Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
In my limited experience the 101 service is absolutely diabolical in its response time and rate. I'd like to be able to complain about it but you have to ring 101 to do so and I can't waste another 15mins on hold.
We get a lot of issues with off road bikers illegally using woods behind our house and we've unfortunately had to give up trying to ring the police.the local station never answer their phone either.
If you could legitimately and easily report all non urgent crime it would expose the police service for what it is.
With regards to this video I'm pleased the full version came out and police behaviour will be questioned when of this nature. Times have changed from when coppers could do what the hell they liked
We get a lot of issues with off road bikers illegally using woods behind our house and we've unfortunately had to give up trying to ring the police.the local station never answer their phone either.
If you could legitimately and easily report all non urgent crime it would expose the police service for what it is.
With regards to this video I'm pleased the full version came out and police behaviour will be questioned when of this nature. Times have changed from when coppers could do what the hell they liked
RobinOakapple said:
One has to admire, but only in a very negative way, the persistence of the lynch mob here. I expect their strategy is to grind down anyone who doesn't have their monochromatic view of this situation until they get fed up of posting on this thread.
Most people have pointed out that on the basis of what they have seen, the actions of PC were illegal. No one has been able to disprove that. To reitterate:Point 1
Force could only have been used if the driver was being arrested - he wasn't, or
In the prevention of crime - very difficult to see that one given his passiveness at the time. In any case force has to be reasonable. That just could not be the case when you have a guy in a car where the engine is switched off and the key on the dash.
Point 2
There is no legal requirement for the driver to get out of the car, unless being arrested, in which case reasonable force can be applied in arresting, or under stop and search. He wasn't being stopped and searched.
Point 3
PC is on restricted duties and being investigated
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
Putting all that together, I'd say there's a CHANCE he has acted ultra vires. Wouldn't you?
To the best of my belief I've put facts forward, if you have evidence to refute the points, please put them forward. You'll find that in Court, there are very often cases where there is no evidence that makes a case black and white. A jury works on probability (beyond reasonable doubt). We are debating what we have seen. We are allowed a view based on that. Stop trying to close the debate down with your own myopic view.
vonhosen said:
Yes but the big one was that if you complained in the past it was far less likely to get recorded than now, so even where you'd gone to the effort of trying to make the complaint it wouldn't get recorded., so it wouldn't get shown in the stats as often as now. Officers are also far more likely to submit complaints about the actions of their colleagues now too.
Circumstantial without some stats to back it up. Might be true, might be not. I'd like it to be.
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
You still banging on? Its a bit binary isnt it given we have only part of the story
Very fecund.Do you have anything intellectual to add or anything to refute the above points? Or just snide remarks because you don't like his demographic?
Could you please post the lottery numbers for Wednesday - at least that use of your imagination might come in handy
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
◾Honesty and Integrity
◾Authority, Respect and Courtesy
◾Equality and Diversity
◾Use of Force
◾Orders and Instructions
◾Duties and Responsibilities
◾Confidentiality
◾Fitness for Duty
◾Discreditable Conduct
◾Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
•would the use of force have a lawful objective (eg, the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
•are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
•having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm) what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?
What was the legal objective given it wasn't arrest? Case Law supports those objectives as prevention of injury to yourself, others or property. I'd say there was no threat to anyone whilst that guy was sat in his car, key on the dash.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
Yes but the big one was that if you complained in the past it was far less likely to get recorded than now, so even where you'd gone to the effort of trying to make the complaint it wouldn't get recorded., so it wouldn't get shown in the stats as often as now. Officers are also far more likely to submit complaints about the actions of their colleagues now too.
Circumstantial without some stats to back it up. Might be true, might be not. I'd like it to be.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
The ones you are ignoring and anyone with half a brain cell keeps telling you about
Which facts?State the facts I'm ignoring please.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:45
V6Pushfit said:
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
The ones you are ignoring and anyone with half a brain cell keeps telling you about
Which facts?State the facts I'm ignoring please.
vonhosen said:
That's not what I've been observing in the main though, defence of the officer.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
No alpines and spookeys justice works as there guilty based on a short film of part of the incident provided through social media by someone who has a complaint with the officer and police. This is until such time a less one sided version of events comes out and in there minds they don't want to concede this possibility. What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:45
They seem to have decided that Savage is guilty of a crime and should be sacked at the very least.
If the clip is all there is then it looks like officer has behaved inappropriately, but I want the big picture, not a one sided clip.
This Leon put an edited clip online and go these sort of people to react just the way he wanted.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff