"Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation.

Good on Britain. It may seem overly formal, but one violation of a prisoner's rights causes a snowball effect.

That's actually rather commendable. The fark up is that they didn't have transportation arranged in advance.

Ron Paul Revere:
Exactly what human right is violated by making someone walk 600 feet? What about the walk from the van to his final destination? How is that different?

I should have been more specific. If it's in the guidelines/rule book as a right issue, then they shouldn't just be violating it willy-nilly. If I wrote the book, would I have this as a rights issue? Nope. I don't see what the big deal is. However, corrections officers/law enforcement are the last people who should have the authority to decide these matters for themselves

Ron Paul Revere:
I read the entire article. The impression I got was that this was not a matter of following human rights guidelines, and was in fact a decision made by the police. They simply made the decision that it was and defended it by saying it wasn't their responsibility to transport the prisoner, whether it be walking 200 yards or using a police car to do so.

If it's not in the rules book, then they should have just allowed him to walk across the street. The way I read it was the police had their hands tied because of something. If they just did this on their own, then it was a bit ridiculous.

"Until someone has been convicted of an offence they are innocent in the eyes of the law and it would therefore be inappropriate for them to be escorted across a busy main road in handcuffs."

If he's so innocent then take the cuffs off for the walk.

Just get one of these:

So making a prisoner walk across the street a ways is human rights abuse, but locking them up, once convicted, for 23 hours a day in prison is perfectly OK?

Suicidal Writer: I should have been more specific. If it's in the guidelines/rule book as a right issue, then they shouldn't just be violating it willy-nilly.

DCI Gene Hunt wants a word with you

The (lame-ass) issue here is an argument between police, courts and corrections.

The police said that now that the guy is remanded to the courts, he's no longer in their custody, and they're not responsible for him, ergo, they don't have to escort him across the street to court for his hearing.

The court van which transports prisoners from the jail to the court holding facility had already left and there wasn't another one available; and some court ding-dong didn't think it was "appropriate" for him to be escorted by police in handcuffs across the street.

The "human rights" thing seems to be a dodge everyone was using as a cover for the obvious stupidity of the whole thing--that they didn't just stick him in a police car and drive him down the block. Why this court had only one van to transport prisoners, and no uniformed bailiffs handy to escort prisoners from the police station to the court (like here in America), or why the magistrate didn't just tell the cops to get off their asses and bring the guy over to court like any judge worth his salt over here would do, is one of those mysteries only a Briton could explain.

I feel like violating someone's human rights right now after having to read that article.

Two courts, across the street from each other. For reasons of public safety and respect for the person in custody, you don't want to do a perp walk down a public street.

For what is surely the first time in history, "building a tunnel" has escaped the British as a solution?

Snarfangel: Just get one of these:

I was thinking exactly the same thing, or rickshaws.

Wuss judge should have told those lazy ass cops to walk the man across the street, or all charges will be dropped. If the cops can't do a simple thing like that, they should be fired. Better off with vigilantes dealing with crime.

What's all this then? Rubbish.

This is why will killed them in battle for our freedom. Too bad the GOP want to be just like them today.

A spokeswoman for Northamptonshire police said it would "not be appropriate" to walk a prisoner down a public street. She said: "Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation.

"It would not be appropriate for prisoners to walk in a public area while in custody for many reasons, including public safety issues, as well as the safety and human rights of the prisoner.

"Until someone has been convicted of an offence they are innocent in the eyes of the law and it would therefore be inappropriate for them to be escorted across a busy main road in handcuffs."

Suck it, naysayers. You know who you are. Too bad the concept of human rights is such a biatch.

Here's my version of this article, with a slightly different ending:

The Judge sends him to another court, so the police need to move him, but no van... so some bright guy says "Hey! We'll just walk the bloke down the street. It's only 200 yards or so..." and of course, the prisoner escapes. Then the PM's howl about the rogue coppers not following proper procedure, and howl just as loud.

That and yeah all that human rights crap.

Ex Parte Gilligan: Here's my version of this article, with a slightly different ending:

Well, if my aunt had a penis...

All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old,
But there's no England now.

/obscure
//perhaps.

mrexcess: Two courts, across the street from each other. For reasons of public safety and respect for the person in custody, you don't want to do a perp walk down a public street.

For what is surely the first time in history, "building a tunnel" has escaped the British as a solution?

You win one internet.

Seems to be a serious shortage of vans over there.

Suicidal Writer: "Once a person is in the courts system, they are no longer in police custody and police are not responsible for their transportation.

Good on Britain. It may seem overly formal, but one violation of a prisoner's rights causes a snowball effect.

What ever happened to the old days when cops used to smack the hell out of a guy when he said something stupid?

Probably had to fill out 200 pages of paperwork afterwards too.

I can't imagine how Brits have the patience to be in the Police Force Service any more.