don't like audio taped interviews being played in court presumably.
Elroy Blue said:
Garybee said:
There are some fairly popular military forums available where lots of complaining is bound to be present. I think the difference is that the military whinge and moan to each other mostly.
Arrse, Rum Ration and others. The Military are as pissed off and contemptuous of this Government as we are. You can read the forums or listen to those serving for the facts. It's just not fashionable for the hypocritical bigots we know as 'the usual suspects' to search out facts that contradict their warped point of view. Edited by Garybee on Tuesday 17th November 17:43
Garybee said:
Elroy Blue said:
Garybee said:
There are some fairly popular military forums available where lots of complaining is bound to be present. I think the difference is that the military whinge and moan to each other mostly.
Arrse, Rum Ration and others. The Military are as pissed off and contemptuous of this Government as we are. You can read the forums or listen to those serving for the facts. It's just not fashionable for the hypocritical bigots we know as 'the usual suspects' to search out facts that contradict their warped point of view. Edited by Garybee on Tuesday 17th November 17:43
Derek Smith said:
Not that I believed his original supportive comments.
Cameron's been at it again today. In Parliament this morning he said "our cuts to police bureaucracy mean there's the equivalent of 2000 more police on the streets' and "we've seen an increase in neighbourhood officers of 3,800". This isn't just a difference of opinion, they are quite staggering lies. It's a said indictment of journalism in this country today that he's never challenged about this nonsense.
Rovinghawk said:
He said CCTV shows prisoners not being beaten. This shows the exact opposite. That undermines him.
Rubbish.The rank and file officers want two things out of CCTV:
1/ the real experience of the cell blocks to be made clear to stop (some hopes) the spread of the lie that all prisoners are ill-treated, and
2/ those who do ill-treat prisoners to be discovered and prosecuted.
The fact remains that there are a number of police forces in Europe which have blocked or at the very least resisted, the implementation of video recording of the entire time a prisoner is in a custody suite. I'm unaware of any force that has exceeded the England/Wales level. The fact remains that this was supported by the rank and file, and not, as some have suggested, resisted. Some r&f are all but demanding that they have body cameras.
This video does what CCTV is supposed to do, exposing those officers who overstep the mark in the treatment of prisoners.
And the R7F still support it.
There is no other European country that I would rather be arrested in than England/Wales. And I know, to a great extent, what I am talking about.
No institution is perfect. However, the police is taking steps to ensure the treatemtn of prisoners is as far beyond reproach as possible. And are doing this with the full support of those who work in suites.
Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
The rank and file officers want two things out of CCTV:
2/ those who do ill-treat prisoners to be discovered and prosecuted.
How many police in that video just walked on by before the decent one intervened?2/ those who do ill-treat prisoners to be discovered and prosecuted.
BTW, the DO had his convictions over-turned on appeal so it wasn't black and white.
La Liga said:
Why would they assume the force was unlawful when it's fundamentally a restraint?
Inflicting unnecessary pain for the sole purpose of obtaining information. Does that sound lawful to you? It wasn't a restraint in the slightest- please don't suggest otherwise.La Liga said:
Are the other officers involved in possession of all the information the Sergeant and DO are when making their decisions around using force?
They can hear the screaming, surely? One did the decent thing, why didn't the others before him?La Liga said:
BTW, the DO had his convictions over-turned on appeal so it wasn't black and white.
I know it was overturned- I don't understand why. He should have stopped it not joined in.
XCP said:
It's the quiet ones you want to watch.
+1From what I've seen, people scream, but not when they are being hurt. They scream to create a noise. I know just how much Rovinghen loves anecdotes, so just to please him, when I broke three vertebrae I didn't scream. I just grunted.
And another one:
When a large group of thugs attacked a small group of PCs, the thugs screamed. The officers just took the beatings. They probably grunted, but the screams of the baying would have drowned them out.
I wonder whether other officers, or ex, agree?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff