Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
aw51 121565 said:
Cover up commences then. 
I know someone who's gone off to Barton Moss. A bid of an idealist and definitely not a trouble maker or violent. The police are clearly there to smash the protesters and clear the way for a lot of money to be made for their paymasters.
RedTrident said:
Cover up commences then.
I was thinking that the IPCC may come good on this one. The evidence is in the public domain, so they can't do what they did with the Channel 4 News footage of the shove on Tomlinson. They can't throw their weight around waving an injunction around as the footage has been seen.Secondly should it have got as far as the court? What were the police doing taking it that far?
Peter Oborne said in this article, that anybody that spends anytime in Courts comes across dodgy cases that shouldn't be there, and that the MITCHELL stitch up was the tip of the Iceberg:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Perhaps the tide has turned? Perhaps even the IPCC despite their lack of resources and their staff of graduates and ex-police officers knows that there is less leeway for them to get away with nonsense.
I was incredulous that they got a Liverpool Football Club fans club to hand out flyers at a Fulham game last year appealing for more witnesses from the Hillsborough game, and was therefore really angry when shortly afterwards it was announced that a police video of happened at Hillsborough had had 10 minutes of footage 'missing'. I think the term deleted may apply.
Despite my anger and dismay at that 'missing' ten minutes of video, likening it to the stuff Anthony Hamilton was saying in his court case with Paul di Resta, it seems the IPCC have got over 200 new leads about Hillsborough, but I don't know how many, if any at all, were the result of the distribution of flyers appealing for leads at that Fulham match, and such an action did seem like the usual brand management operations routinely done by the police.
I think there's a possibility that the IPCC may do a passable job on this one.
k can stuff like this take 2.5 years to get heard? http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
I am slow. He was cleared.
So Inspector Kehoe didn't see Dr Peers drive to the site but accused him of drink driving anyway?
I am slow. He was cleared.
So Inspector Kehoe didn't see Dr Peers drive to the site but accused him of drink driving anyway?
La Liga said:
You all know much better than the panel who investigated the matter. You can't possibly be wrong, even though you have a fraction of the information that would have been captured by the investigation.
I have no legal qualifications, If I choose to charitably allow that the police officer actually mis heard tea as two and believed that the arrestee had arrived in a car then his behaviour can be, just, deemed reasonable.What I really can't condone is what appears to be a general hatred of video cameras from people who should welcome them.
If there is nothing to hide then perhaps you or other BiB could explain the general reluctance of your colleagues to being filmed?
La Liga said:
You all know much better than the panel who investigated the matter. You can't possibly be wrong, even though you have a fraction of the information that would have been captured by the investigation.
The officer could not have seen Peers driving because his car was being repaired at a garage.How can someone be accused of drink driving when they don't even have a car?
numtumfutunch said:
Copper behaves like arse and is cleared
And you wonder why so many people dont trust the Police....................
Amazing isn't it. And you wonder why so many people dont trust the Police....................
From the 159mph guy "evaluating performance", the special constable on her phone who killed that biker down in Dorset, to the WPC with the "non vicious" dog that killed her nephew couple of weeks back, "NOTHING TO SEE HERE!"
And in EVERY such case, if it was a mere MOP, they'd be banged up.
Edited by s3fella on Tuesday 25th October 10:50
Why have the GMP dismissed people this year for gross misconduct? Or do the senior officers involved like risking their careers and make corrupt decisions just for fun now and again?
I don't think there's a general reluctance. There are millions of interactions which involve people filming so it's hardly a surprising thing to occur.
stitched said:
What I really can't condone is what appears to be a general hatred of video cameras from people who should welcome them. If there is nothing to hide then perhaps you or other BiB could explain the general reluctance of your colleagues to being filmed.
Cameras reduce complaints which is a positive and have a good impact in terms of evidence-gathering. The Home Office should do a bulk-buy of equipment and supply every force. If I were a senior officer I certainly wouldn't be buying them when having to make further savings. I don't think there's a general reluctance. There are millions of interactions which involve people filming so it's hardly a surprising thing to occur.
55palfers said:
Was the choice to go for "Gross misconduct" deliberate as it more difficult to prove?
I'm pretty sure all the lower-level misconduct outcomes are still available. s3fella said:
And in EVERY such case, if it was a mere MOP, they'd be banged up.
That you write something shows how little you actually know to those who know about the subject matter. La Liga said:
hat you write something shows how little you actually know to those who know about the subject matter.
Really? You think the 159mph copper case was legit? The Dorset case was some special who admitted being on her hand held phone but "on speaker" and yet MOPS are being prosecuted for merely TOUCHING their phones, let alone killing some innocent guy on a motorbike!As for the dog case, the day after, the Police Commissioner said that the dog had no "history" and was "not at all vicious"..........and yet it had just been put down.... he went on to say there would be no criminal investigation.....the day after the incident! That sounds like a proper thorough job!!
Nothing to see here, indeed!
Coppers cover up for coppers, always have, always will, and it's YOU that is in the clouds if you pretend otherwise!! If a copper gets done for Gross misconduct, it must be embarrassingly obvious or they want shot of him or her for another reason!
But please condescend away at us.
(weird isn't it that this result was called many months ago, on this very thread? !) :scratchin:
But anyone who points that out "knows nothing" according to you.
I 'spect you think the Hilsborough lot were genuine good honest plod, and the Rotherham lot just had a bad day, eh? Or are those cases where the system works in your opinion......yeah, after 25 years and several tax payer funded enquiries it works.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff