Police Thugs Arrest Pensioner

[bugbear]

If he wanted to say something he would say it and not imply it, and after doing so he would certainly not deny it.

Just my opinion you understand.

Cheers

Mike

Thank you Mike. You are quite correct. I asked a question, it hasn't yet been answered, and implied nothing.

Some questions carry implications. Are you too stupid to realise this?

BugBear

 

[studders]

Some questions carry implications. Are you too stupid to realise this?

BugBear

Some being the operative word, are you too stupid to realise that? Or are you so clever you just know which do and which don't and what the questioners intent was?

Last try...

Answer the questions.

 

[bugbear]

Some questions carry implications. Are you too stupid to realise this?

BugBear

Some being the operative word, are you too stupid to realise that? Or are you so clever you just know which do and which don't and what the questioners intent was?

Last try...

Answer the questions.

Well, I agree with wobbycogs.

Standard procedure, after a complaint. It has much in common with teachers being suspended after complaints of abuse.

BugBear

 

[studders]

From what I could discover from relevant official documents available on the internet, which are few, it would appear that is not so. Standard procedure during most investigations where a complaint has been made is to re allocate to other duties, unless there is no position to re allocate to or failure to suspend might compromise the investigation.
It appears the OAP was found Not Guilty of failing to stop after an Accident so that is now irrelevant.
I'm not going to second guess the outcome of the investigation or the reason for it. I shall wait until more information is available as to why they have been suspended.

 

[JMcK]

I'm not going to second guess the outcome of the investigation or the reason for it. I shall wait until more information is available as to why they have been suspended.

All complaints against police,whatever the nature, have to be investigated.The only possible exception is if someone falls into the category of persistent,unfounded complainer. Even then a judgement has to be made and the IPCC would be involved.

As to having more information as to why they were suspended. That is not information which you would see until after any Court case or Disciplinary Proceedings at which point the nature of the charges,under either system, would be germane to their suspension.

 

[studders]

But is it safe to assume that when a police officer is suspended it is not for a trivial (not the right word but brain is wet) reason/complaint?
I ask because, although I think those involved should be strongly reprimanded, I can't understand, from what is available to be viewed, why they were suspended.

 

[Dibs-h]

Doesn't the Chief WotsHisFace have the discretion to discipline or not in some cases? I.e. in this case it may not have been required\mandatory but he\she chose to do so.

 

[JMcK]

But is it safe to assume that when a police officer is suspended it is not for a trivial (not the right word but brain is wet) reason/complaint?
I ask because, although I think those involved should be strongly reprimanded, I can't understand, from what is available to be viewed, why they were suspended.

It is correct that an officer would not be suspended for something "trivial".

Dibs-h,

The decision to discipline/suspend is normally delegated to an officer of ACPO rank. In a county force it would be a Deputy/Assistant Chief Constable. This means that, for Discipline Proceeedings,the Chief Constable can hear the case without having been previously directly involved.

Anything that falls within the Criminal Law has to be referred, in the first instance, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director makes the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution or not. The IPCC comes in after his decision is made.

For purely discipline matters the IPCC will be involved.

 

[Mike.C]

John wrote;

Anything that falls within the Criminal Law has to be referred, in the first instance, to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director makes the decision as to whether there should be a prosecution or not. The IPCC comes in after his decision is made.

John I think that you will find that it's the other way around. The IPCC investigate first and give their findings and recommendations to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will then take any action that he sees fit.

Cheers

Mike

 

[JMcK]

My mistake,Mike. Got it a... about face.

It's along time since I was involved.(My excuse :lol: )

 

[Mike.C]

My mistake,Mike. Got it a... about face.

It's along time since I was involved.(My excuse :lol: )

No excuse needed John, I get more things wrong then I do right :roll:

Cheers

Mike