How is this behaviour ever justified?

[pachapapa]

That the hearing was in secret is indicative of an urge to cover up the event by the police service.

Not entirely correct.

Selected tit bits were widely circulated beyond the rainbow in SDLAND.[:-))]

[woolybanana]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]How do you know that, you were not there. You have made a ludicrous suggestion as to how they should have got the person out ie immobilise the vehicle and then force the door , but when it is pointed out that said person refused to open doors and locked himself in you come up with talk him out. Why should a discipline hearing be in public, there are no discipline hearing held in public for anyone in the UK The OAP was present at the hearing which lasted 3 days and he gave evidence so hardly a cover up[/quote]

Nor were you there! If you consider that the police should behave with such violence then I suggest that Libya might be to your taste, for that is the level to which these police have stooped and been whitewashed afterwards.

So, you justify gratuitous violence for traffic offences like failure to wear a seat belt, Boiling a Frog; Where does this stop? Failure to open the car door to a policeman means a door smashed? 

That the hearing was in private indicates a serious wish to manage the truth - and allowing the OAP to be present and be harrassed by more cops is hardly justice.

Of course the door could have been forced, no doubt the police know how to do that, but a resort to violence in the first instance shows a serious slippage in the attitude of the police to the public.

[woolybanana]

I fear that we shall never agree over this. You support macho, aggressive policing in all circumstances and I do not. You support secret courts and I do not.

[Christine Animal]

How could they know if he had locked the doors?  I've just watched it again and the first policeman flies straight at the car and starts smashing the window.

Agree with Wooly here, pretty awful.

What's a stinger?

 

[pachapapa]

Punctures tyres.

[Boiling a frog]

I suspect that wooly and animal live in some pink and fluffy universe where everyone meets at the rainbow bridge.

This is real life and I see that woooly has failed to acknowledge that this was NOT a secret hearing, despite what he says.

The hearing was held in the presence of the Old age pensioner and his solicitor. The OAP gave evidence .The solicitor questioned the witnesses.

The decision to hold a discipline enquiry in public or not is taken by the Independant Police Complains Commission NOT by the police.

[woolybanana]

B a F has failed to see that the principal of proportioned response was ignored. Remember that the police already knew they were dealing with an old man and not an inner city drug, smuggler, and that he was probably confused. Overreaction caused by a gung ho attitude and, as I said before, too many macho attitudes and movies.

It was a secret trial by any standards.

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]I suspect that wooly and animal live in some pink and fluffy universe where everyone meets at the rainbow bridge. This is real life and I see that woooly has failed to acknowledge that this was NOT a secret hearing, despite what he says. The hearing was held in the presence of the Old age pensioner and his solicitor. The OAP gave evidence .The solicitor questioned the witnesses. The decision to hold a discipline enquiry in public or not is taken by the Independant Police Complains Commission NOT by the police.[/quote]

I regret completely misunderstanding the purport of the thread but I had deluded myself in thinking that the hearing had taken place in a Magistrates Court.

I quote the final phrase of an earlier post to explain my numb stupidity..."Caerphilly Magistrates Court heard."

I would be most obliged if either you or perhaps NP could acquaint me with present day procedures for police disciplinary hearings in magistrates courts.

Cheers PPP...another OLD age pensioner.

[woolybanana]

Me too PPP, but I always forget it!

 

[Boiling a frog]

The Old age pensioner was tried and sentenced at the Magistrates court some time ago. That was why the video of the stop came into the public domaine.

The IPCC then supervised a discipline enquiry because of the actions of the officers

The other day they were dealt with via an internal disciplinary hearing at which

A spokesman for the force said: “Gwent Police follows strict national guidelines and procedures when dealing with complaints and any subsequent disciplinary hearings.

“In this case, the internal investigation was supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the disciplinary panel, in accordance with standard national guidelines, was made up of senior officers from another force area.

“The complainant had the right to attend proceedings and did so. Public hearings are held when the IPCC deems it appropriate and only in IPCC independent investigations and not supervised investigations.

“It must be remembered that the disciplinary panel came to their decision after hearing and viewing evidence relating to the entire incident and not just the isolated CCTV footage.

“The panel concluded that the actions of the officers were justified and met the highest standards of professional behaviour expected of Gwent Police officers.”

[NickP]

3P's wrote:

I would be most obliged if either you or perhaps NP could acquaint me with present day procedures for police disciplinary hearings in magistrates courts.

Sorry sausage; but as I'm a law abiding citizen of Her Majesty's sacred isles I have never been to court, . So I'm totally in the dark as to the magistrates court procedures. Do what you usually do; Google it. [:P]

[pachapapa]

Thanks for enlightening me with an eloquent and verbose description of a "kangaroo court".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/domain

[Boiling a frog]

You will have to take that up with the Government of Great Britain then, because it is them that set the rules ,not the Police.

It is not a kangaroo court by any stretch of the imagination

A kangaroo court is defined thus

A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

A kangaroo court's proceedings deny due process rights in the name of expediency. Such rights include the right to summon witnesses, the right of cross-examination, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right not to be tried on secret evidence, the right to control one's own defense, the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained, irrelevant or inherently inadmissible, e.g., hearsay, the right to exclude judges or jurors on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest, and the right of appeal.

None of the above apply to police misconduct hearings the process of which are set out in an act of parliament.

Further reading on the subject can be found by doing a google.

It is interesting to note that the outcome is based not on

beyond reasonable doubt

but on

the balance of probabilities

which is obviously a lesser degree of proof than in a criminal court.

[woolybanana]

The decision to proceed in private was that of the investigating police, no doubt prompted by the force being investigated. Old cops network!

[pachapapa]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]You will have to take that up with the Government of Great Britain then, because it is them that set the rules ,not the Police.[/quote]

Not my domain![:D][:D][:D]

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="woolybanana"]The decision to proceed in private was that of the investigating police, no doubt prompted by the force being investigated. Old cops network![/quote]

The decision to proceed in private was that of the investigating police, no doubt prompted by the force being investigated. Old cops network

Extracted from the regulations governing Police disciplinary investigations and enquiries

(5) Where a misconduct hearing arises from a case to which paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act (investigations by the Commission) applied and the Commission considers that because of the gravity of the case or other exceptional circumstances it would be in the public interest to do so, the Commission may, having consulted with—

(a)the appropriate authority;

(b)the officer concerned;

(c)the complainant or interested person; and

(d)any witnesses,

direct that the whole or part of the misconduct hearing be held in public.

As this was not a case investigated by the IPCC but only supervised by them then this regulation applies and the IPCC did not direct that the hearing be in public .