Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 23/02/17 in all areas

  1. First and foremost, know that your Thin Blue Line family here in the US stands proud with our blue brothers and sisters in the UK. You've been on the minds of myself and my fellow officers here ever since the news broke. You may know or may have seen our tradition where we shroud our badges with a mourning band after the loss of an officer. Today I have shrouded my badge, in honor of PC Keith Palmer and the life he gave today in the fight against the evil in this world. Let us not forget Keith and all those who run towards danger while everyone else is running away. On that note I raise a glass to our fellow officers that ran towards terror today. For those that ended the threat and those that worked to help the injured and restore peace and security, great job. "And maybe remind the few, if ill of us they speak, that we are all that stands, between the monsters and the weak"
  2. Really the austerity cuts were a huge opportunity for us to legitimately redraw the boundaries and set sensible parameters for what we would deal with and how. Some forces have gone further than others but I still think we have not gone far enough. Mental Health - quite reasonably it could be questioned why police attend the vast majority of mental health concern calls. Where there is a real risk of harm the police will always be in attendance - to 'make safe' the scene. However, that should be where the police job ends. Crisis teams should be going out and seeing people who are in crisis. Not sending the police to spend hours trying to get advice over the phone and then attend A&E with the patient. There are very few mental health patients who want a police officer when they are on crisis - and there are a number who (through no direct fault of the attending officers) have a more traumatic experience due to police involvement. Sudden death of seriously ill patients on end of life plans - the general guidance states that GPs / out of hours doctors should attend these calls and issue a death certificate. This would provide a better service to the family, cut police demand and also prevent unnecessary coroner actions. Social services - we all know the trend of social service departments nationwide of sending police to social services jobs and having police act as proxy social workers commanded by the on duty social worker by telephone. Low level social media crime - Internet providers are making millions of pounds from their social media platforms and yet police are launching criminal investigations which cost time and money. For low level trolling/abuse the onus should be on such providers to police their platforms and the police should only become involved in more serious offences. Harassment - the police have become the architects of their own demise in this area. Since 1997 we have made many people believe that they can dictate on the spot who has the right to contact them and when...with minor transgressions achieving a criminal label of harassment involving lengthy investigation which ultimately ends in no further action. Harassment warnings have been given out like confetti leading to a dilution of their utility and the state.of affairs where people demand a harassment warning be given. Statutory nuisance/ASB - councils and social landlords have managed to avoid their responsibilities in many areas. Police officers attend these incidents and then pass on the information to these departments, receive the correspondence before passing it back to the person reporting - why do police need to be involved at all? Petrol driveoffs - there are lots of safeguards the petrol station businesses can put in place to tackle drive offs yet we don't put any onus on them. We conduct police investigations only for petrol stations to decline to assist once they recieve the 20 quid owed from the offender. Shoplifting - with commerical retailers running their own security, loss prevention and civil recovery schemes we could easily tweak the shoplifting response plans to put more responsibility on private security (this runs in several force areas to good effect). Retail crime packs (proforma witness statements, CCTV production instructions etc) mean that police officers attending have their evidence ready at point of attendance and they can quickly conduct their investigation. The amount of stores reporting very low level shopliftings which take the OIC several weeks to progress due to staff unavailability or CCTV unavailability is leading to huge demand pressures in some areas. I would go further and suggest that in shoplifting cases where the offender is located at scene and the goods recovered in a saleable condition then stores should conduct their civil recovery process and the police should merely record a crime for recording purposes - only becoming involved with prolific/violent/uncooperative offenders in these circumstances. Appointment systems - many forces have officers bending over backwards attending mulťiple appointments to see victims of crime who fail to keep the appointments and in many cases we can chase people for weeks. In my area alone these diary appointments take up around 1/4 of the response capability on early and late shifts. It's not an efficient way of dealing with low level incidents. The default option could be that persons will attend the police station to report/discuss such low level matters with officer attendance saved for only the more serious/needed incidents. RTCs - of course there is a place for police in attending RTCs but the system for recording them is archaic. For low level RTCs why can they not be reported online via a step by step dummy guide completed by the drivers with a freephone helpline for any issues. Statements - whilst there are circumstances whereby it might be beneficial for police to take a statement, why can purely routine continuity/factual statements not be completed by witnesses themselves? It happens in other legal jurisdictions without huge fanfare. A quick dummies guide attached to an online proforma would do the job quite well for CCTV statements etc. MisPers/Concerns - just as we have minimum concerns we expect from colleagues...why not from persons reporting? I'd be expecting at minimum that persons reporting would have already made hospital enquiries, visits to known associates addresses and partners addresses before picking up the phone. Probably 1 in 10 of my elderly misperceptions/concerns calls have been successfully completed by me without ever attending an address. It's not uncommon now for adult children to report concern at not hearing from their parent for a few days when they live an hour away and they haven't made the effort to attend the address themselves and use their key! That's just a snippet of my views on where we should be going, there's a huge discussion to be had.
  3. Read the news articles and my posts to answer your own question. But just in case you haven't got a clue what training firearms officers go through....the answer is yes very experienced. No thier judgement isn't lacking in fact firearms officers judgement is constantly assessed during training and operations. Although it's something that you would not not appreciate as with all due respect you have never put yourself through such training. That said we do make mistakes but if I am sure you made one or two mistakes during your career. But if they were honest mistakes you learn from them and move on. You are missing the point totally, these officers were putting themselves in harms way to protect this very community from what they and members of the community believed was an armed threat. What do you mean by cock up? You are starting to look silly again. Yes Tasers can kill "they are defined as less lethal" not none leathal. I suggest you do a little research into the unfortunate incident that lead to the death of that person and the IPCC investigation into the incident. Taser is a tactical option which can and should be used to protect life when it's appropriate not as a last resort. Early use can protect people including subjects from serious harm if used correctly. Btw I'm assuming you didn't mean last resort means we should shoot him first then taser him? I perfer to use a Taser as a means of avoiding using leathal force first, I find that works best for all during a firearms incident. Not strange at all I would gladly acknowledge if I'm wrong and apologize if I was involved in this incident. We mean no harm to the people we deal with, firearms officers are still police officers who strive to protect life and protect the public from harm. However I would also explain why we took the actions we did, which the organisation has. As I have pointed out already we work on the information and intelligence available at the time, we do not have access to hindsight. Once again you really are quite wrong, it seems you have ignored all the points or observations I have raised throughout this thread. I welcome different points of view but only if everyone keeps an open mind. I can only assume that's for one of the following reasons. It doesn't suit your point of view and I and others can present rational arguments all day long, to no effect as your so obtuse. Or perhaps you are deliberately attempting to provoke a response, which I'm my view is simply trolling. Or you truly believe what you say is true, which is quite concerning if you are a retired officer and like my first point means any meaningful debate is pointless witness you. If you have any issues with my response either PM me, or make a complaint to management. For the reasons I have outlined above I honestly feel any further debate with you is pointless.
  4. I couldn't care less frankly that a woman made commissioner. What I'm pleased about is that the majority of people have said she's approachable, operationally aware and flexible. Now THATS the good news for women in policing - a woman has made commissioner and it would appear based on merit - a key point for credibility.
  5. I'm a little over half way through 25 weeks training and sat in my hotel room thinking about what's to come next. We've completed our Traffic legislation, which spanned over 2 weeks, and had a consolidation day full of role plays which was really good fun. We get closer to our Driving Course every week and I can't wait to be out in the cars and away from the classroom for 3 weeks, especially after meeting the driver trainers today on our Road Traffic Collision awareness day. I think I'm more excited about driving than anything else we've done on the course so far, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, doing things practically rather than listening to a power point about them feels so much more real. After today, traffic is definitely something I'm interested in just from the stories we were told and the under-representation of women in the role, and of course getting to drive the faster cars just that little bit faster.. I think a few people on the course are nervous for our driver training, and I'm really nervous to be a passenger to be honest, because that's just how I am, but I'm so excited to get behind the wheel myself. I'm going to be honest and say that the last couple of weeks I've struggled the most since we started training, not in terms of the lessons and legislation etc, but the routine of it. A long drive on a Monday morning to stay in a hotel where often the rooms aren't even big enough to get the ironing board out, and do the week of training with nothing to look forward to when the end of the day arrives because it just means heading back to the hotel. Then Friday comes around and I'm so excited for the moment I step back through the door of my home only to rush around the whole weekend juggling spending time with my family and my boyfriend along with the work we're set and spending the whole of Sunday washing and ironing all my shirts and tunic for our weekly parades as well as making sure I've packed all I need to live away from home for the week. It's all just getting to me a bit. And I think it's difficult for anyone back home to have a true understanding of what it is we've signed up for, training sounds like all fun and games and a breeze but recently I've been thinking well, I've worked so hard to be here, and worked so hard for a job that I know will mean having no clue what will happen from shift to shift, not knowing if one day I'll be walking down a street on patrol and someone decides to take their frustrations with the Police out on me. Not knowing if the first person to bite me in a scuffle is going to have Hepatitis, never knowing what's around the next corner or what someone has in their pocket, or whether an assault on me will be taken seriously or just considered 'part of the job', or who's watching you make a mistake and who will be there to pick up on it as soon as you do, what will be the first mistake you make that lands you in trouble and will you end up like the countless officers I see everyday hung out to dry by the media and criticised for the decisions they made in a situation most people will never have to face in their lives. I'm so excited to get out there and see the real world, and I'm so glad we have a tutor to stand beside us through the first few months, but man I'm nervous about what's waiting out there. I'm sure it's all just the fear now that we're getting closer, and I'm not saying I can't handle it at all, I think I've become a much stronger person just from these few short months of training, but it's definitely a fear of the unknown. Anyway, I think I've been having my 'mid-course' wobble and hopefully when our interviewing and driving course starts I'll feel a little bit more excited to come here every Monday. Thanks for reading, hope you're all well!
  6. So just thought I'd post a quick update as I haven't done one in a while! I report to you at a stage where training is almost complete. I am currently on week 18 of 19 weeks and to say I'm eager would be an understatement. Since my last post on week 3, I've achieved so much and had so many high points already in my short police career. I've undertaken a total of 9 exams, numerous chief PT sessions (6am start), numerous role play assessments and other hurdles along the way. Last Thursday and Friday was our final definitions exam and final law exams. Nothing better than getting those results last Friday and finally passing all of our exams. Today we had 5 SDE role-play exercises. These were very real role play scenarios containing situations where we had to deal with an impaired driver, take a report for a robbery and arrest the suspect who lived next door, deal with a MISPER who had taken unknown quantity of paracetamol and wanted to kill herself and lastly a situation in which a member of the public had seen 3 people in a car dealing "packages" - this soon turned into a massive fight in the car park. Very realistic situations with the use of our radios, cuffs, baton and PAVA. We have 2 weeks remaining which includes input on body worn video, day visit to crown court, public order and tac ops amongst other things. 2 weeks before I officially start as a police constable. Very excited! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  7. I have thought long and hard about posting this , and mods if you're not happy feel free to edit or even delete it There has been debate on here recently about how policing and the polices attitudes have changed and not for the best. It occurred to me that a lot of my service ( albeit as a ' hobby bobby ', but one who was valued, took notice and was one of the team) was over the period being discussed,and I got to wondering were things really that much better in the not so distant past Certanly in the glory days before savage cutbacks the officer numbers were much better,but I would want to look at less concrete issues than that. Definitely IMHO there were things that were better. The police had more autonomy and were able to use their common sense more, there wasn't the worry that making a simple mistake could lead to months or years of worrying or even the loss of a job. The 'ways and means act ' was often used and did achieve results. So far so good (old days) but were things so much better in the bigger picture? I experienced sexism and sexual remarks,and saw racism. Homophobia was rife .Some of the stories I heard of things that happened would have made PSDs hair stand on end ,there is a chance that some of this was bobbies 'bigging themselves up' to a young woman , but even then ,some things I did see would induce apoplexy today i.e. drinking on duty, married officers visiting their mistress(es) during the shift etc Reference was made to a 'can't be bothered ' attitude today well back then a call to an ASB job within quarter of an hour of finishing time could result in a response of 'area searched no trace ' or a warp speed drive past. Male victims of domestic abuse were considered wimps who needed to grow a pair. The attitude to sexual crime could be victim blaming to say the least As for CID. They were a law unto themselves, I could make another post just about them ( Gene Hunt wasn't that big a caricature) And yet I bl@@dy loved it But I didn't know better Where they the good old days? No they were different
  8. Some photos I edited and mashed together...
  9. A couple of observations: Metropolitan Police - RESPECT IPCC - I will save you a lot of time investigating the shooting of the assailant and producing a report. Just make a quick public statement - THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED ARE HEROES Home Office - Wake up and smell the coffee
  10. I think you should have a bit more respect for the hundreds of thousands of police officers who came before you - what makes you special enough to denigrate all their service for a cheap snub?
  11. I think some people are a bit confused here. Either the officer committed offences or he didn't. His bedside manner in doing so is a conduct issue not a criminal one. He wasn't charged with possession of a bladed article whilst being uncivil.
  12. Policing is strange across Europe. The Dutch it is acceptable to blindfold prisoners, particularly high risk ones, yet no spit hoods in the UK because it's considered inhumane. In Germany you can fire warning shots if a suspect is running away and a reserve officer can be issued a firearm following a couple of evenings of training at the local station, yet British police arent trustworthy. There's some forces in Europe where officers are issued a combat knife but a officer here with a pen knife gets charged with offensive weapons. In Spain officers use Cs spray to clear the streets to get revelers to return to their hotels. Water cannons are mainstream methods of riot control. Yet British police endure going toe to toe with often violent people and have to suck it up when bricks come flying and patrol cars burned. First minute an officer raises a baton and you can't see for camera flashes. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  13. Can't be bothered?! Try there's not enough staff. 10 years ago there were 8000 staff now there's only just over 6000 yet our workload has increased. The DV incident that took 30 mins a decade ago is now 10+ hours, the missing teenager that was once never reported to police is now a high risk missing not to mention cyber crime. From 2 hospitals on the same division in GMP there are around 1200 missing/concern for welfare reports EVERY YEAR! So with 20 staff and 45 risk jobs on the incident queue which one should I leave to deal with a preventable retail theft?
  14. Zulu, the world has moved on from old days. I've read elsewhere someone quoting figures for Hungerford (which is he town in question) that it had 1 reported shoplifting in Dec2016 and 26 for the whole year. Now my force hasn't been deploying officers to shoplifting where the offender has made off for a few years. Offender detained different matter. Incident created, crime report taken over phone, offenders details circulated via PR with name/description. PCSO gets tasked to collect CCTV, then slow time allocated for officer to do follow up enqs.
  15. This is what I have to keep reminding people, taser is not the solution, it is simply another tactical option. There is no way unarmed officers should be sent to a residential address with a male armed with a knife, unless it is a immediate threat to save life, which it would appear in this case, it was. Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  16. I still don't get why this is happening. Airwave works for what we need it for. It isn't perfect, but it works. Currently I have a secure radio which includes GPS technology. I can hear vital information with pretty good coverage and communicate instantly with colleagues via a rugged device clipped to my chest/belt. The battery in moderate weather with normal.usage will last me a 10 hour shift. I have an easy red button to press when the poo hits the fan and I know that it's only ever failed.to work for.a.xolleague once in the nearly 9 years I've worked for the cops. I trust the kit and it's a lifeline especially with single crewing. Of course it's the 21St century and so there is now a need.for me to be able to.access data,.emails and make.phone.calls. I've been issued a 4g handset. They are rubbish. The battery lasts barely a shift with moderate usage and about half a shift with active use. But they just about help me enough currently that I'd rather have one than not. The ESN proposes to merge the two. Currently I have seen nothing which addresses the following issues: Battery life - I do not know of a high spec 4g device that will be able to sustain constant monitoring of radio traffic, GPS, 4g data, push email, high definition screen for any amount of time. Dual functionality - how will radio traffic work at the same time as all these other functions bein asked for? I don't want to have to be 'off air' to use the new functions on my radio being pushed. It's an officer safety issue and will make my radio a liability. Practicality - the reason the radio is such a great piece of kit is it does one job brilliantly. Any new device design would need to keep a rugged weatherproof design with hard buttons for push to talk, emergency button, quick change buttons. - Touchscreen is not a viable option for a radio. With the 'uplift' to make them data devices I'm not sure how they are going to manage this without making them prohibitively large. If you see my point they will need a screen the size of a modern smart phone for the new data functions to be worthwhile, but to keep buttons which are big enough for operational use the front of the radio would be overly cumbersome. Reliability - my phone is 4g. I spend most of my time with poor 4g signal, if any, especially when moving. If we rely on the 4g network for our signal I simply don't trust the coverage at the moment. My other reliability concern relates to the operating system. The airwaves I have used, the sepura and Motorola mth, both work almost without fail because they are so basic - akin to the Nokias of old. If the operating system becomes like android due to the need for xyz processor etc for data/image/video I genuinely believe there will be catastrophic results in handset failures. PTT - this is the most interesting part. PTT is not a feature of police comms, it IS the nature of police comms. If the technology isn't there to say 'yes of course PTT works as good as airwaves if not better' we shouldn't even be having the conversation about this new network coming in.
  17. Really? I think on the facts we have they may have been treated rather harshly. Response teams in the Met (and most places I'm sure) rarely get a refs break; the only chance you get to grab refreshments and have a comfort break are on the way to non-emergency calls. As always I'm sure there was more to it, and I don't consider myself qualified on the facts to make any kind of conclusive judgement, but it does seem like two cops may have ended up in the brown stuff for trying to make the system work.
  18. You do speak a load of old tosh. There have been many historic railway constabularies (with full powers in relation to railway mattes) that were merged into the BTP, which took its form 70 years ago. At what point were Railway Police ever just a 'bunch of security guards'? Certainly, not during living memory. Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community
  19. Is it really so far fetched for some people that an emergency service worker might need a multi-tool for a relevant emergency/general policing purpose? RTCs, deaths, first aid, re-securing properties. Yes, some things are probably not supposed to be done by officers, such as re-securing property, but we all know that it happens. There is a genuine likelihood that an officer may have to go to a hanging and cut somebody down. It might not happen everyday, but it's more than likely that at some point we'll have to. Any how would any of us feel if we made it to a suicide attempt in time but failed to save the person because we couldn't cut them down and start first aid? Who's going to get dragged through the DPS, IPCC, Coroner's Court etc. having to explain why they coulda/shoulda/woulda saved someone if they'd had the equipment. Who will be considered to have failed the person who died? Who will potentially have to live with that guilt? How much kit do various forces fail to provide their officers with? The Met doesn't issue: boots, torches, hand sanitiser, slash/prick proof gloves. Do we just refuse to buy the stuff we need? "I can't search that field sergeant, it's dark and I don't have a torch?" That would go down like a lead balloon! Some forces do issue this kit and good on them, but don't tell me that 'the job issues you what you need,' because I can tell you that they don't. The simple fact is this job is carried by people who do more than expected, buy equipment that is needed, go above and beyond on a regular basis and the job is laughing, until it all goes wrong. Then you're on your own. It can be guaranteed now that if officers did try to make a case for allowing/issuing multi-tools, the first argument from SLT will be, "No, you'll use it to saw through windscreens..."
  20. Given the recent examples around these sort of issues - e.g. HT officers getting refs at McDonalds, an officer getting stuck on for misconduct for not administering a breathalyser at an RTC, officers being stuck on in TVP for not closing a road due to ice, etc - can you honestly say that you're surprised? Quite frankly, I come to work to do my best, to serve the public and to try and help people and so do the majority of other officers that I know. But, it seems like it's a full time job just trying to cover my own back every day these days, let alone trying to do things like catch criminals or help those in need. Police officers are humans, not super human. We will make mistakes and do things wrong. In those circumstances, people can and should be taken aside, given advice, given training and learning and development opportunities to address what went wrong. Why we need to crucify everybody and try and throw them all out of the job is beyond me......
  21. Who said otherwise? I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post, outside of you trying to tell us ever so subtly that you've been on the advanced course.
  22. Stop talking sense......your never going to win an argument like that
  23. I'm not sure when you carried or what, if any training you received in the humane destruction of animals Zulu. But I assure you the training is now given to all AFOs within the North West region and not just rifle officers. Several forces now also use gas powered dart guns to sedate or kill animals when safe to do so. As for botched kills you are correct anyone can make a mess of it even a vet! But we our often the only real choice when dealing with dangerous animals or when any delay would result in unnecessary suffering. We do not leave ourselves open to criticism when we act in this manner, well apart from those who don't understand why we have taken the action we have or those (like you it would seem) who have no idea of the qualifications/training to perform such a task. Every incident I or my friends have dealt with of this nature has only been taken when all other options have been explored or there is an immediate threat of harm. No one I have ever met actually wants to kill an animal but it's part of the job.
  24. The money goes to running the website - hosting charges, software licences and support for Invision (the forum software), including the cost of the upgrades to the sister sites. The advertising (for those who see it) would not be enough to cover the costs. None of the mods are paid and I doubt the admins (the three owners aka Chief Rat, Chief Bakes and Chief Cheetah) take any money out - I'd be surprised if they did, it would be more likely they put money into it rather than take it out. Existing member packages have been ring fenced, only new members, who joined up after the advertised start date, are subject to the new rules. The Chiefs didn't have to do this, but they did. The only caveat to that is - make sure you renew your yearly VIP subscription asap when it expires! Other options could have been considered, perhaps a yearly fee for everyone, or a rise in the VIP costs, or maybe there's another's idea out there (you're free to suggest such ideas in the think tank forum). The recruitment pass isn't too expensive, less than a beer. Quite a few people have been happy to sign up to that and others have taken out silver and gold packages. The change was advertised via a forum topic and was announced at the top of every forum site (as an announcement) for a few weeks prior to the change. It is a difficult balancing act, keeping everyone happy, keeping the costs reasonable, keeping the software upgraded and therefore as bug free as possible. The Chiefs put a lot of effort into upgrading the PS, UK Police Online and Police U.K. Sites after they were acquired from their former owner. The sites, especially Police U.K. had quite a few technical issues - the effort to upgrade the software (including the costs for that software upgrade) will hopefully see a much more stable platform (less downtime) and hopefully usage of these sites will grow as time goes on.
  25. Let's not be over-critical of a senior officer who is standing up for his officers for once.
  26. Which is perfectly legal and arguably inkeeping with traditional values that we hold dear in the UK. I'm a firm believer the state shouldn't hold the sole monopoly on criminal prosecutions as frankly there are many types of crime which are simply ignored by local authorities and police which deeply impact on communities and corporations alike... The business potential of establishing a professional quasi law enforcement business/charity is a fairly lucrative one depending on the type of service you're going to offer. Virgin recently privately prosecuted a bloke after conducting its own investigation into the decoding of its cable services - this one man cost the company in excess of a million pounds - it isnt something the local police was all too familiar in dealing with. The RSPCA another prime example of a private unofficial body carrying out prosecutions of individuals committing crime that neither the police nor the local authorities are interested it... If the RSPCA didnt do it, who would? The recent rise of 'vigilante' groups targetting peadophiles, as much as we go on about these people 'compromising ongoing investigations' I have yet to hear of a case where this has happened and secondly if we are being honest this is a side of law enforcement where our hands are heavily tied in proactively seeking out these people compared with the options available to the public... Can you imagine the type of income a registered 'peadophile hunting charity' could earn from the public once a few successful prosecutions were attributed to them? Public support and appetite for such a group is arguably huge... Yet no one has clicked onto this yet. As time has gone on we the police seem to see ourselves as the sole enforcers of law and order within our society and this mindset has led to a breakdown of personal responsibility with not only the public taking action but both public and private bodies taking action to prevent crime... Instead we see professional bodies binning things onto the police as they refuse to take responsibility for it.
  27. To be fair to Zulu, that's a rather broad interpretation of what he said. If that's what your force has told you then fair enough,and you would be stupid to not listen. However it does seem very draconian, I would like to think that most senior officers,with all the pressures of modern day policing would, if faced with someone saying 'Sir PC ******* is going out with ****** ,who they met when they took a statement off them three years ago , when their car was broken into, but they bumped into them in a pub the other week, would respond 'So what'
  28. Whilst I am behind these new penalties, unfortunately there's a wider issue. We can triple the fine, seize the vehicle, whatever you like, but unless there's the officers out there to impose it all it's all pretty pointless really. There's a train of thought to suggest that if current mobile phone users had been caught and punished/summonsed we wouldn't be here now. But due to lack of officers, drivers know they can get away with it and use their devices with contempt for the law because the likliehood of getting caught is so slim. I can guarantee that on any mile walk or even less I will see at least three drivers on their devices, and I've not even been looking for them. There they are, happily chatting away, holding the wheel with one hand as they drive along, urban areas or not. And nary a police officer at all.
  29. The people on this forum vilifying the officers are clearly not Met or haven't been on response team. i've been in the met for 7 years and had no idea that S grades were "as soon as possible". Indeed, on my borough you get control assigning you to new S grades as you go in to try and get food so it's not on their list anymore and you can go afterwards. Is everyone to be stuck on then? I also don't think there's enough information available for anyone to say that the officers were "lucky". for all we know (as is usual) the call was circulated as "anyone available for an S grade welfare check" which is done hundreds of times a day. I don't know what it said on the CAD but it certainly wasn't "someone says this person is going to commit suicide" or it wouldn't have passed the initial call taker, BOCU control room and response team supervisors without being I graded.
  30. I think you mean 'old school cops' not 'current day' because we're still dealing with the huge **** ups you left us with. Public cofidence is at an all time low (though still good I'll accept) because of incidents that happened whan many cops, including myself, were either not born or still in school. The difference now is every mistake is worldwide in seconds not uncovered decades afterwards. Besides which now everyone's an armchair critic.
  31. The problem with hindsight, everyone is wise. It could may have well turned out to be "A woman dies after response officers refuse to go to a domestic, instead they waited for 4 hours for a gritter lorry" Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  32. The thin blue line recognises a hero. May he find peace and his family comfort. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  33. That wouldn't happen as in jury selection the court outlines the case including the location, the parties involved and the witnesses whose evidence will be used and the potential jurors are told to declare any interest or if they know any of the key parties involved in the case.
  34. Thoughts are with all those affected by this coward, huge respect to the officers at the scene and the officer who tragically past away... they saved many more lives from the lunatic.
  35. Okay so one - it was, and as far as I know still is, a standing order in the Metropolis that officers will carry a torch in the hours of darkness. Yet currently one is not issued. So the policy on not carrying non-issue equipment is fatally flawed on at least one count - if it exists. I'm not convinced by 'Told on OST' means anything unless it's written down. Secondly, people saying they would use a safety knife or a pair of scissors and so on - you are still carrying a bladed article in a public place and so the same legal argument comes into play. How about a screwdriver in your kit bag/boot of your patrol car? Same legislation. Literally the only thing that is legally safe is a folding pocket knife with a less than 3" blade - but if you're going to use it in a hurry with shaky adrenaline hands be ready to fold it in on yourself and cut your fingers! Mines staying on my belt. I have faith that this charge will fail or if it succeeds...it will be clarified on appeal as it is a real absurdity.
  36. The majority of Met public order deployments appear to utilise mainly L3 tactics - whether the officers are trained as L2 or dressed in Code 2 doesn't change the particular tasks. L3 tactics are not difficult and are very basic. Form a line. Stop people passing you. Go where your Sgt tells you too. Keep an eye out for flash points. Look out for injured/vulnerable people. Keep an eye on the person to your left and to your right. They are a low level skill and taught to every recruit now. L2 officers, as I said, mainly utilise L3 tactics but by nature of their training and higher number of deployments/deployments in the higher risk areas tend to be more 'natural' at implementing the L3 tactics. In terms of peaceful protest/event policing (which seems to be a large commitment in the Met) L2 public order is not a technical skill and should be achievable by most confident, fit, disciplined police officers and does not require you to be a great thinker, thieftaker or detective. In the Met at least, L1 officers use in the main a blend of L3 and L2 tactics but are placed in the higher risk areas. They tend to only put boots on the ground when things have started to take a turn for the worse. Due to their regular training and deployments they are more natural and effective at L3 and L2 tactics at protests/events. Where I disagree with the idea that L2 does not require skills or 'a bit more' than your average beat cop is when it comes to the other stuff - and from personal conversations, prior knowledge and this thread I fully accept that this will be a cultural difference between forces as L2 in the Met seems quite a strictly defined role and set of training. I think where L2 officers really have to show individual skill is dynamic deployments on area. Often on area, outside the relative safety of a pre-planned operational order, we as L2 can work with no senior command structure on the ground. It's pot luck whether you even have a public order trained Sergeant at scene and sometimes it's not practicable to await a TacAd. Several times in the past 6 months we have self deployed - one of us has called up and asked for all on duty L2 officers to respond to their location with kit. Then the Sergeant was notified and requested to attend. Once we have assembled at the scene, angry man barricaded in a house/large group of travellers smashing up a licenced premises etc, we have between ourselves conducted a briefing and discussion of contingency tactics whilst awaiting the Sergeant. On the Sergeants arrival he has been briefed with the circumstances, contingencies and current options. That requires a certain amount of skill and thought process which not everyone possesses. The next area which is skilled is MoE, though I have my own doubts as to how in depth my new forces MoE input is as it is incorporated into the L2 initial course. However, my MoE training which goes hand in hand with L2 for rapid entries/building clearances and so on, covered target recce, health and safety planning, Intel development, operational plan production including accurate diagrams, contingencies and briefings...as well as how to smash and drill things to break them! That is a technical skill, especially with MoE expanding from less/non destructive (mica/drilling and so on) and wholly destructive entry techniques (hydraulic rams/reciprocating saws etc). Those who are not MoE all think 'well that's easy I could do that' - some could but it takes a bit more than just your basic cop - which is why I am opposed to a plan for MoE to be rolled out as basic training for recruits. Football policing is another L2 area which depending upon your force/tactics which can require skills. If you work a static post then it is just like any other large event. But when you are in the ground there is alot more to it that takes lots of deployments to become confident. Sometimes the lower league clubs can actually provide more difficult challenges than premier leage clubs because forces can't afford to throw 2/3 PSUs at a match. Part of the requirements of the role are not skill per se in the same way as for say firearms or mounted department... But a requirement as to the officer themselves. Just as I cannot say that I am suited to a role as a Schools Officer there are police officers who should venture into public order. As for probationers with L2...I was one. But I had 5 years of PCSO and Special background so I wasn't walking round still finding my authority and watching my reflection in shop windows. I think a moratorium on all probationers would be wrong but nor should it be the norm.
  37. They were different and occasionally my toes curl at remembering some of the practice. The crazy things you did wearing a tunic, heavy wool trousers, and piece of wood to fight of all the ills of the world (women in skirts only and a handbag). Yobs throw bricks, our response, pick up a bin lid. No traffic unit available to attend RTA on a busy road at night, stand in the carriageway wearing all black (if the cars can't see you they can't hit you - Not). You're right Pathca they weren't better just very different. Funny though I would still join the job as it was then, but I wouldn't join it now. I do remember being in so many scrapes and being asked by members of the public If I want help. Perhaps the job is the same, just society/community is very very different.
  38. Whilst according to CoP PIP guidance you are correct I think compartmentalising that misses the point. Investigation quality can often be dictated by resources and time. A CID officer provides a better investigation because for the robbery he has the time to conduct a victim profile. He completes a map of the victims route. He completes a CCTV trawl of that route, seizes the footage and views it. This provides a vehicle registration which leads to a suspect. The CID circulate the suspect for arrest by response. Once the prisoner is in custody the CID conduct several interviews. Having seized the suspects phone they manage to conduct cell site analysis placing the suspect at the scene of the robbery. Matching ANPR data with cell site data the detective discovers that the suspect is placed at 4 recent robberies with similar MOs. After some financial investigation the CID officer discovers a business lockup registered to the suspect and swears out a pace warrant. Response execute the warrant with the tactical team and numerous exhibits are located. The job ends up going cross border and after a lengthy investigation they secure a 10 year prison sentence and clear up 5 robberies. The response PC picks up his 15th crime in his pot. This is a robbery with no injury. The PC has several hate crimes in his pot and 2 domestics which take precedence let alone the call demand from 999. The PC gets a quick MG11 from the Ip. The PC emails the local authority CCTV and they haven't got footage of the offence. The PC then goes to more 999 calls and picks up another two jobs in his pot. The next day he goes to a 136 job and is tied up all day. The next day is a constant obs on custody. The next day the officer is the diary car and picks up another 3 crimes. The officer then goes on rest days. On his first day back he is prisoner processor for the day. A week has passed. He dips back into the robbery. He fires off an email to Intel and they throw a name into the hat. The PC can't find anything in his crime report to link the suspect. He submits a crime filing report to his Sgt. He then goes to his next job of the day. He asks for time to work on his crimes the next day and files yet more crimes as undetected with his Sgt bringing him back down to 15 crimes in the pot. Of course the investigative options are open to both - DC doesn't have extra powers to the PC but the role difference dictates a wholesale different investigation and to suggest otherwise is a fallacy (in many county forces anyway).
  39. On my old borough CID got the lion's share of the overtime. They also got a whole lot more time at home on weekends than response team. It's a specialist role in a sense, but barely. It's more of a straight swap; one generalist uniform role for a generalist non-uniform one. Don't get me wrong, I can see why it's an unattractive role in the current state of things, I just don't think paying DCs more is necessarily fair on the response team PCs who have to maintain a multitude of equally challenging skill sets for even less recognition.
  40. It's very relevant. You complained on the other forum about posters on here not respecting your experience yet you are not prepared to say what it is. 30 years is only part of it. You could have retired in 1967 and so have no experience of the current Theft Act let alone Public Order, Sexual Offences, Fraud Acts (and many others). The last police car you drove may have been a Morris 1000. It's like me saying I have 30 years of experience so people should respect my opinions on Traffic policing - except I never worked on traffic not had any interest in it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  41. I think what the force is proposing is a lot more focused than some posters are suggesting. Like when Devon and Cornwall said they would not deal with fuel bilkings a couple of years ago and the Daily Wail reported it as free fuel for criminals. The real story was if it appeared to be an innocent forgot to pay case where the car and registered keeper were not known, and no suggestion of pre planning then it was over to the garage to make contact with the keeper and ask for their money. I really cannot see someone from a shop phoning in to say security are fighting with a shoplifter and the call taker asking, 'how much were the goods worth?' '£99 you say. Well sorry that's below our threshold so we won't be coming.' I am sure that this will be more a case of shop calling to say someone has made off with £20 of goods. Not identified and no CCTV. So the force will record the crime and file it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  42. To be fair I find it difficult to not get off the fence on this matter. I wish the police service had the resources to do its job as thoroughly as I'd like, this isn't to do with the attitude of the officers in my experience but the framework in which we operate, which is a tightening pinch. The government keeps congratulating itself that we are doing more with less, but it's akin to diving in a pool and holding your breath underneath and swimming to the other end - It gets progressively uncomfortable as time progresses. Then you hear next time you have to do it there and back again as you managed to get to one end fine, where does it end?? Moral is plummeting more so than I can remember. Then on the other side I think it's almost a welcome opportunity to reduce a bit of the burden and even provide jobs in a increasingly zero hour market. I might have been tempted myself to go for one of these jobs! There is a big difference though between a security firm offering patrols in an area and a true private police service. That has to do with training, powers, protection and oversight. I'd actually be more comfortable with private Constables, attested and warranted and able to deal with anything they come across than I would be with security who have to keep calling 999 every time something happens, we have enough 'eyes and ears' (a favourite phrase from 2007) and not the resources to effectively act on it. I wouldnt have a problem with private Constables accessing the PNC, using custody facilities, interview rooms and so on - something the RSPCA do, in our area at least. The only twinge I have in my chest about it is that there are safeguards to ensure there's not a two tier service, maybe that private Constables operating in a area have to spend a day a week providing some sort of 'socially responsible' secondment working alongside home office cops. That way the companies gaining profit contribute something back to the wider community. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  43. Let's take this as an example, a woman in her late 40s leaves her door unlocked when she goes to bed and gets up the next morning to find a handbag and purse have been stolen, one of several 'walk in 'thefts that occurred over a few weekends. To me that doesn't make her vulnerable, stupid but not vulnerable She was me by the way
  44. I think this this boils down to two points that have already been made: 1) Sub-standard training - I've always been told I-grade = 15 minutes, but every knows you hit the blues and get there ASAP. S-grade = 60 minutes. Nobody has ever told me that it's actually ASAP but within the hour. 2) Making the job work - It's a regular occurrence for officers to take a call and the pick up refs on the way, or pick up 2-3 calls to clear them up and get them off the box. I'd go so far as to say that it's a necessity and the job will get what it deserves when officers start taking one call at a time and settling down for their entitled refs break. There aren't enough units to pick up the calls in the meantime so they'll sit there anyway. I hope the Fed will be circulating an information regarding this pointing out the policy and advising officers to take one call at a time and to protect themselves.
  45. In short.... yes. The Met are a local force and need to focus on local issues. The fact that they are restricting their applicants to local people / Londoners shows this is their priority. You'll get a lot of people arguing the case to remain for the status quo, but that is going to be people adverse to change and Met officers who don't want to lose some of the prestige of the organisation. If NCA are to deal with national issues, then it only makes sense for them to be the lead organisation on all national issues. There is a lot of expertise within the Met on CT issues and they should be allowed to be seconded to the NCA if they don't want a permanent transfer. In addition, moving CT to a national organisation would give all officers from across the country an opportunity to get more involved in CT work.... at present, you really need to be a Met officer to do a lot of CT stuff, given that it's hosted within the Met. We're probably therefore losing out on a lot of talented individuals who are in county forces who might be very good in the CT world, but yet they can't apply to the Met because they aren't Londoners. If responsibility was moved to the NCA, then counties officers would have to apply for secondments and be able to compete with Met officers in equal fashion. People could go on secondment for a few years and then return back to the counties with better skills and knowledge, which in turns helps increase CT capacity in the counties.
  46. Actually I claimed it also because it's true. There is plenty of evidence to support it too. From anecdotal evidence which included drink driving being accepted and a blind eye turned if stopped, officers dealing their own interpretation of restorative justice to out and out perverting the course of justice. Or more substantial scandals such as Hillsborough, Orgreave and Jimmy Saville. So I'll treat your opinions with the contempt that it deserves because I'm still picking up the pieces of rubbish you kindly left for my generation of police officers. Oh and no longer do I deal with jobs such as DV incidents in 10 mins like your generation did because I treat it seriously and no longer do I accept overt racism, sexism and general intolerance like your generation did. If you went frontline now you wouldn't last a set of shifts before going off long term sick. I know because I see it all the time. Now I've gone well and truly off topic so don't bother to reply because I certainly won't.
  47. Indeed yes we are, for once we agree..... but and it's a very BIG but it's a man that two witnesses believed was carrying a gun, that they could see was agitated and pacing up and down causing them to fear for the safety of others. The officers had NOTHING to indicate he was indeed blind, the stick was folded up and had the appearance of a side by side shotgun. However they still tried to communicate but unfortunately it wasn't effective, just a guess here perhaps because he was agitated and blind? One of the officers saw an opportunity to use less lethal tactical option, which was successful. The potential for using lethal force was very high, I certainly would have been reluctant to transition from a firearm to a Taser given the believed threat, at the point of contact. It was in fact a brave action, as the officer is giving up his right of reply if the subject points a firearm at him suddenly and is depending on his colleague to negate that threat. This may sound easy to you but I assure you it's not! Action tends to beat reaction if a subject suddenly points a firearm at you. Once again your making yourself look silly. The officers and the force have accepted they were wrong and apologized. We in the firearms world debrief all deployments and they can be quite critical and blunt, but it's not personal it's about improving and learning for next time. All that said though the officers acted in good faith and used a level of force they thought was reasonable given the circumstances, a decision I believe will be vindicated following an investigation. Arrogance is word you seem to enjoy throwing about, it is something I have rarely observed in firearms or the police in general at present. But your right it was far more common in the past. Ironicallyit's a word that often springs to mind when I read your posts
  48. I think we should learn from others mistakes. There is alway more we can do. Next time I'm at work I'm closing every road I come across. Roads are dangerous and people might die if I continue to allow people to use them and I will not be held responsible for failing to protect people from themselves. Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  49. I am really confused by this, I really cannot understand why we make such a song and dance of issues like this in our country? If you in a gay relationship and wish to marry do so, if your in a straight relationship and wish to make things more formal with the person you love then you should be able to have a civil partnership. Regardless of sexual prefrences you should be able to choose what suits your believes and values the best. Is it really that difficult we are supposed to be a civilised and tolerant society.