advertisement


Is the Metropolitan Police institutionally corrupt?

The thread that keeps on giving! Imagine!

Met police put spit hood on 90-year-old woman and pointed Taser at her
Watchdog investigating incident at woman’s home in Peckham in which she was also handcuffed

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the incident. One officer has been suspended and barred from using a Taser, while five others have been placed on restricted duties so they have no contact with the public.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cuffed-and-pointed-taser-at-90-year-old-woman
 
Going by the Guardian report , I have to wonder if it was at all appropriate for police to attend.

I wonder why the carers couldn’t deal with it ?
 
Restrain a 90 year old ? Why would you?

Regardless, cops would need lawful reason to restrain.

still sounds like exactly the sort of call that shouldn’t be made to the police, let alone them agreeing to attend. The caring company need contingency plans for whatever the eventuality was and not rely upon the police to perform their work when a 90 years old becomes so violent they can’t cope.
 
If that's the only way to protect the public from the Met thugs then they shouldn't be getting called out at all. I'd appoint a commisioner from abroad with a remit to have a root and branch clear out of the corrupt, the violent and dangerous thugs.
 
gavreid said:
If that's the only way to protect the public from the Met thugs then they shouldn't be getting called out at all. I'd appoint a commisioner from abroad with a remit to have a root and branch clear out of the corrupt, the violent and dangerous thugs.
Click to expand...


What qualifications would you want in that person?
 
gavreid said:
Met police put spit hood on 90-year-old woman and pointed Taser at her
Watchdog investigating incident at woman’s home in Peckham in which she was also handcuffed

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the incident. One officer has been suspended and barred from using a Taser, while five others have been placed on restricted duties so they have no contact with the public.
Click to expand...

Looks the right decision (discipline). Wonder if the 90 yr old has any infectious diseases?

Interestingly tho, the full article wasn’t disclosed. Only a link with a somewhat ‘The Sun’ lead sentence. The article itself reads like the woman was treated as a service user rather than suspect (not arrested, hospital etc). Again tho, only assumptions. The police spokesperson shut down any further disclosure to placate the media, in preference of investigation support.
 
I see nothing wrong with the spit hood, but pulling a taser on a 90 year old is fu-ked up.
 
Last edited:
Ginger said:
Ah, right. So if you get done for careless driving you've been sectioned for driving (section 3 , I think.) ??

Or warned for your conduct in public - sectioned for public order (section 5.)

Methinks you confuse section (commit compulsorily to MH hospital) with a section (numbered para) of legislation.
Click to expand...

No methinks not. Getting done for careless driving is known and termed by most people as getting done for careless driving, the name of the piece of legislation enacted has not become shorthand for getting done for careless driving.

It is however entirely possible that I had a fairly confused thirty year career as a mental health professional.
 
Finnegan said:
No methinks not. Getting done for careless driving is known and termed by most people as getting done for careless driving, the name of the piece of legislation enacted has not become shorthand for getting done for careless driving.

It is however entirely possible that I had a fairly confused thirty year career as a mental health professional.
Click to expand...


I take 'section' to mean (as per the OED) formal committal to a MH facility, whereas you said (in post 459): 'Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but their liberty is suspended under a ‘section’ of the MHA.'

Pedantry perhaps, but I don't take sec 136 as being formally detained. It's a temp detainment for assessment by MH professional, following which formal sectioning may apply. Am I wrong?


Thanks for the lesson re the road traffic act etc. Every day a schoolday etc. I was being sarcastic.
 
Is there a material difference between being formally detained, and being temporarily detained by the police? Is the latter not still pretty formal? I'm sorry if this sounds like sophistry, but I'm not sure the distinction you are making has much by way of real-world implications. Especially if the temporary detention is a precursor to 'proper' sectioning, as it probably often is and was intended to be.
 
Ginger said:
Pedantry perhaps, but I don't take sec 136 as being formally detained. It's a temp detainment for assessment by MH professional, following which formal sectioning may apply. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Still detained, temporarily or not, under the MHA. An ‘informal’ detention would be illegal. You also have sec 5:2- doctors emergency holding power, and sec 5:4- nurses emergency holding power. Not a 2 or 3 resulting in prolonged detention, but detained under the MHA nevertheless.

Anyway, we’re dancing on the head of a pin so I’ll leave it there.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Is there a material difference between being formally detained, and being temporarily detained by the police? Is the latter not still pretty formal? I'm sorry if this sounds like sophistry, but I'm not sure the distinction you are making has much by way of real-world implications. Especially if the temporary detention is a precursor to 'proper' sectioning, as it probably often is and was intended to be.
Click to expand...

It may be a precursor to formal sectioning, but very often isn't. It all links back to the point about the Met withdrawing from these things or having MH experts on hand with the cops. Ideally to prevent misuse of sec 136 and maybe bring in the correct intervention without taking someone to a place of safety, consuming everyone's time etc.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Especially if the temporary detention is a precursor to 'proper' sectioning, as it probably often is and was intended to be.
Click to expand...

Im either detained under a S136, or not. Proper detention includes protection under common law re use of appropriate force, if needed.

Ginger said:
It may be a precursor to formal sectioning, but very often isn't. It all links back to the point about the Met withdrawing from these things or having MH experts on hand with the cops. Ideally to prevent misuse of sec 136 and maybe bring in the correct intervention without taking someone to a place of safety, consuming everyone's time etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I said as much upthread. I must be on an ignore list or two. I also said that statistically a detention under S2 for assessment is very rare, after detention under S136. Lots of reasons for this.
 
Met police plan to stop attending most mental health calls prompts concern
Mental health leaders say among other issues strategy risks excluding people with protected characteristics

They warned “overzealous” 999 call handlers could end up refusing to dispatch officers to incidents where they are needed to protect the public “due to poor knowledge … of the nuances of the law”.

The move could also result in “people with protected characteristics under the Equalities Act”, such as those with a disability or from an ethnic minority, “being excluded from receiving the same level of support as others”, according to the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) Leads Network, which supports mental health practitioners across England and Wales.

It issued a statement on Thursday saying it was “concerned at the speed in which the Met is unilaterally intending to act” after the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, gave 31 August as the deadline after which his force would stop attending most emergency calls involving psychiatric crises.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ding-most-mental-health-calls-prompts-concern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top