Jump to content

Priorities For Policing In Shetland


PoliceScotlandShetland
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'll be honest, I've only come across a police officer once down here in this part of Shetland so my experience with the local force is somewhat limited ... and that was when I'd just parked up after a trip to Grotesco's.  The police car pulled up behind me.  "Hell, I know I wasn't speeding and I'm pretty sure all my lights are working", I thought ...

 

... "Could you tell us where Sanblister Place is please?"

 

Perhaps installing Sat Navs in Police vehicles might not be a bad idea?  Come to think of it, the response time (from what I've heard/seen) is pretty dire for your guys and gals to get from Lerwick down here unless they break the speed limit - but then we only have p/t coverage given that the local cop shop has been shut.

 

It's good you're posting on here because to be frank, I get fed up when I see many a public body say they've consulted with the public ... well, we don't get notification of all that gets discussed by our community council until it's too late and I'm sick of them making decisions on my behalf when I've never been asked.

 

But I think one of the biggest problems facing the Police is rushed through legislation, together with the fact that (I think I'm correct here?) you don't get to decide what cases get to Court but the Procurator Fiscal does, but some folk think it is the Police who decide to prosecute.  Many laws are totally outdated and are based on John Stuart Mills harm principle - times have changed and the laws should too but instead, compared to many of our European neighbours, we're going backwards instead of forwards.

 

It's frightening too when you read the paper and see comments along the lines of "The Police Officer was of the opinion that the Accused was acting in a manner that could suggest he had been or was about to ..." - I don't expect suggestions, I expect facts and clean, straightforward evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

paulb, it would take God to sort the underage drinking problem in Shetland out. It's a long term issue and if parents don't boot ass when their 14-15 year old kid is out I don't see what a police officer ticking them off will do.

 

I do agree though it is a problem and in roads need to be made into sorting it.

yes i know. it would not be so bad if it was just a social drink but they get totaled. no way can their parents or those in charge not see this. it really worries me as its so much easier to get hold of now. its going to cause a lot of problems in the not to distant future. which is a waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one or two issues.

 

1.  The owners of these dangerous dogs who allow the dogs to be off their leads in public places(even if it's trundling alongside them as they walk). 

 

2.  More driver awareness in relation to the use of dipped healights during low light and poor weather.  What I see out on the roads(I drive HGVs) in terms of drivers with no lights on is horrendous. 

 

Could you do a media and roadside campaign perhaps just after the clocks change and tell people it's about being SEEN as much as seeing?. 

 

3.  The drink/drug problem in Shetland is terrible but I'm just not sure what the answer is.  Perhaps being honest and saying that Shetlanders need to accept much of the blame for handing it down to the younger generations?.     

 

4.  Any violence needs to be dealth with fast and firmly. 

Edited by Kavi Ugl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is two things I would like to see dealt with. Now I am retired I like to go for a wander about the town, however I fear I am going to meet my maker under the wheels of a push bike. Great grown men and women yelling at me to move out of their way I got a badly bruised hand from walloping it against the handlebars as one went sailing past,I am elderly and have gone a bit deaf I should be able to walk safely on the pavement.

 

I am also at my wits ends with these powerfull dogs and irresponsible owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is two things I would like to see dealt with. Now I am retired I like to go for a wander about the town, however I fear I am going to meet my maker under the wheels of a push bike. Great grown men and women yelling at me to move out of their way I got a badly bruised hand from walloping it against the handlebars as one went sailing past,I am elderly and have gone a bit deaf I should be able to walk safely on the pavement.

 

 

Yes indeed if a couple of officers or even a traffic warden were to spend a bit of time once in a while dealing with pedal cyclists riding recklessly down the pedestrian parts of the street (sometimes going the wrong way) and on pavements generally when they should be on the road then it would be a fine thing.  Of course I mean adult cyclists........young kiddies are probably safer on the pavements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that the prevention of violent crime and theft should be the absolute priority. Watching out for young folks under-age drinking at dances ect should be a parental responsibility and seems like a waste of police resources.

 

I slightly resent the police cars that occasionally hide near the co-op roundabout on the hunt for folk speeding. True, if you're not speeding I guess it shouldn't be an issue - I just dislike the scrutiny. It's like a shop security guy eyeing you, lest you knick something. Dislike.   

 

The "war" on drugs is, of course, unwinnable, Especially if the law can't discriminate between drugs like heroin and ecstasy, but that's perhaps another debate. Besides, the police, like the rest of us, are subject to the whim of our elected the legislators. 

 

As for Dogs against Drugs, I anecdotally hear that the number of heroin addicts has shot up (if you'll excuse the pun) since their introduction,  as apparently the hounds are mainly only successful at sniffing out the softer drugs. Admittedly that could be complete rubbish, but as a previous poster mentioned, if these were an effective tool in addressing the drug problem then they'd be paid for by the police themselves. I'd sooner pop my change in an MS or Cancer Research tin, but I digress. 

 

Anyway, good on OP for attempting to engage with the community. Hopefully among the nonsense some of us (myself definitely included) have replied with you might find something of value. 

Edited by Horns 'O' Da Geo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a different view on the "value" of the Drugs Dogs. They do excellent work and have contributed to the seizure of "illegal" drugs as well as helping to deal with alcohol related offences as well as those associated with "synthetic" highs. As the Area Commander I can assure everyone who has contributed to funding the drugs dogs that they are getting value for money and I will work with the drugs dog charity and others to ensure this continues to happen in the coming year.

 

I am very aware that there is still a lot of work to be done in relation to "substance misuse" and that was one of the main factors in grouping "alcohol, dugs and synthetic highs" together and working to deal with impact they have in our community. I believe we should all work to ensure that everyone - the police, the drugs dogs and those that provide assistance for people with addiction issues (not just drugs but also alcohol and synthetic highs) is making best use of the money they receive.

 

Angus

Maybe you could expand on how you feel the sniffer dogs provide value by comparing the costs of providing the dogs against a value of drugs found solely by the dogs without any other information from tip offs or intelligence led investigations. It would also be interesting to hear how the dogs are useful in helping to deal with alcohol related offences as well as those associated with "synthetic" highs.

 

I have no doubt that the drugs dogs do have a value but cant help but feel for the amount of time they have been operating in Shetland and the cost of providing the dogs there should have been a more noticeable reduction in the use of drugs in the isle, I also suspect that were 100% of the cost of running the dogs to be met by the police then they would have been scrapped years ago as they just aren't cost effective.

 

The "cost" of the dogs is covered through a mixture of public funding, charitable donations and contributions from private business. The "dogs" provide a resource which includes more than just the "dogs" themselves - the handlers assist with providing education on substance misuse to local schools, and they have assisted with other "emergency" police work including during the recent helicopter tragedy where the whole community pulled together.

In relation to drugs seizures the dogs have detected drugs both with and without the intelligence that there may have been drugs present.

In relation to alcohol - July 2012 was the most violent month in Shetland since April 2009. Using uniform officers, CID, drugs dogs and handlers we changed the way we worked and there has been a 44% reduction in town centre violence, the majority of which it linked to alcohol. 

In relation to synthetic highs - seizures of these substances have been made when officers, including drugs dogs, were searching for drugs.

One of the other benefits is the "deterent factor" provided by the drugs dogs - I think the varied views expressed about them is evidence that their presence is having an impact.

 

Uniform officers, CID, Drugs dogs and handlers all work as a team and the seizure of £140 thousand worth of heroin late last year is a perfect example.

 

As I said earlier, I am very aware that there is still a lot of work to be done in relation to "substance misuse" and I believe we should all work to ensure that everyone - the police, the drugs dogs and those that provide assistance for people with addiction issues (not just drugs but also alcohol and synthetic highs), is making best use of the money they receive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that the prevention of violent crime and theft should be the absolute priority. Watching out for young folks under-age drinking at dances ect should be a parental responsibility and seems like a waste of police resources.

 

I slightly resent the police cars that occasionally hide near the co-op roundabout on the hunt for folk speeding. True, if you're not speeding I guess it shouldn't be an issue - I just dislike the scrutiny. It's like a shop security guy eyeing you, lest you knick something. Dislike.   

 

The "war" on drugs is, of course, unwinnable, Especially if the law can't discriminate between drugs like heroin and ecstasy, but that's perhaps another debate. Besides, the police, like the rest of us, are subject to the whim of our elected the legislators. 

 

As for Dogs against Drugs, I anecdotally hear that the number of heroin addicts has shot up (if you'll excuse the pun) since their introduction,  as apparently the hounds are mainly only successful at sniffing out the softer drugs. Admittedly that could be complete rubbish, but as a previous poster mentioned, if these were an effective tool in addressing the drug problem then they'd be paid for by the police themselves. I'd sooner pop my change in an MS or Cancer Research tin, but I digress. 

 

Anyway, good on OP for attempting to engage with the community. Hopefully among the nonsense some of us (myself definitely included) have replied with you might find something of value. 

 

Violence - July 2012 was the most violent month in Shetland since April 2009. Using uniform officers, CID, drugs dogs and handlers we changed the way we worked and there has been a 44% reduction in town centre violence, the majority of which it linked to alcohol. There is still a lot of work to do and we will continue to make this a priority.

 

Theft - thankfully Shetland isn't faced with the same level of theft as other areas in the country. However we do have ocassional crime sprees where a few people take it upon themselves to steal someone slse's property. We will continue to investigate offences that are reported. I'd ask that anyone who has something stolen reports it to us - if we don't know about it we can't do anything about it and I wouldn't want to be saying that there wasn't a problem if in fact there was.

 

Speeding / Road Safety - this is a very contentious subject. We repeatedly get reports about speeding, bad driving and other road traffic offences. We then get complaints from people who have been stopped for speeding or who feel that we are being harsh on drivers. We all know the rules of the road, they are there to keep us safe - after an accident has taken place it is too late to do anything about it. This is a community concern and one that we will continue to work on, however we will do it with integrity & fairness.

 

Drugs & Drugs Dogs - the dogs certainly generate lots of discussion, both in this forum and others. Please see my other posts on this subject.

 

Thanks for your input - there is value in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There is two things I would like to see dealt with. Now I am retired I like to go for a wander about the town, however I fear I am going to meet my maker under the wheels of a push bike. Great grown men and women yelling at me to move out of their way I got a badly bruised hand from walloping it against the handlebars as one went sailing past,I am elderly and have gone a bit deaf I should be able to walk safely on the pavement.

 

 

Yes indeed if a couple of officers or even a traffic warden were to spend a bit of time once in a while dealing with pedal cyclists riding recklessly down the pedestrian parts of the street (sometimes going the wrong way) and on pavements generally when they should be on the road then it would be a fine thing.  Of course I mean adult cyclists........young kiddies are probably safer on the pavements.

 

 

You're right the roads are for cars, bikes & trucks, etc. The pavement is for pedestrians. I wasn't aware that this was an issue - are you able to provide any particular areas / times when this happens and we'll have a look.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My greatest concern about Policing in Shetland is a fundamental rather than issue specific one, and is spread across the whole of the local judicial process. While the Police may not necessarily be responsible for the final outcome, they are however arguably the point from where the catalyst which leads to the final outcome originates.

 

"Not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done" has been the bedrock of the UK judicial process for a very long time. Lately there has been suggestion in the local media that this principle may not necessarily always apply to every case.

 

Not withstanding any e&o's in the relevant media reports, twice while reporting motoring cases in the recent past, the public have been told that the court was informed "the Police suspected alcohol played a role" in the case, and from the sentence handed out, it appeared the court believe and acted as if this "suspicion" was true. If reported accurately I find this state of affairs quite horrific and somewhat frightening.

 

Surely if the whole judicial system is to retain public faith, trust and credibility, upholding the "Not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done" principle has to be paramount. If "suspicions" of whatever are admissable and accepted by a court as "evidence", there is no way that that bedrock principle can survive, as whether or not justice was done or not cannot be seen, when it relies on only what is presumed to have led to the final outcome, and there is no independent verifiable corroboration.

 

I was until now under the impression that it was the Police job to secure all provable relevant facts and evidence of a case as they saw it, present it in an impartial and unbiased fashion before a court, and it was the accused's job to do the same from where they saw it, and the court ruled on what was presented to them.

 

To return to the two cases in question, to my way of thinking no mention of alcohol should have ever been made in court unless witnesses were available to give evidence that the accused had ingested alcohol immediately prior to the incident, or a blood etc test immediately after the incident gave an alcohol reading, yet apparently neither existed, according to the media anyway. I appreciate that with an emotive subject such as driving under the influence, a lot of people may well overlook the means, arguing that they justify the end, and I'm not going to get in to that particular debate. What I am getting in to is the wider issue, that if something that is nothing more than a "suspicion" of a Police Officer or Officers is being submitted to a court and is (as it appears to be) being influential on the outcome of cases, it will inevitably spread to all classes of cases in the fullness of time, and when it does the whole judicial system will be in collapse as trust and faith in it will have evaporated as it will be operating on the basis of what Police Officers presumed or assumed (rightly or wrongly) led to the eventual outcome, and not provable factual evidence.

 

I appreciate that this issue is affected by many players, after leaving the Police it passes over the Procurator Fiscal's desk, and then plays out in front of the court. However if "suspicions" of the Police which end up in front of a court were never to make it in to Police reports made to the Procurator Fiscal in the first place, there would be no issue. Why do you include information in your reports to the Procurator Fiscal on issues you have no evidence unless your own "suspicion", how do you justify doing this, and for what reason do you include it?

 

Offences for driving under the influence are proven based on analytical results - while the inital "stop" of the vehicle may have been due to one of a variety of factors, example of which include the officer's observing another road traffic offence or suspect alcohol was involved (i.e. a member of the public tells us that someone has been drinking and is no driving). The subsequent legal process involves various tests to determine if alcohol was present (roadside breath test and further tests (breath, blood or urine) at the station. There are other tests which are applied should the driving be under the influence of a "drug".

 

I'm not aware of the two cases to which you are referring, so my comment is more general. An officer will submit a report based on the evidence available, including the statements given by witnesses and the officers own observations (i.e. an officer observes someone stumble out of a pub and punch someone else, they arrested the suspect and in doing so get the smell of alcohol from them). There are no powers to breath test someone after an assault so the observations would be that alcohol may have been a factor. I appreciate that you mention two motoing cases, but as I said I'm not aware of the two you're commenting on.

 

I hope this answers your query.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would be a fine thing if the local  poaching fraternity was given a bit of scrutiny. 

A lot of scrutiny in fact. I like a bit of fresh fish but these guys want more and more for them. It's outrageous!!!

 

 

I'm aware of three recent reports of possible poaching, however any further info you have would allow us to look at the issue. Where is the poaching taking place?

 

Angus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 Uniform officers, CID, Drugs dogs and handlers all work as a team and the seizure of £140 thousand worth of heroin late last year is a perfect example.

 

Would that be this seizure by any chance?

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/08/21/two-jailed-for-three-years-and-nine-months-for-bringing-40000-worth-of-heroin-to-isles

 

Doesn't really seem like a perfect example of the dogs proving their worth if that is the case you are speaking of, from the write up in the Times it would suggest that the dogs were along for the ride if they played any part in the seizure at all. Good old fashioned police work seemed to be the deciding factor in getting a result in this case.

Would you say the dogs would be kept in service if they were to be funded from your annual budget rather than from charity, public and business funds?

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...