Woke Judges?

Woke has become the new LARP which would be funnier if the second wasn't factually nonsense and the former was not made up by those who enjoyed the latter.

Come on man, you can do better than this.

e:
dowie said:
thanks to the power of Twitter, we can also see what people who do have a clue think
Click to expand...

*stares into the abyss*
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia said:
Please do share other examples of !WOKE JUDGES! and no, some mad unit on X is not a great source.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned wokeness. Though in the case mentioned the Judge was anti police and deliberately give them harsher sentences, while give his ideological sisters leniency.

If you are a member of the police or pro Israel then you aren't getting a fair trial from him.
 
BowdonUK said:
I never mentioned wokeness. Though in the case mentioned the Judge was anti police and deliberately give them harsher sentences, while give his ideological sisters leniency.

If you are a member of the police or pro Israel then you aren't getting a fair trial from him.
Click to expand...
Being a police officer, or even an ex police officer means you are meant to know the law and respect it to a higher degree than the average person...

That's not being "biased" that's pretty much the standard, because we as a society tend to expect the police to do better than some random idiot off the street.

It's much the same as you can be criminally charged for stuff done in "public office" that would likely at most be a gross misconduct and sacking offence in other jobs.

It sort of balances out the fact that the police for example are allowed, and expected to do stuff that would normally be against the law for the average person, as they're trusted to a very high degree by the public and the legal system, so when they break that trust it tends to be taken into account for any punishment.

Also as has been said a few times, the idiots at the protest did something once, on one day, the ex officers were by all accounts doing it as dozens or hundreds of separate offences over the space of months or years meaning there was a long term pattern of it, which is a major aggravating factor in any sentencing consideration (and don't forget at least one of them was sentenced also based on the fact he had two illegal weapons in his possession).
 
Last edited:
Lol urbandictionary describes it as:
"It is used more often to term someone as hypocritical and think they are the 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or different perspective. Especially considering the existence of echo chamber(media) that helped them to find other like-minded individuals, thus, further solidifying their 'progressive' opinion."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Of all the problems in the world wokeness is so far down the list yet a sizeable percentage of American conservatives make being anti-woke their entire personality.

Conservative America is the kind of place where someone can be unemployed on benefits, eating 20 cheeseburgers a day, have no medical insurance, and still think their biggest problem is the wokesters.

Whenever I ask anyone in real life (within the UK) what woke things they dislike it's always 'over the top political correctness' so i feel like in the UK we haven't quite reached the total levels of degeneracy you see in America where things like climate change, free healthcare etc are labelled woke. Hopefully, we never get there... I do worry though.
 
Last edited:
imtoooldforthis said:
Of all the problems in the world wokeness is so far down the list yet a sizeable percentage of American conservatives make being anti-woke their entire personality.

Conservative America is the kind of place where someone can be unemployed on benefits, eating 20 cheeseburgers a day, have no medical insurance, and still think their biggest problem is the wokesters.

Whenever I ask anyone in real life (within the UK) what woke things they dislike it's always 'over the top political correctness' so i feel like in the UK we haven't quite reached the total levels of degeneracy you see in America where things like climate change, free healthcare etc are labelled woke. Hopefully, we never get there... I do worry though.
Click to expand...
Nailed it....... When I see anyone use "woke" or "wokeness" as any sort of political commentary, you just know they're a few French fries short of a happy meal and lack any sort of basic understanding of political and economic / socioeconomic issues, you know, things that actually affect us all on a daily basis, not crying about what toilet cubical someone decides to use or their pronouns.

Ironically, these nu-conservative anti-woke lot are the biggest cry babies and hypocrites going, total wet flannels.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Being a police officer, or even an ex police officer means you are meant to know the law and respect it to a higher degree than the average person...

That's not being "biased" that's pretty much the standard, because we as a society tend to expect the police to do better than some random idiot off the street.

It's much the same as you can be criminally charged for stuff done in "public office" that would likely at most be a gross misconduct and sacking offence in other jobs.

It sort of balances out the fact that the police for example are allowed, and expected to do stuff that would normally be against the law for the average person, as they're trusted to a very high degree by the public and the legal system, so when they break that trust it tends to be taken into account for any punishment.

Also as has been said a few times, the idiots at the protest did something once, on one day, the ex officers were by all accounts doing it as dozens or hundreds of separate offences over the space of months or years meaning there was a long term pattern of it, which is a major aggravating factor in any sentencing consideration (and don't forget at least one of them was sentenced also based on the fact he had two illegal weapons in his possession).
Click to expand...

I dunno.

I reckon these guys were just blowing off steam.

Served the public for years putting up with god knows what.

None of it was intended for anyone else to see, and probably based off what they had experienced first hand.

Then somehow it got out, someone screwed them over, and it got front of a judge who didn't like the look of them.

I feel sorry for them, and not being funny but who would want to be a police officer in this day and age, even less so after this.
 
PhigBill said:
Nailed it....... When I see anyone use "woke" or "wokeness" as any sort of political commentary, you just know they're a few French fries short of a happy meal and lack any sort of basic understanding of political and economic / socioeconomic issues, you know, things that actually affect us all on a daily basis, not crying about what toilet cubical someone decides to use or their pronouns.

Ironically, these nu-conservative anti-woke lot are the biggest cry babies and hypocrites going, total wet flannels.
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's not you? Nothing about toilet cubicles here but rather judicial impartiality, if you're unsure why that might be an issue then...
 
The same woke judge strikes again... another police officer is in trouble, this time for arresting a suspected fare dodger on a bus:


In this case, the issue was that she started kicking off when asked to show she'd paid for the bus by a bus inspector, the police officer then detained her and it turns out she could had paid and could have just shown the inspector that instead of causing a big commotion:

www.bbc.co.uk

PC found guilty of assaulting woman over wrongful bus fare arrest

PC Perry Lathwood is guilty of assaulting Jocelyn Agyemang during an arrest in Croydon.
www.bbc.co.uk

The problem is how should fare enforcement work now?

It is an issue in London and TFL does run these operations where they send some inspectors to a particular train station or bus stop and have police present too. The inspectors can't physically detain people AFAIK and it is a criminal offence so what happens now if any fare dodgers can just refuse to comply and carry on walking?

Because now apparently if the police intervene in that situation and it turns out to be someone who did in fact pay for a ticket but just has an attitude problem they'll get placed on restricted duties and/or get done for assault.
 
Mind blowing decision. I don't know one officer who can grasp it. They're all urgently seeking advice but there's a chance of huge numbers leaving the force over that and the constant IPCC shenanigans.
 
dowie said:
The same woke judge strikes again... another police officer is in trouble, this time for arresting a suspected fare dodger on a bus:


In this case, the issue was that she started kicking off when asked to show she'd paid for the bus by a bus inspector, the police officer then detained her and it turns out she could had paid and could have just shown the inspector that instead of causing a big commotion:

www.bbc.co.uk

PC found guilty of assaulting woman over wrongful bus fare arrest

PC Perry Lathwood is guilty of assaulting Jocelyn Agyemang during an arrest in Croydon.
www.bbc.co.uk

The problem is how should fare enforcement work now?

It is an issue in London and TFL does run these operations where they send some inspectors to a particular train station or bus stop and have police present too. The inspectors can't physically detain people AFAIK and it is a criminal offence so what happens now if any fare dodgers can just refuse to comply and carry on walking?

Because now apparently if the police intervene in that situation and it turns out to be someone who did in fact pay for a ticket but just has an attitude problem they'll get placed on restricted duties and/or get done for assault.
Click to expand...
IIRC you have to be pretty certain that a criminal offence has taken place to arrest someone, and use force to do so. It's one of the reasons "citizens arrests" can lead to the "citizen" getting charged as not every offence is arrestable and the level of force has to be appropriate to the offence and situation, and a trained police officer is meant to know what is arrestable and what level of force is reasonable.

You're posting about a "woke" judge with a couple of tweets and newspaper articles about how wrong it was, however the Judge will have seen and heard the evidence and that would have included any body worn cameras (of both the ticket inspector and the police officer), any CCTV footage from the bus (there will be).

Basically I'm not going to go with some CT about a judge being soft or somehow trying to undermine policing, I'm going to go with the line that the Judge having heard case and knowing the law as written and case law has gone with what precedent says is correct.
I'd much rather that than the situation where police can basically do what they want as happens in the US.

"Ms Agyemang said she told the inspector to walk with her as she was in a hurry. Lathwood then walked over and grabbed her to stop her", that's not refusing to show the ticket that's basically saying "i'm busy but you can talk to me while we walk".
If that is what has happened, then as I understand it there has been no need for use of force and no reasonable reason to actually suspect she didn't actually buy a ticket (the were not on the bus at the time she got on and would have bought a ticket, nor were they told by the driver she hadn't bought by the sounds of it), so no offence has been committed at that point by her and there is no reasonable grounds to suspect an offense has been committed (she's not even refusing to talk).


edit
Also see the IPCC report on the matter, which is far more detailed than those tweets.
Note that the IPCC determined the complaint against officer met the grounds for a criminal complaint and referred it to the CPS who decided there was enough for a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, then the Judge at the magistrates court found that the offence had met the grounds for a guilty verdict.
That means at least 3 separate parties thought the officers conduct were likely sufficient for a criminal offence to have taken placee.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Basically I'm not going to go with some CT about a judge being soft or somehow trying to undermine policing, I'm going to go with the line that the Judge having heard case and knowing the law as written and case law has gone with what precedent says is correct.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's hardly some conspiracy theory to suggest he's woke or to hold the opinion that this is a bad result... anyone can see the previous statements by this judge outside of court too or indeed what he chose to "like" on LinkedIn or re: the case in the OP people could note that the CPS are seeking a judicial review.

Werewolf said:
"Ms Agyemang said she told the inspector to walk with her as she was in a hurry. Lathwood then walked over and grabbed her to stop her", that's not refusing to show the ticket that's basically saying "i'm busy but you can talk to me while we walk".
Click to expand...

No, this involves an oyster card rather than a ticket - something which she could have simply tapped on the machine, she didn't need to stop and hand over a ticket and wait for someone to check the date/time, correct zone etc. Most people just get their debit card/oyster card out when there are inspectors at a station/bus stop and you simply tap it as you exit so someone using that line and trying to walk off is obviously suspicious even if it just turned out she simply has an attitude problem.
 
I would have thought someone trying to walk off when asked to show tickets by a ticket inspector was enough to have a reasonable suspicion that she didn't have a ticket. Normal people would stop and show their ticket / oyster card or whatever if they had one.

The video I've seen doesn't show the very start of the confrontation so don't know what that looked like and if the officer came in hot, but it does show her trying to resist arrest and get away from the police officer, so not surprised she hurt her wrist.
 
Werewolf said:
edit
Also see the IPCC report on the matter, which is far more detailed than those tweets.
Note that the IPCC determined the complaint against officer met the grounds for a criminal complaint and referred it to the CPS who decided there was enough for a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, then the Judge at the magistrates court found that the offence had met the grounds for a guilty verdict.
That means at least 3 separate parties thought the officers conduct were likely sufficient for a criminal offence to have taken placee.
Click to expand...
So...

IOPC regional director Mel Palmer said: “Today a judge has found that the use of force by PC Lathwood against the woman after her arrest, including the use of handcuffs and holding onto her arm, was unlawful and he has been convicted of assault.

“Any use of force by officers should be reasonable, proportionate and justifiable in the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I don't know if more happened (I've only seen the video in the bbc article) but considering the wording of the final sentence and what they highlighted in this short report, it seems like any attempt to arrest a potential fare dodger is not reasonable or a proportionate use of force.

There must be more to this that I ain't seeing.

Werewolf said:
IIRC you have to be pretty certain that a criminal offence has taken place to arrest someone, and use force to do so.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound right. Because the only way to be pretty certain a crime has taken place is for police officer to have witnessed the crime themselves or have seen evidence prior to arresting them.

If the police are called to an incident, the perpatrator could flee the scene while the police are reviewing the evidence, so that they could be "pretty certain" that a crime has taken place before they could even attempt to detain/arrest the perp.
 
GreatAuk said:
The video I've seen doesn't show the very start of the confrontation so don't know what that looked like and if the officer came in hot, but it does show her trying to resist arrest and get away from the police officer, so not surprised she hurt her wrist.
Click to expand...

One of the ones doing the rounds on social media is after the police officer has intervened and that seems to be preferred by the people celebrating it, the video on the BBC website has some of the interaction with the ticket inspector just before she's stopped by the police officer:

www.bbc.co.uk

PC found guilty of assaulting woman over wrongful bus fare arrest

PC Perry Lathwood is guilty of assaulting Jocelyn Agyemang during an arrest in Croydon.
www.bbc.co.uk

Chuk_Chuk said:
I don't know if more happened (I've only seen the video in the bbc article) but considering the wording of the final sentence and what they highlighted in this short report, it seems like any attempt to arrest a potential fare dodger is not reasonable or a proportionate use of force.

There must be more to this that I ain't seeing.
Click to expand...

The judge basically concluded that she could have been asked for her name and address and warned that refusing to give those could mean arrest. (For fare dodgers who are caught out by ticket inspectors typically they give their name and address and receive a fine in the post.)

But even fare dodgers who have been caught are cooperating in that case, she's not cooperating and is several meters away from where the bus has stopped and showing no intention of stopping ergo it seems quite reasonable for him to have physically stopped her. She could have just tapped the oyster card then but instead she kicked off even more created a big scene.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
One of the ones doing the rounds on social media is after the police officer has intervened and that seems to be preferred by the people celebrating it, the video on the BBC website has some of the interaction with the ticket inspector just before she's stopped by the police officer:

...

The judge basically concluded that she could have been asked for her name and address and warned that refusing to give those could mean arrest. (For fare dodgers who are caught out by ticket inspectors typically they give their name and address and receive a fine in the post.)

But even fare dodgers who have been caught are cooperating in that case, she's not cooperating and is several meters away from where the bus has stopped and showing no intention of stopping ergo it seems quite reasonable for him to have physically stopped her. She could have just tapped the oyster card then but instead she kicked off even more created a big scene.
Click to expand...
Yeah from that video she doesn't look at all cooperative, looks like she's trying to get away. She looks like the one escalating the situation there by refusing to scan her pass or talk rationally and screaming / pushing instead. I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably have asked for her name and address and given a warning without physically stopping her in that scenario. The way she's acting just screams "I'm agitated because I broke the law and don't want to get busted" to me.

Acting that way in front of her kid is pretty irresponsible too, no wonder he was getting upset. I don't have kids but I just can't imagine deciding to start shouting at police and get into a scuffle with them with my kid in tow.

I know that clip doesn't show the full story, but based on what I've seen I can't help but disagree with the trial result. Seems to imply that police should act the same way as supermarket 'security guards' - chase after a suspect like 'excuse me sir, please come back I need to give you a warning! Sir, if you don't give me you name and address I will... sir, please don't get into that car, sir please come back!'
 
Last edited:
GreatAuk said:
I know that clip doesn't show the full story, but based on what I've seen I can't help but disagree with the trial result. Seems to imply that police should act the same way as supermarket 'security guards' - chase after a suspect like 'excuse me sir, please come back I need to give you a warning! Sir, if you don't give me you name and address I will... sir, please don't get into that car, sir please come back!'
Click to expand...

Basically that - it seems to be an absurd conclusion drawn from the fact that actual fare invaders are told they need to give their name and address or else they're liable to face arrest and then they if they give their details just get a fine in the post. The act of fare evasion itself doesn't result in an arrest just a fine in the post ergo the judge has concluded this was excessive for a suspected offence.

The problem is that happens when the actual fare evader is cooperating, she was already not cooperating with the ticket inspectors. Seemingly had the police officer just asked for her name and address there wouldn't have been an unlawful arrest in the eyes of the judge.

But also the police officer just grabbed her arm initially and then she started kicking off so it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to cuff her because of that.

I guess if he'd just said he was arresting her for breach of the peace instead of suspected fare evasion then he'd have been covered too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom