jimmy boo Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 This Baxter chap has to be at the wind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Pccabe was/is a policeman.I've nothing else to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Reading up a bit more on this now and there are two things that are troubling me 1: There is no evidence put forward by The Met that ANY of their officers have actually caught anything from being spat on. Anywhere. 2: They say that officers who are spat on, or get any other king of bodily fluids on them, can get anti viral treatment but doesn't say how often this is required. If this is such a great issue to the Met then why aren't there any figures showing this? I'm also not grasping the idea about how a spit hood is going to help all that much. They still need to get within spitting distance in order to put the hood on and they can only really do that once the suspect has been detained and handcuffed. From that point on they're almost always behind the suspect and not really in spitting range unless they've just lifted that lassie from The Exorcist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Left leaning people who go on the rampage about stuff like this are the same people who will absolutely (and correctly) slaughter right wing rags and associated cretins for hammering the benefits system because there are some who cheat it, or advocating the NHS not treating any foreigners because of health tourism. Doing the exact same thing, getting the big brush out and tarring all the coppers. Whatever happened to looking at eveey issue in the cold light of day with a calm and sensible eye? Politics, and increasingly everyday debate like this, is fucked because at some point the media has successfully managed to turn it into a tribal affair with no room for middle ground or compromise. This thread is a fine example of this. Absolutely spot on. The political climate right now is full on Right vs Left. There's no debate, it's a shouting match. If you don't agree with immigration you're a scumbag racist who shouldn't be taken seriously - if you do agree with immigration you are a weak "snowflake." It's a terrible state or affairs. The art of debate is on deaths door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 As for the spit hoods, I absolutely support them. I don't care how upset you get with a bag on your head - it's been placed on your head because you are a filthy, disgusting person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Reading up a bit more on this now and there are two things that are troubling me 1: There is no evidence put forward by The Met that ANY of their officers have actually caught anything from being spat on. Anywhere. 2: They say that officers who are spat on, or get any other king of bodily fluids on them, can get anti viral treatment but doesn't say how often this is required. If this is such a great issue to the Met then why aren't there any figures showing this? I'm also not grasping the idea about how a spit hood is going to help all that much. They still need to get within spitting distance in order to put the hood on and they can only really do that once the suspect has been detained and handcuffed. From that point on they're almost always behind the suspect and not really in spitting range unless they've just lifted that lassie from The Exorcist. It's awfully hard to spit on someone when 15 stones of justice is sitting on you and your head is facing the other way.Good bit if kit when used properly i understand. Like all things, don't use it improperly or without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 minute ago, williemillersmoustache said: Good bit if kit when used properly i understand. Like all things, don't use it improperly or without cause. This is the point. Some arsehole's getting wide then surely the spit hood goes on when he's face down, hands behind his back and got the full force of someone pinning them down anyway. And for a "danger" that has no figures attached to it at all. And the same "danger" that me and my colleagues face all the time as well. As does nearly every other public sector worker to varying degrees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 This is the point. Some arsehole's getting wide then surely the spit hood goes on when he's face down, hands behind his back and got the full force of someone pinning them down anyway. And for a "danger" that has no figures attached to it at all. And the same "danger" that me and my colleagues face all the time as well. As does nearly every other public sector worker to varying degrees... You can't keep him pinned to the deck forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 minute ago, kilbowie2002 said: I can only speak for myself and certainly not the Met, but I can categorically say ive had to have blood tests as a result of a spitting/biting incident. Was this as a police officer or just one of the dangers of being a Junior fan? I do get the point that, after the arrest, a spit guard can make things easier to deal with a criminal but wont most of these folk be doing this to stop the cops getting near them? I don't see how it will help with initial apprehension and without the Met releasing numbers on it it's a bit "meh" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said: You can't keep him pinned to the deck forever. True but when the suspect is being frogmarched away the copper's behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Just now, Bairnardo said: That being the case, a risk assessment will have been carried out at your work. The result of the risk assessment apparently did not identify spit hoods as a worthwhile risk reduction control. You should have clearly defined actions in the event of an assault though. And if you dont you should demand it. Once again, this does not have any bearing on the use or not of hoods by the police. As I said, I am no stranger to the mental health profession and no stranger to the treatment staff face. It is at times horrendous and there are cases I could tell you about where not enough was done for staff. But like I say.... No bearing on the arguement whatsoever. Just now, kilbowie2002 said: Not when they are in a police vehicle, car or cell van. This is what I'm struggling with. Why has that same risk assesment been carried out by the met and found any different? If it is such a danger I would expect the Met to release figures to go along with it to prove their point and they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkyblue2 Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Where do you draw the line? Anybody can spit when being arrested, when the hood comes off, when going to and from court and in the jail if they are carrying a health risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said: You do get that ive absolutely no insight into te Met? Im absolutely certain if you submitted a foi as ive already said 3 times on this thread im sure you'd get your answer. Let me know how it goes. I know I'll be refreshing this page for the next 20 working days to see the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I get that if I do an FOI request I might get an answer a few months down the line. But if The Met want these introduced, and are using officer safety as their reason, but have no figures to back this up I can only presume it's because the figures they have are small enough to be neglible otherwise they'd be using them to back up their case. When they've introduced anything else, be it tazers or pepper spray, they've presented figures to back up their reasons for wanting to introduce them. I understand that might be a bit of a cost and health and safety thing as well. Both are more expensive and more dangerous to the public than a spit hood so perhaps they don't feel the costs/dangers are worth obtaining that information. However if those figures are as low as I am presuming them to be then this seems like a dangerous tactic to employ. Whether the Met's reputation for having officers who can't wait to get stuck in (especially getting stuck in to people of a darker skin tone) is still justified or not when this spit hood is employed we are gonna see camera phone footage of someone, innocent of any crime, pinned down to the ground and then have their face covered like an animal. And that person will be black and, possibly, mentally ill or mentally disabled. Now whether 99% of the time the spit hood is used is used correctly that one fuck up will be the face of it. That's probably not going to cause another riot but, for all we know, it could be the trigger for one or just another piece of fuel to the fire for the next one. Even if, by some miracle, there isn't any other disturbances in London in the next coupla decades due to perceived racial prejudice in The Met, there's a shit ton of work for them to gain any trust at all in minority communities or amongst large parts of the population regardless of their ethnicity. And if yer gonna do that there better be some numbers backing it up. Now Bairnardo's right that just because Mental Health Workers or Paramedics or whatever also face these dangers doesn't mean that coppers shouldn't either but, at the same time, there is an equivalency there and it's incredulous that the one branch of the public services (The Police) that needs to gain some trust and respect with the community it works with, in the area (London), where it's viewed with more suspicion than anywhere else feels so strongly about this issue to be blind to how it's viewed by the members of the public it's supposed to be serving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy boo Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 [mention=31033]Baxter Parp[/mention] See above for reasoned and logical arguement of the other side. Except paragraph 4 which is pure conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Form of torture and humiliation from the look of it. If the polis are worried about folk spitting on them they should be the ones wearing them. What a load of utter pish! If you don't want to be "humiliated" or "tortured" (talk about hyperbole...) by having to wear one then don't get arrested and if you do get arrested don't be a filthy cretin that thinks it is acceptable to spit on someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 What a load of utter pish! If you don't want to be "humiliated" or "tortured" (all about hyperbole...) by having to wear one then don't get arrested and if you do get arrested don't be a filthy cretin that thinks it is acceptable to spit on someone. Mmm, because it's not like the police ever arrest innocent people or anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 I expect it's not nice. Does it give you the right to humiliate Scottish citizens? No but it gives him a right to go to his work and not have some clatty b*****ds saliva on his coupon at best or be infected with disease at worst!!! When someone's actions start to infringe on other people's rights then they clearly should be curtailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 My two biggest issues are that they are disproportionately used on people with mental health problems, in one incident a disabled 12 year old girl was put into one, and that knowing the police it seems highly unlikely that these won't be abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 How do you know when someone's about to spit? How much of an issue is it? Should teachers, nurses, doctors and bus drivers have them? If not, why not? I don't think there's anything fine about them even if used "correctly". Teachers, nurses and doctors aren't trained or allowed to use force to control people either you moron so why would they be allowed to randomly put spit hoods on folk?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.