Good policing or just invasive?

Joe_Horner

Richard53 wrote: »

If we could work out a way of discriminating in the public mind between 'speed which is excessive for the conditions' and 'speed which exceeds an arbitrary number stuck on a pole somewhere', then we might have safer roads and a fairer system.

If we could do that, we could get rid of all the numbers stuck on poles!

If we could also get them to realise that, if you hit someone then you were too close* (by definition - you can't hit something you're not "too close" to ) then we'd be onto a real winner



* Judging by what happens on motorways, if you don't hit someone you were probably still too close but lucky this time :A

londonTiger

!!!!ing hell I've been reading into the territorial support group it looks like we have some paramilitary police operating here in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/20/met-police-officers-accused-assaults

• March 2007: one officer is accused of bundling a man into the back of a police van where he was told to "get on his knees". When he replied this was not Guant!namo Bay he claims the officer grabbed him round the neck and "discharged his CS gas while continuing to hold his throat". He says he was then thrown from the van, leaving him with eye, neck and head injuries. According to the document no action was taken because the complaint was either "incapable of proof" or there was "no case to answer".

• November 2005: two of the officers were accused by a "black male" of attacking him in the back of a police van. The document states that he was subjected to "constant kicking to his head and stomach (approx 12 kicks). Head lifted off the floor by grabbing his right ear and lifting head." The attack left the man with bruising and swelling to his face but the case was not pursued, the Met said, because of "non-cooperation" by the complainant.

• October 2005: the document stated that two of the officers were involved in another assault on a "black male". It read: "In van repeatedly assaulted - kicks to the face, stamps on his head whilst handcuffed." The victim said afterwards he "felt like he might die". Vomiting and blood coming out of his ears, black swollen eye, lip busted, hands very swollen.


• June 2003: two officers accused of beating a "black male" in the back of the TSG van. "The beating continued in the van and in a search room at the station."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_Support_Group


Officers in the TSG have faced criticism about their policing methods and complaints have been made against officers of the TSG.[8] Senior officers say that the type of work that the TSG are involved with, policing protests and performing drug raids makes them more likely to have complaints made against them.[9]

As the result of a freedom of information request made by The Guardian newspaper, it was revealed that more than 5,000 complaints were made against the TSG in 4 years but only 9 have been upheld. Commenting on these figures, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority stated that officers in the TSG are "practically immune" from criticism.[9]

One ex-Metropolitan Police officer suggested that TSG members, "spend (their) days waiting for action, and far too many officers join seeking excitement and physical confrontation." Some officers are ex-military personnel and these are "the worst bullies" as "the laws of the battlefield are not appropriate to the streets of our capital".[10]

In 1997 a man was beaten by officers from the TSG in what was described as an "outrageous display of brutality",[11] which only stopped when the man pretended to be unconscious. The man was charged with assault and threatening behaviour over the incident but was cleared after photographs of his injuries showed the officers had lied about the case under oath. After the man's acquittal the officers went on trial accused of assault in 1999 but were later cleared.[12]

In 2003, six officers of the TSG performed what a judge in 2009 called a "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" assault on a terrorist suspect, Babar Ahmad, a 34-year-old IT support analyst who was not subsequently charged with any offence.[13] The officers involved had already been the subject of as many as 60 complaints about unwarranted assaults against other men.[14] A number of mail sacks containing these complaints were somehow lost.[15] The accusations were investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission[16] but that they were found to be unsubstantiated. Five of the six officers were still members of the TSG in 2009.[14] Babar Ahmed was later awarded £60,000 compensation, by the High Court, for the assault.[13] In August, 2009, it was announced that the police officers accused of attacking Babar Ahmad would face criminal charges.[17] However all four officers were found not guilty in June 2011 after a recording from listening device placed in Mr Ahmed's home surfaced shortly before the trial which "proved the account originally given by these officers was correct and specific details of the complaint made by Mr Ahmad were not present" [18]

In 2005 a Kurdish youth recorded an officer on his mobile phone telling him "If you say one more !!!!ing word, I'll smash your !!!!ing Arab face in" after he was stopped near Paddington Green police station.[19] The officer was suspended but denied the charge.[20]

Another investigation into six other officers of the TSG by the IPCC was launched following allegations made by three men that they were racially abused during an incident during June 2007 in Paddington.[21] A van of officers stopped after seeing youths mouthing obscenities towards them.[22] The officers appeared in court in December 2008 and were prosecuted; two for racially abusing the men, four of misconduct in a public office and one of racially aggravated assault.[23] The Guardian reported that a request may have been made to restrict reporting of the trial by the media.[24] The officer who was driving the van acted as a whistleblower during the trial.[22] One officer, a former Royal Marine, accused in this case was also involved in the assault of Babar Ahmed and has had 31 complaints lodged against him since 1993. In November 2009 he was cleared of all offences, along with the other officers, and returned to work with the TSG.[9][25]

During the 2009 G-20 London summit protests two officers of the TSG were suspended from duty following publication of videos which recorded alleged assaults on members of the public at the 2009 G-20
London summit protests and at a subsequent memorial.[26] In the first case, the member of the public, Ian Tomlinson, died shortly afterwards. In the second case, Sgt Delroy (Tony) Smellie was seen hitting Nicola Fisher. Following her complaint, the Crown Prosecution Service announced in September 2009, that there was sufficient evidence to charge Sgt Smellie with assault. He appeared in court on 16 November 2009 and was cleared of assault charges on 31 March 2010 at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court. However, he could still face misconduct proceedings over the incident.[27]

Video evidence shows that the officer seen hitting Ian Tomlinson had his face covered[28] and that the officers involved in both cases were not displaying their identification numbers.[26] Following the investigation into police handling of the protest, the human rights group Liberty called for further study of what it referred to as the "militaristic approach" used by the TSG.[29]

silverwhistle

londonTiger wrote: »

I'm seething. So the exchange is really foggy and I can't remember much of what happened next.

You're making a complaint and you can't really remember all the facts because you lost it a bit? Hmm.

I knew a guy who drove a white breakdown van and was often out at night when he was on call. After the nnth time being stopped he got rather fed up, blew his top during one incident and then complained formally. A simple briefing down the local nick (this van has legitimate reason to be out and about at 3 in the morning) and the problem was solved. Not sure what your complaint is going to achieve.

londonTiger

silverwhistle wrote: »

You're making a complaint and you can't really remember all the facts because you lost it a bit? Hmm.

I knew a guy who drove a white breakdown van and was often out at night when he was on call. After the nnth time being stopped he got rather fed up, blew his top during one incident and then complained formally. A simple briefing down the local nick (this van has legitimate reason to be out and about at 3 in the morning) and the problem was solved. Not sure what your complaint is going to achieve.

At the very least it will add to the statistic of provocative TSG officers who fail to do any proper policing and go round !!!!ing everyone off and create mistrust of the police force.

this is the same unit the killed ian tomlinson, and backhaded slapped a woman half his size and then smacked her on the legs with a truncheon.

Jamie_Carter

Captain_Flack. wrote: »

You making that up or confusing it with inappropriate speed?

Don't be pedantic. You know exactly what I mean.

Jamie_Carter

londonTiger wrote: »

the ss and gestapo were very effective at getting results. But there's a line to be drawn and we can't allow authorities to take liberties.

Also on another note, clearly a lot of people have inside knowledge of how police work. Accusations have been made that they might be police and was subsequently denied. It's not in any police officers interest to disclose they work for the police. Additionally I was contacted by a member of a forum a few years ago when I was assaulted and was having trouble getting the police to act. The forum member told me that they worked for the police but didn't want to be identified. Of course I upheld their wishes, I'm only mentioning this because police officers here will never disclose that they are police.

Both for professional AND confidentiality reasons.

So are you suggesting that because I denied that I'm a police officer, then that means that I actually am?? :rotfl::rotfl:

This sounds like the witch trials (if they drown then they aren't a witch, if they don't drown then they are a witch, so they are burned to death).

Herzlos

londonTiger wrote: »

At the very least it will add to the statistic of provocative TSG officers who fail to do any proper policing and go round !!!!ing everyone off and create mistrust of the police force.

this is the same unit the killed ian tomlinson, and backhaded slapped a woman half his size and then smacked her on the legs with a truncheon.

Except they were doing proper policing, and didn't do anything to create mistrust of the police force. It appears you're only !!!!'d off because you think they are doing something wrong, and because you were worried they'd cop onto your incorrect insurance.

They saw someone do something suspicious in a car late at night, went to ask about it, and got a bad attitude (including muttered oaths). Maybe they could have been more polite, but then so could you.

I really can't see what you've got to complain about, since you appeared to be in a bad mood already since "I don't like being told what to do".

Jamie_Carter

Richard53 wrote: »

Incorrect. The latest figures say that exceeding the speed limit is a factor in 7% of all road deaths. That's not 'most', or anywhere near.

Inappropriate speed is a factor in far more accidents, of course. I suppose that you could argue that if you are moving at all, and you cause an accident, then your speed was inappropriate. Your 2 mph pulling out of a junction into the path of another vehicle was 2 mph too much, kind of thing. But we all know what it means. 80 mph on a quiet motorway on a sunny day is perfectly safe. 30 mph in the rain in a crowded rush-hour city street is irresponsible and dangerous. And yet one is illegal, and one isn't.

If we could work out a way of discriminating in the public mind between 'speed which is excessive for the conditions' and 'speed which exceeds an arbitrary number stuck on a pole somewhere', then we might have safer roads and a fairer system.

Ok, maybe I should have said inappropriate speed. But you all know what I mean.

The fact remains that in RTCs that don't involve pedestrians, cyclists, etc, and that only involve people within vehicles, then modern vehicle construction means that most people survive RTCs that aren't at very high speeds. I usually takes high speeds for any damage to impinge on the safety cell within a vehicle.

Getting statistics from google won't give you a true picture, as statistics are manipulated in order to make various organisations appear to have successful campaigns. An example were the changes to what could be classed as a 'fire death'. It was changed so that someone who got drunk, and left a chip pan on which resulted in them dying in a fire, then this was classed as an alcohol related death rather than a fire death. And then if someone set fire to a property and killed someone, then it was classed as a murder, and not a fire death. This was done in order to justify cuts to the fire service. And figures are manipulated like this all the time.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

BoP will now interrupt for the hard of reading.


A totally innocent member of the public was jumped on by thuggish and brutal police offices for fiddling with his Sat Nav.


It has not reached the Daily Mail

It has reached the Grauniadnista! or OP is reading the said!

Captain_Flack.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Don't be pedantic. You know exactly what I mean.

Well why not say what you mean?