police shoot 12 year old

[Byker28i]

Good response bernie. I was trying to answer the perceptions that the police are always wrong.
Or trial by media

 

[Bernie174]

Thanks.
There's a number of surveys, they do say much the same thing, numbers for some are slightly higher, and others slightly lower. But I do remember the surveys in the 80's & 90's, they were much the same numbers, although as the British Crime Survey says they changed the question, so they are difficult to compare.

Interestingly in other news, a fine upstanding member of Parliament today had his day in Court, and lost, against one of those dishonest untrustworthy Police Officers. Well done to the PC for taking legal action, and the Feds for paying for it. Perhaps before people leap to unjustified conclusions in future they'll think about what they are saying and the flimsy basis for it.

 

[stevelmx5]

I lost track of the ridiculous "Pleb-gate" (like a playground argument!) but didn't one or both of the Police Officers lose their jobs for supposedly perverting the course of justice? I assume they will now be reinstated after the Judge has ruled the idiotic MP did call them names after all?

 

[Bernie174]

I lost track of the ridiculous "Pleb-gate" (like a playground argument!) but didn't one or both of the Police Officers lose their jobs for supposedly perverting the course of justice? I assume they will now be reinstated after the Judge has ruled the idiotic MP did call them names after all?

There was one who wasn't there, but wrote a letter claiming to have been a member of the public who was. Can't remember what he was charged with, probably misconduct in public office. He pleaded to it, and no, he wont get off.

There were 3 others, I think who were dealt with for 'gross misconduct' under discipline regs, in one of the worst examples of misuse of the internal disciplinary process. Their crime? telling other police officers what happened.

They were sacked as I recall, no, the top levels of the Met would never admit they are wrong, so they wont get their jobs back as a matter of course. They may do if the Police Appeals Tribunal rules in their favour though, but that depends more on what they think of the case against them, I doubt the lairs exposure will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Mitchell, a proven liar, receives a large amount of cash every month as an MP. Will he be disciplined? Nope. Will he be forced out of his seat? no, not by his party, or parliament. But I certainly wouldn't vote for him next May.

 

[Byker28i]

OK Bernie so one fine upstanding police officer wion, but the IPCC report concluded three officers had given a false account of a meeting they had with Mitchell at his constituency office in October 2012, and that the findings of a subsequent investigation had been changed at the eleventh hour to recommend no disciplinary action be taken against them.
PC Keith Wallis was the officer falsely claiming to have witnessed the incident and was sentenced to twelve months in prison.

 

[Bernie174]

As far as Wallis is concerned, the complaints system works. Although there are some issues around how that was investigated, but it did what it said on the tin.

IPCC report concluded three officers had given a false account of a meeting they had with Mitchell at his constituency office in October 2012, and that the findings of a subsequent investigation had been changed at the eleventh hour to recommend no disciplinary action be taken against them.

Thats not quite correct. Whether they lied or not, is still being investigated.

The original investigation found that they recommended they should not be disciplined. The IPCC didn't like that, more so after Ms May (who should have kept her snout out, as shes part of the discipline process) called for the officers to be disciplined. Ms Glass the former IPCC vice chair, who is anything but Independent, ordered a re investigation, which hasn't been concluded.

One Police officer didn't win. He was accused by Mitchell of lying. He sued him, he was found by those proceedings to have been telling the truth as well as being exonerated by 4 (yes thats right 4!) different investigations.

If other officers lied, or acted wrongly they deserve everything they got. But so does Mitchell, and he should be treated equally. The PC that sued at any point in those 4 investigations could have lost his job, and knowing how these things are done, I can guarantee that if they could have screwed him they would. Now Mitchell, a politician who's integrity should be beyond question is still lining his pockets at your and mine expense, and shouldn't be.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Meanwhile, Mitchell, a proven liar, receives a large amount of cash every month as an MP. Will he be disciplined? Nope. Will he be forced out of his seat? no, not by his party, or parliament. But I certainly wouldn't vote for him next May.

But do we actually know that Mitchell was lying?
This was a civil, not a criminal case, and the judge had to decide whether he believed Mitchell, who had no corroboration to his account of what happened, or 5 police officers who each backed up each others account - he had to make a decision about this based on the balance of probabilities, which is a far lower standard than the "beyond reasonable doubt" of a criminal case. He also said that he didn't think that the main police officer "had the wit or inclination" to make up a story like that, which was his way of saying that the police officer was too thick to tell porkies. I can't help wondering whether a jury would have come to the same conclusion, but we will never know that, any more than we will ever know what actually happened on that day.

What Mitchell has now learned to his enormous cost is that if you're going to sue a government department or a large organisation with unlimited resources for libel, you need to be very sure that you have the evidence first, and that the evidence needs to be documentary (video, audio or written) because you can be sure that the other side will always find whatever verbal evidence there may be from enough witnesses to cast doubt on any verbal evidence that you have. It's a numbers game.

 

[Bernie174]

This was a civil, not a criminal case, and the judge had to decide whether he believed Mitchell, who had no corroboration to his account of what happened, or 5 police officers who each backed up each others account

So, the same thing would apply to the police officers who were disciplined then, and indeed the 3 Fed Reps. The Balance of probability is the standard used for them on Discipline hearings. So by your reckoning, no police officer found guilty at one of those actually did what he was accused of?

Anyway, thats neither here nor there. Had you looked for the evidence that was presented, it was all there. Mitchell's behavior over many years was of a similar standard, he admitted he was bad tempered, his story was very inconstant. The Judge also said he was "Impressed" with the Police officers evidence. He didn't say the same of Mitchell. In any court hearing part of the reason why the witness is always seen by the magistrate/Judge/Jury when giving evidence is so that they can see the way it is delivered and use that as part of their assessment as to the truth or otherwise.

He wasn't taking on an organisation, well, the Sun, he was taken on by a Police Officer, who obviously didn't want his reputation tarnished, and lets face it, why should he put up with it? The fault lays entirely with Mitchell.

The Judges words were that he was satisfied to "At least on the balance of probability".

What Mitchell has now learned to his enormous cost is that if you're going to sue a government department or a large organisation with unlimited resources for libel, you need to be very sure that you have the evidence first, and that the evidence needs to be documentary (video, audio or written) because you can be sure that the other side will always find whatever verbal evidence there may be from enough witnesses to cast doubt on any verbal evidence that you have. It's a numbers game.

No, what Mitchell has learned is not to be rude to the Constables in future, and if you are, not to lie about it, or accuse the Police officers, falsely of lying.