The behaviour of UK police officers.

[Mojo]

CONTENT NOT AVAILABLE

This content is not available in your region​

I'm a little surprised that the UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website isn't available in New Zealand, but here are a couple of other links:

Ayinde, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) (06 June 2025)

Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey - Find Case Law - The National Archives

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk

No. Its simply what I have put together from reading the content of various UK solicitors and law firm websites such as Harper-James, DAC Beachcroft, BrettWilson et al. Its the conclusions I have drawn.

Do you have links to this content? Or anything else to support your conclusions?

I'm not seeing any specific exclusions to the the types of evidence you can provide in a vexatious litigant complaint, other than the usual such as hearsay, irrelevance or evidence obtained unlawfully. Frivolous complaints to police would not be covered by that.

Are you claiming that frivolous police complaints would be excluded as evidence in a vexatious litigant action? If so, perhaps you could show me some evidence of that? I'm not seeing any exclusions listed here, as examples...

Vexatious litigants

List of vexatious litigants, banned from starting court cases without permission.

www.gov.uk

Civil Restraints Orders for Vexatious Litigants | LegalVision UK

This article will explore the civili restraint orders for vexatious litigants are and how your business can utilise them.

legalvision.co.uk

Vexatious Litigants in the UK | Sprintlaw UK

See how UK small businesses can spot vexatious litigants, limit legal risks, and protect themselves from repeated groundless claims with practical steps.

sprintlaw.co.uk

Vexatious complaints to the police etc being among the criteria for a vexatious litigant or Civil Restraint order was your claim. I don't see anything in those links that supports it.

 

[smartcooky]

Vexatious complaints to the police etc being among the criteria for a vexatious litigant or Civil Restraint order was your claim. I don't see anything in those links that supports it.

That was never my claim. Go back and read what I actually said.....

"Frivolous complaints to Police are not irrelevant. They can be, and have been, used as evidence to establish a pattern of behavior in a Vexatious Litigant context in the UK, particularly when seeking a Criminal Proceedings Order or an All Proceedings Order under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981"​

At no point did I ever claim they were the criteria. That's you making stuff up.

Multiple frivolous complaints to police can be used to establish a pattern of behaviour. That pattern of behaviour is valid evidence in ANY court or legal proceeding.

YOUR claim is that they cannot be used that way (otherwise you would not be arguing with me about it). You have not provided any evidence that behaviour patterns must be excluded as evidence.

 

[Mojo]

Can you link to the content of the "various UK solicitors and law firm websites such as Harper-James, DAC Beachcroft, BrettWilson et al." that you used to arrive at your conclusion that non-judicial frivolous complaints are routinely used as evidence in vexatious litigant or CRO proceedings?

 

[smartcooky]

Can you link to the content of the "various UK solicitors and law firm websites such as Harper-James, DAC Beachcroft, BrettWilson et al." that you used to arrive at your conclusion that non-judicial frivolous complaints is routinely used as evidence in vexatious litigant or CRO proceedings?

You're dodging the question I asked you.

Now I'm done playing these silly games with you. I have provided all the evidence and links I am going to. I believe I have done enough to validate my point. Unless you can prove that patterns of behaviour would be excluded, I will not be changing my opinion.

 

[Mojo]

You're dodging the question I asked you.

Now I'm done playing these silly games with you. I have provided all the evidence and links I am going to. I believe I have done enough to validate my point. Unless you can prove that patterns of behaviour would be excluded, I will not be changing my opinion.

You have already cited two judgments that don't say what you claim they say, and one that doesn't appear to exist. I am therefore not going to trust your ability to interpret the content of these "various UK solicitors and law firm websites".

So far you have provided no actual evidence to support your conclusions.

You claim that your conclusions are based on the content of various websites. Please link to this content.

 

[Mojo]

That was never my claim. Go back and read what I actually said.....

"Frivolous complaints to Police are not irrelevant. They can be, and have been, used as evidence to establish a pattern of behavior in a Vexatious Litigant context in the UK, particularly when seeking a Criminal Proceedings Order or an All Proceedings Order under Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981"​

At no point did I ever claim they were the criteria. That's you making stuff up.

You introduced a whole bunch of non-judicial complaints as evidence of vexatious litigation, in the context of a case where the actual criteria, of multiple hopeless judicial applications, don't seem to be present. How is that not attempting to introduce these as alternative criteria?

 

[Nessie]

What would improve policing and vexatious complainers, would be a national system that records complaints, to evidence patterns of behaviour. In Scotland, repeat complainers can be identified by both SID (Scottish intelligence Database) and VPD (Vulnerable Persons Database) systems.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A Dorset police officer who died after being struck by a train had been suspended from duty amid a gross misconduct investigation

PC Alex Ayre, 24, is understood to have jumped in front of a train near Branksome, last Friday morning.

The police officer, who joined the force in June 2022, was being investigated for gross misconduct in relation to his behaviour while off-duty and had been suspended prior to his death, Dorset Police have confirmed

Police officer who died after being hit by train was facing a police misconduct probe

A Dorset police officer who died after being struck by a train had been suspended from duty amid a gross misconduct investigation.

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Yes. Watson became outraged that they classified him as male

OK, but calling it the "National Board for Nursing" isn't helpful, as we've never had one of those and it is, in context an important detail.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

I'll just put this here...

Trial of live facial recognition in London stations leads to a false positive and no arrests

Freedom of information request finds six-month trial cost £320,000, used almost 100 police hours and led to just one – incorrect – alert

www.theguardian.com

Essentially BTP's trial of live facial recognition (LFR) cameras has produced nada, zip, zilch, nothing, except one false positive. ANd this had to be wheedled out via a FoI request.

This still doesn't stop BTP making spurious, misleading claims like:

“During these deployments, officers have made a number of associated arrests, including for assault, theft, possession of an offensive weapon, breach of a criminal behaviour order and public order offences, as well as locating individuals wanted by the courts and other police forces. As these arrests did not result directly from an LFR alert, they are not included within LFR performance data."

Which means that other arrests were made which are totally nothing to do with LFR but we'll mention them in the same breath as they happened around the same time and we want to elide the 2 in order to mislead.

By that reasoning the Wallaroos beating Scotland at The Hive in WXV on Saturday totally helped Demi Vollering win the World Cycling road race in Montreal. So Vollering owes Samantha Wood a pint or 2.

Even by the disingenuous standards of our police that is something.

Look, mates, you've shown that LFR isn't working: give it up.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, but calling it the "National Board for Nursing" isn't helpful, as we've never had one of those and it is, in context an important detail.

Yeah., I shouldn't have capitalised it. My bad.

ETA: Although, you're wrong about there never having been one...

The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England (Constitution and Administration) Order 1993

This Order makes provision concerning the constitution and administration of the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England (“the Board”) established under section 5(1) of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 (“the 1979 Act”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

They were regional, and were abolished in 2002

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Yeah., I shouldn't have capitalised it. My bad.

ETA: Although, you're wrong about there never having been one...

The National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England (Constitution and Administration) Order 1993

This Order makes provision concerning the constitution and administration of the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England (“the Board”) established under section 5(1) of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 (“the 1979 Act”).

www.legislation.gov.uk

They were regional, and were abolished in 2002

No, I'm not wrong: it was known as the English National Board (I have a certificate upstairs from them from when I qualified); it was never THE National Board of Nursing, as it was one of 4 boards for each of the four nations making up the UK and succeeded by the UKCC, then NMC, so at best A national board.

Please don't try to tell someone who qualified and was first registered under those boardS what they (plural) were.

It is still the wrong title.

ETA Some emphasis added.

 

[Mojo]

​

No. Its simply what I have put together from reading the content of various UK solicitors and law firm websites such as Harper-James, DAC Beachcroft, BrettWilson et al. Its the conclusions I have drawn.

Any chance of links to the content from which you have drawn these conclusions?

 

[smartcooky]

Any chance of links to the content from which you have drawn these conclusions?

I have already provided them.

I'm not going to keep chasing your ever-changing. nitpicking demands - I told you I am NOT paying your silly games

Expect this to be my last reply on this issue.

 

[smartcooky]

No, I'm not wrong: it was known as the English National Board (I have a certificate upstairs from them from when I qualified); it was never THE National Board of Nursing, as it was one of 4 boards for each of the four nations making up the UK and succeeded by the UKCC, then NMC, so at best A national board.

Please don't try to tell someone who qualified and was first registered under those boardS what they (plural) were.

It is still the wrong title.

ETA Some emphasis added.

Whatever?

NOTE: Watson had his original poutrage tantrum, in 1993. See the link in my last post, and note the year and the title.

 

[Mojo]

I have already provided them.

Nope. You have cited "Harper-James, DAC Beachcroft, BrettWilson et al.", but have not linked to content on the websites of any of these. The links you have provided do not support your conclusions.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I'll just put this here...

Trial of live facial recognition in London stations leads to a false positive and no arrests

Freedom of information request finds six-month trial cost £320,000, used almost 100 police hours and led to just one – incorrect – alert

www.theguardian.com

Essentially BTP's trial of live facial recognition (LFR) cameras has produced nada, zip, zilch, nothing, except one false positive. ANd this had to be wheedled out via a FoI request.

This still doesn't stop BTP making spurious, misleading claims like:

“During these deployments, officers have made a number of associated arrests, including for assault, theft, possession of an offensive weapon, breach of a criminal behaviour order and public order offences, as well as locating individuals wanted by the courts and other police forces. As these arrests did not result directly from an LFR alert, they are not included within LFR performance data."

Which means that other arrests were made which are totally nothing to do with LFR but we'll mention them in the same breath as they happened around the same time and we want to elide the 2 in order to mislead.

By that reasoning the Wallaroos beating Scotland at The Hive in WXV on Saturday totally helped Demi Vollering win the World Cycling road race in Montreal. So Vollering owes Samantha Wood a pint or 2.

Even by the disingenuous standards of our police that is something.

Look, mates, you've shown that LFR isn't working: give it up.

Yeah, it's pathetic reaching to hold on to the cameras despite having a perfect failure rate.

 

[bluesjnr]

From The Mirror post on Facebook.

PC Stephen Smith has said he 'wouldn't have done anything differently' - after pepper-spraying and using a baton on a 92-year-old wheelchair-bound amputee

The 52-year-old officer demanded that one-legged widower Donald Burgess drop a dinner knife he was holding, saying if the pensioner failed to do so, he would be "sprayed or Tasered".
The incident took place at Park Beck Care Home in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, in June 2022, when police received reports of an elderly man threatening staff with a knife.
PC Smith and his colleague, PC Rachel Comotto, arrived at the home at 1.15pm and confronted Mr Burgess, who had been isolated in his own room and was holding the dinner knife.
A disciplinary hearing was told today that PC Smith "created a confrontation where there was none", with the officer claiming he wasn't aware Mr Burgess was wheelchair-bound.
He took an "authoritative approach" towards the vulnerable man as he said this had "served him well" in his work before. PC Smith admitted he had failed to ask care home staff about any medical or mental health conditions the pensioner suffered from before going into his room.
He then only realised the 92-year-old was a wheelchair-bound amputee after he had used force against him, the hearing was told. After he used the pepper spray and baton, his colleague PC Comotto fired her Taser on the vulnerable pensioner, causing him to scream out in pain and then tell the officers: "I'm dying".
Mr Burgess, a retired carpenter, was then handcuffed and driven to a police station. His condition quickly deteriorated and he was transferred to a hospital where he died three weeks later.
The disciplinary hearing in Lewes, East Sussex, was told the entire incident lasted less than 90 seconds. Giving evidence, PC Smith said he walked in and used "authoritative" commands and fully expected Mr Burgess to comply.
But Aaron Rathmell, lawyer for Sussex Police, said: "By drawing your spray and issuing an ultimatum, you created a confrontation between you and Mr Burgess where there had been no confrontation before."
He said: "You should have tried to establish a rapport with him." PC Smith replied: "No." Mr Rathmell said: "Why not ask him what is wrong and establish some basic information about his state of mind?"
PC Smith said: "Because he still had the knife in his right hand." Mr Rathmell said: "Were you frustrated Mr Burgess was not complying?" PC Smith said: "No."
Mr Rathmell said: "Are you embarrassed by your treatment of Mr Burgess?" "No," replied PC Smith. Mr Rathmell suggested that PC Smith knew Mr Burgess was in a wheelchair when he used physical force and to claim otherwise was "a lie". "No," replied PC Smith.
PC Smith, an officer with Sussex Police for 23 years, is facing allegations of using "excessive force" against the pensioner amounting to "gross misconduct". If the allegations are proven against him, he could be sacked from the force.

 

[smartcooky]

From The Mirror post on Facebook.

PC Stephen Smith has said he 'wouldn't have done anything differently' - after pepper-spraying and using a baton on a 92-year-old wheelchair-bound amputee

The 52-year-old officer demanded that one-legged widower Donald Burgess drop a dinner knife he was holding, saying if the pensioner failed to do so, he would be "sprayed or Tasered".
The incident took place at Park Beck Care Home in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, in June 2022, when police received reports of an elderly man threatening staff with a knife.
PC Smith and his colleague, PC Rachel Comotto, arrived at the home at 1.15pm and confronted Mr Burgess, who had been isolated in his own room and was holding the dinner knife.
A disciplinary hearing was told today that PC Smith "created a confrontation where there was none", with the officer claiming he wasn't aware Mr Burgess was wheelchair-bound.
He took an "authoritative approach" towards the vulnerable man as he said this had "served him well" in his work before. PC Smith admitted he had failed to ask care home staff about any medical or mental health conditions the pensioner suffered from before going into his room.
He then only realised the 92-year-old was a wheelchair-bound amputee after he had used force against him, the hearing was told. After he used the pepper spray and baton, his colleague PC Comotto fired her Taser on the vulnerable pensioner, causing him to scream out in pain and then tell the officers: "I'm dying".
Mr Burgess, a retired carpenter, was then handcuffed and driven to a police station. His condition quickly deteriorated and he was transferred to a hospital where he died three weeks later.
The disciplinary hearing in Lewes, East Sussex, was told the entire incident lasted less than 90 seconds. Giving evidence, PC Smith said he walked in and used "authoritative" commands and fully expected Mr Burgess to comply.
But Aaron Rathmell, lawyer for Sussex Police, said: "By drawing your spray and issuing an ultimatum, you created a confrontation between you and Mr Burgess where there had been no confrontation before."
He said: "You should have tried to establish a rapport with him." PC Smith replied: "No." Mr Rathmell said: "Why not ask him what is wrong and establish some basic information about his state of mind?"
PC Smith said: "Because he still had the knife in his right hand." Mr Rathmell said: "Were you frustrated Mr Burgess was not complying?" PC Smith said: "No."
Mr Rathmell said: "Are you embarrassed by your treatment of Mr Burgess?" "No," replied PC Smith. Mr Rathmell suggested that PC Smith knew Mr Burgess was in a wheelchair when he used physical force and to claim otherwise was "a lie". "No," replied PC Smith.
PC Smith, an officer with Sussex Police for 23 years, is facing allegations of using "excessive force" against the pensioner amounting to "gross misconduct". If the allegations are proven against him, he could be sacked from the force.

View attachment 76361

Jesus, that is really bad.

Seems to me that PC Smith is just another
despicable tyrant in a police uniform who gets off on bullying old people.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<Snip> for rule 12.

 

[Rolfe]

Just one poorly trained officer.