Friday 2 February 2018

The Camera Never Lies...

PC Patterson, wearing his work uniform, did not speak at the hearing.
He did, in his statement of the arrest, admit punching the boy with a closed fist and applying pressure, multiple times, behind his right ear.
The defence claimed the boy was “extremely hard to control” which is why PC Patterson believed his actions were appropriate. The father was “not overly concerned” about his son’s behaviour despite calling 999, the panel was told.
This would normally be a cause celebre in the local newspaper, cries of 'police brutality!' from the usual suspects, but for an amazing modern twist:
However, the defence claimed the father “presented himself very differently” on the body-worn camera.
Well, well, well....
They say the teenager’s dad acts like “someone who is terrified” of the behaviour of his own child.
The use of the word 'child' there is willful obfuscation on the part of the reporter, I suspect. The image it conjures up will play no part in the reality facing the cops.
The hearing has been adjourned until April so the panel can hear evidence from PC Patterson’s two colleagues who were with him at the scene - one of which caught some of it on their body-worn camera.
The usual suspects might have cause to regret their demands for more cameras, once juries get a glimpse of what these 'children' are really like...


jack ketch said...

O/T but does anyone know what 'possession of criminal property' actually entails. I am fascinated.

"possessing cannabis with intent to supply on July 16, 2016, and possessing criminal property."

A bungalow with a rap sheet?

Sgt Albert Hall said...

Section 329(1) of the Proceeds of Crime 2002 Act, which reads:

“A person commits an offence if he—
(a) acquires criminal property;
(b) uses criminal property;
(c) has possession of criminal property.”

Section 329(1) creates three ways in which an offence can be committed, i.e. by acquiring, using or possessing criminal property. This section must be read in conjunction with section 340(3), which defines “criminal property”:

“Property is criminal property if—
(a) it constitutes a person's benefit from criminal conduct or it represents such a benefit (in whole or part and whether directly or indirectly), and
(b) the alleged offender knows or suspects that it constitutes or represents such a benefit.”

The act was designed to deal with money laundering but actually covers wider issues.

jack ketch said...

@Sgt AH, thanks for that. So it means that which most normal people would describe as 'ill gotten gains' and not as I had hoped residential property with a penchant for larceny?

JuliaM said...

"O/T but does anyone know what 'possession of criminal property' actually entails. "

Ask, and the answer shall be given to thee.. ;)

"The act was designed to deal with money laundering but actually covers wider issues."

And as Longrider points out, doesn't satisfy everone, and so new, more sweeping powers are enthusiastically granted:

I can't WAIT for this to backfire!