# data[].attributes.body
2.1 - The media has covered 2 titles that are completely opposite. In the ITV news report, the title is "Officers who bludgeoned a deer to death with crowbar keep their jobs" whereas on the BBC news report is "Durham policed officers probed over deer 'crowbar death' The ITV titled the incident as 'bludgeoned' which as you can tell is a very harsh way of describing the ways that the police handled the deer situation. Whereas, The BBC report is a much kinder way of putting how horrendous the police handled the deer. But it puts it in more of a better light for the 2 people involved but also for the police. 

# data[].attributes.body
.1 Explain how different media covered the incident.
2 Explain how perceptions have changed over time, (this could include trust/value/support/confidence/ethics/code of conduct/personal decision making.)

# data[].attributes.headline
Durham police firearm officers beat deer to death with crow bar

# data[].attributes.subject
Durham police firearm officers beat deer to death with crow bar

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 Two Durham firearm police officers were called to a scene on 11th June 2014 to put down a deer that had been hit by a vehicle and was badly injured. The two officers were skilled and trained to carry out their job correctly and had the right equipment. They were sent to use a firearm on the deer but instead they viciously killed the deer with a crow bar. The police officers had a job to destroy the deer humanly with firearms but took matters into their own hand and grabbed a crow bar from the police vehicle and killed the deer by hitting it with the crowbar. The incident that occurred on the 11th was not reported to senior staff by other police officers till 2 weeks later.

1.2 The police officers that attended this incident were found guilty of gross conduct but weren’t sacked from their jobs. They were disciplined as they were removed from firearm duties and given final warning duties. They were moved to lower ranks as they couldn’t be trusted and weren’t responsible in following institutions.

1.3 The outcome of this situation was that the two officers were disciplined and were stripped from high responsibilities and they couldn’t be trusted in a higher ranking position. They were demoted to ordinary ranking police officer a rank. Although the two officers didn’t get sacked  and still remain police officers but at a lower rank, the police force showed discipline and the officers were treated fairly as of the actions they had made. This shows the public and other officers that you must obey the values and standards within with police force and abide by the code of ethics set out within the service. The police service have a very high standard to work up.

2.1 Looking at different media coverage of the incident this article below is covered by Itv https://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-23/two-police-officers-who-beat-deer-to-death-keep-jobs
This article states what happened on the 11th June but doesn’t go into much detail, it just states the plain facts about the incident and is rather short for a news article. This Article shows more what the police service said about the incident. And a short brief of the discipline given to the two officers. “We expect our officers to adhere to the code of ethics, which defines our legitimacy, at all times.” This statement by the police shows that the police officers deserved to be disciplined as they didn’t follow the code of ethics set in place.
Another article coverage of this incident is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-30947899
This article is more detailed and clearly states the actions carried out by the police officers “They struck the deer several times with a large blunt tool, believed to be a crowbar”. This article also shows the actions taking on the two officers involved and overall and lengthy and detailed article.

2.2  The public’s perception towards the police after finding out 2 weeks later that this incident occurred would be negative as the public have trust in the police to carry out there job properly, therefore the trust is broken as the two officers involved didn’t follow instructions and dealt with the situation in the wrong way by beating the dear with a crow bar when they were  dispatched to the scene to humanly destroy the dear. This incident makes the public question the police and how trustworthy they as they can’t do their jobs properly and this incident wasn’t carried out to the high standard that it should have been by the two police offers. The police officers involved made personal decision  without taking the code of ethics into consideration As there is rules set in place. The officers disciplined to lower ranking duties and kept from loosing there job sparked complaints as the public wanted them to loose their job. As there is a way to go about ending an animals liked and not brutally killing them. The perceptions have changed overtime as with this incident the public are raged that they didn’t loose there job which means that the police forces as lost trust within the public.

~~~Maria Reay

# data[].attributes.headline
London police officer suspended after arrest incident (By Tyler Foster)

# data[].attributes.subject
London police officer suspended after arrest incident (By Tyler Foster)

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 A metropolitan police officer was suspend after a video was leaked showing him with his knee on the suspects neck the footage showed the suspect handcuffed and on the ground and the officer with his knee pressed briefly on the suspects neck.

1.2as stated by the metropolitan police "Officer are not supposed to apply pressure to the neck area except in exceptional circumstances, iopc"
the suspect then started say get off me get off my neck. due to there mind set the officer had when in the situation they were let off with miner charges but where moved to different dutes

# data[].attributes.headline
Durham police beat deer to death with crowbar (chanelle beckwith)

# data[].attributes.subject
Durham police beat deer to death with crowbar (chanelle beckwith)

# data[].attributes.body
1.1- On the 11th of June 2014 two armed police officers were called to do a casual thing for a armed police officer which is to humanely kill an injured animal, in this case the animal was a deer, that has been believed to be hit my a vehicle and was very badly injured. The humane way in which these police were expected to relieve the deer from its pain would usually be to shoot the deer in the head however as the end of these men’s shifts were approaching (to use a bullet would mean they would have to do the paperwork) they decided to save the paperwork and to pull a crowbar out the boot of the police car and beat the deer to death.

1.2 - The two officers were found guilty of gross misconduct and were demoted and stripped of their fire arms duties and issued with a final warning as result of the incident. They also lost trust and respect within the police force for not being open and honest about the incident until someone reported them.

1.3 - The outcome of the incident is that the officers were stripped of their fire arms license and responsibilities and they were also demoted however they did not lose their jobs as disciplinary action was taken against them.
2.1 Looking at different media coverage of the incident this article below is from the itv news website..https://www.itv.com/news/2015-01-23/two-police-officers-who-beat-deer-to-death-keep-jobs

This news article shows what the police service have commented about the incident. And a short brief of the discipline given to the two officers. “We expect our officers to adhere to the code of ethics, which defines our legitimacy, at all times.” This statement by the police shows that the police officers should be further disciplined as they didn’t follow the code of ethics all the police must follow.

Another article coverage of this story is the northern echo...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-investigated-over-using-crowbar-kill-injured-deer-a392806.html

Already just by the title of the article you see how the nothern echo has dramatised it using exaggerated words like “bludgeoned to death” so they get the readers attention to buy or read the article. They are making the police force as a whole look barbaric and inhumane.
2.2- The police service have to be mindful about how to end an animals life as there is legislation on how to do it. A lot of people get outraged if you do not stick to the proper way of respectfully ending an animals life. Personal decision making should be left out in any case like this as there is a respectful and right way to do this awful job without offending or upsetting anyone.

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 an incident occurred where 2 police officers both bearing arms brutally killed a deer, The officers were called to the scene of an injured deer. They were instructed to shoot the injured deer and kill it as humanly as possible.Instead of doing this they kill the deer with a crow bar as shooting it would require paper work.
1.2
The police officers were stripped of there firearms license and demoted to Pcso. This was due to the officers not acting by protocol and loosing trust within the force.
1.3
The outcome of this Incident was the Officers that killed the deer were stripped of there titles and lost their license to bear arms. They did not loose there jobs but disciplinary actions was taking against them.
-Ben Whittaker

# data[].attributes.headline
Student task. Pick a case study and answer the following questions. Don't forget to post your name

# data[].attributes.subject
Student task. Pick a case study and answer the following questions. Don't forget to post your name

# data[].attributes.body
1.1	Details of incident
Overview what happened?

1.2	Actions taken by Public Service


1.3	Outcome of incident

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Two officers on the 11th of June  2014 were called to a scene where a deer was reported badly injured. Their response when they arrived was to shoot it in order to give it a swift and respectful death. Instead they chose to inhumanely beat the deer with a crowbar just to save the paper work. The incident only came to peoples notice after two weeks the action occurred, this resulted in public losing trust and faith in the service. They believe that this is a perfect example of the police cutting corners just because they can, if this happens in another situation then there may be more at stake for people. In the end the officers only got demoted and lost their license to carry arms, the consequence could have been more severe but overall i think this was the right thing.

2.) Depending on where you look for the news and information, you will get given different kinds of story's. Some, like the BBC, get straight to the point and gives us the facts without giving any opinions which allows you to make your own decision on the subject. However others like the Independent tend to exaggerate how bad an incident was, for example they say that the officers "battered" the deer suggesting it was straight up a brutal murder of the animal. Comparing this to the BBC they state that "instead of using a firearm, the officers used a crowbar" which is simple and gives no opinion.
BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28558929
The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-officers-who-beat-injured-deer-death-crowbar-will-keep-their-jobs-9997973.html
Evan Hermon

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 The event happened may the 1st 2004. Johnson Beharry was ambushed from all sides. Against all odds johnson told himself that he wasn’t going to die here. He was in the vehicle called the warrior which was 6ft tall and was heavily armoured. Johnson Beharry put himself in more than harms way to save all of his fellow soldiers. His engine was on fire and he was loosing power quickly but he still managed to save his commander and gunner from the top of the vehicle. He then proceeded to make sure everyone else in the vehicle was ok then made his way to other vehicles to see if he could save any injured soldiers. He was driving his vehicle anywere he could to try and get out of the line of fire and try and stop the vehicle from blowing up. Still under heavy fire he managed to move the vehicle to a safer area.

1.2 Since this was a positive event on the 27th of April 2005 he received the Victoria cross medal. He was awarded this for his actions in Iraq and how he saved many lives and went above and beyond the regular expectations of a soldier.

1.3 The outcome of the incident was that he saved as many lives as he could due to his courage and following the values and standards of the army.

2.1 Forces/Net portray Johnson Beharry as a hero and went into detail on what he did and his heroic actions. We know this when the article states “he was forced to open the hatch to drive the vehicle. This shows his actions and more as it gives us a better image of what he was doing it and tells it like a movie scene. This gives us the idea that he’s a hero. The title also gives a positive message as it says “ Absolute legend: the man who went from being a drug dealer to be awarded a Victoria cross. This gives a good message as it shows what he’s done and how it’s a very positive thing what he’s done.https://www.forces.net/heritage/history/absolute-legends-man-who-went-drug-dealer-being-awarded-victoria-cross

The sun comes up with a different title as they bring in the fact he use to be a drug dealer and how he was a kingpin of a gang. The sun brings up about his past and described him in a negative way.it also describes how he use to Cary a sub-machine gun around with him. The title says”VC hero’s knife crime battle” this brings up his negative past instead of focusing on what he has accomplished and how he’s saved lives.https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/6054142/johnson-beharry-vc-sub-machine-gun-crime/amp/

2.2  The publics perspective of the army was restored as most of the media portrayed him as a hero and only some brought up his past. Like some insidents like marine A which made people doubt the army, storys like this would bring more trust and would make people respect the army.

Dylan pennington

# data[].attributes.headline
Builders and off duty officer stop brake in. ( By Joseph Stoker) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Builders and off duty officer stop brake in. ( By Joseph Stoker) 

# data[].attributes.body
Two men traveled from Wigan to Cheshire with the intent to break in and rob a house. The incident did not go to plan for them. As two builders who wear working on a nearby residence had noticed the alarm go off and had went to see what had happened. When they were there they noticed the two men near by acting suspicious. After that they phoned the owner of the property and she put them in contact with her sun who was an officer in the police and came over to establish it as a burglary and contacted the local constabulary and helped them to catch the two criminals.

The actions taken by the public service in this case is that even though he was not from there or even on duty he still helped out and sort that the case was finished and the two individuals responsible where charged and put away. It help to show the public that the public service where there to help them no matter what.

The outcome of the incident shed a positive light on the police for especial local places near by wear the incident took place. With the positive look on the police it made public perception of them turn more positive as people could see how they could rely on them for help whenever and wherever it is.

The difference in how it was reported linked into where the case took place and so how far or close the journalists are that report on it. This is the case with these two reports. For the Wigan todays report since the place is close not only geologically to the place where the incident happened but also because it is meson in the case as its where the two convicts came from. So because of this there report praises the off duty officer and the two workers who help to set up the case at the beginning. The next report if from The Standard. The report that they give is generic one of two robbers attempt to rob someone. They don't give as much credit to the off duty officer or the builders that helped in the discovery of it. Even though they are closer to where it happened. Each report is different and shows how not every report of a crime is the same in what you are told.

The public perception of the incident dint change over time as the story continually showed how officers in the police follow there code of ethics and help no matter when or were. Another reason that the public perception didn't change was because the story itself never made it to the full mainstream media and therefore the story never changed and nether the publics point of view on it. Therefore as said before the opinion of the people involved and the service stayed in the good books with is incident that allowed people to see them that way.

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 -  An incident occurred on the 30th July 2014, where 2 police officers where called out too an injured animal. which has been left on the side of the road to rot and die. And when these 2 police officers arrived in the seen they saw a defenseless deer on side of the road injured and bleeding to death. It is believed that these 2 officers instead of pulling out a pistol to put the deer of of its miserly so that they did not have to complete any paperwork which said that they had to pull out their fire arm and engage on the animal instead they got a crowbar from somewhere in the car and beat the deer the death, all because they didn't want to fill out paperwork.

1.2 - The police officers got disciplined by stripping them of their fire arms which also demotes them to a lower ranking because they are not trusted with the highest responsibility.

1.3 - The outcome of this situation is that they lost all responsibility and lost their fire arm license but they didn't lose their jobs they just got demoted.  Which shows that they did not think or treat the police values and standards correctly and that the police force completely shut them down so that they couldn't do it again. This will send shock waves through the police force and show other officers if they don't obey the values and standards things like this can happen to them.

2.1 - The media has covered 2 titles that are completely opposite. In the ITV news report, the title is "Officers who bludgeoned a deer to death with crowbar keep their jobs" whereas on the BBC news report is "Durham policed officers probed over deer 'crowbar death' The ITV titled the incident as 'bludgeoned' which as you can tell is a very harsh way of describing the ways that the police handled the deer situation. Whereas, The BBC report is a much kinder way of putting how horrendous the police handled the deer. But it puts it in more of a better light for the 2 people involved but also for the police.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28558929
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2015-01-23/officers-who-bludgeoned-an-injured-deer-to-death-with-crowbar-keep-their-jobs

---- Joshua Leaman

# data[].attributes.headline
UK military investigated hundreds of alleged abuses in Afghanistan (By Ben Johns)

# data[].attributes.subject
UK military investigated hundreds of alleged abuses in Afghanistan (By Ben Johns)

# data[].attributes.body
1.1 - In Afghanistan between 2005-2013 there had been 600 allegations made by 150 people against the British soldiers for torture. One of the cases talks about a man named Serdar Mohammad, who was captured by UK soldiers in April 2010, but he was not handed over to Afghanistan security until July that year, even who regulations say they should be handed over within 96 hours. Mohammed was eventually released to return home. He claimed that Afghanistan authorities tortured him.

1.2 - This case did get investigated and Mohammed won his claims for mistreatment and the a few lords expressed misgivings about UK forces overseas being subject  to the European convention on human rights rather than the Geneva conventions on warfare. They have also been trying to make sure that soldiers don't break these rules and make sure prisoners have there rights and don't get abused.

1.3 -  The outcome of the incident was that the officers that did this to Mohammed faced disciplinary action and where kicked from the Army. This shows the public and other member of the Army that you must follow the values and standards otherwise you cannot be trusted to do the role you have been given.

2.1 - When the media cover news and information on different websites, Some talk about the same situation, but different things on or go more in detail about the situation.(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/22/uk-military-investigating-hundreds-of-alleged-abuses-in-afghanistan)  Like the guardian they  talk about abuse in Afghanistan but they talk about a man named Mohammed and what the police did and what happened to the soldiers and this case tells you all the points. Whereas the  the canary (https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2020/08/08/military-police-allege-cover-up-of-hundreds-of-uk-war-crime-cases-closed-down-by-government/) talks about how many people have been injured or killed instead of talking about one case. It also tells you what has been said while the situation is being reported. This website also talks about the investigation whereas the guardian dose not. Also the canary's article talks about how the government are trying to close all the cases so the public dose not find out and you know this by reading the title.
Military police allege cover-up of hundreds of UK war crime cases closed down by government

This title is the one from the canary this title already goes into detail of what has been going on in Afghanistan. It talks about how the government are trying to cover it up and try and close these cases.
UK military investigating hundreds of alleged abuses in Afghanistan
In this title they talk about the government in a good way talking about how they are investigating the situation, even though in the other one it says that they are tying to cover it up.

This shows us that the media try to cover and news in different ways.

2.2 -  The public perception o

# data[].attributes.body
Chapter 1:
1.1 -  On the 11th June 2014, 2 armed officers were called to an incident where they had been ordered to humanly kill a deer, which was believed to have been hit by a moving vehicle. It is understood that these 2 officers were supposed to shoot the deer with their firearms but instead of having to deal with the paper work afterwards, they decided to use crowbars from the back of their vehicle to beat the animal to death. After this incident, nobody was told what had actually happened for over 2 weeks.
1.2 - After the incident, the officers were stripped of their firearms and got demoted back to just an officer. They lost their responsibilities with their firearms because they did not listen to the orders given to them and also did not let anybody know what really happened for over 2 weeks and they are both on their last warning with the police.
1.3 - The officers had their responsibilities taken from them and were put them on their last chance to stay working with the police. As they didn't lose their jobs, they had disciplined actions.

Chapter 2:
In two different articles, (ITV News and BBC News) there is quite a big difference in them both. In the ITV news report, the title is "Officers who bludgeoned a deer to death with crowbar keep their jobs ("https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2015-01-23/officers-who-bludgeoned-an-injured-deer-to-death-with-crowbar-keep-their-jobs)
and the title on the BBC news report is "Durham Police officers probed over deer 'crowbar death'
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28558929) The  BBC titled the incident in a gentle kind of way compared to  how  the ITV said things such as bludgeoned which is quite a big word to explain the incident, it makes it more intimidating.
In both articles, it is proven that both of the officers got charged with 'gross misconduct

- Molly Mackie.

# data[].attributes.body
1.1-
Police were called to shoot a deer after it had been hit by a vehicle and it was dying slowly on the side of the road. So the police got there.. instead of respectfully killing and shooting the deer there and then. They decide to attack the deer with a crowbar so they don’t have to fill out paperwork after the killing of the deer. This reportedly happened on the 11th of June.

1.2 -
The police officers got disciplined by stripping them of there firearms license. They also got stripped of their position down to a PCSO. As they were not trusted within the police force to have more important and higher responsibilities.

1.3 -
The outcome of this situation was police officers being stripped of their positions and responsibilities. Although they did not loose there job, the police force shown disciplinary actions. This will make an example in the way the police should conduct themselves at all times to avoid any disciplinary action.

2.1
The media reported on the situation. Every article is different though as some try and downplay the scenario and some exaggerate the brutality. For example; "This should never have happened and I am sorry that Durham officers appear to have behaved in this way." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28558929). This article is downplaying the problem by not really going into detail and by quoting the police officers apologies. Another example; "that they killed a deer using a crowbar, instead of ending the animal’s life in a humane manner." (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-investigated-over-using-crowbar-kill-injured-deer-a392806.html) This article is exaggerating the brutality and making the police officers look inhumane and animalistic.

2.2
The police service have to be respectful about ending an animals life as there is legislation on how to do it. A lot of people get outraged if you do not stick to the proper way of respectfully ending an animals life. The way you conduct yourself in them situations will be reported on, no matter what you do. Personal decision making should be left out in any case like this as there is a respectful way to do things without outraging people.

-Coby McLeod