Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

This seems to show more than intended.

All matters involving criminal law

This seems to show more than intended.

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:30 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39038851

Two policemen who stopped for cups of tea at a McDonald's before attending an emergency call for a suicidal woman will face a misconduct hearing.
Fahima Begum, 22, was found hanged after a friend called 999 saying she had sent him a suicidal text message.
The call to the ambulance service was referred to police.
An investigation found Met officers Tony Stephenson and Gavin Bateman bought hot drinks then waited 24 minutes before contacting the friend.
The police watchdog said the PCs' delay in attending her home in Poplar, east London, was "significant".

An inquest in November 2015 found Ms Begum was dead before the 999 call was made.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it was given the second-highest grading by call-handlers, meaning officers must get to the scene within 60 minutes.
Regulations state however they should attend as soon as possible, the watchdog added.


Now, there's no denying that the officers were downright sloppy in their response to a 999 call. But that such calls are 'graded' and the second highest grade, which one assumes might be considered at least a bit urgent, allows 60 minutes to attend seems downright dubious to me. apart from such an officially lackadaisical approach to an emergency call, if the officers were told that this was 'only' a second grade call then it is human nature that they will assume they have that 60 minutes before criticism arises. To put a 60 minute response time on an emergency call would suggest, to me at least, that it wasn't really an emergency in the first place. It sounds like a couple of police officers are going to get hung out to dry in order to disguise a crap policy on call handling and response.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:58 am

They quite rightly should be hung out to dry, but that hanging ought not be allowed to disguise the intrinsic failings.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:15 pm

Surely "as soon as possible but in any event within 60 minutes" does not mean "you have 60 minutes", and should not be thought to mean that.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19913
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:32 pm

I would agree. But when the guidance says you have 60 minutes to attend, it does rather trumpet that the incident does not need immediate attention. It may be fair to enquire how many other incidents of a similar classification have not been attended inside the 24 minutes in this instance, which is, obviously, well within the 60 minutes.

You might also ask that with the 60 minute 'allowance, should the officers be using their lamps and sirens to make progress? What if they are stuck in a traffic jam but are quite confident that they will arrive inside 60 minutes? Should they use the lamps and sirens then, risking a traffic accident? They were there inside half the allotted time, which in other circumstances might be thought pretty good.

Personally, if I was the shift sergeant for those officers they would be getting a real tightener and some particularly shitty jobs for a month or two, but I would think dismissal would be OTT.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby diy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:44 pm

As i understand it officers are allowed rest breaks, therefore responding to any emergency call does not mean after a coffee break. If it is allowed, no doubt they'd have reported back to the controller that they were on such a break.

plenty of legislation says. Asap and within X time. something they'd happily enforce on a member of the public
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:50 pm

shootist wrote:Personally, if I was the shift sergeant for those officers they would be getting a real tightener and some particularly shitty jobs for a month or two, but I would think dismissal would be OTT.

If the police service has become so dire that its officers can believe it is acceptable to stop for coffee on the way to an emergency, then the country is in more trouble than I thought.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:19 pm

Hairyloon wrote:
shootist wrote:Personally, if I was the shift sergeant for those officers they would be getting a real tightener and some particularly shitty jobs for a month or two, but I would think dismissal would be OTT.

If the police service has become so dire that its officers can believe it is acceptable to stop for coffee on the way to an emergency, then the country is in more trouble than I thought.


If the police management consider it OK to allow an hour to get to an 'emergency' then you are right.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3561
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:45 pm

Where is this sixty-minute rule to be found, and what status does it have?
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:15 pm

shootist wrote:If the police management consider it OK to allow an hour to get to an 'emergency' then you are right.

How far might they have to go, and how bad might the traffic be? I assume the hour is to allow for a worst case scenario in that respect.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: This seems to show more than intended.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:38 pm

All the more reason for knowing what the rule actually says.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Next

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest