Swango1980
Well-known member
I read one was 3 years, one 30 months and another 20 months.Why are they getting such leniant sentences. One has only got two months.
I've only read about 3 though, are there more that have been jailed so far?
I read one was 3 years, one 30 months and another 20 months.Why are they getting such leniant sentences. One has only got two months.
The two month sentence runs concurrently with a 3 year sentence for that particular scumbag.Why are they getting such leniant sentences. One has only got two months.
I read one was 3 years, one 30 months and another 20 months.
I've only read about 3 though, are there more that have been jailed so far?
Guess depends on what they have done and any past criminal records, did read that some have been given multiple charges for someWhy are they getting such leniant sentences. One has only got two months.
These are the same people who will video the police when they are doing their job but never think it will happen to them. It also says a lot about the mentality of these people.They are certainly fast tracking charges with a fair amount already sitting behind bars for a bit now
It does stagger that these people know that there is social media now and camera phones everywhere so many are getting spotted , found and being caught - people are losing their jobs and worse being charged by the police
Have to question their thought process
Funny though that they mention nothing about the unprovoked attack on the Police officers by their little darlings.
Shots fired, excuse the pun, at GMP Force. Armed officers without their camera's switched on, should carry a custodial sentence.
I know you've not watched the full video just by your response.Funny though that they mention nothing about the unprovoked attack on the Police officers by their little darlings.
should carry a custodial sentence.
Armed officers without their body camera's switched on, should carry a custodial sentence.What should?
No, not at all.Armed officers without their body camera's switched on, should carry a custodial sentence.
Could that be filed under "Perverting the court of justice"?
And just get my news from the BBC, is that what you do?I think you need to stop getting your news off twitter.
Armed officers without their body camera's switched on, should carry a custodial sentence.
Could that be filed under "Perverting the court of justice"?
No, but I do however check the validity of stuff I read as opposed to just taking it as read and spread lies and misinformation on forums.And just get my news from the BBC, is that what you do?
A police officer should face a custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that not having body worn video recording amounts to perverting the course of justice.
So no, failing to activate BWV should not in itself carry a custodial sentence.
No. The body cameras are supplied, as standard, as part of a police officers kit. I expect every job they go to, the Camera to be switched on. The cost alone must be £1-2million, if not more, to provide such equipment.No, not at all.
By your reckoning, everyone should have a camera permanently recording what they do and say to use whenever someone questions their actions?
It seems we have a difference of opinion.A police officer should face a custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that not having body worn video recording amounts to perverting the course of justice.
So no, failing to activate BWV should not in itself carry a custodial sentence.
Is it compulsory for them to have it on ?