• 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.

Two men wrongly convicted in separate trials in the 1970s following allegations made by a corrupt police officer have had their names cleared by the Court of Appeal.

Errol Campbell, who died in 2004, was jailed for 18 months for theft and conspiracy to steal while Ronald De Souza, who was part of the group known as the Stockwell Six, was detained for six months for attempted robbery.

Both were convicted based on evidence given by British Transport Police (BTP) officer Det Sgt Derek Ridgewell, who was responsible for racist miscarriages of justice. So far, all 13 referred cases have been overturned.

Lord Justice Holroyde said it was with "regret" the court could not undo their suffering.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) carried out a range of investigations into the misconduct of Ridgewell, who fabricated evidence that led to convictions that lasted long after his death in prison in 1982.

Ridgewell confronted mostly young, black men and falsely accused them of theft and robbery offences, the CCRC said.

 
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?
What about exercising personal judgement and thinking for themselves?
They were treated far too leniently.
 
Police Scotland policy on the strip search of children, from the SOP Care and Welfare of Persons in Police Custody;

"In all cases the strip search of a child will only take place with the authority of Criminal Justice Services Division (CJSD) Officer of the rank Inspector or above. Appropriate recording of information will be made on the NCS.

For the purposes of this section, a child is a person who is under 18 years of age (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, Section 51(3)). All search processes must be lawful, necessary and proportionate to perceived risk of harm. The purpose of a search is to ensure that a child is not in possession of any item or substance that could cause harm to themselves or someone else.

The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a duty to consider a child’s wellbeing in respect of arrest, holding in police custody, interviewing and charging with an offence. Staff must treat the need to safeguard the wellbeing of the child as a primary consideration. This must be balanced alongside the need to act as promptly as necessary to ensure the safety of the child and police staff whilst in custody and to fully investigate crimes.

Officers should also be aware that a trauma informed approach is required when considering whether a child requires to be strip searched. In that regard custody decision makers will be supported through training. Further information regarding what aspects to consider in taking a Trauma Informed Approach can be found within the Custody Officers Guide.

All custody staff and Supervisors must make themselves aware of the contents of the guide before making an application to the Force Custody Inspector to authorise a strip search of a child.

Before a child is searched staff must provide an explanation of the reasons for the search, how it will happen so that they can understand about their rights and the reasons for steps being taken. This must be in plain, everyday language. All explanation must be given in a manner and at a pace that can be understood by the child so that the child has opportunity to consent and co-operate without coercion. The child must be told about what choices they can make when a search is authorised, and these choices should be re-iterated to reassure the child and ensure a rights-based approach. The child’s views should be heard and considered in determining when and how a search will be conducted.

Unless there is risk of serious harm to the child or another, an appropriate person (such as a member of family / carer) should be present when a strip search is conducted. This search can take place in the absence of an appropriate person if the child has specifically requested this, and the appropriate person agrees. The decision must be recorded on the NCS with the details of the adult included. Social Work must be contacted in situations where the parent / guardian refuses to attend or engage to consider a child’s support needs in the context of what is known about the child.

If a child is ‘looked after’ (that is they are subject to a Child Supervision Order), the relevant Social Work Authority or team, carer or care establishment (if known) must be contacted so that an appropriate person can be identified and given opportunity to attend for the purposes of supporting a child before, during and / or after search processes. There is no legislative requirement for those notified to attend. If those so notified decline to attend, details must be recorded on both NCS and interim Vulnerable Persons Database (iVPD) with the search still proceeding.

Where an urgent strip search is essential to prevent immediate risk of harm and is conducted prior to the arrival of an appropriate person, Staff must record the justification, along with what action has been taken to secure the immediate attendance of an appropriate person.

In all cases the strip search of a child will only take place with the authority of CJSD officer of the rank Inspector or above. Appropriate recording of information will be made on the NCS.

All strip searches must be recorded on the iVPD by the enquiry officer. These details may be shared with partners, so it is crucial full details of the strip search are included within the concern report. This should include the reason for the search, views of the child, findings of the search, any specific speech, language, or communication needs. All strip searches of children must be recorded on iVPD.

Where an urgent strip search is conducted of a young person prior to the arrival of a suitable adult, officers must record the justification along with what action has been taken to secure the immediate attendance of the suitable adult."

I don't know the Met policy, as it was then, but the cops in the school incident failed to follow the above SOP by not getting permission for the search and failing to have a suitable adult present. I don't know how inclined a supervisor would be, to give permission. For example, if the school was experiencing high levels of drug issues, with pupils dealing or being at school under the influence, then yes, give permission. If there were no drugs issues, then no.
Ah yes, the "we have a policy" defense...... :cautious:
 
Yet another police officer commits suicide, during a misconduct investigation. Those who investigate need to be investigated themselves, to ensure they are not putting undue pressure on those they are investigating;


"The death of a police officer who was under investigation for gross misconduct has sparked a review of how a force deals with the cases."
I assume you would apply the same standard to suspects who kill themselves during a police investigation?
 
PSD are notorious for presuming guilt of the cops they investigate. Every cop has a story about dreadfully unfair and poor quality investigations by those tasked with investigations.
And how many of those stories are true?
The worst investigators, in the police, are put into PSD.
Evidence?
Then there is the length of time the investigations take, it can be years for even the simplest of accusations.
A common problem with all investigations
There is also a lot of inconsistency, whereby two cops, accused of the same thing and one will be excused and the other have the book thrown at them.
That happens in "ordinary" criminal cases too.
If you read any independent review, such as the Angiolini or Casey reports, or HMIC inspections into PSD or other units such as the Counter Corruption Unit in Scotland, you will see how flawed and badly run the misconduct system is. It lets down the public as well as the police.
And the utterly abominable conduct of many police officers needs to be addressed.
 

Looks like our good old local police have destroyed records concerning The Battle of Orgreave, despite being previously instructed to retain such.

◊◊◊◊'s sake!


Some more detail on exactly what appears to have been destroyed.

Nothing to see here, move along now!
 
Don't take copies of Private Eye cartoons out in public...

There have been stories in the Eye about people having copies of the Eye confiscated by security on entering the Houses of Parliament, but they got them back on leaving.
 
I particularly liked the masterful non-apology from the police - they're sorry the man is unhappy about the circumstances of his arrest.
I had already copied it to quote, so here it is:
West Yorkshire police said: “We are sorry that the man involved is unhappy with the circumstances of this arrest. As this is a new proscribed organisation, West Yorkshire police is considering any individual or organisational learning from this incident.”

And what the heck does that second sentence even mean?
 

Gardening without due care and attention; wearing khaki trousers in a built up area...

Some of the questions asked are pretty shocking (like asking if he's autistic) and others are just plain stupid (like not recognising a trowel nor knowing what an allotment is). And they haven't given him his kit back!

Is this where PC Savage works these days?
 
Remember, the police are not your friends.

Tell the police nothing, don't answer their questions or say a word until you have legal representation.

Never admit to anything

Anything you say will be twisted and used against you.
 
Officers of South Yorkshire Police were heavily involved in the Rotherham rape gangs.

I've always suspected that the "we didn't want to seem racist" line from the cops was just to excuse the fact that no one gives a ◊◊◊◊ about working class white kids
 

Back
Top Bottom