Go I
Listening to Pamela Somerville, a dreadful mistake led to her wrongful arrest. On arrival in custody she was then shouted at and abused, for absolutely no reason, before being horrifically assaulted causing possible sight problems in one eye.
As a police sergeant in this country, I found the story unsettling and the CCTV unpleasant. (and incomplete) There won't be an officer in the country who does not suspect there was more to this than has been reported. More unpalatable yet were the words of Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty who was quick to brand Sgt Andrews "a disgrace" and then spent a few minutes lauding how "proud" he was of the officer who reported the incident - I'm sure she was grateful for his public support. Will he stand by his words if Sgt Andrews wins his appeal?
I will no doubt get roundly abused for suggesting that I support Mark Andrews in this case. But if you believe the Daily Mail, you have to believe that Ms Somerville was arrested for no reason, without being told why, was told to "shut up" when she wasn't saying anything, was taken forcibly to her cell for no reason, pushed back in when she perfectly reasonably tried to leave, and was left lying on the floor in an act of malice.
Perhaps Ms Somerville was paralytic in a vehicle, unable to provide a breath sample, would not cooperate with booking-in procedures or breathalyser, and refused to go to her cell. Perhaps the sergeant was unaware of the injury until spotted on CCTV, or a gaoler checked the prisoner's welfare shortly afterwards. In custody, it is acceptable to use a certain amount of force simply to keep the suite running safely and efficiently. Sometimes that means using force on people who are not themselves being violent, just uncooperative.
What is not acceptable is:
- For the sergeant to have to come around the desk to take hold of someone, because the arresting officers are not controlling their prisoner.
- For the sergeant to be left taking a prisoner to a cell on his own, while everyone else looks on.
- For not one gaoler or officer to assist the sergeant in restraining the person properly to shut them into the cell.
Sergeant Andrews went about it all wrong. He should have persisted in dealing with Ms Somerville no matter how uncooperative, because any breach in booking-in or breathalyser procedure will result in losing the case. He should have removed Ms Somerville before he got to the point of having to shout over her. He should have asked officers to restrain the prisoner and take her to the cell. He should have overseen a proper cell exit, if she was indeed trying to walk back out of the cell. By no means was it acceptable to drag her in the manner shown down the corridor and push her into the cell without supporting her. By no means was it acceptable for an officer to watch this happen without stepping in to help carry out the procedure in a proper manner, to prevent the injury that occurred.
Of course this incident needed investigating, and at the very least disciplinary proceedings needed to come out of it because force was not used in the proper way. But perhaps the conclusion is that Sgt Andrews was not confident enough in the role of custody sergeant, to deal with an incident like this in the correct way. He felt in the position of having to deal with it alone, with catastrophic consequences. Perhaps he is not a criminal, or a thug, but a flawed supervisor, who reacted badly when circumstances conspired.
Does that make him "a disgrace", or should that word rightly be directed elsewhere?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 07:21
56 Comments:
I completely agree with you. Whilst his actions were not right obviously, he's not a criminal who should be in prison. No one else would be in prison for that.
Its so easy to put the blame on to one person, rather than looking at the bigger picture- The prisoner, his colleagues, the organisation.
24 September, 2010 12:20
While you raise a number of vaild points slam dunking a woman half his size is a wee bit on the naughty side.
I'd like to see the cell video of when she "escaped" and from whom.
PS From the evidence I have seen I'm not on Mark Andrews' side on this one.
It will be intersting to see the ground for appeal.
24 September, 2010 13:54
The problem with any CCTV is; unless you see all of it, within the correct context, it is next to impossible to say what may have happened.
Now all I have seen is very biased images, and selective 'facts'. I am afraid, my jury is still out on this one.
24 September, 2010 14:05
Having been a custody sgt in many an absolutely manic block, I can see both sides to this, Ellie makes some very salient points about the other officers.
ANDREWS WAS WRONG- is that clear enough?
In my farce we have lost 4 Sgt's to stress from the same block in 2 weeks, if similar circs existed for Andrews this perhaps EXPLAINS not excuses his behaviour. Given your average custody block how this doesn't happen every day is a testament to the professionalism and integrity of Custody staff around the country.
I do feel that the WPC who reported him MAY have been done an injustice by this post (and others of a similar vain). IF it was done in the "Sir, Sir, Sgt Andrews has just assaulted a prisoner Sir!" in the self rightous smug style of the playground weasel, then I think the comments of Ellie and others are with merit.
However IF they did it in the "Sarge, Sgt Andrews has just lost the plot with that stroppy cow in custody and now she's got a cut to her eye, he needs some help!" with the aim of getting him just that I feel the villification of her (and the separation of her from the allegations by the SMT) is unfair.
Any clarity by those in the know I'd appreciate.
Next point:-
Violent criminals deserve to go to jail -- CORRECT
Offender 1:-Person with duty of care and responsibility assaults person in town centre causing loss of conciousness, cuts which required 8 stiches, shows no remorse and offers no care to victim:- charged ABH-- CORRECT (the abh was a challenge though!)
Offender 2:-Person with duty of care and responsibility assaults person in custody block causing bruising and cut to face, provides first aid to victim:- charged ABH-- CORRECT
Offender 1:- Guilty-- Correct
Offender 2:- Guilty-- Correct
Offender 1:- 120 community service -- WRONG
Offender 2:- 6 Months Custodial-- WRONG
Quite how wrong the last bits are are some matter for debate, but they are both manifestly wrong
24 September, 2010 14:42
I think you missed some detail on the article which described how MS Somerville decided to walk out of her cell while she was being examined by the FME. There were no arresting officers to look after the prisoner as she'd already been booked in, hence she was under care of custody staff.
24 September, 2010 17:31
Bill - what's her size got to do with it? You've obviously never had to deal with a stroppy female (or if you have you've forgotten!).
Also - I think that there's no way he should have been locked up.
As you say - where was his help? I suspect they were 2 traffpols who aren't used to getting "hands on" and didn't really know what to do. If Ellie is right (and I suspect she is) the DP had been difficult since the get-go and they should have known she was going to be a handful.
P.S. Wish you got more hits/comments. This is as good as IG (and always has been) and he gets millions!
24 September, 2010 17:40
Bill, the "escape" reference was taken from Ms Somerville's own quotations saying she was thrown unconscious for "walking out of the cell". Perhaps the word conjures up a mad dash, but walking out of your cell is an escape of sorts.
R/T - yes, but I work on the front-line, so don't have as much downtime as these office types...
24 September, 2010 20:28
Oh, and I don't think I commented on the officer who reported the incident, did I?
24 September, 2010 20:33
He was wrong, he went too far.
I don't believe he deserved to end up in prison and potentially lose his job.
Even if his appeal suceeds this incident will follow him around for a very long time.
I have zero sympathy for Sommerville and a great deal of it for Andrews.
Minty
24 September, 2010 21:13
Ellie - surely you're not saying that IG's arse is shiney?!!!
24 September, 2010 21:43
His ground for appeal must centre around the lawfulness of his actions. He will probably argue that the Magistrates saw the result of his force, as it is quite striking, and were blinded by that, incorrectly surmising that the fact he had caused injuries which, lets be fair, look quite shocking in the photos, mean that his force used was unlawful. He'll argue that they should have assessed the lawfulness of his use of force based on what he exerted on her ie the push, and not what he caused by it. He will probably couple this with some comment around his contention that the magistrates did not appreciate Sec 117 PACE and its application in the containment and control of arrested persons.
The question of wether a person has done what they're under arrest for is of no matter whatsoever here - case law makes it clear that it is not the job of a Custody Officer to inquire into the lawfulness of an arrest, simply to deal with then once they are there.
I'm afraid also the likes of Ms Somverville, middle-classed as they are, fail to appreciate that once you're in custody your life is not your own and you're bound to do as you're told. The fact that an arrested person believes for whatever reason that they're innocent doesn't change that fact.
25 September, 2010 00:30
I'm with a polis man on this one. What is a Custody Sgt doing that side of the desk? His role is quite clear - compliance with PACE, procedure, welfare of DP and (maybe) an unbiased take on the outcome.
If the DP has fallen out with the arresting officers, he should ask for other cops or Detention Officers to take a hand in things.
It may be the case that the cops who brought her in were not sufficiently assertive themselves - there are no shortage who can't, won't or don't know how to be 'in charge' of a situation - but stomping round from behind the desk to haul the DP to a cell is wrong. Causing injury to the person who is already detained and in your care is also wrong. Going to prison when self-intoxicated lout who causes similar injuries in a pub fight gets bugger all is wrong as well BUT that doesn't condone Andrews' actions.
He may well want to appeal his sentence but the verdict seems fair enough
25 September, 2010 01:46
All good points, but lets be honest, he screwed up and his team screwed up by not preventing/mitigating his screw up (i don't mean cover up, i mean mitigate at the time).
His prison term is pretty unfair, his treatment was pretty unfair, but again, be realistic, as a profession you are one big walking target currently between the bosses that won't back you, the home office that won't back you, the courts that have no idea how you do your job and the stresses of it, and the general shambles of conflicting legislation and overwork that most forces experience.
Between all of the above custody sarge's have to be living saints pretty much to do the job correctly, the only thing surprising is that not once have i seen any attempt to examine both sides of it in any of the (good quality e.g. times, indy) mainstream media.
25 September, 2010 02:28
Mark Andrews main mistake was caring enough about her behaviour to start throwing her around. Idiots like this just need a "yeah yeah, whatever madam, just come back to the cell like a good customer now" and a steering but strong arm with a transport wrist lock. Then a big sigh and a cup of tea. Once you start letting people like this get to you, you are finished! Been there millions of times. And BTW - if Bloggsy thought I was a REMF, she'd tell me so, since we know each other personally! (not that I bit at that one!)
25 September, 2010 07:39
How personally, Guv?
25 September, 2010 09:16
Having once had to calm down a drunk prisoner who was kicking up a din to the custody sergeant about how unfair it was to have been nicked for Affray and was displaying aggressive NVCs, while my Inspector was watching me in silence while countersigning the custody records, and while the Custody Skipper made no attempt to stop the behaviour, I agree that the arresting officer should take control.
However...I was a probationer on my 3rd active phase with a total of 6 weeks street patrol under my belt and I had been left unsupervised by my tutor (not his fault, he was with the other guy from the arrest). The Inspector later put it in writing to my Sergeant just how impressed he was with how I handled it but should it really have been down to me to deal with this on my own, knowing that reapplying cuffs would have to be justified and to have to escort the prisoner to his cell on my own (who by this time was merely whining loudly as opposed to waving his arms around)?
The whole thing is a mess. Andrews' appeal will be interesting to watch unfold.
25 September, 2010 10:09
Heh REMF; theres a term i haven't heard in a while :)
25 September, 2010 15:49
Pete the Troll. I've missed you recently. But it was windy and I only had two bullets.
25 September, 2010 18:29
apologies to Madmax who posted this on IG site for those who may have seen this entry,
Slightly off topic but how time seems to dim a certain officers memory/view of the world.
This is an excerpt from an investigative journalists view of the death of Hensley Wiltshire in Gloucester in 1989.
The duty solicitor, Paul Griffin, was summoned and claims that he was told that Wiltshire was waiting to see him. He was unaware of any concern for Wiltshire. Police had attempted to dress Wiltshire in a paper boiler suit for an interview. During this attempt a then DC Patrick Geenty acknowledged that Wiltshire’s head had hit the wall. Geenty insisted that this was unintentional and vehemently denied assaulting Wiltshire. Nevertheless, it should have been clear to Geenty and others that Wiltshire was quite obviously not fit for interview.
Compare that to last week:
Wiltshire’s Assistant Chief Constable Patrick Geenty said Sgt Mark Andrews was a “disgrace” to the police force.
ACC Geenty said: “The officer let the victim down, he let the public down, he let his colleagues down and he let himself down. He does not deserve sympathy.”
Double Standards maybe?
25 September, 2010 18:54
sorry re previous entry should have read for those who may NOT have seen this on IG site
25 September, 2010 18:56
Maybe they should've run with her prosecution instead of dropping everything as soon as she complained and deal witht eh complaint after her conviction. Makes it carte blanche for people to do and behave exactly as they please if we don't.
25 September, 2010 19:43
Anon 19:43. yeah, that's a big problem, and is often the case that it happens, when usually the two things aren't connected. Just because Somerville MAY have been assaulted in custody how exactly does that affect the question of wether she was drunk in charge of her car some hours earlier.
25 September, 2010 22:00
No, my reaction is 'Unfortunately, there are occasions on which force will be used against members of the public by police, and there are occasions on which that force will result in injury. It's not nice to see, and makes beautiful front page news for the Daily Wail. All Sgt Andrews did was take a woman who was behaving like a child following her arrest, and throw her in a cell, something he's legally allowed to do.
25 September, 2010 23:24
... and legally allowed to thrash and beat her and cover it up afterwards?
Ginger@23:24 - at best you are an apologist for criminals.
You are also a hypocrite.
Just resign, eh?
You maggot.
25 September, 2010 23:40
Wow - there must be a full moon.
26 September, 2010 00:09
Ooh, I caught a big one!
26 September, 2010 11:05
... distraction, Ginger.
You reasoned response to the indisputible facts that unlawful force was used by this thug and he attepted to cover it up afterwards, is *what*, exactly?
26 September, 2010 17:31
PC Bloggs:
'As a police sergeant in this country, I found the story unsettling and the CCTV unpleasant. (and incomplete) There won't be an officer in the country who does not suspect there was more to this than has been reported.'
If there is 'more to this', and the CCTV is 'incomplete', isn't provision of that extra information down to the police force?
We can all speculate. Just as you can speculate that Somerville was drunk, I can speculate that the extra footage is missing because it might make things worse for Andrews, or the other officers. What other reason could there be?
26 September, 2010 18:19
Joker,
The full footage will have been shown to the court, the edited footage shown by the Dail Heil and Sky were to emphasise the conduct of the Sgt- ie to show his violence. Sgt Andrews defence team will have a full copy of this, they could have easily have posted it but clearly they knew the matter would be subject of appeal so have not done this as yet. The Mail and Sky and those legally representing the lady concerned have not posted the event in its entirety as it will probably not convey the same impression as the edited footage did. If the police wanted a cover up as you suggest then how did the CCTV get used in evidence in the first place?
26 September, 2010 18:37
Cover up? What cover up? Also, how about we turn things around and you explain to me exactly what about the use of his force was unlawful?
Joker, the extra footage, as anon 18:37 states, was not missing from that provided to the investigation and the court by the Police, but from that which was chosen by the news media to portray their version of the story. You know from Big Brother ((C) Channel 4 and Endemol) that events can be edited in any one of a number of ways to make viewers have a certain opinion about what or who they see, and newspapers and news channels do no less. You're being fed your opinion by Sky and the Daily Mail, not allowed to form your own. I'm quite certain that if there was footage showing the Sgt in a worse light, it would be all over our screens.
26 September, 2010 20:06
"Cover up" Ginger, as in nothing would have happened to this thug had someone not blown the whistle on him.
And with all your bluff and bluster aside, you know it too.
So, stop waffling and prevaricating
"Unlawful" becasue he used unecessary force.... if you define attacking and dragging and injuring a woman half his size who offered no physical provocation whatsoever.
Unlawful even if she had.
... and looking at the nochalent attitude of his gormless colleages on the tape, this was obvioulsy not an isolated incident but a common occurance.
So I ask again: why so indignant? Is it : "... there but for the grace of G*d. go you.." ?
26 September, 2010 21:24
That's not explaining why it was unlawful, that's just replacing 'unlawful' with 'un-necesary'.
26 September, 2010 22:54
Punching someone in the head without any provocation whatsoever, or question of pre-emption in self defence is also in your words: " uncessary "
It is also unlawful.
DO you kinda get the point now, officer?
Or are you still blindly defending the indefensible?
26 September, 2010 23:34
I think you need to sit down quietly in a darkened room, old son.
Like us, you haven't seen what went on before, so stop with your imagining. And what's with all the wordy lecturing? Do you speak like this in real life? I can only imagine what fun you are at parties.
You're Melvin T Gray and I claim my five pounds. Get a job Melv - and maybe move out of your mum's house while you're at it.
27 September, 2010 08:44
I'm afraid there are reasons why force is lawful other than self-defence Melvin. Also, which version of the footage are you looking at? Punching in the head? After you in the witness box if you think that's what you've seen!!
It's time for your medication now methinks.
27 September, 2010 08:49
Yes, it was truly shocking. And I'm glad justice was done in the end.
27 September, 2010 18:13
ginger - an unprovoked punch to the head was cited as an example of something which was unlawful.
You assidiously failed to notice that point.
Or are just tunnel visioned and stupid.
Combination of the two, most probably.
Police arfe like bananas... yellow and bent and hang together in buches.
27 September, 2010 19:40
It certainly looked wrong but I reserve judgement until I see ALL the film footage and hear the WHOLE story.
27 September, 2010 22:06
@Anonymous (AKA Melvin T Weirdo)
Quote: "Police arfe like bananas... yellow and bent and hang together in buches."
C'mon Melv - take a break from using your computer with just one hand.
27 September, 2010 22:20
.... you're all twats!!!!!!!!!
27 September, 2010 22:27
I am a bender
27 September, 2010 22:27
Ms Somerville insists that she was not asked to give a breath sample, but was just arrested by the two officers who were called on the say so of a PCSO.
Ms Somerville insists that she had not been drinking alcohol and explained that she had argued with her partner and stormed out the night before. That was why she had slept in her car. That's not a crime is it?
She ran down the battery on her mobile phone talking to her daughter and her friends, and also ran down the battery in her car because she used the heater whilst parked up in a layby, only 150 yards from where she lived.
When she woke up in the morning a PCSO was walking towards her car. Ms Somerville got out of her car and asked the PCSO if she had any jump leads, because the car was broken down due to the flat battery.
Apparently the PCSO just ignored Ms Somerville and got on her phone, or radio, to call other officers. When they arrived Ms Somerville asked if they had some jump leads to help her. The response was 'We're the fooking police, shut up', as they arrested her in a rough manner and took her to the station.
At the station Ms Somerville kept asking why had she been arrested.
She was again told to 'shut up' and dragged along the floor to a cell by Andrews. When a police doctor arrived and put on rubber gloves, Ms Somerville thought that she was going to be subjected to an internal examination against her will and tried to leave the cell. Andrews lifted her up off the ground and threw her like a sack of rubbish on to the floor of the cell, and she was injured.
She was taken to hospital and kept in handcuffs during treatment and denied the right to make a phone call. She was also told off for bleeding in the police car!
Ms Somerville was taken back to the station and was later released without charge. At that point she started to vomit outside the station and an ambulance was called. She had concussion.
The hospital would have taken a blood sample from Ms Somerville during her treatment, surely?
It seems to me that a mistake was made at the first point of contact with the PCSO. If Ms Somerville had not been drinking alcohol, was never asked to give a sample of her breath, and the car was not capable of being driven anywhere because of a flat battery, then was her arrest even justifiable.
Ms Somerville may have suffered a minor stroke. The symptoms of a minor stroke can be mistaken for the person being under the influence of alcohol.
Ms Somerville states in the press that she now has a 'droop' on one side of her face and damage to her eye because of the assault.
Regardless of whether she had been drinking or not, Ms Somerville did not deserve to be treated so roughly by the arresting officers and Sgt Andrews. People are innocent until proven guilty, however that appears to have been overlooked by many in the system over the past few years. It's clear on a few blogs that most officers just assumed Ms Somerville was a drunk. She states the opposite and received an apology for the appalling manner in which she was treated by Sgt Andrews.
This had a wiff of misogyny, and yes, that is a disgrace!
The WPC who blew the whistle on it did the right thing.
28 September, 2010 02:23
So in the absence of any other evidence you take the word of Somerville in the Daily Fail as the unvarnished truth?
I'll wait for the appeal.
Tang0
28 September, 2010 14:40
Is it not a disgrace that the likes of Mr Geenty allow their custody staff to work in high pressure environments without allowing relief for them?
The art of working custody is to be in the flow and take a moment when you need it - sod the D's loitering and tutting at the time it takes.
I only learnt that from experience. I've had my moments pre CCTV when it got to me. I feel sorry for PS Andrews - I understand ... more than Mr Geenty it seems.
29 September, 2010 16:15
Anonymous, 18:37: 'If the police wanted a cover up as you suggest then how did the CCTV get used in evidence in the first place?'
I never suggested a coverup. I was addressing Ellie's reference to 'incomplete' CCTV footage, and assertion that there 'won't be an officer in the country who does not suspect there was more to this than has been reported'.
My point was that speculation works both ways. If the footage not shown to the public had worked in Andrews' favour in court, that would be reflected in the sentencing. Since the footage the public did see was what he was convicted for, it's fair that the media focused on that.
I'm not looking for a witch hunt, but I am on the side of this debate that says there is no defending what he did. What Anonymous 02:23 has apparently quoted would be pretty damning if it were accurate, but of course, it is uncredited.
02 October, 2010 00:11
I need to be 'approved' now? I feel like Peter Hain... :'(
02 October, 2010 00:14
I suppose 'Is Ellie on holiday?' would be a silly question?
02 October, 2010 20:54
Joker.....If Ms Somerville was making it up, and that was her own account of what happened to her, then I doubt that a WPC would have blown the whistle on Sgt Andrews.
I also doubt that he would have ended up in court and convicted of the assault. Ms Somerville kept quiet about what had happened until after the court case, and then she told her story to the media, re: the abuse she suffered.
There was no denial by police.
Had it been all made up and she had not told the truth, I doubt that she would have received a public apology. Her account of events would have been seriously discredited IF there had not been evidence to confirm that she had told the truth.
Not every MoP tells lies.
Ms Somerville showed a great deal of courage by standing up to a bully in uniform who abused his position. Stressed or not, real men do not treat women like Ms Somerville experienced. 'Equality' doesn't mean that male cops can be brutal and violent with women.
I suspect that the arresting officers who told her to 'shut up' were perhaps more concerned with getting their detection targets and their bonuses. Maybe that's what has been 'covered up'.
03 October, 2010 05:08
Joker,
The account anonymous has quoted is what Somerville said to the Daily Fail.
It is her account of her arrest and ignores her medical treatment and rights and entitlements under PACE whilst she was in custody.
Tang0
03 October, 2010 11:25
Ms Somerville's [undisputed by her local police]own account to the Mail on Sunday actually.....
07 October, 2010 01:27
A MOP’s view
College loyalty is commendable but not where it ignores the truth. And some of the above comments are biased towards the offending officer in trying to excuse what was wrong.
I saw the tape on the net and it speaks for itself. Sergeant Andrews made several mistakes and the last in 'throwing' a small drunken women into a cell was serious. The injury could have been a lot worse. I expect he is very regretful that he did not just drag her in and lay her down.
I think he should be punished, but prison would be an over-reaction and unjustly harsh to a good officer. As a mop I would like to see him demoted or moved sidewards to a less stressful position , and that is all.
HE WAS PROVOKED AFTER ALL.
18 October, 2010 20:03
Why is it that you plod are so despised? Could it be your cowardice? I never once see you throw your weight about if alone. The day is coming, and it is coming soon that you sub-human excreta will be roasted from the face of the earth with a flame thrower.
23 October, 2010 19:38
Ron Broxted your immature childish comments.. obviously been the wrong side of the law. The fact is Police officers like everybody make mistakes, but we have to accountable and rightly so and are punished far more severely than any other body. But trust me you will all rue the day when the Police will be diminished and so overscrutinised we are unable to function. I have watched the Service go down the pan for years. It will be to the detriment of this Country mark my words. It is already happening and whether you like it or not you will all lament the loss of the Great British bobby and will not like its replacement.
15 November, 2010 01:28
bell5403 "lament the loss of the great British bobby". We're already are lamenting the loss of the great British bobby and are feeling the wrath of its gestapo - esque replacement. The behaviour and physical presentation of the TSG being a prime example. We have all seen the footage of the unprovoked beatings they dished out to completely innocent mop at G20. It was more like a jolly day out for the SS in Belsen. More and more we are seeing disgusting images of police brutality. More recently in a Liverpool park camera footage appears to show three police officers punching a stab victim hard several times whilst he was on the ground and clearly in shock. The officers then sent away the paramedics when they arrived to treat the man. And of course the incident in Melksham police station. Sgt Andrews actions must have been at least more than questionable when it was a fellow police officer who reported his actions in the first place. I am not a police officer, but I still know excessive force, abuse of power and bullying when I see it.
To witness first hand a figure of authority, which we have been taught to trust, so viciously and violently abusing that trust can scare people but at the same time make them extremely angry. This is why there was such a backlash from the public after G20 which manifested itself in an unprecedented number of complaints. Do you suggest that so many ordinary people decided to create false complaints by coincidence.
There are many good police officers however there are also a large number who are very wrapped up in an arrogant, cynical, gang mentality. Particularly those in the Territorial Support Group. These officers seem to be taught aggression to the point where they resemble and behave like storm troopers more than British police officers.
"Society gets the policing it deserves". I say the police get the respect from society that they deserve.
19 November, 2010 21:38
"lament the loss of the great British bobby". We're already are lamenting the loss of the great British bobby and are feeling the wrath of its gestapo - esque replacement. The behaviour and physical presentation of the TSG being a prime example. We have all seen the footage of the unprovoked beatings they dished out to completely innocent mop at G20. It was more like a jolly day out for the SS in Belsen. More and more we are seeing disgusting images of police brutality. More recently in a Liverpool park camera footage appears to show three police officers punching a stab victim hard several times whilst he was on the ground and clearly in shock. The officers then sent away the paramedics when they arrived to treat the man. And of course the incident in Melksham police station. Sgt Andrews actions must have been at least more than questionable when it was a fellow police officer who reported his actions in the first place. I am not a police officer, but I still know excessive force, abuse of power and bullying when I see it.
To witness first hand a figure of authority which we have been taught to trust so viciously and violently abusing that trust can scare people but at the same time make them extremely angry. This is why there was such a backlash from the public after G20 which manifested itself in an unprecedented number of complaints. Do you suggest that so many ordinary people decided to create false complaints by coincidence.
There are many good police officers however there are also a large number who are very wrapped up in an arrogant, cynical, gang mentality. Particularly those in the Territorial Support Group. These officers seem to be taught aggression to the point where they resemble and behave like storm troopers more than British police officers.
20 November, 2010 14:50
Anonymous at 05:08, 3rd October, I'm not suggesting Somerville made it up, only noting the lack of citation for the account.
I'm surprised no-one else has come back to this 'thread' to comment on the news that Andrews has been cleared on appeal. A 'Judge Bean' thinks Somerville's injuries were caused by her 'falling to the floor after letting go of the door frame'. Does anyone who's seen the footage agree with that supposition, that she simply 'let go' of the door? Is it any wonder some police officers think they can get away with anything?
01 December, 2010 11:04
Post a Comment
<< Home