Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

General Cluster

To Protect The Police From Legal Action...

Recommended Posts

Have heard this story from LBC this morning, so I thought I'd put a link to the Telegraph's take on it...

I'm not sure what other peeps think about Civil Rights/ Liberty and all that; but I suspect that this could be the start of a very slippery slope indeed. Is a time of economic hardship really the right time to give our police (who I'm a fervent supporter of, btw) what would surely amount to unfair/biased protection at a level denied the ordinary joe???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8054511/Met-chief-privately-urges-Theresa-May-to-protect-police-from-civilian-lawsuits.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have heard this story from LBC this morning, so I thought I'd put a link to the Telegraph's take on it...

I'm not sure what other peeps think about Civil Rights/ Liberty and all that; but I suspect that this could be the start of a very slippery slope indeed. Is a time of economic hardship really the right time to give our police (who I'm a fervent supporter of, btw) what would surely amount to unfair/biased protection at a level denied the ordinary joe???

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8054511/Met-chief-privately-urges-Theresa-May-to-protect-police-from-civilian-lawsuits.html

I have to agree with you Pete, as upholders of the Law the police cannot been seen as above the Law. Over the course of my life time I have seen so many instances of the justice system being unwilling to prosecute offices for criminal offences. The police do a fantastic job, I've got a couple of friends who are policeman and they are really nice guys, but we do not want to go back to the days when the police were above the law. In instances where the criminal justice system fails to act, the victims of bad policing must have a chance to bring a civil action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you Pete, as upholders of the Law the police cannot been seen as above the Law. Over the course of my life time I have seen so many instances of the justice system being unwilling to prosecute offices for criminal offences. The police do a fantastic job, I've got a couple of friends who are policeman and they are really nice guys, but we do not want to go back to the days when the police were above the law. In instances where the criminal justice system fails to act, the victims of bad policing must have a chance to bring a civil action.

It was mention on Radio 4 today of the 10,000 call outs by Police where fire arms were called on. A total of 3 shots were fired.

Puts things in prospective.

Want to waive a shot gun out of a window take a few pot shots and try again you get what you disserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mention on Radio 4 today of the 10,000 call outs by Police where fire arms were called on. A total of 3 shots were fired.

Puts things in prospective.

Want to waive a shot gun out of a window take a few pot shots and try again you get what you disserve.

Nice stew, and what if you are waving the gun around because you are mentally ill, or having some sort of breakdown, or are old and suffering from dementia. Each individual instance has to be dealt with on a case to case basis. Blanket, one size fits all policies, should have no place in modern criminal law. The fact that there have been so few instances of shots being fired by armed officers is testament that things do not need to be changed, it is not evidence that police need to be put above the law. As for the solicitor with the shotgun that I believe you are referring to, I have only seen the small news item, and from that clip it is difficult to see how big a threat he posed, certainly I think it would have been better had he talked to his wife. However the court has decided the officers involved acted in accordance with the law, the due processes of the case have taken place, and that is the end of the matter, and that is as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a step in the wrong direction. I thought the post-9/11 erosions of civil liberties were going to be removed by this new coalition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course the police should not be put above the law. As posted above the due process of law regarding the solicitor has been gone through and that should be the end of that particular incident. But the police must not be above the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was mention on Radio 4 today of the 10,000 call outs by Police where fire arms were called on. A total of 3 shots were fired.

Puts things in prospective.

Want to waive a shot gun out of a window take a few pot shots and try again you get what you disserve.

I thought I did, Stew?? I'm on about keeping restraint on bad policing - not about curtailing all that is good...

This is a step in the wrong direction. I thought the post-9/11 erosions of civil liberties were going to be removed by this new coalition?

I think we may share the same disappointment, PP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice stew, and what if you are waving the gun around because you are mentally ill, or having some sort of breakdown, or are old and suffering from dementia. Each individual instance has to be dealt with on a case to case basis. Blanket, one size fits all policies, should have no place in modern criminal law. The fact that there have been so few instances of shots being fired by armed officers is testament that things do not need to be changed, it is not evidence that police need to be put above the law. As for the solicitor with the shotgun that I believe you are referring to, I have only seen the small news item, and from that clip it is difficult to see how big a threat he posed, certainly I think it would have been better had he talked to his wife. However the court has decided the officers involved acted in accordance with the law, the due processes of the case have taken place, and that is the end of the matter, and that is as it should be.

I would assume all surrounding buildings were evacuated and the only person he could have hit with the shot gun would have been the armed officers ?.

I assume the chance of them being hit was 10% ?.

I wasn’t there so haven’t a clue like you.

You look at the threat and take action (which is then reviewed).

Should you ‘consider your actions’ because the guys drunk mentally impaired , mute point. I’m sure if a 6yr old girl was shot people would suggest the police didn’t do enough.

In this case I understand he had already fired the gun a number of times

Its very sad and maybe if he had gone to AA 5 yrs earlier it wouldn’t have happened.

I am not suggesting Police should shoot someone 34 times then ask questions but I don’t think we have much to fear, IF the stats I gave above (off Radio 4 ) are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, it seems to me that the "compensation culture" is a large part of the problem and that, in effect, the proposal is trying to legislate for those who make unreasonable claims of mistreatment by clamping down on everybody (including those who are genuinely wronged).

If there are problems with some claims being used to simply waste policing time and not incurring any penalties for the claimants, then maybe that aspect of the law needs looking into and modifying accordingly. I'm not against putting fees onto unsuccessful claims that are currently exempt from charges, but putting them onto all claims does risk putting the police above the law in some circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would assume all surrounding buildings were evacuated and the only person he could have hit with the shot gun would have been the armed officers ?.

I assume the chance of them being hit was 10% ?.

I wasn’t there so haven’t a clue like you.

You look at the threat and take action (which is then reviewed).

Should you ‘consider your actions’ because the guys drunk mentally impaired , mute point. I’m sure if a 6yr old girl was shot people would suggest the police didn’t do enough.

In this case I understand he had already fired the gun a number of times

Its very sad and maybe if he had gone to AA 5 yrs earlier it wouldn’t have happened.

I am not suggesting Police should shoot someone 34 times then ask questions but I don’t think we have much to fear, IF the stats I gave above (off Radio 4 ) are correct.

Those are sound points Stew and emphasis what I mean by every case has to be treated on its merits, This thread is about possible government plans to change the law to stop the police being taken to the civil courts and while I take on board TWS's points about the compensation culture, we must as a free country have the ability to bring wrong doers, including the police to book if the criminal courts fail us. I think that law and order is best served by a system that keeps those whose job it is to enforce those laws, honest. We don’t have to look hard to find how bad things used to be. During the 70s Robert Mark was put in charge of cleaning up the Met, he was quoted as saying, joking only slightly “that his ambition was to "arrest more criminals than we employ". In total his work lead to the departure of 478 officer, however only about 50 ended up in courts, and a great many took early retirement on full pension, who said crime doesn’t pay. The police force if far better now and we must keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be a step in the wrong direction as it's nearly impossible now to bring a bad apple of a plod to call. Ian Tomlinson anybody????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe to address this compensation culture we need to look into finding ways of penalising clearly erroneous/OTT claims- something that the likes of "no win no fee" are terrible at doing. But I don't want to see people being penalised for perfectly reasonable claims, be it with the police or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe to address this compensation culture we need to look into finding ways of penalising clearly erroneous/OTT claims- something that the likes of "no win no fee" are terrible at doing. But I don't want to see people being penalised for perfectly reasonable claims, be it with the police or anyone else.

Agree that is something that must be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe to address this compensation culture we need to look into finding ways of penalising clearly erroneous/OTT claims- something that the likes of "no win no fee" are terrible at doing. But I don't want to see people being penalised for perfectly reasonable claims, be it with the police or anyone else.

Aye, Ian. That was one of the points I was hoping to see made.

And, as has been noted above, I didn't start this thread with the intention of back-analyzing individual events, for which inquests and the like have already been held. It was, as has also been picked-up by most, more the question: should the police be above the law in ways that the rest of us are not??

I'm pleased to see that most people clearly believe that they shouldn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...