Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Barry, How many facts do you need, there are several videos showing this incident from different angles, none clearly show the officer hitting her with the back of his hand, there is the appearance of this, but nothing conclusive, however the attack with the baton is unequivocal and compelling. That this has not been investigated by an outside force, as actually required by PACE is itself questionable. That the Judge has a son that is a serving Met Police Officer and whose Husband is a Commander in a neighbouring Police Force had no bearing on her ruling I would assume...That it was the Judge who decided to have no Jury present as she felt the public would find being impartial difficult and that she only took three minutes to reach her conclusion also would smack of Justice being served I assume?

As far as I am concerned they have done this Police Officer and the Service no good at all. The majority of the public do not actually agree with the ruling and I know several Met Police Officers of varying ranks, and they also feel he was guilty (and I am 100% sure they know more than everyone here combined) and as such the man will always have this question mark over him. If a Jury heard all the evidence and on balance decided not guilty, then no-one could say a thing, but had he been found guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (What he was charged with) then it would also have concluded the matter. Yes it may have meant he lost his job, but for a minor offence of this nature there is no guarantee that a disciplinary hearing would make this extreme recommendation, they would have numerous punishment avenues at their disposal, dismissal from the Force would only be taken if there was no other possible route.

As usual the political and biased dealings of this entire case have actually done more to undermine the Officer and the Police as a whole instead of achieve the obvious intent.

I'm really sorry, Jim, you don't understand the law regarding self-defence. It is absolutely evident. Any assault is justified in self-defence, including killing the attacker, if it is proportionate to the threat.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

But it didn't did it. She also could have had explosives in her shoes or a suicide bomb on her person - how far do you wish to go in trying to excuse the inexcusable or attempt to explain away what we have all seen.

Police officers are equipped with batons, not hindsight.
She would have been better not to have assaulted the officer, as she did.

A police officer like you and can hit before you are hit.
As for video footage on YouTube or any kind of video unless you have the original tape or captured media prior to any editing you have no idea what has been removed and I can show you a video I took some years ago showing my son with a spade it look as if he was about to hit his brother with it but he was not and did not it was all to do with the angles.
Camera angles and editing can show lots of things but it does not mean to say it is the truth that is why the police always have the masters from CCTV and any images they capture Joe blogs on the street filming does not do this. Yes the media publish these images without seeing the original un edited image and we all sit back and look at it and think how terrible the police are me I feel most of these people get just what they deserve and more.
We have become a nation of softies and that’s why we have so many problems people allowed to drive neighbours nuts and nothing is done in fact one man was driven to his death by anti social behaviour.
I was at a football match and watched how tolerant the police are and the number of times they told thugs to walk away before they arrested them I feel they should have given them a good belting as well as locking them up.

Originally Posted by Barry

I'm really sorry, Jim, you don't understand the law regarding self-defence. It is absolutely evident. Any assault is justified in self-defence, including killing the attacker, if it is proportionate to the threat.

Actually Barry I do understand the law on self-defence quite well, sadly the courts don't always seem to, but that is another thread. In this case I do not have enough information to say that the Officer acted in self defence as I was not present, this is the very reason why it should have gone to a Jury of the public, not a Judge with vested interest. Even if she did judge it impartially, the appearance her position gives due to family connections is compelling and will always taint the case.

As I said in my previous post, I do not feel anyone had their interests served by that case, not the Officer, the Force or Justice.

As far as I am aware, the "lady" in question failed to appear at court, not because she was ill, but because she did not wish her "lifestyle" being questioned.

Now, if the alleged attacker had been anyone but a Police Officer, then the case would have been dropped there and then. After all, her failure to attend means that the accused has no chance of challenging her evidence.

However, to satisfy the politics surrounding the whole carry on, the case was proceeded with and the judge found that the officer acted reasonably and his use of the baton was deemed justified.

Jim there was no need for any outside force to carry out investigations. This is now done by the IPCC in conjunction with the CPS.

Whether a jury or a different judge would have reached a different conclusion is really irrelevant. As soon as the "lady" failed to appear to give evidence, there was no case to answer.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

I think you need more vegetations on that swibes anyways, but i dont really know the motives for co-operations to be honest when the sky is enough to fly for every mankind, i dont know what the nagging, bickering is all about to be honest.

Originally Posted by Binnman

As far as I am aware, the "lady" in question failed to appear at court, not because she was ill, but because she did not wish her "lifestyle" being questioned.

Don't know, can't comment. Edit On this you might like to ask the Security Services...seems that there is an undercover Officer by the name of Nicola Fisher who was investigating animal rights groups for Terrorism links....I'll try to see if I can find an internet link to the information..

Originally Posted by Binnman

Now, if the alleged attacker had been anyone but a Police Officer, then the case would have been dropped there and then. After all, her failure to attend means that the accused has no chance of challenging her evidence.

Not always true, with Video evidence now admissible a Judge can rule whether the case proceeds or not, it depends on the case, though I accept this is a rarity.

Originally Posted by Binnman

However, to satisfy the politics surrounding the whole carry on, the case was proceeded with and the judge found that the officer acted reasonably and his use of the baton was deemed justified.

See my previous comments on this matter of the Judge deciding.

Originally Posted by Binnman

Jim there was no need for any outside force to carry out investigations. This is now done by the IPCC in conjunction with the CPS.

IPCC are simply a "management" Quango set up by the Government to Over see so called Independent Investigations into Police misconduct. The Investigation is always completed under the command of a senior Police Officer from a neighbouring force. To be totally fair to the system (whilst I think it has serious flaws) in the main the Police reports for the IPCC do seem to hold no punches and will attack decisions and actions by even the most senior Officers when things go wrong, and in general they seem to go after the Management behind Officers actions rather than the Officers themselves, however the idea they are totally Independent and Impartial is a little misleading..

Originally Posted by Binnman

Whether a jury or a different judge would have reached a different conclusion is really irrelevant. As soon as the "lady" failed to appear to give evidence, there was no case to answer.

No it is not irrelevant, it is totally relevant. The judge felt that the video evidence and the witness statements of both Officers and Demonstrators was sufficient to proceed, and a decision was based on this evidence and a written copy of her statement, the defence agreed this was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

No it is not irrelevant, it is totally relevant. The judge felt that the video evidence and the witness statements of both Officers and Demonstrators was sufficient to proceed, and a decision was based on this evidence and a written copy of her statement, the defence agreed this was acceptable.

And if the Judge had said Guilty, they'd have trooped off to the Appeal Court and the case would have been tossed in the bucket. The video evidence has absolutely no weight whatsoever. It does not show context, was not an official video, ie with witnesses speaking to its provenance and chain of evidence.

I'm guessing that after precognition of the witnesses, the defence reckoned they were on a winner, so allowed the matter to proceed, safe in the knowledge that the had the appeal court safety net if things went Pete Tong.

Originally Posted by Binnman

And if the Judge had said Guilty, they'd have trooped off to the Appeal Court and the case would have been tossed in the bucket. The video evidence has absolutely no weight whatsoever. It does not show context, was not an official video, ie with witnesses speaking to its provenance and chain of evidence.

Actually there where 5 videos shown in court, one was an Official Met police Video, one was a Head Cam video from a City of London Police Officer who was present, One was from Sky News and three from members of the public who had submitted the films to the Police. An earlier evidential hearing had already decided that all the video's presented had relevant information and all had been tested to ensure they were unedited. Four others that were presented had been rejected on the grounds they offered no new angles and two had no sound.

Originally Posted by Binnman

I'm guessing that after precognition of the witnesses, the defence reckoned they were on a winner, so allowed the matter to proceed, safe in the knowledge that the had the appeal court safety net if things went Pete Tong.

Actually the defence initially kicked up a big stink and requested the case be rejected when Nicky Fisher did not arrive in Court..apparently the Judge, in a private meeting, allayed their fears and the case was heard.

Binnman, Please, if your going to discuss this at least do some research first...all that I have posted is freely available with a handful of Google searches and some sifting of chaff from the wheat.

Oooooooooooh get you.

Unfortunately, I have rather more important things to do, other than "doing research" for some internet forum. I bow to your greater knowledge of the ins and outs of this whole matter, however, I stand by what I said earlier.

Had the Judge said guilty, the matter would be in the appeal court now.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

There have been a spate of incidents concerning the British police recently concerning harassment of amateur photographers / tourists, the retention of DNA on police records in respect of those individuals not charged with or found guilt of a criminal offence, police officers abusing (even killing it would appear) protesters and innocent bystanders, arresting opposition politicians for embarassing the Home Office and failing to use their common sense by arresting all and sundry, seemingly to keep their stats healthy.

The question I increasingly find myself asking is should the general public trust or indeed cooperate with the modern UK police?

I dont know what you are actually trying to usurp reasonably right now cozz, all what you wrote is not fiction, copy document for example does not contain guilt rather than maitaining peace, however, if you want to exume sometime exume professionally, the member of your force harassing tourist to britain knows their personal motives acting like a day egg shell rules, furthermore, home office themself knows the legality involve not striking a deal atall in landmark if atall to avail, but let us be very careful not to cause what is more than we can handle or any attempt of hearsay to cause another bogside self stupidity so to speak.

When it all boils down we are talking about the actions of a few police officers less than 1% of all officers yet many are happy to tar them all with the same brush. I think they do a great job and I do trust most and the officer did right to hit that stupid women the only thing he got wrong was he did not hit her hard enough.

Originally Posted by Binnman

Oooooooooooh get you.

Sorry, was feeling bitchy....it's all this "get in touch with your feminine side" rubbish

Originally Posted by Binnman

Unfortunately, I have rather more important things to do, other than "doing research" for some internet forum. I bow to your greater knowledge of the ins and outs of this whole matter, however, I stand by what I said earlier.

Don't we all, but I researched and read as I needed to post...it only takes a few minutes and that way we all learn too...

Originally Posted by Binnman

Had the Judge said guilty, the matter would be in the appeal court now.

Here we both totally agree...and I can't say I wouldn't support it either as I simply cannot make my mind up if he was OTT or not. In his position would I have reacted the same, probably...although I hope not...

I got pelters on another forum last night for answering a question honestly. I was asked what I would have done (when a copper) if approached by someone with a weapon. Apparently a lot of folks were taken aback when I replied, "You'd have been arrested, taken away and had ten tins of condensed sh*t out of you, before being charged, verballed and put before the bench the next day"

Policing in the early '70s was a tad more direct, but as I said on the other forum, they had to realise that most of the Training (ie Senior Cops) were Wartime Ex-Servicemen, who were not noted for being overly subtle.

I recall a PTI at the Scottish Police College started his lecture on the various "Police Holds" to be used for effecting an arrest. It went something like, "I am going to show you various pressure holds, to ensure compliance by a suspect, but to be perfectly honest a good kick in the stones has always been the most effective"

I have only meet cops a few times, (Kiwi normally disappears when the cops get their batons and mace out). Some are nice while plenty are complete wankers.

Originally Posted by Binnman

I got pelters on another forum last night for answering a question honestly. I was asked what I would have done (when a copper) if approached by someone with a weapon. Apparently a lot of folks were taken aback when I replied, "You'd have been arrested, taken away and had ten tins of condensed sh*t out of you, before being charged, verballed and put before the bench the next day"

Policing in the early '70s was a tad more direct, but as I said on the other forum, they had to realise that most of the Training (ie Senior Cops) were Wartime Ex-Servicemen, who were not noted for being overly subtle.

I recall a PTI at the Scottish Police College started his lecture on the various "Police Holds" to be used for effecting an arrest. It went something like, "I am going to show you various pressure holds, to ensure compliance by a suspect, but to be perfectly honest a good kick in the stones has always been the most effective"

Well things are a tad differant up your neck of the woods than in England and Wales as are many of the laws. and many in the 1970's who had served in the war had retired as armed forces service was added to their pension so most may only have done 25 years in the police before getting full retirement pension.

The quality of policing in the UK, in comparison with comparatively recent past times is abysmally low. Poor senior management, politicised and into a culture of self-justification through the establishment and monitoring of largely undemanding and irrelevant 'performance' targets, fail to lead and motivate their subordinates, resulting in low morale and increasingly ineffectual junior ranks. We have ended up with a culture of form-filling, time- servers calculating the months to their fiftieth birthday when they can claim their excessively generous pensions. 'What., solve a crime? Not me Guv! too dangerous, and anyway its raining, so I'll stay in the office and fill in another meaningless form which covers my posterior, and gets me closer to meeting my targets'.

A neighbour of mine was cut up by a young yob in a clapped out hatchback, who then jammed on his brakes, leaped out and in the foulest language accused her of pulling out and causing him to slow down, whilst banging on her window. He then pulled the door open, pulled out the ignition keys and through them over a wall before getting back into his car and driving off.

Although shaken, frightened and trying to comfort two scared and tearful children she made a note of the registration number, and reported the matter to the police.

' I am sorry Madam, but without an independent witness there is very little we can do!' was the bored response.

Well get off your ample lard-arse and go and interview the scumbag for a start, would have been my response.

I have no doubt that the same disinterested constable would have been full of policing enthusiasm if he had stopped the scumbag, or indeed my neighbour, for doing 35 in a 30mph area, and collected an £80 on the spot fine or whatever! After all revenue targets must be met! Investigating crime? Oh we don't have targets for that!!

Originally Posted by Hookit

Nor have I had a speeding ticket or being caught speeding on camera again I wonder why?[/FONT]

Because you don't have a car?

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

A neighbour of mine was cut up by a young yob in a clapped out hatchback, who then jammed on his brakes, leaped out and in the foulest language accused her of pulling out and causing him to slow down, whilst banging on her window. He then pulled the door open, pulled out the ignition keys and through them over a wall before getting back into his car and driving off.

Although shaken, frightened and trying to comfort two scared and tearful children she made a note of the registration number, and reported the matter to the police.

' I am sorry Madam, but without an independent witness there is very little we can do!' was the bored response.

Well get off your ample lard-arse and go and interview the scumbag for a start, would have been my response.

I have no doubt that the same disinterested constable would have been full of policing enthusiasm if he had stopped the scumbag, or indeed my neighbour, for doing 35 in a 30mph area, and collected an £80 on the spot fine or whatever! After all revenue targets must be met! Solving crime? Oh we don't have targets for that!!

I obviously can't comment as to your statements on the 'quality' of policing in the UK. With reference to your anecdote however, I can tell you that almost anywhere in the world (free world at least), that is a 'he said/she said' situation without an independent disinterested witness. Several years ago my Son was involved in a traffic accident wherein he and the other driver lost control on ice and 'met' in the middle of the road. Only witness was a passenger in the other vehicle. Same situation, no disinterested witness and no visible evidence as to who was at fault. No ticket and let the insurance companies fight it out.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

when they can claim their excessively generous pensions.

The reason for the pension levels has of course, got b*gger all to do with the 11% Super-An that they pay in over their service though..................has it?

Originally Posted by Binnman

The reason for the pension levels has of course, got b*gger all to do with the 11% Super-An that they pay in over their service though..................has it?

Of course it has, but this contribution represents less than 17% of the cumulative total cost of providing a guaranteed, index linked, 66% final salary pension scheme from the age of fifty ( I accept that this has increased to 55 years of age for post 2006 joiners) if one were to buy such a pension in the open market, which many workers in the private sector have to do. As an indication you would need a fund value of something over £400,000 for every £10,000 of first year pension entitlement, for a pension provided under the same terms as the PPS pension scheme, based on current annuity rates.

Frankly I don't think the average police officer is worth it. But then I don't think that the average public sector worker is worth the over generous pension arrangements that they enjoy. Not that any public sector scheme, contributory or otherwise, matches the the wholly unjustifiable and excessively generous pension scheme enjoyed by the most undeserving of all public servants - the average Member of Parliament.

Originally Posted by Don

I obviously can't comment as to your statements on the 'quality' of policing in the UK. With reference to your anecdote however, I can tell you that almost anywhere in the world (free world at least), that is a 'he said/she said' situation without an independent disinterested witness. Several years ago my Son was involved in a traffic accident wherein he and the other driver lost control on ice and 'met' in the middle of the road. Only witness was a passenger in the other vehicle. Same situation, no disinterested witness and no visible evidence as to who was at fault. No ticket and let the insurance companies fight it out.

Point taken. However your illustration is of a non-criminal situation. The one I outlined was of a criminal nature including threatening behaviour and theft. If crimes are not considered worthy of investigation without an independent witness then it is a pretty poor reflection on our system of law and order.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Because you don't have a car?

If you read my first post I said i had been on the road since 1965 no I do not have a car I have two plus a Honda FireBlade

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Point taken. However your illustration is of a non-criminal situation. The one I outlined was of a criminal nature including threatening behaviour and theft. If crimes are not considered worthy of investigation without an independent witness then it is a pretty poor reflection on our system of law and order.

Police Community Support officers starting pay between 16 and 18K a year on top of that they get shift allowances between 14 and 22% if they work one shift after midnight a month they get the higher rate of shift allowance then they get week end working allowances. Some PCSO's also earn more than a PC. This is where we have gone wrong hobby Bobbies and not real police officers.

If there is no evidence and no witnesses what can the police do if they made it up you would all be up in arms shouting police corruption. It seems with many the police are dammed if they do and dammed if they do not.

A nation gets the police they deserve or are prepared to pay for.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

I don't think that the average public sector worker is worth the over generous pension arrangements that they enjoy.

Given that the majority of those who work in the public sector are pretty poorly paid, the 'generous' pensions they enjoy (i.e. the type of pension many private sector workers received until their bosses realised they could screw them out of a few more bob) compensate for the low wages, I don't believe the pensions are really that generous.

I also find it an odd argument that because the private sector has decided to rip-off its workers by stealing £s from their pensions that the public sector should follow suit. Perhaps in the spirit of public/private equality, Civil Servants and Local Authority staff should be able to take the same risks as per the private sector and receive bonuses and also be paid the same level as per the private sector, like for like; I suspect that in many cases the wage bill would increase markedly. Finally, in reducing the value of its pension scheme, the private sector is dumping a problem onto the tax payer: little or no pension post-retirement means increased pension credit payments funded by the state. I for one would prefer not to subsidise the private sector - its bad enough that we're having to pay for the excesses of capitalist gamblers in the city with our taxes, our services and public sector jobs.

Originally Posted by Hookit

If you read my first post I said i had been on the road since 1965 no I do not have a car I have two plus a Honda FireBlade

Also a decided lack of a sense of humor

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

Given that the majority of those who work in the public sector are pretty poorly paid, the 'generous' pensions they enjoy (i.e. the type of pension many private sector workers received until their bosses realised they could screw them out of a few more bob) compensate for the low wages, I don't believe the pensions are really that generous.

The average public sector income is currently £23660 per annum, compared with £21528 in the private sector, a 9% higher income. Average pay increases in 2009 were 3.8% in the public sector compared with 0.2% in the private sector.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

The average public sector income is currently £23660 per annum, compared with £21528 in the private sector, a 9% higher income. Average pay increases in 2009 were 3.8% in the public sector compared with 0.2% in the private sector.

I'd be grateful if you could advise of the source of your data and clarify which measure of central tendancy you are using. Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I'd be grateful if you could advise of the source of your data and clarify which measure of central tendancy you are using. Thanks.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7036131/Record-gap-between-public-and-private-sector-pay

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7036131/Record-gap-between-public-and-private-sector-pay

I found this interesting: Public v private sector pay: the figures don't add up | Comment is free | The Guardian.

If you use the 'mean' as the measurement of central tendancy then the pay of senior civil servants, GPs and other medical professionals distorts the figures to the extent that they are meaningless; for instance, the average civil servant is paid £20010.

Originally Posted by Don

Also a decided lack of a sense of humor

You may feel you are a funny man some may think you simply borrrring YAWN

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

The average public sector income is currently £23660 per annum, compared with £21528 in the private sector, a 9% higher income. Average pay increases in 2009 were 3.8% in the public sector compared with 0.2% in the private sector.

I know a lot of public sector workers are on less than 15k a year and many are on income support. Maybe the reason you feel the private sector pay less is due to their bosses GREED.

Originally Posted by Hookit

I know a lot of public sector workers are on less than 15k a year and many are on income support. Maybe the reason you feel the private sector pay less is due to their bosses GREED.

There are a lot of people in the private sector who are earning below average wages too; your point being what? An average is an average regardless of whether it's public or private sector. Ah yes, your particular bête noire, that of 'greed', something which you seem to have trouble being specific about, so in a standard left wing way it must be anyone who earns more than those who work for that person regardless of any other factors.

Originally Posted by Midas

There are a lot of people in the private sector who are earning below average wages too; your point being what? An average is an average regardless of whether it's public or private sector. Ah yes, your particular bête noire, that of 'greed', something which you seem to have trouble being specific about, so in a standard left wing way it must be anyone who earns more than those who work for that person regardless of any other factors.

I have explained to you already what I consider to be Greed within the Private Sector and I have given examples but here we go again. Yes we do have bosses who earn far more than their workers and as such this leads to if you pay peanuts you get monkeys also these high earners in the private sector put out to tender and do not give the level of service they agreed I have personal experience of this i.e they will try and get away with using cheaper equipment and materials they expect one person to do the work of two and then the level of service is not again what they agreed however trying to get rid of them is not that easy and putting out to tender yet again is costly and this goes on throughout the private sector that work within the public sector. We have only to look at the consultants that the public sector have to use they cost a fortune and they do not always deliver again personal experience.


Midas your problem is you only hear one voice and that is your own.

Originally Posted by Hookit

I have explained to you already what I consider to be Greed within the Private Sector and I have given examples but here we go again. Yes we do have bosses who earn far more than their workers and as such this leads to if you pay peanuts you get monkeys also these high earners in the private sector put out to tender and do not give the level of service they agreed I have personal experience of this i.e they will try and get away with using cheaper equipment and materials they expect one person to do the work of two and then the level of service is not again what they agreed however trying to get rid of them is not that easy and putting out to tender yet again is costly and this goes on throughout the private sector that work within the public sector. We have only to look at the consultants that the public sector have to use they cost a fortune and they do not always deliver again personal experience.


Midas your problem is you only hear one voice and that is your own.

No, not in the slightest, I was waiting for some specifics not just vague generalisations......