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


Everything posted by Mark101

  1. Mark101

    4hrs OT working into a Rest Day/Banking Holiday

    You would have thought management would have consulted the Fed before giving out the order? Is this coming to all Forces soon!
  2. Mark101

    Paying into Police pension

    I said should have been scrapped, it was not but should have been brought in with the new pension scheme. What is the point in officers being transferred to the 2015 scheme and protected officers are working 30yrs, stopping their payments and carrying on working and receiving maximum benefit when everyone else is losing money……wrong……. totally wrong in my view……..I spoke out regarding this on the old site and was shouted down and still speak out about this today, the the middle third officers are suffering the most. Lets correct the wrong and stop this happening……………...all officers pay pension to retirement or death………..simple.
  3. Mark101

    Best CID shift pattern.

    Looks like CID are all coming back to districts as the crime team as HQ did not work, I could have told them that, bigger is not better. The Chief Supt. will now be in charge of them and looks like they will be working two weekends in four. Each district are working a different shift pattern so it is up to bosses to decide, detectives not happy, welcome to the real world
  4. Mark101

    Being papered by IPCC

    With the old Reg 9s we were always advised to say nothing and send it to the Fed Rep and they would see what it was all about.i take it, it will be a similar procedure.
  5. I see in the news there has been a large increase in thefts of phones by people on mopeds in London etc. Bosses say officers are chasing these thieves and there is an increase in pursuits over the last year. Officers are saying that they are not chasing thieves as bosss will not support them, if any happens to the thieves. Why are Bosses not telling the truth and stop lying to the public, making them thinking the police are doing something. I have never seen such a split between Bosses & officers on this subject....... I just wonder if the government applies pressure to Bosses to say things to support their agenda. I would like to see the IPCC investigate the lies and this might focus their minds, to tell the truth or face losing their job/pension.
  6. Mark101

    Best CID shift pattern.

    It should really be one weekend off a month, just like duty groups. Weekends are the busiest times when duty groups need CID to attend and deal with the jobs, so the right officer attends the job, first time…………..Remember it is not what is good for the DC's, it is what is good for the Bosses
  7. Mark101

    Revised code G PACE

    5yrs later since post started and still having fun getting into custody……….. Over the last week custody have refused Breach of the Peace and stated that they would only accept for a substantial offence ……in another case a college arrested a 17yr old causing criminal damage to parents property (Domestic) and kicked off with officers (Force used) custody refused to keep him and called his parents to come and collect him, telling officers to sort the damage element out, in a voluntary interview at a later date…………. what is happening these days…….crazy……………..Does S37 Pace allow custody Sgt to determine this course of action, as S24 has nothing to do with them?
  8. Mark101

    Passing on the left? Offence?

    Anyway, who is going to stop you on the Motorway………….There are not many Traffic Cops left and the majority of the time they are dealing with RTC fatals. In our Force if we have 1 fatal then all Traffic Cops deal with the one job and they can't come to district to deal with anything else, that is how bad things are.
  9. Mark101

    Paying into Police pension

    I would have thought with the new pension scheme in where everyone has to pay pension until retirement or death, whatever is first, then this part of the 1987 scheme should have been scrapped.
  10. see another officer up in court for dangerous driving, don't know the story. Police Professional :: News :: PC charged over injury-causing car crash
  11. Watched Conference this year and was interested in the discussion on Carless & Dangerous driving for police officers. Lat year a QC gave a lecture on the subject and I thought that is strange, why are the Fed not telling officers……Roll on a few months and now the Fed are giving out advice in what officers should do; -Officers have a sworn duty and must uphold that duty. -Officers should drive in a way which is lawful and does not contravene the laws of dangerous or careless driving. -Officers are advised not to undertake any manoeuvre which may well fall outside the standard of the careful and competent non police driver. QC Mark Aldred stated that the IPCC have consider 30 officers for Dangerous driving but only a few have been taken to court. Currently a Force is taking an officer for careless driving and for Gross Misconduct as a result, and they could lose their job. In a nutshell, officers have no protection for response driving & pursuits and the government should change the law to protect officers. Next time you respond to a job, you could be the one that ends up in court………………..Don't break the speed limit!
  12. Forces are already giving 3 Free days off if you have had 100% attendance for the year so nothing new here, just renamed it for sport. There is nothing he can do with pensions, so that is rubbish. CCs are all in the governments pocket so they are not going to fight for us and go against them. New recruits in our Force are leaving at over 30% rate within the first 12 months so what are you doing about that CC.
  13. A bit of generalisation here…………….funny you say that, most of the above cases are Traffic officers.
  14. PC Lowe was a traffic officer, a well trained officer and doubt if red mist was involved. Why do you quote Red Mist all the time Zulu, as if someone has done something stupid. We are talking about highly trained officers, doing their job to the best of their ability and then they are taken for dangerous driving. Officers must go through hell with worry, for many years, until they are cleared. That is not got for stress & family life. Lets help the Fed and get this new law passed ASAP. I am sure we are all in agreement here.
  15. We are alright now CC says we are covered: In a statement today, Mr Bangham, of the NPCC, said police officers responding to emergencies are covered by legal guidance that shows it is not in the public interest to prosecute them.READ MORE "There are clear exemptions in law for officers in these situations. Together with our colleagues in the fire and ambulance services we are deeply proud to be a service that reacts first to protect the public from danger. “Current guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service already recognises that it is unlikely to be in the public interest to prosecute officers for driving offences while they are responding to emergency calls. "There have been very few incidents in which an officer responding to emergency has been prosecuted or had misconduct charges brought against them." Not for these people……..so why did the guidance not cover them & how can we trust what you say Mr Bangham? PC James Holden was charged PC Vaughan Lowe was charged Adam Steventon was charged PC Lee Drake was found guilty
  16. In most cases they have been acquitted and should never have been in a court. The number of cases have risen so the support is decreasing, it is the judges sympathy we are relying on here and nothing else. IPCC has recently directed a force to bring proceedings against an officer for Gross Misconduct for careless driving, that would justify dismissal……first time this has happened. R v Bannister [2010] 2 All ER 841, the Court of Appeal ruled that no account can be taken of a responder’s skill or training in deciding whether the driving was careless or dangerous…………so we have lost that. We have zero risk to play with at this present time………….Zulu, you had loads to play with 30yrs ago and no one ever questioned it. The world has changed, so the laws should be updated to protect all emergency officers…….
  17. Exemptions are useless as an officer will be taken for Careless or Dangerous Driving………. Not one officer has been prosecuted for red lights / signs etc as it is a waste of time………..No one is talking about red mist, we are talking about a careful driver who is an expert at driving but might cause a member of the public to crash or cause a crash by their presence……….. First to the scene might by first out of the job in the future. Zulu, have you read the above paperwork attached and listened to the QC on the video at 6mins onward. His last two cases were traffic officers, who are probably the best trained in the land and they never caused a crash. It was the head of training who first highlighted their case. CPS say ……… It is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. …………..on this basis more cases will end up in court as CPS hands will be tied. Bring in the proposed legislation and incidents will not reach court and officers will know where they stand, just like the use of Force S(3)CLA, simple really. "If you drive properly you should not lose your job"……………..hmmmm, Like this
  18. Fully agree with you and there are many Sgt's and above who don't have a clue about this. Are they bothered, do they drive with blues & twos on a daily basis, do they leave the office, do they were PPE………the answer is No to all. I know this is not new news but it was in 2015/16 when the Fed put a team together with a leading QC to try and get the law changed. We all now have a part to play in this by doing our bit and not breaking the law………you can't be done for not breaking the law
  19. Here is an interesting case: A recent High Court case (Hatzola: DPP v Issler 2014) decided that first responder vehicles providing medical aid, do not fall within the definition of “ambulance” and therefore cannot avail themselves of the limited exemptions that ambulances have to break speed limits and contravene traffic signs. In fact they cannot legally, use blues and two tone horns. That means first responder Skoda Octavia type vehicles and motor cycles are not permitted to avail themselves of the ambulance exemptions. The court observed that this was undesirable and indicated that reform was required. In the interim it hoped that the DPP would not prosecute such cases. …………….they are driving hoping no officers or CPS take any action, that can't be right in this day in age. http://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit2.pdf……….this was started by Traffic Sgt & Head of training http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-27555047……ex Sgt giving evidence
  20. I understand what you are saying and hoping that you are right. I followed this topic in Conference in 2016 & this year, so it is not new. What is relative new is there is now a team of people trying to get the law changed to make it better for officers and they want the support from everyone. Fed Letter: Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law and they must comply with that duty. They must also act in a way which is lawful. Legal advice has recently highlighted that police response and pursuit drives are, in most circumstances, highly likely to fall within the definitions of careless and or dangerous driving. There are no exemptions to the offences of careless or dangerous driving to permit emergency driving. This matter has been considered by Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, NPCC lead for Roads Policing. He accepts that – at least as far as pursuits are concerned, drives are highly likely to fall outside the law as it is currently drafted. The IPCC has recently directed a force to bring proceedings against an officer for Gross Misconduct for careless driving. Gross Misconduct is conduct that would justify dismissal. 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. It is hoped that this correspondence will reduce police related accidents and significantly reduce proceeding against officers for motoring offences and or Gross Misconduct hearing. Proposed Drafting of Regs: 1. Proposed Exemption “When a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service, rescue or police purposes, or for a purpose connected with the National Crime Agency the driver may depart from the standard of the careful and competent driver (or by his driving, cause another to do so) if and only if; a) driving the vehicle in accordance with road traffic regulations would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used and; any such departure is a proportionate response to the circumstances as the responder reasonably believed them to be and; c) the driver has undergone or is engaged in, specialist driver training in accordance with S19 of the RSA 2006. 2. Such an exemption would permit a proportion of appropriately trained drivers to make the kind of decision they are trained to make, balancing the risk of not proceeding against the risk created by the drive. This is no different a decision than that faced by an officer in deciding whether to use force. Ultimately, a jury could be the final arbiter of where the balance lay. Such a test would focus the mind of the decision maker towards the real decision, whether the risks created by responding/pursuing were a necessary and proportionate response to the incident, taking into account the risks associated with not responding at all.
  21. It is not from tens of thousands of response drives and pursuits…………….it is from cases referred to the IPCC by Forces. So the number referred to them will be very low, There is a lot of work going into this for it to be a storm in a teacup: http://www.polfed.org/campaigning/trained_drivers.aspx Conference 2016 - Wednesday PM 1 /2 ………………09:00hrs QC speaking 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. ……………. what a sad response.
  22. "Police officers should seek legal advice before making statements" Police officers involved in pursuits and response should seek legal advice before making statements about incidents, even if told they are only being interviewed as a witness. That was the advice from QC Mark Aldred at the Police Federation of England and Wales Roads Policing Conference, as he explained the lack of legislation around exemptions for police drivers. “For police officers who enter into pursuits, the reality is, if the political will is there, they could be prosecuted for dangerous driving offences,” he said. Pursuits fall squarely into the definition of “dangerous driving” he said, and that while it might seem surprising, there was “no legislation that gives officers an exemption from prosecution”. This differs to police use of force, where legislation requires that it is allowed if ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances. Mr Aldred is a prominent lawyer who successfully defended PC James Holden in a high profile Dangerous Driving case in 2012. PC Holden was a Hampshire Police officer who was accused by the Crown Prosecution Service of putting innocent people at risk during a pursuit through Portsmouth. “In my experience, in 95 per cent of cases [which have reached my desk] the words that have come out of the officer’s mouth have been used against them,” added Mr Aldred at the conference. “I get told by the officer that they ‘were only doing their job, they can’t seriously be being prosecuted’ and then I see the lights go out in their eyes as I tell them the law doesn’t protect them.” He said reform needed to happen: “If we are going to ask police officers to do a job – we should make sure the law is there to allow them to do that job. Officers who drive or carry firearms do so voluntarily, for jobs that do carry serious risks. I wonder, if they were fully aware of the risks, would they continue?” The Police Federation of England and Wales said it is working with the National Police Chief’s Council to develop a draft legislation change on this issue. https://www.metfed.org.uk/news?id=6574 -------------------------------------------------- Barrister Mark Aldred agreed that a clear-cut line can not be drawn between response and pursuit, as response drivers may be called to attend incidents such as bombings or mass shootings where it is imperative they arrive quickly.Under current guidance, response drivers are not permitted to go through red lights in such a way that causes any risk, meaning they have to frequently stop to avoid prosecution and potentially risking more lives in the process.Mr Aldred therefore called for the Government to consider legislating to allow an element of proportionality and provide driving safeguards for officers.He also criticised the system that allows officers found responsible for causing death or serious injury when in pursuit to be tried under the same standards of dangerous driving as members of the public. He said: “You are horrendously exposed following a pursuit. There is a system of checks and balances and they apply to police officers just as much as everybody else, but they don’t seem to be balanced for police officers.”Mr Rogers is due to meet Shadow Policing Minister Jack Dromey next week to persuade him to support a change in the law. Meanwhile, Mr Aldred claimed the best defence for officers involved in a pursuit that results in death or serious injury is to refuse to make a statement, and tell investigators that the data they need will be provided by the vehicles’ recording equipment.He said the intention behind this suggestion is to avoid the common situation of an officer being initially told they are being treated as a witness, only for them later to be treated as a suspect.Mr Aldred said: “Just because you are told you are a witness does not mean you will always be one.“If an officer gives an account, that may come back to bite him. There is nothing you will be able to say that will make it better. Being told you are a witness makes an officer more vulnerable because a witness has no safeguards.”By relying solely on electronic evidence for a statement, it can be proven whether or not the officer was at fault, so they will be treated as a suspect from the beginning and can immediately ask for the prosecutor’s evidence against them to be disclosed. He also called on police to ensure this issue is resolved.Mr Aldred told the conference: “It’s in your hands to raise the profile of this issue. We have to push for change. “We have already drafted a suggestion as to how an exemption might look that will give officers everywhere protection that they hitherto haven’t got.“You should have a defence so what you do on a daily basis to protect and help others actually has some basis in law.”http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=26208
  23. I think you need to listen to QC Mark Aldred speech at Conference 2016 where he explained in detail that the IPCC considered 30 officers for prosecution. Only a handful were charged to court and most were acquitted by the judge, as the judge was sympathetic towards their case. All enquiries started by the IPCC. His point, is that why are officers being put through the court system, for over 12 months and worrying if they are going to be found guilty for doing their job. Previously CC's never progressed cases & CPS stated that it was not in the public interest. Now the IPCC are telling Forces to take action. Officers have the basic exemptions but what he is saying is that the IPCC are now looking at Careless & Dangerous driving for these minor offences. Two years ago a judge stated that officers training & skills cannot be taken into account and be brought up in court. So the standard of driving for police officers has changed, through the law, and it is only a matter of time before an officer loses their job 'For only doing their job'. Officers standard of driving will be exactly the same as a member of the public and there is nothing in law to exempt them, for being police officers, ambulance drivers, firemen etc………that is what has changed and the Fed want people to be aware of that. There are officers charged to court for Careless & Dangerous driving and in one case no one was injured. The reason why the courts are not full with officers, is that the IPCC only really get involved in accidents or where members of the public complain to them and there are not many police accidents on a daily basis. If IPCC reviewed the CCTV of every police response/pursuit then things would be a lot different.
  24. Only 3 of us left after 20yrs service……………...
  25. Mark101

    Start arming UK police?

    Yeap, Had a discussion the other day where I suggested that due to the increased risk to officers then all taser officers should be single crewed and all non taser officers should be double crewed and someone said, what happens if the single crewed taser officer is overpowered, they need to be double crewed incase that happens…..I laughed………I think management need to rethink their deployment plans.