Newport woman bites police officer while resisting strip search

A NEWPORT woman who bit a police officer on the knee while resisting being strip searched was jailed for 13 weeks at Newport Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mother-of-five Karen Bussey, 32, of Bassaleg Road, committed the assault on Boxing Day in Newport central police station.

When she was subsequently restrained and searched, officers found seven blue diazepam tablets on her person, also known as Valium.

Ruth Hale, prosecuting, said: “She was told she was going to be searched.

“She was escorted to the custody unit.

“It was explained she was to be strip searched. She refused to cooperate.”

When the drugs were eventually found, Bussey said she had bought them from a friend at a price of 30 for £10.

Craig Bond, defending, said his client reacted badly to being restrained as officers were gripping her wrists in a similar way to that used on her in the past, and that she had told officers this.

He said she had effectively been institutionalised for most of her life having been in care as a child and since then serving numerous prison sentences as well as living in supervised housing.

He said she moved systematically from place to place in England and Wales while in care and rarely stayed in the same place for long.

“Since March, this is the longest period of time she has had her liberty.”

He said Ms Bussey, a previous heroin addict, had now been clean for 12 to 13 months.

District Judge David Parsons said: “The offence is so serious that custody is the appropriate sentence.”

Bussey pleaded guilty to both offences but was given no separate penalty for the possession of diazepam.

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:35pm Mon 30 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me. GardenVarietyMushroom

2:37pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Jack Land says...

I just hope her kids were taken from her as soon as they were born and put in a proper family environment where they can grow up safely, rather than merely being five new entrants into the care system.
I just hope her kids were taken from her as soon as they were born and put in a proper family environment where they can grow up safely, rather than merely being five new entrants into the care system. Jack Land

4:23pm Mon 30 Dec 13

TK355 says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person. TK355

4:50pm Mon 30 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

TK355 wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.
[quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.[/p][/quote]Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems. GardenVarietyMushroom

10:32pm Mon 30 Dec 13

TK355 says...

Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol TK355

8:39am Tue 31 Dec 13

Dai Rear says...

Jack Land wrote:
I just hope her kids were taken from her as soon as they were born and put in a proper family environment where they can grow up safely, rather than merely being five new entrants into the care system.
Yes. The problem is that any male which would go near this kind of female is not going to be contributing any great genes to her failed ones. One cannot but feel that if we're handing her welfare she should be doing just one little thing in return; having a quarterly shot of Depo- Provera or the like. No one has a "yooman right" to bring a little one into this world who will not enrich others' lives and be happy.
[quote][p][bold]Jack Land[/bold] wrote: I just hope her kids were taken from her as soon as they were born and put in a proper family environment where they can grow up safely, rather than merely being five new entrants into the care system.[/p][/quote]Yes. The problem is that any male which would go near this kind of female is not going to be contributing any great genes to her failed ones. One cannot but feel that if we're handing her welfare she should be doing just one little thing in return; having a quarterly shot of Depo- Provera or the like. No one has a "yooman right" to bring a little one into this world who will not enrich others' lives and be happy. Dai Rear

11:49am Tue 31 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
[quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence. GardenVarietyMushroom

12:10pm Tue 31 Dec 13

Abertillery29 says...

I think 'gardenvarietymushro
om' appears to have a slightly twisted view on what was a legal search which found the person being searched concealing drugs. If there was any doubts about the legality of the search then I am sure her defence counsel would have raised it at her trial. Finally she was found guilty.
I think 'gardenvarietymushro om' appears to have a slightly twisted view on what was a legal search which found the person being searched concealing drugs. If there was any doubts about the legality of the search then I am sure her defence counsel would have raised it at her trial. Finally she was found guilty. Abertillery29

12:33pm Tue 31 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Abertillery29 wrote:
I think 'gardenvarietymushro

om' appears to have a slightly twisted view on what was a legal search which found the person being searched concealing drugs. If there was any doubts about the legality of the search then I am sure her defence counsel would have raised it at her trial. Finally she was found guilty.
Actually, it isn't me that has the twisted view at all. I merely hold that if something is immoral, then it remains so, regardless of legality or whether the perpetrators and their friends all wear uniforms.

Far as I'm concerned, self defence is an inalienable and irrevocable right. End of story.
[quote][p][bold]Abertillery29[/bold] wrote: I think 'gardenvarietymushro om' appears to have a slightly twisted view on what was a legal search which found the person being searched concealing drugs. If there was any doubts about the legality of the search then I am sure her defence counsel would have raised it at her trial. Finally she was found guilty.[/p][/quote]Actually, it isn't me that has the twisted view at all. I merely hold that if something is immoral, then it remains so, regardless of legality or whether the perpetrators and their friends all wear uniforms. Far as I'm concerned, self defence is an inalienable and irrevocable right. End of story. GardenVarietyMushroom

12:36pm Tue 31 Dec 13

squirrelchez says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.
It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke!
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.[/p][/quote]Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.[/p][/quote]It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke! squirrelchez

1:23pm Tue 31 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

squirrelchez wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo



m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.
It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke!
Not sexual assualt eh?

Obviously not true, as if I did it, (me not wearing a uniform of course), that's probably exactly what I'd be charged with no?
[quote][p][bold]squirrelchez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.[/p][/quote]Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.[/p][/quote]It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke![/p][/quote]Not sexual assualt eh? Obviously not true, as if I did it, (me not wearing a uniform of course), that's probably exactly what I'd be charged with no? GardenVarietyMushroom

3:13pm Tue 31 Dec 13

TK355 says...

No, you're quite right. Before you spouting any more of this tripe, why not have a read up on the Police And Criminal Evidence Act of 1984? You will see how a strip search is to be carried out. You may then wish to reconsider your wholly inaccurate comments about how police officers sexually assault individuals whilst carrying out the said searches. In the future, know at least a little bit about whatever it is you are talking about so that you don't make such a berk of yourself.
No, you're quite right. Before you spouting any more of this tripe, why not have a read up on the Police And Criminal Evidence Act of 1984? You will see how a strip search is to be carried out. You may then wish to reconsider your wholly inaccurate comments about how police officers sexually assault individuals whilst carrying out the said searches. In the future, know at least a little bit about whatever it is you are talking about so that you don't make such a berk of yourself. TK355

3:34pm Tue 31 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

I'll do that when you deny that if I did the same act to another person, without their consent, I wouldn't be looking at the wrong end of the sex offenders register.
I'll do that when you deny that if I did the same act to another person, without their consent, I wouldn't be looking at the wrong end of the sex offenders register. GardenVarietyMushroom

4:24pm Tue 31 Dec 13

TK355 says...

Goodbye, enjoy your little world. I hope it gets a bit bigger in the New Year
Goodbye, enjoy your little world. I hope it gets a bit bigger in the New Year TK355

5:08pm Tue 31 Dec 13

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Won't deny it then? Can't can you?
Won't deny it then? Can't can you? GardenVarietyMushroom

5:46pm Tue 31 Dec 13

varteg1 says...

There is a very simple answer to this matter.

If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate.

To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment.

Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect.

Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo.
as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being.
So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations.
Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.
There is a very simple answer to this matter. If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate. To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment. Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect. Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo. as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being. So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations. Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs. varteg1

10:05am Wed 1 Jan 14

sanny123 says...

the only surprise here is that they didnt use the taser and then pepper spray her,thats the norm for them is it not.
the only surprise here is that they didnt use the taser and then pepper spray her,thats the norm for them is it not. sanny123

4:17pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Jonnytrouble says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.
This person is well known by the POLICE you idiot that's why it came to this, if YOU got nought to hide then YOU Co operate with the Law !
I hope the officer who got bit had a check in case the woman had AIDS being a drug addict and is OK ! not nice for someone doing there job to protect us from the like's of them !
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.[/p][/quote]Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.[/p][/quote]This person is well known by the POLICE you idiot that's why it came to this, if YOU got nought to hide then YOU Co operate with the Law ! I hope the officer who got bit had a check in case the woman had AIDS being a drug addict and is OK ! not nice for someone doing there job to protect us from the like's of them ! Jonnytrouble

4:20pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Jonnytrouble says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.[/p][/quote]For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem? Jonnytrouble

5:52pm Wed 1 Jan 14

rightsideup says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
Sounds like you've had too many mushrooms...........
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.[/p][/quote]Sounds like you've had too many mushrooms........... rightsideup

5:55pm Wed 1 Jan 14

rightsideup says...

Mother of five.Sounds like one would be too many for this lady!...........
Mother of five.Sounds like one would be too many for this lady!........... rightsideup

6:34pm Wed 1 Jan 14

regaturn says...

varteg1 wrote:
There is a very simple answer to this matter.

If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate.

To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment.

Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect.

Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo.
as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being.
So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations.
Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.
You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: There is a very simple answer to this matter. If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate. To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment. Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect. Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo. as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being. So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations. Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.[/p][/quote]You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person regaturn

10:16pm Wed 1 Jan 14

shoebury asbo says...

whilst they were "down there" they should have spayed her.
whilst they were "down there" they should have spayed her. shoebury asbo

8:19am Thu 2 Jan 14

Woodgnome says...

If she was a dog she's be taken to the vet!!
If she was a dog she's be taken to the vet!! Woodgnome

12:53pm Thu 2 Jan 14

DDDog1 says...

Why are woman like this allowed to spawn so many children?as for gardenmushroom,so obviously pro drug and talking out of their backsides.
Why are woman like this allowed to spawn so many children?as for gardenmushroom,so obviously pro drug and talking out of their backsides. DDDog1

2:22pm Thu 2 Jan 14

_Bryan_ says...

A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person.

In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee.
A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person. In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee. _Bryan_

2:45pm Thu 2 Jan 14

varteg1 says...

regaturn wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
There is a very simple answer to this matter.

If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate.

To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment.

Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect.

Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo.
as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being.
So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations.
Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.
You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person
I have to assume you actually read my previous comment, however, I seriously doubt you were able to comprehend it.

I suggest you read it, fully this time, maybe you will then see I made NO mention of police officers penetrating a persons organs. In fact I suggested taking a course of action that would not envisage such investigatory or exploratory inroads to a persons body.

As for your rather naive comment about fallout should a person suffer injury,or maybe even death, from not being so investigated, surely that would be the responsibility of the refusenik who failed to submit to such investigation.
I suggest the ignorance lies with yourself for reading into mu comments the exact opposite of the contents thereof.
[quote][p][bold]regaturn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: There is a very simple answer to this matter. If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate. To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment. Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect. Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo. as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being. So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations. Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.[/p][/quote]You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person[/p][/quote]I have to assume you actually read my previous comment, however, I seriously doubt you were able to comprehend it. I suggest you read it, fully this time, maybe you will then see I made NO mention of police officers penetrating a persons organs. In fact I suggested taking a course of action that would not envisage such investigatory or exploratory inroads to a persons body. As for your rather naive comment about fallout should a person suffer injury,or maybe even death, from not being so investigated, surely that would be the responsibility of the refusenik who failed to submit to such investigation. I suggest the ignorance lies with yourself for reading into mu comments the exact opposite of the contents thereof. varteg1

10:20pm Thu 2 Jan 14

poppyjosie says...

Sounds like a disproportionately long sentence... especially given that she's clean from heroin. Like going to prison is going to support her with that :/ And, call me ignorant, but did she really manage to have 5 children all on her own?? With a background like that, what chance does someone have? Try having some compassion.
Sounds like a disproportionately long sentence... especially given that she's clean from heroin. Like going to prison is going to support her with that :/ And, call me ignorant, but did she really manage to have 5 children all on her own?? With a background like that, what chance does someone have? Try having some compassion. poppyjosie

10:29pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Dee-Gee says...

Not condoning the behaviour, but prison doesn't seem like a good option here. How's putting a former heroin addict into an environment rife with heroin going to help? :/ Mental health ward would be better, surely?
Not condoning the behaviour, but prison doesn't seem like a good option here. How's putting a former heroin addict into an environment rife with heroin going to help? :/ Mental health ward would be better, surely? Dee-Gee

11:44am Fri 3 Jan 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

_Bryan_ wrote:
A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person.

In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee.
I suppose that depends on whether or not the lady feels violated doesn't it? Legal, afterall, is not the same as moral.
[quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person. In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee.[/p][/quote]I suppose that depends on whether or not the lady feels violated doesn't it? Legal, afterall, is not the same as moral. GardenVarietyMushroom

5:03pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
squirrelchez wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo




m
wrote:
Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.
It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.
Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.
It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke!
Not sexual assualt eh?

Obviously not true, as if I did it, (me not wearing a uniform of course), that's probably exactly what I'd be charged with no?
?????
How stupid are you. Let's put the Drs in court then!
It's not a sexual assault, it's a procedure the police are authorised to carry out. And prison guards.
For a sexual offence to be committed there has to be sexual gratification. Have you seen the type of people that conceal drugs. Uurrgghh, no ones getting any gratification from them.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]squirrelchez[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Defending oneself against sexual assault doesn't sound like much of an offence to me.[/p][/quote]It's not a sexual assault, it's a search. And the simplest way of not having to be subjected to it is not to conceal controlled drugs about your person.[/p][/quote]Taking someone's clothes off by force sounds like sexual assualt to me. Try that on me and a bite on your kneecap would be the least of your problems.[/p][/quote]It's a strip search - that's not sexual assault. It sounds to me like you're one of those "anti-police" or "anti-law" type people, the kind of which are making this country a joke![/p][/quote]Not sexual assualt eh? Obviously not true, as if I did it, (me not wearing a uniform of course), that's probably exactly what I'd be charged with no?[/p][/quote]????? How stupid are you. Let's put the Drs in court then! It's not a sexual assault, it's a procedure the police are authorised to carry out. And prison guards. For a sexual offence to be committed there has to be sexual gratification. Have you seen the type of people that conceal drugs. Uurrgghh, no ones getting any gratification from them. Practicalmickey

5:09pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
_Bryan_ wrote:
A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person.

In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee.
I suppose that depends on whether or not the lady feels violated doesn't it? Legal, afterall, is not the same as moral.
Legal? Moral?
I think you digress to a completely different conversation, moral is not an issue. Tough! If the police are justified as they are here. Tough, if people behaved as I do we wouldn't need the police.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]_Bryan_[/bold] wrote: A legally conducted strip search, performed by officers of the crown in pursuit of their duties is not a sexual assault. The decision to strip search someone is not one that is taken lightly, particularly in view of the effect that this may have on a vulnerable person. In this instance, the decision to conduct a search of this nature can be seen to be entirely justified, as an illegally obtained narcotic was discovered. The need to restrain the individual in this case is also highlighted by the fact that they still carried out an assault. Without restraint, it is likely that there would have been far more injury than a bitten knee.[/p][/quote]I suppose that depends on whether or not the lady feels violated doesn't it? Legal, afterall, is not the same as moral.[/p][/quote]Legal? Moral? I think you digress to a completely different conversation, moral is not an issue. Tough! If the police are justified as they are here. Tough, if people behaved as I do we wouldn't need the police. Practicalmickey

7:31pm Fri 3 Jan 14

keeptravelling says...

Jonnytrouble wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?
'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is
[quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.[/p][/quote]For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?[/p][/quote]'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is keeptravelling

12:09am Sat 4 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

keeptravelling wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?
'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is
Why?
Who do you think you are? Why they searched her is none of your business, all you need to know is that they and now the judges are satisfied with the reason for the search.
This is the police, they themselves are policed.
They are covered by laws, rules and legislation, the same laws, rules and legislation that give them the authority to carry out such searches. For the protection of the decent people of Britian.
The drugs destroy families, communities and are slowly destroying this country.
Leave the police to do there job and concentrate on your own, if you've bothered to get one.
You wouldn't tell a gas engineer how to fix your boiler would you!
[quote][p][bold]keeptravelling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.[/p][/quote]For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?[/p][/quote]'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is[/p][/quote]Why? Who do you think you are? Why they searched her is none of your business, all you need to know is that they and now the judges are satisfied with the reason for the search. This is the police, they themselves are policed. They are covered by laws, rules and legislation, the same laws, rules and legislation that give them the authority to carry out such searches. For the protection of the decent people of Britian. The drugs destroy families, communities and are slowly destroying this country. Leave the police to do there job and concentrate on your own, if you've bothered to get one. You wouldn't tell a gas engineer how to fix your boiler would you! Practicalmickey

12:26am Sat 4 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

varteg1 wrote:
regaturn wrote:
varteg1 wrote:
There is a very simple answer to this matter.

If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate.

To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment.

Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect.

Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo.
as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being.
So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations.
Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.
You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person
I have to assume you actually read my previous comment, however, I seriously doubt you were able to comprehend it.

I suggest you read it, fully this time, maybe you will then see I made NO mention of police officers penetrating a persons organs. In fact I suggested taking a course of action that would not envisage such investigatory or exploratory inroads to a persons body.

As for your rather naive comment about fallout should a person suffer injury,or maybe even death, from not being so investigated, surely that would be the responsibility of the refusenik who failed to submit to such investigation.
I suggest the ignorance lies with yourself for reading into mu comments the exact opposite of the contents thereof.
Oh yeah, sorry your son died, he wouldn't take the smack from his arse.
The argus would like to right that title, I bet you could think of some police hating rubbish to write.
The police have done there job, the naughty nasty person has been dealt with in a court of law.
'She fought the law and the law won!'
[quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]regaturn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]varteg1[/bold] wrote: There is a very simple answer to this matter. If asked about carrying or hiding on or in the person, material considered by law to be not legal, then if one refuses to expose the suspected materials, they could be charged with refusing to co-operate. To make it worthwhile a charge, raise it to a level of seriousness equivalent to actual possession. with of course, matching punishment. Two birds so to speak, no perceived sexual assault, and a persuasion tyo get the co-operation of the suspect. Who could object,? well probably one of the many who claim that not voting reflects a willingness to opt for the status quo. as was claimed by the Yes brigade that brought the Assembly into being. So by not co-operating with a legal request a suspect is more or less admitting guilt. Or not according to those who see it's A OK to strip search and enforce penetration into body areas to get the proof of their allegations. Far better to charge for non co-operation than invade a persons privacy, especially when that privacy entails intimate organs.[/p][/quote]You really are talking from a position of total ignorance as far as PACE is concerned, to forcibly penetrate anyone at a police station is illegal, and if a police officer were to do this he would be guilty of an offence, only a doctor or medical practioner can penetrate a body orifice, at a place other then a police station, and then with the consent of the suspect.As far as charging with the offence of failing to cooperate, imagine the fallout if the suspect died from a drug overdose whilst in police custody and the police knew they had drugs on their person[/p][/quote]I have to assume you actually read my previous comment, however, I seriously doubt you were able to comprehend it. I suggest you read it, fully this time, maybe you will then see I made NO mention of police officers penetrating a persons organs. In fact I suggested taking a course of action that would not envisage such investigatory or exploratory inroads to a persons body. As for your rather naive comment about fallout should a person suffer injury,or maybe even death, from not being so investigated, surely that would be the responsibility of the refusenik who failed to submit to such investigation. I suggest the ignorance lies with yourself for reading into mu comments the exact opposite of the contents thereof.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah, sorry your son died, he wouldn't take the smack from his arse. The argus would like to right that title, I bet you could think of some police hating rubbish to write. The police have done there job, the naughty nasty person has been dealt with in a court of law. 'She fought the law and the law won!' Practicalmickey

3:18pm Sat 4 Jan 14

keeptravelling says...

Practicalmickey wrote:
keeptravelling wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo



m
wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol
Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one.

Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.
For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?
'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is
Why?
Who do you think you are? Why they searched her is none of your business, all you need to know is that they and now the judges are satisfied with the reason for the search.
This is the police, they themselves are policed.
They are covered by laws, rules and legislation, the same laws, rules and legislation that give them the authority to carry out such searches. For the protection of the decent people of Britian.
The drugs destroy families, communities and are slowly destroying this country.
Leave the police to do there job and concentrate on your own, if you've bothered to get one.
You wouldn't tell a gas engineer how to fix your boiler would you!
The police are policed? Tell that to the families of the Hillsboro victims (173 altered statements) or Blair Peach (killed by several police officers yet none convicted because "they couldn't know which blow killed him so they all must go free"). And as for who I think I am: I am someone who believes that people should be held accountable to justice but that justice must be administered fairly. The police are not above picking on people and should be required to justify a reason for searching a person. If a gas engineer told me I needed a new boiler I would want to know exactly what is wrong the current one
[quote][p][bold]Practicalmickey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]keeptravelling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Yes and if you had ever done one, which I very much doubt, you would know it isn't. And if you had bitten a PC, not a WPC, you would probably find it difficult biting anything for a while lol[/p][/quote]Okay, so kindly enlighten me in my ignorance. If I forcibly removed someone from the street, had me and my friends strip all of their clothes off, then laid my hands upon them to search their intimate person - what do you think would happen hmm? I assume any newspaper stories would be of a very different stripe to this one. Trust the rozzers in their self righteousness to believe that that they have the monopoly on violence, and that people have no right to self defence.[/p][/quote]For God's sake, stop talking outta your back passage, if your CLEAN what is the problem?[/p][/quote]'the innocent have nothing to fear' argument is exactly the sort of reasoning that has allowed the government to enforce illegal spying and removal of rights given to us by the Magna Carta. The story does not tell us a thing about WHY they wanted to search her. If they just demanded to strip search her on the basis that they are 'known to' the police then that, in my opinion is a gross violation of privacy and she would be well within her rights to refuse- she had already paid for her previous crimes and therefore has a right not to be harassed. Given that she was not charged with a crime that lead to being searched it seems she could well have been picked on just for being who she is[/p][/quote]Why? Who do you think you are? Why they searched her is none of your business, all you need to know is that they and now the judges are satisfied with the reason for the search. This is the police, they themselves are policed. They are covered by laws, rules and legislation, the same laws, rules and legislation that give them the authority to carry out such searches. For the protection of the decent people of Britian. The drugs destroy families, communities and are slowly destroying this country. Leave the police to do there job and concentrate on your own, if you've bothered to get one. You wouldn't tell a gas engineer how to fix your boiler would you![/p][/quote]The police are policed? Tell that to the families of the Hillsboro victims (173 altered statements) or Blair Peach (killed by several police officers yet none convicted because "they couldn't know which blow killed him so they all must go free"). And as for who I think I am: I am someone who believes that people should be held accountable to justice but that justice must be administered fairly. The police are not above picking on people and should be required to justify a reason for searching a person. If a gas engineer told me I needed a new boiler I would want to know exactly what is wrong the current one keeptravelling

6:16pm Sat 4 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from.
When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC.
Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments.
Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from. When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC. Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments. Practicalmickey

9:10am Sun 5 Jan 14

Dai Rear says...

"The police are policed? Tell that to the families of the Hillsboro victims (173 altered statements) or Blair Peach (killed by several police officers yet none convicted because "they couldn't know which blow killed him so they all must go free"). And as for who I think I am: I am someone who believes that people should be held accountable to justice but that justice must be administered fairly. The police are not above picking on people and should be required to justify a reason for searching a person. If a gas engineer told me I needed a new boiler I would want to know exactly what is wrong the current one" says Practicalmickey.
If she'd had a good self - defence argument she'd have run a trial. Mr Bond is a competent advocate of many years experience so what you're saying is, frankly, insulting. In the event the search was justified, even had it not been statutorily authorised, for this woman was secreting stupefiants. You are no doubt too young to recall the woman from Garnlydan, mother of a murderer, who routinely secreted razor blades about the most intimate parts of her person. One should be grateful you are not in charge of a custody unit. I would share your concern that holding our police to account is not always easy but perhaps your wrath should be turned on the jackasses of MP's who, particularly between 97 and 2010, have spewed out so much bad criminal legislation that the police are pretty much in a position to pick who they want to prosecute. Unsurprisingly they prefer the dirty picture brigade who don't bite.
Saddest of all is that this woman has brought 5 hopeless creatures into the world to fail and that we're too pusillanimous and terrified of being branded social darwinists to have ensured that she used contraception in return for the welfare we paid her when she was at liberty.
"The police are policed? Tell that to the families of the Hillsboro victims (173 altered statements) or Blair Peach (killed by several police officers yet none convicted because "they couldn't know which blow killed him so they all must go free"). And as for who I think I am: I am someone who believes that people should be held accountable to justice but that justice must be administered fairly. The police are not above picking on people and should be required to justify a reason for searching a person. If a gas engineer told me I needed a new boiler I would want to know exactly what is wrong the current one" says Practicalmickey. If she'd had a good self - defence argument she'd have run a trial. Mr Bond is a competent advocate of many years experience so what you're saying is, frankly, insulting. In the event the search was justified, even had it not been statutorily authorised, for this woman was secreting stupefiants. You are no doubt too young to recall the woman from Garnlydan, mother of a murderer, who routinely secreted razor blades about the most intimate parts of her person. One should be grateful you are not in charge of a custody unit. I would share your concern that holding our police to account is not always easy but perhaps your wrath should be turned on the jackasses of MP's who, particularly between 97 and 2010, have spewed out so much bad criminal legislation that the police are pretty much in a position to pick who they want to prosecute. Unsurprisingly they prefer the dirty picture brigade who don't bite. Saddest of all is that this woman has brought 5 hopeless creatures into the world to fail and that we're too pusillanimous and terrified of being branded social darwinists to have ensured that she used contraception in return for the welfare we paid her when she was at liberty. Dai Rear

11:56pm Sun 5 Jan 14

keeptravelling says...

Practicalmickey wrote:
Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from.
When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC.
Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments.
first of all; I did pay attention to your argument I just found it to be faulty as an analogy. your point is that we should not question the police because they know how to police. I wouldn't tell a boiler engineer HOW to fix a boiler but I would want to know WHY it needed fixing. Secondly, you say it is none of my business why the police felt the need to search her. I put it to you that it is all of our business. We operate under a system of police by consent- that requires that the public take interest in the actions of the police in order to assess whether or not that consent is warranted. This person may or may not be guilty of something that deserved her arresting. That is not the point. The story does not tell us why they searched her (presumably there would be a suspected offence that meant that they should do so) the story makes no mention of why and she wasn't convicted for anything other than what the search produced. I personally think that 'she's a wrong 'un' should not be reason enough to violate somebody's personage
[quote][p][bold]Practicalmickey[/bold] wrote: Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from. When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC. Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments.[/p][/quote]first of all; I did pay attention to your argument I just found it to be faulty as an analogy. your point is that we should not question the police because they know how to police. I wouldn't tell a boiler engineer HOW to fix a boiler but I would want to know WHY it needed fixing. Secondly, you say it is none of my business why the police felt the need to search her. I put it to you that it is all of our business. We operate under a system of police by consent- that requires that the public take interest in the actions of the police in order to assess whether or not that consent is warranted. This person may or may not be guilty of something that deserved her arresting. That is not the point. The story does not tell us why they searched her (presumably there would be a suspected offence that meant that they should do so) the story makes no mention of why and she wasn't convicted for anything other than what the search produced. I personally think that 'she's a wrong 'un' should not be reason enough to violate somebody's personage keeptravelling

1:04am Mon 6 Jan 14

Brrup! says...

Such an argument above, can we not all see that some smelly woman shoving drugs up her bits is wrong? She clearly knows she shouldn't be carting heroin about else she would be keeping it in her bag etc.... I'm quite pleased the police did catch her, who wants vaggie drugs? - some other numpty druggie she intended to sell it on too I'm sure!! Dirty girl,, no wonder she's known to officers. Ugh! Do hope the officer that was bitten is ok, who knows what else this girl is carrying!!!!
Such an argument above, can we not all see that some smelly woman shoving drugs up her bits is wrong? She clearly knows she shouldn't be carting heroin about else she would be keeping it in her bag etc.... I'm quite pleased the police did catch her, who wants vaggie drugs? - some other numpty druggie she intended to sell it on too I'm sure!! Dirty girl,, no wonder she's known to officers. Ugh! Do hope the officer that was bitten is ok, who knows what else this girl is carrying!!!! Brrup!

1:10am Mon 6 Jan 14

Brrup! says...

Sorry,, before I'm pulled up - Valium, not heroin.. Got all caught up in the posts above, I'd forgotten the main point of the original story!!!!!!
Sorry,, before I'm pulled up - Valium, not heroin.. Got all caught up in the posts above, I'd forgotten the main point of the original story!!!!!! Brrup!

8:11am Mon 6 Jan 14

Practicalmickey says...

keeptravelling wrote:
Practicalmickey wrote:
Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from.
When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC.
Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments.
first of all; I did pay attention to your argument I just found it to be faulty as an analogy. your point is that we should not question the police because they know how to police. I wouldn't tell a boiler engineer HOW to fix a boiler but I would want to know WHY it needed fixing. Secondly, you say it is none of my business why the police felt the need to search her. I put it to you that it is all of our business. We operate under a system of police by consent- that requires that the public take interest in the actions of the police in order to assess whether or not that consent is warranted. This person may or may not be guilty of something that deserved her arresting. That is not the point. The story does not tell us why they searched her (presumably there would be a suspected offence that meant that they should do so) the story makes no mention of why and she wasn't convicted for anything other than what the search produced. I personally think that 'she's a wrong 'un' should not be reason enough to violate somebody's personage
We'll done for spotting the subtlety.
Police by consent requires the public to take an interest, I agree but not to this level, interest is shown when you read about the woman's conviction. Not delving into the fine print,
Violate personage? That's there procedure, it's a whole minefield of legislation, the don't just scoop people of the street, glove, lubricant and reach inside.
A search is carried out when the police has sufficient grounds to do so. Police by consent also implies a level of trust that they do their job without interference or influence, your nosiness may be construed as interference if you expect to be told about everything.
What did you do in work yesterday?
[quote][p][bold]keeptravelling[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Practicalmickey[/bold] wrote: Oh we can all talk about stats and historical incidents which have been learnt from. When god created the earth he didn't create a comprehensive guideline for the police encompassing every eventuality, it's a learning curve, lesson are learnt people are accountable. But you have nothing to do with the above case yet you want to know the exact details. That's not going to happen is it. It's got nothing to do with you. Yes the police are policed, PSD & IPCC. Yes you so the gas engineer what's wrong but you wouldn't tell him how to repair it, you clearly missed the point with that one, read it as it is. Pay attention , did you skirt over the article as you did my comments.[/p][/quote]first of all; I did pay attention to your argument I just found it to be faulty as an analogy. your point is that we should not question the police because they know how to police. I wouldn't tell a boiler engineer HOW to fix a boiler but I would want to know WHY it needed fixing. Secondly, you say it is none of my business why the police felt the need to search her. I put it to you that it is all of our business. We operate under a system of police by consent- that requires that the public take interest in the actions of the police in order to assess whether or not that consent is warranted. This person may or may not be guilty of something that deserved her arresting. That is not the point. The story does not tell us why they searched her (presumably there would be a suspected offence that meant that they should do so) the story makes no mention of why and she wasn't convicted for anything other than what the search produced. I personally think that 'she's a wrong 'un' should not be reason enough to violate somebody's personage[/p][/quote]We'll done for spotting the subtlety. Police by consent requires the public to take an interest, I agree but not to this level, interest is shown when you read about the woman's conviction. Not delving into the fine print, Violate personage? That's there procedure, it's a whole minefield of legislation, the don't just scoop people of the street, glove, lubricant and reach inside. A search is carried out when the police has sufficient grounds to do so. Police by consent also implies a level of trust that they do their job without interference or influence, your nosiness may be construed as interference if you expect to be told about everything. What did you do in work yesterday? Practicalmickey

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree