New Met police video

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Chairman described it as "political interference" in operational decisions.

Sarah Johnson reacted furiously to the announcement

The chairman of Gloucestershire Police Federation is “beyond angry” with the force after it announced it would not “rush in” to using spit guards.

Sarah Johnson accused Gloucestershire Police, as well as the police and crime commissioner, of “interfering in operational policing decisions” following the announcement on Wednesday.

Ms Johnson claimed the force breached an agreement already in place when Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner Martin Surl intervened.

She said: “Protecting police officers from being spat at is paramount. We had an agreement in place in force to begin a trial of spit guards in custody suites. And now this had been put on hold following an intervention by PCC Martin Surl.

“Our members will rightly be asking why he is getting involved in operational policing decisions, which are a matter for the Chief Constable.

“Police officers will also be left feeling that the Police and Crime Commissioner and the force are basically saying it is ok for people to spit at them.”

Ms Johnson said she would be taking the matter up urgently with both the force and the office of the PCC as she believes every officer in Gloucestershire should have one.

She continued: “Spitting at a police officer is horrible but then there is also the potential that – should the spit go in their mouths – there will be sometimes up to a six month programme whereby officers have to be tested and maybe take drugs to make sure that they haven’t contracted a contagious disease.

“This means that the officers may not be able to be intimate with their family, might not be able to cuddle their children or might not be able to visit ill relatives, so it’s not only the impact on that day, it’s for a long time thereafter.

“A lot of stress and worry comes with that.”

PCC Surl insists he is “yet to be convinced” spit guards are an effective solution.

He said: “I know from personal experience that any attack on officers carrying out their duties is completely unacceptable, and that extra protection is sometimes necessary. But the use of spit guards has caused controversy in other parts of the country with claims they breach suspects’ rights and could even be dangerous.

“The chief constable and I are in total agreement that the safety of our staff is paramount, but I am yet to be convinced that spit guards are the answer.

“This is a highly emotive issue that should not be rushed into without public engagement and any other consultation that may be appropriate.”

More than half of Police Federation members across the country are in favour of spit guards, as is the current Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

Gloucestershire Chief Constable Rod Hansen says “pause for thought” is the ideal path forward.

He said: “This is an issue that divides opinion even within the service. Some regard them as a necessary and an essential restraint; others see them as impractical and maybe even inflammatory.

“We already have the power to use reasonable force against citizens when it is deemed appropriate.  If we can find a solution that suits everyone, including my officers and staff as well as for suspects, all of whom I have a duty of care towards, then further pause for thought is the right course to take”.

View on Police Oracle

[Hyphen + 693]

Absolute silliness. The wider issue definitely is pandering to the vocal minority who express various 'concerns' over anything.

What more public engagement? What has the comment about 'rights' got to do with it?  What I mean by this is the alternative isn't to just stand there and let the suspect spit, they will have clothing pulled over their head, head pushed down etc which is probably worse for the person involved.

And what I don't understand, they will only be used when people are spitting or threatening to spit. Why does no one understand that it is necessary to prevent  this unlawful action?! 

Utterly bizarre thinking.

[Member of Public + 206]

Don't moan and whinge when officers have to use traditional, more forceful methods to stop people spitting at them then. They're well within their rights to stop them one way or another. 

[Hyphen + 693]

1 minute ago, PC Wannabe said:

Don't moan and whinge when officers have to use traditional, more forceful methods to stop people spitting at them then. They're well within their rights to stop them one way or another. 

I think this is the thing that is irritating. Like most things the irony is by being liberal, pandering and worrying about rights and concerns these people miss the point that more force has to be used in these situations rather than simply pulling some mesh over the subject's face. Much like the people who shout and oppose TASER yet it is a lower use of force than ragging people to the floor and use of baton, kicks, punches etc. Like I say it's just bizarre reasoning behind it.

[Member of Public + 206]

4 hours ago, Hyphen said:

I think this is the thing that is irritating. Like most things the irony is by being liberal, pandering and worrying about rights and concerns these people miss the point that more force has to be used in these situations rather than simply pulling some mesh over the subject's face. Much like the people who shout and oppose TASER yet it is a lower use of force than ragging people to the floor and use of baton, kicks, punches etc. Like I say it's just bizarre reasoning behind it.

It irritates me and I'm not even a serving officer, the lack of logic in some people is staggering. The spitting subject always reminds me of an episode of road wars from the first ever series (2003) - I've always loved watching stuff like that and have it recorded. A guy starts spitting in the back of the police car, he's handcuffed (to the front), the cops (Pat & Carl) pin him face down on the back seat and Pat lands 2 punches in his face and tells Carl to put the floor mat over the bloke's face!!! I'd say that's a much, much more forceful option than a spit hood but the best part of it is, its completely and utterly lawful as its reasonable force to stop the spitting  The bloke was begging for mercy after and wasn't so 'hard' anymore. The thing is, people then start crying 'brutality' and all the usual rubbish, they basically expect the police to just allow themselves to be spat at and do nothing to try and prevent it. They whinge about force, and now they're whinging about an option that negates the need for such degree of force, talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

[mike88 + 257]

Literally any piece of new PPE is criticised by sections off society who think officer's are going to suddenly start tasering, hooding, shooting absolutely everyone they come into contact with without any restraint. Like it's already been said, the alternative to spit hoods is to re-restrain someone and force their head away from officers and I don't see how that is any less 'degrading' and 'dangerous' than putting a piece of transparent mesh over someones head. As someone who has recently been issued a spit hood, it gives me confidence that I can sit/stand near someone who is threatening to spit without being on a constant knife edge until they're in the cell because I'm worried about them spitting in my face.   

 

[Sherlock 117]

Another clear example of weakness, distrust and disregard displayed by the Chief Constable, Rod Hansen. The contempt this man has for his officers knows no bounds.

This directly adds to the argument of police forces amalgamation. You cannot have some police forces with spit hoods and some without. What these two wallies are suggesting is that it may breach Human Rights in some part of the country, but not others? Why are some officers being afforded further protection from harm, whilst others are ill-equipped with the threat from the risks they face.

Deplorable.

[Pete 1,492]

"PCC Surl insists he is “yet to be convinced” spit guards are an effective solution."

 

the mind boggles. what has happened to this country.

[Sherlock 117]

"PCC Surl insists he is “yet to be convinced” spit guards are an effective solution."
 
the mind boggles. what has happened to this country.

The top of the chain become that much closer to politics and away from the evolving threat. As for the PCC - well they are politicians. This one is an 'Independent' and an ex-cop, although higher ranking.

[Sherlock 117]

"PCC Surl insists he is “yet to be convinced” spit guards are an effective solution."
 
the mind boggles. what has happened to this country.

The top of the chain become that much closer to politics and away from the evolving threat. As for the PCC - well they are politicians. This one is an 'Independent' and an ex-cop, although higher ranking.

[Hyphen + 693]

It's disgusting. It actually sums up a lot of what is wrong with the politicians. Whether it be spit hoods, TASER, stop search, arming the police and so on there is a core group of people who trip over themselves to make up reasons why the Police can't have certain items or defend themselves or the public. They usually do quote sound bites like human rights, consent, public concerns etc.

In other words an excuse for weakness and the inability to make a decision and stand by it.

What about the rights and concerns of Police officers and members of the public that are on the receiving end of the spitting? What about their rights and concerns.

We need to stop defending criminals at all costs and remember they are putting themselves in to these positions. As long as the force used is proportionate and justified in the circumstances then who cares? 

I honestly don't believe that most law abiding reasonable people actually have any issue with someone deliberately spitting at people having a piece of mesh put over their face to stop this happening. I just can't see who is so concerned by this?

[Sherlock 117]

I just can't see who is so concerned by this?

Dianne Abbott, for one.

[Hyphen + 693]

11 minutes ago, Sherlock said:

 

Dianne Abbott, for one.

 

Yeah fair one, not sure how reasonable she is though. I was thinking more the average reasonable person in the street without agenda 

[Burnsy2023 2,895]

PCCs should be abolished. They were never supposed to be involved in operational policy and their remit of bringing more rigorous accountability is laughable. All they do is add another political layer in an area that should avoid it.

[HazRat 762]

Perhaps a few CC's gripping the rail for H&S offences might alter the mindset.

I'm not in possession of any data, but are spitting incidents higher in custody or in the street? In my 3 yrs as dungeon master I don't remember a) getting spat at or b) anyone at the time I was in custody getting spat at. I remember it happening more in the streets and having to fold people double to stop them.