Lost his job for life, lost his Pension (and a Police pension must be huge), & went to prison, all for £1,000.
I mean, we've all done daft things in our life - well I certainly have - but thats another level daft.
Another repeat this week.
Yup, a good one, but a repeat. It quite annoyed me that they got what I considered such lenient sentences. The "leader" especially was a complete wrong 'un & while ever he's at large in society, he'll cause problems.
He will. Lots of people argue that sentencing seems so inconsistent. I think that if his missus could have been arrested on more serious charges, she would have spilled. She didnt seem like a woman that would have been at all comfortable doing a bit of porridge.
Correct, & she was lying through her teeth. She was 100% the weak link, apply pressure to her & the whole thing comes out on top. As it was, she clearly knew who "Victor" was (the phone transcripts proved that) & yet she totally denied she knew him.
Lost his job for life, lost his Pension (and a Police pension must be huge), & went to prison, all for £1,000.
I mean, we've all done daft things in our life - well I certainly have - but thats another level daft.
Another repeat this week.
Yup, a good one, but a repeat. It quite annoyed me that they got what I considered such lenient sentences. The "leader" especially was a complete wrong 'un & while ever he's at large in society, he'll cause problems.
He will. Lots of people argue that sentencing seems so inconsistent. I think that if his missus could have been arrested on more serious charges, she would have spilled. She didnt seem like a woman that would have been at all comfortable doing a bit of porridge.
Correct, & she was lying through her teeth. She was 100% the weak link, apply pressure to her & the whole thing comes out on top. As it was, she clearly knew who "Victor" was (the phone transcripts proved that) & yet she totally denied she knew him.
Also her text messages confirmed she knew exactly what was going on.
^^^^ This is great viewing and a story so far fetched you wouldn't believe it could happen i won't spoil it but what i will say the police in the USA are a bunch of vvankers
^^^^ This is great viewing and a story so far fetched you wouldn't believe it could happen i won't spoil it but what i will say the police in the USA are a bunch of vvankers
I watched all three episodes last night. I was surprised by, The conduct of some of the officers. The lack of experience of officers when dealing with a seriously ill man that was in custody. They assumed he was drunk, and he ended up in a coma. Using Pava spray on a mental patient. A fiasco on a bus, that a total of 10 officers attended. That it took 3 years to get an officer into court. The fact that he was suspended on full pay throughout this period, and received £180k in wages. That an officer accused of sexual assault, had received a verbal, and written warning for similar offences, going back 16 years. His punishment was that he was sacked. Although he had already resigned. He was also suspended on full pay for over a year. That his 3 accusers would rather see no legal action taken against him, than testify in court. Despite the Chief Constables protestations, there seemed to be a lack of resolve in terms of rooting out unsuitable officers. It was a horror show.
Lost his job for life, lost his Pension (and a Police pension must be huge), & went to prison, all for £1,000.
I mean, we've all done daft things in our life - well I certainly have - but thats another level daft.
Another repeat this week.
Yup, a good one, but a repeat. It quite annoyed me that they got what I considered such lenient sentences. The "leader" especially was a complete wrong 'un & while ever he's at large in society, he'll cause problems.
He will. Lots of people argue that sentencing seems so inconsistent. I think that if his missus could have been arrested on more serious charges, she would have spilled. She didnt seem like a woman that would have been at all comfortable doing a bit of porridge.
Correct, & she was lying through her teeth. She was 100% the weak link, apply pressure to her & the whole thing comes out on top. As it was, she clearly knew who "Victor" was (the phone transcripts proved that) & yet she totally denied she knew him.
I think this weeks episode of 24hrs in police custody is another repeat.
Statement from Deputy Chief Constable Nikki Watson following the outcome in the misconduct hearing of former PS Lee ****:
“The two-week misconduct hearing has been overseen by a Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), who is independent of the Constabulary. We fully respect the LQC’s authority but are disappointed that having carefully weighed up all the evidence they have ruled the allegations around dishonesty and discreditable conduct were not proven.
“Police officers and staff are expected to maintain the highest level of professional standards at all times. We have consistently believed the actions of the former officer on 24 December 2017 fell short of those standards and were not what the public would expect from their police service.
“We have invested a significant amount of time and resources into both a criminal and misconduct investigation since 2017. The officer involved is no longer employed by Avon and Somerset Police.
The full outcome is now available on the misconduct section of our website
I know I have said this before. But I am going to say it again.
This sort of disciplinary action is a colossal waste of money. Regardless of the outcome.
This is an ex-employee. With a massive disciplinary process in relation to whether or not he should have been sacked. If he hadn't resigned. Years ago.
No other business does this. Just get him to sign a letter saying he will never apply to work for the Police again. And then spend the tens (if not hundreds) of £thousands saved on actual police work. Actual policemen. Actual disciplinary processes for actual serving policemen.
I know I have said this before. But I am going to say it again.
This sort of disciplinary action is a colossal waste of money. Regardless of the outcome.
This is an ex-employee. With a massive disciplinary process in relation to whether or not he should have been sacked. If he hadn't resigned. Years ago.
No other business does this. Just get him to sign a letter saying he will never apply to work for the Police again. And then spend the tens (if not hundreds) of £thousands saved on actual police work. Actual policemen. Actual disciplinary processes for actual serving policemen.
Watching some control freak trying to replay history to no good purpose, only to moan about it afterwards, on taxpayers money.
These people need to be told to spend our money where it will actually do something worthwhile.
I thought it was quite interesting. The Chief Constable let the cameras in, which you have to consider as being very risky, in order to expose, and root out any unsuitable officers. An admirable goal. However that was not how it turned out. The rooting out turned out to be retraining. The retraining turned out to be a short meeting with their supervisor. They filmed one. The supervisor seemed happy with the outcome. This was despite the officer maintaining that he was in the right. Although a mental patient had been called a fu.k.ng ****, PAVA sprayed, and manhandled.
They went through a year long investigation, with the officer suspended on full pay, which merely resulted in the officer being sacked, when he had already resigned. There was no prosecution in this case. This was despite the fact that the evidence they uncovered included the opinion that if you were a female officer, and hadnt been sent a photo of his D1ck, then there was probable something wrong with you. He had received a verbal warning in 2003, and a written one in 2016. He had posted indecent photos of 2 officers online without their permission, and was accused of sexual assault by another officer.
There was an incident on a bus. A woman had upset the driver, who refused to drive the bus, until she got off. She refused. Two officers attended. They couldnt deal with her, and called for back up. Another 8 officers arrived. Ten of them couldnt get her off the bus. They PAVA sprayed her as well, when she was holding her child close to her face. The woman was a pain, but they just seemed incompetent.
They also seemed incompetent when dealing with the guy with a brain aneurysm, that they assumed was drunk, and the mental patient mentioned earlier. This resulted in the severely ill guy almost dying, the mentally ill woman suffering trauma, and the obnoxious woman on the bus getting a substantial payment funded by the taxpayer.
The officers didnt seem to appreciate the retraining, maintained that they hadnt done anything wrong. One claimed that unless they remained detached, they would be unable to do the job.
Justice Might Be Served: 4creative campaign spotlights British justice system ahead of Channel 4’s The Jury: Murder Trial
Channel 4 today debuts a multi-platform campaign for The Jury: Murder Trial, a new dramatization airing from Monday 26 Feb at 9pm, which will examine the jury system by recreating a real murder trial with two juries for the first time on British television. The show explores whether the two different juries made up of completely different people will reach the same verdict.
The marketing campaign which uses the tag line Justice Might Be Served, launches in out-of-home (OOH) formats, social, an audio partnership and is delivered by Channel 4’s award-winning in-house creative agency, 4creative.
The first phase of the campaign features imagery of two juries listening to the same case in court. Above some jury members are descriptions which highlight factors other than the facts of the case which could influence trials. Studies [1][2] have suggested that up to a quarter of juries’ verdicts may be susceptible to inaccuracies influenced by a range of factors beyond objective evidence.
On the day of the first broadcast of The Jury: Murder Trial [Channel 4, Monday 26 Feb at 9pm], a separate execution in OOH and newspapers that takes the form of a court summons letter, will instruct the public to watch The Jury: Murder Trial and gain insight into the experience of being a jury member.
Justice Might Be Served is the latest in a recent line of acclaimed and award-winning campaigns from 4creative. Last November, to promote Channel 4’s season of climate change programming, a bold film featuring a pair of giant carbon skid-marked underpants called out the actions and inactions of those in positions of power such as politicians and the CEOs of big businesses, questioning the extent to which they are doing enough. Last September, 4creative planted rave-style flyers and posters across UK cities to promote its Partygate docudrama on the controversial gatherings of civil servants and Conservative Party staff during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Jury: Murder Trial will examine the jury system for the first time on British television by recreating an entire, real murder trial from the original transcripts in front of 24 jurors, randomly split into two juries, neither of whom are aware of the other. Filmed over ten days, in a former courthouse in Essex, the series will take a forensic look at the inner workings of justice. The two juries will be asked to judge on the real case of a man who admits he killed his wife, but whose defence maintains that he lost control, and is therefore not guilty of murder.
Andy Vasey and Dan Warner, Creative Directors, 4creative, said: "The show is an innovative true crime experiment that gives the public an insight into the British jury system. Our campaign spotlights how, for example, a juror being hungover or tired might be as likely to sway a verdict as the facts of the case. With one trial and two juries, it’s fascinating to see whether the same verdict will be reached by both.”
--Ends--
[1] Juries disagree in 23% of Guilty Verdicts and 38% of Acquittals. The Oxford Jury Project made this startling discovery when 30 ‘Shadow Juries’ watched real cases in Oxford Crown Court and they compared the shadow and real jury verdicts https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/23/1/Darbyshire-P-23.pdf
[2] Judges disagree with Jury verdicts in 22% of cases. Chicago Law School carried out the world’s biggest comparison of Jury verdicts and what the Judge would have decided in each case, analysing 3576 cases. A similar study in the UK covering 500 cases, found Judges had ‘serious doubts’ over 32% acquittals https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/23/1/Darbyshire-P-23.pdf
Legal experiment following the restaging of a real-life murder trial re-enacted word for word in front of two juries of ordinary people, neither of whom know about the other. Will they both reach the same verdict? In this first episode, we hear the real-life case of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denied murder. The defendant claims that he lost control, but will he be believed?
Comments
Channel 4's To Catch a Copper set to show alleged police brutality, predators and institutional racism
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/channel-4s-catch-copper-set-9045671.amp
Correct, & she was lying through her teeth. She was 100% the weak link, apply pressure to her & the whole thing comes out on top. As it was, she clearly knew who "Victor" was (the phone transcripts proved that) & yet she totally denied she knew him.
https://tellymix.co.uk/captain-tom-what-happened-next-channel-5/
This is great viewing and a story so far fetched you wouldn't believe it could happen
i won't spoil it but what i will say the police in the USA are a bunch of vvankers
I was surprised by,
The conduct of some of the officers.
The lack of experience of officers when dealing with a seriously ill man that was in custody.
They assumed he was drunk, and he ended up in a coma.
Using Pava spray on a mental patient.
A fiasco on a bus, that a total of 10 officers attended.
That it took 3 years to get an officer into court.
The fact that he was suspended on full pay throughout this period, and received £180k in wages.
That an officer accused of sexual assault, had received a verbal, and written warning for similar offences, going back 16 years.
His punishment was that he was sacked.
Although he had already resigned.
He was also suspended on full pay for over a year.
That his 3 accusers would rather see no legal action taken against him, than testify in court.
Despite the Chief Constables protestations, there seemed to be a lack of resolve in terms of rooting out unsuitable officers.
It was a horror show. I think this weeks episode of 24hrs in police custody is another repeat.
Police Investigate Allegation Against Officer | To Catch A Copper | Channel 4
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-62737436
Statement from Deputy Chief Constable Nikki Watson following the outcome in the misconduct hearing of former PS Lee ****:
“The two-week misconduct hearing has been overseen by a Legally Qualified Chair (LQC), who is independent of the Constabulary. We fully respect the LQC’s authority but are disappointed that having carefully weighed up all the evidence they have ruled the allegations around dishonesty and discreditable conduct were not proven.
“Police officers and staff are expected to maintain the highest level of professional standards at all times. We have consistently believed the actions of the former officer on 24 December 2017 fell short of those standards and were not what the public would expect from their police service.
“We have invested a significant amount of time and resources into both a criminal and misconduct investigation since 2017. The officer involved is no longer employed by Avon and Somerset Police.
The full outcome is now available on the misconduct section of our website
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2022/08/statement-following-misconduct-hearing-outcome/
This sort of disciplinary action is a colossal waste of money. Regardless of the outcome.
This is an ex-employee. With a massive disciplinary process in relation to whether or not he should have been sacked. If he hadn't resigned. Years ago.
No other business does this. Just get him to sign a letter saying he will never apply to work for the Police again. And then spend the tens (if not hundreds) of £thousands saved on actual police work. Actual policemen. Actual disciplinary processes for actual serving policemen.
Instead of this nonsense.
Did you watch it?
Watching some control freak trying to replay history to no good purpose, only to moan about it afterwards, on taxpayers money.
These people need to be told to spend our money where it will actually do something worthwhile.
The Chief Constable let the cameras in, which you have to consider as being very risky, in order to expose, and root out any unsuitable officers.
An admirable goal.
However that was not how it turned out.
The rooting out turned out to be retraining.
The retraining turned out to be a short meeting with their supervisor.
They filmed one.
The supervisor seemed happy with the outcome.
This was despite the officer maintaining that he was in the right.
Although a mental patient had been called a fu.k.ng ****, PAVA sprayed, and manhandled.
They went through a year long investigation, with the officer suspended on full pay, which merely resulted in the officer being sacked, when he had already resigned.
There was no prosecution in this case.
This was despite the fact that the evidence they uncovered included the opinion that if you were a female officer, and hadnt been sent a photo of his D1ck, then there was probable something wrong with you.
He had received a verbal warning in 2003, and a written one in 2016.
He had posted indecent photos of 2 officers online without their permission, and was accused of sexual assault by another officer.
There was an incident on a bus.
A woman had upset the driver, who refused to drive the bus, until she got off.
She refused.
Two officers attended.
They couldnt deal with her, and called for back up.
Another 8 officers arrived.
Ten of them couldnt get her off the bus.
They PAVA sprayed her as well, when she was holding her child close to her face.
The woman was a pain, but they just seemed incompetent.
They also seemed incompetent when dealing with the guy with a brain aneurysm, that they assumed was drunk, and the mental patient mentioned earlier.
This resulted in the severely ill guy almost dying, the mentally ill woman suffering trauma, and the obnoxious woman on the bus getting a substantial payment funded by the taxpayer.
The officers didnt seem to appreciate the retraining, maintained that they hadnt done anything wrong.
One claimed that unless they remained detached, they would be unable to do the job.
It was a shambles.
Channel 4 today debuts a multi-platform campaign for The Jury: Murder Trial, a new dramatization airing from Monday 26 Feb at 9pm, which will examine the jury system by recreating a real murder trial with two juries for the first time on British television. The show explores whether the two different juries made up of completely different people will reach the same verdict.
The marketing campaign which uses the tag line Justice Might Be Served, launches in out-of-home (OOH) formats, social, an audio partnership and is delivered by Channel 4’s award-winning in-house creative agency, 4creative.
The first phase of the campaign features imagery of two juries listening to the same case in court. Above some jury members are descriptions which highlight factors other than the facts of the case which could influence trials. Studies [1][2] have suggested that up to a quarter of juries’ verdicts may be susceptible to inaccuracies influenced by a range of factors beyond objective evidence.
On the day of the first broadcast of The Jury: Murder Trial [Channel 4, Monday 26 Feb at 9pm], a separate execution in OOH and newspapers that takes the form of a court summons letter, will instruct the public to watch The Jury: Murder Trial and gain insight into the experience of being a jury member.
Justice Might Be Served is the latest in a recent line of acclaimed and award-winning campaigns from 4creative. Last November, to promote Channel 4’s season of climate change programming, a bold film featuring a pair of giant carbon skid-marked underpants called out the actions and inactions of those in positions of power such as politicians and the CEOs of big businesses, questioning the extent to which they are doing enough. Last September, 4creative planted rave-style flyers and posters across UK cities to promote its Partygate docudrama on the controversial gatherings of civil servants and Conservative Party staff during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Jury: Murder Trial will examine the jury system for the first time on British television by recreating an entire, real murder trial from the original transcripts in front of 24 jurors, randomly split into two juries, neither of whom are aware of the other. Filmed over ten days, in a former courthouse in Essex, the series will take a forensic look at the inner workings of justice. The two juries will be asked to judge on the real case of a man who admits he killed his wife, but whose defence maintains that he lost control, and is therefore not guilty of murder.
Andy Vasey and Dan Warner, Creative Directors, 4creative, said: "The show is an innovative true crime experiment that gives the public an insight into the British jury system. Our campaign spotlights how, for example, a juror being hungover or tired might be as likely to sway a verdict as the facts of the case. With one trial and two juries, it’s fascinating to see whether the same verdict will be reached by both.”
--Ends--
[1] Juries disagree in 23% of Guilty Verdicts and 38% of Acquittals. The Oxford Jury Project made this startling discovery when 30 ‘Shadow Juries’ watched real cases in Oxford Crown Court and they compared the shadow and real jury verdicts https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/23/1/Darbyshire-P-23.pdf
[2] Judges disagree with Jury verdicts in 22% of cases. Chicago Law School carried out the world’s biggest comparison of Jury verdicts and what the Judge would have decided in each case, analysing 3576 cases. A similar study in the UK covering 500 cases, found Judges had ‘serious doubts’ over 32% acquittals https://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/23/1/Darbyshire-P-23.pdf
https://www.channel4.com/press/news/justice-might-be-served-4creative-campaign-spotlights-british-justice-system-ahead
https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/08/new-tv-show-to-examine-jury-system-by-recreating-murder-trial/
Legal experiment following the restaging of a real-life murder trial re-enacted word for word in front of two juries of ordinary people, neither of whom know about the other. Will they both reach the same verdict? In this first episode, we hear the real-life case of a husband who killed his wife with a hammer but denied murder. The defendant claims that he lost control, but will he be believed?
https://www.tvguide.co.uk/schedule/a1d599c7-e082-5529-abdf-783c890fa694/the-jury-murder-trial