This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36845738
Or should it read Nightmare girl's detention by police?
What am I missing here? She was accused of and charged with a crime (later withdrawn). what did the police do that was wrong?
Her main complaints seems to be -
a) it Took 8 Hours before she was released (seems a reasonably quick turn around and much less than the force could have held her for)
b) she was arrested in the middle of a lesson (I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police to wait until the lesson is over)
c) she was kept in a cell with "criminals" and "men" in adjoining cells (Perhaps she would have liked them to keep her in the corner of a coffee shop?!?)
d) She wasn't allowed to make a phone call from the car (which is standard practise phone calls are allowed by the custody officer and not immediately for obvious reasons)
e) The police held her devices for evidential purposes which ruined her GCSEs (she could and probably did have back ups - what did she expect? the opportunity to delete her nasty little messages?)
Or should it read Nightmare girl's detention by police?
What am I missing here? She was accused of and charged with a crime (later withdrawn). what did the police do that was wrong?
Her main complaints seems to be -
a) it Took 8 Hours before she was released (seems a reasonably quick turn around and much less than the force could have held her for)
b) she was arrested in the middle of a lesson (I don't think it's reasonable to expect the police to wait until the lesson is over)
c) she was kept in a cell with "criminals" and "men" in adjoining cells (Perhaps she would have liked them to keep her in the corner of a coffee shop?!?)
d) She wasn't allowed to make a phone call from the car (which is standard practise phone calls are allowed by the custody officer and not immediately for obvious reasons)
e) The police held her devices for evidential purposes which ruined her GCSEs (she could and probably did have back ups - what did she expect? the opportunity to delete her nasty little messages?)
8
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It's ok once she's been arrested a few more times she'll figure out how the custody procedures work and settle into the routine.
It's ok once she's been arrested a few more times she'll figure out how the custody procedures work and settle into the routine.
19
In reply to balmybaldwin:
a) 8 hours seems too long to me
b) What's unreasonable about the police waiting until the lesson was finished? Also consider the potential impact on her mental well being being publicly arrested in front of her classmates, particularly as charges were later dropped.
c) Agree that's not unreasonable as she was in her own cell and not in contact with others.
d) I don't know about standard practice, but that doesn't seem unreasonable, so long as she was allowed her call on arrival at the police station
e) That does seem unreasonable, if it impacted on her work the police could at least have provided her with back ups if she didn't have them.
You seem to be presuming she was guilty. At law she is innocent. She was not convicted and charges were dropped.
a) 8 hours seems too long to me
b) What's unreasonable about the police waiting until the lesson was finished? Also consider the potential impact on her mental well being being publicly arrested in front of her classmates, particularly as charges were later dropped.
c) Agree that's not unreasonable as she was in her own cell and not in contact with others.
d) I don't know about standard practice, but that doesn't seem unreasonable, so long as she was allowed her call on arrival at the police station
e) That does seem unreasonable, if it impacted on her work the police could at least have provided her with back ups if she didn't have them.
You seem to be presuming she was guilty. At law she is innocent. She was not convicted and charges were dropped.
12
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
If she was bullying another kid, then it's just desserts that the whole school was gossiping about her. Give her a taste of her own medicine. It doesn't sound like she's learnt anything from the experience though
If she was bullying another kid, then it's just desserts that the whole school was gossiping about her. Give her a taste of her own medicine. It doesn't sound like she's learnt anything from the experience though
5
3
3
In reply to Trangia:
Far from it. But I expect our police to be able to investigate any crime reported to them in a reasonable way and if that means arresting and talking to people it should be at the police's convenience not the accused's.
I can see her being a little upset if her class mates saw her getting into a police car... but it's a rather minor point - hardly an outrage and far less than grounds for complaint
I don't think 8 hours is unreasonable - remember other witnesses will have been talked to and evidence looked at in the mean time.
Far from it. But I expect our police to be able to investigate any crime reported to them in a reasonable way and if that means arresting and talking to people it should be at the police's convenience not the accused's.
I can see her being a little upset if her class mates saw her getting into a police car... but it's a rather minor point - hardly an outrage and far less than grounds for complaint
I don't think 8 hours is unreasonable - remember other witnesses will have been talked to and evidence looked at in the mean time.
3
1
In reply to Trangia:
The sensible thing to do , in my view, was to ask her to come to the principals office(after the lesson)
Assuming it was not a long lesson, in which case the class teacher could have escorted her to the principals office)
The sensible thing to do , in my view, was to ask her to come to the principals office(after the lesson)
Assuming it was not a long lesson, in which case the class teacher could have escorted her to the principals office)
7
In reply to balmybaldwin:
as the father of a 15 year old girl who was bullied at school, I would not like this to happen to the bully even if just from the view point of my daughter as ti would probably make things worse for her, this could easily turn the bully into a victim in classmates eyes and so further isolate the bullied girl. The bully and gang of friends would also be out for revenge.
as the father of a 15 year old girl who was bullied at school, I would not like this to happen to the bully even if just from the view point of my daughter as ti would probably make things worse for her, this could easily turn the bully into a victim in classmates eyes and so further isolate the bullied girl. The bully and gang of friends would also be out for revenge.
6
In reply to balmybaldwin:
You don't get arrested, you get taken into custody. Arrested comes later when you're being charged. And the automatic phone call as you arrive at the station is a myth.
You don't get arrested, you get taken into custody. Arrested comes later when you're being charged. And the automatic phone call as you arrive at the station is a myth.
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I think it's probably hard to be objective from just reading this, and we don't know how flexible the police were about giving any back ups of GCSE related work.
It's reminded me of it being handy to email things to yourself if you want a back up, or an extra one...
I think it's probably hard to be objective from just reading this, and we don't know how flexible the police were about giving any back ups of GCSE related work.
It's reminded me of it being handy to email things to yourself if you want a back up, or an extra one...
Post edited at 22:44
In reply to aln:
So when they say "I'm arresting you on suspicion of trolling, you have the right to remain silent....blah" you aren't getting arrested?
So when they say "I'm arresting you on suspicion of trolling, you have the right to remain silent....blah" you aren't getting arrested?
3
1
3
In reply to Timmd:
She was arrested in January. Her laptop was returned in March "a week before the deadlines" do you really think she couldn't find an alternative for 3 months?. It smacks of a compo case.
If you listen to her account, she was hardly humiliated. the head came to her class and asked her to come out. She questioned why told 2 people wanted to see her. she questions again what about head says she doesn't know. she then describes 2 officers waiting at the front door at the end of the drive in front of the "whole school" - I can only assume relating to the building itself - as having been taken out mid lesson, the rest of the school pupils and staff would presumably have been in class.
> I think it's probably hard to be objective from just reading this, and we don't know how flexible the police were about giving any back ups of GCSE related work.
She was arrested in January. Her laptop was returned in March "a week before the deadlines" do you really think she couldn't find an alternative for 3 months?. It smacks of a compo case.
If you listen to her account, she was hardly humiliated. the head came to her class and asked her to come out. She questioned why told 2 people wanted to see her. she questions again what about head says she doesn't know. she then describes 2 officers waiting at the front door at the end of the drive in front of the "whole school" - I can only assume relating to the building itself - as having been taken out mid lesson, the rest of the school pupils and staff would presumably have been in class.
6
In reply to balmybaldwin:
How can you or I know whether she could or not?
If she'd saved her work onto two devices (thinking that was having a back up), and for some reason couldn't get the files copied from the police, it's not hard to imagine her being in a pickle.
If we don't know what happen, we can't judge things 'in either direction'. You might be right, or you might not be.
> She was arrested in January. Her laptop was returned in March "a week before the deadlines" do you really think she couldn't find an alternative for 3 months?
How can you or I know whether she could or not?
If she'd saved her work onto two devices (thinking that was having a back up), and for some reason couldn't get the files copied from the police, it's not hard to imagine her being in a pickle.
If we don't know what happen, we can't judge things 'in either direction'. You might be right, or you might not be.
Post edited at 23:14
1
3
In reply to Timmd:
I agree we cannot and indeed she may not have had access to another computer or perhaps had gathered some kind or irreplaceable data, however if she had done the majority of her GCSE coursework 3 months ahead of her deadlines she is an extraordinarily diligent GCSE student.
I agree we cannot and indeed she may not have had access to another computer or perhaps had gathered some kind or irreplaceable data, however if she had done the majority of her GCSE coursework 3 months ahead of her deadlines she is an extraordinarily diligent GCSE student.
3
In reply to aln:
A few seconds googling would have prevented you from posting this utter shite.
> You don't get arrested, you get taken into custody. Arrested comes later when you're being charged. And the automatic phone call as you arrive at the station is a myth.
A few seconds googling would have prevented you from posting this utter shite.
11
In reply to aln:
Rubbish
You are arrested when you get your collar felt, you can be held in custody for 24 hours without charge for minor crime and 36 to 96 hours for major crime, or if arrested under the anti terrorism act for a maximum of 14 days.
Rubbish
You are arrested when you get your collar felt, you can be held in custody for 24 hours without charge for minor crime and 36 to 96 hours for major crime, or if arrested under the anti terrorism act for a maximum of 14 days.
5
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Quite a bit, it seems.
The school itself, Colonel Frank Seely actually has or had a good reputation, it was second choice for us despite being a long way to travel. It's one of only three schools in the whole county that isn't an academy, still directly maintained. The Head's only been in post a couple of years but he was assistant before that, he seems OK.
But you seem to have missed the wider point, and the whole reason she was on the program, that 10% of those arrested are 10-17 years old, which is a high proportion and they are generally treated as adults not children.
The Head seems to be keeping quiet but I wonder how much he knew about this in advance and whether he was OK with it.
The Notts police are making a big thing of this type of offence, the recent announcement that they will treat sexism as a Hate Crime, earlier in the year they decided to treat a Goth getting punched as a Hate Crime because his mum said he was a Goth, on-line bullying and harassment is a big part of that.
So you wonder if someone thought it would be a good idea to do something high profile when in reality they could have just sent the girl's parents a letter telling them to come down to the station.
Here's what the police said:
"It is not normal procedure for Nottinghamshire Police to make arrests on school property.
"As a result of new information and the escalation in the potential risk, a decision was made to make an arrest at the earliest possible opportunity and an arrest was made at the school.
"The subsequent investigation has shown this information to be false and no further action was taken against the arrested person.
"Nottingham Police understands that the decision to make an arrest on school grounds as well as the subsequent detention at a Police station and restrictions around contact was distressing to both the person arrested and her family."
If they treated children a bit differently in the first place, then it wouldn't be quite so bad when things go wrong.
> Or should it read Nightmare girl's detention by police?
> What am I missing here?
Quite a bit, it seems.
> a) held for 8 hours for a very petty reason that the police couldn't then make stick.
> b) why not arrest her at home when her parents are there?
> c) she's a minor why throw them in with the adults?
> d) how would she know her rights? with a child why don't the police contact the parents ASAP?
> e) they could have copied everything, could have done it quicker, whatevs.
The school itself, Colonel Frank Seely actually has or had a good reputation, it was second choice for us despite being a long way to travel. It's one of only three schools in the whole county that isn't an academy, still directly maintained. The Head's only been in post a couple of years but he was assistant before that, he seems OK.
But you seem to have missed the wider point, and the whole reason she was on the program, that 10% of those arrested are 10-17 years old, which is a high proportion and they are generally treated as adults not children.
The Head seems to be keeping quiet but I wonder how much he knew about this in advance and whether he was OK with it.
The Notts police are making a big thing of this type of offence, the recent announcement that they will treat sexism as a Hate Crime, earlier in the year they decided to treat a Goth getting punched as a Hate Crime because his mum said he was a Goth, on-line bullying and harassment is a big part of that.
So you wonder if someone thought it would be a good idea to do something high profile when in reality they could have just sent the girl's parents a letter telling them to come down to the station.
Here's what the police said:
"It is not normal procedure for Nottinghamshire Police to make arrests on school property.
"As a result of new information and the escalation in the potential risk, a decision was made to make an arrest at the earliest possible opportunity and an arrest was made at the school.
"The subsequent investigation has shown this information to be false and no further action was taken against the arrested person.
"Nottingham Police understands that the decision to make an arrest on school grounds as well as the subsequent detention at a Police station and restrictions around contact was distressing to both the person arrested and her family."
If they treated children a bit differently in the first place, then it wouldn't be quite so bad when things go wrong.
1
In reply to winhill:
"When things go wrong" - you mean like when the escalation of risk proves to be true and the alleged victim gets beaten/stabbed/killed by the girl, with the police having failed to take action.
As described above the police appear to have behaved as discreetly as they could whilst attempting to manage the increased risk.
The whole thing smacks of a desire for compo.
The worst thing being that the police nowadays get sucked in to bitchy, bullying disputes between children often because they are carried out on the public forum of social media and continue outside school hours and premises with 24 hour online access.
> Quite a bit, it seems.
> The school itself, Colonel Frank Seely actually has or had a good reputation, it was second choice for us despite being a long way to travel. It's one of only three schools in the whole county that isn't an academy, still directly maintained. The Head's only been in post a couple of years but he was assistant before that, he seems OK.
> But you seem to have missed the wider point, and the whole reason she was on the program, that 10% of those arrested are 10-17 years old, which is a high proportion and they are generally treated as adults not children.
> The Head seems to be keeping quiet but I wonder how much he knew about this in advance and whether he was OK with it.
> The Notts police are making a big thing of this type of offence, the recent announcement that they will treat sexism as a Hate Crime, earlier in the year they decided to treat a Goth getting punched as a Hate Crime because his mum said he was a Goth, on-line bullying and harassment is a big part of that.
> So you wonder if someone thought it would be a good idea to do something high profile when in reality they could have just sent the girl's parents a letter telling them to come down to the station.
> Here's what the police said:
> "It is not normal procedure for Nottinghamshire Police to make arrests on school property.
> "As a result of new information and the escalation in the potential risk, a decision was made to make an arrest at the earliest possible opportunity and an arrest was made at the school.
> "The subsequent investigation has shown this information to be false and no further action was taken against the arrested person.
> "Nottingham Police understands that the decision to make an arrest on school grounds as well as the subsequent detention at a Police station and restrictions around contact was distressing to both the person arrested and her family."
> If they treated children a bit differently in the first place, then it wouldn't be quite so bad when things go wrong.
"When things go wrong" - you mean like when the escalation of risk proves to be true and the alleged victim gets beaten/stabbed/killed by the girl, with the police having failed to take action.
As described above the police appear to have behaved as discreetly as they could whilst attempting to manage the increased risk.
The whole thing smacks of a desire for compo.
The worst thing being that the police nowadays get sucked in to bitchy, bullying disputes between children often because they are carried out on the public forum of social media and continue outside school hours and premises with 24 hour online access.
10
In reply to off-duty:
The way it was reported you would have thought that she was physically dragged out of the classroom by police officers.
The way it was reported you would have thought that she was physically dragged out of the classroom by police officers.
2
In reply to winhill:
I'm not sure what any of this had to to with it. although I did suspect it was a school with a "Good Reputation"
The headline and story don't even mention the reason for her being on a programme. However again I'm not sure how it is relevant. Personally I'm not at all surprised that 10-17 year olds make up 10% of those arrested. I would expect more given a lot of minor crime is done by adolescents and the volume of these crimes is quite high (compared to more serious crimes). Sounds like the usual Victoria Derbyshire stuff - take a statistic, try to make it all seem horrendous because of a few extreme cases. If it was a little TWOKER spitting and mouthing off it wouldn't quite have appealed to her listeners as a prim and proper little angel prevented from doing her coursework would it?
Interesting that - I suspect as most schools they would rather this wasn't in the press affecting their reputation
I think they are between a rock and a hard place... I'm not sure how society should deal with this sort of stuff. Its hard enough when people make offensive or obscene comments between adults on twitter etc (freedom from abuse vs free speech vs it was only a joke etc). but how do you resolve the problem of a 12-15 year old texting pictures of themselves to their equally young boyfriend/girlfriend? However I'm also painfully aware of how horrendous kids can be bullying each other, and the real pain it can cause.... so do you go in hard or soft?
So that would take what 2 days to arrive, by which time any threat could have been carried out, and by the time they actually get to the station they could of course have found out from daughter what's happened, and "lose" any evidence they could.
Which to me confirms this was not an ordinary event.
As Off Duty said - what if the threat was real and they had just turned up at her house after school to spare her blushes?
Unfortunately when a crime or a threat is reported the police have an obligation to investigate. On this occasion it seems the information they had was inaccurate - as to why - who knows?
How do you mean then? what would you do differently?
> The school itself, Colonel Frank Seely actually has or had a good reputation, it was second choice for us despite being a long way to travel. It's one of only three schools in the whole county that isn't an academy, still directly maintained. The Head's only been in post a couple of years but he was assistant before that, he seems OK.
I'm not sure what any of this had to to with it. although I did suspect it was a school with a "Good Reputation"
> But you seem to have missed the wider point, and the whole reason she was on the program, that 10% of those arrested are 10-17 years old, which is a high proportion and they are generally treated as adults not children.
The headline and story don't even mention the reason for her being on a programme. However again I'm not sure how it is relevant. Personally I'm not at all surprised that 10-17 year olds make up 10% of those arrested. I would expect more given a lot of minor crime is done by adolescents and the volume of these crimes is quite high (compared to more serious crimes). Sounds like the usual Victoria Derbyshire stuff - take a statistic, try to make it all seem horrendous because of a few extreme cases. If it was a little TWOKER spitting and mouthing off it wouldn't quite have appealed to her listeners as a prim and proper little angel prevented from doing her coursework would it?
> The Head seems to be keeping quiet but I wonder how much he knew about this in advance and whether he was OK with it.
Interesting that - I suspect as most schools they would rather this wasn't in the press affecting their reputation
> The Notts police are making a big thing of this type of offence, the recent announcement that they will treat sexism as a Hate Crime, earlier in the year they decided to treat a Goth getting punched as a Hate Crime because his mum said he was a Goth, on-line bullying and harassment is a big part of that.
I think they are between a rock and a hard place... I'm not sure how society should deal with this sort of stuff. Its hard enough when people make offensive or obscene comments between adults on twitter etc (freedom from abuse vs free speech vs it was only a joke etc). but how do you resolve the problem of a 12-15 year old texting pictures of themselves to their equally young boyfriend/girlfriend? However I'm also painfully aware of how horrendous kids can be bullying each other, and the real pain it can cause.... so do you go in hard or soft?
> So you wonder if someone thought it would be a good idea to do something high profile when in reality they could have just sent the girl's parents a letter telling them to come down to the station.
So that would take what 2 days to arrive, by which time any threat could have been carried out, and by the time they actually get to the station they could of course have found out from daughter what's happened, and "lose" any evidence they could.
> Here's what the police said:
> "It is not normal procedure for Nottinghamshire Police to make arrests on school property.
Which to me confirms this was not an ordinary event.
> "As a result of new information and the escalation in the potential risk, a decision was made to make an arrest at the earliest possible opportunity and an arrest was made at the school.
As Off Duty said - what if the threat was real and they had just turned up at her house after school to spare her blushes?
> "The subsequent investigation has shown this information to be false and no further action was taken against the arrested person.
> "Nottingham Police understands that the decision to make an arrest on school grounds as well as the subsequent detention at a Police station and restrictions around contact was distressing to both the person arrested and her family."
Unfortunately when a crime or a threat is reported the police have an obligation to investigate. On this occasion it seems the information they had was inaccurate - as to why - who knows?
> If they treated children a bit differently in the first place, then it wouldn't be quite so bad when things go wrong.
How do you mean then? what would you do differently?
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It is almost meaningless to comment without knowing the full story but... (This is UKC!). I'm sure there are cases of bullying where an arrest on school premises is the least bad outcome. I'm not convinced this came anywhere near close to meeting that high threshold or that treating a child as an adult criminal was an appropriate response to whatever happened here.
Children do things, all the time that would be unacceptable, even criminal, for an adult. Stealing a toy, a push (even a fight) in the playground, cruel words (= hate speech?). Isn't part of childhood being given space to make mistakes, hopefully learn from them and be socialised by the measured and proportionate response of their school, without picking up a criminal record?
If we are taking a zero tolerance to school criminality approach here then I should confess I once punched a classmate on the nose and there was an unfortunate revenge event in a scrum that I'm not proud of. There were also many other incidents the other way (I was the fat, bookish lad, last to be picked for teams but first time be picked on) so I think the uk police (Justice Britain (c) ) will be a bit busy, just as soon as they have sorted out all the murderers, rapists, burglars, wannabe jihadists, illegal parkers and those doing 41 mph in a 40 zone.
(Edit for punctuation)
It is almost meaningless to comment without knowing the full story but... (This is UKC!). I'm sure there are cases of bullying where an arrest on school premises is the least bad outcome. I'm not convinced this came anywhere near close to meeting that high threshold or that treating a child as an adult criminal was an appropriate response to whatever happened here.
Children do things, all the time that would be unacceptable, even criminal, for an adult. Stealing a toy, a push (even a fight) in the playground, cruel words (= hate speech?). Isn't part of childhood being given space to make mistakes, hopefully learn from them and be socialised by the measured and proportionate response of their school, without picking up a criminal record?
If we are taking a zero tolerance to school criminality approach here then I should confess I once punched a classmate on the nose and there was an unfortunate revenge event in a scrum that I'm not proud of. There were also many other incidents the other way (I was the fat, bookish lad, last to be picked for teams but first time be picked on) so I think the uk police (Justice Britain (c) ) will be a bit busy, just as soon as they have sorted out all the murderers, rapists, burglars, wannabe jihadists, illegal parkers and those doing 41 mph in a 40 zone.
(Edit for punctuation)
Post edited at 22:06
3
In reply to off-duty:
No, I mean when the police have got it wrong and they were expecting to get away with treating a child poorly because they thought they'd get an easy collar. When they're seen to jump the gun the opposite happens.
You should know that it's screamingly obvious that Theresa May's guidelines for the PACE Code of practice look to have been bent:
8.8 A juvenile shall not be placed in a police cell unless no other secure accommodation is available and the custody officer considers it is not practicable to supervise them if they are not placed in a cell or that a cell provides more comfortable accommodation than other secure accommodation in the station...
8.10 If a juvenile is placed in a cell, the reason must be recorded.
I have no idea if Mansfield police station is a crumbling victorian relic or a luxury Lambeth new build, either way it would be trivial to convey the reason for using a cell. Unless, of course, the Code of Practice is toothless and Notts Police can happily say they've done nothing wrong even though they won't confirm they adhered to the Code.
I like the way you've upgraded their statement of 'potential' risk to 'immediate' risk, when it turns out there was no immediate risk. Reminds me when you claimed Adam Johnson had been convicted of crimes he hadn't even been charged with, a Guilty until proven innocent mindset.
No, you're not invoking Won't Someone Think of the Coppers are you? The worst thing would be getting dragged off to Mansfield for no reason, locked in an inappropriate cell and then have questioning delayed by several hours, meaning you don't get to see a friendly adult all day. Still, a useful softening technique for DCs trying to breakdown those toughened teenage girlies.
> "When things go wrong" - you mean like when the escalation of risk proves to be true and the alleged victim gets beaten/stabbed/killed by the girl, with the police having failed to take action.
No, I mean when the police have got it wrong and they were expecting to get away with treating a child poorly because they thought they'd get an easy collar. When they're seen to jump the gun the opposite happens.
You should know that it's screamingly obvious that Theresa May's guidelines for the PACE Code of practice look to have been bent:
8.8 A juvenile shall not be placed in a police cell unless no other secure accommodation is available and the custody officer considers it is not practicable to supervise them if they are not placed in a cell or that a cell provides more comfortable accommodation than other secure accommodation in the station...
8.10 If a juvenile is placed in a cell, the reason must be recorded.
I have no idea if Mansfield police station is a crumbling victorian relic or a luxury Lambeth new build, either way it would be trivial to convey the reason for using a cell. Unless, of course, the Code of Practice is toothless and Notts Police can happily say they've done nothing wrong even though they won't confirm they adhered to the Code.
I like the way you've upgraded their statement of 'potential' risk to 'immediate' risk, when it turns out there was no immediate risk. Reminds me when you claimed Adam Johnson had been convicted of crimes he hadn't even been charged with, a Guilty until proven innocent mindset.
> The worst thing being that the police nowadays get sucked in to bitchy, bullying disputes
No, you're not invoking Won't Someone Think of the Coppers are you? The worst thing would be getting dragged off to Mansfield for no reason, locked in an inappropriate cell and then have questioning delayed by several hours, meaning you don't get to see a friendly adult all day. Still, a useful softening technique for DCs trying to breakdown those toughened teenage girlies.
2
3
In reply to winhill:
Nice snipe, but you are still avoiding the issue. You have an allegation made that some form of harassment has now escalated to some sort orb imminent physical threat.
What would you like the cops to do?
What on earth makes you think they thought they Could "get away with it" - detention of children (along worth vulnerable adults) is about the most heavily documented and risk assessed action you will take. You presumably are aware of this to be so ready with the criticism.
Genuinely laughable. OH MY GOD! PACE.
I'm so grateful someone on the internet knew about it - we've never locked up juveniles before.
There is never any secure accommodation available - certainly not for a fairly brief detention as in this case - let alone an overnight stay, it even a post charge detention.
Don't blame us, blame the local authority whose responsibility those places are.
I'm not clear, as an expert in PACE, why you think that adhering to the rules counts as a breach, but you are clearly the expert. Nothing in PACE states that the reasons for every, or any, step of the process needs to be disclosed through the medium of press release.
It must be documented on the record and will be available when she goes for her inevitable civil claim.
Apart from their being no parallels at all in what you claim, I don't even know what you are claiming I said.
Regardless - potential or immediate - an allegation had been made that previous harassment had escalated to a threat of violence.
A threat that, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight transpired to be false.
If only we had your powers of seeing the future.
LOL. Why so sympathetic, based on the suspects account in a media interview?
It's quite clear from your post that apart from your ability to Google you know not a huge amount about actual police procedures - so what is the experience or knowledge you feel you can use to illuminate the clearly one-sided account in the initial report?
> No, I mean when the police have got it wrong and they were expecting to get away with treating a child poorly because they thought they'd get an easy collar. When they're seen to jump the gun the opposite happens.
Nice snipe, but you are still avoiding the issue. You have an allegation made that some form of harassment has now escalated to some sort orb imminent physical threat.
What would you like the cops to do?
What on earth makes you think they thought they Could "get away with it" - detention of children (along worth vulnerable adults) is about the most heavily documented and risk assessed action you will take. You presumably are aware of this to be so ready with the criticism.
> You should know that it's screamingly obvious that Theresa May's guidelines for the PACE Code of practice look to have been bent:
> 8.8 A juvenile shall not be placed in a police cell unless no other secure accommodation is available and the custody officer considers it is not practicable to supervise them if they are not placed in a cell or that a cell provides more comfortable accommodation than other secure accommodation in the station...
> 8.10 If a juvenile is placed in a cell, the reason must be recorded.
> I have no idea if Mansfield police station is a crumbling victorian relic or a luxury Lambeth new build, either way it would be trivial to convey the reason for using a cell. Unless, of course, the Code of Practice is toothless and Notts Police can happily say they've done nothing wrong even though they won't confirm they adhered to the Code.
Genuinely laughable. OH MY GOD! PACE.
I'm so grateful someone on the internet knew about it - we've never locked up juveniles before.
There is never any secure accommodation available - certainly not for a fairly brief detention as in this case - let alone an overnight stay, it even a post charge detention.
Don't blame us, blame the local authority whose responsibility those places are.
I'm not clear, as an expert in PACE, why you think that adhering to the rules counts as a breach, but you are clearly the expert. Nothing in PACE states that the reasons for every, or any, step of the process needs to be disclosed through the medium of press release.
It must be documented on the record and will be available when she goes for her inevitable civil claim.
> I like the way you've upgraded their statement of 'potential' risk to 'immediate' risk, when it turns out there was no immediate risk. Reminds me when you claimed Adam Johnson had been convicted of crimes he hadn't even been charged with, a Guilty until proven innocent mindset.
Apart from their being no parallels at all in what you claim, I don't even know what you are claiming I said.
Regardless - potential or immediate - an allegation had been made that previous harassment had escalated to a threat of violence.
A threat that, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight transpired to be false.
If only we had your powers of seeing the future.
> No, you're not invoking Won't Someone Think of the Coppers are you? The worst thing would be getting dragged off to Mansfield for no reason, locked in an inappropriate cell and then have questioning delayed by several hours, meaning you don't get to see a friendly adult all day. Still, a useful softening technique for DCs trying to breakdown those toughened teenage girlies.
LOL. Why so sympathetic, based on the suspects account in a media interview?
It's quite clear from your post that apart from your ability to Google you know not a huge amount about actual police procedures - so what is the experience or knowledge you feel you can use to illuminate the clearly one-sided account in the initial report?
8
1
3
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...