To Catch a Copper

[The Todal]

This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.

In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.

[Peter Walker]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:

I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:

1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
not remian.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
journey.
7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
Pava to control the situation.

Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
their police car. This was refused.

All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
beligerence.

Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
apology.


In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
Nine O'Clock News.

--
Peter

[JNugent]

Was it in London?

Doesn't TaL have a zero-tolerance policy on aggression ("agitation")
towards their staff?

"...hostility of the public..."?

Are / were ALL the public hostile to the police's reaction?

I'd have said that only some of the public would take that line.
Certainly not all.

[The Todal]

On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
> see
>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>> bullying and callous.
>>
>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
> reasonably
>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>
>
> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>
> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.

I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The
police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be
necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
her, which was a disgraceful threat.

> 2. Refused to leave bus.
> 3. Police called.
> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
> not remian.

Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her to
leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go anywhere.

> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".

She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them imminently.

> 6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
> of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
> journey.
> 7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
> Pava to control the situation.

Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained by
officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been white
and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more courtesy.

>
> Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
> cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
> their police car. This was refused.

As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.

>
> All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
> beligerence.
>
> Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
> apology.

Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate
the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of black
community leaders and didn't care that he was.

>
>
> In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
> however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
> for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
> cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
> negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
> for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
> Nine O'Clock News.
>

In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.

[The Todal]

On 11/02/2024 18:06, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.
>

The documentary is origninal in that the makers were invited by the
police to be present while complaints about officers were investigated,
so that the public would be able to see how efficient the investigations
were and whether the end result was fair. If the expectation was that
the public would be reassured that the police can discipline their own,
then that probably hasn't worked.

Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police
officer would anyone have found that story credible?

[kat]

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

>> apology.
>
> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the police
> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't care
> that he was.
>

I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.

That qualification shouldn't be needed.
--
kat
>^..^<

[Roger Hayter]

You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.


--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

[ ... ]

> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
> wasn't punished in any way.

To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?

I ask merely for information.

[Roger Hayter]

Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.

--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

There are some here who don't like the use of the police and other
establishments using body-cams. Even complaining of the associated cost.
This is one case where it would be useful to moderate police behaviour
and to remove false accusations.

Where if there is no footage, then greater credibility should be given
to the complainant's claims of wrongdoing, and rape in this case.

[Peter Johnson]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:34:22 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:

There was an article about this series before it was broadcast in the
Guardian or the Observer, so on the Guardian website. Said the makers
were shocked at what they found, that they expected to see the police
against the world, as it were, and instead found that the police were
incompetent. (I summarise. It was a few weeks ago that I read it.)

[kat]

And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it. Possibly
some black people would agree.

But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it would seem
odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.
--
kat
>^..^<

[Peter Walker]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in

news:l2sfin...@mid.individual.net:

This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.

We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
to their treatment, whether justified or not.

I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

>
>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>> 3. Police called.
>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>> could not remian.
>
> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
> anywhere.
>

What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

>
>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>
> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
> imminently.
>

So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

>
>> 6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was
>> one of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue
>> its journey.
>> 7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to
>> use Pava to control the situation.
>
> Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
> forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained
> by officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
> officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
> spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been
> white and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more
> courtesy.
>

Again we are both the victim of the soundbite nature/editing of the
programme, neither of us know what happened between the initial arrest
notification, the initial(secondary) kickoff and the parvo event. From my
memory there were already a number of officers attempting her (lawful)
constraint (IMV a fully lawful arrest) so I feel that parv was only used as
a last resort. I don't feel it was used as a punishement but that is an
area that I am prepared to be convinced on, with convincing evidence rather
than speculation.

>
>>
>> Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the
>> passenger's cause of disress in needing to collect another by
>> offering her a lift in their police car. This was refused.
>
> As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
> car is not a good look.
>

Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the
car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her
out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
negative association. If however the subject had a negative history with
both the school and the police then I can understand why they might wish to
avoid further negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the
'victim's' own negative former behaviour.

Also whilst she may have wanted to be close to her child during her (self
imposed<?>) stressful situation that she chose to remove her child from the
pushchair and hold it to her as a human shield to protect herself from the
legitimate actions of the police in ejecting her from the bus.

>>
>> All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making
>> and beligerence.
>>
>> Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
>> apology.
>
> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
> the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to
> investigate the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of
> black community leaders and didn't care that he was.
>

Is this an out of sequence response? Is this in response to the drugs
search. If so then we agree. If related to the female passenger then we
disagree for the reasons above.

>>
>>
>> In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
>> however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and
>> claim for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his
>> non-violent non- cooperation with the officer who had accosted and
>> searched him with negative results in the past was suspicious and
>> gave reasonable suspicion for the drug search. It felt like Constable
>> Savage sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News.
>>
>
> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had
> sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who
> complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and
> seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
>

Both appalling abuses of police powers. In the former there was clear
frustration at the extensive previous history with subject and previous
suicide attempts at the same location leading to their loss of control and
professionalism. I sympathise with their loss of professionalism based on
repeated same situation attendances but I do not condone it

In the latter I found the vicitim credible and the story of the accused
officer absuolutely incredible. Despite the lack of corroboration I feel it
was a case that justified a prosecution or dismissal under gross misconduct
following investigation. The whole concept of resignation under full
benefits or health related retirement whilst under investigation to be
alien to natural justice and something I would like to see an end to. There
are far too many cases of errant officers escaping justice by
resigning/retiring(hurt) and being permitted to simply transfer to other
regions in similar roles and I would like to see this ended.

--
Peter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <n...@for.mail> wrote:
> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in

> news:l2sfin...@mid.individual.net:

>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>
> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>
> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
> to their treatment, whether justified or not.

This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
or something that only applies to this specific passenger?

> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

That doesn't sound remotely conciliatory.

>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay.

You keep saying this, but Todal has said she did have the means to pay.
So which is it? Did you and he watch different programmes?

>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence?

What threats are you talking about? You haven't identified any so far.

>> As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
>> car is not a good look.
>
> Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the
> car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her
> out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
> negative association.

This is pie in the sky stuff.

> If however the subject had a negative history with both the school and
> the police then I can understand why they might wish to avoid further
> negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the 'victim's' own
> negative former behaviour.

You appear to be making multiple completely-unsupported assumptions.

[The Todal]

I think the bus was empty of passengers other than the woman, her small
child and a number of police officers.

The black people who protested were witnessing events from outside and
maybe didn't have all the facts. But the black people assessing events
were watching the video footage from the police officers

[The Todal]

Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.

[Roger Hayter]

Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly
they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to
expel her.

>
>>
>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>> 3. Police called.
>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>> could not remian.
>>
>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

My understanding is that she had money, but not the payment type the driver
wanted. And this is not the Wild West. The bus company is heavily subsidised
by the council as a service to people without cars. It is not a private hire
operation taking who they want to when they want to. Was the driver's attitude
reasonable when she had a small child to pick up and could presumably pay cash
or promise to pay?

>
>>
>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>
>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>>
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

It depends how credible the threat, I suppose.


snip



--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

Did you watch the episode, which is available on Channel 4 Catchup? I
hoped everyone would watch it before commenting.

>
> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
> to their treatment, whether justified or not.

Officer (to driver) Hello mate, you alright?
Driver Yeah
Officer Was she being abusive?
Driver She got rude to me and I said there's no need to be rude
Officer What do you want to happen? Do you want her off, or...
Driver I've been told to have her removed
Woman I got on the bus up there, and he said he doesn't have change. So
then I tried to pay by card. The card declined. I said okay can I get a
change ticket then instead? He then looked me up and down and said not
when you speak to me like that. So I was like, sorry if you feel like I
was rude to you. Again I apologise.But I need to get my child from
school. How are you going to get me to my child's school?
Officer We've got a car
Woman I'm not getting in a fed car cause I didn't do nothing wrong,
that's just ridiculous.
Officer I know. Let's put a referral into social services. That you're
screaming and shouting in front of your young daughter.

>
> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

I disagree.

>
>>
>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>> 3. Police called.
>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>> could not remian.
>>
>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

See above.

>
>>
>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>
>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>>
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

If the police want to de-escalate a situation they should ask the member
of the public - to whom they should be courteous and professional at all
times - to confirm that she does not intend to offer any violence.
That's obvious.

[Fredxx]

I would hope so, if someone sat in the passenger seat of my car I would
hope the police would remove them. Same if you had an unwanted guest in
your house.

>>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>>> 3. Police called.
>>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>>> could not remian.
>>>
>>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
>> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
>> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
>
> My understanding is that she had money, but not the payment type the driver
> wanted. And this is not the Wild West. The bus company is heavily subsidised
> by the council as a service to people without cars. It is not a private hire
> operation taking who they want to when they want to. Was the driver's attitude
> reasonable when she had a small child to pick up and could presumably pay cash
> or promise to pay?

I was of the impression she refused. If your scenario is correct then I
feel that is a big failing of the bus company, and the rules set by the
LA. Not everyone has a payment card. Not all cards may be accepted.

>>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>>
>>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>>> imminently.
>>>
>>
>> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
>> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
>> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
>> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
>> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?
>
> It depends how credible the threat, I suppose.

Each case is considered on it's own merit. However, if you say you felt
threatened and acted accordingly not many juries would find you guilty.

[Roger Hayter]

Whether you can remove an unwanted guest depends on the terms on which they
became a guest. And in many cases bailiffs, with the support of the police
only if resisted, is the only safe answer.
As to your car, do you provide a state subsidised public transport service in
it? If not, it's a bit irrelevant.

Consider if you are a farmer, can you ring the police and tell them you've
seen a rambler crossing your field and expect them to come and remove him?

It's not quite as simple as you appear to suggest.


>
>>>>> snip
--
Roger Hayter

[kat]

The bus may have been empty by the time the police arrived - but was it before
and the pissed off at being held up other passengers left?

It seems to me we don't have all the facts either. I gather we hear her side of
the story, which might be sanitised, but not that of the bus driver, truthful
or not.
--
kat
>^..^<

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:l2vq54...@mid.individual.net...

>
> Whether you can remove an unwanted guest depends on the terms on which they
> became a guest. And in many cases bailiffs, with the support of the police
> only if resisted, is the only safe answer.

"Upton Abbey" Season 4 Ep 4

Scene: the dining Room

Lord Uppity: " I say sir ! You've just insulted my wife ! I demand you leave
my house immediately !"

Lord Snotty : " Make me !"

Lord Uppity: "Send for the bailiffs !"

5 minutes later a Ford Transit screeches to a halt on the gravel drive
outside, and two thick-set bald headed men in black tee shirts are ushered
into the Dining Room by Grumpy the Butler.


bb

[Pancho]

On 12/02/2024 21:36, The Todal wrote:

>
> Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
> allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
>

I don't understand.

Surely, police officers are allowed to fuck members of the public when
off duty, and are not allowed to fuck anyone when on duty.

[Max Demian]

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

She tried to pay by cash, but the driver didn't have change for the
transaction; she then tried a card which was declined; then she asked
for a "change ticket". This appears to be a kind of credit note:
https://www.firstbus.co.uk/bristol-bath-and-west/help-and-support/change-tickets

That annoyed the driver. Which annoyed the woman.

--
Max Demian

[JNugent]

On 12/02/2024 14:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <n...@for.mail> wrote:
>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in
>> news:l2sfin...@mid.individual.net:
>>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>
>> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>>
>> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
>> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
>> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have

>> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negatthing ive position

>> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
>> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
>
> This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
> certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
> that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
> along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
> similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
> or something that only applies to this specific passenger?

Do you have justifiable expectations of being carried if you fail to
pay the fare?

Does the same sort of thing apply in supermarkets and other retail outlets?

Does willingness and ability to pay now mean nothing?

[Graham Nye]

On 2024-02-11 17:48:06, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay

>>> for ticket ...

>>
>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>
> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of

> events but she wanted to pay in cash...

Cash hasn't been accepted on TfL buses since the 6th July 2014.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/july/london-s-buses-go-cash-free-from-this-sunday

I live 100 miles from London, haven't visited it in years (and
generally used the tube rather than a bus when I did) and
am aware of this (though I had to google the date).

I would have expected a London resident to be rather more
familiar with the situation.

How old is this documentary? 10 years?

--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Brian]

Colour / race is irrelevant. Behaviour is.

Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
paying.
Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.

[JNugent]

Not every trade and profession has the same rules. Partidularly not for
poeple who have been found to have done nothing wrong.

[JNugent]

Where does it say that?

[Brian]

The officer clearly had reason to be concerned. Given the reaction of the
woman, that seems more than justified.

>>
>> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
>> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
>> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
>
> I disagree.

The woman was entirely at fault.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>>> 3. Police called.
>>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>>> could not remian.
>>>
>>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
>> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
>> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
>
>

Exactly.

[Graham Nye]

On 2024-02-13 16:02:20, Graham Nye wrote:
> On 2024-02-11 17:48:06, The Todal wrote:
>>>>

>>
>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
>> events but she wanted to pay in cash...
>
> Cash hasn't been accepted on TfL buses since the 6th July 2014.

Oops. For some reason I thought this was discussing the Met. Apart
from the metrobus cash is accepted on Bristol buses. Even the
airport flyer, if you have a spare £15 (return).

--
Graham Nye
news(a)thenyes.org.uk

[Roger Hayter]

Every profession with power over life, health, liberty or government benefits
does in respect of people who are clients or recent clients, AFAIK. And, as
you well know, being found not guilty of a specific crime does not stop an
employer disciplining someone for inappropriate conduct on a balance of
probablility basis.

I won't go into what I think of his defence, unless perhaps the women was
bigger than him or armed with a weapon.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

The driver apparently did not have change. And it was not supermarket, it was
a heavily subsidised public service provided by a contractor.

--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

He was on duty. He told a fellow officer that he would drive the drunken
woman home, for her safety. He then (as she said) raped her or (as he
said) had sex with her because she overcame his resistance.

[The Todal]

On 13/02/2024 18:38, Brian wrote:
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>>> apology.
>>>>
>>>> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
>>>> police
>>>> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
>>>> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
>>>> care
>>>> that he was.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
>>> police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
>>> black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
>>>
>>> That qualification shouldn't be needed.
>>
>> You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
>>
>>
>
> Colour / race is irrelevant. Behaviour is.
>
> Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
> paying.

She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her
off the bus.

> Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.

She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a
police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.

> Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
>

At the point when she said leave me alone, I'm leaving the bus, the
officers were determined to hold her down to impose their authority on
her. And then to use pepper spray when she, quite reasonably, struggled
and kicked.

[kat]

On 14/02/2024 00:13, The Todal wrote:

> She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care about that,
> and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her off the bus.
>
>
>> Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
>
> She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a police
> officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.

On the other hand being rude and abusive to a bus driver is a very good reason
for being kicked off the bus even if she did have the money to pay.

I take it there was no footage of the argument with the driver? They can be
helpful when there is a problem, but they have to know about it.



--
kat
>^..^<

[Pancho]

On 14/02/2024 00:13, The Todal wrote:

>> Did she have the money to pay? If not, she clearly had no intention of
>> paying.
>
> She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
> about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted her
> off the bus.
>

Normally, bus drivers have the discretion to refuse travel, and to
require passengers to leave the bus. So the police didn't have much choice.

>
>> Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
>
> She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to a
> police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the public.
>
>
>> Did she resist? If yes, use of pepper spray may well be required.
>>
>
> At the point when she said leave me alone, I'm leaving the bus, the
> officers were determined to hold her down to impose their authority on
> her. And then to use pepper spray when she, quite reasonably, struggled
> and kicked.
>

Yes, the police behaviour was suboptimal, but once a confrontation
begins it is hard to change in an instant.

Also, the use of force is problematic in that in a struggle, a male
police officer may accidentally touch a woman in a way that is deemed
inappropriate. So they may prefer pepper spray, when physical restraint
would be more appropriate. As an example, there was a shopkeeper in
Peckham who tried to stop a woman leaving his shop with items she had
not paid for. She hit him a number of times, and in the ensuing struggle
he momentarily grabbed her by the throat. He was condemned for this and
had to close his shop.

I know a number of bus drivers socially, and they tell me bad behaviour
by passengers is common. Nothing to do with race.

[billy bookcase]

"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message

news:l3299c...@mid.individual.net...

>
> The driver apparently did not have change. And it was not supermarket, it was
> a heavily subsidised public service provided by a contractor.

But the reason buses need to be subsidised is because of operational factors
such as lack of demand other than at peak times etc. etc.

Not necessarily because they pay their drivers such extravagant wages

More especially when working shifts anytime between 6.a.m and 12 midnight
and having to deal directly with members of the public whether drunk or sober
while also being expected to drive a bus.

In the days of two man operation, truculent passengers could be handled by
conductors while the driver was safely ensconced in his cab. If the worst
came to the worse a quick three bells meant stop the bus your assistance
is required.

And while they may be a "public service" most are run by those private
operators whose bids most appealed to cash strapped local authorities.
And guess how they managed that ?



bb

[Jeff]

..due to his PTSD. He was later acquitted in court (much to the disgust
of the investigating officers it would seem and the general attitude of
the program), but still faced an internal disciplinary.
In small print at the end of the episode was a statement that he was
also cleared at the disciplinary.

Jeff

[Handsome Jack]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
> raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
> herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police
> officer would anyone have found that story credible?

Yes, in the sense that it could have happened. Erections are not necessarily voluntary actions.

[Simon Parker]

It isn't just bus drivers:

"Abuse and attacks on UK shop workers rises to 1,300 incidents a day"

"Incidents against staff were up by 50% in the year to September 2023,
up from 870 incidents a day the year before."

"The British Retail Consortium (BRC) criticised the "woefully
inadequate" action taken by the government to address the "crisis"."

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68290879

Regards

S.P.

[Mark Goodge]

If someone is acquitted in court, and subsequently cleared at a disciplinary
hearing, despite looking obviously guilty from an outsider's perspective,
then the most probable reason is that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel were presented with evidence that has not been reported.

It is, of course, still possible that both the jury and the disciplinary
panel got it wrong. But without knowing all that they were told, it's
impossible to say that with any degree of certainty.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Generally speaking I would tend to agree with you, but if it is true
that his claim is that he, an on-duty policeman in possession of his
police equipment, was physically overpowered and sexually assaulted
by a drunken woman who was supposed to be in his care and control then
I will need to go fetch a step-ladder in order to retrieve my eyebrows
from the ceiling.

[Mark Goodge]

Well, yes. But I do also wonder if that aspect has been entirely accurately
reported as well.

Discaimer: I haven't seen the TV programme in question, and I have no
intention of watching it. But if someone can provide a link to a media
report of the incident, then I'll look at that and do a bit of research
around it.

Mark

[JNugent]

That is the problem faced by the court and the disciplinary board.

They had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the evidence.

You have heard/read a fraction of it and are able to see the case much
more clearly as a result. T'was ever thus.

[JNugent]

Yes... and?

[JNugent]

On 14/02/2024 03:47, kat wrote:

> On 14/02/2024 00:13, The Todal wrote:
>
>> She said she had the money to pay. The officers didn't seem to care
>> about that, and took their orders from the driver who said he wanted
>> her off the bus.
>
>>> Was she abusive? If yes, she deserved to be arrested.
>
>> She used some bad language and was angry and emotional. Being rude to
>> a police officer is not valid grounds for arresting a member of the
>> public.
>
> On the other hand being rude and abusive to a bus driver is a very good
> reason for being kicked off the bus even if she did have the money to pay.

Just imagine the later furore - AGAINST the police by the usual suspects
- if an officer had persuaded a bus-driver that a would-be passenger's
rudeness, abuse and failure to pay wasn't all that bad and that person
had seriously assaulted the driver after the police had gone - perhaps
whilst driving at 30 mph with a bus load of paying passengers.

[Brian]

By that time the police may have been satisfied things had gone too far.
Those who get themselves into these situations must accept they can’t
simply say ‘I want to go home now’ if they have broken the law.

[Jeff]

Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called
investigating officers who seemed bent on convictions without
impartially investigating.

Jeff

[Jeff]

The officer did not claim that he was overpowered in a physical sense.
He had previously been off sick with PTSD due to a previous serious
incident and had not been back at work for very long. He claimed the
incident basically caused him to freeze and have flash-backs and was
incapable of stopping the assault on him.

Jeff

[billy bookcase]

"Jeff" <je...@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2...@dont-email.me...

>>
> Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating
> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating.
>

In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
any member of the public.

However that assumption came into question as a result off various
successful Appeals in the Courts, newspaper investigations, and
police accounts of various incidents

So that now, when it comes to investigating a complaint against
a police officer by a member of the public, rather than taking
the officer's word for it right from the start, as would have been the
case before, the account given by the member of the public is
initially believed; and its up to the police officer to prove them
wrong.


bb

[The Todal]

In a criminal court, the jury get to make the decision and they might
very easily have thought that with a drunken complainant the case
against the officer was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It's a bit more difficult to see why he wasn't punished under the
disciplinary system. Maybe those conducting the hearing felt that the
burden of proof had not been discharged. Some would say that drunken
women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.

I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good
conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
an erection and push your penis into her vagina.

In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.

[The Todal]

That's not true.

In fact, it was usually the female chief constable who (to camera)
criticised and condemned the behaviour of the officers. The
programme-makers were impartial.

There was one case in part 3 where I thought the officer was treated
unfairly. In a social event at which junior officers or recruits were
present, a middle aged man tried to flirt with a young female trainee.
She didn't actually say she wasn't interested, please leave me alone.
She said to him he was old enough to be her father, as if that was the
equivalent of telling him to back off. He continued flirting and he
touched her. She claimed sexual harassment. He was found guilty and
dismissed. She was a person with a past history of sexual abuse so was
vulnerable, and she was very keen to see him dismissed. I found it
rather distasteful.

[The Todal]

It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
think that was evident from the footage.

[The Todal]

Maybe the knowledge that he was behaving improperly and unethically (as
an officer on duty being propositioned by a drunken woman) was a turn-on
and gave him additional sexual stimulation.

In much the same way that Wayne Couzens enjoyed the thrill of
brandishing his penis at McDonalds.

[Roger Hayter]

I can see how that might seem a bit harsh to some older people (not including
myself), but if that is how he feels entitled to behave in public just imagine
how he behaves when alone in a room with subordinates.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Jeff" <je...@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>> Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating
>> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating.
>>
>
> In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
> was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
> any member of the public.
>

Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on
police testimony had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many
years ago, it was about 50%.

[JNugent]

That's always the best way to judge people over whose lives one has
control, isn't it?

By using the imagination...

What could be fairer than that?

[JNugent]

That or something very close to it is very obviously true.

> It's a bit more difficult to see why he wasn't punished under the
> disciplinary system.

Not really.

The disciplinary board had the distinct disadvantage of hearing all the
evidence.

We are not so disadvantaged and as a result, some of us feel able to
judge the case better then they did, n'est-ce-pas?

> Maybe those conducting the hearing felt that the
> burden of proof had not been discharged.

I don't see how you can realistically use the word "maybe" there.

> Some would say that drunken
> women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
> through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.

Some might say that. Others wouldn't.

> I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
> decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good
> conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
> if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
> an erection and push your penis into her vagina.
>
> In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
> revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
> relationships with. It took many years before he was actually
> disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
> found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.

Probably because of the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you say?

Or should all such decisions be farmed out to those who haven't heard
the evidence, don't care about it anyway and just want to stick it to
the man, as the kids used to say?

[billy bookcase]

"Pancho" <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote in message news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1...@dont-email.me...

That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?

What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.

So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
with today.



bb

[The Todal]

And yet I have.

On the one hand, burden of proof. On the other, maintaining the
confidence of the public. I think it is possible that if the complainant
(drunken female) had been a police officer the outcome would have been
rather different.

>
>> Some would say that drunken
>> women are rarely believed and should not bother putting themselves
>> through a process which is unlikely to uphold their complaint.
>
> Some might say that. Others wouldn't.
>
>> I haven't looked online to see if there is a transcript of any IOPC
>> decision regarding that officer. Maybe he was thought to be a good
>> conscientious officer who deserved the benefit of the doubt. After all,
>> if you have PTSD it's all too easy for an attractive woman to give you
>> an erection and push your penis into her vagina.
>>
>> In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
>> revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
>> relationships with.  It took many years before he was actually
>> disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
>> found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.
>
> Probably because of the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you say?
>
> Or should all such decisions be farmed out to those who haven't heard
> the evidence, don't care about it anyway and just want to stick it to
> the man, as the kids used to say?
>

Did you watch the programme?

The purpose was to allow viewers to see how coppers are investigated and
how well the disciplinary process works, in the interests of open
government or something.

It isn't much good if the message given is "he was let off, it might
look odd, but we can't tell you why he was let off, it's secret. Just
trust the system to come to the right conclusion".

Arguably they should only have broadcast incidents where the process was
absolutely transparent and easy for viewers to follow.

[JNugent]

Not my sort of thing.

> The purpose was to allow viewers to see how coppers are investigated and
> how well the disciplinary process works, in the interests of open
> government or something.
> It isn't much good if the message given is "he was let off, it might
> look odd, but we can't tell you why he was let off, it's secret. Just
> trust the system to come to the right conclusion".

So because his case had been chosen for broadcast to the world, the
adjudicating authority / authorities had a duty to find something to
sack him for.

I see.

>
> Arguably they should only have broadcast incidents where the process was
> absolutely transparent and easy for viewers to follow.

The lesson that some things are confidential and are simply not going to
be revealed to member of the general public (who have no legitimate
business in knowing them) was itself a worthwhile one, surely?

[JNugent]

Surely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry
were convinced of the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any
accepted sense of the word?

[Max Demian]

Most people who know one another are in some kind of pecking order. Are
employees not allowed to socialise sexually?

Will the human race survive and reproduce?

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 16/02/2024 12:24, The Todal wrote:

> In Part 3 of the documentary there was an officer who kept uploading
> revenge porn in relation to a succession of women he had had
> relationships with.  It took many years before he was actually
> disciplined and dismissed. The implication is that some officers have
> found it easy to evade disciplinary hearings over many decades.

"Revenge porn" is a modern idea. He thought he was just uploading some
sexy pictures. Who knows that revenge was his motive?

--
Max Demian

[Roger Hayter]

I agree, his motive might well have been perfectly friendly humiliation, and
self-aggrandisement; not revenge at all. I don't think revenge is an essential
element of the crime though.


--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

They displayed exemplary police behaviour. Not.

(from Wikipedia:

While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")

[Pancho]

On 16/02/2024 17:50, billy bookcase wrote:
> "Pancho" <Pancho...@proton.me> wrote in message news:uqnq4o$3skuf$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 15/02/2024 13:52, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "Jeff" <je...@ukra.com> wrote in message news:uqkoci$38rfh$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. The whole attitude of the program was that the officers involved
>>>> were guilty, and that was also the attitude of the so called investigating
>>>> officers who seemed bent on convictions without impartially investigating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
>>> was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
>>> any member of the public.
>>>
>>
>> Not by Juries. Ever since I can remember jury trials relying purely on police testimony
>> had a low conviction rate, when I last looked, many years ago, it was about 50%
>
> That sounds interesting. Do you have a source for that ?
>

No sources, this is just from memory. Going back to the eighties, in London.

> What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
> Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
> the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
>

Corruption investigations into the Met predate the 80s, Countryman, etc.
The name “The Filth” comes from much earlier.

> So that would be say the 1980's and earlier, as maybe compared
> with today.
>

My feeling was that in that period, corruption, dishonesty, was so
widespread in the Met that it would have been impossible for an honest
police officer to operate. The corruption was obvious, a police officer
ignoring it was a crime in and of itself.

The police PR spin at that time was “A few rotten apples” and “problems
in the past that had now been fixed”.

I don't know much about the police today. I'm sceptical that shows like
this one highlight selected issues with police corruption to give the
impression that all corruption issues are being tackled. Whereas a whole
class of corrupt behaviours are still tolerated and ignored, e.g. casual
perjury, and manufacturing evidence. In other words, a suspicion that
the show is PR designed to give a veneer of respectability.

[Roger Hayter]

Coercive sexual assault or rape are not "socialising sexually". Most big
companies do have rules against sexual relationships with subordinates, as a
result of bitter experience, even if vicarious.


--
Roger Hayter

[The Todal]

I think when colleagues are in a social occasion and making friends with
each other, some flirting is likely to take place (unless expressly
forbidden) and there is presumably no rule by which you are not allowed
to flirt with anyone more than 15 years younger than you.

My point really is that if flirting is unwelcome, be it among police
cadets or be it in the House of Commons bar, and there are witnesses
available to see what's happening, then a simple "please no, I'm not
interested" is what is required to communicate one's wishes. Rather than
"But you're so old!".

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jennings&c...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l3a5oq...@mid.individual.net...

> On 16/02/2024 11:50, billy bookcase wrote:
.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the past, both in the Courts and in the public mind it was always
>>>> assumed the Policemen always told the truth. And where there
>>>> was any dispute, their word would always be accepted over that of
>>>> any member of the public.
>>>>
>>

>> What I was describing was the situation before the Birmingham
>> Six and Guildford Four Appeals, The Hillsborough Enquiry, and
>> the numerous investigations into corruption in the Met.
>>
>>

> Surely the police officers involved in the Birmingham Bombing inquiry were convinced of
> the guilt of the suspects and did not lie in any accepted sense of the word?

The only point at issue is whether any of the above significantly
undermined public confidence and trust in the police; such that
their word was no longer automatically accepted as true.

Quite why they may have acted in the way that they did, is of no
particular relevance in that context.


bb

[JNugent]

On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:

> "We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".

That is not how I remember the case.
>
> Nothing could ever go wrong with that, could it ?
>

[JNugent]

Why would that be an issue? Are guilty suspects let off without a trial
if they are unlawfully abused?

>
> (from Wikipedia:
>
> While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
> allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
> for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
> and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
> them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
> by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
> McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
> he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")

As bad as that is, it does not militate against what I said.

Neither does it necessarily point to innocence - does it?

[billy bookcase]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:uqqhai$3t4en$3...@dont-email.me...

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:42:21 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>
>> My feeling was that in that period, corruption, dishonesty, was so
>> widespread in the Met that it would have been impossible for an honest
>> police officer to operate. The corruption was obvious, a police officer
>> ignoring it was a crime in and of itself.
>

> I believe the Operation Countryman detectives were based outside of
> London for their own safety.


Not quite. They used officers from outside forces mainly Hampshire and
Dorset. who were eventually based in Godalming Surrey so as to remove
them from temptation in the form of brown envelopes.

a.k.a The Sweedy

The final successful investigation of the Kray Twns was conducted by Nipper
Read and his small team of detectives from Tintagel House, an office block
South of the River with no police connections; so at to keep the Twins
from being tipped off.

While as to the Richardsons, and what eventually ended up as "the
Torture Trial" ( Although Frankie Fraser went to his grave insisting
it was all a gross exaggeration; just a bit of misunderstanding)

quote:

Under MacArthur's leadership, the Hertfordshire force was investigating the
Richardsons because the Home Office could not trust the Metropolitan Police,
many of whom were in the pay of the Richardsons and other London gangs.

:unquote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_Gang



bb





>

[The Todal]

What else don't you remember? I suppose you didn't pay the case much
attention when Chris Mullin wrote his book "Error of Judgment" and the
Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be unsafe because of unreliable
scientific evidence and unreliable police evidence.

[The Todal]

Tortured into confessing, and then made to sign confessions which were
demonstrably false.

>>
>> (from Wikipedia:
>>
>> While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
>> allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
>> for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
>> and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
>> them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
>> by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
>> McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
>> he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")
>
> As bad as that is, it does not militate against what I said.
>
> Neither does it necessarily point to innocence - does it?
>
>

The evidence pointed clearly towards guilt. Guilt on the part of various
police officers.


https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1991/2.html

At the trial the appellants relied on various inconsistencies between
the four written confessions so as to show that the confessions were not
genuine, or that the police evidence as to the circumstances surrounding
the confessions was not to be believed. If the confessions had been
shown to be unreliable, then the prosecution case would very probably
have failed. This was the ground on which the Court of Appeal quashed
the convictions in Lattimore (the Confait case) (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 53 .

For our part, we would say that in the light of the fresh scientific
evidence, which at least throws grave doubt on Dr. Skuse's evidence, if
it does not destroy it altogether, these convictions are both unsafe and
unsatisfactory. If we put the scientific evidence on one side, the fresh
investigation carried out by the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary renders
the police evidence at the trial so unreliable, that again we would say
that the convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory. Adding the two
together, our conclusion was inevitable. It was for these reasons that
we allowed the appeals.

[JNugent]

That was not the way it looked at the time.

>
>>> (from Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> While the men were in the custody of the West Midlands Police they were
>>> allegedly deprived of food and sleep, and were sometimes interrogated
>>> for as much as 12 hours without a break. Threats were made against them
>>> and they suffered abuse: punches, dogs being let loose within a foot of
>>> them, and a mock execution. William Power alleged that he was assaulted
>>> by members of Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department. Richard
>>> McIlkenny's daughter said, "When they (the family) saw him the next day,
>>> he had been so badly beaten he was unrecognisable.")
>>
>> As bad as that is, it does not militate against what I said.
>> Neither does it necessarily point to innocence - does it?
>
> The evidence pointed clearly towards guilt. Guilt on the part of various
> police officers.

Even that does not point to innocence on the part of the suspects. Does it?

Before PACE, the behaviour you describe was probably more common than it
is today. Does that mean that no-one convicted of crime was actually guilty?

>
> https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1991/2.html
>
> At the trial the appellants relied on various inconsistencies between
> the four written confessions so as to show that the confessions were not
> genuine, or that the police evidence as to the circumstances surrounding
> the confessions was not to be believed. If the confessions had been
> shown to be unreliable, then the prosecution case would very probably
> have failed. This was the ground on which the Court of Appeal quashed
> the convictions in Lattimore (the Confait case) (1975) 62 Cr.App.R. 53 .

"probably"

>
> For our part, we would say that in the light of the fresh scientific
> evidence, which at least throws grave doubt on Dr. Skuse's evidence, if
> it does not destroy it altogether, these convictions are both unsafe and
> unsatisfactory. If we put the scientific evidence on one side, the fresh
> investigation carried out by the Devon & Cornwall Constabulary renders
> the police evidence at the trial so unreliable, that again we would say
> that the convictions are both unsafe and unsatisfactory. Adding the two
> together, our conclusion was inevitable. It was for these reasons that
> we allowed the appeals.

"unsafe and unsatisfactory"

That's what it looked like then.
>

[JNugent]

This is ridiculous. What possible motivation could the police have had
for fitting up innocent men?

Do you think they *wanted* the guilty to escape?

My original stament was a reminder that the police believed that the
suspects were guilty. They thought they had good evidence for that,
including forensics which convinced them and the court (though they were
later undermined).

You areuite right. I have never read anything longer than a newspaper
afrticle by Chris Mullin.

Wasn't he one of those who argued that he knew who the real guilty men
were, but refused to identify them and that the police and courts should
just take his word for that?

[The Todal]

On 18/02/2024 00:52, JNugent wrote:
> On 17/02/2024 16:15, The Todal wrote:
>> On 17/02/2024 18:11, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 17/02/2024 02:56, Jethro_uk wrote:

>>>>
>>>> "We fitted them up because we knew they were guilty".
>>>
>>> That is not how I remember the case.
>>
>> What else don't you remember?  I suppose you didn't pay the case much
>> attention when Chris Mullin wrote his book "Error of Judgment" and the
>> Court of Appeal ruled the convictions to be unsafe because of unreliable
>> scientific evidence and unreliable police evidence.
>
> This is ridiculous. What possible motivation could the police have had
> for fitting up innocent men?

What possible motivation? Being under pressure to find the culprits,
being totally out of their depth and unable to track down the culprits,
and then enjoying the gratitude of a nation and the chance of promotion
when they manage to pin the crimes onto innocent men. You don't find
that plausible, then.

I would cite the words of m'learned friend Sean McGowan, recently deceased.

There were six men in Birmingham
In Guildford there's four
That were picked up and tortured
And framed by the law
And the filth got promotion
But they're still doing time
For being Irish in the wrong place and at the wrong time
In Ireland they'll put you away in the Maze
In England they'll keep you for seven long days
God help you if ever you're caught on these shores
The coppers need someone and they walk through that door
You'll be counting years, first five, then ten
Growing old in a lonely hell
'Round the yard and the stinking cell
From wall to wall, and back again
A curse on the judges, the coppers and screws
Who tortured the innocent, wrongly accused
For the price of promotion and justice to sell
May the judged by their judges when they rot down in hell.

>
> Do you think they *wanted* the guilty to escape?
>
> My original stament was a reminder that the police believed that the
> suspects were guilty. They thought they had good evidence for that,
> including forensics which convinced them and the court (though they were
> later undermined).
>
> You areuite right. I have never read anything longer than a newspaper
> afrticle by Chris Mullin.
>
> Wasn't he one of those who argued that he knew who the real guilty men
> were, but refused to identify them and that the police and courts should
> just take his word for that?
>

I'm sure that our Special Branch and MI5 were aware of the correct
culprits before Chris Mullin was.

But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe impossible.

[Max Demian]

It's how the offence is promoted, whatever the offence is called.

--
Max Demian

[Roger Hayter]

I know. But it is not how the offence is defined in statute. Obviously, they
did not want the defence: "I thought she'd like having her pictures on the
Internet." to have to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt in every single
case.


--
Roger Hayter

[Pamela]

On 22:02 12 Feb 2024, The Todal said:
> On 12/02/2024 18:36, Peter Walker wrote:
>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in
>> news:l2sfin...@mid.individual.net:
>>> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>>>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching
>>>>> - see if you think the police actions were reasonable and
>>>>> acceptable, or bullying and callous.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child
>>>>> on a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about
>>>>> how to pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated
>>>>> and defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole
>>>>> gang of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict
>>>>> pepper spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police
>>>>> reckon they acted reasonably and the hostility of the public is
>>>>> unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>>
>>>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>>>
>>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her
>>> version of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her
>>> the driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever
>>> that meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or
>>> encourage her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her
>>> rude language it might be necessary to call social services and have
>>> her child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>
>> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day
>> so we both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and
>> experience.
>
> Did you watch the episode, which is available on Channel 4 Catchup? I
> hoped everyone would watch it before commenting.

Is this YouTube video the full clip? (7 mins 20 secs)

"Police Investigated After Mother’s Bus Arrest | To Catch a Copper"
https://youtu.be/HFpEbJWOZ-w

[Handsome Jack]

The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
> think that was evident from the footage.


Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/

[kat]

A rather different view.
--
kat
>^..^<

[Jon Ribbens]

Thank god this person is no longer a police officer.

Interesting though that in his telling the woman has now escalated from
saying she was going to "have" some police to now saying she's going to
"knock out" the police.

His confidence that "they are all out of step but me" is quite impressive.

[Roger Hayter]

On 19 Feb 2024 at 19:36:15 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

I realised what his agenda was when he said the woman "refused to pay". One
fundamental lie is enough to reveal his whole agenda. And do they actually
have the power to remove her from a bus? He thinks it self-evident that they
do, because they can, presumably.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pancho]

On 19/02/2024 20:58, Roger Hayter wrote:

> I realised what his agenda was when he said the woman "refused to pay". One
> fundamental lie is enough to reveal his whole agenda. And do they actually
> have the power to remove her from a bus? He thinks it self-evident that they
> do, because they can, presumably.
>

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1990/1020/made>

---
7(b)where the vehicle is being operated by the driver without a conductor–
(i)save as provided in (ii) below, immediately on boarding the vehicle,
pay the fare for the journey he intends to take to the driver or, where
appropriate, by inserting in any fare-collection equipment provided on
the vehicle the money or token required to pay that fare; or
(ii)if otherwise directed by the driver, an inspector or a notice
displayed on the vehicle, shall pay the fare for his journey in
accordance with the direction;
---

---
8-(2) Any passenger on a vehicle who contravenes any provision of these
Regulations may be removed from the vehicle by the driver, inspector or
conductor of the vehicle or, on the request of the driver, inspector or
conductor, by a police constable.
---

[JNugent]

Was he a lawyer?

A learned judge, even?

>> Do you think they *wanted* the guilty to escape?
>> My original stament was a reminder that the police believed that the
>> suspects were guilty. They thought they had good evidence for that,
>> including forensics which convinced them and the court (though they
>> were later undermined).
>>

>> You are quite right. I have never read anything longer than a newspaper

>> afrticle by Chris Mullin.
>>
>> Wasn't he one of those who argued that he knew who the real guilty men
>> were, but refused to identify them and that the police and courts
>> should just take his word for that?
>>
> I'm sure that our Special Branch and MI5 were aware of the correct
> culprits before Chris Mullin was.

Are you?

> But it would be a bit awkward to try the culprits for a crime after
> someone else has been (wrongly) conficted of that crime. Maybe impossible.

It happened with Christie, didn't it?

[The Todal]

There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are
required or permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and
wrestle her baby away from her. It actually would have been quite easy
for two officers to escort her off the bus, if they had been as polite
and respectful to her as she was entitled to expect of them.

Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers
corresponded with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that she
was entitled to compensation. It is rather shameful that the police
officers probably still believe that they acted reasonably and probably
still dismiss as ignorant the respected members of the black community
who saw the footage and sided with the woman passenger.

A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster.
I think the police officers should be given remedial classes in
de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many
officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and
especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist "officers in danger".

[JNugent]

And worth quoting verbatim:

The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
(Inadvertently) by Channel 4

BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM

In my 25 years as a police officer before retiring in 2018, I witnessed,
from the inside, the slow but steady transformation from a police force
serving all members of the public and enforcing the law without fear or
favour, to a police service which was essentially the paramilitary wing
of the DEI industry. This was not the fault of the many hard-working
constables and sergeants I worked alongside, although, of course there
were some bad apples as there are in any organisation. The shift in
culture was a result of lack of moral courage amongst many senior
officers, who were more concerned with internal politics and their own
careers than serving the public and providing strong leadership to
support their staff on the front line. Since I retired this has been
exemplified by the response, or lack of it, to the BLM protests in 2020
and, more recently, to the pro-Hamas marches. I accept that some
officers didn’t help themselves with their draconian enforcement of the
ridiculous Covid rules, sometimes even making up their own laws when it
suited them. But, again, I feel that stronger leadership and a more
independent-minded attitude from senior officers would have minimised this.

All of this brings me to a recent episode of a Channel 4 documentary
series called ‘To Catch A Copper’. Each episode follows the work of the
Professional Standards Department (PSD) of Avon and Somerset Police who
investigate complaints against police officers and staff – for those who
watch Line of Duty, a real-life AC12. It was filmed during peak Covid
hysteria so there are lots of irritating masks and (anti)social
distancing measures and it features the obligatory DEI indoctrination
courses, etc. But, to be fair, most of the cases featured are as a
result of completely unacceptable, sometimes criminal behaviour by
police officers and support staff.

One incident, however, demonstrates the complete moral cowardice of Avon
and Somerset Police and a total lack of support for several officers
who, quite clearly, did nothing wrong.

The investigation was triggered by a video posted to social media by a
local citizen journalist of a young black woman and her baby on a bus in
Bristol being restrained by several police officers. There was no
context and the running commentary clearly showed the contempt in which
the man videoing it held the local constabulary. Needless to say, panic
ensued at police headquarters until an investigator from PSD viewed the
footage from the bus CCTV and the body-worn cameras of the officers
involved.

The drama was triggered by the woman’s refusal to get off the bus,
despite being unable to pay her fare and having been abusive to the bus
driver. The two officers who initially attended the incident were
completely calm and reasonable, even offering to give her and her baby,
whom she had with her, a lift to where she wanted to go. At this she
started to become more and more agitated saying she wouldn’t go in a
‘Fed’ car as she hadn’t done anything wrong. The stand-off continued
with the woman becoming more and more aggressive for no reason, then
talking to a friend on her phone telling them she was “about to knock
out two Feds”. Understandably, the officers decided enough was enough
and started to forcibly remove her from the bus, at which she kicked one
of them, resulting in them trying to arrest her for assaulting a police
officer. At this she grabbed her baby from the carry cot and started
using her as a human shield and a struggle ensued with the baby in the
middle of it, through no fault of the police. She then started shouting
“I can’t breathe” and “you’re choking me” despite neither officer being
anywhere near her neck, and then tried to bite one of them. She was,
quite rightly, sprayed with incapacitant, and several more officers
attended to assist, which is where the original social media video began.

The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat
naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white
people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was
perfectly understandable.

The senior officer chose not to rebut this patent nonsense and, instead,
just nodded along despite it being quite clear that the officers had
done nothing wrong. We were then treated to a self-flagellating speech
on ‘institutionalised racism’ from the Chief Constable of Avon and
Somerset before it transpired that the matter had been referred to the
Independent Office for Police Conduct by solicitors acting for the woman
in question, resulting in the two officers involved being suspended from
public-facing duties for the duration of the investigation, which took
12 months.

The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had acted
reasonably, but this was still not enough for the local ‘community
leaders’ who refused to accept the IOPC decision on the basis that they
were also ‘institutionally racist’. Bizarrely, the Chief Constable
agreed with them and the end result was that the two officers were
instructed to reflect on their behaviour and the cultural differences in
play while the woman in question was never prosecuted for assaulting
them. The icing on the cake is that three years after the incident the
woman received financial compensation and a letter of apology for the
“shocking, deeply distressing and humiliating” treatment she had
received at the hands of Avon and Somerset Police.

Graham Low initially joined Sussex Police before transferring to
Cheshire Police and working in various criminal investigation roles,
retiring as a Detective Sergeant
______________________________________________________________
And one reader's comment:

Hester
3 hours ago

Lets all do what this strong independent woman did, lets get on public
transport and not pay, lets steal things from shops and not pay, lets
just do whatever we want and when the Police come calling shout abuse,
then become agressive, lets then regardless of proximity complain that
the officers were strngling us, if you are female touching your boob,
just lie.

Then make an official complaint and await the cash pay out.

This however will not work if you are a white, middle aged , middle
class male, then you just have to give a strangel look or misgender a
baby and you are off to chokey.

[JNugent]

On 18/02/2024 05:19, Jethro_uk wrote:

> Doesn't change the facts though.
>
> I wonder what you remember about the Timothy Evans case. Or the Andrew
> Malkinson case ?

Nothing from the time about the first one.

However, you may have forgotten that Evans very quickly confessed to the
murders, later attempting to rescind that.

A good case and outcome? Of course not. But he had confessed.

I don't know anything of the other case you mention. I assume it is some
cause celebré.

[The Todal]

You've remembered wrong. It must be because you don't like to use such
valuable resources as Wikipedia.

[The Todal]

On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
>> On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>>> It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
>>>> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't have
>>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
>>>> think that was evident from the footage.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
>>>
>>> https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A rather different view.
>
> And worth quoting verbatim:

Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on
hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such person.

You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and make
up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
police officer.

>
> The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
> (Inadvertently) by Channel 4
>
> BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
>

>

> The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
> reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
> self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat
> naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
> it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
> ‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white
> people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was
> perfectly understandable.

He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
respect for them, even though one is a bishop.

[JNugent]

That is not what he said. It was more like "The top brass are all loking
solely after their careers and are playing politics in order to further
those careers. They (the few) are out of step with the rest of us (the
majority)".

That's a paraphrased precis, but it's a better representation of what he
said.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-02-19, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
> A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster.
> I think the police officers should be given remedial classes in
> de-escalating arguments and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many
> officers join the force mainly because they enjoy a punch-up and
> especially enjoy the thrill of being called to assist "officers in danger".

Those ones get to join the Territorial Support Group, if they're lucky.

(Some people may recall the occasion of the King's Coronation last year
whereupon Westminster Council's Night Stars were wrongfully arrested -
I recently discovered that the thuggish morons who perpetrated this
crime were, of course, from the TSG.)

(Even older people may recall the Constable Savage sketch, which ends
with the evil and racist police officer being transferred to the Special
Patrol Group, the predecessor of the TSG, because that's where he'll fit
right in.)

[JNugent]

On 19/02/2024 18:15, The Todal wrote:

> On 19/02/2024 18:20, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/02/2024 11:57, kat wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2024 16:19, Handsome Jack wrote:
>>>> The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

>>>>> It was the police officer who escalated the situation and failed to
>>>>> respect the passenger's personal space. They piled in. They didn't
>>>>> have
>>>>> to. She didn't attack them, she struggled when they attacked her. I
>>>>> think that was evident from the footage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's a retired police officer commenting on it:
>>>>
>>>> https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/
>>>>

>>> A rather different view.
>>
>> And worth quoting verbatim:
>
> Only for the benefit of those readers here who are unable to click on
> hyperlinks and read the article online. Maybe you're the only such person.

Oh dear, oh dear... Something has rattled someone.

> You would do better to watch the episode on Channel 4 Catch-up and make
> up your own mind rather than be led astray by an embittered retired
> police officer.

I cannot do that from where I am. See whether you can guess why that
might be. There ought to be a clue in the headers.

>> The Moral Cowardice of Senior Police Officers, as Captured
>> (Inadvertently) by Channel 4
>>
>> BY GRAHAM LOW 19 FEBRUARY 2024 3:00 PM
>
>> The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved
>> reasonably, but, when the footage was shown to local, presumably
>> self-appointed, ‘community leaders’ by a senior officer in a somewhat
>> naive attempt to give them the full picture, they were having none of
>> it. Apparently, nine out of 10 black people would refuse a lift in a
>> ‘Fed’ car and every person of colour has an ingrained fear of white
>> people as a result of slavery – or something – so her behaviour was
>> perfectly understandable.
>
> He refers to self-appointed community leaders. Evidently he has no
> respect for them, even though one is a bishop.

You surprise me. I wouldn't have had you down as one content to be ruled
(in any sense) by a self-appointed leader, bishop or not.

If, OTOH, he was wrong in his summing up of those "community leaders",
perhaps you or someone else can enlighten us as to who or what appointed
them.

[JNugent]

I don't think so.

Eventually, Evans was pardoned. It was probably the first thing I ever
heard or read about the case (which had all happened before I was born).

The pardon came about because Christie had, by then, been identified as
the killer of those previously thought to be Evans' victims and more
besides.

But this all a bit removed from someone refusing to pay their fare on a
bus, isn't it?

[The Todal]

It would not have been possible to try Christie for the same murders.

It's removed from the bus case but we were discussing the Birmingham
Six. Who were fitted up by the police for the Birmingham pub bombings.
And the police were eventually charged with perjury and conspiracy to
pervert the course of justice but it never went to trial.

[The Todal]

But who are "the rest of us (the majority)"? Serving front line police
officers? Or the public at large? The purpose of his article seems to be
to appeal to the public at large to support the actions of the officers
who overpowerered the young woman and used pepper spray. It certainly
had that effect, judging by the numerous comments at the foot of the
article which placed the woman in the same category as villains,
scrotes, thieves and liars. If police are no longer to be allowed to
beat up young women on buses we'll all end up being stabbed or shot on
our streets by her kinfolk.

[kat]

On 19/02/2024 23:55, The Todal wrote:

>>
>
> There doesn't seem to be a provision whereby 8 police officers are required or
> permitted to pile into her, force her to the floor and wrestle her baby away
> from her.  It actually would have been quite easy for two officers to escort her
> off the bus, if they had been as polite and respectful to her as she was
> entitled to expect of them.
>
> Instead she was treated like a crook. Evidently when her lawyers corresponded
> with the bus company's lawyers, it became apparent that she was entitled to
> compensation. It is rather shameful that the police officers probably still
> believe that they acted reasonably and probably still dismiss as ignorant the
> respected members of the black community who saw the footage and sided with the
> woman passenger.
>
> A young woman with a baby should not be treated like an armed gangster. I think
> the police officers should be given remedial classes in de-escalating arguments
> and avoiding needless conflict. But perhaps many officers join the force mainly
> because they enjoy a punch-up and especially enjoy the thrill of being called to
> assist "officers in danger".

Yet, quoting from
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/19/the-moral-cowardice-of-senior-police-officers-as-captured-inadvertently-by-channel-4/

"The PSD investigator was quite clear that the officers had behaved reasonably"

and

"The IOPC, not surprisingly, also concluded that the officers had acted
reasonably",

I assume these points are true, but you agree they are as the "community
leaders" (whoever they are because I do not know), say, ‘institutionally racist’.

Sadly that is becoming a useful excuse for anything and so, becoame less and
less believeable, even when true.
--
kat
>^..^<