Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


billysboots last won the day on July 31

billysboots had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

475 Good

About billysboots

  • Rank
    Forum Member
  1. Mopeds used in Crime

    Tpac quite clearly states if you have no tactics to bring a collision to a safe conclusion, there is no pursuit. Period. As such, the general rule of thumb is no pursuits of motorcycles, and anyone who does pursue one is likely to find themselves in a whole heap of bother. The only departure from the general rule of thumb is if the circumstances are so exceptional as to merit stopping an offender on two wheels that the benefit in doing so outweighs the risk.
  2. Traffic accident - Liability

    Sorry, what do you mean it's not for the police to apportion blame? Whilst I accept we don't play judge and jury, it's a basic police function to investigate collisions and it's something we've become exceptionally poor and very lazy at. To the OP - this isn't the sole responsibility of a solicitor and/or your insurance company, although the latter will be able to give you really sound advice. If you're not happy that this has been properly investigated (and in the circumstances as described I wouldn't be) then you need to take it further. There will be an admin function somewhere within every police force where collisions are recorded - the first thing to do is ask what investigation has taken place.
  3. Best CID shift pattern.

    Our Force no longer has a traditional CID. We have a crime directorate, divided into a number of individual units. The vast majority of specialist teams work predominantly Monday to Friday with skeleton weekend cover, meaning officers work probably one weekend in four. The team which comprises most staff, and investigates core volume crime, also dealing with all dynamic prisoners who come through the doors and are not destined for the specialist teams, work the shift pattern from Hell. They work seven weekends in nine, ludicrous amounts of overtime, and are all carrying crime queues lengthy enough to make your eyes water. Not surprisingly, no detective wants to work there. Despite it being bread and butter work.
  4. Urinating In A Public Place

    Not just discretion but also priorities. Most Forces these days are so strapped for officers that they have far more pressing things to worry about than someone emptying their bladder.
  5. Transfer to alternative station

    Sorry if this sounds short, but why is it when anyone is asked to move these days it becomes a drama? Are we working for a disciplined organisation or not? If this sounds rude I'm afraid there's no other way of saying it. More often than not it's not a matter of personal choice where you work. If that doesn't suit, then I question why you joined this job.
  6. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    Which is precisely what I have been saying all along. I am quite sure the public do not want to see our hands tied even more than they are, which is why the public interest test to prosecute is only likely to be met in the most serious cases where a police driver has got it very wrong. And such cases should always be prosecuted. Turning to a different point I saw in this thread that one Force now discourages radio transmissions because they cost money. Seriously? What a shambolic mess we have got ourselves in.
  7. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    What's sad about it? You claim the IPCC is making a concerted effort to encourage Forces to bring cases against officers for driving offences and yet, despite those endeavours, very little has changed. If what you claim is accurate, therefore, those who ARE prosecuted must have driven appallingly. So they absolutely deserve to be before the Courts. A lot of work may have gone into this, but you paint this as a new development. It's not. It was first raised well over two years ago when I still worked in roads policing, when bobbies were worried to death by it. In all the time since, what change in approach has there been from Forces which, owing to years of grief from politicians and media, are now ridiculously risk averse? Absolutely none. You quite clearly missed my point. All of this still requires the CPS to view it as being in the public interest to prosecute police drivers who have driven according to their training and just done their job. That simply isn't going to happen. Nobody wants police officers driving like Miss Daisy when there is a genuine need for a response. Which is why the CPS, in my view, will only continue to go after genuine cases, which they absolutely should.
  8. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    Regardless of what you all think of the IPCC, whilst they can demand what they like from Forces, they do not make charging decisions and I maintain this is a lot of fuss about nothing. So the IPCC "considered" 30 officers for Court? From how many tens of thousands of response drives and pursuits? The CPS, quite often not our allies in such matters, are hardly bursting a gut to prosecute police drivers, are they? That pretty much tells you all you should need to know. The public interest test to prosecute still has to be met and I would suggest the vast majority of cases won't get over that hurdle. There genuinely are bigger things to worry about. Any police driver who is successfully prosecuted for careless/dangerous driving probably deserves what they get if the statistics you quote are a true reflection.
  9. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    I've not missed the point at all. The case you cite is the one the PFEW raised several years ago. The fact remains the Courts are not log jammed with police drivers facing prosecution for serious driving offences, nor are Forces falling over themselves to ban pursuits. If the case had been taken to the extreme then TPAC (in which I have previously qualified), perhaps the most inherently dangerous set of police tactics you can employ without focusing the crosshairs of a firearm at someone's forehead, would never see the light of day. As I say, I cannot see the issue. If there was one do you not think the IPCC would set up camp outside every remaining RPU garage in the country just waiting for trade?
  10. Police Driving / Emergency Responding

    I'm not quite sure what the issue is here, this being something the PFEW raised several years ago. Providing officers understand the road traffic act and drive according to their training, level of authority, prevailing road/traffic conditions and, most importantly, don't allow the red mist to descend, why is this a problem? The job will only hang you out to dry, quite rightly, if you disregard everything a good driving school instructor has taught.
  11. Reapplying for licence after disqualification

    Wrong thread. D'oh!
  12. First Post Mortem

    Crikey crumbs! Police Officers working as Coroner's Officers - that takes me back. All of our Coroner's Officers are employed directly by the Coroner these days, although admittedly most are ex job. As for PM's, I've never known a Coroner's Officer attend one. The only presence outside of Pathology will be SOCO and/or an SIO if the circumstances merit it. PC's will sometimes attend for continuity purposes to ID the body to the Pathology team. I've been to a few - mostly RTC victims and unrecognisable as human beings if truth be known, inlcluding burners who resembled large joints of meat. All the advice here is sound - treat it as a learning opportunity and don't think of the corpse as a human being. It isn't. It ceased being a person at the point of death.
  13. First Post Mortem

    I've been in over 26 years and certainly my Force has never done it.
  14. First Post Mortem

    A dead body in police terms is essentially the same as any other evidence - it's a piece of a jigsaw which needs putting together. Treat it like that. In terms of smell, there's a difference between a corpse which has laid undiscovered for several days, which is as much a taste as a smell, and a recently deceased body which is being cut open. The Vicks suggestion is a good one.
  15. Section 17 pace

    S17 provides a power of entry to arrest for indictable offences and some specified non-indictable offences. The legislation doesn't stress indictable ONLY. As theft is an either way offence, my interpretation of S17 would mean the answer has to be yes, as the offence can be tried either way.