More 'police retirement' rubbish
Discussion
An officer who was involved with the armed tactics around the Jermaine Baker, has been a allowed to retire (he's done his 30 years). I'm not sure why the BBC use the word 'resign', but that's another matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-375524...
I fail to see what the rational alternative is. Are the family and the often ill-informed Deborah Cole expecting to keep someone on the pay role for (potentially) years?
The key aspect is that it makes no practical difference if he retires. If you keep him on and he's found guilty of some internal misconduct, then he leaves anyway, and as soon as he does the internal misconduct finding becomes irrelevant. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend for some people.
Regardless of the outcome/s of the investigation, I'll just add a little crime prevention note for anyone reading; To reduce the likelihood of being shot, don't plan and prepare to break someone out of a prison van.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-375524...
I fail to see what the rational alternative is. Are the family and the often ill-informed Deborah Cole expecting to keep someone on the pay role for (potentially) years?
The key aspect is that it makes no practical difference if he retires. If you keep him on and he's found guilty of some internal misconduct, then he leaves anyway, and as soon as he does the internal misconduct finding becomes irrelevant. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend for some people.
Regardless of the outcome/s of the investigation, I'll just add a little crime prevention note for anyone reading; To reduce the likelihood of being shot, don't plan and prepare to break someone out of a prison van.
Family of crook killed whilst committing a serious crime, while armed (or maybe it was a replica gun, I can't remember but it doesn't make any difference since you can only tell the difference between a real and a replica with close examination, which you would be disinclined to do if it is in the possession of a criminal), expects officer to stay on payroll for years after their retirement, which said officer notified his employer about before the crook was killed.
Less in reality for family of crook: if you play with illegal guns, you have a good chance of getting shot and the people who do the shooting are not at fault.
Less in reality for family of crook: if you play with illegal guns, you have a good chance of getting shot and the people who do the shooting are not at fault.
La Liga said:
An officer who was involved with the armed tactics around the Jermaine Baker, has been a allowed to retire (he's done his 30 years). I'm not sure why the BBC use the word 'resign', but that's another matter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-375524...
I fail to see what the rational alternative is. Are the family and the often ill-informed Deborah Cole expecting to keep someone on the pay role for (potentially) years?
The key aspect is that it makes no practical difference if he retires. If you keep him on and he's found guilty of some internal misconduct, then he leaves anyway, and as soon as he does the internal misconduct finding becomes irrelevant. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend for some people.
Regardless of the outcome/s of the investigation, I'll just add a little crime prevention note for anyone reading; To reduce the likelihood of being shot, don't plan and prepare to break someone out of a prison van.
If he's sacked would he not lose his pension?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-375524...
I fail to see what the rational alternative is. Are the family and the often ill-informed Deborah Cole expecting to keep someone on the pay role for (potentially) years?
The key aspect is that it makes no practical difference if he retires. If you keep him on and he's found guilty of some internal misconduct, then he leaves anyway, and as soon as he does the internal misconduct finding becomes irrelevant. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend for some people.
Regardless of the outcome/s of the investigation, I'll just add a little crime prevention note for anyone reading; To reduce the likelihood of being shot, don't plan and prepare to break someone out of a prison van.
La Liga said:
Regardless of the outcome/s of the investigation, I'll just add a little crime prevention note for anyone reading; To reduce the likelihood of being shot, don't plan and prepare to break someone out of a prison van.
On the other thread about savage, you and others said you would not criticize savage's unprofessional conduct until an investigation was completed because you didn't know what happened prior but here you are on this thread to tell us the above to justify the police's actions which basically means that Jermaine Baker was killed because he planned/prepared to break someone out of a prison van.Are these not just allegations at this stage? Do you have the full facts? But you already believe the police version of events even before a full investigation. Why the double standards? Just like the fart fetched and ludicrous possible reasons given by a few of you for why savage wet loony could it not be that Jermaine was a giving his friends a lift on the day and was not aware of the alleged prisoner breakout or maybe he was even held in the car against his will?
If the officer already gave his notice to retire before this incident then it isn't a case of him retiring to avoid punishment as the BBC is trying to paint it to be by their headline. Its not like he suddenly decided to retire after the incident.
Typical IPCC response. "He may be guilty of something. We haven't found any evidence for that, but there might have been an intelligence failure (clearly not). This Officer might not have interpreted the intelligence correctly (clearly he did), We're desperately trying to make something up so we can keep him under investigation for years. By that time, we might have been able to hide enough statements supporting his version of events to justify our existence."
(Factual circumstances from two recent IPCC 'investigations)
We should now have a sweepstake on how many pages of regurgitated nonsense the usual suspects will produce.
(Factual circumstances from two recent IPCC 'investigations)
We should now have a sweepstake on how many pages of regurgitated nonsense the usual suspects will produce.
dondadda said:
On the other thread about savage, you and others said you would not criticize savage's unprofessional conduct until an investigation was completed because you didn't know what happened prior but here you are on this thread to tell us the above to justify the police's actions which basically means that Jermaine Baker was killed because he planned/prepared to break someone out of a prison van.
Not killed because he planned/prepared to break someone out of a prison van, killed as a consequence of planing/preparing to break someone out of a prison van.Corpulent Tosser said:
Not killed because he planned/prepared to break someone out of a prison van, killed as a consequence of planing/preparing to break someone out of a prison van.
But we dont know this yet. they are just mere allegations. Why don't you give the late Jermaine Baker the benefit of the doubt as accorded savage? I could also postulate that Jermaine was killed as a consequence of a marksman not using his allergy medication which meant he sneezed at the wrong time and mistakenly fired his weapon, killing Jermaine.
We just don't know so why NOT WAIT FOR THE FULL INVESTIGATION?.
dondadda said:
But we dont know this yet. they are just mere allegations. Why don't you give the late Jermaine Baker the benefit of the doubt as accorded savage?
I could also postulate that Jermaine was killed as a consequence of a marksman not using his allergy medication which meant he sneezed at the wrong time and mistakenly fired his weapon, killing Jermaine.
Well that would be because even without a criminal trial, substantial evidence has been gathered which makes it clear (to anybody who doesn't think he was a promising young footballer) that he was a criminal in the act of committing a serious crime. OTOH, we don't know any of the background behind PC Savage. There is no evidence of the police rifleman having an allergy. I could also postulate that Jermaine was killed as a consequence of a marksman not using his allergy medication which meant he sneezed at the wrong time and mistakenly fired his weapon, killing Jermaine.
creampuff said:
Well that would be because even without a criminal trial, substantial evidence has been gathered which makes it clear (to anybody who doesn't think he was a promising young footballer) that he was a criminal in the act of committing a serious crime. OTOH, we don't know any of the background behind PC Savage. There is no evidence of the police rifleman having an allergy.
So we should just believe everything the police tell us and not WAIT FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION?. If Stephen Lawrence's parents believed the police they would never have got justice for their son.Would this be the same type of
- one sided 'substantial evidence' that lead to the Forest Gate raid and shooting of Abdul Kahar
- the one sided 'substantial evidence' that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes or
- maybe the 'substantial evidence' that led to the death of Harry Stanley.
In fact lets just call it a day and do away with all this mumbo jumbo legal system and let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.
dondadda said:
So we should just believe everything the police tell us and not WAIT FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION?. If Stephen Lawrence's parents believed the police they would never have got justice for their son.
Would this be the same type of
In fact lets just call it a day and do away with all this mumbo jumbo legal system and let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.
Do you think you got the facts with Lawrence?Would this be the same type of
- one sided 'substantial evidence' that lead to the Forest Gate raid and shooting of Abdul Kahar
- the one sided 'substantial evidence' that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes or
- maybe the 'substantial evidence' that led to the death of Harry Stanley.
In fact lets just call it a day and do away with all this mumbo jumbo legal system and let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.
You know, don't you, that none of this is relevant to the OP's post.
dondadda said:
On the other thread about savage, you and others said you would not criticize savage's unprofessional conduct until an investigation was completed because you didn't know what happened prior but here you are on this thread to tell us the above to justify the police's actions which basically means that Jermaine Baker was killed because he planned/prepared to break someone out of a prison van.
In your excitement to point out 'double standards', I wondered if you considered that the joke crime-prevention advice was not trying justify anything. I have no idea whether or not the shooting was justified or not because force is down to an individual to justify and I've not heard the individual's evidence. We actually know a fair bit about Baker's involvement from trials (post-major investigations) of the others involved (all whom were convicted of serious offences) which would make it different from Savage, but let's not worry about that because it has nothing to do with the point of the topic.
dondadda said:
In fact lets just call it a day and do away with all this mumbo jumbo legal system and let the police be the judge, jury and executioner.
Him being shot had noting to do with the administration of justice, which is not the job of the police. Him being shot has to do with the job of the police to enforce the law and him being in the process of breaking the law. If you have any info to support your comment that the police rifleman who fired the shot had an attack of the allergies due to not getting his medication, then I'm sure that info, if available, would be relevant to the discussion. As relevant to the discussion as the information that he was sitting in a vehicle, with a weapon, with accomplices, waiting to bust another criminal out of custody. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff