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


Posts posted by oldcopper

  1. When I joined, over 50 years ago, the height limit for most police forces in the UK was around 5'10'' with 2 or 3 requiring candidates to be 6'0''.  It was necessary in those days for police officers to be large persons as we lacked the excellent equipment which today's officers are issued with to defend themselves or summon assistance quickly and frequently had to depend on our physical prowess to carry out certain aspects of policing.

    However, things have moved on and given the kit which today's officers are issued, physical prowess and appearance are not as necessary as they were at one time. I see many officers on the streets today who are les than your 5'8''.  Good luck.'


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  2. If anyone should tell the public the truth it is the Police Service itself. For decades police officers of all ranks have being telling the public that everything in the garden is rosy and that the Nation was being served by the best and most efficient Police Service in the World. The truth of the matter is that for years we bluffed our way through thick and thin and we did it so well that the people and many politicians came to believe what was being said and arrived at the conclusion that policing on the cheap could be achieved without any harm being done to anyone and that, no matter how overstretched or underfunded police forces were, the job could always be done by the good old British bobby.

    As I reflect over the past half-century I have no doubt that we must accept at least part of the blame for the current state of affairs.

    • Like 1

  3. On 8/9/2017 at 21:36, Mark101 said:

    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.

    That was always the advice given by the Fed. to members of my old force and, generally speaking, I think it is good and sensible advice. 

    However, there are always exceptions to the rule and I remember an officer who gave a lengthy reply when served with discipline papers which explained away most of the allegations against him and the matter was dropped almost immediately. 

    I have to say that it appears to me that discipline papers are being served on more officers for relatively trivial matters these days or am I just imagining this.

  4. No matter what the truth of this issue, or whether it will prove good or bad, I have no doubt that money is at the root of the matter. 

    Due to the fincncial situation in which our nation finds itself, cuts in the amounts of cash given to all parts of the public sector have to be made and it appears that the Poilce Service is not to be excluded from these strictures. While sympathising with HMG in its financial predicament I cannot but think that cutting the finances of the Police Service will, in the long term, be a false economy as policing will gradually become increasingly erodied and lawlessness will gradually increase with the inevitable costs.

    As I have said before, HMG should give priority to its principal functions of protecting the country and its inhabitants and exclude polcing from the worst parts of cuts on the public sector.  

    • Like 2

  5. You appear to have serious reservations about the job you are applying for and that appears to me to manifest a lack of the commitment necessary for such a post which leads me to believe you should withdraw from the selection process.  It does you credit that you realise you might be wasting everyones' time if you continued merely for the sake of the experience and I have to say I can see some use in that line of thinking. 

    I suspect you need more time to think about what you want to do with your life and which profession you wish to follow.     

    • Like 1

  6. On 28/06/2017 at 16:47, Zulu 22 said:

    I agree with the previous two posts.

    I do not think that the families will ever feel that they have some peace and justice, or be satisfied, I do not think that I would be satisfied, but are they seeking their pound of flesh. I find it amazing, still, that true justice has not been identified.  They are blaming, quite rightly, just about everyone involved, Police, Ambulance, Sheffield Wednesday, the F.A., everybody except the fans, who have been exonerated completely. I would, wholeheartedly, agree that the Liverpool fans who were victims were the complete innocents in the whole tragedy, but, to exonerate the fans, on the last minute, some who climbed the gates and those who rushed headlong into the back of the already full pens carry no blame whatsoever. That adds to the injustice of the whole tragic incident.

    It was a culmination of the F.A. selecting a ground which was unsuitable, Sheffield Wednesday for their Ground safety, and the Police for having a person in charge of the game who was not qualified to deal with such an event, and a complete breakdown of the communications surrounding the event and those taking part. You could also proportion blame on those who decided to make pens at football grounds as a form of crowd control after incidents like Heysel.

    Am I some sad biased football fan, no I have family in Liverpool and Manchester and have attended at Anfield, and Old Trafford in equal number supporting both teams, but would I dare make these comments on Merseyside?

    Yes, it's a bit like deaths in police custody.  I was involved in one when close to retirement and although it was widely acknowledged that I and others did everything properly and a fatal accident enquiry did not apportion blame to the police, while a civil action by the family failed the relatives (I am told) still steadfastly maintain that the police were to blame for their relative's demise in police cells. 

    All this despite that fact that he was a chronic alcoholic and drug user and had an underlying heart condition that had not been diagnosed prior to the post-mortem which followed his death. 

    It appears that some people really must have a scapegoat.no matter what.  And what better scapegoat is there than the Police Service.

    • Like 1

  7. So far as I can see, no matter what decision was taken by the police in relation to this incident, there was a strong potential liklihood that some form of disaster would happen and the police would be held culpable .

    If the police had not opened the Leppings Lane gate, to admit those supporters who arrived late, the said supporters would almost certainly have gone of the rampage and caused mayhem of a significant kind which would have attracted the opprobrium of the public etc. towards the police for NOT opening the gates and admitting the late arrivals.

    I remember an almost identical situation n Glasgow many years ago when it was decided not to open the gates and mounted officers had to be deployed to deal with the irate supporters who declined to disperse.  Criticism fell upon the police for their actions in doing exactly the opposite of what happened at Hillsborough.  It seems that sometimes you just can't win.

    • Like 2

  8. 18 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

    At least she is not promising the unaffordable like a certain Jeremy Corbyn.

    This is so true and it appears to me that if a political party or an individual politician tells the truth about the potential economic situation we face in the future they are doomed to failure.  All parties seem to win elections by promising the earth to the electorate in the form of low taxation or increased benefits of one sort another which involves more spending.  

    I would like to see a cross-party group of politicians, assisted by the most reputable of economists and bankers lay out to the electorate exactly what will happen to our economy if we continue spending at the rate we have been doing for some time now. I doubt if many members of the Labour Party would be willing to participate in such a venture because all they seem to do is make promises about what they intend doing without  identifying where the money will come from.  It should be made abundantly plain to all that governments have no money other than that which they receive from us in the form of taxes or by borrowing.  And even the borrowed money has to be paid back by the taxpayer.


  9. 13 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

    The money could come from the overseas budgets, but it won't. On the Logistics of the whole thing, where are the officers going to come from. It takes time to advertise, recruit, and train to a level where they can actually do the basics of training. It is very easy to lose numbers but extremely difficult and time consuming to replace the. This on't a guesstimate but, I would think that it would take 5 years minimum to recruit and train to manning levels of pre Winsor as Austerity.

    I suspect your estimate of 5 years is not too far out.

    I also agree that the funding could, and probably should, come from the Foreign Aid Budget. However, no matter which party is in power that particular source of cash appears to be sacrosanct. 

  10. On 14/06/2017 at 13:00, Westie said:

    Well, according to what I have seen on the news reports, austerity, and from that I assume the drastic cuts in all quarters, is now going to come to an end. We will see if that does indeed to turn out to be the case (let's hope so).

    Where do you think the money to pay for the end of so-called austerity is going to come from?  This country already has large deficit and if we continue spending at our current levels this can only get worse and lead to even more tremendous economic problems in the future. All political parties wish to remain in power so they bribe the electorate with cash and other benefits to elect them and when it becomes apparent reductions in public expenditure are required they are either afraid of losing power and surrender to those who care nothing for the Country's economic future or they bite the bullet, do the correct thing and suffer the opprobrium of the public at large.

    I actually allow myself a wry smile when I hear talk of austerity. I am old enough to remember the 1950s quite well and austerity really did exist then.  Most of the people who think we are living in a time of austerity  don't really know what they are talking about.

    • Like 1

  11. 22 hours ago, Zulu 22 said:

    Corbyn gathered support from the under 25's especially in University area's. He promised them he would scrap Tuition Fee's to buy their votes. If somebody offered me a financial incentive of between £27K and £72 K then they could certainly buy my vote. He would reintroduce University Grants, Clegg similarly offered the same when he was not in power. When he went into a coalition, and he was in Government, he realised that the country could not afford to do that. Corbyn and McDonald promised the earth and merely said "It has been fully costed" but never satisfactorily said where the money would come from.

    The one good thning to come out of the election is that OC's friend Nicola Sturgeon, and Alex Salmond got a good old kick from the Scottish electorate.

    So true as regards Sturgeon and Salmond and I was also pleased to see Angus Robertson, the odious and unctuous leader of the SNP group at Westminster, losing his seat along with various others in the SNP gang.

    I agree about Corbyn and his bribery offer to sudents in England and Wales.  I read that the annual cost of this would be £12billion and wonder that many young people are so gullible that they would believe Corbyn or accept that such expenditure is sustainable.  Again we have talk of profligate spending emanting from the mouths of scocialist politicians who labour (no pun intended) under the misapprehension that money grows on trees.  Sadly, it falls easliy on the ears of those who believe what they want to hear.

    It is the same with all those other issues such as care for the elderly, and the universal payment of Winter Fuel Allowance etc.  They are all unsustainable in the long term but few politicians have the courage to tackle them head-on or even make reference to them. Theresa May did so in her manifesto and that honesty was part of the reason for the situation she finds herself in today. 

    Perhaps the lesson is that, if you possess even a modicum of integrity or realism, don't enter politics. 



    • Like 1

  12. On 08/06/2017 at 12:47, skydiver said:

    I would find the headlong rush to praise the police and to demand more resources  amusing if it wasn't for the tragic circumstances which brought about the calls.  Even the DM questioned the cuts in one article although normal service was quickly resumed with articles criticising the police for taking too long to ID the victims and because we hadn't kept track on the suspects.  

    I never heard Labour jumping to our defence prior to the election but May's comments reminding voters that Labour called for 10% cuts to the police in 2015 when the Tories were discussing 20-40% cuts to our budget were extremely hypercritical and self serving.  We were only saved from 20% plus cuts because of the Paris attacks which would have been on top of 20% cuts already imposed by the Tories.

    I s[pent all my police service in areas where the Labour Party were politically dominant and with very few exceptions can state that they, and other on the Left, were rarely great fans of the police. I don't think things would change when a current Labour win would have resulted in some if its leadership being people who once wished for the abolition of Special Branch and the disarming of the Police.

    • Like 1

  13. On 08/06/2017 at 15:51, Zulu 22 said:

    It is essential that the identities are known before you try and inform relatives. I had a straight forward Fatal RETC once. Went to the home asking a mother if her son still owned a car Reg No. etc. She replied Yes. We were about to break the sad news when she said, "Oh just a minute he sold it last week". She then called and woke her son who was able to tell us who he had sold it to.

    The cuts came about because of Winsor, and austerity measures but also, indirectly because of the Edmund Davies report which gave guaranteed annual pay rises which had pushed us way above the national levels.. If you think that them Guardian article is correct then seek out some retired officers who were serving prior to 1974.  My father was one and he was in receipt of State benefits because of his family and his wage was so low. In those days officers could not afford cars, foreign holidays, or Gym subscriptions. In 1969 his take home pay was £60 per month including CID allowances and expenses.

    I remember those days well and it was only because I was unmarried that I was not in the same situation as your father.

    Things only changed because of Edmund-Davies which came about largely because of a difficulty to recruit and the further problem of retained those who did join.  Of my intake of 20 only 2 of us completed 10 years service and only 2 of us completed the 30 years necessary to qualify for a pension.   We owe much to those who voted with their feet and resigned.

    Most had gone within the first 5/6 years, as predicted by the Sgt who took us through our first week at training school.


    • Like 1

  14. On 09/06/2017 at 05:56, Reasonable Man said:

    So another hung parliament. Another unexpected result for a Tory leader?
    Five more years of no 'strong and stable' leadership - who can/will the Tories form a government with?
    This election proves however that Labour is not the lost cause that many suggested, UKIP is clearly a spent force and should just go, Scottish voters have moved away from their protest voting at the last election meaning the SNP has lost over 20 seats.
    So now about a year of the two we have to negotiate Brexit will be wasted as our domestic government has to be sorted out and the direction the new government wishes to take us is sorted out.

    Labour may not be a lost cause but I could never bring myself to vote for a party whose leader has been so connected to anti-British terrorist organisations such as PIRA and Hamas. Furthermore, I am old enough to remember previous Labour governments and their profligate spending which caused us great economic harm. Corbyn seems exactly in the same mould. I hope I shall never see another Labour government in this country.


    • Like 1

  15. On 09/06/2017 at 17:25, cheese_puff said:

    Yep, no winners in this election. May has proved herself to be a very bad poker player and has needlessly thrown away a majority. She is very, very stupid. 

    Labour isn't a lost cause - agreed and they have done ok in this election. But only just ok. When you take into account that since 2010, we've had seven years of austerity, apparently another £800 million added to the National Debt, Brexit, as well as the crappy Tory manifesto, Labour's bribe to students of writing off their student debt and loads of other things - Labour have only managed to increase their seat count by three since 2010. Not that impressive. 

    However the Tories have done worse, no question. 

    No matter what other attributes TM possesses, campaigning is clearly not one of them. Part of her problem is that I think she lacked the guile necessary in a politician when announcing in the Conservative Manifesto her Party's intentions regarding the Triple Lock and Social Care for the Elderly. It must have been obvious that these issues would be anathema to many Conservative Party core voters, even though they represent the correct way to go with regard to the long term position regarding the  increasing number of elderly people and the resultant cost to the economy.


  16. All governments will endeavor to achieve policing on the cheap. Policing is an expensive business and as the Police Service does not  normally enjoy the popularity it currently does, due to the recent terrorist events, it is quite easy to make cuts in police budgets. The Police are a fairly easy target. The reality of the situation is, that as a country, we are spending money we don't have and cuts in public expenditure have to be made somewhere.  

    Having said that, I think that governments of all political hues over the past few years have forgotten what their principal duty and function is, and that is the protection  the Realm and its inhabitants.  That being the case, HM Forces, the Police Service, Prison Service, Border Force, MI5 and MI6 and the general Criminal Justice system should receive much more from the public purse that has been the case for many years.

    This should be done even it is means moving money from the Foreign Aid Budget, NHS etc. none of which HMG has a duty to fund. Of course, this would cause uproar especially when it comes to the NHS, but many countries such as the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand do not have a NHS and although I do not advocate disbanding the NHS I think HMG should get its priorities right.


  17. 15 hours ago, Yorkshire said:

    Also, if all cops were to be armed, how would they deal with public order? Currently our firearms cops aren't supposed to get involved in public order incase they are overpowered and have their firearm taken from them.

    A very valid question to which I would be interested to know the answer.  What do they do in countries where the police are routinely armed when they have to deal with public order situations?

    Years ago I spoke to an armed RUC officer who said he had never encountered any problem with this issue and stated he had recently dealt with a large scale disturbance at a dance hall where he ended up struggling on the ground with a prisoner.  He told me he knew of only one instance where a police officer had been cornered and forcibly deprived of his firearm. I also knew a retired Royal Hong Police officer who told me of several instances where criminals had `mugged' patrolling constables with the intention of robbing them of their routinely armed firearm.

    It is a difficult issue and I can think of many public order incidents where I was attacked by a hostile crowd while making arrests and could have had a firearm taken from me. 

    However, whatever the situation I think much of the solution is down to individual officers who volunteer to carry firearms.  Are they really  made fully aware of the highly possible consequences which face them if things go wrong?  Are they willing to accept these consequences and the long term effect they may have on them and their families?.

    • Like 1

  18. On 04/06/2017 at 18:42, movingzachb said:

    After reading the article about the London bridge incident where an officer used only his baton in this against an attacker, maybe its time to start carrying some sort of ready to go small side arm.
    Probably wouldn't hurt. Would not rely on a taser though.


    To an extent I agree with you and I suspect the day is fast approaching when all police officers will have to be armed.  I carried a firearm  while still serving but never had to use it.  I can recollect 2 occasions during my service when officers shot and killed armed criminals and another occasion when one of them wounded an armed man.  They had to go through a period of uncertainty while waiting to be informed if they would be prosecuted and were given little support from the force during that period, despite the fact that the circumstances were patently clear and there was no great public or political outcry for heads to roll.

    However, the position has changed and in several instances in recent years where officers have shot criminals there has been little support for them and  if I was serving nowadays, fear of prosecution etc. would make me wary about volunteering to carry a firearm. The current wave of support for the police in the wake of recent  terrorist events in the UK may well be short-lived: the public are very fickle.


  19. On 05/06/2017 at 22:14, Yorkshire said:

    So to those who think that cops should be armed, what would happen to those serving cops who don't pass the firearms course, or can't shoot accurately on the range? Are they to be disciplined and eventually dismissed?

    Interesting point. What  happens to  police officers in an armed police force in a foreign country, such as USA or France, where all police officers are routinely armed if they fail their periodic firearms qualification? 

  20. On 27/05/2017 at 13:04, Zulu 22 said:

    It is very easy to promise the earth when you will never be in a position to introduce it. Everything has to be paid for and the hard left have no possibility to fund it. Corbyn, McDonald and Abbott seem to be devoid of even the basics of finance. 

    They are also lying. What they are now saying is completely at variance with what they have said in the past and I am of the opinion that are only saying things like hiring extra police etc. in the hope of hoodwinking the electorate.

    Sadly, some are gullible enough to fall for such perfidy.

    • Like 1

  21. 22 hours ago, Mark101 said:

    I would love to walk & cycle all day but bosses say no, as I won't be able to get to the jobs on the computer………….not a bad thing!

    The days of walking are long gone, unless an officer is based in a town centre, other than that a vehicle is required to attend jobs. At this present time we have 30 - 40 jobs on the computer and the other night we stacked 5 immediates due to no resources, so how can bosses allow officers to walk when there are a list of jobs waiting to be attended………it is just not possible.

    The public dictate what we do with the amount of calls they make…………less calls, more walking, more cycling & more proactive work to reduce crime.


    From what I can see and hear from serving officers there is much truth in what you say. However, for many years we encouraged the public to telephone us, no matter how trivial the matter, and this message eventually got through and contributes to the amount of heavy calls experienced today.  I remember a woman phoning in because she found her budgie dead in its cage and being assured that this was OK when she apologised for taking up police time. 

    Also, when I joined and walked the beat we did not have personal radios and relied on police boxes with flashing lights to keep in contact with the station. By the time we saw the light flashing and phoned in to see what we were wanted for and made our way to the street fight, or whatever. the incident was often over.  After we became more mobile we attended incidents more quickly and the public came to expect a speedier response. 

    I think all these things contribute to the situation where it is frequently operationally impossible to deploy regular foot patrols.

    • Like 1

  22. I should have mentioned in my previous post on this subject that I have noticed when police officers ARE walking the beat members of the public stop and look at them. If further proof was required that the walking policeman is a rarity these days, this fact would appear to verify it.

  23. On 27/05/2017 at 13:12, Zulu 22 said:

    It depresses me to say so but, the Government must withdraw the EHRA so that they can deport anyone partaking in terrorism, in any way.

    Totally agree, and if things continue to deteriorate I would hope that HMG give some consideration to internment where appropriate.

    • Like 2