Human rights?

[wolfie]

It is beyond belief that a criminal who was resisting arrest and was bleeding, because of the crime that they had committed, and the arresting police officer also suffered a blood injury whilst undertaking the arrest, ( with the possibility of cross infection), now has this low life refuse to take a blood test for HIV, and Hepatitis infections, because it is their human right to do so!!!!!

Said police officer has now to wait, (undertaking 6 weekly blood tests for 6 months) to see if this scum of humanity has infected them. No recourse through the courts as it is their human right to decline a blood test. A criminal should have no rights, IMO, in such circumstances.

What about the police officer's human rights?

The police officer also suffered other injuies but they will heal, in time

[screwy]

Tell me about it. I locked up scumbags for 26 yrs and one thing i learned was that they have more rights than me.
There was at one time approx 20 organisations on behalf of Criminals and only one for Victims, says a lot about society today.

[Mervyn and Trish]

As soon as we're out of the EU the Human Rights issue needs sorting so it is the decent people who are protected not the scrotes

[oldbluefox]

I believe in human rights and in this instance it's the human rights of the policeman which takes precedence. I am sick and tired of these scumbags who seem to think they can do as they like and then scream human rights once they have overstepped the mark. And they know the human rights laws inside out. Time we had a level playing field and human responsibilities were superimposed.
I think we have John Major to thank for this little lot.

[wolfie]

Thanks for your supportive posts. It's our daughter in this situation. I can't say much more than I have as I don't want to jeopardise her position.

However, blood samples were taken at the scene of crime so NO other sample needs to be taken which makes it even more frustrating.

[Meg 50]

I thought refusal to take a blood test was a criminal offence - or is that only for breathalyser follow-ups?

[wolfie]

I thought refusal to take a blood test was a criminal offence - or is that only for breathalyser follow-ups?

Probably Meg, I don't know but, from what I have Googled, even a comatose patient has to give permission for their blood to be tested for communicable diseases such as Hepatitis and HIV, and if they are unable to do so, (which they obviously are), then it can't be done, even in their best interest for treatment.

However, I'll Google what you said about when you CAN refuse to take a blood test but in this situation there is no need of one as they already have a blood sample from the scene of the crime.

Then, the law is an ass and protects the criminal's human rights, to whatever ends, over that of the victim.

[wolfie]

Update.

No direct response from the Home Office, just No 10. and that the PM's office would pass it on to the appropriate body.

So, in response to my letter of 6th May, to both the PM and The Home Office, the former did pass on my letter and today.................

A reply received from a person who works, 'in the team in the Home Office that leads on police officer safety', to my letter of 6th May, their letter dated 15th June, and received today 17th July. Pigeon post would have been quicker!

Basically their response is that PACE, (The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984),is that, 'an 'intimate' sample, which includes a blood sample,' can only be used,' to prove or disprove the persons involvement in committing a recordable offence.' Furthermore, 'this has to be authorised by a police officer of the rank of at least inspector.' PACE also requires, 'that the individual who is sampled consents.' In this case there was no need for consent, their blood was at the scene of the crime. It was a recordable offence, they were arrested, and they were caught in the act.

It continues, 'There are however no powers under PACE for that blood sample to be subsequently tested for any purpose not related to the investigation of crime, for example to test for infectious diseases.'

They conclude by saying that, they 'are looking into the practical issues around sampling blood and saliva from people who may have put officers at risk of infection.'

Then they,' hope this clarifies the position,' and wish me and my family well!!!I

I will be responding to this reply. They did not address the issue that they already have a blood sample that COULD be tested!

[GillD46]

You couldn't make it up! Hope you get a satisfcatory response - but somehow I doubt it

[towny44]

This is the result of lawyers setting the legal rules without giving any thought to the views of the average person, in the mistaken belief that allowing public opinion to sway their views will somehow dilute it's purity. What rubbish.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I wonder if the lawyers and politicians would change their tune if it was them who had been contaminated with potentially infected blood and they had to wait months for an all clear?

In the same way would a lawyer who'd actually been attacked or raped by an illegal immigrant be arguing for their human right to resist deportation?

[Stephen]

Common sense has gone out the window.

[wolfie]

You couldn't make it up! Hope you get a satisfcatory response - but somehow I doubt it

I doubt it too Gill. Two months since my letter and a further 5 weeks from the date of their response to us receiving their reply; maybe the postage cost was a problem.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Had to shake the money tree!

[allatc]

It continues, 'There are however no powers under PACE for that blood sample to be subsequently tested for any purpose not related to the investigation of crime, for example to test for infectious diseases.'

But surely it is related to a crime - assault on a police officer.

[barney]

Keep pushing wolfie, you may get a result.

Ever so slightly OFF TOPIC but I had a bee in my bonnet about all the dangerously parked (foreign) trucks in every spare side road and lay by in Kent, As you all know, it's the gateway into the country with about 11,000 crossings a day.

We got a new PCC, so I wrote a few times highlighting the problem and some simple solutions.
A few conversations later and Lo and Behold, up to June 2017 - over five thousand trucks moved on, hundreds fined for dangerous parking and sixteen impounded as unsafe on the road.

It was a simple problem to resolve IF the police could be bothered to do it.
If the will is there, pretty much anything can be overcome.

[wolfie]

It continues, 'There are however no powers under PACE for that blood sample to be subsequently tested for any purpose not related to the investigation of crime, for example to test for infectious diseases.'

But surely it is related to a crime - assault on a police officer.

It's rather grey area in this respect, though I'm sure a good lawyer could argue the case.

The criminal was fleeing the scene of the crime and therefore resisting arrest. It was the subsequent fall when they were caught, and both fell to the ground, that caused the injuries and that is when it was seen that the culprit was covered in blood from the offence. Too late to don the gloves that are always carried, before any contact was made.

[GillD46]

The thing is, even if he did agree to the test, even if it came back negative she'd still have to have the six weekly testing, in case he had recently been infected, as it could take six months for him to show a positive. I'm not excusing his refusal by the way, just explaining it wouldn't avoid the tests for the officer.

[wolfie]

I know that Gill. A negative test at the time is no confirmation of them being, 'clean'.

My point is that they have a blood sample, which, because of human rights legislation cannot be used without consent.

As I write this, 22.47.just had a text from our daughter to say that the first blood test has proved clear, TG. One down, two more to go.

[GillD46]

Thank goodness for that, fingers crossed for her - and you.

[wolfie]

Second blood test also OK

Two down and one to go.

[GillD46]

Very good news.

[Happydays]

Yes very good news

[wolfie]

Thanks.

She said that this second one was the most important, don't know why but if this is clear then great. All this on her mind, and, being a specialist search officer, having to search Grenfell Towers AGAIN next week. Pay cap anyone???

[gilly88]

Keep pushing wolfie, you may get a result.

Ever so slightly OFF TOPIC but I had a bee in my bonnet about all the dangerously parked (foreign) trucks in every spare side road and lay by in Kent, As you all know, it's the gateway into the country with about 11,000 crossings a day.

We got a new PCC, so I wrote a few times highlighting the problem and some simple solutions.
A few conversations later and Lo and Behold, up to June 2017 - over five thousand trucks moved on, hundreds fined for dangerous parking and sixteen impounded as unsafe on the road.

It was a simple problem to resolve IF the police could be bothered to do it.
If the will is there, pretty much anything can be overcome.

goodness I wondered where all the trucks had gone recently...well done barney you were not the only one with the bee in their bonnet on this one I quietly seethed every time we went out and about in Kent. they have even put big signs in polish? / Latvian?, and god knows what other languages, all over a business park near us to stop all the lorries parking up all night and using the area as a toilet. so well done for being active and helping solve the problem.