Chelmsford policeman sacked following skirmish with a teenager

Southend Standard: Chelmsford policeman sacked following skirmish with a teenager Chelmsford policeman sacked following skirmish with a teenager

A POLICE officer has been sacked for grabbing a teenager round the neck and shoving him into a bush.

The 39-year-old Essex police officer who was based out of the station in Chelmsford could has been struck off by assistant chief constable Julia Wortley following a gross misconduct hearing.

The incident happened in October 2012, when the officer attended the green in Chelmer Village to make an arrest.

He came across a group of youngsters and an altercation ensued.

The officer took hold of the 14-year-old by the neck and pushed him back into a bush. He later gave an account of the event that was untruthful.

After hearing the details of the case on Thursday, January 30, ACC Wortley fired the officer for using excessive and unnecessary force, discreditable conduct and failing to act with honesty and integrity.

Since the fracas 16 months ago, the policeman had been on restricted duties.

ACC Wortley said: "On this occasion the officer’s conduct fell significantly below that which is expected by Essex Police and to retain his services could only serve to undermine public confidence in the force.

"Accordingly the panel was of the view that the only appropriate outcome in this case was to dismiss the officer without notice.

"I would like to thank the victim in this case and a number of young people who willingly gave their time to give evidence throughout the investigation and the misconduct hearing."

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:50pm Fri 31 Jan 14

w-jback says...

whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him!
whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him! w-jback
  • Score: 30

2:23pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved. HDCKKK
  • Score: -12

2:24pm Fri 31 Jan 14

boo beckett says...

w-jback wrote:
whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him!
The police funding is being drastically cut back. This is just another way of reducing costs. Sack officers, cut pensions, scrap overtime pay, withdraw sick pay, etc... The criminals are winning.
[quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him![/p][/quote]The police funding is being drastically cut back. This is just another way of reducing costs. Sack officers, cut pensions, scrap overtime pay, withdraw sick pay, etc... The criminals are winning. boo beckett
  • Score: 15

2:25pm Fri 31 Jan 14

supermadmax says...

Excellent news.
Excellent news. supermadmax
  • Score: -4

2:27pm Fri 31 Jan 14

supermadmax says...

HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
[quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court. supermadmax
  • Score: -10

2:27pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

oh and FYI...my son the victim of the ex officer's attack..had nothing to do with the reason the police were called to Chelmer Village...he was just a by stander and like i said...was trying to offer assistance!!!!!
oh and FYI...my son the victim of the ex officer's attack..had nothing to do with the reason the police were called to Chelmer Village...he was just a by stander and like i said...was trying to offer assistance!!!!! HDCKKK
  • Score: -7

2:29pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

supermadmax wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
we just want to forget it now..just glad he cant do it to anyone else.
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court.[/p][/quote]we just want to forget it now..just glad he cant do it to anyone else. HDCKKK
  • Score: 9

2:32pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer!
FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer! HDCKKK
  • Score: -5

2:34pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Rochford Richard says...

HDCKKK wrote:
FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer!
I heard he was dealing drugs.
[quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer![/p][/quote]I heard he was dealing drugs. Rochford Richard
  • Score: 5

2:40pm Fri 31 Jan 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

A thick ear, sorted them out in the 60's
A thick ear, sorted them out in the 60's You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat
  • Score: 13

2:41pm Fri 31 Jan 14

w-jback says...

Many a time I have kindly offered a policeman help only for him to strangle me then throw me into a bush!
Many a time I have kindly offered a policeman help only for him to strangle me then throw me into a bush! w-jback
  • Score: 9

4:04pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

they are idiots if they think this EX officer did nothing wrong.,...they should look out for him when they are next signing on...he will be in the queue with them!!
they are idiots if they think this EX officer did nothing wrong.,...they should look out for him when they are next signing on...he will be in the queue with them!! HDCKKK
  • Score: -5

4:22pm Fri 31 Jan 14

whateverhappened says...

Why has this excopper not been named?
Why has this excopper not been named? whateverhappened
  • Score: -7

5:07pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Prolific Shoplifter :) says...

Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning!
Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning! Prolific Shoplifter :)
  • Score: 9

5:48pm Fri 31 Jan 14

You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat says...

Prolific Shoplifter :) wrote:
Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning!
Dont forget he has been paid £3,200 a month since it supposedly happened, I expect he'll be going on a holiday...
[quote][p][bold]Prolific Shoplifter :)[/bold] wrote: Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning![/p][/quote]Dont forget he has been paid £3,200 a month since it supposedly happened, I expect he'll be going on a holiday... You'dfeelbetterforknowingthat
  • Score: 11

5:53pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Blobblob223 says...

HDCKKK did this officer ever end up in a criminal court for assaulting your son? If so, what was the outcome?
HDCKKK did this officer ever end up in a criminal court for assaulting your son? If so, what was the outcome? Blobblob223
  • Score: 6

6:32pm Fri 31 Jan 14

the25man says...

Nothing would have come from this if the Officer hadn't twisted the truth, So more fool him
Nothing would have come from this if the Officer hadn't twisted the truth, So more fool him the25man
  • Score: 12

7:13pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Prolific Shoplifter :) says...

You'dfeelbetterforkn
owingthat
wrote:
Prolific Shoplifter :) wrote:
Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning!
Dont forget he has been paid £3,200 a month since it supposedly happened, I expect he'll be going on a holiday...
Or spending it on drugs. Afterall, our police service is corrupt.
[quote][p][bold]You'dfeelbetterforkn owingthat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prolific Shoplifter :)[/bold] wrote: Can't believe everyone is defending this bit of scum. His assaulted a 14 year old boy. He should of been imprisoned. If the 14 year old boy assaulted him, he would of got a custodial sentence probably. Anyway, glad all has worked out well. He will be down the dole que on Monday morning![/p][/quote]Dont forget he has been paid £3,200 a month since it supposedly happened, I expect he'll be going on a holiday...[/p][/quote]Or spending it on drugs. Afterall, our police service is corrupt. Prolific Shoplifter :)
  • Score: 0

7:53pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me!
Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me! HDCKKK
  • Score: 2

7:55pm Fri 31 Jan 14

HDCKKK says...

whateverhappened wrote:
Why has this excopper not been named?
I could name him... but he knows who he is...feel sorry for his four kids...how shameful!!
[quote][p][bold]whateverhappened[/bold] wrote: Why has this excopper not been named?[/p][/quote]I could name him... but he knows who he is...feel sorry for his four kids...how shameful!! HDCKKK
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Fri 31 Jan 14

tac123 says...

You have to ask why the officer hasn't faced a criminal charge! Perhaps the echo should explain that the case against this officer was decided on the basis of 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt' this essentially means that instead of having to be sure that the officer did wrong the panel only have to decide they think he did wrong! The level of proof is so much lower and the rules regarding 'evidence admission' are completely different, hearsay is admissible as is previous unproven bad character! I'm not saying the officer is innocent but if he was guilty of anything and it could be proven I guarantee he would be in trial in a court of law and not a hearing!

As for a supposed family member coming onto this forum and trying to defend their 'little angel'. There is no smoke without fire! While I don't doubt that he did not deserve the treatment he got, there is no way this was completely unprovoked!
You have to ask why the officer hasn't faced a criminal charge! Perhaps the echo should explain that the case against this officer was decided on the basis of 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt' this essentially means that instead of having to be sure that the officer did wrong the panel only have to decide they think he did wrong! The level of proof is so much lower and the rules regarding 'evidence admission' are completely different, hearsay is admissible as is previous unproven bad character! I'm not saying the officer is innocent but if he was guilty of anything and it could be proven I guarantee he would be in trial in a court of law and not a hearing! As for a supposed family member coming onto this forum and trying to defend their 'little angel'. There is no smoke without fire! While I don't doubt that he did not deserve the treatment he got, there is no way this was completely unprovoked! tac123
  • Score: 3

8:51pm Fri 31 Jan 14

noo2708 says...

Blobblob223 wrote:
HDCKKK did this officer ever end up in a criminal court for assaulting your son? If so, what was the outcome?
yes he did and was found not guilty...
[quote][p][bold]Blobblob223[/bold] wrote: HDCKKK did this officer ever end up in a criminal court for assaulting your son? If so, what was the outcome?[/p][/quote]yes he did and was found not guilty... noo2708
  • Score: 5

8:54pm Fri 31 Jan 14

ThisYear says...

w-jback wrote:
whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him!
*discreditable conduct and failing to act with honesty and integrity*

You seem to have missed this part of the case against.
[quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him![/p][/quote]*discreditable conduct and failing to act with honesty and integrity* You seem to have missed this part of the case against. ThisYear
  • Score: 3

8:55pm Fri 31 Jan 14

noo2708 says...

tac123 wrote:
You have to ask why the officer hasn't faced a criminal charge! Perhaps the echo should explain that the case against this officer was decided on the basis of 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt' this essentially means that instead of having to be sure that the officer did wrong the panel only have to decide they think he did wrong! The level of proof is so much lower and the rules regarding 'evidence admission' are completely different, hearsay is admissible as is previous unproven bad character! I'm not saying the officer is innocent but if he was guilty of anything and it could be proven I guarantee he would be in trial in a court of law and not a hearing!

As for a supposed family member coming onto this forum and trying to defend their 'little angel'. There is no smoke without fire! While I don't doubt that he did not deserve the treatment he got, there is no way this was completely unprovoked!
this went to Crown Court and the officer was found NOT GUILTY.. shame on Essex Police

there is much more to this story and I am sure the truth will come out in the end.

the 'little angel' .. pah ! shame on them and their friends for LYING.. it was thrown out of Crown Court due to their stories not matching and them changing them continually.
[quote][p][bold]tac123[/bold] wrote: You have to ask why the officer hasn't faced a criminal charge! Perhaps the echo should explain that the case against this officer was decided on the basis of 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt' this essentially means that instead of having to be sure that the officer did wrong the panel only have to decide they think he did wrong! The level of proof is so much lower and the rules regarding 'evidence admission' are completely different, hearsay is admissible as is previous unproven bad character! I'm not saying the officer is innocent but if he was guilty of anything and it could be proven I guarantee he would be in trial in a court of law and not a hearing! As for a supposed family member coming onto this forum and trying to defend their 'little angel'. There is no smoke without fire! While I don't doubt that he did not deserve the treatment he got, there is no way this was completely unprovoked![/p][/quote]this went to Crown Court and the officer was found NOT GUILTY.. shame on Essex Police there is much more to this story and I am sure the truth will come out in the end. the 'little angel' .. pah ! shame on them and their friends for LYING.. it was thrown out of Crown Court due to their stories not matching and them changing them continually. noo2708
  • Score: -1

8:58pm Fri 31 Jan 14

ThisYear says...

Rochford Richard wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer!
I heard he was dealing drugs.
I do hope your claim is tested in a court of some type. You seem to have a habit of posting things with the advice you are protected by encryption...begs the question why you feel you need encryption to post on here.
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Richard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: FYI my son the victim of the ex officers assault had nothing to do with the reason the police had been called to chelmer Village, he was just a bystander and like I said he was trying to assist the officer![/p][/quote]I heard he was dealing drugs.[/p][/quote]I do hope your claim is tested in a court of some type. You seem to have a habit of posting things with the advice you are protected by encryption...begs the question why you feel you need encryption to post on here. ThisYear
  • Score: 4

8:59pm Fri 31 Jan 14

noo2708 says...

supermadmax wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court.[/p][/quote]no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel' noo2708
  • Score: -5

9:14pm Fri 31 Jan 14

supermadmax says...

noo2708 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'
Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority.
[quote][p][bold]noo2708[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court.[/p][/quote]no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'[/p][/quote]Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority. supermadmax
  • Score: 2

9:18pm Fri 31 Jan 14

noo2708 says...

supermadmax wrote:
noo2708 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'
Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority.
wow our justice system really is f@cked up!
[quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noo2708[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court.[/p][/quote]no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'[/p][/quote]Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority.[/p][/quote]wow our justice system really is f@cked up! noo2708
  • Score: -1

12:14am Sat 1 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

HDCKKK wrote:
Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me!
You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up!

Says a lot about them too doesn't it.

Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel.


http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013
/26/contents/enacted
[quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me![/p][/quote]You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up! Says a lot about them too doesn't it. Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013 /26/contents/enacted ThisYear
  • Score: 0

12:20am Sat 1 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

noo2708 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
noo2708 wrote:
supermadmax wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.
You should sue in civil court.
no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'
Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority.
wow our justice system really is f@cked up!
By your comment, which was wrong, perhaps you need to look into the law and get it right before you decided its faulty..the laws are there to protect not to ignore such behaviour as the Police themselves found to be too much..Give the police force credit for doing right.
[quote][p][bold]noo2708[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]noo2708[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]supermadmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: it was my son and he was not being gobby...he was trying to help the officer and the officer thought he was lying .....my son was 14 and he held him by the throat for a considerable time and called him obscene names....there was a reason why he was sacked don't you think!!! I am delighted..he was a lying bully and he got exactly what he deserved.[/p][/quote]You should sue in civil court.[/p][/quote]no they can't.. as the officer was found not guilty by the Crown Court.... seems mummy keeps ignoring that point while defending her 'angel'[/p][/quote]Yes they can, in civil court you need a lesser level of proof, it does not need to be 'beyond reasonable doubt' , its an entirely different system where the criminal courts have no authority.[/p][/quote]wow our justice system really is f@cked up![/p][/quote]By your comment, which was wrong, perhaps you need to look into the law and get it right before you decided its faulty..the laws are there to protect not to ignore such behaviour as the Police themselves found to be too much..Give the police force credit for doing right. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

1:52pm Sat 1 Feb 14

Prolific Shoplifter :) says...

w-jback wrote:
whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him!
Human rights now.
[quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: whats going on! 20 years ago pushing a gobby youth in a bush would have been the minimum way to have dealt with him![/p][/quote]Human rights now. Prolific Shoplifter :)
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Sat 1 Feb 14

HDCKKK says...

I really couldn't care a less what any of you people think that doubt my son and all the other witness's!! Although you might want to bear in mind that his own partner who was working with him that night and another two police officer's gave evidence AGAINST him....For us its over and we couldn't give a hoot what happen's to him now...he is history.....just a bad egg who the CPS and internal affairs decided to prosecute and investigate..NOT US..and that was because of his previous record I believe.as well.....so not a popular man by all accounts and having seen this person i just felt sorry for his wife and children as he is a nasty piece of work....now end of story and case closed and good luck if he appeals..15 months of desk duty, no overtime and the humiliation of being outed as a complete liar and being dismissed is punishment i would say and if they take him back i hope he learned his lesson and keeps his hands to himself!!!!!
I really couldn't care a less what any of you people think that doubt my son and all the other witness's!! Although you might want to bear in mind that his own partner who was working with him that night and another two police officer's gave evidence AGAINST him....For us its over and we couldn't give a hoot what happen's to him now...he is history.....just a bad egg who the CPS and internal affairs decided to prosecute and investigate..NOT US..and that was because of his previous record I believe.as well.....so not a popular man by all accounts and having seen this person i just felt sorry for his wife and children as he is a nasty piece of work....now end of story and case closed and good luck if he appeals..15 months of desk duty, no overtime and the humiliation of being outed as a complete liar and being dismissed is punishment i would say and if they take him back i hope he learned his lesson and keeps his hands to himself!!!!! HDCKKK
  • Score: 1

5:36pm Sat 1 Feb 14

826668 says...

I am the officer concerned. My story will come out and I will taken civil action against the police for unfair/constructive dismissal. You were lucky the force wanted rid of me anyway for having a brain and not being a robot. They just used your son to get what they wanted. I wont be in that queue for long as I already have a new job offer. Name me if you wish but if my name appears anywhere YOU will find yourself at the wrong end of legal action. I have nothing to hide. I was found not guilty in a court of law and the burden of proof was so low it allowed them to get rid of me. The only thing your son and friends have learnt is that if they get into trouble all they have to do make stuff up and the officer will get sacked. One day he will pick on the wrong person. What goes around comes around. Just remember some of your sons from "friends" said your son was disrespectful and that I never used foul language. These same friends thought "your angel" was getting arrested. You have to ask why they thought that. Anyway you got the result you wanted so lets just leave it at that? I will move on and no doubt be better off. How about you???
Even you have twisted the truth in relation to the facts. For one my colleagues were asked to give statements. 2 were never called or used due to having no evidence either way. The other if you saw his evidence would realise that he attempted to help me with his evidence but this ended not helping as in his efforts to help he made me out to be a liar. It also should be minded that Essex Police were very quick to tell the world. Also you have been very quick to come on here, a site that does not even cover Chelmsford to defend your son. Well I will get my chance and I have all the evidence I need to back up my claims. Watch this space people!!!
I am the officer concerned. My story will come out and I will taken civil action against the police for unfair/constructive dismissal. You were lucky the force wanted rid of me anyway for having a brain and not being a robot. They just used your son to get what they wanted. I wont be in that queue for long as I already have a new job offer. Name me if you wish but if my name appears anywhere YOU will find yourself at the wrong end of legal action. I have nothing to hide. I was found not guilty in a court of law and the burden of proof was so low it allowed them to get rid of me. The only thing your son and friends have learnt is that if they get into trouble all they have to do make stuff up and the officer will get sacked. One day he will pick on the wrong person. What goes around comes around. Just remember some of your sons from "friends" said your son was disrespectful and that I never used foul language. These same friends thought "your angel" was getting arrested. You have to ask why they thought that. Anyway you got the result you wanted so lets just leave it at that? I will move on and no doubt be better off. How about you??? Even you have twisted the truth in relation to the facts. For one my colleagues were asked to give statements. 2 were never called or used due to having no evidence either way. The other if you saw his evidence would realise that he attempted to help me with his evidence but this ended not helping as in his efforts to help he made me out to be a liar. It also should be minded that Essex Police were very quick to tell the world. Also you have been very quick to come on here, a site that does not even cover Chelmsford to defend your son. Well I will get my chance and I have all the evidence I need to back up my claims. Watch this space people!!! 826668
  • Score: 1

6:10pm Sat 1 Feb 14

HDCKKK says...

have to correct you....you are the EX officer.......now bore off....we don't give a stuff and yes we DID get the result we wanted......and when you tell your sob story in the chronicle this week (how embarrassing) I for one won't be reading it.....as we will be getting on with our lovely lives and you will still be whinging and whining about how unfair it all is...boo hoo!!! Please don't threaten me again as i'm not a 14 year old boy you big fat head bully and I won't put up with it. Now have to go...got some celebrating to do...ta ta.....
have to correct you....you are the EX officer.......now bore off....we don't give a stuff and yes we DID get the result we wanted......and when you tell your sob story in the chronicle this week (how embarrassing) I for one won't be reading it.....as we will be getting on with our lovely lives and you will still be whinging and whining about how unfair it all is...boo hoo!!! Please don't threaten me again as i'm not a 14 year old boy you big fat head bully and I won't put up with it. Now have to go...got some celebrating to do...ta ta..... HDCKKK
  • Score: 2

6:21pm Sat 1 Feb 14

This Year says...

ThisYear wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me!
You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up!

Says a lot about them too doesn't it.

Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel.


http://www.legislati

on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013

/26/contents/enacted
Kindly retract your post and apologise. That poster was named Richard, not Rob. There is no connection and I and the admin here can easily prove it.

You have 24 hours to do so before I report you and hopefully get you banned. Again.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me![/p][/quote]You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up! Says a lot about them too doesn't it. Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013 /26/contents/enacted[/p][/quote]Kindly retract your post and apologise. That poster was named Richard, not Rob. There is no connection and I and the admin here can easily prove it. You have 24 hours to do so before I report you and hopefully get you banned. Again. This Year
  • Score: -1

7:42pm Sat 1 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

ThisYear wrote:
HDCKKK wrote:
Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me!
You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up!

Says a lot about them too doesn't it.

Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel.


http://www.legislati

on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013

/26/contents/enacted
For 'Rochford Rob' please read Rochford Richard. My mistake.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: Just want to say thanks to the people who know better, as my 14 year old has been bullied enough by a grown man who has done enough damage, and now its his turn to pay. As for Rochford Richard who has suggested that my son was dealing drugs which is not only disgusting but liable...you have not heard the last from me![/p][/quote]You really should go after this rather despicable poster (Rochford Rob) He was banned off here before for using foul language and posting filthy innuendo on a thread abiut a young girl..YET some posters still give him a thumbs up! Says a lot about them too doesn't it. Screen save the thread and then complain to admin about his libel. http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/ukpga/2013 /26/contents/enacted[/p][/quote]For 'Rochford Rob' please read Rochford Richard. My mistake. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

9:50am Sun 2 Feb 14

This Year says...

Thank you.
Thank you. This Year
  • Score: -2

9:55am Sun 2 Feb 14

RochfordRob says...

This Year wrote:
Thank you.
Makes no sense to me, but I do concur.
[quote][p][bold]This Year[/bold] wrote: Thank you.[/p][/quote]Makes no sense to me, but I do concur. RochfordRob
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Sun 2 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

This Year wrote:
Thank you.
For what?
[quote][p][bold]This Year[/bold] wrote: Thank you.[/p][/quote]For what? ThisYear
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Sun 2 Feb 14

ThisYear says...

RochfordRob wrote:
This Year wrote:
Thank you.
Makes no sense to me, but I do concur.
No it wont make sense to you because this makes mention of Rochford Rob instead of Rochford Richard...you are of course RochfordRob..

The rather weird poster making the threats he couldn't possibly carry out doesn't seem to know just who he is..he often thinks he is me.
[quote][p][bold]RochfordRob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]This Year[/bold] wrote: Thank you.[/p][/quote]Makes no sense to me, but I do concur.[/p][/quote]No it wont make sense to you because this makes mention of Rochford Rob instead of Rochford Richard...you are of course RochfordRob.. The rather weird poster making the threats he couldn't possibly carry out doesn't seem to know just who he is..he often thinks he is me. ThisYear
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 4 Feb 14

Donski80 says...

HDCKKK wrote:
I really couldn't care a less what any of you people think that doubt my son and all the other witness's!! Although you might want to bear in mind that his own partner who was working with him that night and another two police officer's gave evidence AGAINST him....For us its over and we couldn't give a hoot what happen's to him now...he is history.....just a bad egg who the CPS and internal affairs decided to prosecute and investigate..NOT US..and that was because of his previous record I believe.as well.....so not a popular man by all accounts and having seen this person i just felt sorry for his wife and children as he is a nasty piece of work....now end of story and case closed and good luck if he appeals..15 months of desk duty, no overtime and the humiliation of being outed as a complete liar and being dismissed is punishment i would say and if they take him back i hope he learned his lesson and keeps his hands to himself!!!!!
Don't you bring his children into this. You have no need to feel sorry for them, they all have a good life and a loving father. I certainly wouldn't be letting my children roam the streets at night. I will know where they are. Children allowed out in the dark are only out to cause trouble!!
[quote][p][bold]HDCKKK[/bold] wrote: I really couldn't care a less what any of you people think that doubt my son and all the other witness's!! Although you might want to bear in mind that his own partner who was working with him that night and another two police officer's gave evidence AGAINST him....For us its over and we couldn't give a hoot what happen's to him now...he is history.....just a bad egg who the CPS and internal affairs decided to prosecute and investigate..NOT US..and that was because of his previous record I believe.as well.....so not a popular man by all accounts and having seen this person i just felt sorry for his wife and children as he is a nasty piece of work....now end of story and case closed and good luck if he appeals..15 months of desk duty, no overtime and the humiliation of being outed as a complete liar and being dismissed is punishment i would say and if they take him back i hope he learned his lesson and keeps his hands to himself!!!!![/p][/quote]Don't you bring his children into this. You have no need to feel sorry for them, they all have a good life and a loving father. I certainly wouldn't be letting my children roam the streets at night. I will know where they are. Children allowed out in the dark are only out to cause trouble!! Donski80
  • Score: -2

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