Graham and Amanda Greensmith were returning from the supermarket at around 7pm last Thursday when they saw police cars and officers outside Sweet Temptation in Station Road, Sandiacre.Well, to convince a magistrate to grant a warrant, they must have had good reason, right?
"I saw the side door to our house was open and a police officer was fixing the lock that they had drilled through to get in," said Graham, 33.
"I asked what was going on and he said they had a warrant to search the building."
So, what did they find?
After searching the house, including its loft and basement, the sweet shop, and the flat above the shop, officers finally left empty-handed.Oh. Still, I’m sure a fulsome apology was forthcoming from the embarrassed police.
Oh:
Amanda, 43, said: "The officers were not very happy.Unlikely. They won't want to reveal their sources, even if they did turn out to be worthless.
"Someone from the hairdresser's over the road said the police were picking up the sweet jars and looking at them. I've contacted our MP, Jessica Lee, who we hope can find out the reason why they came here."
Graham, who fulfilled a lifelong dream by opening the sweet shop in April this year after running a successful online sweet business, added: "We are both completely against drugs.‘Nice’..? It’d be more than just ‘nice’, it’d be sensible under the circumstances.
"It would be nice if the police gave us an apology."
Unless the police have finally given up all pretence of policing with the consent of the community?
What they are saying is that, where the information you’ve been given has proved false, an apology (and some serious questions for the person who gave that information) would be expected.
And in situations where you’ve perhaps cocked up on what it is you are meant to be searching, well…
A force spokesman said: "We received information that drugs may have been at the Sandiacre shop and so a warrant was carried out.No-one’s saying that you shouldn’t, are they?
"While we were searching the building, the shopkeeper arrived and was helpful and co-operative. We found no drugs at the premises.
"We have to act on information we receive about drugs, or any other crime in the community."
What they are saying is that, where the information you’ve been given has proved false, an apology (and some serious questions for the person who gave that information) would be expected.
And in situations where you’ve perhaps cocked up on what it is you are meant to be searching, well…
by Daz_DraycottCuriouser and curiouser! Has someone cocked up here? Is that why no apology, because they don’t want to make themselves liable?
“This place had a fire about two years ago where the flat above were growing cannabis, perhaps their info was a bit outdated. This was prior to the sweetshop opening.”
by amandajmartinI await the outcome of that complaint with interest.
“Thanks for all your comments.. What i dont understand, they say they had information about drugs being here, why when we returned home to find the police here, The warrant was for the building, NOT THE SHOP.. Also we both did not get asked our names and we never got searched. Surley if we was suspected that would of happened.... Yes we are making a complaint. thanks”
But it shows how the police are their own worst enemy. An immediate apology and a promise to check into the validity of the information would have - in all likelihood - prevented a complaint here.
Yet instead, driven by the terror of being seen to be 'soft on drugs' or perhaps sued, they retreat behind an arrogant, hectoring PR piece that virtually scolds the complainee for not realising just what an important job the police have to do.
It couldn't be crafted better to put an aggrieved (and innocent) party's back up if they tried....
10 comments:
If that had been my warrant i would have apologised and thanked them for their assistance. The Police do get "used" by people who make malicious reports against people but hide behind the anonimity of the process.
I have talked colleagues out of obtaining warrants due to lack of corroboration and potential malicious information.
I have also had somone make complaints against me for not acting on their 'anonymous' information. It is harder to get warrants now and magistrates normally grill me over sources, accuracy and how recent the information is.
And nothing against the people at the shop, but just because you don't find anything doesn't mean they are not involved. It is not compulsory for drug addicts to always be in possession of drugs.
A simple we apologise for any inconvenience caused should have been made.
Ineptitude, incompetence, cover up and cronyism is so rife these days that acting on out of date information would be my guess as to what happened here. Coupled with irresponsible social and economic policies and practices the future looks bleak. When a society continually debases it's currency enacts more and more laws and morals and standards become lower and lower then you know that that society is going disintegrate. The reason we know this is because we see history repeating itself.
The police on scene couldn't apologise because they were chewing toffees, and wine gums, and Mars bars....
I wonder if the informant had a reason to make sure the cops were busy elsewhere?
Pssst! is that you PC Noddy?
I know a good fence who is keen to have those samples you lifted from the jewellers you asked me to complain about.
XX A force spokesman said: "We received information that drugs may have been at the Sandiacre shop and so a warrant was carried out.XX
A warrant was WHAT????
Who IS this dip shit?
A warrant is EXECUTED(!) not "carried out".
"A simple we apologise for any inconvenience caused should have been made."
Agreed.
"Ineptitude, incompetence, cover up and cronyism is so rife these days that acting on out of date information would be my guess as to what happened here. "
Could well be the case.
"I wonder if the informant had a reason to make sure the cops were busy elsewhere?"
Ah! I wonder if anyone thought of that?
"A warrant is EXECUTED(!) not "carried out"."
Dumbing down is rife!
How the Police work.
This has all the hallmarks of a WAGI (What A Good Idea) generated at a senior level, possibly by a Superintendent doing some random arse-kicking to justify his/her existence and to enhance his/her promotion prospects. "Drugs are a problem. Do something!"
The Divisional Chief Inspector panics, grabs an out-of-date drugs information file and orders the raid, but puts his/her name nowhere on any order or file.
The Police on the ground would never carry out a raid as daft as this one, their heads would roll. They would have corroborated all intelligence, observed the premises (if the Superintendent could be persuaded to sign an appropriate RIPA permission) and made sure of their facts before doing anything else.
Don't blame the lower ranks of the Police for this sort of gratuitous stupidity. Look instead at those at higher levels in the Police, that is where idiocy is generated.
Looking on the bright side, the absence of an apology entitles the couple to start a riot with the full support of the Guardian, the BBC and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
First anonymous and selsey steve-spot on comments.
I bet the officers at the scene said sorry immediately-I know I would-but the force spokesman has to be a bit more careful with their words just in case an ambulance chaser gets hold of this.
Jaded
Post a Comment