Felix.

Indeed it is and it’s sometimes the witnesses that either do not want to go to court or change an aspect of their account when cross examined in the box and then blame the system for not giving them justice






We can’t just ignore the fact that there are 2 drunks fighting – we have a duty of care to prevent loss of life, injury and protect other members of the public in affray type situations.

I agree, longer sentences would help but we will still have to deal with the offences as they come in. Traffic police is scaled down where we are, one major crash and the traffic division is wiped out, leaving us to pick up the pieces of any other crash that comes in

How is an ANPR camera going do the job of 10 panda cars...? How is that going to deal with domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc.



We do, we get units to leave non urgent incidents to go to others. But we sometimes become depleted and people will have to wait – especially if it’s a non emergency. Arriving home to find your house burgled and the persons have gone is very bad but not necessarily an emergency response situation. Would you divert a unit from a missing from home, another burglary, a domestic assault for it? It will figure high on any event queue, but sometimes people will just have to wait for the next available unit. And if you do decide to divert someone, who picks up that original job

Kwik

iTrader: (10)

By this time they would have made a statement, which is a witness account. If that statement alters then surely the original statement is a lie?.


I thought the police were about crime prevention?. Can you provide statistic's to show how arrests on a Friday and Saturday night have dropped over the past 10 years?. Are you preventing crime more outside a club than if you were patrolling the streets?


How often do traffic attend "domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc."
I would suggest you are all trained to handle any situation. Then it is about allocation, man management the same as any other service/business.



In the same way a speed camera operates. Again though this is about importance of crime rather than statistics, or generating revenue. It's also about public opinion and common sense.
Unfortunately the authorities cannot see the difference between doing 37mph in a 30 zone, and driving without an MOT/Insurance. It also cannot see how public opinion differs between the 2, or speeding outside of a school.
9/10 motorists would agree to swapping ANPR camera's for speed camera's.

As an example my mrs' MOT ran out recently. As much as this is her responsibility (or mine) to keep on top of, the DVLA database is aware as well. Insurance companies send out automatic reminders, if the local authority or DVLA did the same this would prevent a crime. And this again is about public perception, are the police there to prevent crimes or just there to set traps?



The less officers dealing with number plates and fighting outside pubs, the more there are to assist in other area's only when there aren't any (domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc) should you attend the "great number-plate-lettering" fraud.


I'd imagine this one of of the most horrifying situations and it worries me it is low down on police priorities. Rather than looking at a situation as a chance of arrest, why is it not looked at importance of when the public requires support?.



Again I'd go back to repeat offenders. Domestic assault for example, lets say you visit 100 address' for domestic assault a year, are they 100 different address' or do the same name's and address' crop up repeatedly?.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

This is what I love about SN. Here are people getting up in arms about the rights of the police to stop and check a vehicle yet if someone stole their beloved Subaru they'd want every Subaru in the country stopped immediately.

To be honest I don't have an issue with the police even randonly stopping people if they choose to. My car is insured, taxed and I have a valid driving licence. I don't drive under the influemce so if they want to stop me they are very welcome. If my car had been stolen I would be even happier if they stopped it. I can't work out why people think it is such a big issue! Let the police get on with it FFS!

RA Dunk

Same here, I would actually encourage them to stop my car just incase it does happen to be in the process of being stolen.

In most cases (but not all) it's the motorist or who ever it is that's being dealt with that tends to be the stroppy **** first.

Felix.

I’d like to know what they would expect the police to do here.

If you lived on a nice quiet street and had a car doing handbrakes turns and doughnuts, decided to phone the police. Would you be happy if the police informed you that the vehicle was stopped but we couldn’t do anything to the driver as he wasn’t allowing police to speak with him, so we had to let him go.... Or would they want a more positive approach

Tidgy

i'd give up mate, your fighting a loosing battle with him.

i find most officers on a personal level dealing wit them they are fine, peopel are just disalusioned by what peopel get away with and how police are regulated.

Felix.

Or their account at court is a lie. Either way, sometimes cases are lost at court by the quality of the witnesses or their unwillingness to attend court. I can remember one case hitting the papers about a girl and her mother furious with the court for letting her attacker walk away scot free. But as you read on, it turned out that the girl and her two friends refused to provide statements or go to court over it. Hence the suspect (innocent until proven guilty) walks. Sometimes, the evidence just isn’t watertight and there is nothing anyone can do about it. (fingerprints being found at the scene being too smudged to make a positive identification)




Crime prevention is always impossible to quantify – I would say that the number of arrests around the town per head of people there would be about the same. But don’t forget the decline of numbers hitting the town centres now, but you have a constant new crop of revellers hitting the town with their egos and their failure to control their drink. You can argue that where ever we are has an effect on preventing crime. There are also other incidents around the town centres other than drunken fights – parked cars being broken into, shops & businesses being burgled (using the revellers noise as a good distraction), finding the missing from homes who are trying to get into clubs.



They attend them quite often if emergency response and neighbourhood teams are tied up. So do dog section, firearms, CID etc etc.
Traffic – you will have about 3-4 cars out cover the whole county on a given time. A major crash and they are all tied up. But even the simple minor injury shunts, the victim would expect a level of service from the police. Would you be happy if they suddenly left the scene of this incident to go to another one half way through and never return....

It’s the same on response and the neighbourhood teams. We all carry various enquiries too – crimes that need investigating (witness statements, CCTV enqs, forensics). We need to be allowed to complete these enquiries also as victims of these crimes are wanting a positive response from it. If I’ve arranged to take a witness statement from you on a given evening, would you be happy that part way through I will have to stop and walk out to another incident..?






Panda cars are the response cars, these are the ones going to the different emergencies and other jobs on the streets – you can’t replace these with a camera. You need the crews to deal with the incidents when they arrive.

I think you will find that the insurance companies are trying to get you business as opposed to preventing a crime. You will look at your MOT certificate when you get the tax, so you should be aware of the date and in any event, most courts won’t prosecute unless you are miles over you test date. If you are stopped and have no valid MOT, chances are if you get it tested straight away (or within a week) nothing will happen. I’m not sure of the cost implication to the tax payer of having to send out reminders every year to people with cars – but hey, if it stops people forgetting to renew, I’m all for it





True, but if I’m travelling to a shop theft where the suspect has gone – and I’m behind a car with no number plates, lights or whatever – do I ignore it. Or would you expect me to at least stop the car and find out why. If you were behind me (having just spent £40 to get your car MOT’d) would you be happy that I had just ignored it and driven off...




It is high up. We have a dedicated response team just for burglaries, if they are tied up it will go to the next available unit. But there has to be an event queue. A burglary which has just happened will have an immediate response to it as (like you say) a good chance of catching the culprit – not only from searching the area but a forensic aspect too. But a burglary that has happened ages ago may have to wait a while. And I’m not saying days either – it should be (and will be) the next unit to attend.





No, the same ones will crop up time and time again, but we cannot ignore them, and they will be high up on the response queue as most serious injuries and murders come from domestics. Like I say we have duty of care for the victims of crime – but we can’t be in all places at the same time.

dpb

Well I suppose it speaks volumes for and we should be grateful for living in civilised country
?
Lots places around the world this c**t wouldn't have got beyond the second mention of bacon with his legs intact

stipete75

i mean fines where only common sense is needed.
mobile speed cameras at the bottom of very steep hills were maintaing 30mph can be difficult,,mobile speed cameras by law should only be used in accident balck spots as a deterant not a source of easy incomefor the corporations.

The police have NO right to ask me to exit my vehicle or ask my name if a law Has not been broken, people just dont know this and comply anyway.
if a law has been witnessed to be broken then YES the police have every right, your a policeman you should know the laws of the land.

The same stands for a random stop in public streets, the police(public servants) have have no right to ask you of anything if a breach of the peace hasnt occured. 99% of the police think they are above the law when that **** looking costume is on.
you took an oath to protect and serve the british public,you are a public servant for us, that costume gives you no right to bully people,after all you are one of us.

i dont trust police,its all 100% lies and cover ups to protect them and the corporations(who are the biggest criminals),if you cant see that or dont know that then sadly you need wake up.

reasons why i will never like or trust the police.

this is why i think the police were real public servants in the 60s
the many many bad cops ruin it for the minority

ScoobyWon't

I looked at criteria regarding S.5, during my probabation, and a judge said that experienced officers should not be alarmed by bring called names. Fair do's, get the probationary officer, who isn't experienced to nick him.

"No your honor, I'm not experienced. I haven't finished my probationary period yet". You've got to love the Ways & Means Act 2013

ScoobyWon't

Ok, if you insist. Let's imagine this scenario:

You've just been burgled. CID turn up at your front door to investigate.

Officer: "Hello. Are you Mr stipete75?"

You: "You have no right to ask my name".


Yeah, that works doesn't it...

stipete75

That's just silly.
My old house was burgled about 12 years ago and my car vandalised 2 months later, no one was ever caught for both, all I got for my car was a crime number, they didn't even come out to me,probs to busy fining someone for a small number plate or harassing someone in the cells

ScoobyWon't

You get 6 months in training school where you have to learn all of the different laws, write numerous essays, pass multiple exams, complete equality and diversity training (which is a complete waste of a week of anyone's life - "You can't treat everyone the same but you can't treat them all differently"), learn officer safety, spend a week learning how to use the thousands of unconnected IT systems, go out role-playing, learn how to put cones out without getting run down, take your driving test again, learn how to inspect vehicles and only after all of that, do you get to go out and put it in to action. In my opinion, there is too much to learn, which isn't trained efficiently in too short a period of time. In any other job, you'd get two years to learn what is being fitted in to 6 months.

And it doesn't help that the Government enforced compulsory retirement on the officers with experience.

Felix.

Oh dear....

Road traffic act for one states that you have to give your name if stopped – how else do we know who is driving the car and if you allowed to do so.

We can also check your vehicle to see if its road worthy – we cannot do this if you are sat in it – hence we can get you out.

PACE gives us various powers to search the car, which we cannot do if you are sat in it.

The ‘break in the law’ doesn’t necessarily have to have been witnessed – we just need reasonable suspicion that one has been or about to be committed. This will give us the powers for above.


How about if a suspected crime has occurred – if we think you have been involved in say a theft we have the power to stop you and search you if necessary. If you have been identified as a possible suspect for a criminal damage by clothing description we can stop you.

There are2 basic ways to deal with offences – arrest & charge or report for summons. If going down the summons route, we will need to know your name & address so that a summons can be served. If you refuse to provide these (and an offence has occurred) we can arrest you as the serving of a summons will not be possible.

Infected by sti

iTrader: (6)

Felix, does the police have the authority to just remove you from your car? I believe the answer to be no
So if that's the case do you have to have a valid reason to ask for a breath test? ( general question ) as otherwise wouldn't that be a "bullying tactic" if the police just rolled out "the breath test" on every motorist they stopped that had some kind of knowledge of the laws? I'm not trying to pick an argument just generally interested as if I was to refuse to get out of my car like the guy in the video did for instance but provided all the details you needed in order to run your checks, have the police got any valid reason to ask me to leave my property? I'm not saying its a bad thing the police do these stops etc, but where does my privacy enter the equation? Surely they can't just use the excuse of a breath test if they stopped me and I was fully insured, car was mot'd and taxed, you can do all visual checks on the tyres etc without having to gain entry to the vehicle, was not speeding or breaking any laws and my driving was inline and nothing dangerous.

Half the time I have been stopped previously (its been a while now mind ) has had nothing to do with my driving or nothing showing on records for the car, but I do believe it was because I was in a car that catches their eyes and makes a bit more noise than the others, understandably if I was driving like a muppet then its to be expected, but following me for over 3 miles when they have probably already been on the radio checking out the car details and seeing they all come back inline, then what other reason than to check my name which i can do by winding down the window, should they have to ask me to leave my car, I've never refused but what if I wanted to is what I'm trying to get at? Apart from the usual breath test, or smelling a substance in the vehicle which would give them the power to search it, is there any law that states we must get out of the car if we are providing the details asked of us?

Not all officers are the same it has to be said, just like most of us who own a Subaru ain't a Chav or want it to act like a twàt, but it has to be said there are those who put on that uniform and think they are untouchable/invincible, those are the morons I have no time for and as far as I'm concerned they are not acting out of "duty of care" they are power driven *** wholes who think they are above the rest, and with no disrespect to anybody but they are the wànkers that get the publics back up, you could see the one officer in that video towards the end with his hands tucked in his jacket having a snigger at the guy in the car, you just know as soon as he has the chance he is going to be all over him like a rash, all because the guy knew his rights, albeit could have had a little more respect towards them and handled the situation a bit better but hey what ever works best

stipete75

So it's all premeditated?? Like the film Minority report!!
If you are a criminal and just committed a crime then yes expect a pat down from the police,,if I'm walking down the street shopping(the government like it when I go shopping) I don't expect the police to corner me and harass me,how dare they ask my details and invade my privacy ,I'm going about my own buisness and committed no crime or breach of the peace
your reasonable suspicion is way out of line!!
So if the "big corporations" change the law and now it's illegal to carry a bag in public because I may be of a terrorist threat would you comply and arrest innocent people carrying bags just because the "corporation" says you have to do it??
This country is turning more and more into a **** state it's unreal,,people just don't see it!!
we will just agree to disagree on the subject
I know my rights were the police are concerned
Just out of curiosity with out googling it,,do you know the difference between legal and lawfull?

Yes if an offence has occurred you have every right to do what the "corporation" tells you to do.

ScoobyWon't

In Notts the policy is that you request that a sample of breath be taken if there is any reason to suspect a road traffic offence may have occurred.

That could be a cyclist, not just a car driver.

In training, you are taught how to extract someone from a car with force. There must be a reason they teach that...

My favourite though, was an old school officer (he probably trained with DCI Gene Hunt ) who told a few of us how they used to get people out of cars. It was a bit like this "Your girlfriend has a nice dress on. It would be a shame to get your blood on it"

ScoobyWon't

How many times have you been nicked?

stipete75

Thats a bit of a immature request, just because I research my rights on the subject doesn't mean I'm a serial offender lol
If you really must know the last time I crossed the law was before my eldest was born and he is now 13
If speeding counts then about 3 years ago going down a steep hill at 36mph
Police car was hidden behind a van,,,easy £60

ScoobyWon't

Just baiting. Nothing personal.

stipete75

I know
Nothing wrong with a healthy debate, about a subject that actually matters to the people

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I fully agree with you. I am past the age now where I feel the need to challenge authority and appear 'hard' in front of my mates. I have never had a bad experience with the police. The times where I have had dealings with them (stolen car, burglary and malicious calls) they have been helpful and sympathetic. Granted there are bad apples in the police as there in all walks of life. By and large in my experience the police do a good job under often very difficult circumstances. Furthermore if you look at how misdemeanours are dealt with in other countries, you realise our police quite lenient in comparison.

ScoobyWon't

Before I escaped from the police (the job, not from custody ), the last person who told us she 'knew her rights' tried to hit a police dog with her handbag and then wondered why it tried to get to her...

ScoobyWon't

Only difference is that in the Police they are referred to as Sir or Ma'am.

Felix.

Each incident will be taken on its merits, but in this one I would suggest his manner of driving (handbrake turns and doughnuts) would be enough for a moving traffic offence and hence a power to provide a specimen of breath. I would also argue that doing this type of manoeuvre would lead to damage to his car’s braking system, so they should be checked. It may also be prudent to check that the car is not stolen as most people don’t drive their own cars like this (so chassis and vim check)

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I just cannot understand this kneejerk reaction to police by some folk. It is prevalent amongst those whose education is inversely proportionate to the size of chip on their shoulder.

stipete75

There's no denying the guy in question acts like a complete wa?£er and maybe he could of gone about it a bit more tactfully.
His supposed manner of driving is neither here nor there as the police witnessed nothing, it was a random annonimous public phone call that to this albeit to££er being harassed by the police,could of led to an arrest with absolutely zero evidence!!
On the other hand a copper can be filmed murdering an innocent man with a baton and still get away with it

Felix.

Then you won’t be stopped, or be in obligation to stop or say anything – I agree.

But if a crime has been committed close by and a witness (or 2) provides details of a suspect which happens to match your description – do you think we will be wrong to stop you. How do you feel the victim of the crime will feel if he finds out that ‘a person matching the suspect’s description was allowed to walk by un challenged’
How?
No. Nobody (including higher police ranks) can force officers to arrest. Officers do so if there is a necessity to do it. I would suggest if loads of people are carrying bags, then they are not going to do it are they.
Again.... How?

Not sure of the actual definitions without looking them up, but I would suggest legal conforms to a specific law which is laid down. Whereas lawful conforms to rule as opposed to a law. (ie a lawful order)

Felix.

It was a member of the public who phoned police to complain about this lad driving like a loony. His statement will be the evidence. You can also look at CCTV and gather other witnesses by door knocking.

If you were that person phoning the police to complain about the car handbrake turning on your quiet road, would you be happy with police turning up and doing nothing. And reporting back to you that “there’s nothing we can do cos he wouldn’t talk to us”

I suggest it should have been dealt with better for the benefit of the original caller

Infected by sti

iTrader: (6)

Again no argument intended

But what if I just didn like someone and thought i would ring the police and report them for something they didn't do (I'm not implying the guy in the video is innocent ), lets just say they done it to myself, the police are called and turn up, now I know in myself I have done nothing wrong, the police have not witnessed any wrong doing or any laws being broken, so does this give them the right to gain entry to my property and possessions based on someone elses phone call, "inocent until proven guilty". Again where is my protection, my privacy, my rights? I am the person that is going to be left vulnerable in that situation, nervous as hell because I don't know why I've been stopped or approached (previous experience), so I'm probably going to seem a little "out of sorts" shall we say, but to the police that's a sign of suspicion which in turn escalates the situation and the way someone inturn is reacting. Its a bit of a catch 22 really can't be right by doing what comes natural in certain circumstances

I'm not implying anything by this I'm just trying to say the law its self is a little grey in areas, its understandable why there are procedures with ways of dealing with calls, solving theft of someone's property, vandalism etc but if someone is to question an officer or argue their rights, it almost seems some officers just don't like to be wrong, or always thinking because they wear a uniform it puts them above the rest of society as a whole and will find anyway of arresting you if it's at all possible, even if its totally unrelated to the reason they stop you, I've encountered an officer like this before, I was on my way home in the early hours one morning when I was stopped, I was doing nothing out of the ordinary and he was the other side of a blind roundabout so basically he couldn't see me approaching, i had my signal on, in the correct lane etc and as soon as he seen the car he changed lanes and instantly stopped me, literally in the space of 15 secs of seeing me his lights came on, I sat in the car waited for him to come with my window down, he instantly came throug my window and turned my car off and tried to remove my keys. For what reason? He was really short and highly strung and because I gave him the same attitude he showed me he tried to arrest me lmfao! I argued with him as to why, and he gave me some shody excuse about my car not being registered to me, how the hell would he know that? He didn't even take the time to ask my name let alone any details, in the end he radio'd for a traffic car to come who turned up asked me what was what, I explained what happened, showed him all my docs, he done his checks an then apologised for the other officer, so even he knew he was being a jerk for no reason.

Its those people who give the police a bad name and who are out to fine you for what ever they can get away with because "they can". I have to be honest tho you do seem a really decent guy who actually likes his job, as you have taken the time to put across some valid points and some good counter arguments, so as I said before your not all alike