Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'metropolitan police service'.
Found 4 results
Force says it had budgeted for higher pay award in 2018 so can make "recognition payment" from its existing budget. Commissioner Cressida Dick Date - 7th February 2019 By - Martin Buhagiar - Police Oracle 2 Comments Metropolitan police officers up to and including the rank of chief superintendent, with a minimum of one year's service, are to be given a £350 bonus. The move was announced today by Commissioner Cressida Dick amongst a range of decisions the force says will support officers in their roles and recognise their efforts. She said the MPS had planned for a higher pay award for police officers in 2018 so can make the "recognition payment" from its existing budget. In a statement the force said the payment recognised the response to the multiple terrorist attacks in London, the Grenfell Tower fire, other major events and "responding robustly to the rise in violence across London amongst many other pressures". The impact on officers and the disruption to their family lives over this period has been significant, it added. Comm Dick said: “It is absolutely right that we have made this payment to our officers. Their bravery, dedication and professionalism has been put to the test over the last two years to an extraordinary degree. "Officers across the Met have made a huge contribution to London by doing outstandingly demanding, important and frequently unpleasant work. The challenges continue. This has come at a considerable cost to them as individuals and their families. A £350 payment cannot come close to matching the contribution in delivering through these extraordinary times, but nevertheless it is right that recognition is made. “We planned in our budgets for higher pay for police officers in 2018 than was finally awarded. By planning effectively, we can therefore make this recognition payment to our officers from our existing budget, and I am pleased that we have been able to do so.” Ken Marsh, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: “We are pleased that following discussions, the management board has agreed to make this payment to our members, after the government ignored the recommendations of the independent body that advises them on police pay. “This is no less than our hard-working members deserve. Our officers put their lives on the line day in, day out to protect the people of London and it is only right that they should be given this bonus. “We thank the Commissioner and the management moard for their decision.” The Met's statement said the pressure of the last 18 months has been equally felt by police staff and the pay award for this year reflects the demands they have faced - both those in front-line and operational support roles. The 2018 pay award for police staff will be a 2.5 per cent increase and backdated to August 2018 and made at the end of February 2019. It added an investment in additional equipment to support effectiveness and officer safety will also be rolled out in 2019: By November 2019 the current Taser Uplift Project will provide 6,467 specially trained Taser officers across the Met followed by an extra uplift of 330 Taser trained officers from November 2019 to March 2020. An increase of an extra 400 mobile fingerprint devices. Detailed guidelines to be developed to allow the roll out of spit and bite guards to officers beyond their current use in custody in the coming months. Comm Dick added: “My role is to ensure officers have what they need to do their jobs effectively and safely. The announcements I have made to colleagues today are important issues that are intended to support officers and staff in keeping London safe. Officers, in particular are tasked with responding to often dangerous situations and they need the protection to be able to do so safely, in order to protect the public, victims and suspects.” The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “Our police officers work extremely hard and in challenging circumstances to keep Londoners and our city safe. After a period when our under-resourced and overstretched officers have had to cope with the terrorist attacks and other horrific events on top of their day-to-day duties keeping London safe, I am glad we are able to make this additional payment in recognition of their ongoing efforts to protect us. “It’s vital the Commissioner is able to ensure the police have the equipment they need to do their jobs, although of course it must always be used in a proportionate and transparent way.” View On Police Oracle
Fedster posted a topic in Police Oracle FeaturesVictim's family praises Thames Valley but feels 'let down by Met over CCTV error'. Xeneral Webster: 17-year jail term for acid attacker Date - 30th January 2019 By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle 1 Comment An officer accused of holding onto CCTV evidence for 20 months enabling a suspect to go on to carry out the UK’s first acid killing is facing a watchdog probe. The family of Joanne Rand who was killed by a teenager in an acid attack feel “let down” by the Met Police, claiming she might still be alive if the force had not allegedly allowed her attacker to slip through the net. Ms Rand was fatally wounded when she was hit with high-strength sulphuric acid in June 2017 during an altercation between Xeneral Webster and a member of the public. It has subsequently emerged Webster was the prime suspect in a separate acid attack, committed on a woman in north London four months before. The Scotland Yard detective constable allegedly failed to circulate CCTV images after the March 2017 north London attack in which a woman suffered "significant hand and leg injuries". The Independent Office for Police Conduct said it was alleged the images were not released until November 2018 – and three days later the suspect was identified as Webster, who had just started a 17-year jail term for killing Ms Rand. The IOPC said the officer is being investigated for gross misconduct for alleged breaches of professional standards relating to his duties and responsibilities, orders and instructions and discreditable conduct. It will not be a criminal inquiry. The investigation is looking at the officer's handling of the case and whether it was in line with the Met's policies and procedures. The watchdog informed Ms Rand's family last week about the circumstances around Webster. The family believes the 47-year-old carer for dementia patients would not have been attacked had Webster been dealt with at the time. In a statement, the family said: "We are deeply upset and disappointed. "This was hard news to hear as we are all still struggling to cope with the loss of Jo. "Had this acid attack in March 2017 been investigated properly at the time, Webster the alleged perpetrator would have been dealt with and may not have been free to carry out the horrific attack in June 2017 on Jo and she may still be with us." They added: "We feel very concerned for the lady who was the victim of this (original) attack. "We know some of what she may be going through as we saw all of the pain and suffering that Jo went through.” While criticising the Met, the family says it has “nothing but praise” for another force – Thames Valley Police – which “worked so hard and tirelessly for us and Jo”. The family went on: “We are grateful for all the support they gave our family but we feel let down by the Metropolitan Police." IOPC regional director Jonathan Green said: "This investigation raises the very serious question about the way in which a Metropolitan Police Service officer may have handled a crucial piece of evidence which may have identified the suspect of an acid attack. “Undoubtedly the escalation in acid attacks is alarming and Londoners will expect that the Metropolitan Police Service treat all reported incidents of such attacks seriously and to investigate them thoroughly. "Our investigation will be rigorous in challenging how this evidence relating to the circulation of CCTV images was handled and seek to uncover whether other victims of crime may have been impacted upon as a result of any shortfalls." View On Police Oracle
Fedster posted a topic in Police Oracle FeaturesHe had been trying to collect his dog from kennels after a stay at hospital. Press Association file photo Date - 16th November 2018 By - JJ Hutber- Police Oracle A PC who was initially investigated for manslaughter has been hauled in front of a police performance panel to explain why a 63-year-old homeless man was forcibly ejected from a police station hours before he died. One of the first Metropolitan Police gross incompetence hearings held in public opened today at Empress State Building in West London. Pericles Malagardis, who was a familiar figure at Terminal 5 of Heathrow Airport, died at hospital after being found unresponsive outside Uxbridge Police Station at about 5.30am on March 5, 2016. He had come to collect his beloved Jack Russell Jango from kennels after a stay in hospital and refused to leave when told it would not be possible to collect him until the next morning. PC Bhupinder Kalsi, based at Hillingdon, is accused of failing to consider alternatives before ejecting Mr Malagardis from the building, using unreasonable force, omitting information requested by the London Ambulance Service and failing to follow instruction and training when dealing with unresponsive casualties. She is also alleged to have watched a DVD whilst on duty, supported the decision to lock the front door of the station and failed to exercise reasonable care in her treatment and monitoring of Mr Malagardis. In September 2017 the then-Independent Police Complaints Commission announced it referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider a charge of gross negligence manslaughter against two MPS employees but neither were charged. Counsel for PC Kalsi, Kevin Baumber said she in no way denies she would have acted differently, had “fallen into error” and wanted to express her “remorse and apologies and condolences”. He said it is important the panel “eliminates hindsight” despite the “tragic outcome” of the case. “We have all seen homeless people sleeping, lying on a pavement,” he said. “None of us would want anything other than better circumstances but it is not unheard of or even uncommon - thousands of right thinking people walk past someone sleeping in a doorway in London all the time.” Mr Baumber argued that after being told he could not collect his dog until the morning, Mr Malagardis had no reason to be in the police station and in fact PC Kalsi would have been breaking the law if she allowed him to stay inside and smoke, as he insisted on doing. He said there is no official procedure or policy for PC Kalsi to follow under the circumstances and the police station is not allowed to be used as an overnight venue for the homeless. “There’s nothing to locking the door than a mechanism to enforce the ejection. “It’s a very efficient way of keeping him out. “He would have come back in and required ejection again.” Mr Baumber said PC Kalsi had in fact suggested alternative options for Mr Malagardis but he refused offers of help. According to Mr Baumber, paramedics assessed Mr Malagardis before his health dramatically deteriorated and his pain and respiratory rate was “normal”, found no cause for concern and were surprised at how good his mobility was considering his bandaged legs. “He was not a person brought there by crisis, he didn’t come asking for any help,” Mr Baumber said. “This is not one of these cases where the person had no choice but to be in the station. He’s not in custody. The duty of care applies differently. “There was nothing in the capacity of his visit to foretell this injury - no illness that was apparent that foretold a death. He didn’t present as ill. “Equally one doesn’t expect a person sleeping rough will personally be involved in circumstances that will prove tragic.” View On Police Oraclr
Charlie posted a topic in What I Did On Duty - DiscussionsThese are the poorly remembered chronicles of policing with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in South London. I'm a special (MSC) who flits between Response and SNTs, and at the time of writing - currently in the process to become a PC. Some aspects (names, locations etc) will be changed to protect the privacy of all parties involved. I might sometimes expand on what certain things mean for the benefit of those who don't know - so apologies to those that do know! Health, Mental Health and Robbery! Rank: MSC Shift: Response 0700 - 1500 0700 - Briefing and admin. I'm posted to an IRV (Incident Response Vehicle) with two PCs who I've worked with before and we all get on well - good start! IRVs are normally 2-up on my borough but I wasn't IPS (Independent Patrol Status - the 'ability' to be on your own basically) at the time, so we were 3-up. Non-IPS MSC will never get posted as operators (pushing buttons and using the radio) on an IRV, on my borough anyway. Although, I have been an IRV operator before becoming IPS. Don't tell the church elders. 0730 - First job. S grade (1 hour response time). Reports from residents of a lorry parked on a narrow residential road, blocking vehicles wanting to turn into a junction. Ladies and Gentlemen this is the absolute sharp end of policing. We drive over and politely ask the driver to park somewhere roomier. 0745 - Another S call. Man seen standing in the road wearing a hospital gown and shouting at people. We make our way in terrible rush hour traffic - driver decides to go on blues given the nature of the call. Arrived there in a few minutes, had a drive around, no trace of this gentlemen. Bit odd as it wouldn't be hard to spot! Still searching for this chap when… 0750 - I grade (15 minutes response time) now. 13 year old male locked himself in the bathroom, threatened suicide and now his parents are not getting a response from him. We're very close so call up for it, as do two other units. LAS (London Ambulance Service) are en route as well. We nearly have a PolCol (police collision) on the way thanks to a driver oblivious to the blue lights and sirens, cue internal shouting and swearing in the car. We’re first on scene to find dad and step-mum very worried. Our driver starts shouting the boy’s name through the door – no response. He says if he doesn’t come out he’ll have to put the door through. Nothing. No point wasting time now – he gives the door a 50% kick (to give the lad a chance to come out without damaging the door!). A voice can be heard now from inside the bathroom. “Alright, alright I’m coming out”. The boy walks out with a towel wrapped round him, looks like he was just having a shower! He doesn’t look particularly distressed and I think the general feeling among us that point was that he wasting everyone’s time. Sirens can be heard outside – more units are arriving. LAS arrive too. We call them all in so he can understand the implications of his actions. However, we can’t actually jump to conclusions so we start some digging. I take step-mum and dad into another room whilst my colleagues and the LAS speak to the boy. Turns out this is the son of a well-known female on the borough. An alcoholic who is frequently the cause for domestic calls to come in due to the fights she has with various short-term partners. It turns out that due to his family history, this young lad is understandably unstable mentally but it’s just difficult for him to show it because of his age. There might have been a time years and years ago when mental health was far less understood and the boy might have been told to “man up”. But I’m glad we did the digging. I took some contact details down in my pocketbook. I went into the other room where my colleagues were talking to the boy, clearly about the same things. We all then sort of had a “group discussion” – police, LAS, boy, step-mum and dad! It seemed to help and to young lad appreciated that we cared. I asked him if he had any idea what he wanted to be when he grew up and he said he wouldn’t mind trying the police out. My colleague suggested the police cadets as a good place to start out and gave him the name of the Sgt who runs the cadets on our borough. The boy was in better spirits but the LAS still elected to take him to hospital so off they went, with dad going with him. After the boy got in the ambulance dad turned around and briskly walked back towards us and said “I just wanted to say that my opinion of the police is a lot higher now thanks to you all” and shook the hands of all six officers who attended. It’s nice when people say things like that and it’s just a shame that the taxpayer doesn’t get to hear the good things we do. 0830 – Back on patrol we headed down the main road back towards where we came from earlier (the last I call was on the very edge of our ground). Wait a sec. Who’s that?! There he is! The hospital gown man! He does exist! We swing road and park up to this hugely obese male in a hospital gown, hospital slippers and the carrier bag full of high percentage cheap lager. We ask him if he’s ok and he says very angrily “I’m fine and your mates have already stopped me”. My colleague gets on the radio to see if this is correct whilst the operator and I keep talking to him. We ask him why he’s standing here (it was directly outside a charity shop) and he said he was waiting the for the charity shop to open so he can buy some clothes. He’s very verbally aggressive and reminded me of that big blob from Star Wars. We were very polite and I said “we’re just worried about you mate. If we see someone in hospital clothes who isn’t in hospital –it’s our job to be concerned!” He’s not having any of it. My colleague gets off the radio; turns out another unit has already spoken to him prior to our arrival (probably when we were speaking to the boy with our radios turned down) and the previous unit were satisfied with their interaction with him. My colleague asked “don’t take this the wrong way but do you have any mental health issues?” The man shouted “YES OF COURSE I’VE GOT MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.” We ask for his details, he doesn’t want to give any to us. Not much more else we can do apart from wish him a good day and be on our merry way. We didn’t get any more calls about him that day so it seems he bought his clothes and went on his way. 0845 – Back on patrol. S grade. Call has come in from someone stating that a part of building on the high street is going to fall down onto the pavement below. We’ll take that! It’s on the way back to nick and it’s fry-up time. On the way we protested to the CAD operator (control room person) on the radio that this should be a LFB (London Fire Brigade) job as we’re not trained to analyse the structural integrity of buildings... CAD operator said he couldn’t agree more and was going to try and shove it their way. He did eventually manage to do so but we had a brief look on the way to the nick and could see that it looked a little crumbly, but how are we supposed to know whether that’s bad or not?! Fortunately, LFB were going to get out of bed and come and have a look. Just kidding Trumpton, love you really! 0900 – Cheap and greasy fry up for breakfast. 0945 – Back out on patrol. The operator had a meeting to attend to, so took I the front seat for a while. 1020- I grade. Call from LAS, person trapped behind closed doors. The location was a bit out of the way but we get there very quick thanks to my superb navigation (Google Maps) skills. A chap in a block of flats had fallen over and activated his emergency alarm. Thankfully, he was conscious and breathing and talking to the LAS through the letter box. We ask for an enforcer (big red key) to be brought over in case the door needs to be put through. It’s a modern well-built door, even the strongest of officers wouldn’t be able to get through it with just kicking. We asked about windows (ground floor flat) and the LAS said they tried them to no avail. We double check just in case and lo and behold we managed to find a way in through the window thanks the casualty leaving one of them unlocked. Door open, LAS in. Done. 1040 - Back to the nick to pick up the other PC after his meeting. 1100 – Once we pick him up in the yard, we find that we have been assigned to a misper (missing person) job. The vast majority of mispers on my borough (and I suspect most of the country) consist of under 18s who leave a place of care, adults with mental health conditions who leave a place of care or elderly people with deteriorating mental health who leave their care homes. This misper didn’t fall into any of those categories and so was a bit different. This job had come a county force adjoining our own. This male’s boss (in the counties) called police to report that the misper hadn’t turned up to work and has been unable to get hold of him. The boss called the misper’s (we’ll call him Tom Smith) girlfriend, who lives on our borough and Tom is believed to living with her. The girlfriend also hadn’t seen him and was about to report him to the police as well. The manager of the company was mostly concerned about the company van which was still in Tom’s possession! From the bosses conversation with Tom’s girlfriend – it appears he went out in the evening to top up one of those keys for electricity, and never returned. I got a description for Tom – IC1 (white) male, 5’10”. Short shaven light brown hair, pale skin, blue eyes. 29 years old. However, whilst on the phone to Tom’s boss, word came over the radio that the county force will now take over the investigation. Ok…why did it come to us in the first place then? Sigh. I told Tom’s boss that the county force are now dealing and he should expect a call from them soon. 1120 – We call up control to tell them we’re now free to deal with something thanks to the misper CAD being bosched. We get an S graded, burglary to report. Off we go. We pull out of the nick when we see a lad leaning against the fence which runs along the road where the nick is. He looks a bit shifty but he also looks a bit familiar... We stop the car and I notice he’s got 2-3 fresh cuts going along his neck that look a lot more purposeful than accidental. He’s looking down towards the ground very…vaguely and forlornly. His eyes were reddened as if he’d been crying. This chap is about 5’10” with pale skin, blue eyes and looks about 25-30. Sound familiar? We asked “what’s your name, mate?” “Tom Smith” he replied. To be continued when I actually have the time to write more.