Sectioned Detection

Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sectioned Detection last won the day on February 23

Sectioned Detection had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Sectioned Detection

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

151 profile views
  1. LMAO! Senior colleagues?! You've no idea how old I am. The IRA planted bombs but often gave warnings and didn't run over pedestrians, then go on a knifing rampage with fake suicide belts attached to them. Yes there were armed criminals but the weapons were rarely used against police as they knew the likely sentence if caught. Though I was more referring the DV incidents involving knives (or weapons incidents in general) which shows your lack of recent policing experience. Every generation thinks the next is worse than there own yet fail to acknowledge the or own failings. I have spoken to retired cops and heard the stories of 'welcome commities' in custody, drink driving being the norm, statements rewritten to get convictions and all sorts of life on mars shenanigans. So I'll take your comments with a pinch of salt. Now, if you think an unarmed BTP taking on 3 terrrorist is how we, the public, should be protected then I'm glad you're no longer in policing.
  2. Yeah yeah. Police were different, better,..... 10,20,30....... years ago. Old cops are just as 2 faced as ex-smokers. New cops don't have a worse attitude it's old cops one that have changed. The threat is greater, not just from day to day but from terrorism and if you can't see that them your clearly no longer on or near the frontline, this doesn't make them gung ho it makes the realists. What we should do is at least give officers the option to be armed.
  3. IIRC PSNI have sidearms on during PSU incidents which is why their tactics are a little different. The reason younger in service cops want to be armed is because of the threat they face daily is significantly greater the 10-20 years ago. For me I think we should now be armed but sidearm only. The incidents in London would support that. The public clearly have no issue with armed officers any more. If officers fail then so be it but at least give those who can the chance to protect themselves.
  4. It is clear as it's the legal principal which came from the case. Otherwise every no comment interview would be deemed obstruction. Perhaps this will help: Summary of the judgment The judgment turned on the meaning of the word “wilfully” in the obstruction charge. It was deemed to mean “without lawful excuse” and the judges then considered whether Rice had a lawful excuse for refusing to give his name and address or go to the police box. They decided that he did, because of the legal right to silence. It’s easier to explain by reading the following passage: "It is quite clear that the appellant was making it more difficult for the police to carry out their duties, and that the police at the time and throughout were acting in accordance with their duties. The only remaining element of the alleged offence, and the one on which in my judgment this case depends, is whether the obstructing of which the appellant was guilty was a wilful obstruction. “Wilful” in this context in my judgment means not only “intentional” but also connotes something which is done without lawful excuse . . . . Accordingly, the sole question here is whether the appellant had a lawful excuse for refusing to answer the questions put to him. In my judgment he had. It seems to me quite clear that though every citizenhas a moral duty or, if you like, a social duty to assist the police, there is no legal duty to that effect, and indeed the whole basis of the common law is that right of theindividual to refuse to answer questions put to him by persons in authority, and a refusal to accompany those in authority to any particular place, short, of course, of arrest. (Parker, CJ, at page 651H–652B of [1966] 2 AllER)" Note that giving false information is treated differently from remaining silent: "In my judgment there is all the difference in the world between deliberately telling a false story, something which on no view a citizen has a right to do, and preserving silence or refusing toanswer, something which he has every right to do.(Parker, CJ, at page 652C"
  5. Either way is deemed indictable.
  6. Rice v Connolly (1966) so it's not new.
  7. So, you ID an offence, caution the person then after saying "you do not have to say anything" you prosecute them for not saying anything? Besides the fact caselaw says it's not. Worrying you didn't know that though if you're a cop.
  8. Take her to a small claims court.
  9. Since when has not providing details been obstruction? Giving fake details but not refusing any.
  10. And there lies the problem, the 'taking charge' attitude if what lands cops in trouble off duty. What they should be doing is the minimum to keep everyone safe till someone on duty arrives. In many cases a simple Intel report would suffice. Long gone are the days when being an officer was an advantage.
  11. Why would it be a disgrace? Being a cop is a disadvantage when off duty. Unless someone's going to die if you don't get hands on your safer being a professional witness. In your example just go and get security.
  12. Just don't do it. Call 999 or 101 as it's not worth the risk/hassle.
  13. The public gets the police it deserves. Massive cuts to policing and not a bat of an eye, yet 1 lawful police shooting and there's riots up and down the country. NHS doesn't get an increase in funding and there's uproar, thousands of preventable deaths at the hands of Drs and it's forgotten in a heartbeat. Cops are too busy dealing with safeguarding issues to deal with shoplifters. Today I've 43 jobs on the queue and of those 26 are 'risk' jobs yet there's only 9 staff. So do I 'fail' the multi national company making billions or the 15 y/o repeat misper at risk of CSE? PS they don't have to fail to pay for the offence to be complete, it's just easier to prove intent. Also, asking them to leave the store BEFORE the they walk out with the goods is the whole point of security.
  14. IIRC you've got to have not been policing for several years before you can be a magistrate.
  15. Which is all the more reason why police should stop doing the 'right thing' and simply do the 'lawful thing'