Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 24/04/17 in all areas

  1. Clearly some potential issues here with force policy and those involved but as always not a lot of detail in the article. Did they really close down a GBH as outcome 18 within a few hours or would it have been passed to a DC in time? We don't know. The Det Supt went and found the CCTV. Good on him, I would've too. What did he do after that though? Did he make a call or send an e-mail pointing out the oversight and asking for a review or did he use his rank to apply pressure to the attending officers or involve himself further in an unprofessional manner? We don't know. Did the attending officers turn up from their previous job on a busy NTE shift, find someone knocked out with the attacker gone, scoop them up, record a crime after some very brief enquiries and resume to their next emergency job under massive pressure from Comms? Probably but we don't know for sure. You can't expect a response cop to conduct a full investigation into a serious and complex crime within half an hour between jobs. It's as simple as that!
  2. We had a very similar thread on here before. The key point is we have two issues at okay here which need addressing. 1. A female has self harmed causing minor injury. 2. The female is having some mental health crisis but otherwise has capacity. Regarding point 1, we have no powers where the females intent is self harm only. Regarding point 2, we should be ringing the local mental health team and not 'asking for their guidance', we should be making an on the spot referral. This is their job. Our job is to keep everyone at scene as safe as we can, uphold the law and act as the first point of contact. Clinical decisions are, by their nature, not a policing issue. If paramedics and the crisis team direct that they are not taking any intervention that is final. Who are we to suggest we know better about a mental health patient based on our 1 hour NCALT package on mental health? Something many police officers fail to understand is that unnecessary police intervention can often have a negative effect on a patient. We really should be butting out unless there is immediate threat to somebody's wellbeing and no-one else better placed at that time to intervene.
  3. You'll wear what you are told to wear. Simple, isn't it?
  4. It would be very hard to argue convincingly that exceeding your powers to the detriment of someone's human rights is somehow in their best interests, particularly as this is now a specific offence. It is obvious that it's mostly in your best interest to protect you from risk, which isn't so ethically defensible. The correct solution for mental health cases is medical treatment, not to be manhandled by the police because the crisis team won't do their job. As for Hicks, it is relevant because it offers a broad commentary on how powers of detention springing from thousand-year-old pieces of the common law are to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act - I can certainly see the court's rationale for deciding that states shouldn't imprison people arbitrarily without any intention of bringing them before the courts, no matter how convenient it might be. I cannot see a flaw with the Howell definition of a BoP; your interpretation of any harm whatsoever would impose on the police an absolute and unavoidable duty to prevent people getting their ears pierced, participating in boxing matches, in fact doing anything vaguely risky. That is not how the law has evolved for many years, the Queen's peace exists to protect one person from another.
  5. Shame! See you later no doubt [emoji1360] Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  6. I don't think any police officer thinks something should be done because we know better than the medical professionals. We think something should be done because our names are all over the job and if something does happen the story will go like this: MH Team - An internal investigation has found numerous failings in the way this incident was managed. Lessons have been learned and new training/policies/safeguards put in place. Ambulance - An internal investigation has found numerous failings in the way this incident was managed. Lessons have been learned and new training/policies/safeguards put in place. Police - The IPCC have investigated this incident and found numerous officers may have cases to answer for gross misconduct/criminal charges. We have also reviewed our processes and updated our training and policies. We're constantly told that doing something is better than doing nothing and if the medical solution is to do nothing then - somehow - that leaves the police wide open to criticism.
  7. There's two ways to complete the same task and each has a different result. 1. Make CCTV/House to House enquiries of your own. If any lead comes to fruition pass this straight to the OIC. 2. Seize CCTV, take MG11s from witnesses you find and directly involve yourself in the investigation. 1 is ethical, lawful and commendable. 2 is stupid and will lose you your job and taint the case.
  8. "This is an attempt, we believe, by violent dissident republicans to kill police officers but it was also very much an "anti-community act" as well, in terms of where it was located and the way in which it was left." No, it was an act of terrorism carried out by terrorists, but we're not allowed to say that, are we?
  9. Looks like Mark Sedwell who is named as just leaving the Home Office department and it is slowly, or not so slowly sinking has moved to be National Security Advisor. One wonders if he will criticise emergency communication in the future- perhaps a bit of political deja vu Policing humour often reverts to 'international translations - would I be right to consider Project, Office, Home and Planning which is then translated to Doomed, overpriced, delayed, inadequate?