Have the police lost our trust?

[Ironops]

This is the exact type of response that spreads the wrong message and casts doubt and false understanding of reality. It is not the organisation that is bad it is the odd individual within it.

The organisation is bad though, over 1000 coppers currently being investigated by the Met alone, its been described as institutionally racist and misogynistic, its not just a few bad apples - Wayne Cousins and David Carrick didnt exist in a vacuum, people had suspicions but didnt raise them as they would themselves have been blacklisted or punished - thats the epitome of a bad organisation

 

[coluka]

The organisation is bad though, over 1000 coppers currently being investigated by the Met alone, its been described as institutionally racist and misogynistic, its not just a few bad apples - Wayne Cousins and David Carrick didnt exist in a vacuum, people had suspicions but didnt raise them as they would themselves have been blacklisted or punished - thats the epitome of a bad organisation

The met is different to the nationwide network of police. The question was not about the met, it was about the police generally. Nobody doubts the Met has serious problems, with its lower recruitment and vetting standards. I would be wary regarding the Met. I trust North Yorkshire Police.

 

[Andy_W]

People have a dig at the police because they should be held to a higher standard than a call centre or a building site, because of the authority that they have, the job that they do and the people that they come across from a position of authority. To say that other work places or sectors have the same problem kind of misses that point. If my daughter cannot trust a policeman because of what happened to Sarah Everard, or the 1000 other ongoing investigations into sexual harassments by the Police themselves, then how on earth are we to have law and order?

If a Police officer like David Carrick has had numerous complains of sexual misconduct against them, but they have not been suspended, then there is a very serious problem. Why should I trust them to look after my teenage daughter if something happened?

Met Police misconduct: 1000 sexual allegations to be investigated against officers

800 officers are being investigated, facing sexual and domestic abuse claims and other accusations of Met Police misconduct

www.openaccessgovernment.org

Yeah 100% get that, and their standards will be a lot higher, on the whole, I would assume. I would think an average person would probably trust a cop a lot more than anyone else, due to this, at least they're vetted and constantly around the law etc. This isn't a guarantee of any kind mind, nothing with humans is.

The problem is when a cop deals with things 1000x worse than me sat at my desk there's a 1000x more chance that they're going to be put in some really crap situations or get their heads scewed up. It's impossible for there to be no mistakes or bad apples, and a lot of people are just bad people, they're in every job.

Then you get people like Couzens etc, he shouldn't have even been in the police after what he did before that (flashed someone at MacDonald's two weeks and a few days before the murder), but it seems it was a woman cop who cocked that investigation up, and then lied about it.

Your daughter should probably not trust any bloke, when she is on her own and they are, especially non-police officers, but you're never ever going to stop people from doing really bad things, no matter what their job is unfortunately.

 

[Laughing]

It appears (from the statement) that she escalated it, by:
1: Not showing her ticket (which she had)
2: Trying to leg it
3: Being abusive to the police
then the video starts (doesn't show the former)
4: Resisting being held (before being cuffed)
then the video ends (doesn't show them letting her go after she showed them her ticket)

How were the cops meant to de-escalate that, after point 3, follow her around London all day whilst she went shopping, likely hurling further abuse?

It de-escalated when she showed her ticket (the original request), then the cops de-escalated it by letting her go.

Then you have some daft clown on the video claiming it's his sister, when he didn't even know the kid was hers, what's that crap all about, he only made things a lot worse.

You have just completely demonstrated your lack of understanding of police procedures with that nonsense. You are suggesting that the police can bandon conflict management because she was difficult. They cannot. Let's look at your points one by one.

1. She didn;t show her ticket - so what, talk to her, find out why she is reluctant. If she still doesn't show, issue a penalty fine, no harm no foul and no crying child.
2. Trying to legit - What utter nonsense, she had a small boy with her, and until she is detained she is free to walk away, she doesn't need to leg it
3. being abusive to police - Again so what, criticism of the police is protected in british law. If they can't take a bit of name calling they should quit and get a job more suitabnle to their sensitive natures.
4. Resisting being held. Why did they go hands on? It was uneccessary when there were other options. She was suspected of fare evasion, not assulat, murder or indeed any crime that put the public at risk.

They let her go, oh well good for them, she hadn't committed a crime. Let that sink in, she had not committed a crime, and you support their heavy handed approach. You are wrong, there isn't even a discussion to be had.

It was unproffessional and the police officers involved allowed the situation to escalate when it is their job to de-escalate it. They had the tools and choose not to use them. They were a disgrace and poorly trained, or just bullies. I don't know which.

It completely stuns me that anybody can watch an innocent woman be man-handled by police officers and somehow find it acceptable.

 

[Cambsred]

Its such a complex, nuanced thing.

You could replace the headline with;

Has the NHS lost our trust
Have schools lost our trust.

I'm sure you can find headlines to fill the narrative. And cases of awful behaviour in all institutions.

I think the police are ultimately starting on a back foot with society. The people they deal with daily are out to get them and catch them out. People are taught "dont grass" from the earliest years of their life. Social media and short snippet videos help nobody as the gaps are filled by bias rather than reason. As soon as I see a short video my bias is to support the officers- I have to check myself that, actually I don't have the blanks and that is wrong. Equally others with other experiences fill the blanks with their bias/ experience.

I certainly know I couldnt work under constant stress, fear and barrage from a populace that most of us never even know exist due to the bubbles we live in. They should be held to account, as we all should in public life.

 

[Andy_W]

You have just completely demonstrated your lack of understanding of police procedures with that nonsense. You are suggesting that the police can bandon conflict management because she was difficult. They cannot. Let's look at your points one by one.

1. She didn;t show her ticket - so what, talk to her, find out why she is reluctant. If she still doesn't show, issue a penalty fine, no harm no foul and no crying child.
2. Trying to legit - What utter nonsense, she had a small boy with her, and until she is detained she is free to walk away, she doesn't need to leg it
3. being abusive to police - Again so what, criticism of the police is protected in british law. If they can't take a bit of name calling they should quit and get a job more suitabnle to their sensitive natures.
4. Resisting being held. Why did they go hands on? It was uneccessary when there were other options. She was suspected of fare evasion, not assulat, murder or indeed any crime that put the public at risk.

They let her go, oh well good for them, she hadn't committed a crime. Let that sink in, she had not committed a crime, and you support their heavy handed approach. You are wrong, there isn't even a discussion to be had.

It was unproffessional and the police officers involved allowed the situation to escalate when it is their job to de-escalate it. They had the tools and choose not to use them. They were a disgrace and poorly trained, or just bullies. I don't know which.

It completely stuns me that anybody can watch an innocent woman be man-handled by police officers and somehow find it acceptable.

Sorry for not being a policeman, but you're not either, and you were not there in the lead-up, and neither was I, so I can only go of the statement, as can you.

1 - What do you mean, so what? The rules of travel require her to do it, if she doesn't like it, don't travel. The ticket inspector asked which is his right, and job (she refused), the police asked her to stay or show a ticket which is their right (she refused, which is her right albeit will likely lead to the police using additonal rights, as they suspected a crime) then she just kept walking off and then got abusive. She didn't have to walk away or get abusive/ be anti-social, she chose to do that.
How can you issue a fine if she doesn't stop and is hurling abuse at you? Fare evasion is a criminal offence.
Acting like she did in front of a child and the public is pathetic, and anti-social.
2 - She's not free to walk away when she's suspected of committing a crime or acting anti-socially, which she was, as she didn't show a ticket and then got abusive (to the police). They gave her a chance to stop and likely show a ticket, she didn't want to do that and she didn't have to get abusive.
3 - Criticism and abuse are totally different things, as is being anti-social. I can't believe you're actually pro calling the police names, never mind thinking that won't esclate a situation when someone is suspected of doing something wrong.
4 - They went hands on (in a very lmited way) as she walked off, suspected of fare evasion and was being abusive/ anti-social, were they meant to follow her around London whilst she did this?

Yeah they let her go when she showed her ticket (first time she proved non fare evasion), which she could have originally done on the bus like anyone else would, or when the cops first asked like anyone else would, without being abusive or anti-social like anyone else would. Seems like they let her off with the anti social bit too, and then as she is then no longer suspected of fare evasion (which she chose not to demostrate earlier) she is of course free to go about her business.

Fare dodgers aren't innocent, she was suspected as such and had many opportunitues to prove otherwise without the abuse/ being anti-social.

 

[dribble]

Sorry for not being a policeman, but you're not either, and you were not there in the lead-up, and neither was I, so I can only go of the statement, as can you.

1 - What do you mean, so what? The rules of travel require her to do it, if she doesn't like it, don't travel. The ticket inspector asked which is his right, and job (she refused), the police asked her to stay or show a ticket which is their right (she refused, which is her right albeit will likely lead to the police using additonal rights, as they suspected a crime) then she just kept walking off and then got abusive. She didn't have to walk away or get abusive/ be anti-social, she chose to do that.
How can you issue a fine if she doesn't stop and is hurling abuse at you? Fare evasion is a criminal offence.
Acting like she did in front of a child and the public is pathetic, and anti-social.
2 - She's not free to walk away when she's suspected of committing a crime or acting anti-socially, which she was, as she didn't show a ticket and then got abusive (to the police). They gave her a chance to stop and likely show a ticket, she didn't want to do that and she didn't have to get abusive.
3 - Criticism and abuse are totally different things, as is being anti-social. I can't believe you're actually pro calling the police names, never mind thinking that won't esclate a situation when someone is suspected of doing something wrong.
4 - They went hands on (in a very lmited way) as she walked off, suspected of fare evasion and was being abusive/ anti-social, were they meant to follow her around London whilst she did this?

Yeah they let her go when she showed her ticket (first time she proved non fare evasion), which she could have originally done on the bus like anyone else would, or when the cops first asked like anyone else would, without being abusive or anti-social like anyone else would. Seems like they let her off with the anti social bit too, and then as she is then no longer suspected of fare evasion (which she chose not to demostrate earlier) she is of course free to go about her business.

Fare dodgers aren't innocent, she was suspected as such and had many opportunitues to prove otherwise without the abuse/ being anti-social.

Did the inspector ask to see every ticket? may be they didn’t and therefore she felt she was being singled out.

 

[Andy_W]

Did the inspector ask to see every ticket? may be they didn’t and therefore she felt she was being singled out.

No idea, wouldn't want to speculate and there were no statements about that. They have a right to ask whoever they want to mind, and if she feels like she's been specifically targeted she can show her ticket and raise a complaint against the specific ticket inspector (who would have had a badge no/ TFL logo etc).

I doubt a ticket inspector singles anyone out, especially in London, they wouldn't last 5 minutes doing that (rightly so).

Isn't the normal scenario that the inspectors move from bus to bus, and inspect everyone they come to in the order they come to them? I've not been on a London bus in years, but I don't think anyone shows the ticket to the driver when get on, they just tap their oyster card/ bank card at any one of the terminal things, near each entrance.

 

[Laughing]

Sorry for not being a policeman, but you're not either, and you were not there in the lead-up, and neither was I, so I can only go of the statement, as can you.

1 - What do you mean, so what? The rules of travel require her to do it, if she doesn't like it, don't travel. The ticket inspector asked which is his right, and job (she refused), the police asked her to stay or show a ticket which is their right (she refused, which is her right albeit will likely lead to the police using additonal rights, as they suspected a crime) then she just kept walking off and then got abusive. She didn't have to walk away or get abusive/ be anti-social, she chose to do that.
How can you issue a fine if she doesn't stop and is hurling abuse at you? Fare evasion is a criminal offence.
Acting like she did in front of a child and the public is pathetic, and anti-social.
2 - She's not free to walk away when she's suspected of committing a crime or acting anti-socially, which she was, as she didn't show a ticket and then got abusive (to the police). They gave her a chance to stop and likely show a ticket, she didn't want to do that and she didn't have to get abusive.
3 - Criticism and abuse are totally different things, as is being anti-social. I can't believe you're actually pro calling the police names, never mind thinking that won't esclate a situation when someone is suspected of doing something wrong.
4 - They went hands on (in a very lmited way) as she walked off, suspected of fare evasion and was being abusive/ anti-social, were they meant to follow her around London whilst she did this?

Yeah they let her go when she showed her ticket (first time she proved non fare evasion), which she could have originally done on the bus like anyone else would, or when the cops first asked like anyone else would, without being abusive or anti-social like anyone else would. Seems like they let her off with the anti social bit too, and then as she is then no longer suspected of fare evasion (which she chose not to demostrate earlier) she is of course free to go about her business.

Fare dodgers aren't innocent, she was suspected as such and had many opportunitues to prove otherwise without the abuse/ being anti-social.

What a load of old codswallop. It's all supposition on your part based on a police statement. It also doesn't matter what happened prior to the video starting. You are essentially saying she deserved what she got for..... Wait for it.... Not showing a ticket. **** a duck you are insane if you think that is appropriate.

She had not committed a crime. A penalty fair could have been issued which she could have later contested. The obvious solution that required no assault of any kind

There was no attempt at deescalation and the fact that a penalty fair wasnt used by the police along with no deescalation strategies mean the police were wrong

You can make whatever arguments you want Andy and I am sure you will. It doesn't matter you are wrong and so we're the police officers.

The woman doesn't have to be reasonable, she doesn't have to cooperate. The police have to follow procedure. They didn't. They manhandled her because they thought they could.

 

[Andy_W]

What a load of old codswallop. It's all supposition on your part based on a police statement. It also doesn't matter what happened prior to the video starting. You are essentially saying she deserved what she got for..... Wait for it.... Not showing a ticket. **** a duck you are insane if you think that is appropriate.

She had not committed a crime. A penalty fair could have been issued which she could have later contested. The obvious solution that required no assault of any kind

There was no attempt at deescalation and the fact that a penalty fair wasnt used by the police along with no deescalation strategies mean the police were wrong

You can make whatever arguments you want Andy and I am sure you will. It doesn't matter you are wrong and so we're the police officers.

The woman doesn't have to be reasonable, she doesn't have to cooperate. The police have to follow procedure. They didn't. They manhandled her because they thought they could.

An official police statement isn't codswallop, not in my opinion anyway.

I expect the police statement (based on maybe 5 different individual reports) to be factual, especially as there were loads of witnesses, and expect that to be corroborated by the ticket inspector and PSCO. There will be bodycam and CCTV footage of it all. If this changes, I will probably change my mind.

I'm more inclined to believe the police than some random guy claiming it's his sister, who is apparently unaware who his sister's kid is, and rather than look after his nephew/ nice he's more interested in elevating an already elevated scene for "likes". He's probably the least trustworthy person there, so probably cut the video to help his "story". This is what you're basing your argument on.

Ticket evasion is a crime, and she seemingly did her best to ensure that it looked like that's what she was doing, and not doing the normal thing of......showing your ticket. Not sure why you would chose to defend this?

How would you suggest they issue a penalty fare if she walks off, hurling abuse and won't stop?

Of course it matters what happened before the video started, are you having a laugh?

They did de-escalate, after she saw the light and eventually shows her proof of payment (the first request) and they let her go, great. How she got in the original position seems largely her own fault, based on the statements (not just the video).

Sure, she doesn't have to be reasonable, the same way she doesn't have to hide that she had paid, walk off, hurl abuse and be anti-social. If she's not reasonable and the police have reason to suspect a crime then the police have every right to move up the levels of what is required. If she decides to be aggressive/abusive or anti-social in a public place, then she's only going to make things a lot worse. She escalated, so the cops did.

Assuming the statement is factual, which I expect it is, she deserved what she got for not showing a ticket, to an inspector, a cop, then trying to evade, then hurling abuse, and then resisting. She had a ticket, so why not just show it?

 

[Mayor Goldie Wilson]

The Police live their entire lives in a bubble which is constantly in the glare of the public eye. How many other professions are there where your conduct off duty is just as scrutinised as it while you are work?

I’m not defending the police by any stretch cos there are massive issues from top to bottom up and down the country, but they are in an absolutely no win situation. The lack of respect towards them is at an all time low, to the point where criminals commit crime completely out in the open as there is little deterrent as police numbers have been chronically neglected by the last 13 years of Tory government. Even if they do get convincte the courts are a farce so criminals are quite simply happy to carry on.

The police absolutely don’t do themselves any favours slot of the time but to brand them all racist, corrupt, bent, whichever adjective you chose today is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Society and the way it has gone has played a massive part in what we see today and it has gone so far beyond retrievable that there is probably no way to get it back.

 

[dribble]

Maybe she didn’t like the attitude of the inspector, maybe they were rude to her and therefore she felt aggrieved .
Unfortunately the police don’t always start with an unbiased view, they have been called by a company or whatever and immediately take the word of who ever called them without ascertaining both sides of the dispute.

 

[John67]

Not racist but heavy handed Police response it looks like to me, which seems par for the course these days. Have seen several in the last few years, each time clearly inappropriate. One instance of three male officers arresting a 75 year old half dressed lady with COPD, using cuffs and keeping her in custody on the basis of the officers claiming she was trying to bite them. Policing certainly needs to change in this country but until the mentality changes, nothing Will.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

The Police live their entire lives in a bubble which is constantly in the glare of the public eye. How many other professions are there where your conduct off duty is just as scrutinised as it while you are work?

I’m not defending the police by any stretch cos there are massive issues from top to bottom up and down the country, but they are in an absolutely no win situation. The lack of respect towards them is at an all time low, to the point where criminals commit crime completely out in the open as there is little deterrent as police numbers have been chronically neglected by the last 13 years of Tory government. Even if they do get convincte the courts are a farce so criminals are quite simply happy to carry on.

The police absolutely don’t do themselves any favours slot of the time but to brand them all racist, corrupt, bent, whichever adjective you chose today is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Society and the way it has gone has played a massive part in what we see today and it has gone so far beyond retrievable that there is probably no way to get it back.

Great Post.

The old adage "the police are the public and the public are the police" is very true, being a reflection of society.

Policing relies on consent in this country and always has, but society seems to be generally more intolerant and divisive these days.

The problems run deeper than the police, that's just a symptom of where we are as a nation.

 

[festa5]

The Police live their entire lives in a bubble which is constantly in the glare of the public eye. How many other professions are there where your conduct off duty is just as scrutinised as it while you are work?

I’m not defending the police by any stretch cos there are massive issues from top to bottom up and down the country, but they are in an absolutely no win situation. The lack of respect towards them is at an all time low, to the point where criminals commit crime completely out in the open as there is little deterrent as police numbers have been chronically neglected by the last 13 years of Tory government. Even if they do get convincte the courts are a farce so criminals are quite simply happy to carry on.

The police absolutely don’t do themselves any favours slot of the time but to brand them all racist, corrupt, bent, whichever adjective you chose today is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Society and the way it has gone has played a massive part in what we see today and it has gone so far beyond retrievable that there is probably no way to get it back.

Aye it's a vicious circle that is affecting all the public sector.

A lot of the time they won't even have the time to do the job properly.

You spend your shift knackered jumping from job to job with little respite. You deal with a range of people from the absolute worst in society to decent, honest people genuinely in need of help.

You need to be assertive and decisive in some situations and sometimes you need to take your time, listen and fully understand everything before taking action.

They are under incredible amounts of stress, all the time.

Any wonder they make mistakes in the circumstances?

That doesn't excuse some of their actions, of course it doesn't. Those who are essentially criminals themselves need weeding out and sacking (or locking up). Same for the racists and misogynists etc.

But there'll be loads who are come across as arsey who are probably deep down decent people but stressed to hell.

It's a crap job. This government have made it worse (along with pretty much everything else we rely on to underpin our society).

As institutions they need to sort out their culture and focus a lot more on welfare for example. That would be easier to do if they weren't cut to the bone.

 

[Andy_W]

Maybe she didn’t like the attitude of the inspector, maybe they were rude to her and therefore she felt aggrieved .
Unfortunately the police don’t always start with an unbiased view, they have been called by a company or whatever and immediately take the word of who ever called them without ascertaining both sides of the dispute.

Those are all assumptions though, maybe he was polite and she was just being a d*ck, might have even abused him as well who knows, it can be both ways, but it's wrong to assume either way until the details are known. I bet the TFL employees take a hell of a lot more **** than they dish out, and they could get sacked from a 40k a year job, if acting out of line.

Either way though, it's largely irrelevant, even if the inspector was being a d*ck then she could have taken the high ground, still shown her ticket and not evaded and even if she didn't want to do that, then she could have done the same to the police and made a complaint about the TFL employee. Seems she didn't want to do that either.

The police might not start with an unbiased view, who knows, maybe they did? Any bias would have been irrelevant anyway if she had just shown her ticket when originally asked.

The company probably did call the police, as she decided she wanted to act like a fair dodger, for whatever reason. The probably have a policy to report all instances to the police, as they probably get this a lot, or similar.

 

[Mayor Goldie Wilson]

Aye it's a vicious circle that is affecting all the public sector.

A lot of the time they won't even have the time to do the job properly.

You spend your shift knackered jumping from job to job with little respite. You deal with a range of people from the absolute worst in society to decent, honest people genuinely in need of help.

You need to be assertive and decisive in some situations and sometimes you need to take your time, listen and fully understand everything before taking action.

They are under incredible amounts of stress, all the time.

Any wonder they make mistakes in the circumstances?

That doesn't excuse some of their actions, of course it doesn't. Those who are essentially criminals themselves need weeding out and sacking (or locking up). Same for the racists and misogynists etc.

But there'll be loads who are come across as arsey who are probably deep down decent people but stressed to hell.

It's a crap job. This government have made it worse (along with pretty much everything else we rely on to underpin our society).

As institutions they need to sort out their culture and focus a lot more on welfare for example. That would be easier to do if they weren't cut to the bone.

I can only speak for the issues at Cleveland Police, but the main problem here is the structure of the force. It is so broken that it will take generations to fix. There are more people hiding away in back office roles, on band A pay, than public facing roles. These are the people who asses the jobs from the public and decide there are no viable lines of enquiry and close it down at source without an officer even going out to see the victim. How is this giving the public a reliable service? How is this a good use of tax payers money? And this in turn erodes confidence in the police, which leads to people either taking the law into their own hands or deciding they are not likely to get caught, so they spent their nights nicking cars or breaking into peoples houses.

 

[dribble]

Those are all assumptions though, maybe he was polite and she was just being a d*ck, might have even abused him as well who knows, it can be both ways, but it's wrong to assume either way until the details are known. I bet the TFL employees take a hell of a lot more **** than they dish out, and they could get sacked from a 40k a year job, if acting out of line.

Either way though, it's largely irrelevant, even if the inspector was being a d*ck then she could have taken the high ground, still shown her ticket and not evaded and even if she didn't want to do that, then she could have done the same to the police and made a complaint about the TFL employee. Seems she didn't want to do that either.

The police might not start with an unbiased view, who knows, maybe they did? Any bias would have been irrelevant anyway if she had just shown her ticket when originally asked.

The company probably did call the police, as she decided she wanted to act like a fair dodger, for whatever reason. The probably have a policy to report all instances to the police, as they probably get this a lot, or similar.

So it’s her fault for not allowing herself to be treat like dirt and not bowing down to to somebody who may or may not have been showing her any sort of respect.
You keep saying should could have reported it later, who is she going to report it to ,if she thinks she’s been harshly treated. Would they act on her complaints? probably not ,would the inspector be sanctioned almost certainly not .
She had a ticket and chose not to show it for reasons only she knows but obviously she was upset enough not to want to interact with the inspector,who then escalated it by contacting the police who ,will almost certainly have made up there minds on route ,that she was a fare dodger based solely on the information given to them by the inspector. Did the police approach her in a friendly manner or go straight in heavy handed and intimidating? She may have had previous interactions with the police which tainted her views of them so did not want to co-operate with them .

 

[Laughing]

An official police statement isn't codswallop, not in my opinion anyway.

I expect the police statement (based on maybe 5 different individual reports) to be factual, especially as there were loads of witnesses, and expect that to be corroborated by the ticket inspector and PSCO. There will be bodycam and CCTV footage of it all. If this changes, I will probably change my mind.

I'm more inclined to believe the police than some random guy claiming it's his sister, who is apparently unaware who his sister's kid is, and rather than look after his nephew/ nice he's more interested in elevating an already elevated scene for "likes". He's probably the least trustworthy person there, so probably cut the video to help his "story". This is what you're basing your argument on.

Ticket evasion is a crime, and she seemingly did her best to ensure that it looked like that's what she was doing, and not doing the normal thing of......showing your ticket. Not sure why you would chose to defend this?

How would you suggest they issue a penalty fare if she walks off, hurling abuse and won't stop?

Of course it matters what happened before the video started, are you having a laugh?

They did de-escalate, after she saw the light and eventually shows her proof of payment (the first request) and they let her go, great. How she got in the original position seems largely her own fault, based on the statements (not just the video).

Sure, she doesn't have to be reasonable, the same way she doesn't have to hide that she had paid, walk off, hurl abuse and be anti-social. If she's not reasonable and the police have reason to suspect a crime then the police have every right to move up the levels of what is required. If she decides to be aggressive/abusive or anti-social in a public place, then she's only going to make things a lot worse. She escalated, so the cops did.

Assuming the statement is factual, which I expect it is, she deserved what she got for not showing a ticket, to an inspector, a cop, then trying to evade, then hurling abuse, and then resisting. She had a ticket, so why not just show it?

I'll try this once more. It doesn't matter what happened before the video start because the woman is under no obligation to behave in any way at all. That is a fact. The police however, do have an obligation. That obligation is to treat people according to their training. They did not and I know they did not because its all over the video.The woman has no obligation and no training in de-escalation techniques, the police do. Your attitude seems to be she got what she deserved. What price justice eh? Any price according to you, so long as you are not paying the price though, obviously.

She, according to the police officers information, may have commited the heinous crime of fare evasion. They decided to assault her rather than issue a penalty fare, jeeze they could have gone with a verbal warning.


It is neither wonder police think they can act in this way when uninformed fools like you defend that behaviour. It was entirely uneccesary. They had options they choose to either ignore completely or abandon. That is not how they are trained.

No reasonable attempt at commiunication and none whatsoever to listen to what the woman was saying. They are a disgrace to the uniform and the reason why conflicts escalate and people get hurt.

You can choose to believe what you want, of course. It doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. According to the metropolitans guidelines on de-escalation training issued in 2020. Updated because the previous guidelines and training weren't working. It seems they still are not cutting through. I am not telling you the police officers were wrong, their training manual is.

De-escalation tactics are used by officers when safe and feasible to do so. The woman was no danger to the officers nor to the public. The offence was incredibly minor. A classic case of where de-escalation tactics would have avoided what we see in the video. No attempt was made by the police officers to ascetain why she refused to show the ticket she had. They, and you, it seems, jump straight to the conclusion that she was being awkward or obstructive. And let me say this again, it's pertinent to your comments, and the thread subject generally. She was a black woman with a young child being manhandled by white police officers. You don't have to be a genius to draw conclusions from that as to why the situation may have caused her some stress. Of course we don't know, because the officerrs didn't bother to try and find out. Poor behaviour from the worst trained outfit in the worst trained police force in the country.

One final thought on this. I cannot begin to tell you the scorn I have for anyone who thinks what we saw on that video for a summary only offence is in any way acceptable for a UK police force. Behaviour like that, if accepted leads to further pushing of the boundries of what is an acceptable weilding of police powers.

 

[redblood]

Aye it's a vicious circle that is affecting all the public sector.

A lot of the time they won't even have the time to do the job properly.

You spend your shift knackered jumping from job to job with little respite. You deal with a range of people from the absolute worst in society to decent, honest people genuinely in need of help.

You need to be assertive and decisive in some situations and sometimes you need to take your time, listen and fully understand everything before taking action.

They are under incredible amounts of stress, all the time.

Any wonder they make mistakes in the circumstances?

That doesn't excuse some of their actions, of course it doesn't. Those who are essentially criminals themselves need weeding out and sacking (or locking up). Same for the racists and misogynists etc.

But there'll be loads who are come across as arsey who are probably deep down decent people but stressed to hell.

It's a crap job. This government have made it worse (along with pretty much everything else we rely on to underpin our society).

As institutions they need to sort out their culture and focus a lot more on welfare for example. That would be easier to do if they weren't cut to the bone.

I understand you thoughts and takes on it being a difficult job and that mistakes will be made.
The worrying thing for me though is that there are usually more than one officer on scene at the time and it is they that
have the opportunity to de-escalate the situation but as often is the case, they don't. Why would that be.?

Are they afraid of the consequences of embarrassing/ belittling maybe a higher ranked officer, could it also mean that their days of being
a police officer is as good as over if they did ?
To weed out the "bad apples" one needs to have "good apples" to replace them. I wonder how many of the "good apples" are willing to
take such a risk. Are the "good apples "being trained by the "bad apples" which in essence only adds to the "bad apple "basket if they do.?

In your experience, what percentage of officers have reported other officers for corrupt/ inappropriate behaviour and is it worth the hassle?
Have or did you ever report another officer and was it treated and dealt with appropriately?