More Met Bad Apples
Discussion
Ian Geary said:
But looking at the facts: two of the five police there were found to have lied to justify an course of action that wasn't justifiable.
Strangely the course of actions were found to be justified and lawful Now, if the officers lied about the grounds for search how could the Panel find that the stop and search was lawful, because they did
Note also that the Panel did not dispute that that the two officers smelt cannabis only that in the opinion of the Panel it could have come from somewhere else and that the officers didn’t do enough to establish exactly where the smell came from .. ergo they lied .. odd
Note that S23 Misuse of Drugs Act, nor PACE actually state that smell of cannabis alone is grounds to search
As I said before, very odd judgement
Earthdweller said:
As I said before, very odd judgement
They were sacked for telling porkies. It is not unreasonable to presume that the panel believed they actually told lies. This is not a desirable trait therefore they were encouraged to find alternative employment.The race card was probably 99% bulls
t.Ian Geary said:
Implications:
- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
Apparently Dos Santos was stopped 9 times in 4 weeks after buying a Mercedes.- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
Biggy Stardust said:
Earthdweller said:
As I said before, very odd judgement
They were sacked for telling porkies. It is not unreasonable to presume that the panel believed they actually told lies. This is not a desirable trait therefore they were encouraged to find alternative employment.The race card was probably 99% bulls
t.As I said it’s a nonsensical judgment
Oh and the panel found that they weren’t racially profiled
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Why are you so keen to defend two Police Officers lying?
You've never lied, or 'bent the truth', or 'gilded the lily'? Never told your boss you're ill when you fancy a day off? It's all a matter of degree. It's wrong, but the police have an incredibly tough job dealing with some real scum these days so if they get it wrong occasionally (as in this case, obviously) I'm not sure they should be sacked but simply disciplined appropriately IMHO. The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
Pitre said:
You've never lied, or 'bent the truth', or 'gilded the lily'? Never told your boss you're ill when you fancy a day off? It's all a matter of degree. It's wrong, but the police have an incredibly tough job dealing with some real scum these days so if they get it wrong occasionally (as in this case, obviously) I'm not sure they should be sacked but simply disciplined appropriately IMHO.
The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
I think even BiB would agree that there is a small percentage of the Police who are, for want of a better word, Twunts. When cases of twuntery are exposed the Police need to demonstrate that they won't tolerate it, rather than defending or excusing it.The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
Countdown said:
Ian Geary said:
Implications:
- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
Apparently Dos Santos was stopped 9 times in 4 weeks after buying a Mercedes.- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
So factory/dealer window tints all round?
Pitre said:
You've never lied, or 'bent the truth', or 'gilded the lily'? Never told your boss you're ill when you fancy a day off? It's all a matter of degree. It's wrong, but the police have an incredibly tough job dealing with some real scum these days so if they get it wrong occasionally (as in this case, obviously) I'm not sure they should be sacked but simply disciplined appropriately IMHO.
The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
TBH aside from the underfunding point you make, that's quite a naive viewpoint. Policing must be an exceptionally tough job, with all the scum they deal with on a daily basis. BUT, they also have interactions with you and me. IE regular law abiding people.The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
Excusing liars (and police getting overly rough) because its a tough job means that the risk of them doing so when they interact with YOU is a real possibility. Is that what you want?
Based on what we are seeing now, as well as my own interactions with police (me requiring their assistance, not me having my collar felt) they have a long way to go before I have any respect for them.
You can say they need respect and assistance or whatever because you might need their help, but when I have needed it they have been not fit for purpose in anyway.
Policing is one of those jobs everyone has to be good, no ifs no buts. That's big ask, but that's the way it is.
Pitre said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Why are you so keen to defend two Police Officers lying?
You've never lied, or 'bent the truth', or 'gilded the lily'? Never told your boss you're ill when you fancy a day off? It's all a matter of degree. It's wrong, but the police have an incredibly tough job dealing with some real scum these days so if they get it wrong occasionally (as in this case, obviously) I'm not sure they should be sacked but simply disciplined appropriately IMHO. The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
neilr said:
Pitre said:
You've never lied, or 'bent the truth', or 'gilded the lily'? Never told your boss you're ill when you fancy a day off? It's all a matter of degree. It's wrong, but the police have an incredibly tough job dealing with some real scum these days so if they get it wrong occasionally (as in this case, obviously) I'm not sure they should be sacked but simply disciplined appropriately IMHO.
The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
TBH aside from the underfunding point you make, that's quite a naive viewpoint. Policing must be an exceptionally tough job, with all the scum they deal with on a daily basis. BUT, they also have interactions with you and me. IE regular law abiding people.The police deserve better support from the law-abiding majority (and from politicians, who should be resourcing them properly and enforcing better recruitment selection and filtering).
Excusing liars (and police getting overly rough) because its a tough job means that the risk of them doing so when they interact with YOU is a real possibility. Is that what you want?
Based on what we are seeing now, as well as my own interactions with police (me requiring their assistance, not me having my collar felt) they have a long way to go before I have any respect for them.
You can say they need respect and assistance or whatever because you might need their help, but when I have needed it they have been not fit for purpose in anyway.
Policing is one of those jobs everyone has to be good, no ifs no buts. That's big ask, but that's the way it is.
Probably best to wait for the Notice of Outcome to be published here within the next week or so:
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/af/accessing-info...
That should set out the full context utcome and rationale beyond the limited media reports we have from the hearing yesterday.
In the meantime the IOPC investigation report was uploaded yesterday:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...
The IOPC case for whether the officers' statements about the smell of cannabis were truthful is in paragraphs 450 - 460. Out of 9 officers in the TSG carrier, 3 stated they smelt cannabis, 3 declined to make any comments and 3 indicated they did not smell any drugs.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/af/accessing-info...
That should set out the full context utcome and rationale beyond the limited media reports we have from the hearing yesterday.
In the meantime the IOPC investigation report was uploaded yesterday:
https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...
The IOPC case for whether the officers' statements about the smell of cannabis were truthful is in paragraphs 450 - 460. Out of 9 officers in the TSG carrier, 3 stated they smelt cannabis, 3 declined to make any comments and 3 indicated they did not smell any drugs.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Why are you so keen to defend two Police Officers lying?
I’m really not, I’m just saying the judgement is nonsensical You didn’t answer this
“If the panel believed that they told lies about the grounds for search then how did the same panel find that the search was lawful?”
The panel also agreed that the officers smelt cannabis but held the opinion that it could have come from somewhere else, so apparently the officer’s lied
And this is where it becomes interesting because what you see here is exactly the reason why hundreds of firearms officers handed in their authorisations to carry
Lay people with no knowledge or experience of policing deciding in their minds that the officers did wrong when the actions of the officers were judged already on a much higher standard of evidential threshold
I personally would rather officers are judged on law and it’s application rather than the opinion of lay people
I’d rather objective than subjective
Edited by Earthdweller on Thursday 26th October 12:48
Earthdweller said:
Lay people with no knowledge or experience of policing deciding in their minds that the officers did wrong when the actions of the officers were judged already on a much higher standard of evidential threshold
I personally would rather officers are judged on law and it’s application rather than the opinion of lay people
They were judged by an investigative panel and found sufficiently guilty to be sacked.I personally would rather officers are judged on law and it’s application rather than the opinion of lay people
The end.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff