advertisement


Met police to hand in weapons and stop killing black Britons

Please point to the bit where any of ' our politically correct friends' said if the evidence shows they acted appropriately that we should ignore that evidence.

A police officer proven to have acted lawfully should of course be exonerated, but only after a full and honest investigation has been completed.

But that's not what was proven in the case of Duggan, Tomlinson, et Al, was it?
 
Could also define what is meant by ‘politically correct’ however tedious the answer is likely to be.
 
ff1d1l said:
Hmm...Thanks for replying. It's hardly "why" though, is it? If some can be shown, no doubt showing conduct in a favourable light, the sceptic in me wonders exactly what exactly prevents the rest seeing the light of day.
Click to expand...

Due process. It should play out in due course.
 
Andrew C! said:
It is highly likely the police will have spoken to the IOPC regarding its disclosure.
Click to expand...

Seanm said:
From what Andrew says it seems what video gets released, and whether it gets released at all, is pretty much at the discretion of the police. So on its own it’s not going to demonstrate anything conclusively. Even if it could, the larger issues remain.
Click to expand...

It’s a homicide investigation. The CPS will have a allocated a reviewing lawyer. It very unlikely (but not impossible) any footage will be released for viewing without their consultation. I said this in post 288. To release cctv for viewing could undermine the prosecution case. Hence the need for care and thought.
 
In any other walk of life the person responsible for a death, midwife, nurse, doctor, teacher on a school trip etc etc would have been suspended and likely interviewed under caution within a day or two. Such things don't (or shouldn't) compromise due process. Instead it sends to message to those involved that there is a serious situation evolving that could end in serious criminal proceedings.
 
gavreid said:
In any other walk of life the person responsible for a death, midwife, nurse, doctor, teacher on a school trip etc etc would have been suspended and likely interviewed under caution within a day or two. Such things don't (or shouldn't) compromise due process. Instead it sends to message to those involved that there is a serious situation evolving that could end in serious criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous comparison. It’s the job of a SFO to disable / eliminate potential threats should circumstances dictate. Don’t think that’s in the job spec of a teacher et al.
 
Ponty said:
Ridiculous comparison. It’s the job of a SFO to disable / eliminate potential threats should circumstances dictate. Don’t think that’s in the job spec of a teacher et al.
Click to expand...

Any of those professionals might say that they did their best in difficult circumstances that's the whole point.
 
gavreid said:
In any other walk of life the person responsible for a death, midwife, nurse, doctor, teacher on a school trip etc etc would have been suspended and likely interviewed under caution within a day or two. Such things don't (or shouldn't) compromise due process. Instead it sends to message to those involved that there is a serious situation evolving that could end in serious criminal proceedings.
Click to expand...

Oooh… just go back and look at those deaths in NHS care facilities . You sure about your little assertion here?
 
gavreid said:
One failing doesn't excuse another
Click to expand...

Quite! But you asserted that in other walks of life people would be suspended and interviewed etc. the inference being (presumably) that cops are treated differently . You’re not right about those other walks of life at all .
 
Ginger said:
Quite! But you asserted that in other walks of life people would be suspended and interviewed etc. the inference being (presumably) that cops are treated differently . You’re not right about those other walks of life at all .
Click to expand...

You're talking about exceptions that also caused public outrage

"This case also shows how accountability is still something that has to be fought for; not something that is hardwired into policing. If someone ended up dead in most other lines of work, that would be cause for immediate suspension. It took several interventions from the family, campaigners and MPs for the Met to suspend the officer who fired the shot.

It also took several days for the IOPC to escalate this case to a homicide investigation. Only time will tell if this delay proves costly. It shouldn’t require vast amounts of public pressure to trigger what should be basic features of police accountability.

We do need a full and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Chris’s killing. However, there is no reason that police or the IOPC could not have communicated with Chris’s family in the same way they have during other similar incidents."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/chris-kaba-shot-dead-metropolitan-police-b2166908.html
 
gavreid said:
You're talking about exceptions that also caused public outrage

"This case also shows how accountability is still something that has to be fought for; not something that is hardwired into policing. If someone ended up dead in most other lines of work, that would be cause for immediate suspension. It took several interventions from the family, campaigners and MPs for the Met to suspend the officer who fired the shot.

It also took several days for the IOPC to escalate this case to a homicide investigation. Only time will tell if this delay proves costly. It shouldn’t require vast amounts of public pressure to trigger what should be basic features of police accountability.

We do need a full and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Chris’s killing. However, there is no reason that police or the IOPC could not have communicated with Chris’s family in the same way they have during other similar incidents."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/chris-kaba-shot-dead-metropolitan-police-b2166908.html
Click to expand...


Well we’re an awful lot closer to agreeing than you might think. But before I agree, the deaths in NHS mental health care appear to cause my public outrage whatsoever . None.

Totally agree that we should not have to fight for accountability . It occurs to me that if the shooting is a homicide investigation, why hasnt the officer been arrested and interviewed? The family and the public get the same investigation as any other murder, and the officer gets all the same legal protections as Joe public. PACE and it’s time limits apply. Why don’t they do that?
 
Any suspicious, unexpected or unexplained death in a hospital- general or mental health- would be reported to both the police and coroner. It is the decision of the coroner whether an inquest is warranted. The police would become involved if foul play was suspected. There would also be an internal investigation by the hospital managers.
 
Finnegan said:
Any suspicious, unexpected or unexplained death in a hospital- general or mental health- would be reported to both the police and coroner. It is the decision of the coroner whether an inquest is warranted. The police would become involved if foul play was suspected. There would also be an internal investigation by the hospital managers.
Click to expand...

really? Check the link in one of my previous posts to deaths in Essex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top