Sectioned Detection

Resident Members
  • Content count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Sectioned Detection

  1. Various traffic questions for a traffic guru...

    You can TOR licence/insurance as they can issue a fixed penalty of £200 and 6 points (at least that's how much it was last time I did one) but summons is equally an option. regarding the MOT it would depend on if the car is safe to drive or not for me. s4 RTA has a power of entry under S17 PACE Just remember your going in to arrest not breathalyse.
  2. Taser survey

    Done, but some of your questions are difficult to answer. You ask about use of firearms but few of us carry carry them, more however carry a Taser.
  3. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    Your 'Advanced' driver training means nothing, caselaw supports that. Also, you're the one who on another thread harped on about an officers oath meaning something. Well my oath said I would act lawfully and as it stands I can't drive on lights lawfully. So which is it Zulu? Duty or Lawful because it can't be both. From the Fed today: “A typical response or pursuit drive is likely to involve the officer contravening traffic signs and or speed limits. A course of driving involving contravention of traffic signs and speed limits is very likely to fall within the definition of careless or dangerous driving. “Officers are required by law to drive to the standard of the careful and competent driver. Not the careful and competent police driver, the careful and competent (non-police) driver. This is the standard police drivers will be held to. “There are no legal exemptions from the offences of careless or dangerous driving. Any such drives are therefore likely to be unlawful, placing the driver at risk of prosecution and proceedings for gross misconduct.”
  4. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    Well you feel free to rely on the goodwill of the IPCC to cover your back and I'll stick with refusing to drive on response runs.
  5. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    I think you've all missed the point. Most response driving, even if you drive as taught, is likely to be deemed dangerous driving. Put it this way, if you saw a MoP drive the same as you did on your last response run would you deem it 'dangerous driving'? If the answer is yes then you did too. well worth reading: http://sussexpolfed.org/members/pursuits1.pdf
  6. Start arming UK police?

    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.
  7. Start arming UK police?

    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.
  8. Start arming UK police?

    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.
  9. Suspect not providing name...

    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"
  10. Section 17 pace

    Either way is deemed indictable.
  11. Suspect not providing name...

    Rice v Connolly (1966) so it's not new.
  12. Suspect not providing name...

    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.
  13. Being prevented from collecting my property by ex - what can I do?

    Take her to a small claims court.
  14. Suspect not providing name...

    Since when has not providing details been obstruction? Giving fake details but not refusing any.
  15. UK Police: When to intervene whilst you're off duty

    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.
  16. UK Police: When to intervene whilst you're off duty

    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.
  17. UK Police: When to intervene whilst you're off duty

    Just don't do it. Call 999 or 101 as it's not worth the risk/hassle.
  18. 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.
  19. Police to magistrate.

    IIRC you've got to have not been policing for several years before you can be a magistrate.
  20. Missing Persons

    Which is all the more reason why police should stop doing the 'right thing' and simply do the 'lawful thing'
  21. Missing Persons

    Unless there under a full care order it's a PPO or nothing, nor is there a power of entry. If you're getting hands on then you'd better have PPOd them otherwise it's assault.
  22. Is this a Joke - Diversity?

    Not always possible to do due to potential ID issues so not always as it seems.
  23. Death by Taser

    Or as a Taser officer it's more a case of "better to have it and not need it...."
  24. Winsor: Specialist Skill Threshold Test

    Sgts/insp/Comms were putting pressure on cops to bounce from job to job and didn't give them time to do the job properly which resulted in silly mistakes. Now it's less about the job queue and more about getting the job done properly first time. But again this is not the discussion point.
  25. Winsor: Specialist Skill Threshold Test

    Though it sounds a lot like the CRTP that they got rid of if you ask me.