We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dollydog last won the day on December 18 2015

dollydog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

118 Good

About dollydog

  • Rank
    Forum Member
  1. dollydog

    Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    You are correct, the tactics did change – Sir John Stevens was the one who initiated the change of tactics (I know this because some colleagues and I attended a lecture he was giving just after he retired). Prior to the change of tactics, the shot was to stop the threat, not to specifically kill. This meant firing at the largest area, i.e. the body. In response to terrorism and the possibility of a terrorist using a minor movement, i.e. a finger on a trigger, the tactics changed to shoot for a part of the body that would most likely prevent this. However, the law still remains and it is the firearms officer who makes the final decision whether or not to fire a shot. At the time I heard accounts from witnesses that the firearms officers involved really did feel that they themselves were about to die.
  2. dollydog

    Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    I suspect Zulu that you are not, or have never been, a police officer. From what you write, you certainly seem to have very little idea of major incident command or terrorism operations. You also seem to have a very limited knowledge of use of force or individual officer justification, discretion and responsibilities.
  3. dollydog

    Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    There really is some nonsense written on here and I'm starting to suspect the nearest some got to doing real police work was watching episodes of The Bill. I worked in the Gold Command of my Force response to the 7/7 Terrorist attack in London and the Stockwell shooting has to be seen in the context at the time. Stockwell happened less than a month after multiple fatalities following suicide bombings. It also happened on the day following a non-viable device being found. An unknown number of suspects were believed to be attempting to carry out follow up attacks and the Security Services were trying to monitor around 3000 believed to have potential to be terrorists.. I don't know the specifics of the intel relating to De Menezes, but at the time everyone was sh*tting themselves that there would be another attack. I can only feel what the tension would have been sky high when an apparently identified suspect went on the underground (where most of the previous bombs had been detonated). And don't forget, even though Gold gave an order, it's down the individual firearms officer to make the final decision on whether to shoot or not. A senior officer cannot order a firearms officer shoot. I know people who have worked with Ms Dick and, in my opinion, she is a good choice. Like CP said, the best since John Stevens.
  4. dollydog

    Judges rule on Brexit

    'I voted Leave to get back sovereignty. What I got was tyranny." Stephen Phillips, Tory MP, resigns in protest over May's Brexit approach.
  5. dollydog

    Judges rule on Brexit

    Zulu, if a treaty becomes UK law, then it goes through parliament, because that's how laws are created in the UK. You may remember the Major Government negotiating the Maastrict treaty, then having big trouble getting it through Parliament. Each major change to our relationship with the EU has required Parliament's approval. But the fact remains, our membership of the Common Market, EEC, then EU came about by Act of Parliament and only an Act of Parliament can authorise us leaving it.
  6. dollydog

    Judges rule on Brexit

    This court decision was purely about who had the authority to trigger Article 50. The Royal Prerogative is very powerful , however it is unconstitutional for it to be used to effectively override and Act of Parliament, which is what triggering Article 50 ultimately does. If we’re saying that the Prime Minister’s use of the Royal Prerogative can override an Act of Parliament, then where does it stop? It’s like saying we’re no longer governed by the rule of law. I voted to leave, but I didn’t vote for the Prime Minister, or Liam Fox et al to be the sole decider of what leaving would look like, or to ignore the valid views and concerns of the remainers. I also didn’t vote for our already fragile economy to be wrecked further – so if it becomes clear that leaving would do that - then there should be a second referendum.
  7. dollydog

    Brexit reversal attempt

    I’ve been following some legal types who have been in court observing the arguments about the triggering of Article 50. The government lawyers have argued that the government has the right under the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50 without first seeking the approval of Parliament. On the other side, the argument is that the UK is legally a member of the EU via an Act of Parliament. Triggering Article 50 will irreversibly end the UKs membership of the EU and therefore goes against UK law. It is therefore constitutionally unlawful for the government to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50, without first seeking the approval of Parliament. As Ken Clarke said, the referendum was basically an opinion poll, it has no constitutional basis and was only advisory. Parliament is supreme and it's interesting neither side argued otherwise in court. Likewise, neither side argued that Article 50 would/should not be triggered, it only asked the question, who is legally entitled to trigger it and if Parliamentary approval was required to make it legal? The legal opinion is the outcome is in the balance and too close to call. I personally voted leave after a lot of soul searching. I did this after my experience of policing EU citizens who populated a nearby town. However, I do find it strange that those who argued to bring back sovereignty try to bypass the supreme sovereign institution of the UK. The talk about Parliament having it’s say on the Great Repeal Act is putting the cart before the horse. Once Article 50 is invoked the countdown begins and no matter what we do, after two years we’re out of the EU whether we negotiate a exit deal or not. It’s also worth noting that the government intends to keep all EU law after we leave. The vast majority of EU law is purely technical and the government will only repeal aspects on an as-and-when basis. So even when we do leave, nothing will immediately change, especially as the Civil Service has been cut and it will take an awful long time (years, possibly decades) to go through all the EU laws and regulations.
  8. dollydog

    Hillsborough Verdict

    For context, does anybody remember the Heysel Stadium disaster?
  9. dollydog

    The Referendum Discussion

    The referendum has nothing to do with the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. Pulling out of Europe does not mean withdrawing from the ECHR. The ECHR can not affect a so-called Sharia Court because, in the UK, these are informal things. Members of the Muslim community can meet up to resolve their own issues in a none legally binding way - in the same way that a group of friends may go down to the pub to resolve their issues. On the other hand, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is legally binding and follows UK law, so if the MAT decision was far removed from justice, then I suppose the victim could seek a remedy using the ECHR. Pulling out of the ECHR is not an easy thing to do, the government has been looking at it seriously for a year and still not produced a Bill.
  10. dollydog

    The Referendum Discussion

    The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then."
  11. dollydog

    Panama Papers

    Don't be fooled by the release of tax returns. You don't include details of assets (or pots of money) that growing in an offshore destination, that you have control of, but is technically owned by a shell company, with multiple (fake) directors. In addition, you may not currently take an income from these assets, but they will be available in the future, i.e. when you've left office and don't get much media attention!. If you are trying to avoid paying UK tax, you don't include details of such funds on HMRC tax returns - thats why it's called tax avoidance
  12. dollydog

    The Referendum Discussion

    That is not actually correct: Secretary of State Al Haig wanted to favour the Argentines, but the President overruled him. This from the Wall Street Journal in 2012 after papers from the Reagan Presidential Library were released: "President Reagan presided over this discussion with a kind of calm detachment. He had outlined a fairly clear U.S. position from the start of the crisis: neutrality over which country had sovereignty over the Falklands but strong opposition to settling the question by military aggression. He stuck to it thereafter. The British would have preferred U.S. support on both points, but what they got was substantial—American endorsement of a principle that allowed Washington to give them strong material support for a military campaign that faced steep uphill odds even then." The thing is, that no matter how close your allies, you can never wholly rely on them to act in your best interest - something the UK is well known for hence the nick name Perfidious Albion.
  13. dollydog

    Panama Papers

    For me it’s a question of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy brought on by David Cameron and George Osbourne's own comments. When Jimmy Carr’s tax avoidance investments became headline news, David Cameron felt the need to comment on it, saying it was ‘morally wrong’. In 2014 George Osbourne said: “ Tax evasion is not just illegal it's immoral. People evading tax should be treated same as common thieves.” There have been many such comments made, so it appears highly hypocritical to have benefitted from similar avoidance schemes. Here are a number of questions that I have: Is using highly complicated mechanisms, including setting up of shell companies to channel profits, and the hiring of basically fake directors, in a foreign county, tax avoidance. Yes. Did the transactions that led to the profits actually occur in the UK or in Panama? Don’t know, nobody seems to have asked. Did the lack of tax on the profits of those contribute to the investments income and growth? Yes, it seems so. Is it technically legal? Maybe, maybe not, it depends on a number of factors. Do criminals launder money in exactly the same way? Yes Have the government done things to reduce tax avoidance as the claim? Yes, but have they done things that actually help, or is it tinkering, aimed at appearing tough, without any practical effect. Are we all in it together? No, because the people who make the laws don't ever have to live with the consequences of those laws. And at a time when everyone is doing more with less, Sam Cameron has a Special Advisor for 'fashion' paid for by the tax payer on a salary of £53,000!
  14. dollydog

    Don't have an accident

    It's not as simple as just pay or weekend working that the Govt would have you believe: https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/news/president-s-statement-on-the-junior-doctors-contract-and-equality-analysis.html