Priorities For Policing In Shetland

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

Well, PoliceScotlandShetland,

 

As someone in the know and, as a cyclist yourself, could you tell us what happened to the police bicycle (or was it two?) that was/were purchased a year or two back..  Saw one once. 

 

Also, why are Fork Lifts, Dumpers and even heavily laden HGV's allowed to run through Lerwick during the rush(?) hours.  Nothing worse than being in a queue of vehicles behind one of these as it chugs along.

Colin,

 

Yes the police bikes are still here. We (myself included) just need to use them more.

 

As long as a vehicle is road worthy / insured, etc there is no reason why it cannot be legitimately used. I say legitimately as there are provisions for abnormal loads (wide, etc) where we would work with the operators to ensure safe movement.

 

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

What worries me is the amount of times you see hgv and psv vehicles around town with the driver on a mobile phone, turning corners,changing gears ( presumably)braking ,indicating etc all with one hand . As a psv license holder myself i would be terrified to answer a call on the move, you just cannot divide your attention when driving any larger vehicles.

Hi,

 

Yes it is amazing how many people still use their mobile phone when driving. We have dealt with over 50% more offences for mobile phone use this year (compared with last year). There is a reason for it being against the law to use your mobile when driving - it is a pity some driver's ignore it.

 

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

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. 

Hi,

 

Not forgotten about the "being seen as much as seeing". This week we are participating in the "Get Read for Winter Campaign" which includes vehicle lights. 

 

There are 40% fewer incidents of violence so far this year and we will continue to deal with each one as quickly and firmly as possible.

 

I agree with the need for more honesty in relation to substance misuse - drink, drugs and synthetic highs. They all have an impact on the community and we all need to deal with the issues. Over 65% of the serious crime in Shetland has alcohol some where in the equation.

 

I'd be interested to hear more about the "dangerous dogs". 

 

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

Hi,

 

The consultation process for the priorities and issues finishes at the end of October and I'mmeeting with the elected members, who sit on the Shetland Community Safety Board on Thursday 24th October. I will be taking the comments from this forum, along with a variety of other meetings / surveys / correspondence to that meeting to allow for an informed discussion on what people see as the priorities / issues.

 

Please keep the comments coming - it's gone quiet over the past week.

 

Angus

 

(Shetland Community Safety Board - the local scrutiny board where the police and fire & rescue service are held accountable by the local community. There are seven SIC councillors on the board as well as the NHS, SIC Emergency Planning, SIC Community Safety, SIC Strategic Risk, VAS, Coastguard, Ambulance Service, Victim Support and others. Every member has a role to play in making sure Shetland is as safe as possible)

[Rachel B]

MuckleJoannie, I'd never actually thought of strangling a taxi driver before, even though a some of them can be quite annoying!.... Don't worry PoliceScotlandShetland, I'm still not thinking of it!

[unlinkedstudent]

 

The Home Office has introduced temporary banning orders that outlaw the supply and sale but not possession of the drugs, pending an examination of their harmful effects. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/16/legal-highs-risk-overdose-drugs-tsar?INTCMP=SRCH)

 

So what is the legal status of "synthetic highs" in Scotland?  Are they legal or illegal?

 

OP, with regard to your comment about crash helmets:  I sustained injuries as a result of wearing a crash helmet.  If I hadn't worn a crash helmet, I wouldn't have sustained the injuries I did (and there has been a marked increase in the amount of these types of injuries since the introduction of it being compulsory to wear a crash helmet).  I'm rather peeved that had I been a male Sikh wearing a turban, I wouldn't have needed to wear a crash helmet. However, I realise it is your job to uphold the law ... but don't try to convince me that I'd be safer wearing a crash helmet when I have injuries as a result of doing so. But don't worry, I have no intention of riding around Shetland lidless.

 

I still await the statistics regarding drugs I requested on 24th September 2013 ... or do I need to write in officially to get that info?

 

Your comment is interesting about a police officer in Court being asked their "professional opinion" - the police officers I've previously worked with never gave such comments in Court, knowing that the judicial system relies heavily on FACTS and not someone's opinion.

 

As for anarchy?  I think we've more or less got it already.  

Hi,

 

I've not forgotten about the stats request from 24.09.2013 - a response will follow in due course. The Shetland Alcohol & Drug Partnership coordinate work in relation to substance misuse and I will speak with the coordinator help draw together a full response.

 

As for "synthetic highs" - there is no blanket piece of legislation that says they are legal / illegal. Some of these substances contain elements which would be classed "illegal" under the misuse of drugs legislation and others don't. As opposed to getting embroiled in a lengthy discussion regarding whether or not something is legal / illegal I'd rather focus on the impact the misuse of any substance can have on a community. When a group of young people approach the police looking to work with us to develop a peer education programme on the dangers of "synthetic highs" I believe there is a real need to do something before someone else becomes seriously ill or dies. I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this?

 

Angus

 

 

On the contrary, to be blunt, I think you are sticking a sticky beak where it don't belong - people should be told what is illegal and what is legal - how can people stick within the law if ignorance is no defence?

 

I know certain drugs can and do kill, but then so can paracetamol.  I don't believe the Police should be involved in drugs education; that's something for other bodies but the Police?  NO.  Quite simply, I think the Police are biased.  Are you seriously going to advise young people that smoking cannabis is safer than knocking back Auntie Pam's valium, be the valium washed down with ketamine or not?  Incidentally, I feel the same way about crime prevention - if someone wants to take steps to protect their property re security grilles and so forth, I don't believe that should be a matter for the Police either.  Due to the very nature of your job, I fail to see how you can give out information on drugs without such information being biased.  Will you be telling me that I should cut down on the number of nicotine cigarettes I smoke, simply because I might die of cancer?

 

At the beginning of your OP, you asked and wanted people to communicate and express their views - you're getting my usual outspoken response.  You are a paid civil servant.  Your job is to uphold the law.  But when a law-abiding citizen asks for information, even if it meant you had to respond via pm, then I don't expect you to answer in the manner of a politician, along the lines of what we see all too often on television screens these days "Perhaps the question you really wanted to ask is this". Nope.   I asked a direct and forthright question.  To be honest, if you had just replied along the lines of some are legal, some aren't then I wouldn't be feeling so wound up.

 

Drug dealers?  Throw the book at them.

 

Oh help, "dangerous dogs".  ALL dogs have the potential to be dangerous; they have teeth.  The legislation is a joke, which is not obviously the fault of the Police.  Dogs have to be under control in a public place.  The public need educating about dogs and how they should be interacting with dogs.  Instead, we have a situation where some people just hate all dogs and will freak out when they see one.  I remember when I worked for the British Transport Police and speaking with dog handlers.  As a police officer, you'll know the reason why people are told not to move when apprehended by PD Canine.  A dog cannot distinguish between waving arms and a potential attack on its owner - that's why if anyone is apprehended, they're told not to move.  The majority of dogs in Shetland are not dangerous - you may well have irresponsible owners but there's a huge difference between a dangerous dog and an irresponsible owner.

 

I have never seen the likes of a Japanese Toso, Fila Brasileiro or a Dogo Argentino here in Shetland, have you?  Shetland is fortunate to have not one, but two dog clubs teaching the benefits of responsible dog ownership.  I sincerely hope we're not going to see the Police adopt a knee-jerk reaction to dogs and their owners.

 

And Ghostie and I previously commented on how police officers report matters.  I'm quite amazed at the reporting down at Dunrossness Community Council meetings recently - amazing how the word "alleged" was missing, especially when bearing in mind certain matters hadn't even reached Court.  Guilty before being tried perhaps?

 

I don't envy the job the Police have to do.  We need the Police.  But please, drop the flannel - it ain't gonna wash.

[unlinkedstudent]

I may be missing something here, maybe just being over simplistic.

 

Dogs against Drugs,

the Shetland charity,

set up in memory of a Shetland son,

who lost their fight against heroin.

 

This charity is instrumental in causing the heroin problem in Shetland??????

 

Absolute rubbish. The charity was set up well after heroin had landed in Shetland and the only people who think different have something to hide or something to gain.

 

The handlers and dogs spend more time in the schools, educating the young and preventing others falling foul of a path of pain than any police officer or health worker. I would suggest their actions prevent a lot more people from becoming addicted than any expensive rehabilitation treatment can "rehabilitate". Does anyone ask the Betty Ford Clinic for famous cures? No way, because the next day the named individuals would be pictured hoovering coke up their noses. Epic fail. How would they get their client list and funding then?

 

Instead of apportioning blame on a dog, how about we just take responsibility and do our best to rid Shetland of anything or anyone who causes so much pain.

 

So, the charity visits schools.  Isn't it the case that if someone is under 18 and has a heroin problem that they cannot get prescribed heroin substitutes?  How many under 18 heroin addicts are there in Shetland or are they not included in statistics?

 

I've asked for statistics from the OP concerning drug statistics before and after the introduction of the drugs dogs.  I have absolutely nothing to hide as I don't take illegal drugs but I do seek clarity on the situation.  Heroin comes from abroad.  Perhaps the powers that be should be doing more to stop it even reaching the shores of GB before it even gets distributed up here, don't you think?  I've seen the misery heroin causes and the lives it can destroy.  But do I believe the dogs are helping to combat the drugs problems in Shetland overall?  Based on current information, nope, I don't.  Furthermore, I'm totally against charities doing ANY work that should be carried out by statutory authorities; it just encourages politicians to waste money elsewhere because there will always be a charity willing to step in and provide the service with the end result that the state does less and less.

[shetlandpeat]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2470128/Horrific-cost-taking-legal-highs-Mother-releases-shocking-picture-dying-son-20-suffered-heart-attack-smoking-herbal-substance.html

 

I would be interested in how you would forward the debate about drugs by demanding such figures, the debate on drugs are already on two threads, there is also a wealth on information on policies.

 

If folk want to contribute to the Drug Dog Charity, that is their perogitive and has little to do with you, I guess how ever, you are looking for information to put a negative spin on the educational work these charities do. As for charities doing work that Govs should do, charities used to get paid by the Govs to do such work, the funding for this has been severely cut, yet the charities are still obliged to continue.

Edited October 22, 2013 by shetlandpeat

[unlinkedstudent]

If folk want to contribute to the Drug Dog Charity, that is their perogitive and has little to do with you,

 

Remind me, when did you move back to Shetland?  I do hope the charity takes the drug dogs into the schools because at least that way, some children will realise that there are friendly dogs out there.

[shetlandpeat]

Because I contribute to the charity, as living in Shetland has little to do with it. If you are going to tell me I am wrong to support this charity, which, on the whole educates then perhaps I am also wrong in donating to paediatric brain tumour charities, juvenile diabetes charities and the like. I think the Gov should do more there, but I will not sit back on an ideal and watch things go by without starting something positive.

I feel you are wasting public money in pursuit of this small point you want to elaborate on.

Edited October 23, 2013 by shetlandpeat

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

Unlinked Student,

 

My comment about discussing whether or not something is illegal / legal was made from the view point that, with many of the new "synthetic high" substances we do not know if they are legal / illegal until they are tested and by the time the results become known there is a risk that someone else takes it and is ill or suffers a more serious consequence. 

There are a limited number of public servants dealing with various issues - for the police our main aim it to keep people safe. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe, hence the desire to do something while talking about issues.

 

You're comment on the police not giving drugs education or crime prevention advice is interesting - it certainly would free up some police time for law enforcement. The flip side is that our main contact with people will be when we warn or caution & charge them as opposed to community engagement - what are people's thoughts on that? Would that run the risk of weakening our "policing by consent' style?.

 

Angus

[Colin]

My comment about discussing whether or not something is illegal / legal was made from the view point that, with many of the new "synthetic high" substances we do not know if they are legal / illegal until they are tested and by the time the results become known there is a risk that someone else takes it and is ill or suffers a more serious consequence. 

There are a limited number of public servants dealing with various issues - for the police our main aim it to keep people safe. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe, hence the desire to do something while talking about issues.

I have a slight(?) problem with this.  Not being a drug user myself (apart from nicotine and the occaisonal dose of alcohol..), I wonder if the police have the right to make the rules in this way?

If you, or one of your officers, decides to confiscate a 'legal high' type of drug on the grounds that you are keeping people 'safe' (even though there are no declared 'rules'), it would appear to be a pretty subjective interpretation of the law.

'Policing by consent' (whose consent ?) seems to be taking over from 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[unlinkedstudent]

Unlinked Student,

 

My comment about discussing whether or not something is illegal / legal was made from the view point that, with many of the new "synthetic high" substances we do not know if they are legal / illegal until they are tested and by the time the results become known there is a risk that someone else takes it and is ill or suffers a more serious consequence. 

There are a limited number of public servants dealing with various issues - for the police our main aim it to keep people safe. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe, hence the desire to do something while talking about issues.

 

You're comment on the police not giving drugs education or crime prevention advice is interesting - it certainly would free up some police time for law enforcement. The flip side is that our main contact with people will be when we warn or caution & charge them as opposed to community engagement - what are people's thoughts on that? Would that run the risk of weakening our "policing by consent' style?.

 

Angus

 

With due respect, the same can be said for cannabis.  You only arrest on suspicion (don't you?) that it is cannabis and only once tested do you know for a fact that it is, indeed, cannabis.  Likewise, if someone is in possession of prescribed medication not prescribed for their use, off it goes to Forensics ... no idea if Dundee(?) has the same timescales as Birmingham or whether you have the luxury of LCG (and then you get into the joys of the Prosecution arguing as to what amount can be deemed as 'fit for use').

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that the main purpose of the Police was to uphold the law; I don't buy into this nanny state ideology re keeping people 'safe'.  I can understand about Police attending, for example, a football match or similar event for crowd control purposes but again, that's also to ensure public order offences aren't committed.  There is Victim Support and other organisations providing support to victims of crimes; the Police are not social workers.  Granted, at times your officers may feel like they are but they are not. 

 

I don't buy into this community engagement ideology either - politicians come up with ideas "oh, let's see how the public want their local area policed and we'll have a few quangos so they can sit around a table and have tea and biccies" - so you get the same old, same old faces and wannabe politicians working their way up by joining such committees.

 

In order for the Police to really police in how people want them to police at a local level would involve a change in the politicians representing them at national level and for those elected nationally to hold the same viewpoints as those at a local level and then for the law to change - I don't think that is possible.

 

Look at what happened when years ago the locals backed the idea of de-criminalised red light zone in Leith.  It was brilliant.  The female police officer struck up a good rapport with the prostitutes, discovered many did NOT have pimps, health workers were involved and drug crime drastically reduced.  Those who did have pimps who had introduced them to crack and heroin came off drugs, knowing that they could work the streets without a bullying pimp, and for all of the working girls the fear of the revolving door scenario (nicked, court, back on street to pay for fine, nicked, court, prison) was removed thus freeing up a lot of Police and Court time (not to mention all the other agencies involved).  Mug shots were introduced advising working girls of which violent punters to avoid and if the prostitutes were attacked, the Police nicked the perpetrators.  Local women (not sex workers) no longer harrassed.  The Police thought it was a great success ... and then some yuppies moved in, objected and the whole area got re-developed by some trendy property developers ... and the problems with prostitution got transferred to another area.  The permitted red light zone couldn't be transferred though because the objectors used the existing laws.

 

So for many things, you can't change policing on a local level to reflect what a community would like to see.  The above may be deemed an extreme example but it's an example nevertheless. 

 

If you don't tell us which synthetic highs are legal, then we can't give 'informed consent'.  What use is consent if we don't know to what we're consenting?  Besides, people have to be responsible for their own actions.  If that means we don't see the Police unless we're nicked/cautioned then apart from this thread, I'm not seeing any difference - we NEVER see you (the Police) in person.  You get drunk, you get nicked.  The Police are not there to save people's livers; it is no different to stopping me from smoking a fag and saving my lungs.  You speak of desires - but are they the desires of the community and unless you speak individually to all members of the community, you won't know what the community desires.

Edited October 23, 2013 by unlinkedstudent

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

 

Unlinked Student,

 

My comment about discussing whether or not something is illegal / legal was made from the view point that, with many of the new "synthetic high" substances we do not know if they are legal / illegal until they are tested and by the time the results become known there is a risk that someone else takes it and is ill or suffers a more serious consequence. 

There are a limited number of public servants dealing with various issues - for the police our main aim it to keep people safe. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe, hence the desire to do something while talking about issues.

 

You're comment on the police not giving drugs education or crime prevention advice is interesting - it certainly would free up some police time for law enforcement. The flip side is that our main contact with people will be when we warn or caution & charge them as opposed to community engagement - what are people's thoughts on that? Would that run the risk of weakening our "policing by consent' style?.

 

Angus

 

With due respect, the same can be said for cannabis.  You only arrest on suspicion (don't you?) that it is cannabis and only once tested do you know for a fact that it is, indeed, cannabis.  Likewise, if someone is in possession of prescribed medication not prescribed for their use, off it goes to Forensics ... no idea if Dundee(?) has the same timescales as Birmingham or whether you have the luxury of LCG (and then you get into the joys of the Prosecution arguing as to what amount can be deemed as 'fit for use').

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I was brought up to believe that the main purpose of the Police was to uphold the law; I don't buy into this nanny state ideology re keeping people 'safe'.  I can understand about Police attending, for example, a football match or similar event for crowd control purposes but again, that's also to ensure public order offences aren't committed.  There is Victim Support and other organisations providing support to victims of crimes; the Police are not social workers.  Granted, at times your officers may feel like they are but they are not. 

 

I don't buy into this community engagement ideology either - politicians come up with ideas "oh, let's see how the public want their local area policed and we'll have a few quangos so they can sit around a table and have tea and biccies" - so you get the same old, same old faces and wannabe politicians working their way up by joining such committees.

 

In order for the Police to really police in how people want them to police at a local level would involve a change in the politicians representing them at national level and for those elected nationally to hold the same viewpoints as those at a local level and then for the law to change - I don't think that is possible.

 

Look at what happened when years ago the locals backed the idea of de-criminalised red light zone in Leith.  It was brilliant.  The female police officer struck up a good rapport with the prostitutes, discovered many did NOT have pimps, health workers were involved and drug crime drastically reduced.  Those who did have pimps who had introduced them to crack and heroin came off drugs, knowing that they could work the streets without a bullying pimp, and for all of the working girls the fear of the revolving door scenario (nicked, court, back on street to pay for fine, nicked, court, prison) was removed thus freeing up a lot of Police and Court time (not to mention all the other agencies involved).  Mug shots were introduced advising working girls of which violent punters to avoid and if the prostitutes were attacked, the Police nicked the perpetrators.  Local women (not sex workers) no longer harrassed.  The Police thought it was a great success ... and then some yuppies moved in, objected and the whole area got re-developed by some trendy property developers ... and the problems with prostitution got transferred to another area.  The permitted red light zone couldn't be transferred though because the objectors used the existing laws.

 

So for many things, you can't change policing on a local level to reflect what a community would like to see.  The above may be deemed an extreme example but it's an example nevertheless. 

 

If you don't tell us which synthetic highs are legal, then we can't give 'informed consent'.  What use is consent if we don't know to what we're consenting?  Besides, people have to be responsible for their own actions.  If that means we don't see the Police unless we're nicked/cautioned then apart from this thread, I'm not seeing any difference - we NEVER see you (the Police) in person.  You get drunk, you get nicked.  The Police are not there to save people's livers; it is no different to stopping me from smoking a fag and saving my lungs.  You speak of desires - but are they the desires of the community and unless you speak individually to all members of the community, you won't know what the community desires.

 

Hi,

 

I'll add a few comments here and then do a separate reply on the priorities and issues that have been discussed over the past few weeks.

 

 

On the whole do not arrest people for cannabis, or for that matter any other illegal drugs, possession - Sec 23 Misuse of Drugs Act allows for searching someone we suspect has illegal drugs. There are powers within that legislation that allow us to seize items and if necessary take someone back to the police station to carry out the search. In Shetland the vast majority of S23 searches do not involve taking people to the station (I don't have the figure to hand but estimate that over 85% don't go to the station). There are cases were people are arrested for being concerned in the supply of illegal drugs (i.e. a drug dealer) but the personal possession cases generally involve a search, testing and a crime report to the PF. Lab times vary and are out with our control given that they are provided to Police Scotland by the SPA.

 

We keep people safe through law enforcement and education. (The main part of our work being "enforcement") For example - people are told what substances are legal / illegal, if they're found with an illegal substance the law is enforced.

 

 

Over the past year we've increased the number of licensed premises checks by 114% and now violence is down by 44%. Most licensed premises visits are about engaging with the community (i.e. talking to people without the need to caution and charge them) and the result is a significant drop in crime. 

 

As part of this process Police Scotland Shetland have surveyed over 600 people, contacted / emailed approximately 100 community groups (approximately 10-12 replied), visited a number of community meetings, met with local elected members and had this on-line forum (which seems to have generated a good deal of discussion both on line and by passing comment).

 

These are two examples of community engagement - it works by the mere fact we're engaged in this forum.

 

I agree that people are responsible for their own actions and I have no issues with law enforcement, that's part of what we're paid to do.

 

 

Thank you for the discussion and your engagement over the past few weeks. I'll do a summary reply on the priorities / issues. 

 

What are people's views on keeping a discussion thread running on "police / law enforcement / community engagement"?

 

Angus

[PoliceScotlandShetland]

 

My comment about discussing whether or not something is illegal / legal was made from the view point that, with many of the new "synthetic high" substances we do not know if they are legal / illegal until they are tested and by the time the results become known there is a risk that someone else takes it and is ill or suffers a more serious consequence. 

There are a limited number of public servants dealing with various issues - for the police our main aim it to keep people safe. Just because it is legal does not mean it is safe, hence the desire to do something while talking about issues.

I have a slight(?) problem with this.  Not being a drug user myself (apart from nicotine and the occaisonal dose of alcohol..), I wonder if the police have the right to make the rules in this way?

If you, or one of your officers, decides to confiscate a 'legal high' type of drug on the grounds that you are keeping people 'safe' (even though there are no declared 'rules'), it would appear to be a pretty subjective interpretation of the law.

'Policing by consent' (whose consent ?) seems to be taking over from 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

 

Colin,

 

Items (synthetic highs) are seized because they are suspected to contain illegal substances. Lab tests then give us results - some are illegal and the person possessing them will be reported. Some (synthetic highs) are found to be legal and as with any other piece of seized property they are returned. 

 

That is why the police prefer to call them "synthetic highs" as we don't know they are legal until they're tested. "Keeping People Safe" is the focus, which is primarily done by law enforcement. (Seizing and testing the substance to see if it is illegal)

 

Angus