Ian Tomlinson CPS verdict: "no realistic prospect of conviction"

[Pickman's model]

Either post proof that I left for anything other than honourable reasons or retract that libellous comment now.

i think you should read something about libel and stop making an arse of yourself shouting about clearly non-libellous remarks.

 

[Proper Tidy]

principled officer

Oxymoron

 

[detective-boy]

Surely the aggravating factor would be in the offence itself?

Not necessarily. Many officers have insufficient epaulettes (or numbers sometimes) for all their individual items of uniform. This means that sometimes different pieces of uniform are put on or taken off without the numbers / epaulettes being transferred. You would need to know the circumstances of the failure to display them to know whether or not there is any aggravating factor or whether it is simply oversight or some other mistake. (The PC in the picture, for instance, is wearing a high-vis jacket. You would need to know when he was directed to wear that and whether there was an opportunity to transfer numbers / epaulettes. You would also need to see whether he had numbers on other items of uniform he had been wearing earlier.)

 

[Pickman's model]

having raised those issues a number of times I was not only ignored but basically targeted as a troublemaker? Yes?

assuming you behaved there the way you behave here it's a wonder you weren't sacked.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Not necessarily. Many officers have insufficient epaulettes (or numbers sometimes) for all their individual items of uniform. This means that sometimes different pieces of uniform are put on or taken off without the numbers / epaulettes being transferred. You would need to know the circumstances of the failure to display them to know whether or not there is any aggravating factor or whether it is simply oversight or some other mistake. (The PC in the picture, for instance, is wearing a high-vis jacket. You would need to know when he was directed to wear that and whether there was an opportunity to transfer numbers / epaulettes. You would also need to see whether he had numbers on other items of uniform he had been wearing earlier.)

Fair enough. So, if it could be demonstrated that the officer(s) in question has sufficient time and access to have worn ID numbers, surely that would or should be a fairly major offence?

 

[xes]

Oh look, here comes the Circle Jerk ...

fappity fappity fwap fwap

 

[Pickman's model]

fappity fappity fwap fwap

what i want to know is how you can be a circle jerk on your own.

 

[xes]

use your imagination dude

 

[Pickman's model]

use your imagination dude

you run about in a circle wanking?

 

[Proper Tidy]

you run about in a circle wanking?

Nah, that's called a Hockney

 

[detective-boy]

You certainly come across as that type.

You can tell that from a few posts (absolutely NONE of which suggest any sort of racism, institutional or otherwise), eh? Fucking hell, you're good ...

(And the way I talk to people is an indicator that I suffer from institutional cuntism, not fucking racism ...)

 

[detective-boy]

that's hardly 'the democratic will of the people', is it. i don't think you can say that, for example, the local government finance act 1988 was the will of the people. the will of parliament and the will of the people are two entirely separate things.

So what do you suggest, Einstein? Police officers carrying out a fucking referendum every time they have to exercise their fucking discretion?

You really are a prick.

 

[detective-boy]

assuming you behaved there the way you behave here it's a wonder you weren't sacked.

Strangely enough I never met quite so many out and out fucking morons as I encounter here ...

In fact, I have never encounterde quite so many in any other context ...

 

[ymu]

Do you really think that simply not displaying your ID numbers, with no aggravating factors at all, would lead to anything other than a simple disciplinary warning? *

And are you really arguing that sacking an officer for it, at a cost of hundreds of thosands of pounds to the public purse in the cost of training, etc. now wasted, is justifiable and proportionate?

And are you really so naive to think that any such action would survive challenge in an employment tribunal?

(* And before you go off on one again, I have REPEATEDLY differentiated between a simple failure to wear numbers and not wearing numbers in circumstances where it can be shown there is an ulterior motive or where other malpractice is happening)

Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.

That doesn't make it right. Members of the public view it as an extremely serious matter, especially when numbers appear to be removed when the officer intends to indulge in anonymous wrongdoing.

We know perfectly well that the police don't take it seriously. That doesn't make it right or proper that this is the case. It's why the police aren't trusted. It's why Raoul Moat is being hailed as some kind of sick hero. It's time they got their house in order and acted responsibly and within the letter of the law. Protesters who conceal their identity are targeted for it, but if a police officer does it he won't even get a slap on the wrist. And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.

 

[Pickman's model]

So what do you suggest, Einstein? Police officers carrying out a fucking referendum every time they have to exercise their fucking discretion?

You really are a prick.

i'm suggesting you don't know what the bloody fuck you're on about.

 

[DexterTCN]

Y(And the way I talk to people is an indicator that I suffer from institutional cuntism, not fucking racism ...)

A bit of both, really.

Your posts scream hate, can't be denied. Thank fuck you're not in the force anymore. Thank fuck you don't have any kids to pass that shit on to.

Must be terrible...knowing you're going to die alone and unloved. On the other hand, it's good for society.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.

That doesn't make it right. Members of the public view it as an extremely serious matter, especially when numbers appear to be removed when the officer intends to indulge in anonymous wrongdoing.

We know perfectly well that the police don't take it seriously. That doesn't make it right or proper that this is the case. It's why the police aren't trusted. It's why Raoul Moat is being hailed as some kind of sick hero. It's time they got their house in order and acted responsibly and within the letter of the law. Protesters who conceal their identity are targeted for it, but if a police officer does it he won't even get a slap on the wrist. And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.

Quite.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...oulder-identification-on-front-line-duty.html

So that is half of all coppers who don't have the opportunity to put their numbers on before starting work, apparently.

 

[detective-boy]

Fair enough. So, if it could be demonstrated that the officer(s) in question has sufficient time and access to have worn ID numbers, surely that would or should be a fairly major offence?

As I have repeatedly said, if there is no reasonable explanation, or if there are aggravating factors (such as any indication that there was, or was intended to be malpractice they could then not be identified as responsible for), then yes, it is a serious matter (certainly now as it has become such a sensitive issue and only a total fucking idiot wouldn't know the public concerns about the issue) and it should be robustly investigated and pursued through the disciplinary process. I have also repeatedly posted that there should be proactively policed by Professional Standards in future public order situations, with them also identifiying and dealing with supervisors who do not address the issue themselves.

Why do you all keep pretending that I haven't said all this before?

 

[ymu]

It's weird how db feels the need to argue that it is a trivial matter when senior plod have made it clear that it is not, eh?

Speaking after the suspensions, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met Commissioner, said it was 'unacceptable' for officers not to wear their identification numbers.

He said: "I have made it absolutely clear that it is absolutely unacceptable for any officer who should have identification numbers on not to have those identification numbers on.

"All uniformed officers should display their collar numbers and, as you would expect, I have taken action in the Met to enforce this."

Denis O'Connor, the Inspector of Constabulary, who is conducting an official review into public order policing, said the public needed to be able to identify officers on duty.

He said: "People not wearing their numbers is utterly unacceptable. It's very clear-cut."

A spokesman for the Met said: 'Epaulettes with identifying letters and numerals or insignia of rank must be worn and must be correct and visible at all times.'

 

[ymu]

Given that there is no lawful excuse for not wearing a shoulder number, why do you think aggravating factors need to be present for it to be taken seriously? Seems like a get-out clause to me. Much simpler to discipline any officer not wearing one. I believe that's why some forces have started embroidering them on, so the lying cunts can't claim it fell off.

 

[detective-boy]

Yes. That's exactly what I said. The police treat it as a minor matter.

Congratulations on simply repeating what you had already said and failing entirely to address the questions I asked ...

And you don't even seem to think that's wrong. It's extraordinary.

And on misrepresenting what I have posted yet again. You simply can't fucking help yourself can you?

 

[ymu]

What questions? If you mean the "do I really think" stuff, those weren't questions, they were sarcastic statements. But I've made it clear what I think. To be more explicit, I think it should be an automatic disciplinary matter and grounds for suspension without pay. I've made that pretty clear. If it's "utterly unacceptable" then it should not be happening and the force should take action to ensure that no officer thinks they can get away with it or is allowed to get away with it.

 

[detective-boy]

So that is half of all coppers who don't have the opportunity to put their numbers on before starting work, apparently.

No. 359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't. Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). I have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten. It happens.

 

[detective-boy]

It's weird how db feels the need to argue that it is a trivial matter when senior plod have made it clear that it is not, eh?

I've never said it's "acceptable" - quite the contrary.

He's never said that it's a serious disciplinary matter, likely to lead to any significant finding or penalty in the absence of aggravating factors.

And I've suggested he should proactively address the issue far more robustly than he seems to intend ... so hardly a good witness in your campaign to discredit every fucking thing I post, eh?

 

[ymu]

It shouldn't happen. Not realising my car licence had fallen off the windscreen or forgetting to renew my insurance won't save me from the legal consequences. There is no reason why police officers should receive more leniency when a serious offence is committed. If it was taken seriously, I'm sure episodes of "forgetfulness" will reduce miraculously.

 

[Proper Tidy]

No. 359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't. Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category).

Half of all coppers asked. That's how surveys work.

I have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten. It happens.

And is that an acceptable excuse, forgetting?

 

[Urbanblues]

Strangely enough I never met quite so many out and out fucking morons as I encounter here ...

You should get out more then, d-b. Take up voluntary work as a police community support officer; or, victim support, maybe.

 

[Urbanblues]

No. 359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't. Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). I have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten. It happens.

Ever forgotten to go out without your truncheon, whistle or squad car?

 

[DexterTCN]

...He's never said that it's a serious disciplinary matter...

That's a massive claim, isn't it. Never?

How would you know he's never done it? You know no such thing, dibble.

 

[Pickman's model]

No. 359 (hardly a significant sample of hundreds of thousands, eh?) who say they haven't. Not necessarily on every occasion, or for any ulterior motive or any other reason. And not necessarily because they had no opportunity to put them on (though I suspect some fell in that category). I have on a few occasions not worn numbers because I have failed to change over epaulettes, once or twice because I had no chance to do so and once or twice because I have simply forgotten. It happens.

it's strange how many surveys of the entire population find about 1,000 to be a statistically significant sample (when i worked in market research we used a sample of 500 from a possible pool of c.80,000 for customer satisfaction surveys); 359 seems from this perspective quite a reasonable sample.