Monday 4 November 2013

Sense At Last!

We do like to see the wheels of justice grind here in the den, even if they do so far too slowly:
A police dog handler who was found guilty of kicking a school boy in the throat is celebrating after his conviction was quashed because of lack of evidence.
Yes, it's this case. The 'schoolboy' in question isn't Tom Brown, by a long chalk..
Judge Loraine-Smith said: ‘We found PC Peel an impressive witness with a long and unblemished record.
‘There is a mass of evidence for that for him to behave in this way was completely out of character. The question is, can we be sure that he used excessive force in carrying out that detention.
‘On the evidence we heard today, we don’t think we can be sure.
‘Accordingly we allow this appeal.’
He should never have been on trial in the first place.


MTG said...

They have themselves to blame for a reputation which may tempt magistrates to convict plod on the lesser burden of civil proof. PC Peel had just finished celebrating his earlier acquittal for a public order offence after allegedly calling the boy a 'thieving c***'.

Surely on the balance of probabilities...not every plod is a foul-mouthed, perjurious thug?

Lynne at Counting Cats said...

Thieving cnut 0. Finally!

A most satisfactory result. Shame it had to come at a price.

Anonymous said...

Get flouncing Melvin,Julia's had the cheek to post a pro-police article.

Someone as educated as you must understand what the word "allegedly" means.As in- allegedly you are a boring repetitive pompous oaf?

Anonymous said...

WHat's wrong with calling a thieving cnut a thieving cnut?

Great result - let's hope his 'managers' hadn't already pilloried him in a frenzy of self flagellation.

Meanwhile...back to the House of Commons for the 'trial' of the three PF idiots.

One extreme to the other

MTG said...

Thank you for a reminder to nominate 'allegedly' as plodword of the century, WC Jaded.

The fact that Mr Andrew Mitchell was a very high profile citizen, is the only reason why false plod allegations were ever uncovered in public. The IPCC outed a plod conspiracy to lie about their dealings with him, in successful bids to assassinate his character and career. But hey, those acting for these liars struck a deal to admit malfeasance and make amends with grovelling public apologies.

Were it not for the strongest inference to mistrust anything dripping from a plod orifice, all is now dandy...'allegedly'.

Anonymous said...

Melvin why don't you pop along to your local police station and give a statement about plebgate as you are clearly a witness to this event.

PS calling a thief a thief certainly puts the Rio death squads into perspective doesn't it?

JuliaM said...

"They have themselves to blame for a reputation which may tempt magistrates to convict plod on the lesser burden of civil proof."

Yes, this is mostly a self-inflicted wound.

But they aren't the only ones bleeding from it.

"WHat's wrong with calling a thieving cnut a thieving cnut?"

Absolutely nothing! Call a spade a spade, I say...