non-Met Police ****ery

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
temptar
Fuzzable
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by temptar » Mon May 01, 2023 12:36 pm

The issue here is not the investigation but the malicious report.

Is there some reason that can't be dealt with after the fact?

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: Casey Report finds the Met to be institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic

Post by EACLucifer » Mon May 01, 2023 12:37 pm

Boustrophedon wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 12:22 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 10:27 am

Just to be entirely clear, I'm not talking about sanctions for accusation not proven true, I'm talking sanctions for accusation proven to be malicious.
But that still leaves people making bona fide reports, open to the feeling that if the report is not taken seriously they could be open to prosecution.
Yes, but when you are so absolutist on one form of harm, you end up tolerating another. In this case, the authorities were recruited as a weapon to target a mainstream female politician due to objections to her feminist views.

You brought up rape as an example. To be clear, malicious accusations appear to be extremely rare, as they are with most crimes except for insurance fraud, but the impact when they do happen can be extremely severe. In the Eleanor Williams case, three people tried to take their own lives in response. In the Jemma Beale case, someone was wrongly imprisoned and only freed five years later. In both cases, those falsely accused were from ethnic minorities, and there was a real element of racist stereotyping in the false accusations of the former case.

The default when a report of any serious crime is made is to assume honesty and good faith on the part of the complainant*. If, however, in the course of the investigation it is found that the accusation is malicious - a tiny minority of cases - there should be some form of consequences. We would treat abducting someone's children or locking someone in a cell for five years as very serious crimes if someone did them directly - we should not tolerate it when the resources of the state are perverted towards the same end.


*This doesn't mean assuming guilt on the part of the accused

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7248
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Woodchopper » Mon May 01, 2023 2:10 pm

Malicious accusations can already be punished.

Someone maliciously making a false allegation of child abuse etc could be charged with perverting the course of justice, which can be punished severely. That has happened with false allegations of rape (for example).

The accuser could also be guilty of the crime of making a false statement to police or in less serious cases someone could be prosecuted for wasting police time.

Someone making false allegations could also be charged with harassment. That doesn't seem to have happened here. But one issue may be that as far as I remember the offence is based upon repeated actions. So a single false allegation wouldn't count.

An individual victim of a false allegation could also sue the accuser for defamation, eg for malicious falsehood.

User avatar
EACLucifer
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: In Sumerian Haze

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by EACLucifer » Mon May 01, 2023 2:23 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 2:10 pm
Malicious accusations can already be punished.

Someone maliciously making a false allegation of child abuse etc could be charged with perverting the course of justice, which can be punished severely. That has happened with false allegations of rape (for example).
That's the case with criminal accusations and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, merely that it is important to have that option in the very rare cases where an accusation is malicious. I'm not so sure if it is the case with false reports like that against Stella Creasy. I initially noted that either the law needed modification, or the police response was disappointing. Given that the accusation did not go very far at all, that could be their communications were very poor and created needless stress rather than they failed to punish a malicious accusation that caused serious harm, I don't know enough details to comment on the specifics there.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Princess POW
Posts: 7248
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Woodchopper » Mon May 01, 2023 2:45 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 2:23 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 2:10 pm
Malicious accusations can already be punished.

Someone maliciously making a false allegation of child abuse etc could be charged with perverting the course of justice, which can be punished severely. That has happened with false allegations of rape (for example).
That's the case with criminal accusations and I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise, merely that it is important to have that option in the very rare cases where an accusation is malicious. I'm not so sure if it is the case with false reports like that against Stella Creasy.
More information on the case here. It looks like the allegation was one of child abuse or neglect, and it was initially made to the police (who passed it onto the council). So it looks like perverting the course of justice could have applied, as could wasting police time.

The accuser also sent numerous emails which weren't seen to have crossed threshold of harassment.
EACLucifer wrote:
Mon May 01, 2023 2:23 pm
I initially noted that either the law needed modification, or the police response was disappointing. Given that the accusation did not go very far at all, that could be their communications were very poor and created needless stress rather than they failed to punish a malicious accusation that caused serious harm, I don't know enough details to comment on the specifics there.
Yes, its difficult to comment further because we don't know any more.

Though I take Don's point. IMHO there should be an option to punish people who make false allegations, but there should be a high threshold for doing so. There's a balance to be struck between deterring malicious allegations and dissuading people from reporting legitimate suspicions.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5412
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Gfamily » Wed Aug 09, 2023 12:25 pm

In case you missed it, the PSNI data breach was solely down to the PSNI themselves.
They responded to a FOI request for the number of officers at different ranks by releasing the data in a spreadsheet.
Unfortunately, the spreadsheet also contained the Surname and initials of all the officers and civilian staff, as well as other details such as rank, location and unit in which they serve.

It reminds me of the time when our HR issued a spreadsheet containing reporting line data (in column H) for everyone in the unit, not realising that column T contained their salary.
Followed shortly later by a request to delete that email.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

kerrya1
Clardic Fug
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:13 am

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by kerrya1 » Tue Aug 15, 2023 10:50 am

Seriously, are any of these police forces even vaguely competent?
A total of 1,230 people, including victims of crime and witnesses, have had their data breached by Norfolk and Suffolk Police, the forces said.

The constabularies said the personal information was included in Freedom of Information responses due to a "technical issue".
Norfolk and Suffolk police: Victims and witnesses hit by data breach

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5412
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Gfamily » Tue Aug 15, 2023 2:22 pm

US township Police force make (probably unconstitutional) raid/seizure from Newspaper offices. 98 year old owner dies next day.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... olice-raid
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Fri Sep 29, 2023 8:35 pm

Not even the Isle of Wight is free from police ****ery.
A police officer and power-lifting champion has been dismissed after using “extreme” force against two detainees, including a traumatised woman...

Lythgoe, who broke a bench-pressing world record in 2018, accepted he had used excessive force in this case, but said it had been a “difficult situation” and necessary to ensure a safe withdrawal from the cell for him and the other officers.
The Guardian article includes footage which I recommend watching because words can't do his violence of his actions justice, but I'll try anyway.

In one incident a man with his trousers around his ankles and hands handcuffed behind his back is surrounded by 3 officers, one of whom is standing directly behind him and handling him. Lythgoe comes from behind his counter straight at the guy's neck, grabs him with both hands and then throws him against the back wall, then throws him to the ground while the other officers look on. He holds him down (one of the officers is largely obscuring the view). Another officer seems to try and lift his feet and then Lythgoe drags him up by his neck and drags him off camera with his arm still around his neck.

In another incident Lythgoe is in a cell with a rather slight woman. She is standing in front of the bed gesticulating to him. It is clear they are having a disagreement but she is standing her ground, not making any move towards him, but not ceding ground either (she can't go back anyway, the bed is right behind her). He walks forward forcefully with his arm outstretched and grabs her around the throat. He forces her down and into the corner of the bed. With his free arm he grabs her leg by the ankle.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:08 pm

I will preface this by saying that I don't have any military knowledge so don't know how big an actual offence it is to wear medals that you didn't earn. This story caught my attention simply because of the Falklands angle but it's now become something far more interesting to me.

The TL:DR is that the chief constable of Northamptonshire police, Nick Adderley, has been wearing a Falklands War campaign medal despite not having fought in that war. He and his brother were in the military. Both earned medals. His brother fought in the Falklands and gave Nick his medals after he got ill, and Nick has worn both his and his brother's medals together ever since.

The chief constable is now facing a criminal inquiry into claims he misrepresented his past by wearing the medals in the way he did, and is also facing a gross misconduct investigation.

As I say, I have no idea about the legality or not of what he's done (it feels kinda trivial to me - something that I can understand people being upset about but I'm unclear on exactly why it's a criminal matter). But clearly it has passed some threshold for investigation. Yet I can't help but wonder, if misrepresenting your military history is something that requires criminal and gross misconduct investigations, why all officers who commit egregious acts that would get them sacked in any other industry face no consequences.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
bolo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by bolo » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:21 pm

Here in the U.S. this would potentially be a federal offense under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (law text here: 18 U.S.C. 704). That requires fraudulent intent, however:
Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
So it would not apply if, for example, someone wore his brother's medals just as a memento of his brother.

I'm sure there are also military regulations about how medals are supposed to be worn.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:38 pm

bolo wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:21 pm
Here in the U.S. this would potentially be a federal offense under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 (law text here: 18 U.S.C. 704). That requires fraudulent intent, however:
Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
So it would not apply if, for example, someone wore his brother's medals just as a memento of his brother.

I'm sure there are also military regulations about how medals are supposed to be worn.
The articles I've seen about it say that he's taken to wearing his brother's medals on the other side so I'm guessing there's a way to wear them that shows they're not yours and he's not been doing that until now. If he's been in the military then I'd assume he knew the right way to wear them and didn't, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to pass them off as his own and is now facing the consequences. I just find it strange that his actions have resulted in gross misconduct charges yet so many other officers who have done things equally bad - and worse - have faced no consequences.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
tenchboy
After Pie
Posts: 1978
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by tenchboy » Mon Oct 16, 2023 7:54 pm

Walts/Walting (as in Walter Mitty type characters) is what you have here. Many cases of people wearing medals that they are not entitled to wear and sometimes joining in British Legion parades (etc) wearing medals that could not possibly have been awarded to them legitimately. There is an Army Rumour Service devoted to outing them but I wouldn't recommend straying to far beyond that if you go there.
My understanding is that medals can be worn my widows and children (and here brothers) but in a way (here on the 'other' lapel) to distinguish them from your own (if any). Benefit of the doubt says he should have known better/was careless as too obvious/high profile to get away with.

ETA although if "Northamptonshire Police has in the past stated that he served in the Falklands War." as stated then it looks as if he has lied about his age and so maybe b.o.t.d. is withdrawn. But if criminal investigation so speculation ends there.
If you want me Steve, just Snapchat me yeah? You know how to Snapchap me doncha Steve? You just...

Lew Dolby
Catbabel
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Lew Dolby » Mon Oct 16, 2023 8:37 pm

but some medals are required to be worn on the right breast by the person who received them - Papal medals come to mind.
WOULD CUSTOMERS PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SITTING ON THE COUNTER BY THE BACON SLICER - AS WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BEHIND IN OUR ORDERS.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Oct 23, 2023 5:13 pm

More info on Chief Constable Nick Adderley. It seems that the medal wearing was merely the tip of an iceberg of misrepresentation.

From the NN Journal, a reader-supported local journalism publisher writing exclusively about Northamptonshire,
It has long been reported that Adderley served in the Falklands war. In July this year the northants police press office was making the claim in a media release...
He also claimed to have been in the military for 10 years, and that he reached the position of Commander, in his CV as part of his application for the Chief Constable role. Other sources suggest he was only in the military for 2 years and left at about the age of 26, which would have been very young for him to reach the position of Commander - a quick google suggests it takes about 16 years to get to that position.

So it seems like he has lied in the job application for his current role and is significantly bigger than just wearing some medals incorrectly, as it first appeared. It's good that it's being taken seriously, but I still find it baffling how this is taken seriously (as it should be) but officers who abuse their positions of power are routinely allowed to get away without any sort of misconduct investigation.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Tue Nov 21, 2023 10:29 pm

A trio of officers have been convicted of various crimes in the last couple of weeks.

A former Humberside police officer has been jailed for abusing his position for "sexual gain" by having an inappropriate relationship with a female victim. Simon Miller was, unusually, sacked after an internal investigation and has since been convicted and sentenced for 28 months in prison.

A former Essex police officer has been convicted of drink driving after she was found to be more than twice over the legal limit for drivers. Following the familiar pattern, PC Victoria Cockrell resigned but has since been found guilty by a misconduct panel and was told she would have been sacked had she not already resigned.

And finally, a Wiltshire police officer has been sentenced for driving without due care and attention and failing to stop at the scene of a collision whilst he was on duty. He was fined £600 for driving without due care and attention, £600 for failing to stop at the scene of a road traffic collision and was ordered to pay £775 to the CPS and £480 for a victim surcharge. He also got 5 points on his license. He was "involved in a road traffic collision involving two cars". I do find it strange how lightly we treat dangerous driving. He's resigned and there's nothing in the report to say whether he will face a misconduct hearing.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:58 pm

More 'bad apples'

Colin Fowler has been jailed for the second time for sexually abusing boys in the RAF cadets while he was a police officer with the Fife constabulary. His earliest recorded crimes were committed in 1972. The latest victim to come forward was assaulted in 1987.
The prosecutor said the latest victim to come forward knew of Fowler's connection with the police and did not think he would be believed if he told anyone what had happened to him.

However, he said he did call Dunfermline police station in the 1980s to report Fowler, but did not receive a call back. He contacted Police Scotland after he found out about Fowler's conviction in 2018.
Sam Smith, a former police officer from Devon and Cornwall, met an elderly woman while carrying out a welfare check as part of his job. He 'befriended' her and then stole £18,000 from her over the course of 5 months. The woman passed away in November 2020 and it was then that the solicitor spotted the strange transactions, including a 65" TV, and gaming and computer kit. He's been sentenced to 20 months in prison. He resigned from his job in July 2023.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5425
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by jimbob » Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:28 pm

A former police inspector has appeared in court charged with sexual offences against 18 people, some as young as 17.

Gerard Hutchings, of Ashurst, Hampshire, faces 29 counts, including allegations of indecent assaults, causing a person to engage in sexual activity and misconduct in a public office.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -18-people

Unconditional bail
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:24 pm

Excuse the Daily Mail link but they're the only source I have so far.
Footage shows Pc Jonathan Marsh and a female colleague speaking to Rasike Attanayake, who reported that a drunken man had smashed a notice board outside his audiology practice in Romford, Essex.

The officers begin to walk in the direction that Mr Attanayake had given them, only for their colleague to then tell them over the radio that he was the suspect.

They handcuff Mr Attanayake who pleads that he was the one who called them, as PC Marsh tells him to 'get on the f***ing floor now' and throws him to the ground.

The clip, released by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) shows Mr Attanayake saying 'please can you not do that' before PC Marsh then punches him in the head and restrains him further.
...
He was asked if his actions were unnecessary by his barrister, Ben Summers.

PC Marsh replied: 'I disagree, I believe it was necessary. I say it was proportionate, it was one blow.'

PC Marsh said he did not regret any of his actions, including when he told Mr Attanayake to 'get on the f*****g floor' and to 'do as you're f*****g told.'

'I don't regret doing it,' he added.

'I understand the language isn't nice but that man needs arresting.'

PC Marsh, of Canvey Island, Essex, denies one count of assault by beating.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:26 pm

And one from my neck of the woods. From the BBC,
A police officer who sexually assaulted a woman while off duty has been barred from the profession.

Sgt Christopher Walls was found to have inappropriately touched the woman outside a bar in Bristol in December 2021, said Avon and Somerset Police.

He was also found to have made inappropriate comments to her and to a second woman.

A hearing found allegations of gross misconduct against the Bridgwater-based officer had been proven.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Fishnut » Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:35 pm

Dorset Police faced over 1200 misconduct allegations against its officers last year, an increase of 200 since 2022.
In the data released last month, Dorset Police handled 1,242 allegations against officers in the year ending March 31, 2023.

Out of the allegations, 834 cases were investigated involving 372 individuals.
As always, it's the 'bad apple' defence. According to Detective superintendent Ricky Dhanda, head of professional standards,
“We know the vast majority of employees within the organisation are professional and do not demonstrate unethical behaviour.

“There is a minority who do, and we do not want them in our organisation.”
In more light-hearted news, a former police officer in Northern Ireland has had an arrest warrant issued for him after stole an incredibly random collection of items including seven Scaletrix cars, Ugg boots, a boxed Harry Potter figure and Haynes car manuals for classic BMW and Honda Civic.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5425
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by jimbob » Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:45 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-68285168

The former Strathclyde police didn't cover themselves in glory, especially the senior officer who prevented the Packer from being interviewed under caution
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by Sciolus » Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:23 pm

jimbob wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:45 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... t-68285168

The former Strathclyde police didn't cover themselves in glory, especially the senior officer who prevented the Packer from being interviewed under caution
... and those who ignored multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault against him. ("Hey, they're only prossies, we've got wogs to fit up.")

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4143
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by discovolante » Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:39 am

I've been reflecting on how differently the police treat me in different contexts. I wonder if anyone else has similar experiences. When I'm at court for work, looking vaguely professional and it's clear who (or rather what), the police are an absolute delight. Friendly and helpful and go out of their way to help if I need anything. Which is nice. Except they're totally different when I see them approaching or arresting people. And they are cold and slightly intimidating if I'm say, at a protest (I know much worse for others). When I did a brief stint of police station representation it was a bit variable, I would say largely professional but with a hint of 'I'm being this way because I have to'. When I was at a demo yesterday (in Scotland) they were fine because they knew we were no trouble as it was all nice middle class middle aged people.

Obviously the police across the UK consists of many many individuals, but the fact that I'm treated with much more respect (almost bordering on deference) in some contexts and borderline contempt in others, even though I'm not committing an offence, gives me the creeps a bit.

I'm not saying this for it to be about me though, I've never to date had any actual problems with them, just felt like commenting on it.

Also this is the Met so wrong thread but Señor von Laté is currently in London and on one street they have live facial recognition cameras set up. There is a sign saying you don't have to walk down the street if you don't want to...
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

User avatar
TopBadger
Catbabel
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: non-Met Police ****ery

Post by TopBadger » Tue Mar 05, 2024 2:21 pm

Police getting a drumming in the media today for forcefully stripping naked a female in a young offenders institute by a group of all male officers.

Apparently she was trying to kill herself with her clothing and so the decision was taken to remove her clothing. The group that oversaw this were all male because there were no female officer(s) available (reports are there was a female officer on the rosta but she wasn't available having been assaulted earlier by an offender). If they had respected the offenders modesty and she'd hanged herself wouldn't that be worse? I'm assuming they didn't have the staffing levels to keep her clothes on and have an officer stand watch on her cell.

Honestly I'm not sure what they could have done differently given the situation they were in. And we're certainly not going to get better quality of policing and care of offenders with the reported cut in NI and service provisions expected to happen in the budget.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

Post Reply