Priorities For Policing In Shetland

[Babsy]

 

 

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

 

Thankyou for replying, I usually have my walk morning and afternoon along Commercial Road / North Road / Lochside, or I do all the Streets. I have stopped walking around the Clickamin because of dogs not on their leads. I seem to meet bikes when ever I am out, some are even wearing helmets.

[mogling]

The thing that stopped me from ever trying any harder drugs was the Police coming to our Church Youth Fellowship one night with a film about drugs - I was about 13 and can only remember one bit, but it was so graphic, it put me off the idea for life: There was a grotty smoky room with filthy, stained mattresses and a group of grubby-looking folk lying about injecting heroin. One very close-up shot of a guy injecting into the front of his shin {ouch!} , then seeing this blood coming out the needle hole, and then him staring into space whilst absent-mindedly rubbing his sore shin, unaware he was smearing blood all over his leg... yeuch!!

 

If you still have that piece of film you could take around schools and youth clubs, I am sure a lot more youngsters would think twice about buying heroin or any other harder drug in the first place.

[mcconnachie]

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?

 

The £140k seizure of heroin last year was down to police 'suspicions'. Quid pro quo.

[Ghostrider]

The £140k seizure of heroin last year was down to police 'suspicions'. Quid pro quo.

 

 

That is irrelevant to my point, and I have no problem with it. Nice try at side tracking though.

 

A large percentage if not a majority of Police investigations, and their progress forward rely on one Police suspicion or another, if suspicions were not followed at that stage few investigations would yield any results.

 

Police suspicions belong in Police Stations and during investigations, not in Courts and as part of the prosecution's submissions, where only provable facts should contribute to a Court's determinations.

 

If we start allowing unproven and at that point unprovable suspicions to influence any Court we have a Police state, not a democracy.

[Colin]

 

The £140k seizure of heroin last year was down to police 'suspicions'. Quid pro quo.

 

 

That is irrelevant to my point, and I have no problem with it. Nice try at side tracking though.

 

A large percentage if not a majority of Police investigations, and their progress forward rely on one Police suspicion or another, if suspicions were not followed at that stage few investigations would yield any results.

 

Police suspicions belong in Police Stations and during investigations, not in Courts and as part of the prosecution's submissions, where only provable facts should contribute to a Court's determinations.

 

If we start allowing unproven and at that point unprovable suspicions to influence any Court we have a Police state, not a democracy.

 

As far as I can see, the Sherriff's Court is pretty much a 'Police Court' anyway and the Procutator Fiscal seems able to get away with some pretty horrendous slurs on occaison. 

We only live in a democracy for a couple of days every four or five years or so.  The rest of the time we, pretty much, have to do as we are told.  Not quite a 'Police State' but, we're getting there...

[George.]

 

We only live in a democracy for a couple of days every four or five years or so.  The rest of the time we, pretty much, have to do as we are told.  Not quite a 'Police State' but, we're getting there...

 

 

How true Colin, how true.

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

 

.

 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?

 

 

I am beginning to think that this thread within the topic is more about the perception of "value for money' with regard to the "dogs".  Dogs against Drugs are more than just "dogs" - there are handlers and other pieces of equipment.  The seizure of heroin late last year is a perfect example of this in practice - police officers and "Dogs against Drugs" working well together.

 

Prior to the current position where the charity provides two handlers, two dogs  and the associated equipment the police used to provide one handler / dog while the charity provided the other. Now that the community / charity provide a second handler / dog the police are able to devote the former police dog post to addressing another issue - in this case the post is allocated to the Public Protection Unit dealing with offender management.

 

So, to answer your question - Yes if the money was all in the local police budget I would spend the same amount on the drugs dogs and a sign of that commitment is the marked Police 4x4 dog van. That is paid for from the police budget.

 

However you are right to ask about value for money. Personally I firmly believe that this should be expanded to look not only at the drugs dogs, but also the police and all those involved in delivering addiction services. The question we need to ask ourselves is - if we're working to the best of our ability, is the situation getting any better?. While I can answer in relation to the police and drugs dogs side of the question I'm not sure if anyone from the agencies providing addiction services is in this conversation - maybe it is a question for another topic.

 

I guess it is safe to say that you view substance misuse as an issue, so I'd value your thoughts on what should be done to address it?

 

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

 

 

We only live in a democracy for a couple of days every four or five years or so.  The rest of the time we, pretty much, have to do as we are told.  Not quite a 'Police State' but, we're getting there...

 

 

How true Colin, how true.

 

 

Colin & georgetheagent,

 

I'd value your thoughts on what the priorities for policing in Shetland should be?

 

Thanks

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

The thing that stopped me from ever trying any harder drugs was the Police coming to our Church Youth Fellowship one night with a film about drugs - I was about 13 and can only remember one bit, but it was so graphic, it put me off the idea for life: There was a grotty smoky room with filthy, stained mattresses and a group of grubby-looking folk lying about injecting heroin. One very close-up shot of a guy injecting into the front of his shin {ouch!} , then seeing this blood coming out the needle hole, and then him staring into space whilst absent-mindedly rubbing his sore shin, unaware he was smearing blood all over his leg... yeuch!!

 

If you still have that piece of film you could take around schools and youth clubs, I am sure a lot more youngsters would think twice about buying heroin or any other harder drug in the first place.

 

I'm not sure which piece of film you're referring to but I'll check with "Dogs against Drugs" who provide some of the local drugs education to see what they have.

 

Angus

[Colin]

 

I'd value your thoughts on what the priorities for policing in Shetland should be?

 

Thanks

Angus

 

 

I don't have a position on the 'priorities for policing', that's an agenda set by people far higher up the tree than me but, I do have a few comments on the 'style'.

 

example;  The last time I saw a policemen on his feet was in a queue at the Harbor Cafe.... 

 

I think that policemen 'on the beat' provide a far more effective way of establihing a presence than just whizzing around in cars all day long.  It might also prove to be an effective way of improving 'performance'.

 

qualifier'

It is well known that I tend to walk just about everywhere and, truthfully, there is not a single day that I do not see at least 4 motorists using mobile phones (the record is 11).  Coupled with the number of other traffic violations I see, some ambitious young bobby could make a bit of a killing (hopefully, not literally).

 

Now, if you are whizzing around in a highly visible police car, you are at a serious disadvantage in so much as you are only in one place for a few moments and everyone knows you are there. If you are on foot on the other hand, you stand a far better chance of seing what is going on.

 

As for my comment in a previous post "not quite a police state..."

Why is it that almost nothing can be organised whithout first having to consult the local constabulary who must 'approve' of whatever it is before some committee somewhere gives 'permission' for it to go ahead?

Like, it's not as if you guys are going to be invited anyway..

[shetlandpeat]

 

The thing that stopped me from ever trying any harder drugs was the Police coming to our Church Youth Fellowship one night with a film about drugs - I was about 13 and can only remember one bit, but it was so graphic, it put me off the idea for life: There was a grotty smoky room with filthy, stained mattresses and a group of grubby-looking folk lying about injecting heroin. One very close-up shot of a guy injecting into the front of his shin {ouch!} , then seeing this blood coming out the needle hole, and then him staring into space whilst absent-mindedly rubbing his sore shin, unaware he was smearing blood all over his leg... yeuch!!

 

If you still have that piece of film you could take around schools and youth clubs, I am sure a lot more youngsters would think twice about buying heroin or any other harder drug in the first place.

 

I'm not sure which piece of film you're referring to but I'll check with "Dogs against Drugs" who provide some of the local drugs education to see what they have.

 

Angus

 

One film that hit the nail on the head was a German film called Christiane F  

 

[JohanofNess]

 

I think that policemen 'on the beat' provide a far more effective way of establihing a presence than just whizzing around in cars all day long.  It might also prove to be an effective way of improving 'performance'.

 

 

 

Spot on, always makes a difference to me if you see officers walking the streets and it certainly builds a better relationship with the community, especially so in areas with known problems.

[unlinkedstudent]

So, to answer your question - Yes if the money was all in the local police budget I would spend the same amount on the drugs dogs and a sign of that commitment is the marked Police 4x4 dog van. That is paid for from the police budget.

 

However you are right to ask about value for money. Personally I firmly believe that this should be expanded to look not only at the drugs dogs, but also the police and all those involved in delivering addiction services. The question we need to ask ourselves is - if we're working to the best of our ability, is the situation getting any better?. While I can answer in relation to the police and drugs dogs side of the question I'm not sure if anyone from the agencies providing addiction services is in this conversation - maybe it is a question for another topic.

 

I guess it is safe to say that you view substance misuse as an issue, so I'd value your thoughts on what should be done to address it?

 

Angus

 

 

Angus, you're asking for the opinions of the public, aren't you?

 

So what if the majority of the public indicated that they don't want the drug dogs?

 

What are the statistics from before the (charity) drug dogs were introduced, breaking down the figures for, oooh let's say:-

 

• Cannabis
• Cocaine
• Crack cocaine
• LSD
• Ecstasy
• Heroin

The Government would have done well to listen to Professor Nutt; instead, some people are left with the idea that cannabis is in the same league as heroin - that's like comparing a Babycham with a 12 year old malt whisky.  There's an awful lot of talk that since the introduction of the dogs that the numbers of heroin addicts has increased and yet it is (allegedly) easier to buy heroin or its equivalent prescribed counterpart, methadone, than it is to buy cannabis here in Shetland.  On the face of it, without having the breakdown of the statistics, that would give the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that if anything, far from alleviating a drugs problem, the use of the dogs is actually adding to and fuelling the problem.  So why not provide the statistics?

[trout]

I'll let Angus come back to you on that but, for anyone's interest in days gone by there's a thread on Shetlink entitled Dogs against drugs from Mar 02 2006 that carried on into Dec 2009. Quite a bit of extensive reading there - some utter *&fga&*^* - but, some good nuggets of intellect shining too.

[Clooty Cap]

I am beginning to think that this thread within the topic is more about the perception of "value for money' with regard to the "dogs".  Dogs against Drugs are more than just "dogs" - there are handlers and other pieces of equipment.  The seizure of heroin late last year is a perfect example of this in practice - police officers and "Dogs against Drugs" working well together.

 

Prior to the current position where the charity provides two handlers, two dogs  and the associated equipment the police used to provide one handler / dog while the charity provided the other. Now that the community / charity provide a second handler / dog the police are able to devote the former police dog post to addressing another issue - in this case the post is allocated to the Public Protection Unit dealing with offender management.

 

So, to answer your question - Yes if the money was all in the local police budget I would spend the same amount on the drugs dogs and a sign of that commitment is the marked Police 4x4 dog van. That is paid for from the police budget.

 

However you are right to ask about value for money. Personally I firmly believe that this should be expanded to look not only at the drugs dogs, but also the police and all those involved in delivering addiction services. The question we need to ask ourselves is - if we're working to the best of our ability, is the situation getting any better?. While I can answer in relation to the police and drugs dogs side of the question I'm not sure if anyone from the agencies providing addiction services is in this conversation - maybe it is a question for another topic.

 

I guess it is safe to say that you view substance misuse as an issue, so I'd value your thoughts on what should be done to address it?

 

Angus

Although you are right that value for money does play a part in how effective a service like "dogs agains drugs" are perceived to be, I personally feel that as we are led to believe they are an effective tool in the fight agains crime in Shetland then they should be funded solely with money from the police budget, we all pay taxes and a percentage of that money is put towards paying for the provision of our local police force, we shouldn't have to pay extra through charities and the like to provide extra tools to the police.You do seem to be saying that the budget provided to you would allow for you to fund the dogs and handlers yourself.

The way the economy is locally there are many local services that have had their budgets cut due to the council not having the funds available, COPE for example has had to scale down their operations to the extent of shutting the Karabuni, services like The Freefield centre were also affected, I would rather see money raised locally from charity and buisness donations go to services like this than being spent on something you appear to have admitted you could be funding yourself.

As for how to tackle the problem of substance abuse in Shetland, well I would say something has to change because as a man much wiser than me has once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The current drug policy obviously isn't working but it's probably one for the people at the Community Alcohol and Drugs Services Shetland to tackle as they would have better ideas than me on the way forward in the isle.