• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The behaviour of UK police officers.

Another serving Metropolitan police officer has been charged with multiple counts of rape and sexual assault.

PC Dion Arnold has been charged with four counts of rape, two counts of assault by penetration and one count of sexual assault after an investigation by Surrey police.
 

Fishnut post_id=167670 time=1744409462 user_id=72 said:
You may remember that in the wake of the horrific kidnapping, rape and murder of Sarah Everard I've taken somewhat of an interest in cass of police failing to follow the laws they're employed to uphold. If you don't, here's a few threads where I was rather active - 1, 2, 3.

I mentioned in one of those threads that I'd begun a spreadsheet to collect the reports and then fell (probably mercifully) silent.




She's currently collected 387 reports of misconduct
 
A police officer who sexually assaulted a woman has been found guilty at an internal hearing of gross misconduct.

The Cleveland Police officer, who has not been named to protect the identity of the victim, left the force earlier this month but a misconduct panel ruled he would have been sacked without notice had he still been on the force.

 
Seems they are all at it!

A senior police officer who engaged in sexual behaviour without consent has been sacked.

Tom Simons, a former chief superintendent, was dismissed by Essex Police after a disciplinary hearing found he abused his position for a sexual purpose with a colleague.

He also engaged in sexualised behaviour at work with two colleagues and failed to disclose his relationship with a colleague when he knew he should do so, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said.

 

PC Luke Meakin found guilty of dangerous driving, and banned from driving (107mph in a 60 limit) was found guilty of gross misconduct in the resulting disciplinary hearing.

He was handed a final written warning AND STILL ALLOWED TO DRIVE FOR SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE
 
This Twitter thread links to a number of resources about this very peculiar example of police over-reach.


Family of five (father, mother, daughters 14 & 12, son 9) live on a small farm. They're High Catholic and have a private chapel in their home. They like to invite a priest to celebrate Latin mass about once a month, but these days it's not easy to find priests who will do this. They were given a recommendation for a priest whom they contacted (I think "they" in this context is the father) and despite some odd conditions attached they invited him to come. While he was there red flags were going off all over the place (exact nature of concerning behaviour not detailed) and after the priest had gone the father decided to follow him up.

He discovered the priest had worked in Mauritius and contacted the diocese there. Eventually he got a reply - the priest had been defrocked for kiddy-fiddling and should absolutely not be celebrating mass anywhere or indeed be allowed access to children. The father then tried to alert the clergyman who had recommended this priest in the first place, only to get an instablock. He sent some more emails to relevant people, including to the priest himself, confronting him with what he had discovered. No response.

Then suddenly, one afternoon, two police cars and a police van, with six policemen, drove up to his house. He and his wife were both handcuffed. His house was searched from floor to rafter, and all the family's electronic devices were seized. The father had to remonstrate loud and long to prevent both parents being driven away in the police van, leaving the three children alone at home and unaware of what had happened. Eventually the kids were rounded up and some arrangements made.

The parents were charged with harrassment against the defrocked priest. Two months later they were informed that all charges had been dropped.

There are wrinkles here I'm not really party to. The father has a massive Twitter following and styles himself a "free speech activist". Also, I'm getting some "Popular Front of Judea" vibes about all this Catholic in-fighting. Nevertheless. This keeps happening. Police arrive mob-handed to arrest someone for something mindnumbingly trivial, cause massive amounts of stress and confiscate all computers, phones, tablets and so on, leaving the family electronically blind and deaf and having to buy new equipment simply to continue to function in the modern world. Eventually charges are dropped. (It happened to a friend of mine some years ago, on account of a tweet in which he called a journalist an "absolute disgrace".)

Sometimes one feels that a trivial complaint is being used by the police to harrass someone they have their knife into for some unrelated reason. That might be the case here. Other times one feels that there are serial complainers who seem to be able to get the police to spring into action repeatedly against different people, as if the police were their personal enforcement squad. What exactly is going on here? How far up the chain is the authorisation given for these raids? Who thinks its even remotely justifiable to use so much police time and resources over a matter that could be dealt with in a far less confrontational manner?
 
Last edited:
This Twitter thread links to a number of resources about this very peculiar example of police over-reach.


Family of five (father, mother, daughters 14 & 12, son 9) live on a small farm. They're High Catholic and have a private chapel in their home. They like to invite a priest to celebrate Latin mass about once a month, but these days it's not easy to find priests who will do this. They were given a recommendation for a priest whom they contacted (I think "they" in this context is the father) and despite some odd conditions attached they invited him to come. While he was there red flags were going off all over the place (exact nature of concerning behaviour not detailed) and after the priest had gone the father decided to follow him up.

He discovered the priest had worked in Mauritius and contacted the diocese there. Eventually he got a reply - the priest had been defrocked for kiddy-fiddling and should absolutely not be celebrating mass anywhere or indeed be allowed access to children. The father then tried to alert the clergyman who had recommended this priest in the first place, only to get an instablock. He sent some more emails to relevant people, including to the priest himself, confronting him with what he had discovered. No response.

Then suddenly, one afternoon, two police cars and a police van, with six policemen, drove up to his house. He and his wife were both handcuffed. His house was searched from floor to rafter, and all the family's electronic devices were seized. The father had to remonstrate loud and long to prevent both parents being driven away in the police van, leaving the three children alone at home and unaware of what had happened. Eventually the kids were rounded up and some arrangements made.

The parents were charged with harrassment against the defrocked priest. Two months later they were informed that all charges had been dropped.

There are wrinkles here I'm not really party to. The father has a massive Twitter following and styles himself a "free speech activist". Also, I'm getting some "Popular Front of Judea" vibes about all this Catholic in-fighting. Nevertheless. This keeps happening. Police arrive mob-handed to arrest someone for something mindnumbingly trivial, cause massive amounts of stress and confiscate all computers, phones, tablets and so on, leaving the family electronically blind and deaf and having to buy new equipment simply to continue to function in the modern world. Eventually charges are dropped. (It happened to a friend of mine some years ago, on account of a tweet in which he called a journalist an "absolute disgrace".)

Sometimes one feels that a trivial complaint is being used by the police to harrass someone they have their knife into for some unrelated reason. That might be the case here. Other times one feels that there are serial complainers who seem to be able to get the police to spring into action repeatedly against different people, as if the police were their personal enforcement squad. What exactly is going on here? How far up the chain is the authorisation given for these raids? Who thinks its even remotely justifiable to use so much police time and resources over a matter that could be dealt with in a far less confrontational manner?
[OT]This guy is best known for his boogie woogie piano playing stunts on public pianos (YouTube). He had the Chinese govt. after him following one such stunt - I kid you not[/OT]
 
I did see stuff about "Free Tibet" and public piano-playing, but don't know any details. That's what made me wonder if the police wanted to get him for some other reason and used the complaint of harrassment from the defrocked priest as an excuse. I keep hearing of similar cases where someone is visited by the police with menaces, all their electronic devices are seized, and they're left hanging with or without formal charges for some time before finally being told either no charges, or charges dropped.

It's chilling. Who can afford to have all their electronic communication devices confiscated these days? I use my phone to control my home electricity system and my car charging. I'd be lost without it. My friend had to go out and buy a complete new set of computer equipment, and fortunately he had everything backed up, but I wouldn't even know where to start. It seems to me it's a deliberate ploy to get at people the police have decided they don't like.

I really wonder who makes the decision to go after someone like this. Is it just the local cops having fun on their own initiative?
 
Two Met cops are sacked over the strip search of a black girl at school, who was suspected to be in possession of cannabis. I think that is unfair because;


"Reacting to the panel’s findings, the Met commander Kevin Southworth said what happened to Child Q “should never have happened and was truly regrettable”.
He said: “While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip-search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.”

Make a mistake due to poor training and supervision and get the sack, but what about the trainers and supervisors? How do they get any with their failings?
 
I did see stuff about "Free Tibet" and public piano-playing, but don't know any details. That's what made me wonder if the police wanted to get him for some other reason and used the complaint of harrassment from the defrocked priest as an excuse. I keep hearing of similar cases where someone is visited by the police with menaces, all their electronic devices are seized, and they're left hanging with or without formal charges for some time before finally being told either no charges, or charges dropped.

It's chilling. Who can afford to have all their electronic communication devices confiscated these days? I use my phone to control my home electricity system and my car charging. I'd be lost without it. My friend had to go out and buy a complete new set of computer equipment, and fortunately he had everything backed up, but I wouldn't even know where to start. It seems to me it's a deliberate ploy to get at people the police have decided they don't like.

I really wonder who makes the decision to go after someone like this. Is it just the local cops having fun on their own initiative?

I was working in a small, rural post, when Bebo suddenly became popular with the local kids. I then got inundated with complaints about bullying and abuse, with parents often ignoring what their child had said online, wanting other children to face the full powers of the law. People did try to use me, to have a go at others they did not like. The law was no help, with its vagueness about what constituted a criminal act, over abuse, bulling and harassment. This was the early 2000s, when the law was about telecoms, rather than the internet. Since then, I do not think the law has improved the situation for the police, as it is fragmentary and still unclear. The hypocrisy of people becomes very apparent in these situations, whereby they get very selective about they find abusive and what is acceptable, the former being when it happens to them and the latter, when they do it. That creates a nightmare for the police, to try and disentangle.

I disentangled my Bebo incident, by gathering evidence as to what all the kids had been saying and then announcing all of them would have to be the subject of a report to the Reporter, as it was one big incident. Every single parent backed down and agreed to monitor what their kids did online, better.
 
Two Met cops are sacked over the strip search of a black girl at school, who was suspected to be in possession of cannabis. I think that is unfair because;


"Reacting to the panel’s findings, the Met commander Kevin Southworth said what happened to Child Q “should never have happened and was truly regrettable”.
He said: “While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip-search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.”

Make a mistake due to poor training and supervision and get the sack, but what about the trainers and supervisors? How do they get any with their failings?

They never thought it was inappropriate to strip a schoolgirl?

Why were they even in their jobs in the first place?
 
Two Met cops are sacked over the strip search of a black girl at school, who was suspected to be in possession of cannabis. I think that is unfair because;

...snip....

Make a mistake due to poor training and supervision and get the sack, but what about the trainers and supervisors? How do they get any with their failings?
You are really using the "I was only obeying orders" defence. Don't care how poor their training was they should have known what they were doing was wrong. I know it was wrong with no police training at all.
 
Two Met cops are sacked over the strip search of a black girl at school, who was suspected to be in possession of cannabis. I think that is unfair because;


"Reacting to the panel’s findings, the Met commander Kevin Southworth said what happened to Child Q “should never have happened and was truly regrettable”.
He said: “While the officers involved did not act correctly, we acknowledge there were organisational failings. Training to our officers around strip-search and the type of search carried out on Child Q was inadequate, and our oversight of the power was also severely lacking.
“This left officers, often young in service or junior in rank, making difficult decisions in complex situations with little information, support or clear resources to help their decision-making.”

Make a mistake due to poor training and supervision and get the sack, but what about the trainers and supervisors? How do they get any with their failings?
Not only the, but the fact that it has to be uncovered by a safeguarding official and had been buried.
 
You are really using the "I was only obeying orders" defence. Don't care how poor their training was they should have known what they were doing was wrong. I know it was wrong with no police training at all.

To be fair, the training and their line manager was also remiss.
 
To be fair, the training and their line manager was also remiss.

Plus, this;


"A child was strip searched more than once a day by police in England and Wales between January 2018 and June 2023, with the youngest child being just eight, data from the Children’s Commissioner has revealed.
More than 3,000 strip searches were conducted on children over a five-and-a-half-year period, equivalent to one search every 14 hours on average. Of those, 457 strip searches were carried out between July 2022 and June 2023."

There is a process and need to strip search children, at times and it is commonly done. So, to all those who say that they know, you don't. Or else, how come hundreds, possibly thousands of police officers stripped searched children 2018-23, without any of them being sacked? What did they do right, that the cops who sacked did wrong? Does anyone seriously think that of the 3,000 strip searches, none were of school aged girls, from an ethnic background, suspected by a credible source, to be in possession of controlled drugs?
 

Back
Top Bottom