Discussion
4x4Tyke said:
All news outlets use superlatives, but that does not change the fact that an ambient temperature below 5? represents significant danger of hypothermia. As a nurse she is very likely to know this and is the one being diligent.
The Police officer was not, they must observe a presumption of innocence, a duty of care and operate by fair play. The Police officer did none of those things, it sounds like he was biased from the off and hostile as a result of being being caught out. That reaction makes him a very poor police officer.
The police officer took some gloves, a scarf and a hat back to Primark.The Police officer was not, they must observe a presumption of innocence, a duty of care and operate by fair play. The Police officer did none of those things, it sounds like he was biased from the off and hostile as a result of being being caught out. That reaction makes him a very poor police officer.
He didn't exactly strip him naked and leave him in the Arctic with the polar bears.
The homeless man is banned from parts of the town centre - he appears to be a prolific offender.
Non-story.
4x4Tyke said:
Irrelevant, read her comments carefully, her initial complaint was direct to the officer involved, his behaviour has escalated the complaint and is now concerning the officers interactions with her.
4x4Tyke said:
The police are trying to use footage of the officers interactions with the 'beggar' to defend his behaviour with the nurse.
Are they? Or are they addressing one aspect of the complaint? If she's contacted the force and made a complaint, it'll almost certainly have two aspects to it in the circumstances and the nature in which complaints are recorded:
1) Lawfulness / appropriateness of the officer's actions.
2) Incivility from the officer towards her.
In order to judge the first, the interaction between the officer and homeless man would be fundamental to making the assessment. If that is captured, and she wasn't there, then showing her that would resolve that aspect of the complaint. She would not be able to dismiss this aspect by saying, 'I know, I was there'.
She says, "Sometimes you have to make a judgement and it’s wrong. But you should apologise", immediately after stating she has made a complaint to the force. That suggests to me she's still not happy with the actions, possibly because she didn't get any resolution from the officer himself.
Secondly, memory is quite flawed. Just because she was present when speaking to the officer, and therefore 'knows', doesn't mean she has remembered the interaction between them correctly. She may have alleged words used which weren't - not through anything sinister, simply because we'll remember often things differently from what actually happened, especially during 'stress' and confrontation . This happens frequently with complaints involving disputed accounts which are recorded. So perhaps asking her to view the footage was in relation to this aspect. It is often done to resolve complaints.
4x4Tyke said:
The Police officer was not, they must observe a presumption of innocence, a duty of care and operate by fair play. The Police officer did none of those things, it sounds like he was biased from the off and hostile as a result of being being caught out.
Is that fact? How do you know? Just because an action is taken doesn't mean the presumption of innocence has been disregarded.
4x4Tyke said:
That reaction makes him a very poor police officer.
Alleged reaction. Are you treating information from an anonymous uncorroborated source as fact? Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 16th January 12:16
Nurse wants to be offended and outraged by the officer's actions.
The force have offered to let her view the footage on the officer's bodycam but she has declined because she wants to remain offended and outraged.
She also doesn't know the homeless man. The officer does.
I have sympathy for some hopeless people, I really do, and their numbers are increasing.
Not all though.
The force have offered to let her view the footage on the officer's bodycam but she has declined because she wants to remain offended and outraged.
She also doesn't know the homeless man. The officer does.
I have sympathy for some hopeless people, I really do, and their numbers are increasing.
Not all though.
La Liga said:
The help / support / accommodation for the homeless has decreased significantly inline with Local Authority cuts.
It's a really poor state of affairs.
Agreed. I know.It's a really poor state of affairs.
It's very sad seeing the numbers of homeless people on the streets/ sheltering in shop doorways under coats/ blankets.
No one deserves that. Everyone deserves help but some (ime) are beyond help. That's sad too.
La Liga said:
lleged reaction. Are you treating information from an anonymous uncorroborated source as fact?
No, are you doing the same with regard to the alleged 'beggar'? No, but we could stick alleged in front of everything and make the whole thing less readable or just make the assumption everything is alleged without a conviction. Which takes us full circle to the officer acting on assumed guilt.Edited by 4x4Tyke on Tuesday 16th January 19:41
Greendubber said:
4x4Tyke you're making some pretty strong accusations about the police officer, did you see what happened or are you grinding an axe?
Accusations doesn't mean what you think it does.AIH, I regularly come out on the 'side' of the police on here. I think we do have a good police service in general, because we do hold them to very high standards of behaviour. Just not in this case.
4x4Tyke said:
La Liga said:
Alleged reaction. Are you treating information from an anonymous uncorroborated source as fact?
No, are you doing the same with regard to the alleged 'beggar'. No, but We could stick alleged in front of everything and make the whole thing less readable or just make that assumption everything is alleged without a conviction. Which takes us full circle to the officer acting on assumed guilt.I've never suggested he is a beggar (if that's what you meant). I've used 'homeless man' as the article did to identify him.
I'm not trying to pointlessly score pedantic points, I'm basically saying that as is often the case it's really hard to draw conclusions with limited information.
The officer may have acted inappropriately in taking the clothing, he may have spoken to her like a dick. On the other hand, he may have acted wholly reasonably in the circumstances and been polite and professional. Plus everything in between. We'll probably never know.
4x4Tyke said:
Greendubber said:
4x4Tyke you're making some pretty strong accusations about the police officer, did you see what happened or are you grinding an axe?
Accusations doesn't mean what you think it does.AIH, I regularly come out on the 'side' of the police on here. I think we do have a good police service in general, because we do hold them to very high standards of behaviour. Just not in this case.
So why not in this case, because some outraged woman who refuses to watch the body worn video is having a tantrum?
There is no evidence other than her moaning that anyone did anything wrong. The force are saying they've watched the footage and it's fine, also that she is welcome to view it which she declined to do so.
So why is this bad policing?
Known thief who sounds like he has a CBO to stay off the high street is found with brand new items, some the same as each other so they are seized whilst the ownership is established. The items are then give back once enquiries show they weren't stolen.
What would you want to be done differently?
What if the homeless bloke had an expensive item like a laptop with him? Is it bad policing to take that so checks can be made into the lawful ownership of it?
You've been sucked in because it's hats, gloves and socks.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 16th January 15:36
4x4Tyke said:
Which takes us full circle to the officer acting on assumed guilt.
Nope.Reasonable suspicion, which is what the law allows.
Known shoplifter with 4 pairs of new gloves, hat and scarf.
The officer checked it out and it was a non issue.
I can't understand why people are getting upset.
Red 4 said:
4x4Tyke said:
Which takes us full circle to the officer acting on assumed guilt.
Nope.Reasonable suspicion, which is what the law allows.
Known shoplifter with 4 pairs of new gloves, hat and scarf.
The officer checked it out and it was a non issue.
I can't understand why people are getting upset.
4x4Tyke said:
Greendubber said:
You said he was a very poor police officer..... which is an accusation.
No, I didn't raise the charge, that has already been done.I drew a conclusion from the information provided.
Sorry, looks like you have a classic prejudice against the police to me, being as you decided to ignore everything else I posted to you.....
4x4Tyke said:
Greendubber said:
... being as you decided to ignore everything else I posted to you.....
I ignored most of your post because it was nonsense and from now on I will ignore your posts entirely.I asked questions to you, for example if the guy was found with a higher value item but you're refusing to answer because you know you're wrong.
I asked you why it was bad policing, you can't tell me.
Now you're telling me you're going to ignore me, which just goes to show you can't back up what you're claiming.
Classic, look I'll let you off the hook now and just leave it as you being unable to support the guff you typed.
Happy ignoring but I doubt you'll keep to your latest promise.
Red 4 said:
4x4Tyke said:
Greendubber said:
... being as you decided to ignored everything else I posted to you.....
I ignored most of your post because it was nonsense and from now on I will ignore your posts entirely.Told you ...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff