Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 22/05/17 in all areas

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If a large proportion of our officers are not suitable to carry firearms, yet 99% of other police officers in the world are...we have a serious problem.
  11. https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/2017/05/appeal-after-man-suffers-fractured-jaw-in-taunton-assault/ This adds a little more meat to the bones to justify any use of force. Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  12. A brilliant and well thought out post there @Jon825.
  13. utter rubbish, as usual.
  14. Sure, if all our cops were trained in long arms as well as a sidearm. Otherwise we'd still need officers trained in long arms for those duties.
  15. If you update your app or your apps are set to auto update this issue should now be fixed. Sorry for the delay. Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  16. to flap around for several years with no clue what to do, make several ridiculous statements to the press before one of them panics and recommends the soldier goes to jail forever
  17. He has caused a loss to the company, and exposed the company to the possibility of a loss, the loss doesn't necessarily have to occur (although it has) he knows his actions are dishonest, his defence isn't there. Theft by employee is a lazy way of pursuing what should be a fraud case, but sometimes needs must. Sceptre eloquently explains the fraud offence in question and I agree with his interpretation.
  18. He occupies a position where he is expected to safeguard the shop's financial interests. He appears to have acted dishonestly by voiding these transactions improperly, and in so doing he has exposed the shop to a loss both of money and of the goods given away to customers for free. That ticks the boxes for fraud by abuse of position as far as I can see. As for his excuse, why would any supervisor decide to cover up the theft of a considerable sum of money by some other person rather than simply report it? That's an irrational thing to do at best, and how exactly would a thousand pounds go missing and only one person notice it? As for this missing money while you don't necessarily have to find it to prove the fraud offence as the loss or risk of loss is sufficient (and here lies the benefit over theft by employee where you'd need to prove that they did appropriate the money) it ought not to be too hard if the shop owner keeps proper records to go back and identify when the tills were short, over what space of time and on whose watch they became short.
  19. The parades are currently staggered as there's so many for the Sgt to inspect! Could be any days... Keep a spare ironed pair of trousers in your locker specifically for parades and if you can stretch to it, a pair of parade shoes. See you soon!
  20. Found out today that I passed the AC. Those role plays must have made all the difference as I was far more prepared this time! Sent from my HTC One M8s using the Police Community App
  21. One of them serves in my division, you'd never know he'd been awarded it though as he's not the kind of person to mention it.
  22. With respect, it appears that you seem to under-appreciate the level of free speech that we actually have in the UK. In my experience, those who use the Political Correctness gone mad argument tend to be those who don't fully understand what is offensive, and what is criminal. There is a fundamental difference. There are regularly occasions, across the country, where people state their views without being carted away whether far-left, far-right, or far-reaching. As an example, look at Dover on the 30th Jan 2016. Far-right organised anti-immigration protest, with lots and lots of "Immigrants and rapists go home" banners. Even more "F**ck off Nazi scum" banners. Loads of people arrested at and after the event for violent disorder, assaults etc- very few people nicked for any racially aggravated language. Any officer that is or has been involved in policing protest/public order will be intimately acquainted with the freedoms afforded by Articles 9-11 HRA 1998. I'd also like to point out that there isn't really a specific "hate crime". There is a statutory provision for certain offences to become racially or religiously aggravated (see Part II, Crime and Disorder Act 1998), but that's materially different to the basic principle of a hate crime. From the CPS guidance on the matter: Note my bold. You can't be arrested on suspicion of "committing a hate crime", as no such specific offence exists. A substantive criminal offence that is made out can be qualified as a hate crime, but you actually have to have committed an offence in the first place. Someone may well label speech that they disagree with as a 'hate crime', but if that speech doesn't fit an offence, then it's just offensive, not criminal. My point here, realistically, is that our freedom of speech isn't being eroded away. The last Act of Parliament to have significantly changed what can or cannot be said in public (to my knowledge) was the Public Order Act 1986, 31 years ago. There may be less public appetite for what is considered to be intolerance, but the State isn't taking our free speech away. I do, however, agree with you that there is leeway in how things are said- I'm far from the most liberal snowflake on the planet, and I regularly find myself with foot firmly implanted in mouth. That's not to say though that we should expect people to accept what we say. If someone finds something offensive, they find it offensive. Doesn't necessarily make it criminal.
  23. People have been claiming freedom of the press and claimed it was helpful to share evidence. I'm not in CT but if I equated it to any other investigation I've been involved in the ramifications could have been huge. With multiple police lines of enquiry exposed before they came to fruition there could have been (and still might be) several effects: - Cell members fleeing - Destruction of evidence - Abandoning of comms networks which security services were using in the investigation - A pushing forward of further attacks. This is all in its infancy and I don't think we can really know just how damaging this is. If we suffer further attacks in coming weeks I believe there will be blood on the hands of the source and journalists involved. I've had a look and I wonder of s39 Terrorism Act 2000 may be applicable in this case. I believe there is a VERY strong public interest in prosecuting this.
  24. I'm regularly surprised by some officers attitudes. We complain that we are abstracted and put under huge demand by other agencies when we have to undertake their duties. Then when they exercise their training and expertise we say 'i don't like that. I'm going to get involved because my opinion is very important.' Quite simply we don't like other people telling us how to do our job; we should afford them the same courtesy. This is without addressing the fact, already covered above, that there are laws and processes in place to cater specifically for these cases that people seem to keep referring to as grey areas of ethics. My only 'weigh in' point on this topic is that Advanced Directives in general I would suggest are not designed or used to facilitate overdoses/other attempts to end life in an active manner. It seems fanciful and is not something I have ever come across or feel likely to. I have dealt with ADs / DNRs for terminally I'll people on numerous occasions and once medics are at scene I resume my role as a police officer. First aid training dictates that you hand over to a more qualified medic as soon as practicable and follow their direction.
  25. The static serial from BTP were on site at the time (due to the concert) . I don't envy any of them, or as you quite rightly say any person who responded.
  26. Perhaps that is more evident in my force than yours. S/DC is trained to be able to manage DC cases. Be competent in managing serious crime, and their subsequent case files. What I am trying to say is that they should have/be competent enough to be working on their own essentially and managing their own files, which is replacing a DC role. A SPC role isn't, if they were on response, manage calls, assist with diary appointments or assist in investigations, but never to be replacing regulars. Thats how I see it, I'm personally very against the idea of a S/DC but that's my opinion. Until a cohort manages to stick out the training phase, gain PIP2 and is competent in doing CID level jobs, I will remain dubious
  27. There is no breach of the peace if she leaves? Age is largely irrelevant, whereas safety is. Parental responsibility does not extend to restraining them or locking them away. The parent would have to take the matter to court. In reality, the family would be in the social services system and the child found alternative interim residence designed specifically for this reason and until they're of age. During this time the young person will usually be reported missing 50+ times - including from the residential - and end up being exploited for sex and become a victim of CSE picking up undesirable associates along the way. Rinse. Cycle. Repeat. EDIT: Typo -Sherlock
  28. The Arena is on Network Rail property so yes, it's covered by BTP (in fact, the location where the bomb appears to have been set off is in the walkway between the Arena and Victoria Station). GMP officers also work around the area though, so it could be either who was there first although both were involved ultimately. I don't envy those who had to face that, whichever cap badge they had.
  29. We shall look into it. Thanks for reporting @Milankovitch
  30. The US is based on common law principles, right to self defence and bear arms has always existed in the UK until fairly recently. 60 years ago there were very few restrictions on firearm ownership as an example... Licencing and regulation is fairly modern. Frankly I believe governments have this overbearing need to control and nanny people in the UK and we have grown accustomed to it, we the police havent helped matters either because lets face it we have encouraged the idea that people cannot use force against others even when perfectly lawful reasons exist to do so and have often taken unreasonable action against people who have lawfully used force... This is an area I believe the US gets right over Britain, rather than assuming guilt on the part of a home owner who defends family and property from an intruder who had no lawful reason to be inside the house to begin with, US authorities will take a common sense approach inline with public opinion... In Britain we assume guilt, arrest individuals and carry out unnecessarily lengthy investigations into theoretical wrong doing when its fairly obvious who was the perpetrator, completely alienating public trust in the process. The US system of policing is also geared up to be far more locally accountable to the town/city/parish it serves when compared to our county wide model which I dont believe is much accountable at all to local people. This mindset extends to even legitimate agencies and organisations in law - for example, I remember having a lengthy debate with a Met Trainer on the old PS.com forums where he relished the idea of arresting, charging and prosecuting a parks officer with a local authority for carrying a lawfully held baton even though that officer was a sworn in constable under local authority legislation - if caught outside their defined jurisdiction - why? Because he could... Because the police historically had this mindset of not sharing their percieved sole monopoly on state sanctioned force... Its frankly this mindset that has led every other organisation that should be taking more robust and proactive approaches in protecting their interests to turn around and say "nope thats the polices job because we cant legally do that..." The deflective, frustrating and nannying society we now live in has some about because of these idiotic decisions... Its all been our own making.
  31. Yet you arent willing to listen to experienced cops telling you live experiences with handling such situations- you came into this debate with one train of thought - im not saying 'just because' either - ive pointed out to you a very legitimate flaw in your argument that so far you havent addressed... You're taking that document as valid on its face value, assuming that there is a quick way of verifying it. You're talking about a persons life here, the most precious thing we have... I as a professional police officer would not be willing to gamble with a persons life under such circumstances on a chance that the document is something forged or written up maliciously by the suicidal person. The statute in question even allows for continued treatment and finally the nonsense you keep spouting about officers being charged for assault wouldn't get passed the public interest stage as there isnt any public interest in charging a police officer to court for trying to save a persons life, upholding basic common law duties that are expected of them. Moving on... Inciting suicide is illegal - suicidal persons are detained and sectioned routinely for their own safety - we do not allow assisted suicide within this country... Illegal was the wrong term to use HOWEVER suicide isnt sanctioned by the state is it? Finally 'developing necessary skills required' skills which amount to watching a person die infront of me? Yeah I'd rather carry on with the common sense, tried and trained method as a first responder by handing that very big decision amounting to the ending of a life to the numerous doctors within a hospital rather than me who has no formal medical legal training what so ever.
  32. Stay safe and do what you do best ladies and gents. They're never going to break the UK and they're certainly never going to break that TBL Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  33. All Lancs SC's, I'm sure you aware of the dutysheet availability setting being activated. As a result of the threat level being escalated to highest, please take time (A minute or two at most, I've just done it) to update your availability over the next week, even if you cannot make it in at all. It greatly helps supervision with any required planning and would be appreciated. Please don't just ignore it
  34. I guess I'll be the other side of the coin then. I have never used any online service such as how2become or anything like that and I managed to get past all the relevant stages but got dropped at the last minute due to personal issues, this was no reflection on my character nor my success through the application stages. The application stages are all easily passable providing that you do your homework beforehand and you make sure you think of competencies that they are looking for. I think that you will find many people on this site didn't use any form of online how to pass tool.
  35. I used both services, how 2 become book and online testing suite. I also used Brendan's free services. I find each have their good points and I used them collectively. I passed first time in march, and I start 5/6/17 with regulars. Try to use both together would be my advice.
  36. The biggest problem is that we have become afraid of voicing any opinion which could be viewed as being racist. We are running scared in many forces of being accused of matters which are not there, be they racial, LGBT, or whatever. Last week I had a long conversation with a recently retired Detective Chief Inspector from the Met. From what he said it would appear that accusations of Racism and Sexual Gender issues are taken so seriously in the Met that even think of such an issue can lead to you getting an enquiry and appropriate advice. He got one in the last few days of his service, and from what he told me this a a greater fear and issue in the Met than many other forces. We have become brainwashed and we are not allowed to make a statement, even though it be fully truthful, lest we upset someone. Well I would say history has shown that we should say to hell with this, if the truth hurts, tough.
  37. You are kidding, right? That's prime time! -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  38. But then aren't people who don't want to be arrested (like everyone) just going to say "they can't do that" with absolutely ZERO idea whether or not they can. Is an assumption that the arrest is unlawful reasonable grounds to kick off? Nope. And again, it's because we have this unreasonable theory as the public that only the Police can do stuff like give tickets, use ANY force, arrest or force an entry. We know that's not true, so why do we perpetuate it? I have had it so many times when bobbies or specials have told our local "customers" PCSOs can't do X, Y, Z etc. and I know a guy who is actually a High Court Sheriff (saw his ID) and he was locked up once because a bobby didn't believe he had a power of entry or like the fact he had cuffs. Why do we do stuff like this yet complain people ring 999 for stuff that's not a Police matter? Cake and eat it?
  39. Or, perhaps, too much reliance on classroom based activity and lots of pretty coloured cards and writing to evidence how things are done as the textbook tells us. CPD is important - undoubtedly. The best training, however, is the preening of experience from a good quality tutor and learning whilst on the job. By the very nature of the job and volatile situations, no amount of non-live training will be good enough. This thread is very interesting to see the many different thought processes and undoubtedly gets the grey matter firing, but I'm alarmed to see that some people would look at the paperwork and, essentially, say "TX 302 for an update. Victim took an overdose and handed me a bit of paper with a signature on it that said they don't want resuscitating so I watched them take their last breath. We are now TL and code 2". Worrying. -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  40. The fact is we were inefficient 9 years ago despite having a record number of police officers and support staff. However, there were boots on the ground which go a long way to plugging inefficiency gaps. As each layer of police officers and support staff have been stripped away we have now reached the stage where demand outstrips resources within hours of each shift starting. Most forces will have several areas which will NEVER not have outstanding calls and sometimes there will be 100 outstanding calls that have zero chance of being resourced any time soon. That's not ongoing investigations, that's members of the public asking for the police and the police not being able to make it at all. If you work a busy metropolitan area I dare you to go onto your pended list and see what the oldest police log is that hasn't been attended. I guarantee it will be at least 3 days old and could be as long as 3 weeks. Response, the bedrock of policing and what the public expect is broken. Neighbourhood policing, as Labour knew it, is largely gone or much diluted. CID is now under resourced and people don't even want to join it (those who are in the job, there are still thousands of clueless starry eyed potential recruits who 'want to be a detective'). One of our most potent 'big bang for your buck's assets - the police dog and handler - are now rarely seen and they themselves now run a triage system to see which of their area colleagues to assist. Air cover is rarely provided these days - a start contrast to even 6 years ago when if the job was worthy of it you could expect the heli to attend as long as they weren't at another job. PCSOs provide the visible presence 8am to 6pm and after that you'll probably just see a police car drive past you on the way to yet another emergency call. 'best police force in the world'...seems about as relevant today as 'the sun never sets on the British empire'
  41. This. In my force, it seems that most, if not all SC's want to do the gucci stuff, and isn't interested in crime reports, diary appointments or even little just jobs, where we help victims. Many officers forget that our job is not glamorous, and essentially every job we attend or deal with is because a victim is suffering and we are there to pick up the pieces . We try to have a good time whilst doing so, but for officers to forgot what they really signed up to do... I think people forget that Special Constabulary is to support regular officers, not replace. S/DC scheme seems to be replacing officers in their role, and what is the point in investing in just one officer, when you should be investing in Specials as a whole to bring their standard up to a competent level. Proper statement training, how to write crime reports properly, and how to do contemporary I/V at the very least. ------ Side question for those who were Specials then became regulars, if you had to quantify your training as a special to a regular, what would it be? A Special in my force has 30% training/knowledge of a regular, before they are out on area to learn.
  42. that's how smart water works, every kit contains a unique DNA code and can be matched forensically to the source.
  43. Exactly right. -Sherlock Sent from my iPhone using Police Community
  44. I am going to throw it out there. Stop and Search does work, it deny's criminals the freedom of movement without fear of being caught. This applies to traffic stops also which have sadly diminished. Criminals now roam free around the streets and roads with little fear of being caught. There are those that doubt its effectiveness (granted poor punishment at court doesn't help) but every county with a serious crime or terrorism issue all revert back to lots of stop and search of the population. If it doesn't work someone should tell almost every Middle Eastern, South American and African nation. Funny how no one minds being searched to go on holiday at an airport, but if the police want to search its suddenly draconian.
  45. NCA have a similar system and it works, but that places limitations on them in accordance with their specialist knowledge. A fraud specialist isn't much use investigation a rape, horses for courses really in my view. Employing specialists in a specials role, absolutely, but as a DC investigating all serious crime, not unless they have significant experience.
  46. Arming with any item for self defence would be a bad thing. The use of knives and stabbings has escalated because of youths carrying knives for self defence, which is self defeating. We have shied away from Stop and Search because of opposition, mainly from ethnic groups shouting about discrimination, and as soon as this is brought up SMT's run scared of the problem. We need to remember why the Sexual Grooming scandals happened in places like Rochdale, Rotherham, Bradford, etc. They all came about and were not dealt with originally because people were running scared of daring to mention that ethnicity was involved. It is fact that most stop and searches in certain area's come about because it is youths of an ethnic origin who are carrying the weapons and committing the wounding offences.
  47. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  48. I am very pro special having previously served as one and as I have said in earlier posts I am not against this. However, I do have sympathy with Radman's concerns. Relationships between regulars and specials is much improved and this should be safeguarded. When joining the specials you are joining the police service to augment regular colleagues, not replace them. Although there is no suggestion of replacement, I do have concerns That where 'specialist' specials are created this could at a later date, or even now, be used by superiors to replace regulars. For example, DS goes to DCI and says, "Can I call out DC Jones to support the investigation, we will need to pay overtime". DCI says "No see if you can get SDC to come out and help".
  49. In fairness, when I joined the job I was fresh out of finishing a law degree and I knew more about evidence law than most of the DCs I encountered. That's not to say I think a S/DC program would necessarily work, but if you bring in volunteers with the right skills, they could be an asset under the right circumstances.
  50. 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.