Options
Jury convicts PC of assaulting a student during 2010 anti tutition fees demo
BenFranklin
Posts: 5,814 Forum Member
✭
PC Andrew Ott talked of "wanting to batter students to get a bit of justice back. "
Should be sent down for a long time.
0
Comments
Idiots like this and the fact that it has taken 5 years to deal with this incident don't do anything for the reputation of those who do a good job. Good riddance I hope.
"Since 1969, there have been more than 1,000 deaths in custody, and not one successful prosecution of a single police officer"
any danger of links with these quotes?
What's your point? A person dying in police custody by no means suggests that an offence has been committed by a police officer. Most people who go in to police custody fit in to one or more of the following categories;
Drug users
Drunks
Violent
Mentally ill
Suicidal
In fact here are the reasons for some over the past few years:
Stabbing themselves whilst police are searching their house?
Smuggling a razer blade in to custody and cutting themselves?
Hanging themselves in a cell using their underwear?
Taking an overdose before being arrested and not informing the Custody Officer thus not getting medical attention quick enough?
Not disclosing to the Custody Officer that they are a diabetic, not taking medication then going in to a diabetic coma?
Getting blind drunk, being incapable, get taken by police to hospital who refuse to treat due to behaviour, taken in to police custody and dying from alcohol poisoning?
Excited delerium?
Getting blind drunk, being incapable, get taken by police to hospital who refuse to treat due to behaviour, taken in to police custody and dying from position asphyxia?
Jamming toilet tissue down their throat?
Jumping out of the back of an ambulance on a busy road, whilst being transported and under arrest?
Hence compared to the overall general public, are at a much higher risk of significant injury or death.
Here's some figures to put your statistic in to perspective (the writing in brackets is my opinion):
Source: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default...ort2012-13.pdf
Every few months this gets quoted. Thankfully, somner has responded with what it means in reality, which is vastly different from the headline.
I think the poster was being sarcastic in relation to all those that claim such things, when the reality is very different. Enjoy your popcorn.
It's very useful and important to highlight these facts to keep things in perspective. Cheers.
That's good to see things in perspective. While wording it as death "in police custody" might be accurate because they are in fact in your custody, to me that phrase tends to imply that the police were to blame for the death and this link you brought up tends to disprove that. We can hardly blame the police for someone dying of alcohol poisoning while under arrest. They maybe shouldn't have drunk so much.
I'm pleased to hear it.:)
Don't get me wrong - on the face of a few of the deaths it has appeared that there may have been a case for negligence, however even in the vast majority of these it is the detained persons actions that ultimately have caused their death.
He couldn't really argue against it when it was caught on tape.
If he gets the sack, I hope he loses all his pension rights.
I'm not sure that this would fit the criteria.
The exact same thing was written on the post about the American officers...
I explained it all on that post. The officer will still get back what he paid in. The only time there is a grey area is when an officer collects a pension whilst still being employed by the police, or retires prior to facing legal action.
He doesn't get sacked and then have a massive payout.
No chance unfortunately. Simon Harwood (remember him) was supposedly sacked but retained all his rights, including full pension rights.
Very few, if any, of these so-called sackings result in loss of pension.
Nor should they. If you get sacked in any job why would they take away something you have saved?
Harwood is a case that falls into the grey area I mentioned above. It's very difficult to take away a pension someone has already claimed. If an officer is sacked prior to retiring they will lose whatever bonus they were likely to receive.
That's nothing to do with the Police, it is about pension regulations.
In the main, it means people get back their contributions, or they have to wait until something like 60, and get the reduced pension they have contributed to.
Indeed unless of course the proceeds were made through acts of crime, specifically a financial based one.