Jump to content

Police


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 672
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My dear friends,

 

For obvious reasons, I do not intend to engage in debate on a matter, which is subject to investigation.

 

My deepest sympathies lie with this gentleman's family, as, I believe will be those of my colleagues and peers - regardless of whatever the circumstances are found to have been.

 

As to the topic of the manner in which we police, and the "personality" of ALL police officers - once again collectively tarnished by the perceived actions of the tiny minority - I will only say this.

 

To wit, we, the police, have the following core role, responsibilities and duty, which may be found here...

 

www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents/police.htm

 

I have stated herein before that the Law is, for the most part, particularly unforgiving when it comes to those servants who infringe it - despite what some might believe. I would ask you to believe me when I say that internal disciplinary procedures are also to be taken into account, and these require only the Civil level of proof, i.e. the balance of probability, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. Our Force has a very high standard, to which all Officers are expected to adhere.

 

As to the public having a right to know of outcomes of enquiries, no Police force, that I know of, is in the practice of habitually naming and shaming any person suspected or charged with an offence. If this were to be applied to Police, it would have to be applied to all. The Human Rights Act provides any individual the right to privacy. Although there may be exceptions to this particular Article of the Act, I do not believe that satisfying the curiosity of the public would be sufficient to breach same. If the information enters the public arena through other means, such as Press reports of Court cases, that is another thing entirely, and I would not expect this to be instigated by Police.

 

I remain proud to be a Police officer, as - in the long run, my colleagues and I can only be held accountable for our individual actions, rather than the perceived actions of officers in other Forces - and I remain, as ever,

 

Your humble servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post script

 

No officer was "wearing a scarf". Officers with specific training and duties regarding certain public order situations are routinely issued with - and expected to wear - protective facegear, worn under their helmets. This is a flame-retardant material, which leaves the eyes uncovered - other than by the helmet visor - however it protects the nose and mouth from inhaling flame, or being exposed to excessive heat. Rioters have been known, on occasion, to offer up what used to be referred to as "Molotov Cocktails" to front line officers in such situations. Police, therefore, responded by issuing such flame-retardant apparel, which I, myself, have been known to cut a dash in, on occasion.

 

While less than comfortable, it is, sadly, sometimes necessary.

 

Your humble servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the public having a right to know of outcomes of enquiries, no Police force, that I know of, is in the practice of habitually naming and shaming any person suspected or charged with an offence. If this were to be applied to Police, it would have to be applied to all. The Human Rights Act provides any individual the right to privacy. Although there may be exceptions to this particular Article of the Act, I do not believe that satisfying the curiosity of the public would be sufficient to breach same. If the information enters the public arena through other means, such as Press reports of Court cases, that is another thing entirely, and I would not expect this to be instigated by Police.

 

As long as the Police hide behind the Human Rights act citing the individual's right to privacy, as justification for dealing with their bad apples and misjudgements quietly behind closed doors. They are going to have to tolerate a significant percentage of the public who believe the Police are not to be trusted, and individuals within the force get away with things they shouldn't, simply because no proof is ever made available to suggest otherwise.

 

To simply say "trust us", behaviours which arise within the force that shouldn't are properly dealt with, is having your cake and eating it. Trust needs to be earned, and every time an incident occurs that involves an officer for which nothing is ever made public of what becomes of it, a little bit more of what trust may have previously existed is eroded until there is none left with a lot of people. The force, and by default victims of reported crime are the losers when you have a body of people who do not trust the Police one bit, and refuse to assist or cooperate with the force in any way. When cooperation is being witheld it can only create a situation where the force's task becomes harder, and the probability of any one given reported crimes being successfully dealt with less likely. It makes no odds to those who do distrust and do not assist and cooperate, they expect nothing, and even if they themselves are victims of crime they don't bother reporting it, as they don't believe its worth doing. They expect nothing out, so they put nothing in, and they get no more than they expect, so they're quite happy.

 

The Police as an entity need to decide whether the trust and co-operation of the general public or the right to privacy of an individual officer, when their conduct while on duty is is questionable, is of the greatest importance, as trying to have both as you are just now is an impossibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master Rider,

 

I would, once again, take this opportunit to remind my peers, herein, that I do not represent, nor claim to represent, my esteemed colleagues or employers in any way, shape or form, on this thread, or any other. My purpose in joining and posting is, I would hope, well established and understood.

 

I would also submit that it would be a poor detective, indeed, who had not already ascertained, from your previous posts, that you have established trust issues with your local constabulary. :wink:

 

And yet, I believe it is worth pointing out that, whilst you - and several others herein, no doubt - believe yourself to have valid reasons for your stance, you do not appear to be representative of all of the good folk of Shetland.

 

It is well documented that Shetland has a higher detection rate than any other area in the Force. It would, therefore, seem that, rather than victims losing out, or the community declining to assist us, the reverse could be held to be the case.

 

I rather hope - and experience both here and elsewhere in the Force area appears to bear this out - that people respond to the individual more than they do the uniform one wears, or organisation one represents. To suggest otherwise, would be akin to bearing a grudge against an entire country for the actions of two or three of the occupants, were it to be extrapolated to conclusion. I, for one, have experiences mistrust from a few in these isles, however the vast majority have - as I suggested - responded to the professional and courteous manner in which they were dealt, and responded in kind.

 

I am sure that this is not what some wish to hear, and I am sure there are some areas in which we could all be better, else we would be divine, rather than human.

 

For my own part, I shall continue in my usual fashion and, like the vast majority of my fellows, seek to provide the service, which I am sworn to, to the good folk of Shetland.

 

I would like to think that these same good folk will not judge me any more harshly for the perceived actions of any officer in London.

 

Your humble servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post script

 

No officer was "wearing a scarf".

 

OK, thanks for the explanation, but my point was that his face is not visible. He is also the only officer in the line who is masked in this way. Without shoulder tags he is therefore anonymous.

 

Why do you think he has taken off the tags from his jacket?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In such circumstances, each officer bears a unique designation by which they may be identified, other than epaulettes. This was the case with each officer involved in the protests.

 

As to the issue of lack of epaulettes, without having been present, it is impossible for anyone to say. However, one perfectly plausible and reasonable explanation would be to point out that, earlier in the day, many "ordinary" uniformed officers were not wearing high visibility jackets. If this officer was one of those, and was also public order trained, he might be called to assist in a public order capacity (those helmeted officers bearing shields should all have some modicum of such training). Were he to be called upon, in such a capacity, he might not have a high visibility jacket available, and, therefore, might borrow one from a fellow officer. Should this be the case, he would be expected to remove the owner's own epaulettes, so as to avoid confusion. I, pesonally, know of several such situations, and would see this as being perfectly reasonable.

 

As previously stated, any such officer is always identifiable to another, regardless of headgear or apparel, so this fellow would - in all likelihood - have been identified, regardless.

 

Your humble servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has also come forward. I wonder if the rioters have done likewise. After all they claim to be doing nothing wrong. Im sure the rioters in a lot of cases were covering there faces. Why?

I note that the views all seem to be police evil rioters nice. I just hope you never have a need to be protected from the thugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master b,

 

Whilst my colleagues and I are, I assure you, grateful for your support and reasoned approach, I can, in turn, assure one and all that - regardless of what you may think of the police, or your background, circumstances or origins - everyone is entitled to, and should receive, the same level of professional and courteous service from the police. So, if you support the rioters, or the officers facing them, when you need us, we shall be there.

 

To do otherwise, would defeat the purpose of our role and duties, in which case, a change of career might be advisable. No officer I know of does the job for the gratitude (although it is often welcome in knowing that the public do, on occasion, apreciate what we do).

 

Your humble servant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the views all seem to be police evil rioters nice.

 

You may want to reread some posts before making such a sweeping statement. I have no doubt that the police do a sterling job under difficult circumstances as I've mentioned before, and credit should be given where credit is due.

 

I might also add that the majority of protesters (not 'rioters') were peaceful. Why pigeon-hole legitimate protesters under the category of rioters?

 

The demonstrations over here comprised 5,000* protesters from the trade-unions with around 200 troublemakers causing a stir. Does that equate to 5,200 rioters? Are you suggesting that people should give up their right to protest? Are you happy with the status quo? Perhaps freedom of speech should also be abolished?

 

*I don't know the figures for the G20 demonstrations in London and as usual the internet is throwing up all sorts of varying numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... regardless of what you may think of the police, or your background, circumstances or origins - everyone is entitled to, and should receive, the same level of professional and courteous service from the police.

The operative word here is "should" unless you believe Stephen Lawrence, Colin Stagg, and Barry George ( to name but three of many ) received "professional and courteous service from the police".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062541.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062637.ece

 

No doubt someone will rush to condemn these pieces as unreliable because they are from the Times - just as I so often find myself screaming ‘Rubbish!’ when confronted with the Guardian’s bias. Thought this was an interesting article a few weeks ago: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article5940341.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...