Because of his serious head injuries, Knight was taken straight to hospital and spent three days in a coma.
Doctors even told his family he could have lasting brain damage - but he made a full recovery.In case you're wondering, yes, this is indeed that case...
Emma Nash, mitigating,said: “He understands that none of this would have happened if he had not chosen to commit this offence.
“He very nearly lost the function of his brain. He really thinks it’s time for a change.”But Essex Police had no choice but to arrest the victim, right? I mean, it was his word against the..
Oh.
Miss Davison added: “One neighbour said she could see the defendant running away from Mr Sharp when he fell and hit his head.
“He ran off and bounced off the walls.”So they had a witness, and they still arrested the poor sod?
13 comments:
Standard plod procedure is to double the arrest tally when practicable. Mr Plod is more concerned with introducing the most unlikely conscripts to his notoriously managed, DNA database...not forgetting his 'productivity' bonuses.
Would you like to hear the details of the citizen arrest I made a few years ago, Julia? You would? Well, a few years ago, I made a citizen arrest of a burglar and Mr Plod was very keen to arrest me along with the criminal. The burglar ruined their visit by being insistent that my arrest would be unnecessary. I do hope the poor chap wasn't 'roughed up' in the van (standard plod retaliation procedure) for obstructing police intent on locking up a vociferous plod critic. So they departed in a huge van with just the single arrestee.
Nearly lost brain function. I think it was impaired long before this incident.
The more we learn the more it is becoming apparent that the public sector is not fit for purpose. Incompetence, malpractice, self and vested interests taking precedence over the interests of customers the general public is common. The defence for this behaviour is that there is not enough resources available for them to do their job properly. A totally spurious claim but useful because it is difficult to prove if it is true or false. Sometimes they cannot hide behind that excuse as their ineptness despite the various escape routes available to them made from red tape rules and bureaucratic cover up is exposed. The default position then is to claim that lessons have been learnt and they will do better only to find later that they have learnt nothing and changed nothing.
Despite technological advances and being more knowledgeable our public sector is not serving us any better than in the past. In fact on levels of competence and dedication they are probably infinitely worse. The reason of course is because the public sector is too large, unwieldy, unaccountable(as it is self policing) and providing services that would be better in the remit of the private sector. Thereby breaking the monopoly condition that protects them from consumer justice. Coupled with our move away from traditional methods of education to progressive ones where entitlement not service to ones community is taught.
i as just arrestid a lazy fowl mouthed violant scruff who were blaggin takeaways an weed an e is been held on a charge off inpursenating police
Melvin-repeating a story over and over again does not make it true.
Jaded
@ WC Jaded. I am content to accept that an occupationally-induced condition left you with an indelible image of everyone as a liar. A liar requires a good memory, yet I doubt your own ability to recall posting on another blog, a self description laying claim to specific personal strengths, including 'well educatid'. Mali principii, malus finis...that colossal untruth had the effect of permanently tarnishing anything emanating from your mouth, pen and keyboard.
Melv,
The Police weren't there when the burglary, chase, and fall took place. On arrival, they listened to the injured man who said he had been hit by a metal object. To arrest the suspected - and I emphasise the word 'suspected' offender, because the arrest would have been made 'on suspicion of assault'. This would be to preserve evidence, preserve the scene, and allow the Police to seize any items which may be of evidential value. Of course, you knew all this because (irony alert here) your constant criticism of each and every topic involving the Police shows a very intensive knowledge of Police policies and procedures. Unfortunately, (reality alert here), your witterings do not show any involvement in intelligent comments. Perhaps a word or two of how you would have dealt with the incident (not having access to hindsight) could be made and forwarded to the Chief Constable. Police officers are not super heroes. They are ordinary men and women who are required to make decisions and take actions in circumstances out of the ordinary. They do not always get things right and mistakes and errors do occur. However, and you are not the only one doing this, when you consider the thousands of incidents the Police deal with every day, to pick up on the tiny percentage when an incident could have been better dealt with, denotes a lack of comprehension of what being a Police officer is all about. I notice that you didn't comment on the Police officer who was chasing a burglar who jumped into a canal to escape, and then went into difficulties and was rescued from drowning by that same Police officer who jumped in after him. You must have read about it because Julia would have mentioned it - oh, wait!
Penseivat
Oh yes MTG the "educatid" lie. Keep repeating that one as well.
Jaded
@Anonymous. A spirited defence of the police. You rightly point out that there are some brave and dedicated officers and that the officers at the scene of the crime acted according to established criminal investigative procedures and acted on the first account they received. Brave and dedicated offices I would suggest are balanced by an equal if not more number who are not. As many contrary reports I have heard about them appears to attest. It is not individual acts that we judge an organisations abilities on(unless they are identical which they are not) but how they perform collectively.
How they went about their investigation and how they acted on the evidence they uncovered and how they treated those involved is very much open to question. Acting on the first account if that is indeed true appears to be jumping too quickly to a conclusion through lack of intelligent thought and insensitivity. It points to a total disregard for public opinion which they often claim is their most important priority. As for acting according to established investigative procedures I fear that they may not be as efficient and appropriate as the police would have us believe if the rate of detection which is low is anything to go by.
The police service like any other public body abhors scrutiny and hides as much of how it's organisation works and it's culture from the public it can. Legal requirements and being a monopoly makes this easier for them to do so. Not being more open to the general public is counterproductive. It leads to perceived or real suspicion and not being unable to know which is true and it does not open up the police to learn from that which the public has to offer which is considerable(lip service is given to this through tightly controlled exchange of information). Like all our public bodies because of their very nature of being establishment bureaucratically run monopolies(that do not allow competition to test the quality and value of their service or to motive efficient use of resources) they will never be truly fit for purpose and will always attract considerable criticism.
@ Antisthenes
Reasoned and eloquent comments are not unknown on this blog...and it is always a pleasure to read well considered contributions. Candid articulation of police shortcomings inevitably arouses hostile feedback and threats. Plod's first line of defence is to discredit each and every source of criticism. Worn as the strategy may be, you are likely to face branding as 'insane' or a 'police hater' and this irrational treatment precedes more subtle forms of character assassination.
Before the Web and as far back as my student days, the 'long arm of the law' would use back door methods to punish 'activists' whenever legitimate means failed. I remain above 'hating' plod for all the extrajudicial injuries they inflicted upon me over the decades. Because our views and thoughts on policing appear to be similar, if not identical, I think it is only fair to point out my personal experiences when voicing frank criticism of an unaccountable police 'service'.
Antisthenes (and Melv),
I find myself agreeing with Melv (I really must go and have a lie down) in that your response was indeed reasoned and eloquent. I also had to agree with some of what you wrote, but only some.
The Police service, rather than abhoring scrutiny and hiding how its organisation works, must be one of the most publicly scrutinised bodies in the country. Who investigates complaints against Parliamentarians? Parliament does. Who investigates complaints against solicitors? The Law society (more solicitors). Who investiagtes complaints against trade union members? The TUC (more union members). Who investigates copmplaints against the Police? In the first instance, it is that force's Complaints and Discipline department which, despite being in the same force, takes great delight in finding the officer guilty of some offence or other. If the complainant is not happy, another force will take over the investigation or the Independent Police Complaints Committee (names may have changed since my day) which, as the title denotes, is completely independent. There is also the unwritten rule that any Police officer who has a complaint made against him or her is automatically guilty unless he, or she, can prove their innocence - the refusal to allow any contact with other Police officers or facilities may make that attempt rather difficult.
You mention the Police being part of an establishment bureaucratially run monopoly which does not allow competition to test their quality and value of their service. A Police officer is an officer of the Crown, so is not, as Dim Dave and his cohorts stated, an employee. A Police force is not a supermarket, retailer, or car dealership where direct competition is allowed. Like the military, a Police offier's oath is to the Crown, the powers (and responsibilities) come from the Crown and it is up to the Crown to decide whether a Police force is a monopoly and whether another organisation could run alongside it in competition, though I would hesitate to suggest any organisation which could, or would, do so. You may be able to enlighten me on this?
I retired from the Police over 12 years ago after a little over 27 years on front line service. I never got everything right and suffered for my mistakes, as well as suffering quite a few assaults and beatings while doing my job, yet I still feel that I helped make my little corner of society a slightly better place, though there are always detractors who feel that the Police are not capable of doing their job properly.
One inciodent where I was disciplined was in arresting someone who had mugged an old lady. In making the arrest, he started struggling and fighting and we ended up rolling around in the road, with him biting, scratching, and trying to poke my eyes out while I did my best to use Home Office approved restraining holds - anything more would be seen as an abuse of authority. A local resident complained that the shouting and yelling by the yob I was arresting had woken up his young child and it was very difficult to get her back to sleep and I should be punished for it. I was! Perhaps a visit to the local constabulary by you or/and Melv would assist, where you could educate the current hierarchy of your views on where the Police are going wrong and how they could right those wrongs. While you're at it, suggest another 'bureaucratic organisation' which could do the same job, better and cheaper. Good luck with that.
Now, write what you want. I've made my point and won't respond, though Jaded might. I know Melv will :-(.
Penseivat
@Anonymous. You are obviously a well meaning person and truly believe what you have written. However if your logic and analytical skills in which you appear to lack both is typical of those who serve in our police force and I have every reason to believe it is then it is just another reason for it not being fit for purpose. That does not mean that policemen are not good people and do their best to serve the general public in most cases. It means that the service because of it's monopoly characteristics and the intellectual abilities of those it employs makes doing so impossible. Certainly a reasonable job is done but far from the level it could be under different circumstances; not a monopoly, higher entry qualifications into that profession and a more open less institutionalised culture.
"Well, a few years ago, I made a citizen arrest of a burglar and Mr Plod was very keen to arrest me along with the criminal."
Professionals hate amateurs...
" The defence for this behaviour is that there is not enough resources available for them to do their job properly. A totally spurious claim..."
Particularly when those resources magically appear when something of interest happens!
"To arrest the suspected - and I emphasise the word 'suspected' offender, because the arrest would have been made 'on suspicion of assault'. This would be to preserve evidence, preserve the scene, and allow the Police to seize any items which may be of evidential value."
And back when arrest held no consequences for your future life and career and holiday aspirations, that could just be tolerated. No longer.
" It points to a total disregard for public opinion which they often claim is their most important priority."
Public opinion is something the police only want if it coincides with their own viewpoint, it seems.
" A local resident complained that the shouting and yelling by the yob I was arresting had woken up his young child and it was very difficult to get her back to sleep and I should be punished for it. I was! "
That was every bit as nonsensical as this man's arrest. So maybe you can understand how he feels?
Post a Comment