A police spokesman said: 'The seriousness of Mr Folkes' allegations, and the need to avoid any repetition of the same, has been fully impressed upon Sgt Jones. 'Surely a senior police officer who really had abused his position to harass a disabled neighbour with whom he was in dispute would be facing far more serious disciplinary offences, if there wasn’t more to it than met the eye?
In fact, why would he still be in the police force?
Then I read this story:
An investigation into the treatment of a clergyman arrested on suspicion of child neglect has not been able to substantiate any of his complaints.Those being:
After his arrest, during which Mr Blake claims he was assaulted by officers, the archbishop claimed he was locked without any shoes in a filthy cell with blood on the floor.But it was what they were able to substantiate that was worrying.
He said despite requests, the blood was not cleaned up and he was also refused toilet paper and a pen and paper.
And he claims his cell light was left on all night and he was refused access to washing facilities and to food and water in sealed containers.
After being detained for 24 hours, Mr Blake was released without charge.
Because one of the cells in which he was held had no CCTV and the other had only poor quality video with no sound, there was no independent record of Mr Blake’s requests, which were not entered in the custody record.So the records weren’t worth the paper they were written on.
However, the DPS did find discrepancies in Mr Blake’s custody record.
These included not recording Mr Blake had moved cells, nor that he had been taken from the cells for a meeting with his solicitor.
The record did show the jailer visited Mr Blake’s cell twice during the night to check on him and found him asleep.
But CCTV footage showed no visits were made.
Faced with that sort of discrepancy in an interview, what would any detective conclude about the honesty of those under investigation?
Exactly. So why should this not work both ways?
Mr Blake said he would also be taking civil action against the police.Good luck to him…
Since WHEN was a fucking SERGEANT a "senior police officer"???????????????????
When I see the phrase 'senior police officer' I tend to think 'chief constable' at least...
Huh? What do you mean "at LEAST"? There IS no higher rank!!
Superintendent and above would be "senior officers" in my book.
All ranks below that are two a penny.
Post a Comment