On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100, "mert1639"
wrote:


"Mike Ross" wrote in message
.. .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm

Quoted in full no apologies. First and foremost, how did this get from a
ludicrous suspicion of child trafficking, to an even more ludicrous arrest
under
the *Terrorism Act*?!

Beacuse most police are stupid.

No they aren't.

It's ludicrous that idiots with half and
O-level can arrest and detain people based on their rather limited ability
to have 'hunches'.


When O levels still existed, you needed five of them to be able to
apply to join the police.

Although this has now gone, they still have to pass entry tests which
show at last a reasonable level of intelligence.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
None of you exist, my Sysop types all this in.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100, "mert1639"
wrote:


"Mike Ross" wrote in message
. ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm

Quoted in full no apologies. First and foremost, how did this get from a
ludicrous suspicion of child trafficking, to an even more ludicrous
arrest
under
the *Terrorism Act*?!

Beacuse most police are stupid.

No they aren't.

I beg to differ. I believe you need 5 GCSEs to enter the police force.
There are very few people who'd considder that as any hallmark of intelect.
In my conversations with police officers, I've never found them to be all
that bright either. The ones that have been are those of senior rank, above
superintendant. I did once meet a Chief Constable. He was bright, but
you'd expect that.
The lack of bright men in the police service has been the subject of royal
commissions over the years. The first was in the 1920s, then again in the
1960s and I'm sure there have been more since.

It's ludicrous that idiots with half and
O-level can arrest and detain people based on their rather limited ability
to have 'hunches'.


When O levels still existed, you needed five of them to be able to
apply to join the police.

Although this has now gone, they still have to pass entry tests which
show at last a reasonable level of intelligence.
See above. If you think that a PC is 'reasonably intelligent' you must be
mixing with some very dumb people indeed.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:34:57 +0100, Alang
wrote:

On 23 Jul 2008 18:03:56 GMT, "joe"
wrote:

Alang wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:32:06 +0100, MM wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100, "mert1639"
wrote:


"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm

Quoted in full no apologies. First and foremost, how did this get
from a ludicrous suspicion of child trafficking, to an even more
ludicrous arrest under
the *Terrorism Act*?!

Beacuse most police are stupid. It's ludicrous that idiots with
half and O-level can arrest and detain people based on their
rather limited ability to have 'hunches'.

And there was a similar story in the Guardian on Monday:
"Did they think I had kidnapped him?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ju...drelationships

MM

Another reason to despise the police

Not really, the higher ups actually did something which is quite
refreshing.

LIke what?

Like disciplining the officer concerned, apologising, paying
compensation (including a "substantial sum" to the boys school).

What the hell more do you expect?



I was referring to the arrest of a family undert the terrorism act.


So was Joe, I imagine.


"Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised
to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote: "Your complaint and my subsequent
enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had
been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked
the professionalism I expect.

"I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was
a very isolated incident." "

It was an illegal arrest and unlawful detention FFS!

Not under any UK law.

It was unacceptable, and a stupid action by the officer concerned, but
she obviously believed she had grounds for suspicion an offence was
being committed.

The fact she was wrong (and obviously so to most of us) does not make
the arrest illegal.

They were
arrested under the terrorism act. A child was put into a stressful
situation that under any other criteria would be regarded as child
abuse.

The plods concerned should have been at the very least disciplined
with loss of salary. So should their superior officer

The plod concerned has been transferred out to "other duties". I don't
know about loss of pay, but I am sure she regards that transfer as
punishment.



One of the problems, is that many of our 'top grade' detective movies
and tv series, have central characters such as Frost, who is surly and
the majority fly against the concrete evidence to use their 'gut
feeling'.
Our police are not really very bright in the main, and are influenced
by all these tv detectives.
All my opinion of course.

Too many of them are arrogant thugs. Not very bright either.

I suspect this is just your envy speaking
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Is it possible to feel gruntled?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:06:49 +0100, "AndyW"
wrote:

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
.. .

"My son is mixed race and the officer then told us, 'I believe you are
child
trafficking'," she said.

When Ms Maynard asked the woman officer if she would be asked the same
question
if her son was white, she said the officer replied: "Are you accusing me
of
being a racist?"

Ms Maynard said the woman officer told her: "It's obvious he [Joshua] has
nothing to do with you".

I shall pass this on to my cousin who looks white but is of mixed race so
that when he comes home from his holidays with his kids (who look mixed
race) he knows what to expect.


What a stupid post.

It happens *once* which (naturally) hits the national media, and
results in apologies, compensation, and the police officer no longer
working on those duties.

But you think it is "what he can expect".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Strike any user when ready.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:13:28 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:34:57 +0100, Alang
wrote:

On 23 Jul 2008 18:03:56 GMT, "joe"
wrote:
snip

Not really, the higher ups actually did something which is quite
refreshing.

LIke what?

Like disciplining the officer concerned, apologising, paying
compensation (including a "substantial sum" to the boys school).

snip

The plod concerned has been transferred out to "other duties". I don't
know about loss of pay, but I am sure she regards that transfer as
punishment.

An interesting point. In the original story, at the time I first posted it, the
story read:


"A police officer has been transferred from duties at a Channel crossing after a
disabled child and his parents were detained under the Terrorism Act."


Which made it sound as if the transfer was a punishment for, or at least a
consequence of, the incident. The story has now been substantially changed:


"A police force has apologised after a disabled child and his parents CLAIMED
[my caps] they were detained at a Channel crossing point under the Terrorism
Act."

"Kent Police said neither the couple nor the boy were placed under arrest or
detained under the Terrorism Act.

The force said in a statement: "Our officer spoke to a white couple with a child
of mixed race.

"There were three names on the passport and the officer made inquiries to check
the child was leaving the country legally.

"The parents made a complaint for which we have apologised."

The force added that the officer in question no longer works at the Channel
crossing and was in another post but the move was not connected to the
incident."


So now we have a somewhat half-hearted apology, accompanied by attempted
justification, and emphasis on the fact that the officer has NOT been punished.

If you do a google news search, you will find several others incarnations of
this story, including ones in which the police claim the 2 hours interview was
'voluntary' - indeed, I wonder how free she felt to leave, and what would have
happened to her had she tried to do so?

I'm unable to decide if the parents are exaggerating, or the police are
wiggling. Frankly, given the (undisputed) attitude of the officer, I'd fire them
- they've shown themselves unfit to serve in any capacity whatever.

And if fired, the officer could consider themselves lucky - I have a son with
developmental delays, if an officer had treated us/our son in such a high-handed
manner they would still be scraping that officer off the walls...

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:34:57 +0100, Alang
wrote:

On 23 Jul 2008 18:03:56 GMT, "joe"
wrote:

Alang wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:32:06 +0100, MM wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100, "mert1639"
wrote:


"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm

Quoted in full no apologies. First and foremost, how did this get
from a ludicrous suspicion of child trafficking, to an even more
ludicrous arrest under
the *Terrorism Act*?!

Beacuse most police are stupid. It's ludicrous that idiots with
half and O-level can arrest and detain people based on their
rather limited ability to have 'hunches'.

And there was a similar story in the Guardian on Monday:
"Did they think I had kidnapped him?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ju...drelationships

MM

Another reason to despise the police

Not really, the higher ups actually did something which is quite
refreshing.

LIke what?
I was referring to the arrest of a family undert the terrorism act.

"Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised
to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote: "Your complaint and my subsequent
enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had
been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked
the professionalism I expect.

"I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was
a very isolated incident." "

It was an illegal arrest and unlawful detention FFS! They were
arrested under the terrorism act. A child was put into a stressful
situation that under any other criteria would be regarded as child
abuse.

The plods concerned should have been at the very least disciplined
with loss of salary. So should their superior officer

One of the problems, is that many of our 'top grade' detective movies
and tv series, have central characters such as Frost, who is surly and
the majority fly against the concrete evidence to use their 'gut
feeling'.
Our police are not really very bright in the main, and are influenced
by all these tv detectives.
All my opinion of course.

Too many of them are arrogant thugs. Not very bright either.

Which is why they join the police. I reckon ALL police recruits should
have a degree as a basic requirement.

MM

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:13:28 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

What the hell more do you expect?

A lot more, if the slide into a police state is to be arrested.

MM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:44:24 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

Although this has now gone, they still have to pass entry tests which
show at last a reasonable level of intelligence.

Shoelaces?

MM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:35:44 +0100, Alex Heney
wrote:

One police officer acting stupidly.

But it isn't just one, is it? We have been hearing of similar cases
now for quite a few years. No wonder that if they are given power some
of them will exert it for reasons unassociated with policing.

MM

MM wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:34:57 +0100, Alang
wrote:

On 23 Jul 2008 18:03:56 GMT, "joe"
wrote:

Alang wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:32:06 +0100, MM wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:11:38 +0100, "mert1639"
wrote:

"Mike Ross" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm

Quoted in full no apologies. First and foremost, how did this get
from a ludicrous suspicion of child trafficking, to an even more
ludicrous arrest under
the *Terrorism Act*?!

Beacuse most police are stupid. It's ludicrous that idiots with
half and O-level can arrest and detain people based on their
rather limited ability to have 'hunches'.
And there was a similar story in the Guardian on Monday:
"Did they think I had kidnapped him?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/ju...drelationships

MM
Another reason to despise the police
Not really, the higher ups actually did something which is quite
refreshing.
LIke what?
I was referring to the arrest of a family undert the terrorism act.

"Insp Helen Shaw, from Kent Police's Frontier Operations, apologised
to the family in a letter.

In another letter she wrote: "Your complaint and my subsequent
enquiries allowed me to identify that her (the officer's) manner had
been insensitive, lacking in tact and that her conduct overall lacked
the professionalism I expect.

"I wish to reassure you that your highly unsatisfactory experience was
a very isolated incident." "

It was an illegal arrest and unlawful detention FFS! They were
arrested under the terrorism act. A child was put into a stressful
situation that under any other criteria would be regarded as child
abuse.

The plods concerned should have been at the very least disciplined
with loss of salary. So should their superior officer

One of the problems, is that many of our 'top grade' detective movies
and tv series, have central characters such as Frost, who is surly and
the majority fly against the concrete evidence to use their 'gut
feeling'.
Our police are not really very bright in the main, and are influenced
by all these tv detectives.
All my opinion of course.
Too many of them are arrogant thugs. Not very bright either.

Which is why they join the police. I reckon ALL police recruits should
have a degree as a basic requirement.

Take a walk on the wild side and visit a poly, sorry "University",
"common" room*.

Talk to a few lecturers about the pressure they are on to take anyone,
anything, that walks (talking optional). Ask them about the pressure
they are under to turn anyone, anything, that actually turns up once in
a while into an "Honours Graduate".

One head of department, that I know pretty well, eventually resigned
because this pressure. But many lecturers are there because they could
never hold down a real job, so go along with anything that is shovelled
onto them.


*If you find more than a handful that you would be happy to see as
police officers, your standards are a little different to those of the
police.

--
Sue