A Vocabulary Lesson
When reporting on matters relating to the police, I have often noticed journalists using the wrong terminology to describe incidents. Therefore here is a handy guide to assist our friends in the media:
If someone's found guilty of assault police, they should be described as "a violent yob". If their conviction is overturned and the police officers who arrested the person are under investigation, the phrase used should be, "highly regarded war veteran".
If there is no controversy over the arrest, you should say that "police apprehended a male for drunk and disorderly conduct". If the incident has provoked a Crown Court judge to fury, instead say "police set upon a male following a jolly night out in an unprovoked and despiccable assault".
If the police officer is cleared of all wrong doing by an independent investigation, you should say that the force and officer are "institutionally racist and corrupt". If the same police officer later becomes a figure of public sympathy, you should say that he was "cleared of all wrongdoing".
The story of three police officers savagely beating up heroic Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall for apparently no reason is all over the internet and media this week. Never mind that the footage being pored over by every criminal justice expert in his or her front room was shown to a courtroom of magistrates who found no problem with the police's actions before convicting the same hero of assault police. Magistrates have no love for the police, but they deal with this kind of petty street violence far more often than Crown Court judges.
CCTV only tells half the story. Something you would think Judge John Phipps would know. Then again, this particular judge makes no bones of the fact he prefers his justice served up warm and cosy, and not out on the alcohol-fuelled streets of his city. Perhaps fraudster Robert Barwick summed him up perfectly...
Maybe one or all of Mark Aspinall's detainers acted unlawfully, even brutally. Maybe his hands and teeth were doing things that the camera couldn't see, and all force used was with a legitimate aim. Either way, let us at least make some attempt to learn from our mistakes, and not create another PC Mulhall.
Believe it or not, police officers know which parts of their towns are covered by CCTV, and most of them wouldn't risk their job, family and liberty for a five second scrap with an abusive drunk they will never see again.
If someone's found guilty of assault police, they should be described as "a violent yob". If their conviction is overturned and the police officers who arrested the person are under investigation, the phrase used should be, "highly regarded war veteran".
If there is no controversy over the arrest, you should say that "police apprehended a male for drunk and disorderly conduct". If the incident has provoked a Crown Court judge to fury, instead say "police set upon a male following a jolly night out in an unprovoked and despiccable assault".
If the police officer is cleared of all wrong doing by an independent investigation, you should say that the force and officer are "institutionally racist and corrupt". If the same police officer later becomes a figure of public sympathy, you should say that he was "cleared of all wrongdoing".
The story of three police officers savagely beating up heroic Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall for apparently no reason is all over the internet and media this week. Never mind that the footage being pored over by every criminal justice expert in his or her front room was shown to a courtroom of magistrates who found no problem with the police's actions before convicting the same hero of assault police. Magistrates have no love for the police, but they deal with this kind of petty street violence far more often than Crown Court judges.
CCTV only tells half the story. Something you would think Judge John Phipps would know. Then again, this particular judge makes no bones of the fact he prefers his justice served up warm and cosy, and not out on the alcohol-fuelled streets of his city. Perhaps fraudster Robert Barwick summed him up perfectly...
Maybe one or all of Mark Aspinall's detainers acted unlawfully, even brutally. Maybe his hands and teeth were doing things that the camera couldn't see, and all force used was with a legitimate aim. Either way, let us at least make some attempt to learn from our mistakes, and not create another PC Mulhall.
Believe it or not, police officers know which parts of their towns are covered by CCTV, and most of them wouldn't risk their job, family and liberty for a five second scrap with an abusive drunk they will never see again.
"Distraction strikes in order to place the male in handcuffs" or "savage repeated blows to the head"... you decide?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 22:06
60 Comments:
Even with your usual limited range ... even you can see that these thugs beat the crap out of someone simply because they could.
30 November, 2008 23:14
the first time with sound it looks terrible; but the second time without sound, it looks more like he keeps trying to bite one, and they're trying to keep his head controlled. They're also struggling to get his arm behind his back.
30 November, 2008 23:39
I remember being left absolutly livid when CPS refused to charge 3 males for fighting (one had 13 previous for violent attacks, another on bail for affray.) The reason being is that me, against 3 blokes, did not look pretty on the CCTV tape, and whilst I came through it, and could justify every move and action I took, the CPS did not want that tape in the public domain. At the time i was willing to stand up on front of the Court to justify that action.
I now think, "Thank god it didn't go out". Not because I did anything wrong, but because of the public outcry that would have ensued.
yes those MOP who sit in their warm armchairs on a Friday and Saturday night, and become judge, jury and executioner, in situations they know nothing about.
Looking at the video, the commentator is clearly biased, and therefore doesn't allow the watcher any freedom of thought, all thought is put into your head. Watch it again, no sound.
I have had to hold a males head down before on concrete, to stop him from smashing it into the ground, and when he was struggling it took some doing, and his head did rub along the ground when he was thrashing about in other officers arms. I have given blows to offenders too when it was nesessary to control them, to stop them fighting with each other/us. Friday and Saturday nights of drunkeness is not pretty at times, watch it again without the sound.....
I don't know if the officers have overstepped the mark on this. Apparently there is a nine minute video, but I have not seen that one. The video above, to me, doesn't seem worthy of the 'Rodney King' type hype it seems to be attracting.
01 December, 2008 00:38
Dear Ellie,
Whilst I enjoy your usual take on these things as much as everyone else, I think that you might want to think a bit more carefully before making ad hominem remarks about the judiciary. There is little to be gained by perpetuating a them & us take on policing and the judiciary.
The whole issue here is that neither you nor me have access to the information before the judge, so surely you more than anyone should be a tad more careful.
01 December, 2008 01:07
From the video it is obvious that the "victim" was resisting the Police. You can clearly see one officer trying to put the "victim's" arm behind his back in order to apply handcuffs. The "victim" is quite clearly pulling his arm away and making this action near on impossible. This in itself constitues the offence of Resisting Police, well over here it does anyway.
He also bites one of the officers. This is plainly assault.
The Police have made the decision to arrest this person for what ever offence. (judging by the way he tries to run the moment the Police WALK toward him I would say it is likley he was using offensive language at the very least.) The guy then resists and all of this is occuring in an active traffic lane. The Police MUST control this person and move out of the danger of the traffic as quickly as possible for their safety AND that of the offender. This may mean that they are unable to spend much time discussing the relative pros and cons of the different methods with the drunken clown.
I saw the Police using force, which in this case seemed perfectly reasonable. Perhaps there would have been less outcry had they sprayed him instead of using a hands on approach. I doubt it.
The most offensive thing about this whole incident is the way in which it has been reported. I have seen some of the most biased and inflamitory reporting regarding this incident that i have ever seen.
I was offended by some of the reports. They seem to be treating us as mindless automatons who are unable to form opinions of our own and therefore must ram their biased swill down our throats.
01 December, 2008 06:38
Hmmm
Does this mean the grand Tazer plan is going to be put on hold for a while, until all those violent, nasty, brutal, er, violent and nasty coppers are removed from frontline duty?
This seems to me like a bite-back from the pink and fluffy, flip-flop-serving, hedge-clipping brigade.
01 December, 2008 08:18
You say we are armchair critics.
The quotes are
1) "The CCTV footage shows Mr Aspinall being punched, kicked and his head appears to be banged against the floor."
2) "He also said the statements given by the officers contained some "untruths.""
Do you care to justify the kicking or the way he is hurled to the ground? Do you care to justify the lying?
You don't seem to.
May I suggest that, for obvious and understandable reasons, you are a little unbalanced about this?
The police are often held to impossibly high standards of conduct, but I strongly suspect this is not one of those cases.
01 December, 2008 08:27
It looks to me like a drunk who resisted arrest. (Violently. Even our lovely narrator admits he bit the officers, although she wraps it in some sort of "self-defense" nonsense.)
You rarely (almost never) see compliant drunks/thieves/whatever getting the stuffing beaten out of them by police.
The officers presumably gave him orders, which he disregarded. (e.g. his flight from them, the aforementioned violent resistance, etc.) He had the choice of the easy way or the hard way, and chose the latter. The hard way is rarely pretty, especially not for the sanitized world where we're all supposed to be so very tactful and PC and all the rest.
01 December, 2008 08:59
I remember well being in a `Squaddie` town just after the Falklands War and when the Paras and some Light Infantry types had their first `run ashore` after being in the frenetics of a real shooting war. Me and my shift had 110% respect for the Army - half of my shift were ex soldiers - and so we cut them lots of slack. During the first half of our night shift we were run ragged, had fights galore, and even dealt with a crowd of Paras carrying a Mini Cooper up the High Street. We had struggles with them and had to detain a few for everyone's sake. If CCTV had been there then it would have looked bloody horrendous. By 6am as they sobered up and we handed them over to the RP/RMP they were embracing us and apologising. No real harm done, no serious injuries (apart from one soldier who aggravated an already existing bullet wound in his shoulder). Our respect for the Army was not altered one iota. Trial by CCTV and the uninformed Joe and Josephine Public - ha! - don't you just love it.
01 December, 2008 10:09
Same answer as all other occurrences. The Police, universally, appear to want the benefit of the doubt in all cases involving them but when it's someone else, it's always some cr@p along the lines of 'we cannot ignore the law' 'too much force' etc etc etc.
Same mentality as DeMenezes. "We should be allowed to get away with anything because our job is tough" is what it amounts to. There are plenty of other people who do tough jobs who would be dumped on by the cops for far less ; certainly banging someone's head on the ground !
01 December, 2008 10:40
So the has-been soldier boy got what he deserved - a good pasting. What's wrong with that? He certainly was asking for it, and if he hadn't struggled, he would probably have been released uncharged, I reckon.
People (very drunk ones) who live in...
01 December, 2008 11:17
Dear Ellie,
There can be no applause for attempts to excuse the inexcusable. The suggestion that 'fury' on the part of an experienced Judge resulted in the conviction being overturned, is also worrying. How refreshing it would be to find an officer tackling criticism with magnanimous gestures and nobler acknowledgements.
Those missing touches of finesse are the more obvious signs of playing to the gallery.
01 December, 2008 11:41
I watched the footage from the mirror with the commentary and i have to say it was the most bias piece of hack reporting i have ever witnessed. The commentator spends 99% of their time telling the viewer what they are seeing and what to think about they are seeing. They even tell you what the Officers are thinking which i have to say impressive skill given they are working from CCTV, i wish i could read minds.
How exactly do you complain to the press complaints association? Will the Mirror get away with it in same way we let off idiot children who just don't know any better? I suspect the latter, no one expects much from them and we get even less.
I also watched the footage without sound and the more restrained BBC report, it makes all the difference.
I wonder how many arm chair experts out there have ever or know how to arrest a drunk violent person. What the difference between a distraction strike and punch is. That Home Office recommendations require ideally a minimum of 3 persons to restrain one violent person. How many have been bitten or seen time and time again suspects smash their heads against anything and threaten to get us "DONE" aka make a complaint.
From the evidence above i would hope that no Officer will face sanction. I would also hope the CPS appeal the decision but they wont. Of course i don't have all the evidence but if this CCTV is what decided it then in my opinion its not a justified verdict. Altough its not my place to pass judgment on the judgments of a Crown Court Judge especially when he has the oh so fair Court of Public Opinion (Tabloid Reader hysteria) on their side.
Ill just add drunk violent squaddies (sorry, war veterans) to my list of people not to arrest along with drunk violent females, Politicians, gun toting crazed barristers etc. etc!
It seems that if you serve your country and willingly walk into the face of danger the tabloids will have you back ......... except this time when they are seeking to screw the Police. Maybe its because our bravery is rather more second string to the bravery of others and therefore we should just learn our place.
01 December, 2008 12:24
...and how people forget how the great news media, fed a bit of free `You Tube` showing British soldiers who were dealing with so called innocent `demonstrators` in Iraq a couple of years ago, being covertly filmed dishing out some `robust handling tactics`. Many critics who were right there in the front line (well right there in front of their TV sets in the comfort of their own homes with no risk of sniper fire) chose to describe that as `brutality`. Perfection is such a noble goal to aim for.
01 December, 2008 14:33
If the individual runs when ordered to stop I have no problem with tackling him. Similar I have no problem with restraing someone resisting arrest. However, I have only seen the silent footage on the BBC but from this it is clear that the third officer grabs the mans head and smashes it into the street. Is this correct procedure as recommended by the Home Office?That the individual then fights back should be no surprise, I would and so would all of you at that point.
01 December, 2008 14:36
Well, anonymouse 14.36(sic), lets wait and see what any subsequent complaint enquiry reveals. They may well decide that Mr fat pcso used excessive force, in which case lets hope its dealt with, it is not always clear cut and one officer doesn't always see what a colleague may be doing, so it is just not on to go on a blanket slagging of the police. The commentary you didn't hear is straight out of the old socialist worker propaganda of old, same tone, same drone....by the way, there's no such offence as running without authority when ordered to stop.
01 December, 2008 14:56
the big cop isn't a PCSO, he's a special with 19 years under his belt.
not so sure about the head being smashed onto the street, looks more like the cop pushed the head down, the guy resisted, pushing back - hence his head going up - the cop then pushes down harder. Shoulder muscles, neck muscles are very strong and would take some force to push down. How else, specifically, are they supposed to restrain him?
01 December, 2008 15:56
Oliver Twist...
How dare you, my dad and husband both serve in the British Army and risk their lives for people like you to live a free life. Men and women have died fighting for your freedom, so how I ask you is LCpl Aspinall a 'has-been soldier boy' and how was he asking for it? You don't know anything about what happenned that night, only 4 people in the whole world do for sure.
The way I see it, a tanked up soldier got a bit arrsy with the police, and after going a bit too far the police have had enough and decide to arrest Mark Aspinall who resists arrest (as most drunk people do) he might bite one of them or fight back, which might or might not be his military training kicking in, and the police officers go too far by beating the crap out of him just because they can. Now, I'm not saying I know what happened, because I sure as hell don't, but what I am saying is that you cannot come in here being all arsey and think you know everything about the average 'squaddie'. So if you can't back our soldiers go and stand in front of them. Tw@t.
01 December, 2008 16:03
The above comments highlight how there are multiple interpretations of what actually went on. In addition, it indicates the well known fact that if a group of people watch the self same incident you'd get as many different perceptions on what is taking place. (In this case it is thousands of voyeurs taking a stance on a video clip). Going back to the individual, anyone who has had to deal with belligerent drunks knows that they are at best pain in the arse and at worst a bloody handful. For those who haven't experienced it, I can assure them that a drunken, belligerent soldier is a particularly big handful, especially as one has such respect for our servicemen. As much as one loves and respects them, when you got a call to The Cannon in Aldershot, and find a bar full of fired-up, well oiled Paras (before `P` Coy moved to Catterick), you know that the use of force is not necessarily going to have much effect. That is what they are good at; they eat and drink pain; they ain't scared of anything other than their own C.O. and they stand their ground. that's why they're so bloody good at what they do! This was a non military situation and a belligerent drunk soldier was in some way involved. Maybe the cops didn't have the time to find that out, maybe they did, but in this situation the pain in the arse had to be dealt with. If the police used disproportionate force then let their professional standards people sort them and compensate Cpl A, but please lets keep the slagging off of our military and our police into perspective - and our perspective was not up front and personal but from the comfort of our respective computer screens. As a rightly indignant Anon @ 16.03hrs said, only 4 people knew what happened and one of them was well tanked up and if sober would probably not have been a p.i.t.a. at all. Most of the squaddies I've ended up scrapping with were mortified when they sobered up and we generally parted on a handshake. Mr. 19stone special needs to have a good answer for what appeared on the camera, in the distance, from my perspective in my comfy chair. Perhaps he has? Anyone heard it? Respect to our servicemen and women everywhere (especially my nephew - stay safe out there).
01 December, 2008 16:35
notellin said: "How exactly do you complain to the press complaints association?"
It's called the Press Complaints Commission, and details are here:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
01 December, 2008 17:13
I guess the point of the post was to provoke the above debate - and point out some similarities with the way this case is being reported with the PC Mulhall v Toni Comer several years ago.
I don't think the 8 punches/strikes look particularly pretty. This doesn't mean they were unlawful as such, but you have to ask if 2 or 3 strikes haven't done the job, what made him think 5 more will?
It is worth remembering that most police have a few hours' training in restraint techniques, updated if they are lucky every year or so. As a Special with 19 years in, I doubt he had a refresher within the last year and will be working less hours than a regular and therefore not using it as much. So maybe his choice of tactics wasn't the best given that the guy wasn't a HUGE danger to them on the floor.
All of this is quite different to suggesting three police officers "set upon" an "innocent" man who happens to be a "war hero", with the intent of brutally savaging him.
01 December, 2008 17:35
One more case crazy, cops batter man on the floor,if said uniform loons will do that in full view of the public what happens in dark allys.
The cops are out of controll.
01 December, 2008 19:14
if someone is trying to bite you , you are entitled to hit him until he stops trying to bite you.
01 December, 2008 19:44
If you watch the video closely it looks more like he's trying to numb his arms by punching the nerve points to me, and misses once or twice connecting with the head.
If the fluffy 'ooman 'ights brigade would prefer they could have hit him with a baton to achieve the same results.
What does make me laugh is the commentator - clearly she's never been in a violent situation, much less a real fight.
I have 0 respect for 99% of journalists out there that cannot report the news objectively, or at least with some attempt at neutrality.
Quite frankly this one is so biased i wouldn't piss on her to put her out if she was on fire. The world doesn't need more blinkered fools.
01 December, 2008 19:51
It's kind of tangential (since the real point is for investigators and judges who actually know what happened to dispense actual justice) but much of what we're seeing here is the effect of for-profit "news." (Which is turning out to be an oxymoron.)
Would the Mirror have made a big deal out of the CCTV footage if it had not shown something that looked like brutality? Where does the Mirror's financial interest lie? Will they get more attention if they produce an educational report showing the public what the police deal with and how they might or might not have been able to do it less painfully? Or will they get more attention with a story of fighting, heroism, underdogs, violence, etc., etc., etc.?
There's no way under our current system to separate actual news from Grand Theft Auto.
(Speaking of which, there's something odd about GTA being entertainment, but very mild --compared to GTA -- real violence sparks a rush to judgment. Make up your minds, folks.)
01 December, 2008 19:56
So much for 'Home Office Approved' strikes and restraints. Was the warm and cosy judge aware of these?
Does this mean drunk/ mad/ mad and drunk ex-squaddies have cart blanche to abuse the police?
01 December, 2008 20:01
If you look at the footage.... far from scraping his head on the floor... The movement of the head is very jerky, which implies to me that he was resisting and the officer was using force to hold him down....
again its a case of the public and fluffy brigades saying "oh no' when they see a Police officer palm strike someone... they don't realise we can legitimately use strikes to deaden arms to force compliance of a resistant suspect...
Apparently a single officer should be able to talk a violent scumbag into sitting down on the floor patiently with his hands out saying "it's a fair cop"
whilst we're on the topic of media and the Police how about the Daniel Green matter... 20 Police counter terrorism officers raided 4 premises... (so lets see 20/4=5 -1 per premises as an exhibits officer and leaving 4 to search through reams and reams of documents as per their specialist training)
one minute they are on our side for pay deals the next minute they are sensationally stabbing us in the back
01 December, 2008 20:42
Having been there more than a number of times with a drunken arse standing in the street swearing there comes a point when you can only say "thanks very much, now go home, you're drunk" to someone before you have to act and clearly one or all of the officers decided enough was enough. Without audio we'll never know exactly what was said but he's clearly gesturing (as he admitted) and I very much doubt he was asking if they knew where he could buy a Solero.
As soon as they start to move towards him, he legs it and falls over before being dropped with a 'rugby' tackle. In the post I wrote about restraining with multiple officers, the picture has one officer pinning the head to the floor, one of the main reasons is to prevent the suspect from biting someone. Exactly as Aspinall admitted to doing to the officer cuffing him. As for the slaps to the head and appearing to rub it on the floor? it looks out of order but IF he is lifting his head back up or pushing against them then that explains the multiple hits. That question alone is one for the IPCC to decide on. Personally, the only thing I would do differently is control and physically pin the head against the floor. As soon as the head is pinned it takes out the use of the neck, shoulder and back muscles which makes it considerably easier to get someone's arms back into cuffs. Pinning the head also stops the guy on the deck from nutting the floor deliberately which happens quite a bit with drunk people during violent restraints. I've seen a bloke arrested for rape headbutt the floor so hard during the struggle that he fractured his cheek bone causing it to burst everywhere. Fortunately the CCTV was square on (as this incident) and picked it up nicely. Two of the strikes the officer on the guys left did seemed to connect with the head the rest planted nicely into the shoulder joint and you can clearly see Aspinalls arm bent instead of behind him in a cuff. When the arm goes back, the punches stop.
As for the reporter, yet another expert who has no clue about restraint techniques or has ever tried to restrain someone who doesn't want to be restrained. Watching out for people in cars to see if they can witness them assaulting him? or looking out to see where the van is? As you said Bloggsy, we all know where our cameras are and I always ask for CCTV on me before going in for an arrest it just covers your back. I hate journalists, and just like with PC Mulhall they are going to vilify them, the only difference with the Cromer incident was as soon as she admitted that she'd never had epilepsy, had a considerable amount to drink, had vandalised the car and had admitted the offence she was charged with in court, and then had only considered that the incident might have been racially motivated after the convicted racist raggie whats-his-face contacted her, every network and paper started to moonwalk the hell out of there and dropped the story.
01 December, 2008 20:49
I'm a M.O.P. who has been on the wrong side of the law and has experienced several arrests similar to this. I could see nothing wrong with what I saw in the video. All I saw was standard police procedure. I've had my head pinned to the floor in order to stop me from banging my own head. I've been punched to the arm, shoulder and ribs in order to try and get my hand behind my back to be cuffed. Let's not forget that it is all happening in the middle of a busy road, so inevitably the police will want to restrain this man as quickly as possible in order to make the scene safe. This man was a soldier - that means he will be physically strong and used to confrontations, a difficult man to arrest. That use of force seemed necessary and justified in the circumstances. Some judges are just too soft!
On the flip side though, I don't think based on the evidence we saw on the video it was right to claim a conviction for assaulting the police but I don't have all the information for that. I do know that in my experience the police DO exaggerate their statements in order to make you look worse than you are.
One arrest I had was almost identical to this, and the police wrote in their statement that the level of violence I showed was shocking. I didn't see any violence from the man being arrested, simply strong resistance. That's a big difference!
01 December, 2008 21:46
Aspinall ADMITTED biting one of the officers legs, that's why he was convicted of assault Police
01 December, 2008 21:51
Police are mostly gutless maggots on a power trip.
That is most of the reason why they do the job.
That plus the fact that they could never find work elsewhere.
Stupid and cowardly bullies
01 December, 2008 22:06
perhaps if the first strike had been done properly he wouldn't have needed the other 7.
you can't judge power and effect from a video, distraction strikes can look particulary bad
01 December, 2008 22:23
"Police are mostly gutless maggots on a power trip.
That is most of the reason why they do the job.
That plus the fact that they could never find work elsewhere.
Stupid and cowardly bullies"
So you wouldn't mind if they all stayed at home and let the criminals get on with it then?
If you're so bloody clever, please let us all know how you would run a national police force. That's if you can find time in your busy schedule to do anything other than critcise.
02 December, 2008 10:53
Anonymous said...
"Stupid and cowardly bullies"
01 December, 2008 22:06
A blanket description of over 120,000 police employees! Empirically sound AND anonymous too!
Nothing like spouting off from the cover of anonymity.The gutless maggot knows him/herself well. Anon Maggot's comments are so worthless I wonder why I'm even bothering to re
02 December, 2008 10:59
Many many years ago myself and the
WPC I was tutoring had cause to arrest two drunken sailors who were on shore leave from a ship visiting the town.We had a bit of a scrap but they were eventually subdued and locked up.A few hours later the Shore Patrol complete with the Sergeant at Arms arrived to take them back-as they were coming out of the cell one of the sailors made a lewd remark to the WPC.Within seconds he was spark out on the floor having been hit once by the Sergeant at Arms.Now that is miliatary justice for-and he got another 7 days on top!
02 December, 2008 12:34
Nowadays Retired Sgt there would be a full inquiry and probably a court case on top!! Well sorry all you about to disagree but you have the society you deserve.
02 December, 2008 14:32
"Anonymous said...
Police are mostly gutless maggots on a power trip.
That is most of the reason why they do the job.
That plus the fact that they could never find work elsewhere.
Stupid and cowardly bullies
01 December, 2008 22:06"
Oh dear another disatisfied customer.... dont be anonymous, tell us your Criminal Record Office Number (CRO)... ha ha ha
02 December, 2008 18:30
Parochial, shallow-thinking maggots too, evidently.
02 December, 2008 21:31
Anon 10:53
a good start would be to up recruit standards A LOT; not have OSPRE pass marks as low as 55%; only have PC's who possess greater than double-digit IQs ; do not select those inadequacies amongst you who have failed at other careers beofore coming into the police (i.e. most of you) ................. the list just goes on and on and on.
Gutless maggots you mostly are because if you recruit piece of sh*t - especially one with an inferiority complex - and put it in a uniform and set it to walk to streets. Then what can you honestly expect?
02 December, 2008 21:39
Upping recruiting standards (if you include the physical tests) means that the you end up with an almost entirely white male police force. Many very good female officers struggle with the strength tests. Many very good officers struggle with the written tests because English is a second language. We should have a service that represents the community it serves.
You should also be aware that most of the recruits coming through these days have degrees. I would like to see a rise in the starting age criteria though as some officers start the job (admittedly because it is all they've ever wanted to do) without much life experience.
I joined nearly 10 years ago now and resigned from a much higher paying job in IT to do something for the community - I'd served in the army prior to university and saw the police as the new front line where I could do the most good.
02 December, 2008 23:01
This comment has been removed by the author.
03 December, 2008 03:13
"Gutless maggots you mostly are because if you recruit piece of sh*t - especially one with an inferiority complex - and put it in a uniform and set it to walk to streets. Then what can you honestly expect?"
I have 12 of the former O-levels and 3 A-levels. Couldn't be bothered with university and subsequently joined the forces in '87. Served in the first Gulf War then Bosnia etc etc, did you Mr Anon? I don't think gutless with an inferiority complex applies to any officer who I work with 24/7 responding to calls in a busy North West city.
I don't class myself as unintelligent and unlike you haven't sworn once on this post. You see that is the benefit of an education, life experience and far too many instances of having to deal with the sub culture predominant in the UK these days. If you are a serious person, please justify why you leave these frankly quite pathetic remarks on these posts and quantify them with your experiences. Or are you too embarrassed?
If you are, please climb back into your sweat encrusted bed and continue with your miserable life. If not please justify what you have said. You generalise a lot without evidence to back you up.
03 December, 2008 03:19
Confused dotcom
12 O'levels? All in the same year?
All grade "A" too, no doubt.
Reminds me of the opening credits of the Jasper Carrott comedy: "The Detectives" where Briggs' personnel file was on show.
Let's be charitable and assume that a couple of these weren't General Studies or Art and the like and that at least one was in the Statistics O'Level that would have supplemented your A' Level maths course.
Then you will appreciate I suppose that would have you represent the extreme RH of the Bell Curve (at least the 3rd SD) of ability for police officers.
The great clumped, lumpen squirming mass of them are still ignorant, stupid, effete and ineffectual maggots. Gutless swaggering oafs who have mostly failed in other careers.
03 December, 2008 14:10
The citizen comments deploring what is perceived to be thuggery on the part of police met with two main categories of police response. The polite suggestions that such views emanate from armchair critics with little understanding of police techniques, were supplemented by inferior ones resorting to foul mouthed personal insult.
It would not invalidate argument should there be as little as a 15% chance of correct interpretation by the public. In civilised debate, there is no necessity to agree with any particular point of view more than there is a need to recognise the reasoning involved.
Citizens who trouble themselves to place comment on the blog are, in the main, the least hostile to police. Those motivated to seek change and improvement often do so at no small cost to themselves. In the absence of a statistical model, I conservatively estimate 30% of my community are now unwilling to enter any form of dialogue with police. It is a serious situation. I point out what may be obvious to experienced officers, to emphasize avoidance of further alienation. Only the anarchists benefit from mass opposition tipping us into an irrecoverable state - and I do suspect that some anarchists are now wearing police uniforms. If and when the public perceives en masse that police abuse citizens, the job of good officers is made far less safe.
From the safety of turrets, the Coppersblog team may bravely pour down abuse on a public delegation, to the consternation of quietly spoken guards on the footbridge.
03 December, 2008 17:05
Busy.... remember last time?
Give it up now, eh?
03 December, 2008 18:19
Dr Melvin T Gray: "the Coppersblog team"...
Er, wrong blog, I think?
03 December, 2008 20:21
RetiredSgt....that wasnt me you had down the nick was it all those years ago???? As an ex-matelot I have been very drunk many times but have never taunted the police (I am now a special by the way). Most service personnel who get pissed and arrested really are genuinely sorry when they have sobered up. That is unlike most scum the police have to deal with. And dont forget, an awful lot of coppers are ex-service. It wouldnt surprise me that Aspinall is genuinely sorry and wishes it could go away. But no. Journalists have to get involved and they care for nothing but a 'story'. They of course will never ever have to restrain a drunk who is intent on giving you stick.
03 December, 2008 21:12
don't worry Bloggs, poor, old and doddery Melvin forgets which view he is expressing, on which blog.
either way it was really nice of him to pop by and tell everyone how to think..but of course, that is what he does.
turning into a right old nasty Nazi/Stalinist.
let's have one of those thinly disguised anon posts from his slightly tipsy alter ego.
The eradication of those two for one alcohol deals at the local Aldi/Netto are really going to impinge on that writing style.
04 December, 2008 08:31
Disgrace to the Uniform... you sound as though you've had a few already yourself.
04 December, 2008 11:15
Anonymous at 21.12 3Dec
If your master at arms was a very short person with arms like Popeye then yes it could have been you...
and my wife is still moaning about what you said to her!!!!
04 December, 2008 16:51
its just the usual crap. A drunk resisting arrest and a few coppers who go too far and get a few digs in when they think no-one is looking. Did he deserve to be arrested probably. Did he deserve the slapping he got probably not. The Police in this country want it all ways, respect from the public, universal public regard (were only doing our job, its a tough job etc) whilst accepting none of the responsibilities. just face it these guys seem to have taken exception to a drunken idiot and decided to teach him a 'lesson'.
04 December, 2008 17:25
For fuck's sake, he didn't get a slapping MrAngryStupidAndPossiblyBlindMan.
If the cops ask you to put your hands where they can cuff them and you say no, and you struggle, they can either shrug their shoulders and walk away (which isn't going to happen) or make you wear the cuffs. The only way to make you wear the cuffs is by striking your arms.
04 December, 2008 18:45
I'm a member of the public, not a copper.
Can I just say that drunken idiot 'war hero' got what he deserved.
If only the cops would be a bit more like that with the pissed fools in our local town things might be a bit better.
Hope the voiceover girl never needs police help after being smashed in the face by a drunken thug.
04 December, 2008 18:51
Long time lurker, first time poster etc. etc.
Now, I'm not a police officer, and I've never been arrested. Nor was I there. But I enjoy watching programs such as "cops with cameras" and "police, camera, action", and as far as I can tell: ALL drunken people are arrested (and react to the arrest) that way. So if those officers were wrong in their actions, be it due to being over zealous, or - as others have commented - deliberately violent and cruel, then the officers video-taped on those documentary shows played out on BBC and ITV for all to see must be wrong too.
As I say; I am no authority on the matter by any means. But from what I can see on that footage (without hearing what was said); a drunken man tried to provoke police officers, and when they responded, resisted arrest. His injuries were the result of the police trying to control him enough to handcuff him while he madly struggled, injuring at least one of the officers (by his own admission) in the process.
I may be mistaken. But there you go.
Alice
09 December, 2008 10:47
Alice. You are right. You are obviously a normal well balanced person who would respect the authority granted by the queen's warrant and abide by the instructions of a police officer. Thank you for your post and don't worry, contrary to what everyone has said, the police can actually use force to effect an arrest. The level of force used depends on the subject being arrested. For instance, it wouldn't take 3 officers to detain a pensioner for theft at ASDA but a drunk,ex forces, detainee might be more of a handfull.
In reply to anon who posted
Confused dotcom
"12 O'levels? All in the same year?"
Yes they were all in the same year and no they weren't all A's. 4 were, (including Eng. lang and Math)the rest were all a mix of B and C. None were art or anything of that ilk.
My A's were political studies, british history until 1945 and applied physics. all graded as C.
I have been honest, now will you and at least publish your name? I will e-mail you copies of my certificates and the various offers of further education I was offered.
If not, go to your smelly bed and stop bothering people. You, quite frankly, bore me.
11 December, 2008 02:42
Mr Angryman - who says we want respect from the public? I don't. And by the way; Squaddies can be the worst and I say that as one myself!
11 December, 2008 08:29
Also; RMEME- war heros? trench dodgers more like. REME never went anywhere where the showers and beds aren't gucci enough!
11 December, 2008 08:32
Posting 5 days too late - but here's my two penneth... I have a fair idea of what happened, as I work with the officers involved.
Firstly, I am informed that the detained person WAS giving trouble to paramedics just prior to the arrest, and that's why the oficers were there in the first place.
Secondly, the CCTV is clearly edited - I think it should be over 9 minutes in length, but only 3 are shown, it also does not show what happened prior to the cameras being trained on them.
Thirdly, the incident occured on King St, well known to all bobbies in Wigan as the most camera'd up area this side of Downing Street. The officers knew they would be on film.
I could go on but that would reveal information not in the public domain.
I get very frustrated when people slag off the police and name individual officers, when they should know these officers can't respond, and the powers-that-be are always tight lipped for fear of expressing an opinion.
I'm thinking someone somewhere may be looking for some compo.....
16 December, 2008 20:43
All to often this kind of thing goes against the officer. As a kid, I never received a clip around the ear from a police officer I didn't deserve and anything since has been dealt out fairly, parking tickets etc, but I do wonder how many people would come to the aid of an officer it they were in trouble. If an officer sneaks in a quick dig, so what, the offender might sneak in a few or a knife for example. In this day an age, we cannot always believe what we see because of editing tecniques.
28 December, 2008 15:26
成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 免費A片下載, 性愛,
成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 美女交友,
嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站, 成人網站, 成人論壇, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, 成人聊天室, 成人小說, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色聊天室, 寄情築園小遊戲, AV女優,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, A片下載, 日本A片, 麗的色遊戲, 色色網, ,嘟嘟情人色網, 色情網站, 成人網站, 正妹牆, 正妹百人斬, aio,伊莉, 伊莉討論區, 成人遊戲, 成人影城,
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片,
愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍,
03 April, 2009 21:40
Post a Comment
<< Home