• Announcements

    • Sir Penguin

      Resident Moderator Applications   01/07/2017

      All,  Can I please make you aware of the following announcements. Resident Moderator Applications - Applications are open until 31st January 2016 UK Police Online Team


Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


blueb last won the day on May 28 2016

blueb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Excellent


About blueb

  • Rank
    Regular User
  • Birthday
  1. Avoid using too many sir/ma'am etc you can have a healthy, respectful conversation without using either their 'rank' or name. As the applicant is not yet a member of the thayer, using sir/ma'am can be a little squirmy in the conversation unless you're used to it. Be natural.
  2. Why not go back to that same lawyer and ask how to go about getting it removed?
  3. equally, a USP or niche part of the market is a provider selling not to companies, big players etc, rather they sell to the small scale consumer, with a law that is far from clear cut and clearly set out with opportunities for all involved to get it wrong.
  4. There isn't even a need as a purchased to pretend to be a catering company. No reason why I/they can't buy it for catering purposes (for example) and yet have no need to be a business, I may well want to have fluffy cream for a private function, I have absolutely no need to prove I'm a business/ catering company. Pretty slim requirements on the retailers to remain legit but it looks like our OP knows that already! Alas that can also mean pretty easy to circumvent those requirements.
  5. So, in brief, your looking to start your own business, not sure of the legalities which may DIRECTLY result in the loss of your business or be personally subject to fines, and whether its worthwhile getting your on, independent legal advise? Your supplier could/should provide some guidance, if nothing else, what are their T&Cs to you, if they don't have any or your thinking of buying from a less than legit source then perhaps your business plan is in need of a full review. The polite suggestion is to seek your own legal advise as it will affect you and your future business.
  6. Thanks. However you look at it, as the Nat H&S rep it sounds like your being asked to do something that puts you/others at a greater risk than needed, and in some ways the risk your being put to and that of others is higher than the potential risk your attending.
  7. Working traffic census has its highs and lows but surprisingly they often have an important role in decision making that can only be achieved by asking the actual road users. That the people asking the questions may have looked like students doesn't mean the questions have any less value. As you didn't partake, you'll never know! As a result all drivers when so directed are required to go through the census check but do not have to participate with failure to go as direct by the officer is an offence. Out of interest they way your intro read of trying to get to an incident swiftly in your van suggests it was either an unmarked one or perhaps had a company logo on the side. There can be quite a few motorists who are not always keen to pass through a census and ask not to. It gets to a point where you says "yes you do have to go" almost irrespective of the reason / excuse given by the driver. Perhaps your eagerness to go to a vague place some distance away put over an attitude that buffed the officer and you both came to a frosty solution. The suggestion of arrest is sometimes a fast and succinct way of getting over a message, in the same way as you may have said 'I'm going to see about some kids on the line' Out of interest, presumably this was reported as a 'near miss'event to your supervisor and management to progress so as to identify any needs / shortfalls in your current systems. Perhaps as a National health & safety rep you could progress the matter with your management to review the current method of dealing with people on the rails which is not always working as well as it could and therefore compromising your/their safety. Similarly, on reflection as a National H&S rep does the risk assessment and method statement within your company's safe system of work really come unto the mark by asking you to undertake, what you perceive as an urgent task, in that vehicle, in that condition and with your current level of driver training. Perhaps, and I suggest this to you as the National H&S rep that had you had an accident/collission enroute, were you operating within your training, was your supervision sufficient, were the controls in place and being applied. Overall you could use this incident as a significant real world event to overhaul how you and your colleagues may be exposed to avoidable risks. Of course, and I put this as a final caveat, perhaps your eagerness to respond was over and above what was being expected of you under the circumstances and had an accident / collision occurred that you were not fully within your safe system of work? I apologise as the latter part is all off topic of the census
  8. Absolutely agree. One of the thing to think about when wanting to specialise in 3 quite diverse roles even before getting a uniform is realising if you go for the full time then 30 plus years is a longtime. And at some stage you would come away from that speciality. The other thing to think about is how disappointed or prepared you would be to take an alternative career route if you didn't get one of the specialisms
  9. So we're you in the driving seat or was the girlfriend? If it wasn't you, then why did they deal with you who was neither the driver or owner? What was the reason They issued the S59 or was it all directed to the girlfriend? Oops, not sure why your upset at being disturbed. Had you been the rapist (as per your example) then your girlfriend would have been most grateful for the police interest! Or did you have a sign saying "consenting adults" in the window?
  10. May I quote you, unattributed, on some shooting forums? That statement really is most illustrative.You can if you want, but I should caution you that I am not a police officer, it's personal opinion only.Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I should have done... As I've said in my reply to blueb, it's not the licenced holder of firearms that may be the threat/risk. There are other factors that the licencee may not be a party to that should/must be taken into consideration. I'd have thought that would be either a phone call/letter/email by the FEO or a prompted visit by local officers unless an individual person/ location in which case it may be more a crime prevention role that certificate specific which was more where ther OP seemed to be going. But I now see where you were coming from
  11. As the Chief Officer of police for the area concerned has the authority to judge it necessary, and by the mere fact that there are firearms in a premises, there must be, by definition, a risk of harm no matter how small. Therefore, the police can undertake unannounced visits to any certificate/licence holder. I can see where your going with the idea that because there is a firearm on the premises there is a risk of harm but in this context IMHO that would be an inappropriate deduction / conclusion. Surely the whole point of the application / renewal system along with controls on storage, purchase of ammunition etc that the risk of harm is all but avoided and the premises is in a state of 'normal'. In effect, the risk of harm would not warrant police checks (unannounced visits) unless there was info/intel that raised above that normal status. In practical terms most cert holders would have no problem and be co-operative, but as the BASC describes, if it was a visit to my door, I'd want to have a very good understanding of the purpose of the visit and then make a decision of yay or nay. If they were interested enough to really want to make an official visit where they are concerned about the firearms/ conditions etc then they can either arrange an interview or get a warrant. If the FEO came with a bit of a wooly reason for a visit, I wouldn't see how an adverse inferrence could be made if the holder gave a woolly refusal and proposed a re-visist within a reasonable time. If its that serious then there is always the route of a warrant but that takes us away from the OP
  12. No reason why unannounced visits can be made, entry by consent and no reason why you have to comply - and from a quick look, nothing says you MUST. As far as security goes, what better than the cert holder asking for ID, confirmation phone calls to the police HQ etc etc etc Even if the stuff is lying on the kitchen table whilst the cert holder is watching TV, not exactly a de facto case of poor security - they have to be cleaned, just used / about to use etc. None the less, if its intel led then they would presumably have a fairly good reason to visit - additional stuff compared to certificate being the more obvious one
  13. Look at the relevant legislation for your definitions before exploring others - in this case Theft Act '68. As BlueBoy85 showed (4)References in subsections (1) and (2) above to a building, and the reference in subsection (3) above to a building which is a dwelling, shall apply also to an inhabited vehicle or vessel, and shall apply to any such vehicle or vessel at times when the person having a habitation in it is not there as well as at times when he is. So your canal boat that' used to live in (inhabited) would satisfy the definition whereas the canal boat fitted out as a dredger or out container wouldn't. Don't be distracted by the Local Government definition and such like - it has nothing to do with burglary. Only resort to them when all else fails from within the act itself, any act to which it refers or other similar acts.
  14. If caught driving you would still be treated as a disqualified driver - so court etc. Your condition may be considered in terms of how you are dealt with by way of fine etc. Have a thought about the impact on your husband if you are caught - impact on insurance, potential to report you was stealing the veh or giving permission to drive whilst disqualified and possible prosecution to him as well. An interesting matter but that would in no way negates the fact you are not permitted to drive.
  15. There are probably not too many casinos or officers who directly deal with international enquiries, and relatively few direct offences to investigate/ enforce. But would EU regs remain in our current legislation and be amended as the EU standards change - things like drivers hours regs, Markings and standards for vehicle components or standards (speedometer or lights for example) Would it change our / their acceptance of eu driving licences for example?