Jump to content
Notice Board
  • Great Deals
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Get your very own website designed by our in-house team at RAW Digital Media. Get 25% off all quotes using reference "RAW25" Prices start at just £199 Click HERE to read more.
  • Website hosting packages start from just £59 p/year Click HERE to read more.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 22/10/17 in all areas

  1. The legislation to carry this kind of enforcement out and establish such bodies already exists but remains largely unknown/forgotten about. From my own personal experience PCSO's who were brought in to tackle this kind of legislation were made largely redundant thanks to political interference which curbed the role into nothing more than public relations/intelligence gathering - PCSO's were artificially held back by the powers that be and disallowed largely across the board of enforcing even the basic of offences which caused the public to lose what little faith they had in the role - coming from a force that does utilise it's PCSO's to a useful degree and does back them it's mind blowing that money is being wasted on a position where even if an officer encounters a low level public order offence they are powerless to act unless calling on a PC to step in and take over. Council Wardens I find are the opposite end of the spectrum, they often have 'powers' given to them to enforce nuisance/disorder matters but the entire concept relies on the person being ticketed or reported to provide their name and address details - as soon as someone turns around and says "I'm not giving you them" or becomes aggressive/threatening the entire concept falls down on its head and the wardens themselves know that this is the case... The result being targeting of people who would be seen to be 'easy targets' rather than the yobs of society who know the system to get away with it... Mrs Miggins who drops her cigarette butt outside the train station, retired life long worker who respects society and it's institutions will hand over her details for littering - Billy 'Scumbag' Smith with a history of violence, robbery and burglary offences will not and more often than not simply resort to what he has always resorted to when confronted with his misbehaviour, will turn abusive and threatening. The result being a society where those who pay their taxes, respect other people etc become the targets of the system because they are compliant. We need to have a redress of balance within society so that the public can see that the system works for them not against them and actively prosecutes the people who do take the mick. A mindset we also need to move away from is the idea that the 'Police' are the be all and end all of criminal enforcement - this has literally crippled the service where we've become the 'go to' organisation for every minor incident - the system cannot cope and cops have far more important things to be getting on with.
  2. On social media the term 'murdered' has become the universal phrase which I fear is a tad fanciful given the circumstances. There seems to be an incomprehensible tone that the police were not entitled to attempt to pull over this young chap or to go after him. This has not been addressed firmly by any public authority figure which is a mistake in my view. Whether the incident was or was not a pursuit is clearly in this case subjective - the officers did not consider it a pursuit, the misconduct hearing accepted it was not a pursuit but a lay jury believed it was a pursuit (which is understandable as a member of public hearing that officers were trying to catch up with the moped would in plain English consider them to be pursuing him). Don't forget, juries are pretty free to make any decision they want in some circumstances - ie Mark Duggan. They somehow believed that he had a gun but didn't have it on him when contacted by the armed officers. They made that ruling on their own judgement with no reliable corroborative evidence - the only real eyewitness was over a hundred metres away in an elevated position in a flat but claimed he could 'clearly' see that Duggan didn't have a gun................. We also have to be careful to not allow the ends to justify the means - the funding of drugs and mobiles tells us WHY this chap MAY have driven erratically IF he saw police and IF he then decided to fail to stop. However as this particular information was not known specifically to the officers at the time it's irrelevant. What we know is that HICKS was on a moped which officers REASONABLY believed was not legal. It was a 50cc moped with an illegal 300cc engine thereby handling very differently and at far higher speeds than what it presented as. The officers had reasonable suspicions which warranted them to investigate further. The officers reasonably went to locate HICKS to further investigate. The officers state that they were struggling to keep up with HICKS which appears to be corroborated by the CCTV. At some stages there were 10 seconds between the vehicles. If you sit still and imagine a moped passing you at 50mph. Then sit and count to 10. At this point imagine a police car passing you. There would be a substantial distance between the two vehicles. I would say that 10 seconds gap is longer than even many police pursuits where the pursuing car is 'backing off' due to helicopter keeping obs etc. Fat packet maths for me shows 50mph as about 20m per second. Unless my maths is totally off that would suggest that if both vehicles were travelling at the same speed they would be 200 metres apart if there was a 10 second gap - or nearly 2 full length football pitches. However, there is a chance that HICKS saw the blue lights, or heard sirens, and whilst perhaps not in a textbook pursuit decided that he did not want to be anywhere near an approaching police car which may or may not have been pursuing him. So let us for one second leave an open narrative on whether HICKS and the officers believed there to be a fail to stop. Let us now look at the circumstances. As mentioned by various parties in the coroner's investigation...this did not have the hallmarks of a high risk moped pursuit. HICKS was not riding on pavements. HICKS was not riding down alleyways or bollarded streets unnegotiable by police cars. HICKS did not discard his helmet. HICKS did not discard evidence. The police cars were not in very close proximity, not so much as to be putting undue pressure on the moped. There is absolutely no suggestion at any time of any chance of contact between police cars and the moped. The speed involved was the only high risk factor involved as it has been stated that at points HICKS travelled at nearly 3 times a 20mph limit. I simply cannot see that the actions taken by police were unreasonable. They may, or may not depending on whose subjective view you side with, have breached the pursuit policy in so far as seeking authorisation. However, objectively I cannot see that their actions in themselves were unreasonable. A young lad has died in unfortunate but avoidable circumstances. I can't help but feel that there is no circumstances where the interested parties will accept any outcome other than the police accepting blame. Which is perhaps understandable in their position but is incredulous for me that the wider public seem not to 'get It'.
  3. Henry Hicks: Met officers cleared over moped crash death

    Justice to most people is getting what they want, whether it is right or wrong to them is immaterial
  4. MET TECH - BWV and TABLETS

    I speak from experience.... this has been causing issues for us for a while now. A lot of desktops were taken, but the laptops and tablets sill haven't arrived. Trying to find a working computer at the local custody centre is like trying to find a needle in a haystack, especially during weekday office hours.
  5. Perhaps it is time for the Parliament to look at the problem from outside the box. Scrap Parole completely. Sentence a convicted criminal to a fixed term i.e. 12 months and he serves the whole term His sentence can only be increased if he offends inside the prison service and gets sentenced to a number of extra days for disruptive behaviour or, commission of offences whilst inside prison, i.e. drugs possession, mobile phone possession etc.
  6. There may well be nearly 200 persons employed with connections to the Police, however no one in the role of an IPCC Commissioner is allowed to hold the position if they had had direct employment by the Police or with the Police. They are the ones who order 'investigations' and ultimately make the decisions as to holding misconduct hearings. However, checkout the biographies on these Commissioners and you will see in many cases that they have had contact with the Police as defence lawyers, (there's one who when he was practising, specialised in Complaints against Police) or sat on some Police Monitoring Group etc, etc. most of which were opposed to actions that the Police were taking. I have said many times that the core of the IPCC, i.e. the Commissioners, are not fit for purpose and are hostile to the Police, rather than 'Independent' of the Police in their judgements. You only have see the increase in the witch hunts known as misconduct hearings that have proliferated in the last few years, and how many have been found with no case to answer to see this. Most of the Commissioners appear to have some axe to grind or have a liberal attitude towards the Police in general.
  7. Completely different, he was innocent whereas those who are awaiting parole are convicted felons still serving their sentence.
  8. Because it was blatantly obvious to anyone with any common sense that the only person responsible for his death was himself, and in a desperate bid to persecute someone for something in order to pacify the baying mob, the officers were accused of breaching policy by not requesting permission to pursue, thus breaching policy. They were not being investigated for causing his death, just for breaching pursuit policy. As the panel found there was no pursuit, they cannot have breached policy, and therefore are not guilty of misconduct. Much as his family, his 'mates', and all the c-list celebs who got in on the coat tails of the social media hate campaign will protest, this was the right decision.
  9. Rookies Season 2

    Not quite true I'm sure any passenger in the vehicle wont be too happy when the driver came flying across and into them possibly causing injuries to them. Your just looking at a head on collision. What utter rubbish.. I agree with Hazrat as above re the airbags.

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
×