Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
poo at Paul's said:
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.
poo at Paul's said:
Really? You think the 159mph copper case was legit?
He was convicted after the CPS appealed. The same CPS you're going to have to weave a thread of irrationality through to convince yourself you have any idea of what you're talking about. poo at Paul's said:
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!
Yes, 'MOPS' are prosecuted when there's evidence of illegal phone use e.g. witness evidence. The CPS (the same organisation who appealed against Milton) decided there was insufficient evidence to charge. This happens all the time. Obviously the CPS must pick and choose when to protect and when not to.
poo at Paul's said:
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!!
The PCC is a politician and has nothing to do with the on-going investigation. Searching about the matter for a minute would make that obvious. There's also the inquest which will continue in the future so it's very much an on-going matter which is going to continue to be heavily scrutinised. Perhaps if you understood some of these things you wouldn't write something foolish like, "That sounds like a proper job". poo at Paul's said:
Coppers cover up for coppers, always have, always will, and it's YOU that is in the clouds if you pretend otherwise!!
There will always be corruption amongst some individuals. However, we're talking about the outcomes from investigatory systems which go well beyond police officers. It'd have to include the CPS, the IPCC, the courts etc to hold up your stupid theories. Not that any of that actual detail matters to you as you make-it-up as you go along and lack the basic ability to realise the limitations of your knowledge. poo at Paul's said:
If a copper gets done for Gross misconduct, it must be embarrassingly obvious or they want shot of him or her for another reason!
Yes of course. With all your experience and knowledge of internal police procedures. I bet you sound really impressive when you're so forthright with your baseless opinions down the pub with your likely uncritical friends. poo at Paul's said:
(weird isn't it that this result was called many months ago, on this very thread? !) :scratchin:
Yes amazing one of the two outcomes appeared. How improbable... poo at Paul's said:
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.
I'm perfectly happy to accept the results of investigations. You on the other hand pick and choose which ones you want to believe based on seemingly nothing more than what you want the outcomes to be. 
I didn't think you'd have much against that reply.
I actually have a reasonable amount of experience of police investigating the police from both sides (investigating and being investigated). Things are done to the nth degree. I was investigated for a common assault and the disclosure file was nearly as big as the table and 35 statements had been gathered. That'd have never occurred have it been the police investigating the public.
A colleague arrested an off-duty police officer for drink driving. It wasn't wholly clear-cut and he received specialist assistance throughout to make sure the investigation was conducted to the highest standards and the best evidence were gathered. Once it went to trial, the force where the officer was from sent officers from their Professional Standards department to sit in the entire court proceedings for when they were going to deal with the matter internally.
You know best though.
I sometimes forget that most people are willing to give an embarrassing opinion on matters to know nothing about.
I actually have a reasonable amount of experience of police investigating the police from both sides (investigating and being investigated). Things are done to the nth degree. I was investigated for a common assault and the disclosure file was nearly as big as the table and 35 statements had been gathered. That'd have never occurred have it been the police investigating the public.
A colleague arrested an off-duty police officer for drink driving. It wasn't wholly clear-cut and he received specialist assistance throughout to make sure the investigation was conducted to the highest standards and the best evidence were gathered. Once it went to trial, the force where the officer was from sent officers from their Professional Standards department to sit in the entire court proceedings for when they were going to deal with the matter internally.
You know best though.
poo at Paul's said:
Of course you are happy to accept the results!!
Indeed. I don't pick and choose which results I accept depending on my bias and agenda. I sometimes forget that most people are willing to give an embarrassing opinion on matters to know nothing about.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 26th October 14:05
Interview with Dr Steven Peers and person that viewed the Gross Misconduct hearing via videolink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJH166oWzk
Does Detective Inspector Kehoe have form?
Does Kehoe have a history of roping junior officers into his criminal enterprises?
Where does Kehoe's conduct shown during the protest fit with the College of Policing trying to introduce Ethics to the police?
Was Dr Steven Peers falsely imprisoned? Could Dr Steven Peers have sued for false imprisonment?
'Cuts have consequences' meant Kehoe couldn't store the video camera belonging to Dr Steven Peers in a property store?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJH166oWzk
Does Detective Inspector Kehoe have form?
Does Kehoe have a history of roping junior officers into his criminal enterprises?
Where does Kehoe's conduct shown during the protest fit with the College of Policing trying to introduce Ethics to the police?
Was Dr Steven Peers falsely imprisoned? Could Dr Steven Peers have sued for false imprisonment?
'Cuts have consequences' meant Kehoe couldn't store the video camera belonging to Dr Steven Peers in a property store?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 26th October 13:59
herewego said:
Peers appears to have bought his doctorate from the USA, is that right?
I saw it's not a one he got from his own research. Doesn't really undermine the footage shown. It seems the Gross Misconduct hearing in part sought to sully the reputation of Peers. Why they'd go down that route considering the footage of Kehoe's conduct is beyond me.The police will never get Ethics while they can't accept their own failings and corruption. British plod are experts at smear and hearsay.
herewego said:
Peers appears to have bought his doctorate from the USA, is that right?
I don't know how Peers buying a Doctorate, if that's what he did, compares to the information about Kehoe's conduct when he was running Bolton Drug Squad during that interview? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJH166oWzk
Is someone buying a Doctorate, worse than a sworn officer making a false DUI accusation and then falsely imprisoning them? I thought Kehoe's conduct in trying to rope others into that was low too.
The video shows officers walking off from Kehoe when he was trying it on with a look of WTF disbelief?
La Liga said:
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.
Sorry LL But you missed my point, I was referring to the general reaction of police officers to a camera not in their control.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. Some are perfectly happy to be filmed whilst performing their duties, others seem to be unhappy.
I submit that the officers who object to cameras are probably not the ideal PR for the service.
Any serving officer objecting to being filmed is unlikely to be a good officer?
stitched said:
Sorry LL But you missed my point, I was referring to the general reaction of police officers to a camera not in their control.
Some are perfectly happy to be filmed whilst performing their duties, others seem to be unhappy.
I submit that the officers who object to cameras are probably not the ideal PR for the service.
I'd say most generally aren't bothered whoever has the camera. Having someone pull a camera out and film whatever is a regular occurrence for front-line officers. There have been a couple of internal memos in my time to remind officers about the public's right to film. Usually after an incident where an officer has inappropriately tried to stop someone filming or a force has had to compensate someone for an unlawful action. Some are perfectly happy to be filmed whilst performing their duties, others seem to be unhappy.
I submit that the officers who object to cameras are probably not the ideal PR for the service.
If an officer objects to lawful, unobtrusive filming then it's not good PR.
aw51 121565 said:
I cannot tell you what a great relief that is to me. If the GMP and IPCC are looking in to it we can sleep easy in our beds.
I recommend always wearing a video camera.
We owe it to the general public to video interactions with the police. It is just so entertaining sometimes.
Do police recruits undergo any psychological evaluation at all? The inadequate ones who crave a uniform to boost their low self image need to be weeded out. The system seems to be failing.
Edited by davidball on Friday 28th October 00:46
davidball said:
aw51 121565 said:
I cannot tell you what a great relief that is to me. If the GMP and IPCC are looking in to it we can sleep easy in our beds.You more likely sleep easily because there are men and women willing putting themselves at risk on your behalf to deal with the most violent and dangerous people in society and keep our courts and prisons full.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFJH166oWzk
Was Dr Peers subjected to wrongful imprisonment?
Can Dr Peers sue for wrongful imprisonment given the evidence shown on his video footage?
The interview with Dr Peers that covers the disciplinary hearing mentions Kehoe's previous role with a drugs squad in Bolton. There's a possible link with seized drugs not being kept securely and the video camera of Dr Peers not being kept in an official police property store but by an officer at the scene?
Does the interview mention previous video evidence by the police not being taken seriously as it had been edited and the audio no longer matched the video?
In the interests of balance I should state that I've probably been drunk in charge of a footpath more than once.
Was Dr Peers subjected to wrongful imprisonment?
Can Dr Peers sue for wrongful imprisonment given the evidence shown on his video footage?
The interview with Dr Peers that covers the disciplinary hearing mentions Kehoe's previous role with a drugs squad in Bolton. There's a possible link with seized drugs not being kept securely and the video camera of Dr Peers not being kept in an official police property store but by an officer at the scene?
Does the interview mention previous video evidence by the police not being taken seriously as it had been edited and the audio no longer matched the video?
In the interests of balance I should state that I've probably been drunk in charge of a footpath more than once.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 29th October 06:44
TerryThomas said:
La Liga said:
You more likely sleep easily because there are men and women willing putting themselves at risk on your behalf to deal with the most violent and dangerous people in society and keep our courts and prisons full.
And I'm sure you sleep with one eye on the phone...TerryThomas said:
La Liga said:
You more likely sleep easily because there are men and women willing putting themselves at risk on your behalf to deal with the most violent and dangerous people in society and keep our courts and prisons full.
And I'm sure you sleep with one eye on the phone...carinaman said:
I'm sure all those decent, law abiding officers like being used to defend Kehoe's Misconduct.
What misconduct? Did the alternative-wibble news website make you forget the outcome? There are loads of voluntary and paid roles within the world of the PCC, the IPCC and other organisations which you have such an apparent obsession with and spend so much time reading and writing about. Why not use that time and energy to actually DO something to change things you see as problems?
The answer is obvious; sitting behind a keyboard and using Google is much little easier than actually stepping-up and doing something to make a difference.
La Liga said:
There are loads of voluntary and paid roles within the world of the PCC, the IPCC and other organisations which you have such an apparent obsession with and spend so much time reading and writing about. Why not use that time and energy to actually DO something to change things you see as problems?
Indeed there are. I've spent the last 8 years randomly turning up at my local stations to make sure the police aren't beating the s
t out of prisoners or otherwise torturing them.Rather disappointingly, I've yet to see the torture, beyond the appalling tea and decor. b
ds won't even tell me where they keep the rack and iron maiden.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff