UKC

4 Liverpool police: Assault and perverting the course of justice

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Timmd 31 May 2021

It seems like a welfare check was carried out on the partner of a Mr Bamber, during which he was assaulted by the male police officer, and assisted by three accompanying female officers in covering this up, and attempting to frame the innocent party for attacking the male police officer.

https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2021/april/police-officer-found-guilty-of-s47-assault-and-perverting-the-course-of-justice/

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/girlfriend-man-battered-crooked-cop-20502176

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/lies-bent-coppers-told-cover-20694438

Thank heavens the truth emerged.

Post edited at 20:18
 Ciro 01 Jun 2021
In reply to Timmd:

My goodness, what is the world coming to when the police can't get away with roughing up the public any more? 😁

 Timmd 01 Jun 2021
In reply to Ciro:

Ha, I think I vaguely wanted their names and faces more widely known, so that their dishonour might follow them.

I've done that now, so that's alright. 

A plague upon them, as Shakespeare might have put it.

Post edited at 19:03
10
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2021
In reply to Timmd:

Doesn't look like "thank heavens".  More like thank internal police investigation. 

1
 elsewhere 01 Jun 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> Doesn't look like "thank heavens".  More like thank internal police investigation. 

Should the public make the same assumption as this experienced officer that when assaulting a member of the public the other officers present cannot be trusted to prevent and report a fellow officer's criminality?

It seems unlikely he made the assumption they would prevent and report his criminality and still committed the crime.

Post edited at 20:47
1
 mrphilipoldham 01 Jun 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Oh Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the wee donkey... 

1
 GrahamD 01 Jun 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Sorry, are you saying you think there WAS a heavenly intervention in bringing them to justice ?

 Timmd 01 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Yes, that's why it's a bad thing, did he arrive at that perspective himself, or was it passed onto him? It's an unsettling prospect that he didn't create that mode of operating.

Post edited at 21:43
In reply to Timmd:

What were they thinking switching their bodycams off? I mean how are they going to post a juicy clip on Instagram or Facebook or Youtube if the camera's off?

Seriously though, this is shocking stuff and it's good that they've been caught. Obviously they'll be dismissed as well, and hopefully put on that register to stop them ever having similar employment.

1
 mrphilipoldham 02 Jun 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

I think you must have missed the biggest TV spectacle of the 21st century. Line of Duty quote. It’s about an anti corruption team in a made up (but it’s London obvs) police force.

 Martin W 02 Jun 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Line of Duty quote. It’s about an anti corruption team in a made up (but it’s London obvs) police force.

The police force in Line of Duty is called Central Police.  The neighbouring force is called East Midlands Constabulary, a bit of a giveaway that it's not set in a fictional London.

https://lineofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Central_Police

Clues to the intended location pop up in the series from time to time.  Series 1 was actually filmed in Birmingham, though subsequent series were filmed in Belfast.  Maps of Birmingham can sometimes be seen on the walls of the police offices, and many of the (otherwise fake) phone numbers have an 0121 area code.

But apart from all that, yeah, it's meant to be London obvs...

1
 mrphilipoldham 02 Jun 2021
In reply to Martin W:

I didn’t set out to figure out where it was actually set, I just got the impression in my minds eye that it was ‘London’. So yes, maybe not obvs London, but that’s where it took me personally. Thanks for the schooling. 

 Lankyman 02 Jun 2021
In reply to Timmd:

I suspect the involvement of one DCI Gene Hunt

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Loads of Brummy or Brummy-ish accents too! But I do note since they started filming it in Belfast, that the Clent Hills often seen in the not too far distance have got a lot more impressive looking!

With the history of the West Midlands serious crime squad being what it is, and along the Birmingham Six, it sort of makes sense to set a police corruption series in Brum.

1
 off-duty 03 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Should the public make the same assumption as this experienced officer that when assaulting a member of the public the other officers present cannot be trusted to prevent and report a fellow officer's criminality?

> It seems unlikely he made the assumption they would prevent and report his criminality and still committed the crime.

Or he lost his temper - as is actually described in the reports.

The officers clearly recognised he'd gone over the top by their stupid decision to turn off their body cams, compounded by then concocting lies to try and cover it up.

They've all been sent to prison. A salutary lesson about the Nietzschean perils of working at the edge of the abyss.

3
 elsewhere 03 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Or he lost his temper - as is actually described in the reports.

I'm sure the convicted criminal is entirely trustworthy on that point.

> The officers clearly recognised he'd gone over the top by their stupid decision to turn off their body cams, compounded by then concocting lies to try and cover it up.

> They've all been sent to prison. A salutary lesson about the Nietzschean perils of working at the edge of the abyss.

5
 off-duty 03 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I'm sure the convicted criminal is entirely trustworthy on that point.

It's literally captured on bodycam. Hence the conviction. But don't let your inherent biases affect your objectivity 

7
 elsewhere 03 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> It's literally captured on bodycam. Hence the conviction. But don't let your inherent biases affect your objectivity 

I admit to being biased against convicted criminals.

Weren't the convictions obtained because the victim complained and not because any of the four officers present did their duty?

Bad apples are inevitable but that is not the real problem. The real problem is that none of the other three officers present could be trusted to do their duty and help weed out bad apples.

Post edited at 13:09
1
 neilh 03 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

Or a case of some form of PTSD/stress. Its not always clear cut as being a bad apple.People can just flip in incredibly stressful roles.

Then of course the cover up or protection by their colleagues makes it far worse.

 abr1966 03 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I admit to being biased against convicted criminals.

> Weren't the convictions obtained because the victim complained and not because any of the four officers present did their duty?

> Bad apples are inevitable but that is not the real problem. The real problem is that none of the other three officers present could be trusted to do their duty and help weed out bad apples.

There are bad apples everywhere....front line police work just means the consequences are more notable. I'm not defending the guy or the people who were complicit.

I'm quite confident that if I was a copper I'd cross the line pretty quickly and get sacked....very difficult and demanding job, just a shame some folk seem to relish it and generalise about the police altogether...

1
 off-duty 05 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I admit to being biased against convicted criminals.

That's easy to say.How many have you actually met? And how many unconvicted criminals?

> Weren't the convictions obtained because the victim complained and not because any of the four officers present did their duty?

The convictions were obtained initiated by the complaint - but undoubtedly as a result of the body worn footage.

> Bad apples are inevitable but that is not the real problem. The real problem is that none of the other three officers present could be trusted to do their duty and help weed out bad apples.

Yep. I agree a shocking failure on the part of the officers.

Still I'm sure we've all been in the same situation when someone you have worked with, relied on and know personally, has lost their temper at work - and we've all initiated the criminal complaint that will undoubtedly get them sent to prison.

3
 elsewhere 05 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> That's easy to say.How many have you actually met? And how many unconvicted criminals? 

Many, many, many more than I know about. Many more unconvicted than convicted. Hence cynicism about a first conviction being a first criminal offence for almost all types of crime.

> The convictions were obtained initiated by the complaint - but undoubtedly as a result of the body worn footage.

> Yep. I agree a shocking failure on the part of the officers.

Not shocking. As you mention below, it's how workplaces work A blind eye is turned.

> Still I'm sure we've all been in the same situation when someone you have worked with, relied on and know personally, has lost their temper at work - and we've all initiated the criminal complaint that will undoubtedly get them sent to prison.

So we are right to generalise from other workplaces to the police and from this specific incident that sackings/convictions are the tip of an iceberg of undisciplined employees or unconvicted criminals.

3
 off-duty 05 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Many, many, many more than I know about. Many more unconvicted than convicted. Hence cynicism about a first conviction being a first criminal offence for almost all types of crime.

I'm impressed. Many more than you know about. Yet you know about their conviction status. Wow. 

> Not shocking. As you mention below, it's how workplaces work A blind eye is turned.

No. Shocking. Unlike your workplace where you indicate "that's how workplaces work". Must be pretty unpleasant. Still, you do you.

> So we are right to generalise from other workplaces to the police and from this specific incident that sackings/convictions are the tip of an iceberg of undisciplined employees or unconvicted criminals.

Do you have to work to miss the point so entirely, or is it just a skill you've developed?  

3
 elsewhere 06 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm impressed. Many more than you know about. Yet you know about their conviction status. Wow. 

I stated I do not know conviction status, but given the 10M+ people with criminal records, 1M pa convictions and 10M pa crimes it was inevitable to meet convicted and unconvicted criminals weekly or daily prior to WFH. The idea that first convictions generally represent first crime rather than first time unlucky or stupid enough to get caught is implausible when 90% of crime does not result in convictions.

> No. Shocking. 

Not shocking after SPG silence on Blair Peach. Not shocking after much wider silence on Orgreave trial perjury. Not shocking after West Midlands Crime Squad. Not shocking after officers on the scene ignored assault on Ian Tomlinson.

> Do you have to work to miss the point so entirely, or is it just a skill you've developed?  

Clarify then. What is you point?

1
 off-duty 06 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I stated I do not know conviction status, but given the 10M+ people with criminal records, 1M pa convictions and 10M pa crimes it was inevitable to meet convicted and unconvicted criminals weekly or daily prior to WFH. The idea that first convictions generally represent first crime rather than first time unlucky or stupid enough to get caught is implausible when 90% of crime does not result in convictions.

So if you have no idea of conviction status of the people you meet, then baldly stating you are biased against convicted criminals seems a little naive. By your own words you've no idea who is convicted.

> Not shocking after SPG silence on Blair Peach. Not shocking after much wider silence on Orgreave trial perjury. Not shocking after West Midlands Crime Squad. Not shocking after officers on the scene ignored assault on Ian Tomlinson.

Blair Peach. An event from 1979 - 42 years ago, involving one team of 6 officers from SPG in the Met, and their actions during a riot. Also investigated by the Mets complaints department involving 31 investigators.

Orgreave. 1984. - 37 years ago. Again the crux of the perjury allegations appears to be that the numerous arrests made during this riot were backed up by crap proforma type statements in a very poor prisoner processing process.  

Tomlinson. 2009 - 12 years ago. Again a man pushed over in the middle of a public order policing deployment. He was identified by a number of officers who reported his actions. This was then linked in to the footage that had been obtained and which was widely publicised.

Let's face it, you don't like the cops. That's fine, we can live with it. I appreciate it must hurt when we do things like PC Charlie Guenigault, PC Wayne Marques and PC Leon McLeod. 

Let's face it that behaviour far more typical of the British behaviour than the shocking failures in this report - hence why it gets more coverage, it isn't the norm, and hence the severe penalties for those who have committed it.

> Clarify then. What is you point?

Have you reported many of your colleagues - that you work with daily, rely on, and probably spend more time with than any of your family members - for losing their temper, (or let's face it - anything?) - when you are aware the consequence will be prison?

3
 elsewhere 06 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> So if you have no idea of conviction status of the people you meet, then baldly stating you are biased against convicted criminals seems a little naive. By your own words you've no idea who is convicted.

I am biased against those I see reported as convicted.

> Blair Peach. An event from 1979 - 42 years ago, involving one team of 6 officers from SPG in the Met, and their actions during a riot. Also investigated by the Mets complaints department involving 31 investigators.

And 6 SPG lacking the integrity to reveal the guilty party. Complaints department investigation is not evidence of frontline SPG integrity.

> Orgreave. 1984. - 37 years ago. Again the crux of the perjury allegations appears to be that the numerous arrests made during this riot were backed up by crap proforma type statements in a very poor prisoner processing process.  

And a cover up to hide perjury is not evidence of senior management integrity.

> Tomlinson. 2009 - 12 years ago. Again a man pushed over in the middle of a public order policing deployment. He was identified by a number of officers who reported his actions. This was then linked in to the footage that had been obtained and which was widely publicised.

Identified after the public and press reported the crime. The officer had already committed several other assaults that day and had a fourteen previous complaints against him. Not good evidence that bad apples are weeded out.

> I appreciate it must hurt when we do things like PC Charlie Guenigault, PC Wayne Marques and PC Leon McLeod. 

Bollocks.

> Let's face it that behaviour far more typical of the British behaviour than the shocking failures in this report - hence why it gets more coverage, it isn't the norm, and hence the severe penalties for those who have committed it.

I think that criminal convictions of officers arise from complaints from the public rather than the other officers present at the time. Are cases reported by officers not getting the coverage? 

> Have you reported many of your colleagues - that you work with daily, rely on, and probably spend more time with than any of your family members - for losing their temper, (or let's face it - anything?) - when you are aware the consequence will be prison?

No, misconduct in my job would hardly ever be criminal. 

Post edited at 14:18
5
 Blanche DuBois 06 Jun 2021
In reply to rarely-on-duty:

> Or he lost his temper - as is actually described in the reports.

Everyone loses their tempers from time to time.  Personally, when I lose mine I tend shout and cuss a bit.  I don't repeatedly punch people whilst my mates look on.  Hopefully you don't neither.

> The officers clearly recognised he'd gone over the top by their stupid decision to turn off their body cams, compounded by then concocting lies to try and cover it up.

Didn't seem like they did a fat lot to stop him neither.

> They've all been sent to prison. A salutary lesson about the Nietzschean perils of working at the edge of the abyss.

Ah - it's all the fault "of the job".  No worries then.

4
 off-duty 06 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> And 6 SPG lacking the integrity to reveal the guilty party. Complaints department investigation is not evidence of frontline SPG integrity.

Yep. Dismissing the activity of 31 investigators based on the actions of 6.

> And a cover up to hide perjury is not evidence of senior management integrity.

Oh right, so it's "senior management integrity" now? You've literally just been demanding "evidence of frontline integrity". 

Make your mind up.

> Identified after the public and press reported the crime. The officer had already committed several other assaults that day and had a fourteen previous complaints against him. Not good evidence that bad apples are weeded out.

Edited to clarify - The officers came forward on 3rd April. The suggestion his death has been preceded by an assault by police was due to the video published by the Guardian (and the later Ch 4 video) which the Guardian didn't receive until the 7th April. 

There was some earlier dispute about whether the officers giving him first aid were subject of missiles, but that isn't particularly relevant to the assault.

The fact that Tomlinson died was, obviously, widely reported. Without that reporting would the use of force have been flagged up? Probably not - he was someone who was pushed over, arguably unnecessarily during the policing of a riot. It was the alleged consequence of his fall that resulted in the press coverage - and the early reporting by colleagues who identified him and Harwood. Prior to any specifi allegation of assault by press or public.

> Bollocks.

Yes. Extremely big bollocks. As are demonstrated on a daily, unreported, basis.

> I think that criminal convictions of officers arise from complaints from the public rather than the other officers present at the time. Are cases reported by officers not getting the coverage? 

Of the few officers who commit criminal offences on (or off) many are reported by colleagues. It's not hard to find examples :

https://metro.co.uk/2021/05/11/drunk-copper-arrested-by-colleague-after-she-was-abusive-and-said-n-word-14564417/

> No, misconduct in my job would hardly ever be criminal. 

So that's a hard no then.

Post edited at 15:34
3
 off-duty 06 Jun 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Everyone loses their tempers from time to time.  Personally, when I lose mine I tend shout and cuss a bit.  I don't repeatedly punch people whilst my mates look on.  Hopefully you don't neither.

Indeed I don't. Luckily I'm not regularly involved in violent confrontations with the public on a routine basis.

> Didn't seem like they did a fat lot to stop him neither.

As I said. Extremely poor behaviour.

> Ah - it's all the fault "of the job".  No worries then.

It's a consequence of the job, yes. You might consider that to be "no worries" - I don't. 

Post edited at 15:18
4
 elsewhere 06 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

Sorry I didn't realise demanding police integrity at all levels counted as not making my mind up.

Tomlinson - riot? The police were ambling along like Tomlinson.

2
 off-duty 06 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Sorry I didn't realise demanding police integrity at all levels counted as not making my mind up.

Demanding it at all levels seems entirely reasonable. Picking holes in every example for entirely different reasons as you have done, less so. Hauling out 3 entirely different examples over a 40+ year period to try and 'reinforce' your anti-police stance is just straight out bad faith.

> Tomlinson - riot? The police were ambling along like Tomlinson.

They were policing a riot. The behaviour when Tomlinson was hit and pushed by Harwood was arguably an assault. I note you've dropped your suggestion about police not identifying him.

2
 elsewhere 07 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Demanding it at all levels seems entirely reasonable. Picking holes in every example for entirely different reasons as you have done, less so. Hauling out 3 entirely different examples over a 40+ year period to try and 'reinforce' your anti-police stance is just straight out bad faith.

Ancient cases illustrating front line & senior officers did not identify the bad apples and made sure cases became ancient rather than tried in court. Individual & group psychology hasn't changed since then.

> They were policing a riot. The behaviour when Tomlinson was hit and pushed by Harwood was arguably an assault. I note you've dropped your suggestion about police not identifying him.

My position is that the public and not the police are usually the first to identify the bad apples.

The officers only came forward because of videos made by the public. Including video showing no criminality in the immediate area other that of than PC Harwood, an absence of rioting and lots of photographers. In the immediate area they were policing mainly people after work. Including Ian Tomlinson trying but failing to get through police lines to get home. 

Ian Tomlinson was the not even the first person assaulted by that officer that day and the officer's career had survived 13 previous complaints so I am cynical that a first conviction is a first offence or that the complaints procedure works to exclude bad apples.

I can understand that individual complaints may be too weak but seems far beyond balance of probabilities that 13 complainants probably unknown to each other conspired to target one officer over 15 years.

What was/is the procedure to decide on required balance of probabilities to sack somebody based on a pattern of behaviour is established from multiple complaints that are not upheld? Such a mechanism would mean Ian Tomlinson would have survived that day. The multiple failed complaints appear to have made PC Harwood confident enough in his knowledge of what he could get away with to assault a few people in a single day.

If he'd pushed over somebody else or pushed over Ian Tomlinson slightly differently PC Harwood would probably have remained a police officer with a long established pattern of behaviour.

I think there are some positive developments. Is it correct that an officer can no longer dodge a disciplinary by retiring and there is a national list of people not to be re-employed?

Post edited at 12:27
3
In reply to elsewhere:

> I think there are some positive developments. Is it correct that an officer can no longer dodge a disciplinary by retiring and there is a national list of people not to be re-employed?

I happened to be listening to this the other day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000vp4g IIRC the officer in command of the fire arms unit that killed Grainger retired before facing misconduct proceedings - something along those lines is mentioned in the programme anyway. That GMP are in "special measures" isn't a great signal as to how things are going in at least that constabulary. 

 off-duty 08 Jun 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Ancient cases illustrating front line & senior officers did not identify the bad apples and made sure cases became ancient rather than tried in court. Individual & group psychology hasn't changed since then.

Except that in one example you say the activities of the investigators within the Met (who were praised by the inquest) don't actually seem to be worth considering.

In the other case you appear unclear that the basis of the complaints about police alleged perjury don't really have any bearings on bad apples and group psychology.

Then you dismiss one (of many) examples of routine police heroism as "bollocks".

And you seem to summarise that as an overall negative picture of the police.

> My position is that the public and not the police are usually the first to identify the bad apples.

> The officers only came forward because of videos made by the public. Including video showing no criminality in the immediate area other that of than PC Harwood, an absence of rioting and lots of photographers. In the immediate area they were policing mainly people after work. Including Ian Tomlinson trying but failing to get through police lines to get home. 

This is simply wrong. The police came forward when it was identified that Tomlinson had died. This was before any photos or videos had even been obtained by the press, let alone published.

> Ian Tomlinson was the not even the first person assaulted by that officer that day and the officer's career had survived 13 previous complaints so I am cynical that a first conviction is a first offence or that the complaints procedure works to exclude bad apples.

> I can understand that individual complaints may be too weak but seems far beyond balance of probabilities that 13 complainants probably unknown to each other conspired to target one officer over 15 years.

It was 10 complaints over 12 years.

I have previously said that Simon Harwood was a disgrace and sacking was entirely reasonable.

> What was/is the procedure to decide on required balance of probabilities to sack somebody based on a pattern of behaviour is established from multiple complaints that are not upheld? Such a mechanism would mean Ian Tomlinson would have survived that day. The multiple failed complaints appear to have made PC Harwood confident enough in his knowledge of what he could get away with to assault a few people in a single day.

Complaints are investigated on balance of probabilities. But it should be noted that, being in the police, getting complaints can often be part of the job. We operate in an adversarial criminal justice system and mud thrown at an officer can deflect a criminal conviction of a suspect.

> If he'd pushed over somebody else or pushed over Ian Tomlinson slightly differently PC Harwood would probably have remained a police officer with a long established pattern of behaviour.

Harwood had a bizarre record - medical retirement, followed by joining another force, followed by transferring back to the Met, meant that his appalling conduct record was missed. The procedures have been tightened up massively since then including the introduction of a national barring list.

> I think there are some positive developments. Is it correct that an officer can no longer dodge a disciplinary by retiring and there is a national list of people not to be re-employed?

Yes. A national barring list. The "dodging a disciplinary" can also be viewed the other way round. A cop that knows he is ultimately going to be sacked can now stay at home earning a full wage whilst the disciplinary process drags on - with the sanction of losing his job ( not anything more serious like a criminal conviction)  which he fully expects to do. That generates complaints of the public paying his wages whilst he sits at home. The ability to resign whilst on a discipline process has been a bit of a difficult one to resolve with it being allowed and not allowed at various times over the last ten years or so.

1
 off-duty 08 Jun 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> I happened to be listening to this the other day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000vp4g IIRC the officer in command of the fire arms unit that killed Grainger retired before facing misconduct proceedings - something along those lines is mentioned in the programme anyway. That GMP are in "special measures" isn't a great signal as to how things are going in at least that constabulary. 

This frustrates me.

The officer in charge - Steve Heywood did retire prior to misconduct proceedings. This had no impact on those misconduct proceedings. They were ultimately dropped because the prosecuting body said they would not be able to proceed without the ability to use material that was redacted for security purposes - and as a result the evidence couldn't be fully heard 

For what it's worth he really should have faced a perjury charge, and I'm pretty appalled that the CPS failed to run a case against him.  He was clearly out of his depth and operating in a lackadaisical manner, which he then tried to lie about in the subsequent enquiry and was caught out in the witness box. Shocking behaviour.

The "special measures" for GMP relate to crime recording - and whilst all is far from rosy in that garden, it's worth considering how complex, confusing and contradictory the NCRS (national crime recording standards) and Home Office Counting Rules are 

For example - it's along the lines of if a professional third party reports an assault but the victim cannot ge found - crime for assault must be submitted. If it's a normal member of the public reporting the same thing - no crime.

If a victim reports circumstances that amount to a rape and an assault - the one crime for rape required, no crime for assault. If they report rape and controlling and coercive behaviour - then two crimes have to go in. If they report harassment in a domestic context - a crime for stalking.

Too many crimes for an incident = fail.

Too few crimes = fail.

Does the number and type of crimes have any actual impact on the service the victim gets, the investigation that is carried out or the charges that ultimately get issued? No.

In my force some of the disputes between auditors, crime recording teams and frontline cops can last days as disagreements about NCRS/HOCR are common.

2
 elsewhere 08 Jun 2021
In reply to off-duty:

> Except that in one example you say the activities of the investigators within the Met (who were praised by the inquest) don't actually seem to be worth considering.

> In the other case you appear unclear that the basis of the complaints about police alleged perjury don't really have any bearings on bad apples and group psychology.

Group loyalty at low level to cover up death. Group loyalty at institutional level to cover up  perjury. 

> Then you dismiss one (of many) examples of routine police heroism as "bollocks".

No I did not. The dismissal of legitimate criticism as anti-police is bollocks.

> And you seem to summarise that as an overall negative picture of the police.

> This is simply wrong. The police came forward when it was identified that Tomlinson had died. This was before any photos or videos had even been obtained by the press, let alone published.

> It was 10 complaints over 12 years.

Ten complaints in the Met, maybe 1 in Surrey and then another 3 at Met. A dozen or more members of the public* had identified the same bad apple over 15 years.

*Is it known that any of those complaints were instigated by police officers or were the public identifying the bad apple?

> I have previously said that Simon Harwood was a disgrace and sacking was entirely reasonable.

Sacking was massively overdue and had Tomlinson lived probably it would have just been one of several unreported assaults by PC Harwood that day.

> Complaints are investigated on balance of probabilities. But it should be noted that, being in the police, getting complaints can often be part of the job. We operate in an adversarial criminal justice system and mud thrown at an officer can deflect a criminal conviction of a suspect.

I appreciate that. Did Harwood have an unusual number or type of complaints?

Does it still work the same for a PC Harwood of 2021? If a dozen complaints are dismissed individually are they ever looked at collectively to establish a pattern of behaviour far beyond balance of probabilities to sack somebody? 

> Harwood had a bizarre record - medical retirement, followed by joining another force, followed by transferring back to the Met, meant that his appalling conduct record was missed. The procedures have been tightened up massively since then including the introduction of a national barring list.

Would that produce a sacking any earlier or would it still require it to culminate in the road rage incident or death of Ian Tomlinson that were sackable offences?

At what stage would Harwood's disciplinary record result in a sacking now?

> Yes. A national barring list. The "dodging a disciplinary" can also be viewed the other way round. A cop that knows he is ultimately going to be sacked can now stay at home earning a full wage whilst the disciplinary process drags on - with the sanction of losing his job ( not anything more serious like a criminal conviction)  which he fully expects to do. That generates complaints of the public paying his wages whilst he sits at home. The ability to resign whilst on a discipline process has been a bit of a difficult one to resolve with it being allowed and not allowed at various times over the last ten years or so.

Yes, it's a funny one to deny the right to cease employment. 

It looks like teachers can be banned after resigning.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cheating-school-teacher-banned-after-20370406

Post edited at 08:45

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...