Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 24/04/16 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. Just catching up on this folks after a short break so I apologise in advance if I go over old ground. But before I start, I will try to avoid direct criticism of those involved because at the end of the day they tried to do thier best in a frightening, stressful and very dynamic situation. However there is no way of avoiding some actions that the officers took which clearly could have been done better. Secondly to put this issue to bed once and for all (as some members clearly seem to have an issue with this), could leathal force have been used in these circumstances, the simple answer is YES!!! Would I personally have drawn my firearm yes, would I have considered using deadly force yes, as I would never draw unless I was prepared to do so, would have I shot the subject yes without any doubt, if the escalation of force have failed and a colleague's life was in danger. Of course this doesn't mean I want to use leathal force, I like to think given my experience and knowledge I would have dealt with this situation slightly differently and perhaps avoided the need for leathal force but who knows that for sure we are always responding to the actions of the subject in a fast moving incident such as this. As for what happened during this actual incident yes there are 2 armed ARV officers carrying both conventional firearms and Taser. I suspect they have not been deployed as firearms officers but are there to support unarmed colleagues. However I would expect better control and drills from ARV officers given thier training. Time and space in these situations are our best defence, the initial set up is good, ARV Taser drawn good view of door and subject not too close but within effective range for Taser and with dog support out of firing line. At this point I would also have expected or hoped for more decisive action from the dog handler. However were it all starts to go wrong is when the second ARV closes the subject down and effectively blocks his colleagues shot with the Taser.... why he gained absolutely no tactical advantage in doing so. But we all do daft things from time to time I hope he reflects and learns from the incident. The situation still could have been recovered but as is often the case once things start going pear-shaped it becomes harder to recover. There is nothing wrong with withdrawing at this point but in a controlled manner and most importantly if it's safe to do so. Clearly turning your backs and running and leaving an unarmed colleague trapped in a confined space with a subject who armed and clearly dangerous is probably not the best way of doing that. I would hope for the ARV'S to consider all the tactical options at thier disposal at this point and perhaps see the dog being deployed to allow a safe withdrawal or for the threat to be neutralised or reduced to a safe level. I found this video very distressing to watch and found it very frustrating to see the situation being allowed to develop to the point it did. As I said at the start these things happen and the important thing is we all learn from these incidents. Taser isn't the solution to all threats we face it has its limitations, neither is a convenient firearm but it's essential that both are quickly available to all officers facing such a threat.
  4. This week marks a significant milestone in the history of Police Community, one which we are very excited about but brings with it some significant challenges. Many of our membership will recall the day on the 31st October 2014 when we, as a Management and Moderation Team walked away from three other forum sites to create Police Community. We left behind; www.policespecials.com www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk www.policeuk.com This was a decision that we did not take lightly but at the time felt we had to do the right thing for us and for the membership. Thankfully the majority of the membership believed in the team and embarked on that journey with us resulting in Police Community being born. This brought together Regulars, Specials, Police Staff, PCSO's and Volunteers under one umbrella and a forum for the wider policing family grew. Since that time the Managing Director at Red Snapper Media, the owners of the other forums have been in touch and after some recent negotiations Police Community have now taken ownership of all three of their forums. This means that as of today the management and ownership of all of the forums has transferred to Police Community. Clearly this is a welcomed position that we are very pleased with and now need to work out our strategy to take all four forums forwards. Decisions around the future of all the forums will be made in the fullness of time but for the time being the intention is that all forums will continue to exist as separate sites with my Moderation Team taking over the moderation across all forums. Out of this acquisition, a professional business relationship with Red Snapper Media has been formed and we will look to develop an advertising strategy to help promote some of Red Snapper's products whilst they mutually promote all four of the forums across their extensive media network. This is a mutually agreeable position that brings benefits to all concerned and we are delighted with the partnership we have formed with Red Snapper Media to allow this to happen. What does this mean for our membership? In simple terms it means there is no change for anyone, all forums will continue to exist at this time and you will be able to continue to use whichever forum you feel most comfortable being apart of. We will be looking to upgrade Police Specials, UKPoliceOnline and Police UK to the latest version of the forum software to ensure their future viability. We may alter the structure of a few areas etc but in the main they will be largely unchanged apart from the Police Community Team now Moderating across all four forums. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Martin Jerrold at Red Snapper Media who has made clear that he wants the forums to continue and took very seriously his responsibility to agree the best possible home for the forums moving forwards. We would also like to thank the membership across all four forums for their continued support. Over the coming weeks there will be some periods of downtime for Police Specials, UKPoliceOnline and Police UK whilst we transfer the sites fully to our servers, upgrade the software and hardware arrangements and get them fit for the future. I would personally like to thank you in advance for your anticipated support. Police Community Forum will remain online throughout. As many of you will know Chief Rat and myself have been at the helm of all the forums at one point in time or another historically, and more recently here on Police Community. We have been supported by a fantastic team of Moderators both past and present who commit their own time to moderating and managing the forum. This team has been led by Cheetah who was promoted to "Lead Moderator" when Police Community was incepted. He has done a fantastic job and has supported the Management Team so much so that he was promoted to a junior Management Role in 2016. His commitment and dedication has been invaluable and with the new challenges that now lie ahead in managing four forums I would like to formally welcome Cheetah to the full Management Team here at Police Community. Cheetah will be changing his name to Chief Cheetah in recognition of his full management role and will have an equal role to that of Chief Rat and myself across all four forums. If you have any questions please feel free to ask but this is most definitely going to be an exciting time for the future of the Police Community group of forums. Chief Bakes Co-Founder of Police Community *UPDATE* Please see this statement from our Strategic Partner Martin Jerrold, Managing Director of Red Snapper Media http://www.rawdigitalmedia.co.uk/statement-from-martin-jerrold/
  5. This is a cringeworthy comment that always comes up when this sort of thing is discussed. Every single day we trust police officers with wide ranging skills and abilities to protect people. If YOU as a retired police officer openly says that you dont think you could trust a police officer with a firearm, having been trained and assessed in it's carriage, then what kind of impression does that give to the public? It's embarrassing, and I honestly don't think it's in any way an accurate reflection of the current police service - certainly not in my experience. Sure, there are some who are less capable than others, but they don't go around batoning people in the head every day, and I can't see why they would go around shooting people unnecessarily either.
  6. A CID officer outside of the station.
  7. Not seen the video at this stage, but my initial feeling is that if the police deliberately hit a motorbike and riders that had been involved in a crime (and so long as it was properly considered and sanctioned), then - good. Spare me the bleeding heart do-gooding whining; perhaps this will make others think twice instead of now possibly deliberately choosing such a mode of transport because they think they're untouchable.
  8. BTP and MOD will likely be told to carry at all times because to exercise the powers of a constable not under BTP jurisdiction they must either be in uniform or provide warrant card ie. Even ON duty they must have their warrant card to use their powers if extended jurisdiction under ATSA. I carry mine all the time. Its personal preference if I need to ID myself, holds my debit card and is my free travel pass. As for being off duty, having a drink and getting involved...it's a massive judgement call but I've done it probably a dozen times, to assist on duty officers, in 8 years. That was only to prevent serious injury to the officers involved. I was 'in drink' but not paralytic. Those who say you should never do it had better hope they never require help from an off duty colleague on a night out. I was pinned to the floor and beaten on duty in full uniform whilst working the City Centre 4 years ago. A crowd of 50, including uniformed council enforcement officers, stood looking on. It was an off duty BTP copper on a night out who came and dragged the offender off of me and helped get him cuffed. If he had adopted the attitude displayed on here I might have been very seriously injured or even dead. I nominated him, and he was presented, with a commendation for his efforts and I remain grateful to him to this day. Food for thought.
  9. In 8 years of Policing I can say the trait I find that gets cops most into bother or injured is indecisiveness. The inability to make a proactive decision or make any kind of decision at all will usually lead to a situation escalating or allow a suspect to start taking the mick. When it comes to dealing with people I have a fairly low tolerance for abusive, threatening behaviour. I will usually end up ejecting/reporting people for summons or yes arresting when the need arises to... I really cannot stand people making a mockery of the justice system or our society in general and I generally will deal with things when called to them. I'm not tall and I'm not built, I'm certainly not intimidating but I lay down the rules and take action when needed... It hasn't led me wrong yet... I also never threaten something I'm not willing to actually carry out, countless times I've seen cops in person and on social media say "if you do xyz one more time I'm going to arrest you..." 10 chances later the same warning is still being given. My advice to new starters is: 1. Know your powers and necessity to arrest like the back of your hand, byelaws are important on the railway and are very useful. 2. Never be afraid to take positive action against someone, be it ejection, report or arrest. 3. Never threaten an action you aren't actually willing to undertake.
  10. Response is rubbish. You are nothing to nobody. The bosses don't care about you. The public dislike you. The specialist units think you're a pleb...............I could go on. I like others will give you a brief overview of a typical day for me in the world of LPT (Local Policing Team) a rubbish amalgamation of what was Response (when it was good) and NPT (which was and always will be bunk). We brief, some days with 30 officers, others with 6-10. This is where the first shafting of the day occurs. Crews are detailed out, you're almost guaranteed to get stuck with someone you don't get on with. The second shafting occurs when you are met with a number of outstanding tasks to do for the proceeding section, house to house, interviews, court runs etc etc etc. The third shafting occurs before you have even had a chance to log on and check your crimes/emails/roster when the controllers dish out 'outstanding' (something deeply ironic about that) calls that the other sections haven't got to. These calls can be hours, days or even weeks old. When you eventually get out the door, its in an under powered Vauxhall Astra that the previous officer left with fumes in the tank, is far too small for a bloke wearing ballistic armor and a gun-belt and is horribly dirty inside. You arrive up at the door of the person who called the police hours/days/weeks ago and are met with abuse, because they have had to wait for a police response. You take a statement for what is most likely somebody calling somebody names over Facebook and 'file' it away in your 'never to be looked at again' pile and promise the caller you will speak to the 'offender' about their actions. You warn the 'offender' about their behavior, only to be told it was the caller who started it all. Once you have eventually dealt with all the stuff you've been asked to do, you finally get a chance to traipse back to the station, get a brew and work your way through an endless list of emails, tasks and logs. You find you wish you hadn't. You head back out after a quick pit stop, which was actually more detrimental to you in the hope of dishing out a few tickets or getting a drugs detection. You head to the usual spots and there's nobody about, you drive around aimlessly for a bit, but the motorists are behaving. Then the calls start............for the next few hours, you're run ragged, from one end of your division to the other. RTCs, domestics, thefts, civil disputes, suicidal people, you name it! Eventually, its time for a refs break, you carefully select a sandwich or other delightful treat (or if you're like me start to think about what you brought from home) and tootle back in to the station, with the hope of getting a bit of respite. As soon as the microwave bings or you begin to unwrap your sandwich, the radio goes again and you get tipped out to another call. And there goes your refs break, by the time the call is dealt with, another call-sign has put themselves on a break and the controller says "No, sorry, you'll have to hold off for a while, you're my only car" And the calls start again................. The end is in sight, you've had no break, no food and nothing but water has passed your lips since that brew in the morning. Your callsign gets shouted on the radio, a nice simple one to finish the day off. You arrive at the call, its not simple, its all gone wrong, you have to arrest somebody. There's a 2 hour wait to get into the custody suite, they're having their change over. Eventually, a good few hours after you were meant to finish you're stood staring into your locker, taking your vest off, undoing your gun-belt and throwing it in to the bottom of your locker. You get home and you sit down and think to yourself, "what a day!!" and realise you can't see yourself doing any other job.
  11. I personally only look for rapists and murders. Anything less than that isn't worth my time.
  12. I'd like to see an unedited video before I throw this officer under the bus for being racist. I have had, better worded, similar discussions with members of the public during a S60 operation. Black people are disproportionally stopped by police for stop search in London if you consider the population breakdown but also disproportionally represent crime suspects for street crime (I belive the information for that statistic was based on victim description). A similar theme occurs in heavily Asian populated areas in Northern Cities. The trend almost certainly would have been reflected in S44 terrorism searches at rail stations in 2005/2006. A similar trend occurs with white British tourists in Thailand tourist areas for drugs stops. Now people are saying 'profiling' is wrong - actually profiling is intelligence led policing. Random arbitrary stops based on skin colour are not profiling - they're unlawful and abhorrent. People make a joke about it but Lancashire police will be more likely to delve further into a 66 plate Audi of early 20s Scousers than they would a black male in a Bentley - because it fits the crime demographic for car key burglary. It might seem unfair to Scousers but I would hazard a guess that without coppers 'profiling' and conducting proactive traffic stops alot of serious crime would go undetected. **** So I'm not agreeing with the Met officer...I can't - because I don't know what he said and why. If they were the first words out of his mouth to this DJ then he could well be bigoted and due for a new career. Or he might have fallen victim to race baiting and video editing. I'd be interested to know the registration details and insurance information for the Bentley as well because that might provide more sensible grounds for the stop than 'black man in expensive motor - must have nicked it' subtext that's being pushed (and swallowed by members here it would seem).
  13. Funnily enough I had a stand off with a lad the other day who had littered and was stopped by a warden who had refused to provide details to, myself and a PCSO were on the station conducting patrols due to ASB issues. Bloke refuses details to me, he's recording me at this point on his phone. I promised him if he didn't give his name I'd be locking him up for littering and refusing to provide details to the warden, he gave in and handed over his I.D after this. Walking away the PCSO turned to me and said: "What would you have done if he still refused his details?" "I'd have locked him up..." Came my reply. The PCSO couldn't believe that I was willing to arrest someone for littering but at the end of the day that lad was willing to make a mockery of the system simply because he thought he could choose to get away with it. That's why we have a necessity to arrest clause at the end of the day, in my mind it doesn't matter what the offence is, you can't let idiots totally pull down the rules in place because they don't want to pay a fine. Perhaps if we the police and other bodies enforced the little things with more vigor we would see far less of the more serious issues within society.
  14. Oh dear where do I start with this Okay for starters it's not a 'little revolver', it's a self loading pistol most likely a Glock 17. Yes we can and do carry this type of firearm discreetly or covertly based on the nature of the operation and risk. However in this role the self loading pistol is a secondary weapon not the officers primary weapon. That may not appear to be important but if your primary weapon fails quick and easy access may save theirs or another's life. So on routine overt patrol that is the MOST important consideration and not some idiots sensibilities. Quite a simple answer really And yes once I gun up at a start of the shift my sidearm stays on, which is normal for most forces. Not only am I responsible for the weapons and munitions carried in my vehicle, you just never know when you may encounter a lethal threat..... possibly even whilst buying some doughnuts in Tescos?
  15. I know this officer personally. He is by no means a shrinking violet nor by any means naïve. Rory does have a government policy background and part of his rationale is that he feels better able to contribute to affecting change via exiting the organisation as a DWO and returning as an SC while simultaneously contributing to the policy debate in a bone fide, open and honest way. Rory has and still does contribute to a number of programmes that are "extra curricular" and thus is playing the long and holistic game. So, to the point "suck it up son", I would say that not only has he sucked it, he plans to do more sucking and I'm guessing plans to do the sucking so you don't have to. He is on your side. He's done your job. And did it in Lambeth, hardly a sleepy backwater!
  16. Just to echo some of what has been said already, and as a police officer who works in a country where we lose far too many officers each year, if anything it would be a dishonor to Keith's memory to not discuss ways to keep this from happening again and move in that direction. Sometimes these discussions go places we don't want to go, and that's ok, but it's important. The questions should be now not only why, but what can you do to keep it from happening again, whether that means a change in tactics, training, equipment, policy, etc. Our FBI actually has a whole unit devoted to studying line of duty deaths and then teaches a class to law enforcement on what went wrong and how to change it. Many of the things we do now, we do because of those that have fallen before us. Do not let Keith's death to have been in vain. My own thoughts, as are probably already known, is you need to be armed. Period. No offence intended but I don't feel that it should be a personal choice it should be policy. Baton, spray, taser, firearm. Not in your car. Not in the office. On your side. Everywhere you go. Personal choice is when no one else's life is at stake but your own. When it is your duty to protect others then you should be equipped as such. We may not know if Keith being armed would have saved his life but it certainly could have given him a better chance. You can't overlook that it was the armed officers who stopped the threat from continuing on. If they weren't where they were who knows how many other victims there would be. This is the world we live in now and it's time to take notice as unfortunately, it's not going away. We're a target because of the uniform we wear. We will be one of the first ones targeted because to the attacker, we are now the threat that is standing in their way and the only one who can stop them. Head on a swivel everyone.
  17. 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.
  18. Moved to a more appropriate location. I think @JD180has summed it up quite well really. When we took on the three extra sites we had to look at ways of financing them. The software for the sites comes with a cost that is ongoing. This maintains the latest version and security updates. Not only do we have the forum software but there are numerous add on's and again these cost money as does hosting and all the other costs associated with a vibrant online community. We would love to provide this completely free for all but it simply isn't viable. Those that contribute financially to the sites get a more functions and areas than those who make use of the free account. We had hoped that the amount of paying members coupled with the sponsorship and advertising would be sufficient to give the whole site to all but it simply isn't that easy and add to this the future development of the site we needed to look what was the main reason for using the site and the services we provide. The simple fact is that we used to have a lot of members who would come and read the recruitment areas and not contribute and then others who sign up for the free account, ask a recruitment question and then never come back so we took a management decision to charge a very small fee to use those areas. We structured the membership groups around what people use the site for and how much but at the same time we recognised that it had been built by the members we had. This is why we took the decision to allow the 'Resident' members to still have access to those areas but newer members wouldn't. The simple answer is that to keep the forums running for those who use the free accounts we needed to find a way to fund it and this is just one of the ways.
  19. As usual Sceptre makes a valid point, succinctly - We do not explain in proper terms using ordinary language and do not speak matter of factly. Our elitism over the past 20 years or so has effected our standing. If we are uber professional demi-Gods then why is it that we occasionally do something that doesn't seem professional to the public? I'd say unrealistic training expectations play a large part in this issue. Point 1. We are given in the realms of 32 hours initial use of force training and 8 hours a year refresher training and yet we talk of home office approved techniques, escalation of force etc and we are judged as if we are ninjas - by both the public and the disciplinary system. We are expected to be prof To put that into perspective - if we were looking at an amateur jiu jitsu enthusiast (jiu jitsu can cover a broad spectrum of the use of force tactics used by police) you would expect a committed participant who was looking to attain a level of real world competence to attend two 1 hour sessions a week. After 6 months of attending their club twice a week they would have an appreciation of the basics of jiu jitsu. They would not, however, be considered competent. They would probably have passed their first qualification stage. After 12 months they would probably be quite proficient in stances, take downs and delivering strikes and be looking at more technical moves. By this stage they would have in the region of 100 hours of training time. A police officer hoping to have had the same amount of training input would probably have to have been in the job for 8 years. However, due to the training being condensed and only repeated yearly there is almost zero chance of muscle memory being obtained from the training offered. The police officer with 8 years in the job who isn't regularly utilising his officer safety skills is less competent than somebody who has been taking martial arts classes as a hobby for a year. The system has set the police officer up to fail with unreasonable expectations in comparison to the training received. Point 2. Most of us have completed one 8 hour input on mental health including powers, common signs and symptoms and force policy. We also probably completed a 90 minute e-learning package. A mental health nurse, prior to registration, completes 3 years of foundation training in all aspects of mental health geared to one of four specific specialty areas. This initial training includes on the job clinical training. Once registered there are ad hoc CPD training courses to keep them competent and up to date. Police officers with their training deficit, compared to even a newly qualified mental health nurse, has received somewhere in the region less than 1% of the training of the mental health professional. They are, however, asked to go to addresses and conduct what is ostensibly a mini mental health act assessment on behalf of the NHS. Half the time there are crime issues at play also - police officers are expected to juggle their responsibility to policing and mental health. Mental health professionals refuse to attend patients at the scene. Police officers must make the choice and discover the legal route for whether a person receive mental health assistance. Police officers are set up to fail. Point 3 We receive no (well I haven't in any of the three police forces I have been in) meaningful safeguarding training beyond being told of the power to take children into emergency police protection - a 1 hour PowerPoint presentation conducted as part of police foundation training. Social workers, prior to registration, either complete a 3 year social work course or a 2 year conversion course of they are a graduate from a different discipline. They receive as part of this on the job training with mentorship. Again, police officers attend daily safeguarding incidents, particularly with regards to children, which require instant decisions to be made. Social services will not attend the scene. In many cases it is social services who have passed the buck onto the untrained frontline police officer. They will, ironically, State to police officers that it is the officers decision as he is the one at scene...yet refuse the invitation to attend themselves to assess. There are many, many more examples to fit my point with varying degrees of relevance (I'm not even first aid at work trained and I'm sent to ambulance calls weekly!) and it leads me to two conclusions - either we put our hands up and admit we are not trained to do a large amount of what we currently undertake but we do the best we can in the circumstances or we stop going to jobs which aren't our remit. To be honest, without further training and input from the professionals in the relevant fields I'd be happier to go for the latter. If the public think we are ineffective at what we do I'd be interested to see what would happen if were taken out of the equation and responsibility was put back to those trained and paid to specialise.
  20. There is actually a shortcoming in the law here. If they suspected he was Mr Wanted Man and Mr Wanted Man was circulated for being wanted in connection with an offence and s.24 arrest powers apply then if they reasonably suspected him of being Mr Wanted Man then of course they have a power of arrest. As soon as he refused details after they explained they thought he was Mr Wanted man then they should have immediately arrested him. If, however, Mr Wanted Man was wanted on a warrant of arrest then that power of arrest only applies to Mr Wanted Man and even if they act in good faith and genuinely suspect that this chap is Mr Wanted Man and arrest him but he turns out not to be then the arrest is unlawful unfortunately. The man is clearly something of a tit though. Interactions being needlessly escalated because someone is an uncooperative prat happens frustratingly too often. Nevertheless, the law permits people to be uncooperative prats on many occasions though.
  21. This is absolute realms of fantasy equal to shooting him in the leg - an action is always quicker than a reaction, there's an abundance of research suggesting a person can cross 20ft before a cop can meaningfully react, they've got their hands full and their training specifically emphasises a reactionary gap not bum rushing people and hoping for the best. You concede in your own anecdote that it worked only due to luck; I could give you my own of managing to knock someone down before he could cut me with the stanley knife in his hand but that doesn't mean I'd ever want to be in that position again. The dog could have been set on him, that could have been a plan. If they were expecting weapons (and the presence of firearms suggests they were) then a shield team might not have been a bad idea and there's plenty of walls to pin him against. If armed enquiries have been authorised then a baton gun might have been a reasonable contingency. Had they shot him then an inquest or the IPCC could draw one set of conclusions about why those measures were discounted while drawing completely another about the legality of the decision to open fire itself. But the fact remains that once they ended up in the circumstances they did everything you've said so far has absolutely no grounding in the law, which guarantees the police officers' Article 2 rights to life and their entitlement to act on an honestly held belief. You've even had a current AFO tell you he's shot someone under these circumstances in a hydra suite without having his ticket revoked and you still don't seem to get it - you're as out of touch here as when you opined that CS was absolutely never necessary in custody suites because in your day you could just punch people in the stomach, and that's why your opinion is getting the flak it deserves from numerous quarters. As ever, you seem unable or unwilling to back them up with anything but bluster.
  22. Tb202 The military (dependant on Regt) is very different from the Police, having been both I know this for certain. Behaviour that's acceptable in Units of the Military is simply not in civvy street, much of what goes on in Regt's would be viewed as bullying or abuse by civvies. Although you are entitled to your opinion, and rightly so, with the way in which you express yourself on the Internet I would suggest you should spend some time with actual victims of crime and see the massive impact that said crime has upon them. We are not only paid to apply force in enforcing the law but the most important job of the Police is to help people. To do this we must empathise and understand the issues our society face, above all we must communicate with the public properly or face becoming some third world law enforcement agency that just applies Force on a whim. Policing isn't all about conflict and quite honestly it soon becomes boring going home bruised grazed and bleeding if every night you are having to scrap it out in the street. Ex Service Personnel make excellent police officers and the govt really miss a trick in not recruiting more. But it's not the Military and treating it as if it where is a huge mistake
  23. The question is when "did it not be ok" for cops to swear? As with most things I think the Police are more professional now than ever before because you can't even break wind without the IPCC or PSD wanting a whiff of it. People just see more of us in what would normally be cop to cop settings because of all these documentary type shows. There are times that swearing at someone can defuse a situation and times that it can escalate one. Sometimes I can be so taken aback by a situation that a swear word will slip out or I can get angry and slip a four letter word into a sentence because I'm human and humans have emotions which manifest themselves in a variety of ways. I do swear in conversation with colleagues because I just do. I think it's because of where I was raised and due to my previous occupations. I wouldn't swear whilst talking to a member of the public in day to day conversation because that's crossing a line into being unprofessional though.
  24. That's a rather self absorbed statement. Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil.
  25. Go ahead and be concerned on my behalf then. I do my job with integrity and professionalism, and that includes taking the breaks I am entitled to. I refuse to be bullied out of taking my refreshments in public by a vocal minority.
  26. I am now officially going in to week 12 of training school after an annual leave week with only 14 weeks left - nearly half way! It's gone ridiculously fast that I can hardly believe we're in double figures already. It's been a fair few weeks since I last posted an update here, and after a bit of prompting I've decided now is probably a good time. We've been doing a lot of legislation over the past few weeks, and had two consolidation role plays days to practice what we'd learnt. These days consist of getting fully kitted up including high vis jackets and roaming around in pairs/threes until you are deployed over the radio to an 'incident', where an assessor and several students from the local college act out a scenario. The hardest part of these, for me, has definitely been the radio stuff. It's a whole other language to me and I've never experienced anything like it before, I still even get a bit stumped over Phonetic Alphabet, the other day I was spelling out 'JONES' and 'October, November' came out of my mouth, much to the amusement of the assessor. Like I said, we've had two of these consolidation days so far and I hated every second of the first one, despite the scenarios themselves not being too much of a disaster, the worry and pressure made me soo nervous. For example, we completely forgot to search a shoplifter who we transported to (fake) custody only for the assessor to pull a massive knife out of his hoodie, schoolboy error!! But to be fair to us, we had only just covered searching so I think we were worried about how much it had been drilled into us that searches can so easily be unlawful. But, the second time around, I enjoyed every single scenario we attended as I really felt that I had grasped how to achieve the best outcome, and I especially enjoyed the ones that involved talking to people rather than going straight in with legislation, but actually really enjoyed the satisfaction of getting them right. We also spent a week visiting the stations we'll be working at and those in the same area as us as well, so for me that was my station and the station that has the custody suite, which are a fair distance apart. Although not the most exciting week ever, it was really great to get to meet some of the people I might be working with and familiarise myself with the station. We spent a day in Court which was also quite interesting, and it was a lot different to when I visited several years ago on work experience with a journalist who I'll never forget being so angry at as he laughed someone crying as his case was heard in court. One officer took us for a tour around the area I'll be covering in a marked car, which to me was really, really cool, having never been in one before. The area that we cover is so huge though, and the stories of a small number of people being on shift at the same time and the amount of time it takes to get from one end of the area to another has made me a bit nervous!! I definitely payed a bit more extra attention in PST after knowing how far away backup could be and how often I'll be single-crewed. Since I last posted, we have started and pretty much finished our Personal Safety Training (PST/OST) which was so much fun from beginning to end. I woke up the morning after each session with plenty of bruises but really enjoyed having practical lessons and being shown how to defend myself. I think for a lot of us on my course it made it all seem quite real, as we joked around pretending to stab each other with plastic knifes, that in just a few months time we'll be out there and may well have to use these techniques from the very start. I've started engaging a lot more in Police news lately, and reading posts by UK Cop Humour on Facebook, and every post that is dedicated towards a fallen officer makes me feel so much different now that I am one of them. I've gained so much respect for the job through the stories from our trainers and understanding the daily struggles that officers face, even just leaving their family for a shift and not knowing what is going to happen in the hours that follow. I think it's really hit me just how dangerous this job can be, but that the work I will be doing will be so personally rewarding that it makes it all worth it (I hope!). Files, files and more files have been thrown at us left right and centre and on Friday we had the whole day to complete a GAP (Guilty Anticipated Plea) file which was hard enough, let alone learning what needs to be included in an NGAP file. To be honest, this has confused me quite a lot, and although I really enjoyed doing the file, it was really just because we had all the information in front of us, and I can't bear to think how hard it'd be to build one of these up completely from scratch! It has, however, made me really excited for our Interviewing course which is just around the corner. We recently went on a training night out to a nearby city which was so much fun, and really bonded us as a team even more than before. It was great to let our hair down for the night and, for me, get dressed up and look like a normal human being again rather than having my hair all scraped back and barely any makeup on. Following this we've had a week off for annual leave, which has been nice, but I'm itching to get back to it tomorrow as we start on Road Traffic stuff for the next two weeks before our Driving course which comes in March. I think the highlight for these past few weeks for me was our individual review that happened at the end of last week where I really began to feel like I was actually headed towards where I'm meant to end up. My trainer said that he loved the way I spoke to people during consolidations and thought that my humour would get me far, which was so encouraging for me as all this time I've been a bit worried that this job might turn me into a robot. The knowledge that I might actually be doing OK has given me so much more motivation and confidence for the remainder of the course and I think it came at just the right time for me. Other than that, my boots still aren't shiny and my tunic still has dodgy creases, but every day that I put on my uniform and walk up to HQ I feel more and more proud of how far I've come and more and more excited for what is to come next. Thanks for reading, sorry this was a long one!
  27. 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.
  28. I can confirm that yes, most of us are republican as it is they who typically side with law enforcement and, like@julietalpha1 said they do focus more on law and order. I look towards the new president with hopeful optimism that we will now have the support we need from the courts and congress. Certainly we've felt on the defensive the last 8 years from a man who had no problems using the word "stupid" to describe the police and cater to racist groups who made it their mission to target law enforcement. Yeah. Trumps a little out there but I certainly wasn't a fan of Hillary. It doesn't matter much now because the election is long over and if we want to have a chance at fixing things everyone needs to get on board Sent from my iPad using Police Community
  29. I would disagree there. If they think they are dealing with somebody who might be known to violently resist (for instance), pre-emptively drawing a Taser could be a sound option in the circumstances.
  30. May I just point out that the logic being put forward is flawed (re sidearm in lockboxes) under both current guidance and common sense. A sidearm, if issued, would be issued to divisional officers as a personal protection weapon. It would be a fairly low capacity low powered weapon. Officers would not be wearing full ballistic armour, helmets, be driving ballistic protected vehicles or have access to additional firearms equipment. Its raison d'etre is as a last resort to use lethal force. The training for such a weapon would be basic in nature and cover basic contact/cover drills and pointing the weapon at a target and firing it fairly accurately to neutralise an immediate threat. ****** What's being suggested is that officers could assess a call and grab their gun if it is a high risk call. If a call is high risk and involves a threat of conventional firearms, edged weapons or persons otherwise so dangerous then that becomes a de facto firearms incident and appropriately trained/equipped ARVs/SFO's would be required. Arming normal officers would not change the requirement in these circumstances.
  31. You're preaching your opinion as fact again. I'm not going to get in another argument about experience with you. You think it wouldn't be justified. I think it would be justified. Let's see what everyone else thinks. That situation might have worked out well for you but it could easily have gone wrong for you or one of your colleagues. I don't fancy taking that risk to be honest. If he's going to try and kill me with a hammer, I'd rather shoot him before he smashed my skull in. End of. I don't understand why you'd chance your life rather than guaranteeing your own safety.
  32. Cruel? Distressing? No place in a civilised society? I might suggest those who don't like their use is at an arrest when they have a spitting suspect hockling up everything they can from the back of their throat, as well as daring to suggest that if the uncivilised person wasn't spitting, there'd be no need for the hood.
  33. Whoever Jen is I think she needs to work on maintaining her professional boundaries
  34. Protesters from the Black Lives Matter campaign brought transport routes around the UK to a standstill this morning as part of their campaign for a 'nationwide shutdown'. Full Story - Daily Mail This is a campaign to coincide with the anniversary of the London riots, apparently causing misery to thousands of people is going to make people sympathetic to the plight of black youths in this Country. Apparently the Police need to change, and treat Black people more fairly. Honestly has the country gone mad? How is causing this amount of chaos going to make people feel sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter groups cause?
  35. In a world where terrorists behead soldiers in the street.....in broad daylight......these people are worried about who the police may shoot? I would worry more about what other people are carrying that you can't see, and be reassured that a visible, armed presence is there to save your life should your fellow shopper decide to try and slit your throat or rob the store.
  36. The thing is, improvements in police accountability and professionalism have gone hand in hand with a loss of respect amongst the general public. I'm not sure that there's a simple explanation for this but some of it must be the fault of the police themselves. The other thing is nostalgia for a bygone age. I'm sure that many people alive today look back fondly to the year 1959 (the year in which the film was made) and yet male life expectancy the UK in 1959 was the same as it is today in Guatemala, or El Salvador. Yet people who say 'Things were better in 1959' aren't lying, they just have priorities other than life expectancy. My point is that people who say, 'The police were better in 1959' aren't lying either, they just have different priorities. Maybe those priorities aren't 'professionalism' 'accountability' 'corruption' or any of the other things that we commonly think of as being important. People want the police to a) Show up when called b) Show a presence on the streets c) Be generally nasty to the nasty people and good to the good people None of these things are easy, but somewhere along the line we've lost our way.
  37. Hello Police Community - First post so thought here would be a good place to start off and share my duty belt. I'm a MPO (Master Police Officer) here with a department in Virginia so I hope you don't mind me passing through. I've been a part of plenty of forums where it is predominantly US law enforcement but I always enjoy learning how the job is done in other places. Already I can see as far as the job goes, especially when it comes to dealing with the general public, we share a lot of the same headaches! On my belt from L-R: Double Magazine Pouch - X26 Taser - Motorola Radio - Light - Glove pouch - S&W Chain cuffs - ASP Baton - Glock 17 w/light - OC/CS Spray - S&W Hinged cuffs
  38. Don't forget, you are never on your own. Don't be embarrassed about asking for help. No one knows everything, even 30 year veterans need advice off someone sometimes, and no one will expect you to suddenly be able to do everything as soon as you're out of your ten weeks. Biggest skill is being able to appear like you're listening intently to someone, whilst inside you're desperately trying to work out what the he'll you're going to do next! [emoji16]
  39. It's a difficult one. I hope the guard was reasonable in his approach and if so is shown due leniency. Apprehending a shoplifter can be difficult and I've been in a similar situation myself as a guard when a man stole some whisky, I managed to grab it off him and roll it to one side before the tussle which ensued. It sounds like in this instance he was tackled the bottles broke causing significant bleeding and ultimately death.. Such a waste of life. Of course. A security guard, or any other person for that matter, should be able to prevent crime or effect a lawful arrest. If the offender creates such a dangerous risk to themselves or other people then the burden should ultimately rest with them and should not prevent the arrest from taking place. It's sad it could result in the loss of a life over something insignificant in comparison however it's the life they decided to lead. I dare say it sounds like he fell on his sword so to speak. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  40. The problem with many martial arts 'experts' is they have never had to control a person in circumstances that didn't have rules or whilst wearing 15lbs+ of restrictive bulky equipment. It's very different in a dry well lit dojo where people can tap out and it not get out of hand, until you've had to put on a uniform and all the considerations of doing so then to be fair any criticism is less founded in my opinion. I'll be facing someone who wants to hurt me (or kill), my colleagues or members of the public, and may not be in a comprehensible state of mind or with a drug/alcohol induced sense of strength and power. There's no "let's try this again from the top", it's there and then. I can't see how he says he lost his rag. If your being bitten then too right I'm going to keep hitting and hit hard until it stops and use whatever adrenaline I can muster to do so. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
  41. When it comes to arrest, you don't have 'any person' powers. 'Any person' is an unfortunate and erroroneous abbreviation of 'any person other than a constable'. I'm not sure where the misconception originated.
  42. Tb202, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If we have been looking at the same video what I saw was a melee sure enough. I looked through it six or seven times. However the officer who you suggest should "do something" did perfectly ok for me, (they all did actually) I saw her push away kids at least four or five times,no doubt telling the kids to stay back and generally trying to diffuse the situation . I saw her pull back her male partner after he stumbled when presumably trying to deal with someone and sit him up till he caught his breath, all the while looking around and assessing the situation, not only that but calling up to control to update them and either cancelling any oncoming further assistance or for some back up at the same time. She used restraint and weighed up the young crowd. There was no need for her to help to handle the lad who they put in the car because the others had the situation perfectly in hand. No case to answer whatsoever in my opinion. Actually I would have been most disappointed if the officer that you criticise started to spray everyone in sight with gas, or worse still started to wave an asp about. I have seen that done before and on one occasion had to look after my partner (and get him a cuppa) for well over half an hour till he could see again from the gas he had spayed in his eyes. Judging by the body language all of the officers they seemed calm and collected throughout, I wouldn't expect anything less. I understand perfectly how it may seem from the perspective of a member of the public looking at the video, but the videos that we see on the tele etc don't always paint the true picture. It's a bit of an art I think assessing just what an appropriate use of force needs to be. Officers learn this quite quickly I think after a few scuffles and fights and so on. I certainly did anyway and when I joined and I was no Billy Two Rivers I can assure you, quite the reverse . It's also something that can't be fully learned from role play in the gym either because it's not true life. No matter how hard they try your partner doesn't act the same and their facial expressions aren't the same either. ,So the advice I would give to anyone so like minded who aspires to be a police officer, special or support officer is don't be critical in these situations, things are not always as they appear. Officers are weighing things up at speed, not always to a "nicety". necessarily but assessing the situation never the less. Rich.
  43. For what it's worth, the war on police untidiness goes on wherever in the world you are. Here are a few things we do which I think make our uniformed police officers look good: - Relatively expensive and therefore better fitting shirts and pants - Covert body armour which fits under the shirt - A red stripe running the length of the outer pant leg - adds to the sharp look - You get a tailor's chit with every pair of pants - this ensures they aren't baggy - Squad parade on about the third Thursday of the month where the shift is marched out and inspected by the entire divisional chain of command. - The rank of 'Corps Sergeant Major' whose job (as far as I can see) is to leap out from behind buildings and tell police officers to go home and shave/ polish their boots/ remove their sunglasses from off the top of their head - No beards or earrings
  44. Reminds me of a joke... A police motorcycle cop stops a driver for running a red light. The driver is a real jerk, steps out of his car and comes striding toward the officer, demanding to know why he is being harassed by the Gestapo! So the officer calmly tells him of the red light violation. The motorist instantly goes on a tirade, questioning the officer’s ancestry, sexual orientation, etc., in rather explicit offensive terms. The tirade goes on without the officer saying anything. When the officer finishes writing the ticket he puts an “AH” in the lower right corner of the narrative portion of the ticket. He then hands it to the ‘violator’ for his signature. The guy signs the ticket angrily, and when presented with his copy points to the “AH” and demands to know what it stands for. The officer says, “That’s so when we go to court, I’ll remember that you’re an asshole. Two months later they’re in court. The ‘violator’ has a bad driving record and he is in danger of losing his licence, so he hired a lawyer to represent him.On the stand the officer testifies to seeing the man run the red light. Under cross examination the defence attorney asks; “Officer is this a reasonable facsimile of the ticket that you issued to my client?” Officer responds, “Yes, sir, that is the defendant’s copy, his signature and mine, same number at the top.” Lawyer: “Officer, is there any particular marking or notation on this ticket you don’t normally make?” “Yes, sir, in the lower right corner of the narrative there is an “AH,” underlined.” “What does the “AH” stand for, officer?” “Aggressive and hostile, Sir.” “Aggressive and hostile?” “Yes, Sir.” “Officer, are you sure it doesn’t stand for asshole?” “Well, sir, you know your client better than I do.” Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
  45. It's a pity that only seems to apply to the police, not those in real power or responsibility
  46. BLM are just causing a division - they're importing frankly very US problems to Britain that are of no issue over here. I had someone tell me to "check my white privilege" the other day, now anyone with even a basic understanding of British history would know that people were not divided by race in the UK but by class. We had Black doctors, buisinessmen, advisors and politicians in the UK in the 1800s who were comfortably upper and middle class. Working class families in Britain of which I'm from were treated no better than colonial subjects on the fringes of the empire - the whole argument doesn't make sense. BLM in this country have been watching too much American television I feel. Sent from my SM-G920F using the Police Community App
  47. Why can't it just be the best person for the job? Rather than the constant desire to fulfil quotas and have a "diverse" workforce.
  48. You should question it's legitimacy, because it makes as much sense here as it does there. I'm rather taken aback that you would suggest such a thing since we have had 9 police officers murdered since 2014 under the banner of "BLM" and many more seriously hurt. Nevermind that they riot and protest lawful officer-involved shootings. Nevermind that they are absolutely silent when black lives are taken, in record number, by anyone other than a police officer. Nevermind that they will protest and support convicted criminals and those who were actively trying to hurt and/or kill police & citizens. If I were to believe those statistics that your UK BLM posted I'd think their were "deep and insurmountable" inequalities in your society as well, let alone among your rank and file. Or what they've alleged about the Mark Duggan shooting and other in-custody deaths - which has absolutely nothing to do with the US, and well predates the start of the "BLM" organization. Anti-police sentiment is not new in the UK either and just because they have decided to throw the BLM title over top of it does not mean we're to blame for it. Confrontation, hate, and anger is exactly what protests such as this want. They block the streets in order force you, the police, to do something. And they will be standing by with cameras waiting for it.