No Charges over G20 man's death

[ExChrispy Porker]

Gene Vincent said:

But it is more likely now that the person responsible for an illegal killing will get his just desserts, it's a balls-up but at least now justice is served. We are all the better for that at least.

Edit ... pudding error!

Edited by Gene Vincent on Friday 6th May 11:34

Sadly, I think it is now LESS likely that justice will be done.
There may well be an exciting show trial staged for the benefit of the media, but whether that will be just, remains to be seen.
I still maintain that it will be practically impossible to find an untainted jury, for example.

[thinfourth2]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Dear God the corruption was far wider and far reaching. The officers in the scandals mostly joined in the 50's and 60's.

The police force of today is (despite the perception) far less corrupt and far more accountable than ever. You are also far less likely to be assaulted or severely injured or locked up On a whim and will actually have some rights!

Not 100% sure that is a good thing

Part of me wants to return to the days of local scrotes getting a good kicking instead of local scrotes having rights and being untouchable

[Night Runner]

What do Mr Harwood, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay have in common?



Some interesting reading in relation to the last 4 in the list.

[don4l]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Dear God the corruption was far wider and far reaching. The officers in the scandals mostly joined in the 50's and 60's.

The police force of today is (despite the perception) far less corrupt and far more accountable than ever. You are also far less likely to be assaulted or severely injured or locked up On a whim and will actually have some rights!

I must admit that I don't believe that there is as much corruption now as there was in the past.

I do believe that there is still a tendency to close ranks when allegations of misconduct emerge.

However, just to demonstrate that there are some coppers who show more civility than is strictly necessary, I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

What a sensible, and courteous young man!

Don
--

[Tallbut Buxomly]

Very true don.

However i think the problem is that like with quite a lot of jobs the officers become quickly jaded and impatient in their job due to the perception that they are constantly abused by the people who expect their protection and that they are wasting their time due to having to arrest the same people over and over again who will assault them and not be punished for it.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

don4l said:

I must admit that I don't believe that there is as much corruption now as there was in the past.

I do believe that there is still a tendency to close ranks when allegations of misconduct emerge.

However, just to demonstrate that there are some coppers who show more civility than is strictly necessary, I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

What a sensible, and courteous young man!

Don
--

My experience is that is more than typical of most officers

[turbobloke]

don4l said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Dear God the corruption was far wider and far reaching. The officers in the scandals mostly joined in the 50's and 60's.

The police force of today is (despite the perception) far less corrupt and far more accountable than ever. You are also far less likely to be assaulted or severely injured or locked up On a whim and will actually have some rights!

I must admit that I don't believe that there is as much corruption now as there was in the past.

I do believe that there is still a tendency to close ranks when allegations of misconduct emerge.

However, just to demonstrate that there are some coppers who show more civility than is strictly necessary, I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

What a sensible, and courteous young man!

Don
--

Agreed. The officers were on their best behaviour, presumably the fact that they knew they were being filmed had nothing to do with it. Not that this takes anything away from the way things were done. As to it being the norm, ho ho ho. Whatever the merits or demerits of the officers' conduct might be, the activists while being equally restrained and within their rights to hold whatever views they hold and to protest lawfully about whatever they protest about - though it would be interesting to know a bit more about the outcome and/or any previous - had far more to offer in terms of entertainment value.

[carinaman]

Thank you for your reply Mr_Annie_VXR,

I think the point I may have been trying to make was that many of us only get to deal with the police when we get speeding tickets. Unless we've done something wrong, or get burgled or assualted when else are we likely to have experience of dealing with the police? At a stand at a County Show or the FoS?

Plus there's no GATSO equivalent that automatically detects and prosecutes people committing other crimes are there?

I can fully believe that police officers have tickets from being on duty. Are those tickets justified, or further proof that trying to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving isn't going to impact on the way people drive and the accident figures? Some person in Swindon has 39 points on their licence? You'd think none of them would be for accidents or dangerous driving? Surely you'd expect someone collecting points at that rate would be due an accident sooner rather than later if it's about speed?

Sadly as local newspapers seem to get much of their content directly from the police we can see from the accidents reported that speed hasn't caused many of the accidents. We can see drunk and/or drugged drivers, faults with vehicles, junctions, inexperience, conditions. Yes speeding may have played a part but a drunk person doubling the speed limit in a downpour that leaves lakes on the road can hardly be attributed to speeding. A GATSO won't stop some drunk in an Turbo'd 4WD doubling the speed limit on a road awash with water.

So some of the public having their take on the police affected by the drive to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drink driving is a price worth paying IF it reduces accident figures? The number of fender benders daily shows it's about speeding or the standard of driving?


Has crime gone down over the last two decades? Well I'm not sure I am placed to comment. I've experienced vandalised property and grief at this address, but cars were vandalised and damaged here in the past so it's difficult to say.

Crime has gone down:

'The court heard Alfred and his wife Winifred endured a 'living nightmare' who along with all the neighbours had logged over 350 reports to the police.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353826/Pe...

Surely that level of nonsense could have been dealt with without the use of an online map showing reported crimes?

I said to a Superintendent a few years ago that the police were friendlier when I was a kid, they doubted my opinion and said officers were friendlier and more approachable now. Perhaps I just had lucky breaks when I dealt the police when I was younger, and didn't extract the urine so got given the benefit of the doubt?

So perhaps we have the general law abiding public disenfranchised by automatic prosecution by camera, the ne'erdowells, and the kids that have grown up in easy homes and easy schools where they've no guidance or discipline and where every minor achievement is praised to the heavens. Agreed the police can't held responsible for that state of affiars but that's how it now is.

I can also see how having to put up with the griping public can wear thin, like it can in many public/customer facing 'customer service' roles, but that doesn't excuse, justify losing tempers and lashing out.

Don41,

Thank you for the link. That officer did well, and he looks so young too. Maturity beyond his years. That woman going on was doing my head in, she reminds me of a young female graduate colleague being groomed for the fast track with her tones. Was she condescending and patronising?

policecouldyou? I'm not sure I could have done that.


Apologies for any opposite lock applied in this thread.

[fluffnik]

don4l said:

However, just to demonstrate that there are some coppers who show more civility than is strictly necessary, I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

What a sensible, and courteous young man!

Nothing but courteous people in that video.

I'm a little worried about the management's complete lack of courtecy though.

Non violent protest is legal and should not be suppressed in a free society.

ETA: ACPO really are a threat to democracy, the must go.

Edited by fluffnik on Sunday 8th May 01:29

[fluffnik]

carinaman said:

policecouldyou? I'm not sure I could have done that.

I'm sure I couldn't arrest someone for thought crimes...

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fluffnik said:

I'm sure I couldn't arrest someone for thought crimes...

I could.

I've arrested people who were on there way to burgle, GBH, burn a house down etc etc.

Lawful protest is fine. Smashing up London or McDonalds isn't.

Conspiracy to burgle is a thought crime. Cconspiracy to murder is a thought crime.

Really? Allow someone to terrorise and burgle someone's house rather than prevent it?

[Shuvi Tupya]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I could.

I've arrested people who were on there way to burgle, GBH, burn a house down etc etc.

Did they admit that they were about to go commit a crime or something?

I don't understand how you can be arrested for something you have not even done, did these people sue for false arrest?

Confused..

[rewc]

Shuvi Tupya said:

Did they admit that they were about to go commit a crime or something?

I don't understand how you can be arrested for something you have not even done, did these people sue for false arrest?

Confused..

You do not have to admit to it to be found guilty of Conspiracy. Why would you? Presumably you would plead Not Guilty at court. Loads of people arefound Not Guilty in court and this does not make the original arrest illegal.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy....

[BlanketyBlank]

Shuvi Tupya said:

Did they admit that they were about to go commit a crime or something?

I don't understand how you can be arrested for something you have not even done, did these people sue for false arrest?

Confused..

You'd just need evidence that they were planning to commit a crime, not necessarily an admission. For example:

1) Husband discovered to have made payment to hitman to kill his wife = conspiracy to murder
2) Four blokes sat in a car outside a bank all wearing balaclavas = conspiracy to commit robbery
3) Football hooligans overheard arranging a meet up for a scrap with rival fans = conspiracy to commit violent disorder
4) Bloke found down an alleyway in the dead of night with a crowbar and a balaclava = going equipped to commit theft/burglary
5) Minibus full of protesters stopped on the way to a demo, vehicle full of spray paint and bolt cutters = conspiracy to commit criminal damage/having articles with intent to cause damage
6) Posting a video of yourself on the internet calling for death to British soldiers = soliciting murder


It's not a case of them not committing a crime, because the law recognises the need for prevention of crime and not just to react after the event.

Conspiring to commit a crime (agreeing/arranging with someone else to commit a crime in the future) is an offence by itself, as is attempting to commit a crime but being unable to for whatever reason (i.e I put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, but the gun jams and I am unable to kill you = attempted murder), procuring/counselling a crime (advising someone on how to commit a crime and/or helping them to bring it about), inciting a crime (encouraging the committing of a crime) etc etc.

There are lots of other "preparatory offences" that are crimes by themselves even though they are just the pre-amble to a "proper" crime, and in most cases carry the same punishment as the main offence itself.

There's also a power to arrest to prevent a breach of the peace i.e. where there is a likelihood of imminent violence or damage to property but this is not a criminal offence and the power to arrest passes once there is no likelihood of a breach of the peace occurring. This is the legal rationale behind "kettling" i.e. large scale preventative detention.

This being PH, I should mention that almost none of these preparatory offences can be committed in relation to most traffic offences

[grumbledoak]

don4l said:

I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

Well done, that copper. Charlie was well behaved, but there were moments there when I thought the gobby commentator actually merited a baton up the.

[gareth.e]

don4l said:

I must admit that I don't believe that there is as much corruption now as there was in the past.

I do believe that there is still a tendency to close ranks when allegations of misconduct emerge.

However, just to demonstrate that there are some coppers who show more civility than is strictly necessary, I give you Officer Bennett.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UscFYYCKOxg

What a sensible, and courteous young man!

Don
--

That Charlie Veitch guy and is girlfriend need a slap.

[philthy]

BlanketyBlank said:

You'd just need evidence that they were planning to commit a crime, not necessarily an admission. For example:
1) Husband discovered to have made payment to hitman to kill his wife = conspiracy to murder
2) Four blokes sat in a car outside a bank all wearing balaclavas = conspiracy to commit robbery
3) Football hooligans overheard arranging a meet up for a scrap with rival fans = conspiracy to commit violent disorder
4) Bloke found down an alleyway in the dead of night with a crowbar and a balaclava = going equipped to commit theft/burglary
5) Minibus full of protesters stopped on the way to a demo, vehicle full of spray paint and bolt cutters = conspiracy to commit criminal damage/having articles with intent to cause damage
6) Posting a video of yourself on the internet calling for death to British soldiers = soliciting murder

Falling asleep in your car, because you don't want to break the law = Drunk in charge.

[BlanketyBlank]

philthy said:

Falling asleep in your car, because you don't want to break the law = Drunk in charge.

We should definitely have a discussion about that on PH one day. I'm surprised no one has raised it before.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

philthy said:

Falling asleep in your car, because you don't want to break the law = Drunk in charge.

Interesting point.....

[fluffnik]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fluffnik said:

I'm sure I couldn't arrest someone for thought crimes...

I could.

I've arrested people who were on there way to burgle, GBH, burn a house down etc etc.

Fair point.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Lawful protest is fine. Smashing up London or McDonalds isn't.

Indeed.

...however, Mr Veitch's Situationist shenanigans have always been scrupulously law abiding - his whole schtick is being more legal than the police - the arrest filmed had a distinctly North Korean feel to it.

...