Perhaps We Should Ask Who The Neighbours Were...
The family have now been awarded 'substantial damages' after West Mercia Police admitted officers assaulted the family unlawfully and falsely imprisoned Ghislaine and Ralph.
Chief Superintendent Charles Hill said: 'I can confirm that West Mercia Police has agreed a legal settlement in relation to an incident arising from a neighbour dispute in Coreley, Shropshire in July 2014.
'We have settled the claim on the basis of technical legal advice and we do not accept all elements of the claimants' case.
'Three officers involved in the case were subject to a Misconduct Meeting where it was found there was no case to answer, although the force has taken some learning from this incident.'
...and what
their relationship with
the three armed West Mercia officers was..?
Is it any wonder, when there are cases like this, that more ordinary people in my experience are starting to refer to British police as 'filth'?
ReplyDeleteNeighbour rows can go badly sideways very fast (like a pitch battle in the street with billhooks and chainsaws as happened here recently). I assume the police sent armed officers around because they were aware that there were firearms on the premises (either from whatever 'register' there is these days and/or more likely because the 'gif u a pastin' neighbours when questioned about the original complaint tit-for-tatted a 'they have threaten to shoot us').
ReplyDeleteSoon as you add firearms into the mix, whether legally held by people with persil records or not, does any sane person think the police should have sent round WPC Truelove first to gently question the couple over a cup of tea and a digestive? Seriously?
If the police know that are guns in the house then they have to go in 'hard,fast and aggressive', if you own a shotgun you have to accept that fact. Personally I would prefer the police 'unlawfully seized' a gun and then sorted it out later than take the risk that the little old lady with the bladder problem had been nipping on the Kool Aid all morning and was off her meds.
That said, it sounds like this time they used far more violence than necessary and the disciplinary hearing was a white wash.
I've searched the internet, but nowhere are the three officers named.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. Bonkers Bangham and his Brigade of Bullies. Thesee bandits really lose control when you exceed the speed limit by 1mph. "Shalla bash im now, Sarge?"
ReplyDeleteYou do need to read between the lines on this one.
ReplyDeleteThe man was restrained. The wife went to help him. The son went to help his mother. In other words they got stuck in and arrested themselves.
Police comment is that prosecution didn't take place due to a 'legal technicality.' What this means, and what the police should have been more open about, is that it was debatable as to whether the police officers were legally on the premises. If they were not then all the actions they took were unlawful. They have chosen, on legal advice, to pay up rather than let a court decide and face massive legal bills and damages if they lose.
Some of the comments on here show a gullibility of enormous proportions. When will people realise our media never report anything in an unbiased manner; especially when the police are concerned.
Lex Ferenda
Weren't there were you, lex? What's that...you thought a dollop of old police bias would help?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise best regards, melus.
My thoughts:
ReplyDeleteIt seems that three officers attended the address. That is not an armed raid, it's more likely that a neighbourhood officer was tasked to seize the weapon following the neighbour dispute. We don't know what the other neighbour said to cause this course of action to be taken and please don't go on about how the other neighbour should be prosecuted for perjury etc. An ARV would attend because they would do any make safe procedures etc. Why seize the weapon? Well as Julia chronicled there was the case recently in Surrey where someone was give his shotgun back and killed two women. I could probably find cases where police have been criticised for seizing weapons and not siezing weapons. Take your pick folks.
As Jack Ketch said neighbour disputes can go pear shaped fairly quickly and police just love dealing with them. Also why do boundary disputes nearly always seem to involve elderly, middle class people in rural areas? Going in 'hard, fast and aggressive' is not a preferred option. There are many ways to skin a cat and low key is usually effective.
As Lex said prosecution did not take place due to a 'legal technicality'. Unless it was a spontaneous incident a warrant can be obtained fairly quickly, and it may be the case that a warrant was not obtained. I don't know and it's merely a guess on my part.
Finally, when suing the police it may well be that the police legal advisors may well decide that unless there is a very good chance of success to pay the other party off with no admission of liabilty. It saves money and in many cases the lawyers for the other side may well say something on the lines of 'they've offered us money to settle, I suggest you take it as if it goes to trial we may lose and be liable to costs'.
Retired
low key is usually effective
ReplyDeleteYes until the day its not. BTW that 'hard, fast' was an almost direct quote from the Inspector of our then nick -before it was rationalised away for all our convenience. However, upon further reflection, he didn't say 'aggressive' but rather 'intimidating'.
And I maintain if you own a gun then you relinquish the right to be treated in the first instance with the usual politeness.
Crippled Son wheels himself off to shoot AKs and Glocks in the country-formerly-known-as-basketcase , back in the yUK he has some extremely realistic 'replica' pistols of such 'authenticity' they cost almost as much as 'real' ones (I have a feeling he said he has to register them with Police even, although I may have misunderstood him).
He lives in Handicapped Accommodation, which means anyone walking past his flat with his large glass veranda doors, to get to the communal garden can see inside and might, on any given day , see him practising his weapon handling. Some day, some time someone is going to see him attempting to break his own fast draw record, and will panic...quite understandably because I defy anyone to tell his replicas apart from real guns. The panicked passerby will, quite rightly, phone the police.
When that day comes I expect the Police not to fuck around with niceties nor be overly worried about legalities in the first instance. Get in, point a real gun at him until they are sure he doesn't have a real gun in his shoulder rig, then secure the replicas . And he expects the same. You own a gun, even a realistic replica, that's the price you pay.
I haven't seen any mention of cameras. There should be cameras on the police, their hats and their guns. Either side would be reluctant to kick off if they knew it was being recorde, the old guy would lose his guns or the police would be disciplined. Can someone who knows please enlighten me why there doesn't seem to be a complete record of the event from many different angles?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but if you own a gun you should be prepared to attend a police station if the police ask you to (minus the gun obviously). If you own a car, you can be required to go to a police station, why would this be different.
"And I maintain if you own a gun then you relinquish the right to be treated in the first instance with the usual politeness."
ReplyDeleteAbsolute rot. The same argument would apply to carving knives, any number of tools, martial arts expertise and bing extremely large and strong.
The same argument would apply
ReplyDeleteIt does to a varying degree . Walk down the street with a carving knife in your hand and the first police car to pass you will not wind their window down and enquire meekly, politely, after your health and the weather. They may even raise their voice and rudely use the imperative.
@MC I shouldn't have replied before my first coffee. Upon re-reading yours I see I managed to misunderstand what you were saying. Please ignore my previous comment.
ReplyDelete"....they've only given us a mealy mouthed apology about the 'the quality of service' we received."
ReplyDeletelol
"... that more ordinary people in my experience are starting to refer to British police as 'filth'?"
ReplyDeleteOnce a sign that you were talking to someone from a bad area. Now, it could be your local milkman or vicar.
"Soon as you add firearms into the mix, whether legally held by people with persil records or not, does any sane person think the police should have sent round WPC Truelove first to gently question the couple over a cup of tea and a digestive? Seriously?"
Once upon a time, that would have happened. I can't help thinking things aren't necessarily better because those times are gone.
"I've searched the internet, but nowhere are the three officers named."
Armed officers often aren't. No matter what they do.
" What this means, and what the police should have been more open about, is that it was debatable as to whether the police officers were legally on the premises. If they were not then all the actions they took were unlawful. "
Isn't it their job to know the law, then? And to act within it? I find that possibility even more frightening than the though we are hiring thugs.
"As Jack Ketch said neighbour disputes can go pear shaped fairly quickly and police just love dealing with them"
Is it something they hide when you enquire about the job?
"And I maintain if you own a gun then you relinquish the right to be treated in the first instance with the usual politeness."
ReplyDeleteWhy? It's just a tool, as MC points out.
"I haven't seen any mention of cameras. There should be cameras on the police, their hats and their guns."
They are supposedly the answer to a lot of these things. I wonder why, if they were used, the police didn't seek to defend themselves with the footage...