Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 29/04/17 in Posts

  1. I've stopped worrying about it. I'm not going to keep working progressively harder and harder as there are more and more cuts to make up for it when my workload was already crippling before. I'll deal with what I can and deal with it properly and if there's 50 outstanding emergency calls with nobody to go to them as there often is on the area I work, then there is. Not my fault. If the country they want is one infested with crime and antisocial behaviour and a police force with two hands tied behind their back then that's what they'll get. It's just a shame it won't be the MPs that suffer, it will be the public.
  2. All, For many of us here, this will mean an increase in demand, an increase in tension and a strengthening of that ever-present fear of "what if it's here, what if it's us?" To you, I have the same message that I give to the public whenever an atrocity strikes our shores: Run. Hide. Tell. Stay safe. Report anything suspicious, no matter how trivial it may seem, and do not place yourself in unnecessary risk. Hold the line. Adam
  3. I think there is a lot to be said for officers trying to engage fully with the public and often some gentle humour and use of the general vernacular used will help but I do think this is a little too far. The tone of the post does show an empathy with the public making complaints but mainly from an officers side where they are having a moan and not actually explaining things properly . It then goes into some unnecessary attempt at humour regarding the cash machines and defecating but this was never going to be to the majority of peoples liking. The final statements about PCSO's is something he or she needs to take up with management and not moaning to the public about it. All told I'd say it was inappropriate and someone needs to have words although I'd hope it goes no further than just a bit of social media advice. Maybe there should be an NCALT for officers using social media. That'd learn em.
  4. You're confusing statutory and material disclosure. Irrespective of the outcome (points or ban) you'd still have to declare the outcome - and after the 5 years. Just because you don't need a DL you are still required to provide disclosure on traffic offences during your application. The facts are that you have been prosecuted for two driving offences - to which you would be expected to uphold the law in respect of these offences whilst in your role. If you ever had to attend court to provide evidence you, too, would have a duty of disclose to the defence. Whilst it may not be overly pertinent to more substantial cases, it could shed negative light on proceedings for anything similar. *EDIT* Having just accessed the world of public records (AKA The Internet) you've neglected to mention the following: - Possession of a Loaded/Unloaded Air Weapon in a public place - Making False Representation/Cause Loss/Expose other to risk - Theft/Attempt Theft From Motor Vehicle - Assault/ABH - Shoplifting (http://www.thelawforum.co.uk/criminal-record-and-police-specials-recruitment) It would greatly assist if, when asking for help on this forum, that you furnish the whole story so as not to waste everyone's time as this undoubtedly changes things and the perspectives you seek. Good luck for the future. -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  5. Let's take this apart piece by piece. And how exactly does preventing them from doing things fulfil that aim? This makes absolutely no difference to anything. The fire service and the territorial army are both examples of volunteers being used far better than they are in the police which you've conveniently ignored as they don't fit your line of thinking. The special constabulary predates a standing police force by quite some time so no, specials weren't "originally meant" to do anything of the sort. Volunteers are far more effective when used properly to the extent of their ability rather than sidelined by poor leaders acting on their own prejudice, and you're cutting your nose off to spite your face if you'd rather work harder than accept willing and capable help. Yes, there are serious problems with training and deployment across most forces but let's not write people off by the lowest common denominator. You're more or less proving my point here; imagine your broken leg is the result of a nasty assault. It makes no difference whether the officers who attend to you, take the details, secure the scene and do the initial investigative actions are specials or regulars so long as they do a good job. It doesn't matter if later on in the enquiry when witnesses come to light the officer who takes a statement from them is a DC or a special working in CID so long as they do a good job. Only when it comes to the more involved part of the case does it become absolutely necessary to have a DC over a competent volunteer. In some years of dealing with crimes from end to end I can't say I've ever encountered any bad feeling from any victim, apart from where they were in the job and had preconceptions about specials.
  6. Great idea, but we don't have the hardware to make this work so I can make software to spot unicorns whilst on duty which is equally as pointless.
  7. This. The custodian, from experience, is absolutely pants when it comes to public order. If there are missiles a-flyin, my Nato I'll be a-wearin. As for the cost, it seems like a bit of a step backwards really. TVP have around 8300 warranted officers as it stands; to employ some really basic maths, if even 25% of them require a custodian, they're gonna need about 2075 of them. At about £52.50 a helmet, that's around £108,911 for the helmets alone. Factor in admin, delivery etc etc, you're maybe looking at £120k. Cost of an X26 Taser? About £380, list price. Frankly, if I were at TVP, I'd rather the extra 286 odd tasers for the same price as the custodians. (Edit- these figures are hugely 'back of fag packet', but they didn't originate from Diane Abbot, so at least I have that going for me)
  8. If these influential and mostly self-appointed 'community leaders' don't want stop and search, my answer would be, 'Fair enough, call us when you need us. You know where we are.' Maybe they'll change their tune if there are 500 stabbing deaths a year in London, or 5,000. But so long as you don't personally know any of the victims, they're only statistics. Why should ordinary police officers risk their lives and careers doing something that apparently isn't wanted?
  9. I'm sure that there are individuals out there that would be more than happy to put the time and effort in. The NCA have a successful specials scheme- I appreciate it's a slightly different kettle of fish, but a volunteer doesn't automatically fail to meet standards by virtue of being a volunteer. As both a special and a regular, I've worked response; I'm happy that I was more than competent as a special. I think the idea has legs, but we'd need to look at recruiting the right kind of person. The standard profile of a new special (in my force, anyway) is usually young, with paid outside employment. Does that individual have the time to dedicate to becoming a DC? Not usually. If we targeted slightly older, usually retired candidates specifically for the role, I fail to see why it couldn't work. Don't forget, Magistrates are unpaid volunteers. Anecdotal arguments around efficacy aside, our justice system has been working well for hundreds of years with unpaid volunteers as the gatekeepers to almost every single criminal case that progresses through the courts. As far as I'm concerned it's not a case of 'can a volunteer do it?', it's a case of 'can we find the right volunteer to do it?'
  10. I don't doubt their dedication, a lot of my immediate family are serving or have served in various MRTs but what you said initially wasn't correct and rather than admit that you've added a cheap shot in about the dedication of Specials that was not warranted.
  11. I don't have an issue with it as long as they're trained the same way and know they'll be carrying their own jobs cradle to grave - no getting a griefy job and deciding not to come in for a few months! To become a DC I had to:- Spend 3 months studying 16 hours a week to pass the NIE. 1 week PIP2 suspect course. 2 week PIP2 victim/witness ABE course. 4 week ICIDP course. 5 months completing PIP2 portfolio. If there's an SC out there who is willing and able to do all of the above and contribute enough hours per week to make it worth the forces' while then great, let them be a SDC. Invariably though what will happen is they'll get you to pass the NIE and then give you a few evenings or weekends of training before dumping you on an overstretched DC to try and show you the ropes resulting in you just following said DC around aimlessly before losing interest and going back to uniform. I'd like to be proven wrong but I'm not holding my breath!
  12. According to PNLD it's EC60001 for indecent behaviour in a church or EC60002 for vexing a preacher, both HO code 195/39 should you ever feel the urge to win the most obscure arrest thread England only, not Wales.
  13. The law itself doesn't, however force policies do and I think that's what Zulu was driving at. Cue a story where he once acted as a fed rep in a case where someone without a warrant card was done for duties/responsibilities or orders and instructions. The fact is you don't need a warrant card to use your powers outside of Stop and Search, there was once a case where MOD Plod and BTP needed to be in uniform or with a warrant card when acting outside of their natural jurisdiction but that was repealed in 2014.
  14. The judge in this case is probably mindful of Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] which led to what is called Hill immunity in cases of negligence brought against police in the civil courts. It basically found that the police do not owe a duty of care to any individual rather than the public at large. It goes on to list all manner of unintended consequences should the police be held to have a duty of care to all individuals. It would be disastrous if the police were found to owe a duty of care to all individuals. Subsequent cases have reaffirmed the principles in Hill although it is worth pointing out that the scope of Hill has been narrowed somewhat. This judge has simply used previous decisions to reach their decision in this case. The law hasn't changed.
  15. indeed, after all the officers being publicly strung out to dry and constant negative rhetoric from the press designed to perpetuate the myth that racism is involved with stop and search, the other day when my team was told we had to start searching more people, it was met with snorts of derision. if we decide to stop and search someone, we risk being assaulted/stabbed, filmed by uninformed hypocrites, being judged by thousands based on heavily edited footage designed to look negative, being slandered in the press, attract malicious complaints which can lead to stress/light duties/IPCC investigations and if there's enough public support can lead to senior officers throwing us under the bus . if we don't stop and search someone yeah they might stab someone later but hey i won't be risking my job or house or safety - no brainer.
  16. A fad that may result in a handful of usable special DC's but I suspect they will be retired individuals not someone with a full time job. How can a Special carry through on complex crime with minimal hours, its not fair on them, so in the end they will end up as decent statement takers with a number of interviews under their belt. Having worked on CID's there just isn't the time to carry people with very little experience, its not their fault, but its a burden when you already have a busy case load. Specials serve a valuable function, but abilities vary and by the nature of the fact they are volunteers they are not equal to full time cops for the most part. This is no different to the Reserve Military units, members can and do deploy, but as a formed unit they lack recent experience and cohesive working and operate much better alongside full time troops. This is true of specials also I believe. Horses for courses.....
  17. Yes I think we are. And I'm not convinced that you're best placed to decide on levels of dedication for all SCs nor all MRTs. We have an SC who is also an MRT (well, Lowland actually). He must be 2.8x as dedicated as the average person then.
  18. Once any medical practitioner/medic deems capacity you as a police officer do not have the right to assume a lack thereof. It is a key provision of pretty much every police mental health training package I have ever experienced in 3 different forces. You have no right to remain - she would be well within her rights, capacity ascertained, to remove you with force should you refuse. **** A call I attended recently. A drunken female in a shared house self harming with razor blades. We were invited in by the housemates. On my arrival the female was very drunk. I tried to speak to her to assess capacity. I introduced myself and my colleague, asked her name and what had happened. I was told to F.O. 30 seconds later she asked me who I was and what I was doing there. I repeated who we were and why we were there and the female began scratching at her wounds to her arm. She said she wanted to cut herself again and ran off upstairs. I followed her and she then made a charge for the front door, falling over on the way. She ran into the front car park and was screaming for me to leave her alone. I kept a distance and made ready to intercept if she made a break for the busy road. Her housemate coaxed her back inside. Within seconds she again screamed at me asking who I was and why I was in her house. I decided that pending the ambulance arriving she was unable to comprehend material facts about her condition, the injuries to her arms and the likely effect of using a razor to further self mutilate. She lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding her treatment. I tried to ring a support worker to make decisions in her best interest however they refused to come out. I therefore decided that I would have to make those decisions until she either made a notable improvement in capacity or the ambulance arrived and took primacy. Despite her actions I did not belive it to be a mental health episode per se requiring a MHA assessment but a loss of mental function due to alcohol and agitation. The female made a bolt for the front foot again and so this time I wedged the door shut with my foot and told her we were waiting for an ambulance to come and check her over. She ran to the kitchen, so I again blocked her from reaching any items in there. She then tried to lock herself in the bathroom. She then tried to escape through the fire exit at which point restrained her briefly to prevent her from coming to harm and also causing harm to me. If I'm honest, I was teetering on the edge of arresting her when she pushed me but I decided that would have to be the last resort. After an hour of up and down she became tired and resorted to laying on the sofa. In the meantime I prevented her from drinking alcohol several times. An hour and three quarters later the ambulance arrived. By this time the female was sobering. The ambulance cleaned up her arms which were superficial. She declined to go to hospital. They spoke with her for 20 minutes and referred her to the GP. They decided she had capacity. We asked if she was going to cut herself again. She said she might and she might not. We left and asked the housemates to call us back if anything changed. That's it. That's all you can do. Perhaps I could have taken a different tack but I'm happy that what I did was lawful and not only 'justifiable' but not stretching the law to suit my own means.
  19. DELETE THAT COMMENT NOW! Before someone wanting a promotion sees it.....
  20. I hadn't even realised some forces had dropped the helmet. I must say, I've worn my helmet for many thousands of hours and never had an issue with it.
  21. I can't see why a force would let you use the lights to try to stop somebody but not the siren, how bizarre.
  22. I have a pistol and a taser and I've done patrol and surveillance. I've only done the basic firearms course, which is probably pretty standard across Canada. It's a basic course that teaches a single weapon (Glock 22 in .40) as well as pretty basic tactics and when to resort to lethal force, using a variety of scenario and classroom lessons. We have access to the range most days, but sometimes only at lunchtime because of ongoing training. We have to qualify every year. My point is that because we are armed, we are able to respond to almost anything. BUT we still need specialist firearms officers (called Tactical here) to deal with certain tasks that are beyond the capability of regular armed patrol units. These would include barricaded subjects, hostage taking and certain pre-planned, high-risk vehicle stops. I don't think anyone is saying two weeks is enough time to train fully qualified AFOs, but you can train most ordinary patrol officers to use a pistol and the keener ones to use a rifle.
  23. Hi Amw4 Congratulations on passing! I was in your boat in doing two AC's but I have also done two final interviews so I thought I'd give you my insights. I am also a recruiter in my current line of work so I've been present at a fair number of interviews for a massive range of jobs. Firstly, be yourself mate. They want to know you as a person and how you would react to certain situations. Don't be a robot and recite the competencies word for word. They will just think you are excellent at memorising. Try and structure your answers around what you would be thinking when faced with whatever scenario and how challenging it would be before giving your answer. Body language is key. Smile, be professional, make eye contact with everyone not just the person who asked you the question, at the end thank them for the opportunity and shake everyone's hand. Remember quality over quantity. Don't ramble on thinking the more you say the better the answer is. They will probably be sitting through a weeks worth of interviews and will have heard what you are saying dozens of times. Make your prevalent points concisely and confidently then move on, they will prefer this to a ten minute speech for each question. Lastly, remember you have worked your bottom off to get to this stage. They want you to pass, they want you to join their team. The AC proved you have the qualities they are looking for, all you have to do is confirm that you are definitely the right person for the job. Be confident, head up, shoulders back, own the room.
  24. Good to see that Avon & Somerset police are defending the actions of the officers in their statement. It's just a shame that on the Facebook video, so many people aren't open minded enough to consider what may have gone on before the video (the fact that the assaulted girl is in hospital). And also seem to ignore the fact that many were aggressive, resisted arrest, and assaulted officers.
  25. Ex-Met marksman Tony Long talks exclusively to PoliceOracle.com about life as one of Britain's most high profile armed officers. Mr Long believes more officers will be required to carry firearms in the future For the majority of officers trained to use firearms, pulling the trigger in a live scenario is a remote prospect they hope never to face. But for one now retired officer in particular, not only did this situation occur more than once, it came to define his career and shape his life. Tony Long, 60, was involved in three fatal shootings and received seven commendations during his 33 year career as a specialist firearms officer with the Metropolitan Police Service, a record which carries with it both respect and notoriety. The shooting of Azelle Rodney is undoubtedly the incident most associated with Mr Long and the one which has had the most impact on his life and career, as well as the lives of others. Rodney, Frank Graham and Wesley Lovell were in a hired silver Volkswagen Golf driving across north London to carry out an armed robbery on rival drug dealers on April 30, 2005. Being trailed by several units they were seen collecting three weapons which intelligence suggested were MAC-10 sub-machine guns. As the car passed the Railway Tavern on Hale Lane, Barnet, it was subject to a hard stop by armed officers including Mr Long. At the moment the cars came to a stop, the former marksman has always maintained he saw Rodney duck down and re-emerge with his shoulders hunched as if preparing to open fire on his fellow officers. It was this action which prompted him to shoot the 24 year-old dead and which sparked ten years of investigations, a public inquiry, a murder trial, and the end of Mr Long’s career with the Met. As we sit down for a pint in a grand Victorian pub in east London, a short walk from his old unit HQ at 337 Old Street, Tony tells me Azelle Rodney would still be alive today if he had just put his hands up. He said: “If I could have seen his hands and I could have seen they were empty, I would not have shot him. “If he had ducked down and stayed down without springing back up, I would not have shot him. “If he had behaved in the same way as the other two men in the vehicle and just put his hands up he would have survived.” When asked if, in the moments, months and years since the shooting, he has ever doubted his decision that day he responded: “No. Never.” Previous to the Azelle Rodney incident Tony Long was involved in two other fatal shootings. He shot Errol Walker in 1986 after the 30-year-old had stabbed his sister in law to death, threw her out of a third floor window and stabbed her four-year-old daughter through the neck, as well shooting dead two armed robbers at an abattoir a year later. Walker was later convicted of the murder of Jackie Charles, 22. Candid and full of anecdotes about ‘The Job’ Mr Long held the air of a man weathered by his experiences but not dominated by them. He tells me it was not until years later he realised the impact of his employment on his family. He said: “In truth it’s probably had more of an impact on my family than me. With the first two (shootings) I was a young father with two young kids, I was very ‘job pissed’, I perhaps was not as sensitive as I could have been to the effect it was having on them. “It’s only years later that people admitted they did worry about me. “The trial had a big impact on my wife, we weren't even together at the time of the incident, she is a very strong character and not the type to tell you when something is bothering her. “It was only after the not guilty verdict when she had five minutes of emotion that I realised how much pressure I had put on them.” The 60-year-old maintains the job has not had any real impact on him as he was always “prepared” for what carrying a gun on behalf of the state entails. He said: “In terms of me I would like to think it has not had any real affect as far as I am concerned. “if you take the training seriously you understand what you are being asked to do and when you do have to do it, it shouldn’t be a surprise. “If I wasn’t prepared for that I wouldn’t have taken that career path.” Mr Long, who authored a book about his career Lethal Force following the completion of his trial for murder, believes more officers should be firearms trained and the concept of policing by consent needs to be better understood in terms of firearms. He said: “I think the problem is that we have gone from multi-skilled officers to a situation where all of our authorised shots are now specialists. “In the same way that we have a lot more Taser trained officers now I don’t see why you can’t have officers trained to use a handgun rather than needing to be a specialist trained firearms officer, we have a need for specialists but you also need more general training. “The problem is the whole image of armed police flies in the face of this unarmed image we are obsessed with projecting. “I take exception to ‘policing by consent’ because a lot of people who use that phrase don’t really know what it means. “Saying that you can’t police by consent because you are armed I think is insulting to the Dutch and Swedish police for example, they still go into schools and talk to kids about road safety with a gun in a holster. “There is a perception that we cannot do this job without being unarmed, I think it’s nonsense.” As our pint glasses empty and the conversation winds to a conclusion, Mr Long tells me his future is uncertain following the end of his policing career but that he is not ready for retirement just yet. He is certain of one thing though: “The job will have to give serious consideration to saying to all recruits ‘when you join up it is on the understanding that, if required to do so, you will undergo firearms training and carry a firearm if you are needed to.’ “If the police are here to protect the public, then how can we do that if we cannot protect ourselves?” View on Police Oracle
  26. I think you'll find the majority of SC are restricted by the training and opportunity that is available. I can do all of that, but that's only because of the amount of effort I put into getting the extra knowledge. This is why I support a national review on training to standardise and improve across the board.
  27. You wont be prosecuted for it... Wheres the public interest for a start? Suicide isnt legal in the UK... Im not going to watch someone who has taken a bottle of pills die infront of me because they wave some document in my face that: 1. I dont legally understand and have had no formal input or training on. 2. Dont know how or even if it applies in the circumstances. 3. Cant verify as genuine. How would you verify that the document was genuine? The bigger risk is letting them die... By far... I am absolutely amazed you cannot see this- its far above your pay grade to be making this decision, far above a paramedics - get them to hospital and let the consultant make the call. It isnt down to the first responders to be making that call, im not trained nor expected to determine capacity either, thats a job for the mental health team. Then theres the moral aspect behind this, could I watch someone die infront of me and do nothing? No... You'd be going against what is expected of you on a primary level.
  28. Parking has been decriminalized - it's not that it's beneath Police, it's simply not their role anymore. Unless it's parked causing a dangerous obstruction, the police don't have the power to take action. Clearly in this example, much of the parking was dangerous.
  29. It would seem that black lives do not matter to Mr Woolley. Look at the statistics. Look at all the black lives lost to knife crime. This sort of political correctness will mean that more lives are lost - black ones frequently. Get off the 'Racist' bandwagon and work with the police, not against. For the sake of your children. -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  30. I'm glad the sun handed over the footage and an investigation is underway, this is clearly a disturbing incident which potentially undermines everything the police stand for and could trigger the total collapse of law and order in this country. I mean, it's not like police officers are human and can be a little lazy and slack sometimes. If a member of the public parked there the vehicle would be seized and the driver would be made homeless due to the amount of fines that'd be thrown their way.
  31. Its creating another artificial barrier between the public and the police... If your house is burgled or a sentimental/important piece of property stolen people want to see and speak with a flesh and blood officer. When you investigate crime from start all the way through to court, build the file from scratch and engage with a victim you as an investigator want to do all you can for them and it reassures victims that someone who is passionate and determined is on the case to do all they can.
  32. S25(3) Mental Capacity Act: An advance decision is not applicable to the treatment in question if at the material time P has capacity to give or refuse consent to it. So if the paramedics believe the patient P has mental capacity then the document can be disregarded, and they should continue as per any cogent patient who refuses treatment. If not then there are criteria the document needs to meet to be a binding refusal of life-sustaining treatment but if the paramedics are satisfied it is up to scratch then who are the police to question it? Where there are doubts, from S26 a person does not incur liability for carrying out or continuing the treatment unless, at the time, he is satisfied that an advance decision exists which is valid and applicable to the treatment, and nothing in an apparent advance decision stops a person...providing life-sustaining treatment...while a decision as respects any relevant issue is sought from the court. This is not an easy pill to swallow but it's a medical scenario which the police frankly have no business getting involved in, far less contradicting people with a far better understanding of consent and capacity. Threatening to arrest a paramedic under the Suicide Act is beyond belief.
  33. Errr.... well. We mostly just see what they come up with! Some (many?) are complete gibberish and reflect the lack of education of most of those involved in the criminal justice system. But there is a certain art in getting people to write what we need. And of course the bulk of the evidence is recorded in the police officer's notes and report. For serious crimes we'll always do a video interview, even in patrol. You're right when you say there is a reduction in the service - by not taking a detailed statement we sometimes lose evidence. On the other hand, how often does a detailed written statement reveal something that wouldn't have come out in an initial interview with a witness at the scene? Sometimes, but not often, and often enough to warrant the hours put into obtaining written statements in the first place? You're especially correct to point out the difference between solving the crime and recording the crime. I sometimes think that detailed statement taking has become something of a CID-sponsored fetish ('Look how many pages I've written for this common assault!'), that takes the place of actually going out and doing something positive. And even if the detailed written statement is the 'Gold Standard' in investigative excellence, you still only have 10 hours in a day. Do you spend those 10 hours taking statements? Or do you spend time following up on leads or being proactive? If you're investigating a murder, the answer's pretty obvious, but for most police work, it's not so straightforward. One of the rarely discussed advantages of having people write their own statements is that if they don't write one, you pretty much get to file everything there and then without any further investigation, which is pretty useful when it comes to the petty nonsense people so often report to the police.
  34. Everyone writes their own statements here. It seems to work. Saves hours.
  35. Every time I pass my local hospital there are always several police cars outside A&E. Now some are no doubt carrying out enquiries, prisoners receiving medical attention, but several times a day they are called for pubic order reasons. They pay for security, why not invest a little more in training and development, up-skill and give them the powers to and equipment to deal with offenders. Weekend nights at my local A&E will give many large town party nights a run for their money.
  36. It always annoyed me that my local council would deploy Wardens outside a busy train station to catch commuters dropping fag ends (a dirty habit and these people don't have my sympathy) but wouldn't invest the resources in trying to catch fly tippers who drive around local residential streets at night and dump furniture. I report over 100 incidents of fly tipping a year, yet I don't recall a time walking down the street and even noticing how many cigarette butts there are on the floor. Yes, people should get tickets for littering but councils shouldn't cherry pick their law enforcement responsibilities so that they only concentrate on revenue generating ones. Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community
  37. Strange that- I'm currently sat at home with a shattered leg and smashed ankle after a prisoner decided to stamp on it during his arrest. He was male, and I am male. Surely this means that I shouldn't have been injured? I even had a male colleague with me... Is it a departure of common sense that's caused me to gain 6 pins and two plates in my leg? Or was it perhaps the reality that we deal with excessively violent people on a regular basis?
  38. Some criminals see male officers as fair game where as they won't assault a female officer. I've had it where I've driven and a female officer has sat in the back with a particularly well known criminal just because he hates male officers but won't do or say anything to a female. The entire journey he directed abuse towards me and I'm sure if I was in the back rather than the female it would've just escalated. The same in town centres on Friday/Saturday nights, female officers can often calm aggressive drunk males down in a way male officers cannot. It's not as simple as everyone has to have equal size/strength to the person they're dealing with.
  39. The female detective was driving the car, you could have the strongest man in the world driving but it doesn't really make any difference as you won't be getting hands on with them whilst driving. I don't think the fact it was a female and a male officer was particularly relevant in this case. I think what this does highlight is that for all those on here who say that detectives don't need to be fit or do OST as they won't be chasing after people or struggling with them, any officer who has contact with the public can find themselves in that position.
  40. 2-3 interviews? I'd say 20-30 to get to a reasonable standard (not CID stuff) and get some variety. Our probationners do 5 weeks full time with custody processing. That's about 25 interviews + files. It's ok for response work after but if they aspire to be detectives they will need a lot more experience. How is a special going to get enough experience?
  41. IT security and security in general is an interest of mine. One of the things I always found flawed is the use of warrant cards. For them to be useful to authenticate the identity of the bearer, they need to be of a known format and hard to replicate. Everyone knows what a driving licence looks like, so if it looked substantially different, even if it's not dismissed out of hand, the person doing the authentication is much more likely to take extra steps to verify. The stakes to make sure that a Police warrant card is authentic is much higher, yet every force has a different format, contains different information and has highly variable security features and on top of all that, they are kept out of public view so they don't know what to look for in their force area. Which is why I found it interesting that one of our prolific tweeters posted a picture of his warrant card: I really think every force should have a sample on their website of what their local ID looks like, because without it, it's almost impossible for the ID to be effective.
  42. I have only just seen this and I'm unsure why there is confusion about intent. The question was "What offence do you arrest them for?" not 'What do you charge them with?'. You don't (shouldn't) know/be certain what to charge someone with at the arrest stage. Based on what the scenario gives us: Burglary. Anything else will come out in interview - i.e. Intent. Keep it simple otherwise at this rate probationers will come here to preen examples and end up letting go of Tom, Dick and Sally because they've over-cooked the thinking. -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  43. Frankly we've all got better things to do. My speedo is analogue. I wouldn't know the difference between 29mph and 31mph at a casual glance...which is surely one of the reasons for the threshold? For that very reason I have set my sat nav to sound a beep when I exceed the posted limit so I don't have to sit there watching my clocks rather than the road.
  44. Frankly, considering the developments with this, I've revised my original position. I'm now going to stop carrying a multitool. In it's place, to prevent ambiguity around legality, I'll be carrying this.
  45. So according to the PCC they're being brought back because people don't see police officers very much. Probably because they're not there to be seen. And if they were there, they'd probably be wearing a hi-viz something or other which is likely to be more effective than a big hat. What they're actually doing is saying, 'we haven't got less police officers than before, you just can't see them because they're really short. We'll give them big hats again and you'll see them popping up all over the place.' (I'm going to need extra officers patrolling the town centre when we roll this out for this plan to work.) Excuse the cynic in me but what a waste of time, effort and money.
  46. Personally, I think everyone - or rather male officers-should be issued both the custodian and the flat cap. Custodians have an important traditional and ceremonial role and we shouldn't just scrap them. But practically speaking, for officers on patrol in vehicles, they are impractical. So flat caps are more suited to that. I don't see an issue with having both.
  47. There seems to be quite a lot of angst in this thread, as ever with uniform topics. To the OP, if/when you get in, I'd say the best advice you could take on board is that of 'wear what you're issued'. Your drive to look smart is admirable, but if you rock up on team with non-uniform kit on, you'll very quickly ruffle feathers. I understand that issued kit is often poor and uncomfortable, but it's far more important to gel with your team and supervision than it is to be marginally more comfortable, to be honest. I've only been a PC for a year (ish), but spent a long time on other teams as a special before I transitioned to the regs- as a result, my uniform prior to becoming a PC was 5.11 trousers, Keela fleece etc- all really good stuff, all of which I still have. I haven't worn any of this since I went to team, because it's not the uniform for my role now. Would I prefer to wear my old kit? Absolutely. Is it advisable? Absolutely not. Mate, don't be the day one probationer that rocks up with buckshee kit on. You'll only wind people up and make your integration onto team more difficult. Issued kit can be made to look relatively smart, and as long as you ensure that your uniform is clean, looked after and pressed (if appropriate), you'll be golden.
  48. I can't BEAR women who play the sexism card when it's NOTHING to do with gender. I have said it time and time again - it's hard enough being a woman in policing without women like her making it worse. Excuse after excuse. Just get on with it or get out. Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  49. The necessity is resilience for scenarios like the London riots, where all sorts of people were turned out onto the streets at moment's notice. It's for their safety as much as anything, deploying unfit cops is hazardous to them and to their colleagues who will have to look after them. We're in an age where we have very limited surge capacity from front-line resources and a very high likelihood that eventually there will be a major terrorist incident occur somewhere in the country, so it is more important to maintain a capable workforce across the board as far as possible as part of normal contingency planning. Then there's the health benefits of being even slightly fit (which is all the JRFT requires) too; keeping sedentary employees fit is one way for an employer to contribute to their welfare and delivers productivity benefits in terms of reduced sickness. The article does not exactly make her sound like someone you'd want on your team however, with a poor absence record and a string of medical issues which mysteriously cropped up whenever something like a fitness test needed doing. It might well be that her management decided she was a burden which could no longer be carried and UPP on job-related fitness grounds was the simplest and least controversial avenue to follow.