Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 28/08/21 in Posts

  1. Rank: Inspector Length of Service 13 Years Role Duty Officer Shift 0700-1600 hours I've not written one of these for years. In part, this is because between 2015 and 2020 I worked in a unit where most of the work was relatively secretive and not suitable for writing up. However, I have since moved back out into uniformed policing and have gone up two ranks to Inspector. I am now a "Duty Officer" in an inner-city location. Essentially, I am the officer responsible for a whole shift of constables and sergeants, the most senior person on duty who takes charge of an incident in its initial stages and ensures everything is done properly. I am also responsible for lots of other things: complaints, reviewing serious threats to life, hate crimes, and the HR needs and development of 50-odd officers. I also try and spend as much time as possible out on patrol and turn up to incidents to support officers and pitch in as and when I can. (I surprised an officer who was guesting on my team recently when I was first on scene at an incident and took all the statements and arrested the suspect.... I'm still a copper, just about!). I felt it would be interesting to cover the sorts of things a Duty Officer does; most accounts on this website often seem to be of those young in service and I've not seen much input from officers who have supervisory responsibilities. It may serve to give some people an insight into what promotion may involve - there are many specialisms in the police, and I see leadership as a distinct specialism in itself. That said, I have the greatest respect for those who spend their whole careers at constable or sergeant rank: these are the backbone of the service, and the most specialised officers, experts in their fields, are those who have spent their careers dedicated to investigating the most serious crimes, using the most specialist kit, or being up-to-date in respect of the latest developments in policy, procedure, or technology. As a leader I can't know as much as the officers under me - I don't do case files every day, nor do I arrest people as often as I would like. My job is to ensure that my officers can do their job as best as possible, and to underwrite the risks that they take on. So what does a "typical shift" look like. Well, as any uniformed police officer would tell you, there is no such thing. What follows is an account of a real shift that took place a couple of months ago. It is not embellished in any way. I arrived at the station at about 0620 hours, got changed, and was in the supervisors' office about 10 minutes later. I always arrive on duty early, this is so I am not in a rush, can take the handover from the earlier shift - letting the previous shift's inspector go off duty, have a cup of tea, check my emails, and generally not be in a rush. I walk in and have a chat with the night duty inspector. I find out what has gone on during the night, and what is on my place this morning. Today, there are a couple of complaints against police that need looking at: people who are not happy. I need to research the basic circumstances of the complaint and establish what needs doing. Sometimes just explaining police policy and powers, or getting an update for a victim will suffice. Sometimes the complaint needs to be formally recorded and sent to the Professional Standards Department. Communication skills, knowledge of law and policy, and a good ear are key to dealing with these effectively. I will ring the complainants at a more sociable hour - time allowing. Apart from that, not much has happened in the past 24 hours that is still ongoing and that requires me to take any action. After a bit of small-talk with the outgoing inspector he leaves to go home to bed. I turn to the sergeants, who are having their own handover with the night-duty sergeants, and ask them what the numbers look like today: it is a sad fact of modern policing that we often seem to be under strength all too often. There are often abstractions due to events, protests, training, court, sickness, and leave (if they can get it!), but today doesn't seem to bad. I have three sergeants on duty today (out of five) and that is pretty much my minimum strength for supervisors. They are a very capable bunch, and I consider myself luck that I can rely on such a well-gelled bunch of great skippers. If I didn't have them I couldn't run my team. After a bit of small talk we head over to do the morning briefing with the team. It is 0655 hours. The duty-sergeant for the day always leads the briefing, they give the PCs the postings for the day and gives any particular taskings out. I will give any updates that I need to give and try and say something inspirational, funny, (I fear I come across like someone making "dad jokes" in the main, or mention something that happened on a previous shift - which is often something more serious). Today, literally as we were walking away from the briefing and officers are inspecting their cars the radio crackles to life: "The ambulance service has been called to a baby in cardiac arrest at Flat B, 43 Birch Street. Unit for immediate attendance please" It is 0703 hours. I don't have to say anything. Already, officers are diving into cars and telling the control room that they will run. I run back to the Supervisors office: "Are you going guv?" "Absolutely. Have you got the car keys?" The sergeant and I jump into our car and race to the scene. What is going through my mind? So much.... Have we got paramedics running? Who is at the scene? Is this purely a medical situation or has a crime been committed? How will the officers deal with this? What does the policy say? I can't imagine a more horrendous call. Briefly I think about my own baby daughter and feel emotion rising. I push that thought to one side as quickly as it arises, I can't go down that path now. As we race to the scene there are sporadic updates: the mother is hysterical and has said "I smothered her". I'm the second police unit on scene. A paramedic has also arrived. I activate my body worn camera and run into the house. Officers are doing CPR on the tiny body of a two month old child in an upstairs bedroom. A paramedic is setting up their equipment. The mother is hysterically screaming: "I killed her, She's dead, she's dead!" She is, running around and getting in the way of those doing their best to save the baby. I feel that whatever I do it will be the wrong thing. I grab her and pull her into another room: "let them do their job. The best chance she has is for them to do their job". I try and get mum's name and baby's name. For a minute or two I try say woefully inadequate platitudes as I block mum from he baby. I'm conscious of more paramedics arriving, and I call up on the radio that I need more police officers. Not because I want to be relieved from dealing with the mother, but because I know that I need to coordinate the response to this incident. Even as I'm grappling with mum, I'm wondering if this is a crime - even if it is not, I will need to secure the scene, I am thinking about getting the officers doing CPR rotated out, I need to get the Ops Room to be doing intelligence checks. It feels like an hour, but it is probably only 2 or 3 minutes before the next police car arrives and I thrust a PC into the room to deal with mum. At that point I walk out of the address and sit in the car. This often makes me feel guilty. My instinct is to be in the thick of it and be dealing directly with those involved. However, that is not my job. My job is to coordinate the response. To this I need to understand what everyone is doing, what needs doing, and get those tasks completed. A sergeant is in the house coordinating the actions there, I am one step back and calling up to get intelligence checks done, I am speaking to the ambulance service incident commander about the information that they have, ensuring I have sufficient officers on scene, and so on. The baby is pronounced dead. So many questions arise: intelligence suggests that there was a child protection plan in place, there was a comment about smothering the baby on the call, where are the other children? I have to ensure the correct tone is set - on the one hand this is a terrible tragedy and we have to deal with the matter sensitively. On the other, this could be a crime scene. I try to establish as much information as possible. I coordinate numerous tasks and brief the CID. I am also concerned about my officers. As soon as first aid has finished I call out those that were directly involved: two PCs come out looking shell shocked. As they walk out one breaks down in tears and I sit them both in a police car outside. What can I say? "It's the worst thing you can deal with as a copper. It's ok to cry" and rather uselessly place my hand on her shoulder. I arrived with one sergeant, and I task one of the remaining two to take accompany the officers directly involved to a short debrief with the ambulance service; I ask her to offer the officers involved in the CPR to go home (getting them a lift home) if they so wish. One clearly can't continue working, a short time later they get taken home, the other wants to roll onto the next call - I make sure he goes out three-up in a car, so has some space and capacity to "tap out" should he need to. Mum and baby go to hospital (not the mortuary), I remain at the scene. The next hour or so is something of a numb blur as I make phone call, take notes, brief senior officers, and speak to colleagues. But by about half past nine I'm ready to leave the scene, intending to head back to the station to do paperwork. However, it wasn't to be: literally as I'm getting back into the car the radio crackles to life again - "there is a man standing on the wrong side of the railings nine stories up in a block of flats". A police car races to the scene and within a couple of minutes the officer, with a sound of slight panic in her voice, confirms that a man is standing in such a precarious position. She asks for a negotiator. The control room state that only the duty inspector can call a negotiator. The attending officer is one of my most experienced officers and who is the epitome of calm and professionalism. However, I can hear a hint of panic in her voice. "Control, if PC 4312 need a negotiator, she needs a negotiator. On my authority, please call one". I'm already racing to the scene. Ten minutes later I arrive at the base of a large urban tower block. I look up and I can see a man hanging off the edge nine stories up. He looks like he is ready to jump any second. A couple of other police cars have arrived and I instruct them to put cordons around the block. I am with a sergeant in my car, so I instruct them to coordinate the cordons. I head up to the ninth floor. I am conscious of too much chatter on the main radio channel. I don't want to spook the man with comments on the radio, so I get the channels "split" so we are on a spare channel and instruct all officers to turn their radios down. As I arrive on the floor I come across two PCs trying to speak to the man from about ten metres away. I stand out of sight in the stairwell and get a PC to come back to give me a briefing. Can we grab him? No, he could jump long before we got to him, does he want anything? No, he isn't saying anything meaningful? What do we know about him? What could we use to emotionally appeal to him? Not much.... It is a really hard situation to be in. How do we persuade him to come back over? I try and formulate a plan in my stairwell, but my options are limited. I request for the ambulance to be on standby, and request that the fire brigade attend with their rescue equipment. However, it soon becomes apparent that the help that either of them could offer was limited. After about an hour the negotiators arrive. In the meantime I have been hiding just around the corner listening to my officers attempting to get through to the man. I have also ensured officers have cordoned off the building and are ushering away any residents that come out. In a busy inner-city borough this is really no mean feat. Some of the officers from the previous call had rolled straight onto this call. Thankfully, most haven't. I brief the negotiators - interestingly, the decision to deploy them, and how to deploy them, is mine. They are a tactical option. I take their advice - obviously - but it is up to me how they are used. There have been other incidents when I have withdrawn them and resort to other tactics. As the Duty Officer, the buck stops with me. In this instance, there is very little that I can do apart from use negotiators. I don't have the time or space here to divulge the blow-by-blow account of how the negotiators engaged with the man, or the numerous considerations I made, however, the incident continued for another four hours. The initial PCs that attended, and I, remained behind the man - on the balcony and in the stairwell just behind - throughout. Thankfully, he eventually decided to come back over the balcony, the incident was resolved successfully and he was detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Obviously, once he came back over there were various other administrative things to do before I left the scene - I am virtually always last to leave. As it should be. I got back to the police station at about 4pm. Suddenly it hit me, that I had not eaten or drunk since I had woken up that morning. I was exhausted and faint. One of the late-turn sergeants was going out for food and I gratefully put in an order with him. I spent an hour and a half writing briefing notes and ensuring all the paperwork was done, before I eventually left for work. Before I left I spoke to my counterpart inspector at a neighbouring station. I agreed with him that for the first two hours of the next shift he would cover any calls on my section. The following day, I told all officers involved in the incident with the baby to remain behind after parade. They needed a debrief. I took their breakfast order and went to McDonalds and bought them each a breakfast, took it back to the nick, and we sat down for an hour just going through what happened. The point I repeatedly made to them, and I make regularly to whoever will listen frankly, is that the amount of trauma we are exposed to as police officer just isn't normal. What a normal person may experience in a lifetime we will experience in a year or even a month. It is ok to be affected by this and help is available - be that informally, having a laugh with your colleagues or a beer with your mates, but also more formally through counselling or health referrals. We talk through what we all did and why (one officer who just arrived had a dead baby just thrust into their arms unexpectedly, others did CPR, others dealt with family). We discuss how we felt. I think it's a healthy thing to do: it is important to take a break from the radio - even for an hour - to just take stock. The officer who had to go home is in a worse state and had gone sick: I ensure that a proper package of support is put in place and I keep in contact with her. I then move straight into debriefing the officers involved in the second incident. The first officers on scene got a glowing email from the head negotiator, but, again, I am more concerned with whether they are OK. They seem alright, and are reassured that the incident ended well and the negotiators were happy with their efforts. I put them up for a commendation and the superintendent soon calls them in for an award. ............and that's it. Just one day. A horrendous day, no doubt, but I've got a couple of dozen similar stories form the past year to recount. Thankfully we don't normally have more than one of these on a single shift. But, one thing is for certain - when it comes to trauma, what we police officers deal with, certainly in the quantity we do, isn't normal. To understand this is key, and it there is nothing shameful about seeking help if you need it. As I came out of the debrief one of the probationers came up to me and said: "Can I ask, are you OK sir? It's just I don't imagine anyone thinks to ask you." Look after each other.
    7 points
  2. To an auditor, a police officer is a walking, talking source of ad revenue. Most make no secret of how lucrative an interesting video can be and therefore they want their video to be as interesting as possible. Just be professional and polite and don't fall into the trap of baiting or belittling them as you'll just end up looking silly. Boring interactions rarely, if ever, make the final cut. It's also worth familiarising yourself with the auditors that frequent your local area and the tactics they employ as they vary greatly. One thing to be very mindful of is that they sometimes learn very specific bits of law in detail and will use that to try and make officers look incompetent, often ignoring the fact that police officers have to have a working knowledge of hundreds of bits of legislation rather than a detailed knowledge of three or four and probably won't know the specific wording of every piece of legislation off by heart - they don't care about this and nor do their viewers. It's an easy win for them if you demand details under section 50 PRA when it may not be justified and they will seize upon it. Ultimately, be polite, professional, know your powers and be prepared to justify your use of said powers, all the while keeping an open mind as, legally speaking, they may not be committing any offences (and they will know this). If you do decide to use BWV, tell them as soon as practicable and if they ask you for your collar number, don't just tip your shoulder to the camera because it just makes you look like a plonker.
    2 points
  3. Just watched Heathrow: Britain’s busiest airport. Armed cops talking to members of the public, no one was scared, they didn’t lose any guns or recklessly murder innocent people. Who would have thought it 🤷🏻‍♂️
    2 points
  4. Should have got longer in my own opinion ,and the poor officer and has been scarred for life. left by this scumbag.😠
    2 points
  5. The Section 18 GBH with intent is the more serious offence with a far higher penalty available to the Judge and the full details of the offence and offender are available to him. The defence Counsel can always make application for a plea bargain to down grade the Section 18 to Assault on an Emergency worker in an attempt to limit the sentence the Court can give. It is unlikely that the Prosecution or the Judge would allow that. Below the Section 18 you have lesser offences of Section 20 wounding (Without intent). Sec. 47 AOABH, all of which have a higher penalty reducing down to Assault on an Emergency Worker. If I was assaulted and the charge was Section 18 I would feel grossly insulted if the Court should allow a reduction to the lesser offence.
    2 points
  6. I'm not sure much would need to need to change. All officers already carry PAVA spray and not enough already carry TASER. Both of these are Section 5 firearms according to the act. There's no legal impediment stopping officers from carrying another Section 5 firearm in the form of a pistol. The only impediment would seem to be the obstinate "Dixon of Dock Green" attitude that unarmed policing is somehow better than actually equipping officers with the means to protect themselves and members of the public. God forbid that response officers might actually be able to arrive at the scene of an MTFA and actually neutralise the threat, then and there. Rather than waiting however long for AFOs to turn up, whilst however many members of the public are shot in the meantime.
    2 points
  7. Do you think our bosses would admit that it may take more 30 minutes for armed officers to arrive at the scene of an incident? During that time we are unable to protect ourselves or the public so we stand back and wait.
    2 points
  8. Cue the comments about the misnomer that is “policing by consent”, “it’s not America”, “there’s no gun culture in the UK”, “if the police are armed the criminals will arm themselves”….ad infinitum. Stop with the well-being obsession, equip us properly, provide us the staff we need and pay us what we should be for the levels of responsibility we have and what we have to deal with. (speaking from a purely south of the border perspective….although I can’t imagine it’s that different up north)
    2 points
  9. I think what @Equin0x thinks off when you mention terrorists are the Óglaigh na hÉireann woolly faces and Taliban war chiefs. Basically a Call of Duty representation of a terrorist. Definitely not seemingly “normal” people like Anders Breiviek, Brenton Tarrant and David Copeland. Of course, I’m sure that they’re also overlooking the fact that knowing that police are reluctant to engage with them and be robust with their powers, they may actually be conducting hostile reconnaissance of CNI sites, police stations and the like. Maybe even measuring response times, police numbers and so on. Its a very narrow minded and immature view to have……”well they don’t look like terrorists and they’re not getting hard stopped by CTSFOs, so they mustn’t be”.
    2 points
  10. I like the idea of s136. Highly amusing, until you realise you are stuck with them for 24h Why do we talk to them? What do we think is going on? Hostile surveillance? Really? And all we do is vaguely ask them what they are doing? We either think it is it it's not. It not, just leave it. If it is, then hard stop with firearms. We make a rod for our own back by sort of vaguely doing something just in case but not actually doing enough because it's clearly not actually the risk we are pretending it is.
    2 points
  11. You will not get personal details about officers or staff from a FOI request. If you want to know what a force holds on you personally then a Subject Access Request will achieve that - within the bounds of what can legally be released - unlikely to have intelligence released. Think it still costs a tenner.
    2 points
  12. My force currently has 16 active officers on RPU. We work closely with our regular officers and undertake normal RPU duties with standard RPU deployment models and callsigns, either working with regulars or other RPU SC's. We complete occasional takeover days and I think we have good support from management. In terms of skills, we are treated well and the force has invested heavily. 12 out of the 16 are Advanced trained and 8 of those are TPAC as well. 2 more are Standard/IPP trained and are on the list for Advanced training. All are stinger trained on these courses. All training that is available to regulars is available to us as well, and some of us even have trainer qualifications for a variety of skills which we use to train both SC's and regular colleagues. We will also soon have our first police driving instructor so we will be capable of training other SC's to response level. We work hard to ensure that we have parity with regulars in terms of passing courses (PG9, FIT, Drivers Hours etc etc) and achieving competence - we are not interested in having a 'paired down' version of a skill. We expect our officers to complete the same accredited Traffic Patrol course as the regulars, though often modularised to allow for day jobs. We also expect our officers to also carry a workload when able (and practicable) - process our own prisoners, carry out our own enquiries and complete our own files. It's a great set up, and for me it's the best SC role I can think of in the country. There is nothing more satisfying than completing a task or resolving an incident and a regular saying "blimey, I didn't realise you were a Special! Thanks so much".
    2 points
  13. Yeah as a rule I don't post stories from them. The forum has seen something of a decline in users over recent years, which is a shame.
    2 points
  14. Wasn't this a site that cropped up before. If there was a known issue then shame on all those involved in its management and continued use. It undermines the confidence in all the other legit cameras. Lets see if the paper will publish the outcome - surely more than one person is looking at some form of investigation / discipline - whether it leads to police, LA or A.N.Other.
    2 points
  15. Do they need to have done your job to investigate you? I imagine that you've investigated lots of people whose jobs you have not the first idea about.
    2 points
  16. Who would staff this independent organisation with the requisite skills of investigation and experience? What does a civilian who is totally unaware of the stress and strain of policing going to offer?
    2 points
  17. It was better when you saw a beach and just has to give it a go. Maybe raw sewage, maybe beautiful sand. Brexit is the adventure we needed.
    2 points
  18. Hurrah! Back in the bad old days those unelected EU bureaucrats would have put their jackboots on our necks and forced us to treat discharge. They forced us to clean up our waterways, our British waterways and our British beaches. They made us have blue flag beaches where it was safer to swim. Now we can put British pollution into British water. Another fine example of our sovrinty restored.
    2 points
  19. Just open the link and you can read about people who, like you, were anti vaxers. They caught the virus and died and their families urged people to get vaccinated. Rather hypocritical, it cannot touch me but, if it does I want no expense saved to save me.
    2 points
  20. Which I'm sure is true, but that other work nearly always seems to stop short of the actually interesting question of why that might be. I'm sure if you conducted identical work about people with tattoos experiencing force from the police there'd be similar results, for largely socio-economic reasons. The IOPC acting like they can analyse just 101 uses of taser and from that extrapolate meaningful trends or lessons for the entire country is just a woefully incompetent way of approaching the issue and unfairly damages the public trust. I've posted before about how racial disparities particularly concerning black people run throughout society, from being more likely to grow up in poverty, uneducated, in a broken home to being more likely to be convicted, to be imprisoned and to be in poor health. Some of that can be explained by the biases conscious or not of individuals, but that can only be a very small part of what is clearly a systemic and historic problem the police inherits from wider society.
    2 points
  21. For cops who will have to climb out of quite a lot of kit in order to go to the toilet I think using a disabled toilet for the extra space alone is a fair and sensible option, so long as there isn't a queue outside already. If it's the only option available then all the more of a non-issue.
    2 points
  22. I know there is a lot of stuff that cops have to know but I don’t get why, in this day and age, officers are not aware of how to deal with people recording them. There is good NPCC guidance on it that is just sense. ‘Auditors’ will not be breaking the law. They are careful to be lawful to prove their point. Approach such people only if you have to. Open with, ‘How you doing today?’ Or ‘Can I help you with anything?’ Rather than, ‘what are you doing? Or ‘Why are you filming me/police station.’ Make it clear that they are not suspected of any offence, they do not have to engage, they are not detained so can leave whenever they want. Best way not to get on YouTube.
    1 point
  23. Shocking as it might sound, we would always conduct ASV vehicle patrols around the perimeter of my former establishment. In addition, we would also conduct armed foot patrols, as and when required. Despite carrying MP7s, sidearms, TASER and the usual PPE, we actually engaged with and got to build a fairly good rapport with the surrounding communities, as well as the local Home Office force. By virtue of the fact that we were able to carry out pro active police patrols, something that was a distant memory for the local Home Office force. We even dealt with any normal "street duties" type incidents that we encountered whilst on patrol. Also gaining us much kudos with the local Home Office force. Even more shockingly, no one got shot, TASER may have been deployed on a few occasions (but only strictly when necessary), and every firearm I drew was signed back into the armoury at the end of my shift.
    1 point
  24. I’m voting we hose them down, not necessarily water cannon style just a nice gentle ice cold rain. They won’t last long when soaked and cold.
    1 point
  25. It very greatly reduces the chance. Same as TASER, pistols are secured to retention holsters with a Kevlar lanyard.
    1 point
  26. In part you may be missing their reasons, namely assaults on officers, the frequent issue rather than a terror event. di you see the carrying of a sidearm reducing the assaults , when it’s the atypical ruff and tumble, head butts etc? The job / courts/ public don’t like taser for those, let alone shooting, so on the argument put forward, I don’t see a firearm being a deterrent. different argument / reasoning may get a better response
    1 point
  27. I don’t watch such videos but do these auditors record any other people doing their jobs? Are there videos of mechanics fixing cars, or serving staff taking food and drinks to tables? Maybe builders laying blocks or delivery drivers dropping packages off at houses?
    1 point
  28. This one has been done to death! Section 43 and section 136 is going to be pretty tenuous in nearly any situation. Providing they are in a public place, they're not filming anything indecent and they're not committing any other actual offences, leave them to it. If they have unwittingly strayed onto private property, that's a different story. They may be committing trespass or criminal trespass (if a "designated site"). If on private land, the owner or their agent (could be MDP or CNC officers if on a defence or CNI site) can request they leave the site by the way they came in, or by the nearest exit. They can also use reasonable force to remove them. Many of my former colleagues have starred in such YouTube videos. To my knowledge, I've never. Simply because I'd engage with them, if they're not trespassing or committing any other offences I'd leave them to it. Not the reaction they usually expect. I'd probably submit an intelligence report with a description and any other relevant details, but that would be it.
    1 point
  29. We did have a recruitment section on the site for a long time however removed this as it was requiring updates from community members but kind of got left by the wayside. Plus jobs come and go so quick that I imagine that it would be a bit of a headache to keep up to date. We'll certainly review the suggestion though.
    1 point
  30. For some reason I don't fancy increasing the view count of the tedious auditors. So having not watched it, I'm going to say yes. It was fine.
    1 point
  31. Naaaah, my conspiracy theory still stands, that’s just the textbook sort of thing someone from GCHQ might say to infiltrate the theorists community in disguise🙈
    1 point
  32. I think it's important to be able to hold the government accountable but if we have zero trust in them then you are looking at society falling apart or getting a tin foloil hat. But, broadly speaking, it will probably be just about ok
    1 point
  33. As this is an internal vetting matter (as mentioned in your DM to me) I would have to say I agree with @Zulu 22 +. It's clearly preventing you from moving forces so I would speak with your Fed rep and see what can be done from the inside. I suspect that the vetting department will never release any information to you directly, I've never heard of anything otherwise. Best of luck with your uphill battle!
    1 point
  34. One shot to the jetpack will blow him up!
    1 point
  35. Remember there can be and usually will be more than one driver committing an offence, especially at a theoretical level. Veh 1. stalling the car could be argued that they do not have proper control of the vehicle. Veh 2. assuming the bend does not allow you to look across it, it could be argued that it was driving too quickly for the conditions. theoretical means we accept the info given.
    1 point
  36. Find your comment a bit odd, but it's police news who have to deal with shootings on a daily basis and they have to find the people responsible and get them guns off the streets, and i can't see the harm in posting news, and you don't have to read it if it doesn't suit you and being a police site other police officers and MOP like me want to catch up with the news. 👍
    1 point
  37. Fair enough, those seem like valid grievances. In my view, I like that there is an IOPC. If I ever had reason to make a complaint against an officer, and that complaint was investigated by another officer I'm not sure I would be completely confident in their ability to remain impartial. I don't think they would be intentionally biased at all, but the police is obviously a job where you form strong bonds with each other. You experience things that only a colleague would understand and relate to. I'd be a bit concerned that the investigating officer might, even on a completely unconscious level, relate more to his colleague than a complete stranger and that could affect his investigation. I think I'd be much happier for such a complaint to be investigated by an agency independent of the police. There's a phrase Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, or who watches the watchmen. You police us but who polices you? There should be an independent organization that oversees the police and holds officers accountable. You may or may not feel the IOPC is living up to that, but the principle itself is sound I think.
    1 point
  38. Perhaps the officer misunderstood the term "drive stun"?😂
    1 point
  39. Ah! I see. They will be just as dangerous but to less deserving people - those far away from (checks notes) the British Isles. You don’t care about the forrins. Many of the offences were not horrifying, so maybe it’s not a one size fits all solution? As an aside, who is this ‘we’ who are there to keep possible victims safe? That’s the job of the police and the Government and you are not part of either.
    1 point
  40. Is a criminal any more dangerous because he is 'foreign'? I also wouldn't pay any attention to what the DM says, especially with regards to policing/CJS.
    1 point
  41. I'm going slightly off topic but thought this was an interesting point to discuss. Firstly, you do realise that this is what happens every time you are passed by a police officer on patrol? We're nearly always on the look out for people we know are wanted and every time your face is visible you are being "scanned" - just by the human eye and pattern matched by the human brain (which actually has incredibly sophisticated pattern recognition abilities far in advance of any software implementations today). There are a few police officers who have incredible memories for faces etc but most of us are average and hence we will be looking for a few recently wanted faces and perhaps a few we know well from previous dealings. Obviously a computer can match a vast selection of faces and doesn't get tired etc. So fundamentally, this isn't really infringing your rights per se, it's only doing what we already do far as people but more efficiently. I think there are two main reasons to object to this: Inaccurate matching ML matching of faces is still a work in progress and research has shown these can have biases due to training data used. They can also make mistakes due to the technology still evolving, e.g. the errant pixel effect. However, this can be combated by a bit of sensible practice. For example, a person walks by and the facial recognition matches them against someone currently wanted. Police officers wouldn't just immediately grab and arrest or give the Spanish Inquisition, they would have a look at the picture themselves and take a walk past the person and see what they think. If it's clearly a mistake then the person would never know they were incorrectly matched as there would be no police interaction. If it looks like it could be a match, police officers would stop & speak to the person concerned to determine if this is the person matched. Again, this would be no different than if I passed someone in the street I thought was wanted, I would approach and attempt to determine if they were the person I suspected they were. Data Retention This is where I personally think there is justifiable cause to object to facial matching. If there is no permanent recording of faces scanned (matched or not) then this doesn't really fundamentally change anything. There may be a temporary record while officers investigate a match that could be discarded thereafter,e.g. camera picture shown with suspected match. However, if a record of scans is stored with the timestamp and location and made available for retrospective searching then this becomes much more intrusive and far exceeds what happens now. This is where I think more honest discussion needs to happen around the privacy implications.
    1 point
  42. The issue I have with this, and it's the same problem I have with facial recognition, is that it feels that there is a lack of reasonable grounds. If I happen to be in a location at the same time a crime is committed, the police might get data from the cell towers and investigate my number, even though they have nothing at all to suggest that I'm involved. If I happen to be in the area where a facial recognition camera is in operation, it's going to take a scan of my face and search through the database looking for matches, again all carried out without any reasonable grounds to suspect me of involvement in any crime. I don't see how that can be justified.
    1 point
  43. Former AFO here. One of my former colleagues (also an AFO) in the MDP had a hearing aid in one ear. I would presume that each case would be considered on an individual basis. There is a eye sight and hearing test for the role. As well as a fitness test. The current national standard for AFOs is level 7.6 on a 15 metre bleep test. Some forces may request that you run to best effort above this level. As per the above, for the avoidance of any doubt, contact the occupational health department in the force you wish to apply to. Directly if you're already in the job, and looking to transfer as a NEOF. Alternatively if you're coming in from outside contact them via the recruitment team.
    1 point
  44. We are better off without this type of officer. Sadly the damage that he has done to Policing cannot be measured and, again, honest hard working dedicated officers will bear the brunt.
    1 point
  45. From the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics "In June 2010, through a Freedom of Information Act request, The Sunday Telegraph obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–2010 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 58 percent; and for gun crimes, 67 percent.[41] Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob, and snatching property. In 2010, black males accounted for 29 percent of the male victims of gun crime and 24 percent of the male victims of knife crime.[41]" And from the 2011 census of London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London#Ethnic_breakdown White: Total 4,887,435 59.8 Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total 1,088,640 13.3 So when 13% of the population are committing 54% of street crimes, 58% of robberies and 67% of gun crimes, is it any wonder why they are more likely to be tased by officers? They are disproportionately engaging in violent crime, and by the looks of it, against their own race/ethnicity. So why isn't the story about how police need to use greater force against black suspects to protect BLACK victims? Oh that's right, Marxist rhetoric about 'racial equity'...
    1 point
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...

Police Community is a forum that is supported financially through advertisements. It is a breach of our standard use policy to use Adblock plugins/software on our site. 

In order to continue using our site you will need to disable Adblock across our site. Alternatively you can purchase a membership package from our online store to remove adverts as part of the membership subscription. 

https://police.community/remove-adverts/

Thank you for your support.

I have disabled Adblock