Leaving one's beat

[John G]

This is a topic I have been working on for some time now.

I do not wish to present all of my views at present as the work is not finished yet, and this debate highlights to me many of the issues.

So let's just make a few observations.

1. Was a police officer required to leave his beat if asked to?

Not unless it was an emergency situation or the request came from another officer. In which case he had a legitimate reason to do so.

2. Would a police officer be expected to cross divisional boundaries.

Again only in an emergency situation or if requested by another officer.


3. Was the situation on the 31st August, such that we should have expected Mizen to leave his Beat and cross divisional boundaries ?

If he seriously believed the situation was an emergency then yes.
If he believed he had been requested by another officer again yes.



The big question is (Apart from the another policeman wants you suggestion) not how should he have reacted but how did he react?

After the event and before he gives his testimony on the 3rd: What effect if any did the inquest testimony of PC Neil on the 1st and the Lloyds Weekly statement of Paul on the 2nd have on him? What effect might possible public opinion have on him?



Steve

Hi Steve,

But surely if he was told that another officer wanted him then, by necessary implication, he has to assume it's an emergency, i.e. on the basis that the other officer must have known that he could only summon his assistance in an emergency situation.

And wouldn't this explain why he felt it necessary to point out that he didn't continue "knocking up."

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But surely if he was told that another officer wanted him then, by necessary implication, he has to assume it's an emergency, i.e. on the basis that the other officer must have known that he could only summon his assistance in an emergency situation.

And wouldn't this explain why he felt it necessary to point out that he didn't continue "knocking up."

Hi John,
First point of course correct.. And that is the question, was he told another officer wanted him?
Its not just was he told that? But did he believe he had been told that?
That was the view I long subscribed to myself.

Second point is equally complicated. Did he stop knocking up after the last one?

Could he have continued? Yes it appears so logistically.
Did he? Probably not; but I will not say it's impossible.

That however is only part of a complicated issue.


Steve

[John G]

Hi John,
First point of course correct.. And that is the question, was he told another officer wanted him?
Its not just was he told that? But did he believe he had been told that?
That was the view I long subscribed to myself.

Second point is equally complicated. Did he stop knocking up after the last one?

Could he have continued? Yes it appears so logistically.
Did he? Probably not; but I will not say it's impossible.

That however is only part of a complicated issue.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Could it be that he got himself into a bit of a pickle? Thus, based upon his own evidence, where he makes it clear he wasn't informed that someone might be dead, he had no legitimate reason for leaving his beat unless he thought he was being summoned by another officer in an emergency.

Perhaps he initially distrusted Cross and Paul, believing they were trying to trick him to get him off his beat (this ruse had obviously been used before).

However, maybe he then changed his mind and decides to respond. As a result he cannot now admit he delayed responding to what he now perceives as an emergency situation, so he therefore infers that there was no delay, hence he states he didn't continue knocking up.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Could it be that he got himself into a bit of a pickle? Thus, based upon his own evidence, where he makes it clear he wasn't informed that someone might be dead, he had no legitimate reason for leaving his beat unless he thought he was being summoned by another officer in an emergency.

Perhaps he initially distrusted Cross and Paul, believing they were trying to trick him to get him off his beat (this ruse had obviously been used before).

However, maybe he then changed his mind and decides to respond. As a result he cannot now admit he delayed responding to what he now perceives as an emergency situation, so he therefore infers that there was no delay, hence he states he didn't continue knocking up.

John
Yes I think got himself in a pickle is a good description.
I do not think he actually did anything procedurally incorrect, rather it was a question of his ethical/moral response that was the issue to him after the event. And the response which may have followed from that if it became public.

Sorry for being less than clear


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all.

Questions, questions!

Why did Neil apparently believe that he'd discovered the body? Why didn't he or, even more relevantly, his superiors ask the obvious question when he was going over events with them: why did Mizen turn up? He'd got no other reason to be there so how did he know that there was a body in Bucks Row if he hadn't been told about it? And so...who told him? Why did no one suss this?

We now have the added knowledge that a policeman needed a really good reason to leave his beat. 'If' Mizen told the truth about CL and Paul saying that Nichols was only drunk, then how does this justify him leaving his beat? Maybe Mizen said that they'd told him 'drunk' to justify himself finishing off knocking up? And if anyone had asked why he'd left his beat for a drunk he added the 'wanted by another officer' bit.
Sometimes statements have 'the ring of truth' about them although that doesn't always mean that they're definately true. One such statement is CL's at the Inquest when asked if he'd told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row. He replied 'no because I didn't see a policeman in Bucks Row.'

[Robert St Devil]

PC Mizen's concern is admirable; and, being Aug 30th, his actions are forgivable since he may not have been expecting "a dead woman" to mean "a murdered woman". Still, his reason for being in Buck's Row is based on a conversation that he had with two men walking from the scene of the crime. Once the severity of the crime is realized, I'm almost certain the identity of those two men would want to be known; and, in this respect, PC Mizen's reason is lacking since he can't offer any identification. PC Mizen's suffered a professional gaffe.

Had Paul and Cross not come forward, would PC Mizen have even been called before the inquest?

[Abby Normal]

Hi all.

Questions, questions!

Why did Neil apparently believe that he'd discovered the body? Why didn't he or, even more relevantly, his superiors ask the obvious question when he was going over events with them: why did Mizen turn up? He'd got no other reason to be there so how did he know that there was a body in Bucks Row if he hadn't been told about it? And so...who told him? Why did no one suss this?

We now have the added knowledge that a policeman needed a really good reason to leave his beat. 'If' Mizen told the truth about CL and Paul saying that Nichols was only drunk, then how does this justify him leaving his beat? Maybe Mizen said that they'd told him 'drunk' to justify himself finishing off knocking up? And if anyone had asked why he'd left his beat for a drunk he added the 'wanted by another officer' bit.
Sometimes statements have 'the ring of truth' about them although that doesn't always mean that they're definately true. One such statement is CL's at the Inquest when asked if he'd told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row. He replied 'no because I didn't see a policeman in Bucks Row.'

Hi HS
good points/ questions.

I would imagine that Neil, or his superiors, in all the excitement, didn't note or care the whos or the whys that another PC showed up? at the time there was more important fish to fry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it's more likely that Mizen lied about being told that he was wanted by an officer to try and justify his decision not to detain CL and Paul. He could then have 'explained' that he'd assumed the other officer had at least taken their names or exonerated him.

[Abby Normal]

I think it's more likely that Mizen lied about being told that he was wanted by an officer to try and justify his decision not to detain CL and Paul. He could then have 'explained' that he'd assumed the other officer had at least taken their names or exonerated him.

perhaps. but IMHO he didn't really do anything wrong.

I think in all probability it was a misunderstanding. Lech didn't tell him he was wanted by another PC, Mizen misremembered because when he got there, there was another PC.

lech may have said something like-"your needed in Bucks row..."

stil a lot of questions and uncertainty.

[John G]

I think there are all sorts of possibilities. Maybe PC Mizen was told that there was a woman lying down either drunk, or possibly dead. He eventually decided to respond, but when he subsequently discusses the matter with colleagues it transpires he maybe shouldn't have, as this is a bit of a grey area in terms of justifying Mizen leaving his beat and therefore avoiding disciplinary action. He therefore decides to "firm up" his explanation, claiming that he was responding to a fellow officer who needed assistance.

[Bridewell]

This is undoubtedly true but how did attending to a supposedly drunk woman lying in the street (in another beat) involve protection of life?

The woman wasn't supposedly drunk. She was described as "dead or drunk". Obviously we now know that she was dead but Mizen didn't. What he did know was that she was, whether through drink or otherwise, in a bad way. Saying that this didn't "involve protection of life" is being wise after the event. Mizen didn't know what exactly the problem was so yes, 'protection of life' is a factor here. The fact that she was, in actual fact, dead doesn't excuse Mizen from taking action. Had she been drunk it would have been a police matter. She was in fact (as Cross & Paul suggested was the other possibility) dead. A dead body lying in the gutter is not something which should be left until the relevant beat officer passes on his next circuit.

Was a beat officer responsible for EVERY drunk person on EVERY other beat in London?

Did I say that? No, I didn't, so I'll confine myself to the matter in hand. Mizen received a report about a woman who was "dead or drunk" (so clearly unresponsive) on a street a short distance away. He was obliged to act on that report and would have been perfectly justified in leaving his beat to do so. Had the woman been merely drunk he could have handed responsibility over to the 'J' Division officer when he arrived on his next circuit, then returned to his own beat.

[Robert St Devil]

I think it's more likely that Mizen lied about being told that he was wanted by an officer to try and justify his decision not to detain CL and Paul. He could then have 'explained' that he'd assumed the other officer had at least taken their names or exonerated him.

i agree. he doesn't seem to offer much at the inquest other than to contradict Cross, so his purpose for attendance is questionable. if he claims that Cross said "dead", then he holds more responsibility for allowing two potential suspects to walk by him unchecked in light of the fact that "a dead woman" turned out to be Polly Nichols.

[Elamarna]

Hi all.

Questions, questions!

Why did Neil apparently believe that he'd discovered the body? Why didn't he or, even more relevantly, his superiors ask the obvious question when he was going over events with them: why did Mizen turn up? He'd got no other reason to be there so how did he know that there was a body in Bucks Row if he hadn't been told about it? And so...who told him? Why did no one suss this?

Very good questions Herlock. The very same I asked myself.
The answer to which unlocks the maze of the "Scam".



Steve

[John G]

The woman wasn't supposedly drunk. She was described as "dead or drunk". Obviously we now know that she was dead but Mizen didn't. What he did know was that she was, whether through drink or otherwise, in a bad way. Saying that this didn't "involve protection of life" is being wise after the event. Mizen didn't know what exactly the problem was so yes, 'protection of life' is a factor here. The fact that she was, in actual fact, dead doesn't excuse Mizen from taking action. Had she been drunk it would have been a police matter. She was in fact (as Cross & Paul suggested was the other possibility) dead. A dead body lying in the gutter is not something which should be left until the relevant beat officer passes on his next circuit.



Did I say that? No, I didn't, so I'll confine myself to the matter in hand. Mizen received a report about a woman who was "dead or drunk" (so clearly unresponsive) on a street a short distance away. He was obliged to act on that report and would have been perfectly justified in leaving his beat to do so. Had the woman been merely drunk he could have handed responsibility over to the 'J' Division officer when he arrived on his next circuit, then returned to his own beat.

But PC Mizen doesn't say that he was told there was a woman who was "dead or drunk." To the contrary, he stated under oath that he was informed he was required by another officer. And as the two alternatives are so radically different, I see absolutely no possibility he could have misheard, or have been otherwise confused, about the information he was given.

[John G]

Very good questions Herlock. The very same I asked myself.
The answer to which unlocks the maze of the "Scam".



Steve

But does PC Mizen say that he knew there was a body in Bucks Row? He says that he was simply told he was wanted by a policemen.