FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Just Giving To Sacked Cops
Just Giving To Sacked Cops
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man
over a year ago
Dorchester |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news "
I personally think policemen should be stacked in a storeroom and forgotten about  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news "
Another divisive thread.
Perhaps the officers felt aggrieved at being sacked for doing their job?
I don't know the full story feel free to give all the information OP
But perhaps they are the victim of overzealous anti police activists or something?
Maybe the police family pulling together to support one of their own in a time when everyone else is against them?
Like I said don't know the full story.
I reserve the right to make further comments based on unbiased
Information about the facts and change my opinion accordingly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news
Another divisive thread.
Perhaps the officers felt aggrieved at being sacked for doing their job?
I don't know the full story feel free to give all the information OP
But perhaps they are the victim of overzealous anti police activists or something?
Maybe the police family pulling together to support one of their own in a time when everyone else is against them?
Like I said don't know the full story.
I reserve the right to make further comments based on unbiased
Information about the facts and change my opinion accordingly."
https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-raised-for-met-police-officers-dismissed-after-stop-and-search-of-ricardo-dos-santos-and-bianca-williams-12993002
Tom doesn't usually do this but as you are one of his disciples |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news
Another divisive thread.
Perhaps the officers felt aggrieved at being sacked for doing their job?
I don't know the full story feel free to give all the information OP
But perhaps they are the victim of overzealous anti police activists or something?
Maybe the police family pulling together to support one of their own in a time when everyone else is against them?
Like I said don't know the full story.
I reserve the right to make further comments based on unbiased
Information about the facts and change my opinion accordingly.
https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-raised-for-met-police-officers-dismissed-after-stop-and-search-of-ricardo-dos-santos-and-bianca-williams-12993002
Tom doesn't usually do this but as you are one of his disciples "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Stacked? Do you mean sacked? What you wrote makes no sense. "
I thought it was about how shelves are "stacked" at supermarkets. I've noted as food products prices are maked higher by supermarkets they have removed a row of shelves where we shop and made walk-ways wider to reduce costs to supermarkets, IE amount of products they have displayed
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news "
If it’s the Bianca Williams/ Richard dos Santos arrest where the cops got sacked yesterday by the met for racial profiling.. then if you see the body cam footage.. they absolutely deserved it!!!
I mean… imagine the “car smell of excuse” when:
A) they had a baby in the back of the car
B) would get them an automatic 2 year ban from athletics!!!
He was right outside his house… he said the other car they had was across the road….
All they had to do was get out his driving licence to confirm! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news
If it’s the Bianca Williams/ Richard dos Santos arrest where the cops got sacked yesterday by the met for racial profiling.. then if you see the body cam footage.. they absolutely deserved it!!!
I mean… imagine the “car smell of excuse” when:
A) they had a baby in the back of the car
B) would get them an automatic 2 year ban from athletics!!!
He was right outside his house… he said the other car they had was across the road….
All they had to do was get out his driving licence to confirm! "
If that's the case then they deserve it,the sack not the money.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aitonelMan
over a year ago
Liverpool |
"They absolutely deserved to be sacked. Their behaviour was disgusting. I don’t understand why anyone would give them money. "
To be fair I've seen people giving to just giving for rich people, so the stupidity and morality of people is of no surprise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fools and their money.
They should look at more laws these kind of areas though. I'm not saying be too restrictive but the internet is wild and they were never on top of it (in part thanks to the UK and Blair, who was excessively laissez fair with the UK and allowed BT to do what they want with out infrastructure for years too.)
pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Probably extreme right wing sympathisers.
.
Or are they extreme left? They are giving their money away after all lol pt"
Tom is confused. Are the people who donate to this cause extreme left or hard left, extreme right or hard right. ..
And at the end of the day..
Do English citizens have the right to do what they want with their hard earned cash... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"And at the end of the day..
Do English citizens have the right to do what they want with their hard earned cash..."
No. There are already lots of laws about what you can and can't do in England. Some of those laws involve money.
It's so well known there's no need for it to be all over the news.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Was this not because they reported lied and said they could smell cannabis?"
The stop was bad enough.. the excuse the policeman eventually gave for the stop after the complaint was made was there was a distinct smell of cannabis (not realising who they were in fact dealing with)
The fact on the body camera you hear dos Santos saying that he lived outside the address where it all happened, and that his other car was across the road… informing them that the baby was in the back of the car
The police were so belligerent in this case it was well beyond stop and search
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'"
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"This thread is not so much about the police stop but more about people's rights to donate to whoever they choose
I don't think donations to proven racists should be allowed"
Well… a fool and their money is easily parted…. I am as interested in the people who start these fundraisers and what their motives are… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's amazing how the news and media controls your mind and everyone just continues to repeat the same. "
They were sacked for lying and gross misconduct. Not sure what the media has to do with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"This thread is not so much about the police stop but more about people's rights to donate to whoever they choose
I don't think donations to proven racists should be allowed"
So donations to causes should be vetted and restricted if that cause is not worthy. And who decides what is a worthy cause ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In 2018 a lorry driver called Ryszard Masietak killed 8 Indian tourists in the UK by crashing into their minibus. He was convicted of death by careless driving whilst over drink drive limit. Someone sent him £8. One for each Indian he had eradicated. Totally abhorrent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"In 2018 a lorry driver called Ryszard Masietak killed 8 Indian tourists in the UK by crashing into their minibus. He was convicted of death by careless driving whilst over drink drive limit. Someone sent him £8. One for each Indian he had eradicated. Totally abhorrent. "
So do you think charitable donations should be regulated? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"And the wasted contribution to most charities and especially the international ones "
Where do you get this info from Tom?
Which charities have what wasted contributions?
In what way is the money wasted?
And is it really most of them?
You can’t just throw out sound bites without the info to back it up. You’ll end up all over the news if you’re not careful.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
"
Yes, as you've confirmed that it was not racial profiling as you suggested. Race never came in to it.
I would wager that this decision is not actual safe (and likely be successfully challenged), regardless of it being on the balance of probability, due to the reason that the decision itself takes a leap of faith in the basis it suggests what the officers did and didnt smell. In fact it accepts that one officer MAY have smelt Cannabis - this officer was cleared of any misconduct. Strange how they accept one officer could smell Cannabis (which could have come from a different source, nonetheless).
Most of the accusations themselves made against the officers, were not upheld and were in many cases similar a case of throwing as much mud as you can hoping some of it sticks.
Yes, the vehicle appears to have been stopped outside his house, it didn't start at that point as he didn't initially stop for Police.
I think being factual is important I'm these cases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"This thread is not so much about the police stop but more about people's rights to donate to whoever they choose
I don't think donations to proven racists should be allowed"
Again, you are incorrect. See how a lie can be repeated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"It's amazing how the news and media controls your mind and everyone just continues to repeat the same.
They were sacked for lying and gross misconduct. Not sure what the media has to do with it."
The media have endorsed the claims that it was racially motivated, instead of reporting the actual outcome of the hearing and the fact it was found that no racial profiling was found. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's amazing how the news and media controls your mind and everyone just continues to repeat the same.
They were sacked for lying and gross misconduct. Not sure what the media has to do with it.
The media have endorsed the claims that it was racially motivated, instead of reporting the actual outcome of the hearing and the fact it was found that no racial profiling was found. "
Not sure what you're reading, but every article I've read made clear the race of the athletes was unproven as a factor.
But, by your logic that we will never be able to know for sure if the officers smelt anything, we'll also never know if they had any racial motivations, but have to take them at their word. But on the basis of the facts in front of them, the panel decided their actions amounted to gross misconduct. Let them appeal by all means, as is their right, but until then I'm not quite sure what your point is. I don't think we want any police officers committing gross misconduct and being retained. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
Yes, as you've confirmed that it was not racial profiling as you suggested. Race never came in to it.
I would wager that this decision is not actual safe (and likely be successfully challenged), regardless of it being on the balance of probability, due to the reason that the decision itself takes a leap of faith in the basis it suggests what the officers did and didnt smell. In fact it accepts that one officer MAY have smelt Cannabis - this officer was cleared of any misconduct. Strange how they accept one officer could smell Cannabis (which could have come from a different source, nonetheless).
Most of the accusations themselves made against the officers, were not upheld and were in many cases similar a case of throwing as much mud as you can hoping some of it sticks.
Yes, the vehicle appears to have been stopped outside his house, it didn't start at that point as he didn't initially stop for Police.
I think being factual is important I'm these cases. "
I never suggested race didn’t come into it…. If you get stopped and searched 9 different times in a 4 month period.. I would suggest “something” is in play
Have you ever been stopped and searched… because I think it would be a fair assumption to say my number is larger than yours.. even though I work for the government!
The report suggests their “may” have been a smell of cannabis in the general area…. But they made no attempt to discover where it came from….
So if you say there was a smell of cannabis coming from the car in the report , but don’t ever do anything to confirm it came from the car which the body cam confirms, then what are you making “assumptions” on the grounds of! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Im a white 58 year old guy and been driving 40 years through countryside and inner city areas at night… been stopped by police maybe 5 times in 40 years - addressed as sir, invited to sit in the back of the police car- they never ‘smelt cannabis’ or felt the need to put me in handcuffs… now compare that to what Fabio posted a little earlier - the decision of the investigation may be that there was no evidence of racial profiling but that’s because you can know something but not prove it…. People are allowed to donate to anything they want as long as it isnt illegal - it’s on their conscience what they choose to support- that’s part of our freedom as its also part of our freedom to disagree with them. I think there was a racial element to why they were stopped … that’s my opinion which Im happy for anyone to respectfully disagree with  that’s your right! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
Yes, as you've confirmed that it was not racial profiling as you suggested. Race never came in to it.
I would wager that this decision is not actual safe (and likely be successfully challenged), regardless of it being on the balance of probability, due to the reason that the decision itself takes a leap of faith in the basis it suggests what the officers did and didnt smell. In fact it accepts that one officer MAY have smelt Cannabis - this officer was cleared of any misconduct. Strange how they accept one officer could smell Cannabis (which could have come from a different source, nonetheless).
Most of the accusations themselves made against the officers, were not upheld and were in many cases similar a case of throwing as much mud as you can hoping some of it sticks.
Yes, the vehicle appears to have been stopped outside his house, it didn't start at that point as he didn't initially stop for Police.
I think being factual is important I'm these cases.
I never suggested race didn’t come into it…. If you get stopped and searched 9 different times in a 4 month period.. I would suggest “something” is in play
Have you ever been stopped and searched… because I think it would be a fair assumption to say my number is larger than yours.. even though I work for the government!
The report suggests their “may” have been a smell of cannabis in the general area…. But they made no attempt to discover where it came from….
So if you say there was a smell of cannabis coming from the car in the report , but don’t ever do anything to confirm it came from the car which the body cam confirms, then what are you making “assumptions” on the grounds of!"
You stated they were sacked for racial profiling. They weren't.
I don't believe he was "stop searched" 9 times, he was stopped 9 times driving his car, again another distinct difference. This is what the media want you to think, you need to read the content of what they are saying not how they delivwr it to appear.
The reason he was stopped driving his car so many times, you COULD question his driving?
You are more likely to be stopped and searched in London, it's a vastly bigger Police force that has significantly more Police officers and disproportionately a significantly more diverse community than the rest of the UK.
Not sure what you mean that the body cam confirms. A body cam cannot confirm anything but words and video, I don't believe a body has ever confirmed smell or taste.
My point at the start was..... they were not racially profiling as you stated.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
Yes, as you've confirmed that it was not racial profiling as you suggested. Race never came in to it.
I would wager that this decision is not actual safe (and likely be successfully challenged), regardless of it being on the balance of probability, due to the reason that the decision itself takes a leap of faith in the basis it suggests what the officers did and didnt smell. In fact it accepts that one officer MAY have smelt Cannabis - this officer was cleared of any misconduct. Strange how they accept one officer could smell Cannabis (which could have come from a different source, nonetheless).
Most of the accusations themselves made against the officers, were not upheld and were in many cases similar a case of throwing as much mud as you can hoping some of it sticks.
Yes, the vehicle appears to have been stopped outside his house, it didn't start at that point as he didn't initially stop for Police.
I think being factual is important I'm these cases.
I never suggested race didn’t come into it…. If you get stopped and searched 9 different times in a 4 month period.. I would suggest “something” is in play
Have you ever been stopped and searched… because I think it would be a fair assumption to say my number is larger than yours.. even though I work for the government!
The report suggests their “may” have been a smell of cannabis in the general area…. But they made no attempt to discover where it came from….
So if you say there was a smell of cannabis coming from the car in the report , but don’t ever do anything to confirm it came from the car which the body cam confirms, then what are you making “assumptions” on the grounds of!
You stated they were sacked for racial profiling. They weren't.
I don't believe he was "stop searched" 9 times, he was stopped 9 times driving his car, again another distinct difference. This is what the media want you to think, you need to read the content of what they are saying not how they delivwr it to appear.
The reason he was stopped driving his car so many times, you COULD question his driving?
You are more likely to be stopped and searched in London, it's a vastly bigger Police force that has significantly more Police officers and disproportionately a significantly more diverse community than the rest of the UK.
Not sure what you mean that the body cam confirms. A body cam cannot confirm anything but words and video, I don't believe a body has ever confirmed smell or taste.
My point at the start was..... they were not racially profiling as you stated.
"
The report stated it was “unproven” they never said it didn’t happen… and if you lie in the written report that doesn’t help the people who were sacked case… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"Incorrect. They were found not guilty of 'racial profiling'
You are right… they were actually sacked for gross misconduct due to the way the stop and search was conducted and the lie that they could smell cannabis which was the excuse they gave after in the report of the search…
Happy for the clarification?
Yes, as you've confirmed that it was not racial profiling as you suggested. Race never came in to it.
I would wager that this decision is not actual safe (and likely be successfully challenged), regardless of it being on the balance of probability, due to the reason that the decision itself takes a leap of faith in the basis it suggests what the officers did and didnt smell. In fact it accepts that one officer MAY have smelt Cannabis - this officer was cleared of any misconduct. Strange how they accept one officer could smell Cannabis (which could have come from a different source, nonetheless).
Most of the accusations themselves made against the officers, were not upheld and were in many cases similar a case of throwing as much mud as you can hoping some of it sticks.
Yes, the vehicle appears to have been stopped outside his house, it didn't start at that point as he didn't initially stop for Police.
I think being factual is important I'm these cases.
I never suggested race didn’t come into it…. If you get stopped and searched 9 different times in a 4 month period.. I would suggest “something” is in play
Have you ever been stopped and searched… because I think it would be a fair assumption to say my number is larger than yours.. even though I work for the government!
The report suggests their “may” have been a smell of cannabis in the general area…. But they made no attempt to discover where it came from….
So if you say there was a smell of cannabis coming from the car in the report , but don’t ever do anything to confirm it came from the car which the body cam confirms, then what are you making “assumptions” on the grounds of!
You stated they were sacked for racial profiling. They weren't.
I don't believe he was "stop searched" 9 times, he was stopped 9 times driving his car, again another distinct difference. This is what the media want you to think, you need to read the content of what they are saying not how they delivwr it to appear.
The reason he was stopped driving his car so many times, you COULD question his driving?
You are more likely to be stopped and searched in London, it's a vastly bigger Police force that has significantly more Police officers and disproportionately a significantly more diverse community than the rest of the UK.
Not sure what you mean that the body cam confirms. A body cam cannot confirm anything but words and video, I don't believe a body has ever confirmed smell or taste.
My point at the start was..... they were not racially profiling as you stated.
The report stated it was “unproven” they never said it didn’t happen… and if you lie in the written report that doesn’t help the people who were sacked case… "
We could go on and on with this. But I'll point out...... allegation made ....... no evidence to suggest it happened, corroborate it or its even proven cannot or did not happen..... the decision is "not upheld". The equivalent is "not guilty".
So you said racial. The committee said not. You can have your opinion, but please don't mistake it with fact.
They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable. "
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
"
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
"
They were sacked for failing professional standards relating to honesty/integrity within the context of misconduct.That was the announcement to the media of the misconduct panel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned. "
You were. Allegations cease to be allegations once someone has been found guilty. They are guilty of gross misconduct, until any appeal is successful. Let them crack on.
I imagine the investigation took all the points you're making into account in reaching its decision (there were more KCs involved than you could shake a stick at). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
They were sacked for failing professional standards relating to honesty/integrity within the context of misconduct.That was the announcement to the media of the misconduct panel."
"...the panel found that conduct of PC Clapham and PC Franks amounted to gross misconduct as the breach was so serious as to justify dismissal.”
A direct quote from the chair and seems pretty clear to me. 'Amounted to' = 'same as', so I'm not entirely sure that the point is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned.
You were. Allegations cease to be allegations once someone has been found guilty. They are guilty of gross misconduct, until any appeal is successful. Let them crack on.
I imagine the investigation took all the points you're making into account in reaching its decision (there were more KCs involved than you could shake a stick at)."
Ah so your telling me what I'm thinking. Not what your interpreting (your agenda).
Thanks.
The investigation no doubt did take all those points into consideration and reached that decision.
My point is..... the decision is questionable and challengable. Will it be successful.... your guess is as good as mine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
They were sacked for failing professional standards relating to honesty/integrity within the context of misconduct.That was the announcement to the media of the misconduct panel.
"...the panel found that conduct of PC Clapham and PC Franks amounted to gross misconduct as the breach was so serious as to justify dismissal.”
A direct quote from the chair and seems pretty clear to me. 'Amounted to' = 'same as', so I'm not entirely sure that the point is."
They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity not racial profiling..... which has been my point from the start.
Are you saying they were racist?
If you are, is that an opinion or based on the decision of this hearing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned.
You were. Allegations cease to be allegations once someone has been found guilty. They are guilty of gross misconduct, until any appeal is successful. Let them crack on.
I imagine the investigation took all the points you're making into account in reaching its decision (there were more KCs involved than you could shake a stick at).
Ah so your telling me what I'm thinking. Not what your interpreting (your agenda).
Thanks.
The investigation no doubt did take all those points into consideration and reached that decision.
My point is..... the decision is questionable and challengable. Will it be successful.... your guess is as good as mine"
I wasn't telling you what you're thinking. My point was you were rightly pointing out that the allegations that race was a factor were unproven. But then also saying that the *proven* allegations (which literally cease to be allegations at that point) were still in doubt. On that logic, no one is ever guilty of anything if they say so, which is pretty unworkable.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do think it's odd that someone seems so keen to defend people that have been found to be dishonest and lacking integrity; not the kind of police officers I want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned.
You were. Allegations cease to be allegations once someone has been found guilty. They are guilty of gross misconduct, until any appeal is successful. Let them crack on.
I imagine the investigation took all the points you're making into account in reaching its decision (there were more KCs involved than you could shake a stick at).
Ah so your telling me what I'm thinking. Not what your interpreting (your agenda).
Thanks.
The investigation no doubt did take all those points into consideration and reached that decision.
My point is..... the decision is questionable and challengable. Will it be successful.... your guess is as good as mine
I wasn't telling you what you're thinking. My point was you were rightly pointing out that the allegations that race was a factor were unproven. But then also saying that the *proven* allegations (which literally cease to be allegations at that point) were still in doubt. On that logic, no one is ever guilty of anything if they say so, which is pretty unworkable.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do think it's odd that someone seems so keen to defend people that have been found to be dishonest and lacking integrity; not the kind of police officers I want."
Right, I'll clear this up for you as I'm not sure you're grasping it.
The decision was reached.
Not proven on virtually all counts but the honesty and integrity - guilty(people were saying it was for racism - factually incorrect).
Does the decision stand? Yes.
Did i say it was challengable? Yes.
Not having it both ways, it's an opinion.
Does my opinion count? No.
Are you against me having an opinion????
Don't agree with my opinion, fine, but please don't tell me I'm trying to have it both ways.
As for defending..... wow. I'll stop using reasoned logic and just stay quiet because it may look like I'm a "bad apple" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" They were sacked for alleged honesty and integrity, and I'll suggest that this decision is challengable.
No, they were sacked for proven gross misconduct. You can't have it both ways. The racial element was unproven, not their lack of honesty or integrity.
Not having it both ways.
Pointing out facts and correcting inaccuracies.
Can body cams detect smell.
How can you tell what someone smelt?
How do the panel accept that one cop may have smelt Cannabis and accepted their evidence?
I'm then adding my opinion, it has a chance of being over turned.
You were. Allegations cease to be allegations once someone has been found guilty. They are guilty of gross misconduct, until any appeal is successful. Let them crack on.
I imagine the investigation took all the points you're making into account in reaching its decision (there were more KCs involved than you could shake a stick at).
Ah so your telling me what I'm thinking. Not what your interpreting (your agenda).
Thanks.
The investigation no doubt did take all those points into consideration and reached that decision.
My point is..... the decision is questionable and challengable. Will it be successful.... your guess is as good as mine
I wasn't telling you what you're thinking. My point was you were rightly pointing out that the allegations that race was a factor were unproven. But then also saying that the *proven* allegations (which literally cease to be allegations at that point) were still in doubt. On that logic, no one is ever guilty of anything if they say so, which is pretty unworkable.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do think it's odd that someone seems so keen to defend people that have been found to be dishonest and lacking integrity; not the kind of police officers I want.
Right, I'll clear this up for you as I'm not sure you're grasping it.
The decision was reached.
Not proven on virtually all counts but the honesty and integrity - guilty(people were saying it was for racism - factually incorrect).
Does the decision stand? Yes.
Did i say it was challengable? Yes.
Not having it both ways, it's an opinion.
Does my opinion count? No.
Are you against me having an opinion????
Don't agree with my opinion, fine, but please don't tell me I'm trying to have it both ways.
As for defending..... wow. I'll stop using reasoned logic and just stay quiet because it may look like I'm a "bad apple" "
Yes, I'm a very simple soul and can struggle with complex issues. It was the opposite of logic, but like I said, we can agree to disagree.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Fuck the police right?
Haven't read the thread but assume that's where we are at. Bring on gang culture and guns woohoo!
(Sarcasm mods don't block)"
I think “fuck bad policing” is okay though?
I’m a big supporter of the police in the UK, but having seen the video footage, it wasn’t good policing.
Even if they did smell cannabis, it was waaaaay over the top. Sadly, had there not been a famous person in the car, this would have gone unreported.
Even if you’re an awful driver, you don’t get stopped nine times FFS. Think about your family and friends and select the worst driver you know. Then tot up the amount of times they’ve been stopped because of their driving. How many?
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most charities are a waste of money anyway 90 percent of donations go to running the charity"
The CEO needs a Bentley and incentive to 'work'. The staff do it because they are passionate about the cause. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Most charities are a waste of money anyway 90 percent of donations go to running the charity
The CEO needs a Bentley and incentive to 'work'. The staff do it because they are passionate about the cause. "
The CEO is a really clever boss who runs the charity well and deserves a wage commensurate with the size of the business.
They work for a charity, that doesn’t mean they work for charity.
Hands up here who thinks they should work for a lower wage because they are passionate about their cause?
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Most charities are a waste of money anyway 90 percent of donations go to running the charity
The CEO needs a Bentley and incentive to 'work'. The staff do it because they are passionate about the cause.
The CEO is a really clever boss who runs the charity well and deserves a wage commensurate with the size of the business.
They work for a charity, that doesn’t mean they work for charity.
Hands up here who thinks they should work for a lower wage because they are passionate about their cause?
Gbat "
That's fine as long as the staff get fair pay too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmmMaybeCouple
over a year ago
West Wales |
"Think they might end up with their jobs back on appeal. Nothing substantive just a feeling. "
If you’d followed the story from start to finish & seen transcripts & the Polices own bodycam footage I’d almost guarantee you’d change your mind.
If there job entailed being racists bigots then yeah they might get them back but as it doesn’t there’s no chance imo.
They were 100% NOT “Only doing their job”.
S |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view."
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's over 100k now
If they had any common sense they'd close the page down and donate all the money to an anti racism charity.
Have you followed this thread atleast?
Were they racist? "
The fact that they got sacked probably tells you all you need to know.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"It's over 100k now
If they had any common sense they'd close the page down and donate all the money to an anti racism charity.
Have you followed this thread atleast?
Were they racist?
The fact that they got sacked probably tells you all you need to know.
"
Great response. Don't answer the question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt"
Who are they ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt
Who are they ?"
.
If these donation sites clearly become alternative petition sites in certain situations, but with money changing hands, they gov will need to regulate what can and can't be in them. I doubt the sites themselves will mind. The internet has developed too-unregulated as it is, imo.
Just certain rules for sites like JustGive, and who the money can go to. Institutions like the Police, who no-doubt have rules for petition sites, will likely be looking at them too.
In a sense, the petition sites are much-preferable ways to show solidarity/make complaints, as the 'cause' can be phrased more accurately (or honestly), and they will avoid all the money involved in donation sites, which could easily add 'insult to injury' to any victims involved.
pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt
Who are they ?
.
If these donation sites clearly become alternative petition sites in certain situations, but with money changing hands, they gov will need to regulate what can and can't be in them. I doubt the sites themselves will mind. The internet has developed too-unregulated as it is, imo.
Just certain rules for sites like JustGive, and who the money can go to. Institutions like the Police, who no-doubt have rules for petition sites, will likely be looking at them too.
In a sense, the petition sites are much-preferable ways to show solidarity/make complaints, as the 'cause' can be phrased more accurately (or honestly), and they will avoid all the money involved in donation sites, which could easily add 'insult to injury' to any victims involved.
pt"
Campaign for Plain English Please .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt
Who are they ?
.
If these donation sites clearly become alternative petition sites in certain situations, but with money changing hands, they gov will need to regulate what can and can't be in them. I doubt the sites themselves will mind. The internet has developed too-unregulated as it is, imo.
Just certain rules for sites like JustGive, and who the money can go to. Institutions like the Police, who no-doubt have rules for petition sites, will likely be looking at them too.
In a sense, the petition sites are much-preferable ways to show solidarity/make complaints, as the 'cause' can be phrased more accurately (or honestly), and they will avoid all the money involved in donation sites, which could easily add 'insult to injury' to any victims involved.
pt
Campaign for Plain English Please .."
Tom, that was all plain English. pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt
Who are they ?
.
If these donation sites clearly become alternative petition sites in certain situations, but with money changing hands, they gov will need to regulate what can and can't be in them. I doubt the sites themselves will mind. The internet has developed too-unregulated as it is, imo.
Just certain rules for sites like JustGive, and who the money can go to. Institutions like the Police, who no-doubt have rules for petition sites, will likely be looking at them too.
In a sense, the petition sites are much-preferable ways to show solidarity/make complaints, as the 'cause' can be phrased more accurately (or honestly), and they will avoid all the money involved in donation sites, which could easily add 'insult to injury' to any victims involved.
pt
Campaign for Plain English Please ..
Tom, that was all plain English. pt"
Hard Right of Hard Left ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The real concern should be that it appears many of the donations are being made by serving police officers, which makes them as bad as the ones who were rightly sacked in my view.
.
They'll need to do something about it if this becomes a thing.
It'll start to feel like donating a tenner to make your political statement, then saying "have you pocket-voted for the last dismissal yet?" at work.
pt
Who are they ?
.
If these donation sites clearly become alternative petition sites in certain situations, but with money changing hands, they gov will need to regulate what can and can't be in them. I doubt the sites themselves will mind. The internet has developed too-unregulated as it is, imo.
Just certain rules for sites like JustGive, and who the money can go to. Institutions like the Police, who no-doubt have rules for petition sites, will likely be looking at them too.
In a sense, the petition sites are much-preferable ways to show solidarity/make complaints, as the 'cause' can be phrased more accurately (or honestly), and they will avoid all the money involved in donation sites, which could easily add 'insult to injury' to any victims involved.
pt
Campaign for Plain English Please ..
Tom, that was all plain English. pt
Hard Right of Hard Left ?"
How about “understandable” …..
So if in a report they said the main reason for the stop “the smell of cannabis was coming from the car”…. But then we know from all the footage they never checked the actual car…I’m guessing this was isn’t the 1st time the excuse had been used “as a cover” for something else
I am really tempted to use the term “driving whilst black!”
The only reason why it didn’t work was the people stopped were Olympic athletes.. and cannabis technically you a 2yr ban… (anyone who has been a high enough level athlete to have to fill out the everyday paperwork will tell you it’s a chore!)
I would love to find out the person who started it (they are anonymous) also if any active police personnel have contributed they should be reprimanded (that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man
over a year ago
Dorchester |
"It's amazing how the news and media controls your mind and everyone just continues to repeat the same. "
It is but humans tend to follow the very negative leads the press throw at you everyday |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Their solicitor says "a significant number" of comments on the Just Giving page appear to have been written by serving Police Officers. All comments have now been removed as there is a pending appeal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"(that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters)"
Police officers are prohibited by law from being members of a union. It’s another thing they have to forgo to do that job.
They are also prohibited by law from striking or even talking about striking.
But that doesn’t excuse the bad policing they provided during this incident.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"(that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters)
Police officers are prohibited by law from being members of a union. It’s another thing they have to forgo to do that job.
They are also prohibited by law from striking or even talking about striking.
But that doesn’t excuse the bad policing they provided during this incident.
Gbat "
And that is relavant why,? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"(that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters)
Police officers are prohibited by law from being members of a union. It’s another thing they have to forgo to do that job.
They are also prohibited by law from striking or even talking about striking.
But that doesn’t excuse the bad policing they provided during this incident.
Gbat
And that is relavant why,?"
Because somebody else mentioned a union that represents officers in disciplinary matters and there's no such thing.
Read the quotes before you splash things all over the news Tom.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"(that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters)
Police officers are prohibited by law from being members of a union. It’s another thing they have to forgo to do that job.
They are also prohibited by law from striking or even talking about striking.
But that doesn’t excuse the bad policing they provided during this incident.
Gbat
And that is relavant why,?
Because somebody else mentioned a union that represents officers in disciplinary matters and there's no such thing.
Read the quotes before you splash things all over the news Tom.
Gbat "
Not Toms quote Batty |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"(that is what the union is for… to represent officers in disciplinary matters)
Police officers are prohibited by law from being members of a union. It’s another thing they have to forgo to do that job.
They are also prohibited by law from striking or even talking about striking.
But that doesn’t excuse the bad policing they provided during this incident.
Gbat "
They technically don’t have a union but they will still be represented by the police federation…. Same difference in this case |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"140,000 pounds now and reports that the couple are surprised"
I would be surprised as well if I was the wronged party and people were in essence supporting the wrongdoers! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"140,000 pounds now and reports that the couple are surprised
I would be surprised as well if I was the wronged party and people were in essence supporting the wrongdoers! "
It is bizarre, isn't it.
Of all the causes to support and people pick dishonest police officers. Fools and their money as the saying goes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"140,000 pounds now and reports that the couple are surprised
I would be surprised as well if I was the wronged party and people were in essence supporting the wrongdoers!
It is bizarre, isn't it.
Of all the causes to support and people pick dishonest police officers. Fools and their money as the saying goes. "
My understanding is that a lot of the money is coming from other police officers, … either showing solidarity with the 2 lads for some reason, or feeling that the sacking is wrong and that It could also happen to them. In the same way that the armed response units in London downed tools recently because they felt at risk of prosecution if they pulled the trigger.
I’m not justifying the thought process or saying they are right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"To me this shows that the police think very differently from the people they are suppose to serve.
Wild generalisation… "
VERY wild generalisation.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
Question for you. If they appeal and are successful in their appeal.
Will you accept the result of the and effectively they are innocent if any wrong doing?
Ignore the over turning of the initial finding as your opinion is all that matters?
They were guilty regardless of any result? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
Question for you Forties Couple.
If you've seen the video, do you think it showed good policing?
They have been sacked for gross misconduct. Do you accept their conduct amounted to such?
If they don't appeal, will you accept their actions amounted to gross misconduct?
If they appeal and are unsuccessful, will you agree their actions amounted to gross misconduct.
And to avoid any misconceptions, although they haven't been sacked for being racist, this is indeed a racist incident.
The Metropolitan Police accepts and uses the McPherson definition of a racist incident, which is, if someone says it's a racist incident, then it is a racist incident. (But an incident doesn't have to be a crime).
It will figure in Met Police statistics as a racist incident.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago
Near Wells |
I think people should be allowed to donate to whoever they want, even if we don't like who they're donating to.
Terrorist and political groups have been receiving donations for years. I think we're on a slippery slope when there are rules about what we do with our own hard earned money.
I wouldn't have donated, those police deserve to be fired. You can't just go pulling over vehicles because of the skin colour of the driver and then make something up when you discover they're not breaking any laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think people should be allowed to donate to whoever they want, even if we don't like who they're donating to.
Terrorist and political groups have been receiving donations for years. I think we're on a slippery slope when there are rules about what we do with our own hard earned money.
I wouldn't have donated, those police deserve to be fired. You can't just go pulling over vehicles because of the skin colour of the driver and then make something up when you discover they're not breaking any laws."
.
But there are actually some strict rules around donating to politicians (if they are open about it especially), some serious ethical arguments around cronyism, and they are often getting in trouble about it too.
Terrorism (which can be an ambiguous terms sometimes granted) is obviously a huge problem too. So those things are not exactly positive examples.
pt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Must be a confusing experience for the victims. Their complaints are upheld, the two lads get sacked, and next thing there’s a whip around and hundreds of thousands of pounds are raised for the offenders. Looks like they have been rewarded massively … doesn’t feel right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think people should be allowed to donate to whoever they want, even if we don't like who they're donating to.
Terrorist and political groups have been receiving donations for years. I think we're on a slippery slope when there are rules about what we do with our own hard earned money.
I wouldn't have donated, those police deserve to be fired. You can't just go pulling over vehicles because of the skin colour of the driver and then make something up when you discover they're not breaking any laws."
Are you saying it’s ok to donate to terrorist organisations? Reads that way … |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lex46TV/TS
over a year ago
Near Wells |
"I think people should be allowed to donate to whoever they want, even if we don't like who they're donating to.
Terrorist and political groups have been receiving donations for years. I think we're on a slippery slope when there are rules about what we do with our own hard earned money.
I wouldn't have donated, those police deserve to be fired. You can't just go pulling over vehicles because of the skin colour of the driver and then make something up when you discover they're not breaking any laws.
Are you saying it’s ok to donate to terrorist organisations? Reads that way … "
I'm not but yes reading back that way it comes across like that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People should be free to give their money to whomever they so choose.
We don't have to agree. I certainly wouldn't accept anyone telling me how to spend my money, just as I wouldn't tell someone else how to spend theirs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"Question for you Forties Couple.
If you've seen the video, do you think it showed good policing?
They have been sacked for gross misconduct. Do you accept their conduct amounted to such?
If they don't appeal, will you accept their actions amounted to gross misconduct?
If they appeal and are unsuccessful, will you agree their actions amounted to gross misconduct.
And to avoid any misconceptions, although they haven't been sacked for being racist, this is indeed a racist incident.
The Metropolitan Police accepts and uses the McPherson definition of a racist incident, which is, if someone says it's a racist incident, then it is a racist incident. (But an incident doesn't have to be a crime).
It will figure in Met Police statistics as a racist incident.
Gbat "
Not prepared to answer the questions I asked but fire back with your own questions. I'll answer for you.
Not the best work, but certainly not in any way falling into line of misconduct based on the video itself. Hence why they weren't found guilty on that basis. (I'm not sure you understand what they were found to be guilty of). What's your expertise in this area to judge on a dynamic, emerging, unknown threat arena? Police? Security? Armed Forces?
They were sacked for gross misconduct. Based on what the findings suggested, I think (in my limited legal opinion) they have a ground to appeal and has the chance of being reviewed.
If they don't appeal and they accept the decision or take advice legally that they don't have the right to appeal, then they are guilty of gross misconduct due to their honesty and integrity.
Likewise, if they appeal and are not successful- they are guilty of gross misconduct for honesty and integrity.
The allegations they were racist are unproven, its in record. Your opinion is exactly that, an opinion, as is mine at this time that the decision is not a safe one.
As you mention a hate incident does not have to be a crime nor does it actually have to actually happened, its the perception of a person. In this world, we can now see a whole range of distortion of what people perceive to be an offence. Everyone is now a online barrister or expert. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *4bimMan
over a year ago
Farnborough Hampshire |
"People should be free to give their money to whomever they so choose.
We don't have to agree. I certainly wouldn't accept anyone telling me how to spend my money, just as I wouldn't tell someone else how to spend theirs. "
agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Two stacked police officers have received over 20k from Just Giving after being stacked after a dodgey stop and search.
If they are no longer police then presumably they can collect,.
What's going on here guys? It's all over the news "
Shows how terribly fucked up society is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Not prepared to answer the questions I asked but fire back with your own questions."
You didn't ask me any questions, you asked someone else. But I'll give you my opinion below.
"Not the best work, but certainly not in any way falling into line of misconduct based on the video itself. Hence why they weren't found guilty on that basis. (I'm not sure you understand what they were found to be guilty of)."
They were found guilty of dishonesty in that they said they could smell cannabis, which was found to be a lie.
"What's your expertise in this area to judge on a dynamic, emerging, unknown threat arena? Police? Security? Armed Forces? "
I am very familiar with dynamic risk assessment and the National Decision Model.
"They were sacked for gross misconduct. Based on what the findings suggested, I think (in my limited legal opinion) they have a ground to appeal and has the chance of being reviewed. "
" The allegations they were racist are unproven, its in record. Your opinion is exactly that, an opinion, as is mine at this time that the decision is not a safe one. "
" As you mention a hate incident does not have to be a crime nor does it actually have to actually happened, its the perception of a person. In this world, we can now see a whole range of distortion of what people perceive to be an offence. Everyone is now a online barrister or expert. "
Opinions, everyone's got one!
If you're interested in mine, the incident smacks of racial bias by the TSG team, an over reaction by the officers to the mocking and swearing by Santos, and the use of dishonesty to try and justify a legal process that they had no grounds to carry out.
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
If the officers appeal and are reinstated, then they will not have committed any breach of police discipline. It certainly sounds like you don't currently believe their conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Gbat "
The body warn video has been released and the very poor manner of the driving was clearly evident.
The officers should have dealt with the drivinging regardless of whether they smelled cannabis or not.
The occupants complained of having a child in the car but that child was of no concern to them when the car was being driven dangerously and failing to stop for the police. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Gbat
The body warn video has been released and the very poor manner of the driving was clearly evident.
The officers should have dealt with the drivinging regardless of whether they smelled cannabis or not.
The occupants complained of having a child in the car but that child was of no concern to them when the car was being driven dangerously and failing to stop for the police."
I agree they should have stopped as soon as they could have (I think the video shows they drove for about 30 seconds after the police first tried to stop them). I guess we've all got our own interpretation of dangerous driving, but I didn't think he was driving dangerously personally, from the footage I've seen. Perhaps too, when you'd been stopped as frequently as he had, and he felt he was being followed for no reason (as he was), his frustration got the better of him. I'm not defending that, but can see how how that would happen.
But either way, it in no way exonerates the police officers for lying. It's that lack of integrity and falling short of the standards expected of a police officer which they've been penalised for. I'm not sure there's much of a defence for that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
They may have known the two officers for years and worked closely together. I would support my friends in that situation
"This thread is not so much about the police stop but more about people's rights to donate to whoever they choose
I don't think donations to proven racists should be allowed
Well… a fool and their money is easily parted…. I am as interested in the people who start these fundraisers and what their motives are… "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Gbat
The body warn video has been released and the very poor manner of the driving was clearly evident.
The officers should have dealt with the drivinging regardless of whether they smelled cannabis or not.
The occupants complained of having a child in the car but that child was of no concern to them when the car was being driven dangerously and failing to stop for the police.
I agree they should have stopped as soon as they could have (I think the video shows they drove for about 30 seconds after the police first tried to stop them). I guess we've all got our own interpretation of dangerous driving, but I didn't think he was driving dangerously personally, from the footage I've seen. Perhaps too, when you'd been stopped as frequently as he had, and he felt he was being followed for no reason (as he was), his frustration got the better of him. I'm not defending that, but can see how how that would happen.
But either way, it in no way exonerates the police officers for lying. It's that lack of integrity and falling short of the standards expected of a police officer which they've been penalised for. I'm not sure there's much of a defence for that."
Only the officers truly know if they smelled something or not and they have to live with the knowledge that either they lied and got caught or that they told the truth and someone not there has decided they have lied.
Court is beyond reasonable doubt but police misconduct is balance of probability.
I'm not sure how I would feel about having my career hanging in the balance based on probability.
I think you probably did it, so you are sacked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Gbat
The body warn video has been released and the very poor manner of the driving was clearly evident.
The officers should have dealt with the drivinging regardless of whether they smelled cannabis or not.
The occupants complained of having a child in the car but that child was of no concern to them when the car was being driven dangerously and failing to stop for the police.
I agree they should have stopped as soon as they could have (I think the video shows they drove for about 30 seconds after the police first tried to stop them). I guess we've all got our own interpretation of dangerous driving, but I didn't think he was driving dangerously personally, from the footage I've seen. Perhaps too, when you'd been stopped as frequently as he had, and he felt he was being followed for no reason (as he was), his frustration got the better of him. I'm not defending that, but can see how how that would happen.
But either way, it in no way exonerates the police officers for lying. It's that lack of integrity and falling short of the standards expected of a police officer which they've been penalised for. I'm not sure there's much of a defence for that.
Only the officers truly know if they smelled something or not and they have to live with the knowledge that either they lied and got caught or that they told the truth and someone not there has decided they have lied.
Court is beyond reasonable doubt but police misconduct is balance of probability.
I'm not sure how I would feel about having my career hanging in the balance based on probability.
I think you probably did it, so you are sacked."
The lying bit isn’t in doubt because on the the report they wrote there was a smell of cannabis coming from the car, but we know that there was no search of the car ever done
So they lied to cover up something else….
Some people are suggesting it my have been the motive for the stop in the first place
The question next is knowing that we know the policemen lied, is the lie in itself grounds for gross misconduct? Or was there something else in combination to bump it to to gross misconduct….
Some people are suggesting that the motive plus the lying may have been the reason
Some may be bold enough to say race… some may say La la la and stick fingers in their ears
Some may say “unproven” means not guilty… some may say “unproven” say not ruling it out either!
But we do know that the police officers lied in the written report of the stop… and they we caught out because of who the police were…
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
Gbat
The body warn video has been released and the very poor manner of the driving was clearly evident.
The officers should have dealt with the drivinging regardless of whether they smelled cannabis or not.
The occupants complained of having a child in the car but that child was of no concern to them when the car was being driven dangerously and failing to stop for the police.
I agree they should have stopped as soon as they could have (I think the video shows they drove for about 30 seconds after the police first tried to stop them). I guess we've all got our own interpretation of dangerous driving, but I didn't think he was driving dangerously personally, from the footage I've seen. Perhaps too, when you'd been stopped as frequently as he had, and he felt he was being followed for no reason (as he was), his frustration got the better of him. I'm not defending that, but can see how how that would happen.
But either way, it in no way exonerates the police officers for lying. It's that lack of integrity and falling short of the standards expected of a police officer which they've been penalised for. I'm not sure there's much of a defence for that.
Only the officers truly know if they smelled something or not and they have to live with the knowledge that either they lied and got caught or that they told the truth and someone not there has decided they have lied.
Court is beyond reasonable doubt but police misconduct is balance of probability.
I'm not sure how I would feel about having my career hanging in the balance based on probability.
I think you probably did it, so you are sacked."
I think most employers would have an assumption of dismissal if gross misconduct was proven. I get the balance of probability point, but that's not uncommon, and would likely be the same in other organisations.
The investigation followed the due process. You can argue whether it's the right process or not (though not sure what would be better where there are no criminal proceedings; I'm not an expert), but cannot argue that they've not had a fair hearing. Their appeal, if they do appeal, will be on the same basis, I presume.
The best way to avoid it is to make sure your conduct is beyond reproach. I do think police officers should hold themselves to the very highest standards of conduct to ensure the public can trust them, and I'm sure most do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"I do think police officers should hold themselves to the very highest standards of conduct to ensure the public can trust them, and I'm sure most do."
This!
The officers were tasked with tackling gangs and knife carrying. I think they made a mistake in who they were stopping (in my OPINION, founded on racial bias). Instead of acknowledging their mistake and saying so, they rolled the dice to win at all costs and now, well, they are paying the cost.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ilf wifeCouple
over a year ago
Gainsborough |
"Not prepared to answer the questions I asked but fire back with your own questions.
You didn't ask me any questions, you asked someone else. But I'll give you my opinion below.
Not the best work, but certainly not in any way falling into line of misconduct based on the video itself. Hence why they weren't found guilty on that basis. (I'm not sure you understand what they were found to be guilty of).
They were found guilty of dishonesty in that they said they could smell cannabis, which was found to be a lie.
What's your expertise in this area to judge on a dynamic, emerging, unknown threat arena? Police? Security? Armed Forces?
I am very familiar with dynamic risk assessment and the National Decision Model.
They were sacked for gross misconduct. Based on what the findings suggested, I think (in my limited legal opinion) they have a ground to appeal and has the chance of being reviewed.
The allegations they were racist are unproven, its in record. Your opinion is exactly that, an opinion, as is mine at this time that the decision is not a safe one.
As you mention a hate incident does not have to be a crime nor does it actually have to actually happened, its the perception of a person. In this world, we can now see a whole range of distortion of what people perceive to be an offence. Everyone is now a online barrister or expert.
Opinions, everyone's got one!
If you're interested in mine, the incident smacks of racial bias by the TSG team, an over reaction by the officers to the mocking and swearing by Santos, and the use of dishonesty to try and justify a legal process that they had no grounds to carry out.
If the initial reason to follow the car was bad driving, where are the proceedings for that? The officers described his driving as appalling and suspicious, but where's the prosecution?
Then it suddenly changes from a traffic stop to a drugs stop, based on lies.
This incident DID happen and is a racist incident. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
If the officers appeal and are reinstated, then they will not have committed any breach of police discipline. It certainly sounds like you don't currently believe their conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Gbat "
Could go one forever with this.
I didnt ask a question to any individual, it was an open question.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People should be free to give their money to whomever they so choose.
We don't have to agree. I certainly wouldn't accept anyone telling me how to spend my money, just as I wouldn't tell someone else how to spend theirs. "
People are free to give to this campaign. Who’s stopping them?
People are also free to criticise those who have donated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People should be free to give their money to whomever they so choose.
We don't have to agree. I certainly wouldn't accept anyone telling me how to spend my money, just as I wouldn't tell someone else how to spend theirs.
People are free to give to this campaign. Who’s stopping them?
People are also free to criticise those who have donated. "
People are free to criticise, I guess that's everyone's right. I'll continue to take absolutely no notice of anyone criticising what I do in my life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
