Monday, 19 December 2011

Perhaps The Good Samaritan Would Do Well To Ride On By These Days?

Charles Roberts pounced on the horrified nurse moments after he was resuscitated at a Greater Manchester hospital following a drug overdose.

The nurse was left feeling ‘violated’ by the sex pest, who sat up on his trolley, fondled her intimately and tried to kiss her arm.
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t get much lower than that…
In the build-up to the attack he had subjected staff to a foul-mouthed stream of abuse as they tried to save his life.
Oh. OK. I was wrong…
The 37-year-old hung his head as he was ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for seven years by a judge who said his ‘despicable’ behaviour highlighted the vulnerability of nursing staff.
And the sentence highlighted the utter toothlessness of our judiciary:
Roberts, of Dene Road, Gorton, was handed a four-month jail sentence, suspended for 12 months, after the court heard he was remorseful for the attack and was seeking help for his drug problem.
A junkie’s promise! What could go wrong?

Still, at least no-one arrested the nurse*!
Officers did not believe Tyler Thompson and Connor Roderick’s version of events, and the pair were taken into custody, and had their DNA and fingerprints taken, which will now be stored on a national database.

Their clothes were also kept by police following the incident in St Helen Auckland, near Bishop Auckland, County Durham, on Friday, December 9, and the teenagers were only due to get them back yesterday.
Let's have a great big /golfclap for Durham Police, everyone! Who - you'll no doubt be utterly astounded to know - aren't even vaguely apologetic or ashamed:
A Durham Police spokesperson said: “Police arrested a man and a youth at the scene of the incident as they matched a description given to police; they were later released without charge.

The suspects were dealt with as quickly as procedures allow while ensuring that the matter was thoroughly investigated.

“Two other youths have been arrested in connection with this incident and bailed pending further inquiries.”
And so they hammer another nail into the coffin of public confidence and trust. As well as building that DNA database, one innocent at a time...

*H/T: Subrosa via Twitter

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hindsight eh Julia,a wonderful thing!
In stories such as these we have only heard one side.The police always give a bland non-committal statement just in case they are sued later.All big organisations do that i'm afraid.
Imagine if these boys were guilty and the police believed their story and sent them on their way?That would make an even better story.
As for the DNA issue,I have some sympathy there.We used to take DNA on charging,and if the person was found not-guilty it was destroyed.Guess who changed that rule?.Not the police.It was Tony Blair,you know the man who conned the gullible electorate three times!
Jaded.
Come on Melvin,this one is set up perfectly for you and your thesaurus.

Able said...

First one? Same old, same old. As a nurse I've lost count of the times I've been assaulted, let alone faced abuse and I'm an ugly 6 ft 5" male. Why? Because even people who wouldn't say boo to goose out on the street, for fear of being beaten to a pulp, know they can assault a nurse with impunity.

The female nurses I've worked with seemed to face both a lesser, from those idiots out to prove how macho they are (calmly doing what a female asks whilst attempting to attack any male in the area), to a much greater threat from those too drunk/drugged/ immoral to care, as well as the sexual assault aspect. And then the judiciary give them risible sentences (contrast it with how a nurse would be treated if they committed the offence!)

As to the second, Jaded, I must disagree.

I may be old but wasn't it always 'gather the evidence, take statements and THEN arrest the person whom the evidence showed was probably guilty'?

Now it appears to be 'arrest whoever happens to (maybe/possibly/conceivably) could have been involved, then refuse to acknowledge when you got the wrong person'.

Here were two boys (yes I am that old) who, if they had been asked to attend the station 'to exclude them from the investigation' would in all likelihood have done so without qualms, and more importantly without facing the negatives involved.

If I (or you) were in the same situation, would you agree that arrest was correct (I for one would then probably face suspension and an internal employer investigation, and the fact that I'd been arrested in suspicion could lead to dismissal whether I was guilty of anything or not) and all as a consequence of a policeman unable/unwilling/too lazy to use a modicum of common sense.

Do I mistrust the police, No, but when certain members of the force act like this they should be corrected/reprimanded internally or all police are tarred with the same brush.

andy said...

Its time that A&E units had 6 or 7 hefty orderlies like you find in psychiatric units,to "assist" with the patients if needed.

JuliaM said...

"Imagine if these boys were guilty and the police believed their story and sent them on their way?"

But as Able points out, where's the old fashioned policing where they arrested only when they had enough suspicion to prove a crime might have been committed?

Now, it seems to be 'arrest everyone on the scene and we'll figure it out later'...

"Because even people who wouldn't say boo to goose out on the street, for fear of being beaten to a pulp, know they can assault a nurse with impunity."

And this despite the plethora of posters up - as at Tube stations - warning of the severe penalties for assaulting the staff! Perhaps they should be referred to the Advertising Standards Authority?

"Its time that A&E units had 6 or 7 hefty orderlies like you find in psychiatric units,to "assist" with the patients if needed."

The recent temporary 'drunk tanks' they've been setting up (one was featured on 'The One Show' last night, I think) seem to have taken off a little bit of the pressure.

But will they continue after Christmas?