• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

The behaviour of UK police officers.

Nessie said:
Do you mean the suspended officer who appears to have committed suicide?

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...-mooney-police-scotland-stirling-train-nazis/

Or the death in custody where the prisoner went without food or water?

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/...rison-cell-hears-no-food-or-water-was-common/
Click to expand...


No, neither of these, although that second one sounds fairly bad.

Someone was beaten up by police who were laughing and joking about his condition, and he died in hospital. I'll try to see if I can find an article. I'm obviously googling the wrong terms because there has been a lot of discussion about this and yet I can't bring up an article.
 
Last edited:
Found it. The name was Allan Marshall and it was a death in custody and the people responsible were prison officers (at Saughton jail) not police officers which is probably why I didn't find it earlier. It happened last year.

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1189512272630161409

Sheku Bayoh was also pretty bad but happened in 2015.
 
Last edited:
An extremely rare event;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50333081

"A police officer has been charged with the murder of retired footballer Dalian Atkinson who died after being tasered.

The ex-Aston Villa striker, 48, was restrained by police officers at his father's house in Telford, Shropshire, on 15 August 2016.

A second police officer, also from the West Mercia Police force, has been charged with assault causing actual bodily harm."
 
CPS guidelines regarding murder;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

"The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192."

There is a lot of debate amongst UK police officers as to how this is murder and whether or not to keep taser. I think the answer is above and something took place whereby the officer who tasered the footballer knew that there was a "virtual certainty" he would come to serious harm or die.

The footballer apparently had health issues and he was with family when the incident happened. Maybe concerns about his health were relayed to the police, but they tasered him anyway.
 
Few details of this until it goes to court but it does seem very unusual, one wonders what prompted the decision to prosecute for murder.
 
I guess this might be a topic for a new thread, but taking someone's pension because of some misconduct seems to me to be absolutely outrageous. It is a punishment far and above what any court would impose, to be reduced to penury in one's old age, and it affects not just the person who has done wrong but their family also, especially their spouse.

It also means that authorities can have a huge hold over someone which can be used to silence them or otherwise manipulate. I recall a colleague of mine once saying that the then Chief Veterinary Officer (a civil servant) was unable to break the government line at the time of the Foot and Mouth crisis because he was near retirement age and if he stepped out of line he could be sacked (no big deal) and would lose his pension (an enormous deal).

Surely accrued pension should be sacrosanct no matter what someone has done? If contributions have been into a private pension fund then they would be untouchable anyway. Why should someone (and their spouse and family) lose a huge amount of money and be reduced to beggary in their old age just because they happen to be in an occupational pension scheme rather than a private one when they transgress?

(If this might be something people want to discuss for more than a couple of posts we could ask for the thread to be split.)
 
I find this hard to understand;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-50365383

"The family of a Fife man who died in police custody said they felt "betrayed" after being told that no-one will be prosecuted over his death.
Sheku Bayoh never regained consciousness after being restrained by officers in a Kirkcaldy street in 2015.

The 31-year-old, who had taken the drugs MDMA and Flakka, was found to have suffered 23 separate injuries.

His family said CCTV and phone footage cast doubt on claims made by officers about events leading up to his death.
They have described the decision not to prosecute the officers as a "betrayal of justice" and are now calling for a public inquiry.
The Crown Office said the decision not to prosecute had been taken after a "thorough review" of all the available evidence."

There is clear evidence that the forced used to arrest Bayou contributed to his death. That should surely be enough to charge the police officers concerned. A police officer who kicks a youth on the ground goes to prison for use of excessive force. But 23 injuries and a death is somehow not excessive???
 
Rolfe said:
You find it hard to understand? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes. In particular the injuries consistent with positional asphyxia. Apparently the cause of death was "sudden death in a man intoxicated…[drugs] whilst under restraint." One of the officers who admits to lying on Bayoh for "a maximum of 30 seconds" weighed 24 stone. That is easily enough to suffocate him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46591551
 
I thought you meant you were surprised by the COPFS deciding not to prosecute. I'm not.
 
Nessie said:
Yes. In particular the injuries consistent with positional asphyxia. Apparently the cause of death was "sudden death in a man intoxicated…[drugs] whilst under restraint." One of the officers who admits to lying on Bayoh for "a maximum of 30 seconds" weighed 24 stone. That is easily enough to suffocate him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-46591551
Click to expand...

WTF?!
 
Rolfe said:
I thought you meant you were surprised by the COPFS deciding not to prosecute. I'm not.
Click to expand...

Why are you not surprised?

I think the only reason why COPFS do not want to prosecute is because they fear falling out with the police by prosecuting.
 
Nessie said:
CPS guidelines regarding murder;

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

"The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192."

There is a lot of debate amongst UK police officers as to how this is murder and whether or not to keep taser. I think the answer is above and something took place whereby the officer who tasered the footballer knew that there was a "virtual certainty" he would come to serious harm or die.

The footballer apparently had health issues and he was with family when the incident happened. Maybe concerns about his health were relayed to the police, but they tasered him anyway.
Click to expand...

I used to see Dalian Atkinson play at Aston Villa so I was quite upset at his sorry end.

I think there is a good chance the cops will be found not guilty. Their being charged is an exercise to show that the police are accountable. As you know, all deaths in police custody have to be referred to the Independent Police Committee and it has to be seen doing its job.
 
Vixen said:
I used to see Dalian Atkinson play at Aston Villa so I was quite upset at his sorry end.

I think there is a good chance the cops will be found not guilty. Their being charged is an exercise to show that the police are accountable. As you know, all deaths in police custody have to be referred to the Independent Police Committee and it has to be seen doing its job.
Click to expand...


I do not think that a British police officer has ever been convicted for any death in police custody.

That includes the death in custody that I was shown during a course on looking after prisoners, where police officers sat on a prisoner until he died of positional asphyxia.
 
Nessie said:
I do not think that a British police officer has ever been convicted for any death in police custody.

That includes the death in custody that I was shown during a course on looking after prisoners, where police officers sat on a prisoner until he died of positional asphyxia.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you look at Inquest's website - I think .org.uk the list is shocking.

including where tyere were verdicts of unlawful killing
 
We're not a shining example of rectitude, that's for sure. I think British police are less likely to go completely Tonto on an unremarkable member of the public who has committed some minor infringement. I haven't seen traffic stops for broken lights or even speeding escalate to people being shot dead at the wheel or dragged from their cars and tazed to the ground. But if you're arrested and the arresting officers mentally put you in the lowlife category (whether you actually are a hardened criminal or not) things can be very different.
 
My fear is the there is a growing demand for taser and firearms amongst UK police officers. That is oddly coming at the time when violence has been falling and is at its lowest level for decades.

I think that the reason for the demand is that police officers nowadays are often not up to the physical side of the job. When I joined, we did PE at college that included carrying benches up rice crispy hill, so named because people would throw up their breakfast, the exertions were so extreme. We were also big, the height requirement meant that we all stood out. It was also when violence was far more common place, every night there would be fight we would have to break up. We were used it.

Nowadays, PE is cancelled if it looks a bit chilly outside and if you cannot manage a run, never mind. The lack of a height requirement means that there are now many really rather small and weak police officers who know they are going to struggle to arrest even a mildly pissed off older man, let alone a strong and fit youth. They are also not used to dealing with violence like we were, as it happens less often.

Those officers want taser and firearms because they cannot cope. We could end up with minor crimes being dealt with by taser or firearm.
 
I'd never thought of it that way. I think you have a point.

(I see notices all over Tulliallan telling people not to come indoors in muddy trainers. One of the Lockerbie detectives I was working with reminisced about hating these runs. But I think they serve an important function and I don't think they should be voluntary. If police officers can't hack it physically they need to find a different vocation.)
 
Sorry, it was just something I picked up, I didn't realise it has racist connotations. I won't use it again. Thank you for pointing it out.
 
deadrose said:
Rolfe, I'd just like to point out that the phrase "going completely Tonto" has racist connotations, and you might want to use another phrase instead.
Click to expand...

How? It means to go crazy, derived from the Spanish "tonto" for stupid, itself from the Latin "attonitus" for stunned or dazed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tonto
 
Last edited:
Well I don't know, I was guilty of using a phrase I had heard and thought was snappy without researching the etymology. Maybe Deadrose could explain the alleged racist connotations?
 
Information Analyst said:
How? It means to go crazy, derived from the Spanish "tonto" for stupid, itself from the Latin "attonitus" for stunned or dazed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tonto
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
Well I don't know, I was guilty of using a phrase I had heard and thought was snappy without researching the etymology. Maybe Deadrose could explain the alleged racist connotations?
Click to expand...


As you will come to understand, it matters not what it actually means, it matters only in to what it can be twisted to mean.

In this case, think of a popular fictional character with the same name and his cultural heritage.......... there you have it. I'm pretty sure you were way ahead of me at all times in any case

Sorry for the slight derail and hopefully nobody has a paddy about it.
 
So it's similar to someone having a strop about the use of the word "niggardly"? This one isn't important enough to be a hill to die on, but I do get cross when people ascribe racist meanings to terms which don't have a racist derivation at all.
 
Rolfe said:
So it's similar to someone having a strop about the use of the word "niggardly"? This one isn't important enough to be a hill to die on, but I do get cross when people ascribe racist meanings to terms which don't have a racist derivation at all.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and defending such a hill on a forum such as this is suicide, so I fully concur.
 
Anyway, I'm grateful to Information Analyst for his clarification. I may not be any the wiser but I am certainly better informed.
 
Rolfe said:
So it's similar to someone having a strop about the use of the word "niggardly"? This one isn't important enough to be a hill to die on, but I do get cross when people ascribe racist meanings to terms which don't have a racist derivation at all.
Click to expand...

I think the idea here is that the proper noun refers to a racist depiction of a Native American (the Lone Ranger's sidekick). If you drop the capitalization, you'd be using the word as I think you intended.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tonto
 
eerok said:
I think the idea here is that the proper noun refers to a racist depiction of a Native American (the Lone Ranger's sidekick). If you drop the capitalization, you'd be using the word as I think you intended.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tonto
Click to expand...

I'm sure that's the assumption, even if it makes no sense, the character not being noted for being crazy.
 
Checking the British Library's Newspaper Archive, it seems that the earliest use in the sense outlined is in the Dublin Evening Herald of 29 October 2004:

"The award for most outlandish excuse for going Tonto, however, goes to Johnny Depp, whose latest movie Beyond Neverland opens tonight..."

Now, considering the date, that's beyond spooky.

There is a slightly earlier use of "go Tonto" in the Irish Independent of 27 April 2004. All subsequent uses are either of the same newspapers, and the same applies to the variation "went tonto."

So, blame the Irish...
 
More on the Kevin Clarke and Sheku Bayoh cases;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000r6z2/panorama-i-cant-breathe-black-and-dead-in-custody

Body cameras show Clarke's arrest and how he was trussed up. The programme concentrates on how Clarke is black, but other factors that would have made the police wary are he was large and he was having a mental health episode, both of which are impact factors in Officer Safety Training.

There is an interview with a witness to the Bayoh arrest, whose statement tallies with the CCTV, so that both contradict the police version of events. Yet that witness has never been re-interviewed, which is wrong.

Bizarrely, at the end, the Scottish Police Federation told the BBC that they have "compelling material" that Bayoh stamped on PC Nicole Short prior to being arrested, but they refused to share what it is. Normally police officers would refer to "evidence" or a "production", not "material".

The witness is certain PC Short was not stamped upon. The CCTV is not clear, but after PC Short lands on the ground, Bayoh is moving away and she gets up within seconds. In any case, body armour would have the effect of spreading the impact of a stamp and at most it would wind the person being stamped on, which is not the case here, since PC Short got back up so quickly.

The evidence is clear, the police officers who were first at the scene have given an incorrect version of what happened. In all the fast movement, it might have possibly appeared PC Short was stamped on, but not with the level of force suggested.
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56342465

"A Metropolitan Police officer has been arrested over the disappearance of Sarah Everard in south London in a "serious and significant development"."

A female has also been arrested for assisting the cop. Nothing to say if the missing female is alive or not.
 
Met PC found guilty of neo-Nazi group membership

…snip…

Met Police officer has been convicted of being a member of a banned neo-Nazi terrorist organisation.
Benjamin Hannam, of Enfield, north London, was found guilty of membership of the banned right-wing extremist group National Action (NA).
He was also convicted of lying on his Met Police application and having terror documents detailing knife combat and making explosive devices.

…snip…
Click to expand...

A longer article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56414713
 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...sault-and-cover-up?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Merseyside Police arrested and charged the four cops

Four police officers have been convicted after one of them beat up a member of the public and the others helped him to cover it up.

The Merseyside police officers all attended a domestic incident in Southport in June 2019, which ended with a member of the public being assaulted.

PC Darren McIntyre punched Mark Bamber four times in the face and once in the ribs before arresting him at his home in Ainsdale.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom