CopOopNorth

Resident Members
  • Content count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About CopOopNorth

  • Rank
    Learning Curve
  1. I think you may be referring to the police public order tactical advisor. They usually work in the force public order department. Perhaps you do mean staff officer- if so, they are generally in an assistants role much like Cheesedoff says (though I wouldn't go as far as lackey!), may keep the policy log updated to document decisions or help in communicating them.
  2. It can depend on local policies. I always wore my full kit until an edict was issued which suggests that the Crown Court would no longer tolerate it. Magistrates are much more relaxed about it than Crown. So after not answering your question, I would suggest just ask a colleague whether to wear full gear or not. It won't be a dumb question.
  3. I seem to always post something negative on here- about the news, or a debate, or something else. Given the chance to say something decent I couldnt miss the rare opportunity!
  4. Meditate- How many crimes does a burglar locked up in prison commit ? I would love to think that every criminal could be reformed but my personal experience tells me that isnt possible unless the punishments are severe. If we remove all ethics from the calculation, as it stands a 'skilled' criminal can make a decent profit from their offending, pay no tax, and then what is the downside? No job security/pension admittedly, but if the punishments are mild and solely focused upon rehabilitation instead of punishment then they are being allowed to make the decision as though it is a choice in which we have no stake. Criminals should fear being caught and punished, I dont think many people really believe that they do as it stands and because of this they are under no pressure to reform or stop offending. I agree that rehabilitation is preferable to an endless cycle of punishment but they are not mutually exclusive, in fact I think strong sentencing is a pre-requisite to encourage rehabilitation. I think we would both agree that the capital punishment example is a unique one and not particularly relevent to this debate. I am aware it has now drifted miles away from the original topic and that I have contributed to that so apologies to the poor sod who has to moderate this discussion but it is an interesting discussion. and yes, James C- having looked back I mis-read one word in your post and it totally changed the meaning, so apologies for that. I do still maintain though that deceit about cautions was far less common that is often claimed and that most people were fully informed of the consequences and made the sensible decision to accept one instead of going to court.
  5. This topic has exposed the lack of understanding around BOP. It was something that used to make me take a sharp intake of breath when I heard of dodgy ones. The problem is that so many officers use this power incorrectly (albeit in good faith) and if someone then violently assaults them during this arrest they would be unable to say they were acting lawfully when assaulted. BOP isnt the convenient catch-all offence many officers seem to think it is. And as for Twizzel's training school tales- I dearly hope you are not in the job because you have misunderstood a fairly important part of the law, and by the way Twizzel- you are the latest person to post a smug remark (in your case- 'and you would have been wrong') immediately before making a completely stupid point.
  6. .......In other words, a local thing? And as for; 'police are put in an awkward situation where the case they have before them could be a violent assault or self-defence and all the evidence they have is biased witnesses from either side with alcohol thrown into the equation and little prospect of any other evidence coming to light. That is what a trial is to determine. Lack of evidence- no further action. Doubt but sufficient evidence to charge- trial. It isnt that complicated.
  7. Meditate, discretion is one thing. Outright ignoring crimes by making yourself the de facto judiciary is another. There are already gravity factors considered in terms of suspect disposal- the suggestion you are making is that if a police officer witnesses criminal damage occurring in front of him and the offence appears complete (the individual appears to have been reckless by climing the flagpole- subjective I know, before we drift further from the point) that he shoud ignore it because that individual might otherwise have to face the consequences of his actions. In my opinion that is not discretion, it is neglect of duty. The law provides that police officers can deal with offences as they deem appropriate within reason, your example is just unacceptable. The inidividual who had his property damaged might be a little upset that a police officer has allowed an offender to walk away scot free and I would understand it. Nobody forces people to break the law, they choose to. If an individual, whether they are about to become a teacher, or fundraise overses, or whatever else, breaks the law then they should face the consequences. James C- If you have arrested and cautioned people and deceived them as to the effect of that caution then that is your own decision. I think it is unethical and I have never done it because I simply do not see the point; To be cautionable you also need to be chargeable. If makes no difference to me which disposal is deemed appropriate. People choose cautions because they know they will end up with a criminal record if they elect to go to court- the caution is their 'get out'. It isnt an outcome with no consequences, but it is not a criminal record. THEY have broken the law, I have no sympathy with people who break the law then expect others to feel sorry for them when they realise that assaulting someone/smashing up property/abusing someone/stealing has a consequence.
  8. What on earth are you going on about? Are you suggesting that the police are breaching legal guidance and cautioning people whom they do not have sufficient evidence to charge? Because if you are then I am interested to hear what evidence you have to support that conspiracy. I will emphasise this once again because you seem to be the sort of person who wilfully ignores the facts when they do not suit- *A suspect cannot be cautioned unless they have admitted to breaking the law, and sufficient evidence exists to charge them with that offence'- it cannot simply be offered as a 'quick resolution'. Instead of just throwing out unsupported arguments perhaps take some time to learn more about the subject you are trying to suggest you have an insight in to, because the points you have just made have added nothing to this debate.
  9. Meditate, you seem to be hand wringing here. For someone to receive a caution they have broken the law and admitted it. On the basis that to be eligible for a caution they must be admitting their guilt their only other option is to decline the caution and appear in court. I am struggling not to laugh in disbelief that as a police officer you do not agree that if someone breaks the law that there should be negative consequences. The law is the law. It does not greatly matter how unfair you think the system is. The judiciary may decide to discharge a defendant and if the offender believes they are being hard done by in being given a caution then they can elect to have their day in court and try their luck. There was some truth in police criminalising some people for the sake of figures, but your approach is an utter farce. You are suggesting that a dishonest or violent person who breaks the law should be in no way disadvantaged when they are up against a law-abiding person who had the same opportunities to steal from or hurt others but did not. You may be the only person left in the country who thinks we are too harsh on criminals!
  10. This poster posted once 11 months ago, I doubt you will get a reply. Yet another thread where people dont want to take the consequences of their misbehaviour! Behave yourselves and you won't have these problems, instead there is always some excuse.
  11. Some good advice in this thread. I would agree with nearly all of it- you sound like a decent person from your post. The ability not to take yourself too seriously is important! One very good pointer in this thread was Kopite's- about not trying to fit in too desperately. Be yourself, show you are decent, willing to try (even if you make mistakes- we all did!) and learn. First impressions count and, whilst it may be hypocricy, most of the officers you work with may talk about the job as though it is awful, look scruffy, swear, moan about going to particular incidents etc but will be very quick to be put out if you do any of those from the beginning. Deep down the vast majority of the PCs you work with will love the job and the culture of police is such that relatively new people (PCs, SCs, PCSOs, and so on) shouldn't be seen to be critical of anything even if it is done to try and build relationships. You may see friendly individuals become quite defensive if they feel their role is being even slightly denigrated even if you havent done anything maliciously. The Police has such varied characters, from quiet souls, to quality investigators, to those who you breathe a sigh of relief when they arrive to back you up at a fight, graduates and people who left school at 16, but what seems to unite such a broad spectrum of people is the determination to try and do something good- even if to say as much in person would seem cringeworthy- and so I go back to my original point that all you need to be is yourself and enjoy it and you will be accepted very quickly.
  12. Psd

    I would be surprised if they ask you what you think if PSD and even if they did- it is a question of your own viewpoint isnt it? It makes a mockery of the recruitment process if you need to ask others to tell you what you should think about integrity issues.
  13. DTaylor- I enjoy a healthY debate as much as anyone, but be honest- your post is just a trolling one isnt it? It is mildly amusing in fairness because you are like a comic caricature of a Daily Mail reader but it is shame you are trying to merely provoke a reaction rather than have a debate because your post almost touches on subjects worth of reasoned discussion- it doesnt though, so my post sadly ends here!
  14. why are you asking please?
  15. Sorry- if someone "moves towards constable "A" with fists clenched" do you not think the understandable response would be to suspect you are about to be assaulted? You must be apprehending some level of unlawful force to even be considering that behaviour justifying you to increase the level of force you will be using on the suspect. In these circumstances, even without a warrant out- I would believe I would going to be assaulted and use force to prevent it from occurring. So it is an assault when the individual approaches with their fists clenched.