Police face racism scandal after black man records abuse
Discussion
Video recording: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/30/police-ra...
Shocking stuff, but unfortunately I believe a lot more common than the media and police makes you think. I personally have experienced prejudice like this myself in the past, but this is extreme!
Shocking stuff, but unfortunately I believe a lot more common than the media and police makes you think. I personally have experienced prejudice like this myself in the past, but this is extreme!
hedgefinder said:
first thing i was thinking really was - I wonder what he was arrested for during the roits....
Unless I missed it, I think the report said he was arrested the day after the riots, not in connection with. It didn't mention what offence he missed a missing a previous magistrates court appearance for. Also not sure why they didn't just braodcast the whole recording, and not just the edited 'juicy' bits.Mr_B said:
Unless I missed it, I think the report said he was arrested the day after the riots, not in connection with. It didn't mention what offence he missed a missing a previous magistrates court appearance for. Also not sure why they didn't just braodcast the whole recording, and not just the edited 'juicy' bits.
Yep it was after the riots that he was arrested, but what really gets me is the fact that 'the CPS initially decided no charges should be brought against any of the police officers', I mean seriously how could that ever be acceptable.johnnyboy101 said:
Yep it was after the riots that he was arrested, but what really gets me is the fact that 'the CPS initially decided no charges should be brought against any of the police officers', I mean seriously how could that ever be acceptable.
the police are seemingly allowed to murder members of the public these days and get away with it, no surprise that they are allowed to racially abuse people too and get away with it.EDLT said:
I guessed it would be the Met before opening the link. Why is it does that force get involved in so many scandals, is it just because they are the biggest or do they really act like it is the wild west in London?
You don't remember " The Secret Policeman"?The Met is almost 50,000 people. It's inevitable that you get some t
ts.Mojooo said:
Its easily a sackable offence.
There is another whole thread on PH saying they don't think causing offence by using words like 'N' should necessarily be an offence. ANy different if it came form a Copper on duty?
A huge difference. Policemen are required to uphold the law as fairly and impartially as possible, and you can't really do this while being explicitly and openly racist in the course of your duties. By the sounds of it, this wasn't an angry outburst during a scuffle or even off the record banter with colleagues a la Secret Policeman. The officer apparently calmly told the individual that his problem was that he'll "always be a There is another whole thread on PH saying they don't think causing offence by using words like 'N' should necessarily be an offence. ANy different if it came form a Copper on duty?
." In the context given that implies he holds a negative view of blacks in general, and that this informs his work as a policeman.The fact that there were 8 officers present in the van makes the hackneyed line that the police are mired in obsessive political correctness and constantly worried about being informed on by colleagues seem a bit fat fetched too.
Of course this is only how it appears from the Guardian website, and we know their agenda. I suspect there is more to the video, probably a large degree of antagonism from the suspect that is omitted. We'll never know, and it anyway wouldn't excuse the officer's words.
Totally different though from expressing a personal view, where IMO the language you use should be your own choice and definitely not a legal matter.
The problem with these stories that the Guardian like to run is that they name and disclose only evidence that supports their position and before the whole thing has run its course. There are elements in the case that support the stopped chaps attitude, language, goading and violence to the officers. All of which no doubt played a part in the issue surrounding use of force or swearing at him.
HOWEVER the use of the N word and then the bizarre 'rant' by the officer are never going to be justified. EVER. I've called peoples in certain circumstances ( a gypsy lad who was headbitting me and kneeing me as we rolled about on the floor was one ocassion) and it can be excused or justified however the N words used by a police officer just cannot. The connotations that come with it are outrageous.
However the criminal offence does require evidence of harassment alarm distress. It may be clear from the tape that the chap doesn't feel that way. In Muamba case the words were causing distress etc as numerous people saw them and were affected.
However the discipline offence is very different. That would require no evidence of upset. On the basis of just that published its gross misconduct all day. It's also GM or at least misconduct for the officers hearing it and not challenging it. There is a culture if whistleblowing encouraged and officers get disciplined for failing to challenge or report all the time. However a lot will go down to whether the comments were heard which in a noisy carrier depending where the officer is may not be the case.
Either way it embarrassing for the police as a whole this story. It's nicely timed by the Guardian though as its been going on 9-10 months and they've only just decided to publish. Still they've not dug up anti police resentment for a few weeks.
I would also hope once it's all done they'll publish all the evidence to put some context to the other parts of the report in terms of allegations of use of force. You'll note on that front that the complainant isn't appealing no action against force used so I'm guessing he wasn't on his best behaviour.
However for clarity the offending officer rightly is fked as its not the views or attitude that should be allowed to exist in the force. How he got away with it for so long should also be looked at.
HOWEVER the use of the N word and then the bizarre 'rant' by the officer are never going to be justified. EVER. I've called people
s in certain circumstances ( a gypsy lad who was headbitting me and kneeing me as we rolled about on the floor was one ocassion) and it can be excused or justified however the N words used by a police officer just cannot. The connotations that come with it are outrageous. However the criminal offence does require evidence of harassment alarm distress. It may be clear from the tape that the chap doesn't feel that way. In Muamba case the words were causing distress etc as numerous people saw them and were affected.
However the discipline offence is very different. That would require no evidence of upset. On the basis of just that published its gross misconduct all day. It's also GM or at least misconduct for the officers hearing it and not challenging it. There is a culture if whistleblowing encouraged and officers get disciplined for failing to challenge or report all the time. However a lot will go down to whether the comments were heard which in a noisy carrier depending where the officer is may not be the case.
Either way it embarrassing for the police as a whole this story. It's nicely timed by the Guardian though as its been going on 9-10 months and they've only just decided to publish. Still they've not dug up anti police resentment for a few weeks.
I would also hope once it's all done they'll publish all the evidence to put some context to the other parts of the report in terms of allegations of use of force. You'll note on that front that the complainant isn't appealing no action against force used so I'm guessing he wasn't on his best behaviour.
However for clarity the offending officer rightly is f
ked as its not the views or attitude that should be allowed to exist in the force. How he got away with it for so long should also be looked at. Mr_annie_vxr said:
The problem with these stories that the Guardian like to run is that they name and disclose only evidence that supports their position and before the whole thing has run its course. There are elements in the case that support the stopped chaps attitude, language, goading and violence to the officers. All of which no doubt played a part in the issue surrounding use of force or swearing at him.
To be fair to the Guardian this is what all newspapers and media outlets do. I think it is a requirement. Timing, as they say, is everything.The recording not only support the prejudiced but will influence those with an open mind. I'd like to see the justification for the CPS action, inaction, but that will be for later.
The conduct of these officers is wrong. There might well be mitigation, but I can't see any excuses.
MOTORVATOR said:
Up to eight officers present when this was happening and not one butted in?
Be interested to hear the whole transcript and also the colour/race of the officers present to understand context of what was being said.
The Guardian tells you the man was stopped by a van with 8 Officers, doesn't bother to tell you all 8 were in the van at the time of the abuse or not. Only 2 officers are heard, So sounds worse and paints the other 6 with the same brush. Be interested to hear the whole transcript and also the colour/race of the officers present to understand context of what was being said.
Off course all 8 may have been present at the time, but I would have thought they would love to mention that as it would add to their story if you could show all 8 at least knew what happened.
The press is very good at building up a story with little details like this left in for people to assume. Add in that when they get the victim to talk to them, they leave out anything that he did, but include all the bad bits that happend to him. I prefer to get the full story, not half of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff