Police Action

[AVB]

1 hour ago, figgy said:

Ginger Cat don't bite, were all bored and locked in with nothing much to do.

I don’t think anybody is trying to wind him up. I don’t know any serving policemen so interested to get answers to questions that I wanted to ask. 

Another question is whether we actually need different police forces or would we be better served by one national police force. The cost savings must be significant in not having so many chief Constables for example or even different insignia. 

[Cawdor118]

On 27/03/2020 at 08:38, AVB said:

Before this kicked off the police didn’t have enough officers - your car get nicked - no chance of seeing anybody, house broken into - somebody might come around five days later, shoplifters, criminal damage - all ignored. 

Now, despite the police apparently having so many people off such with the virus, there seems to be no shortage of police to persecute people taking their dog for a walk. 

Seems odd to me. 

Naive comment! I think you will find that off the multiple sections in each force (dogs, firearms, CID, rape unit, drugs units etc etc) most have been temporarily disbanded to form a larger community policing division so there is a greater visible presence. Desperate times call for desperate measures. 

[panoma1]

2 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

The problem with firearms licensing is the law is a mess. Police do work to national standards. Set by the college of policing and the charge decisions by and large rest with the cps. 

Firearms law is law. Guidance is there if you get stuck on the law and has no bearing on it whatsoever.  The law states the chief has to be satisfied. If he/she will only be satisfied with a medical cert then that's within the law . The medical carts were (in part at least) brought in by a now retired inspector who listened to someone boasting about shooting steel shot through geese at 90 metres. I tried to tell him otherwise but he was having none of it. 

As I understand it the guidance was clear, police were to approach the applicants GP for comment on the applicants health declaration, if no response received from the GP within 21 days, the police were to assume all was well, and grant the certificate.....there would be no charge to an applicant for this initial approach!

If the GP responded with information highlighting a possible medical issue, then the police could ask for a more detailed report, if there was a charge  from the GP for this more detailed report, then the cost may fall on the applicant!
 

When and Why did this guidance, in some police areas, turn into “no GP report, no certificate” for which the GP can charge the applicant, whatever cost he/she sees fit for every application, for every applicant?

[12gauge82]

Just now, panoma1 said:

As I understand it the guidance was clear, police were to approach the applicants GP for comment on the applicants health declaration, if no response received from the GP within 21 days, the police were to assume all was well, and grant the certificate.....there would be no charge to an applicant for this initial approach!

If the GP responded with information highlighting a possible medical issue, then the police could ask for a more detailed report, if there was a charge  from the GP for this more detailed report, then the cost may fall on the applicant!
 

When and Why did this guidance, in some police areas, turn into “no GP report, no certificate” for which the GP can charge the applicant, whatever cost he/she sees fit for every application, for every applicant?

I'm not sure why your asking gingercat, the police system is huge, it'd be like walking into a bank and demanding the cashier to tell you why banks rip people off. Policing in the UK has pros and cons, I think the vast majority of officers do their very best under very difficult circumstances. They're called upon to fix countless problems they're not trained or equipped to deal with and get little or no thanks from anyone, whether that's the criminals they lock up, the bosses that give them the orders, or alot of the time, the public they serve. There are of course ineffective and bad cops, but that's true of any job. I'm grateful for most cops efforts, Image a world without them!

[panoma1]

33 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not sure why your asking gingercat, the police system is huge, it'd be like walking into a bank and demanding the cashier to tell you why banks rip people off. Policing in the UK has pros and cons, I think the vast majority of officers do their very best under very difficult circumstances. They're called upon to fix countless problems they're not trained or equipped to deal with and get little or no thanks from anyone, whether that's the criminals they lock up, the bosses that give them the orders, or alot of the time, the public they serve. There are of course ineffective and bad cops, but that's true of any job. I'm grateful for most cops efforts, Image a world without them!

I’m not criticising individual police officers and my question to gingercat was largely rhetorical.....as I know it’s unlikely he has the answer! I gave an example of how different police areas interpret firearms certification differently, I asked Gingercat as a serving police officer, if he knew why and when some police areas decided to support GP’s (who reneged on their agreement) and make up their own procedures, contrary to HO guidance?..........I have no access to the Police Hierarchy, so can’t ask them!......and I doubt they would respond anyway.......what I resent is some police areas (though not all!) forcing the public, despite and contrary to agreed HO guidance being in place (in this example gun certificate applications).......... “to just do as your told”.........its not policing by consent!

Edited March 29, 2020 by panoma1

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I’m not criticising individual police officers and my question to gingercat was largely rhetorical.....as I know it’s unlikely he has the answer! I gave an example of how different police areas interpret firearms certification differently, I asked Gingercat as a serving police officer, if he knew why and when some police areas decided to support GP’s (who reneged on their agreement) and make up their own procedures, contrary to HO guidance?..........I have no access to the Police Hierarchy, so can’t ask them!......and I doubt they would respond anyway.......what I resent is some police areas (though not all!) forcing the public, despite and contrary to agreed HO guidance being in place (in this example gun owners).......... “to just do as your told”.........its not policing by consent!

Fair one, yes I agree, you certainly have a point with fire arms licensing, it's a mess

[GingerCat]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

I’m not criticising individual police officers and my question to gingercat was largely rhetorical.....as I know it’s unlikely he has the answer! I gave an example of how different police areas interpret firearms certification differently, I asked Gingercat as a serving police officer, if he knew why and when some police areas decided to support GP’s (who reneged on their agreement) and make up their own procedures, contrary to HO guidance?..........I have no access to the Police Hierarchy, so can’t ask them!......and I doubt they would respond anyway.......what I resent is some police areas (though not all!) forcing the public, despite and contrary to agreed HO guidance being in place (in this example gun certificate applications).......... “to just do as your told”.........its not policing by consent!

As I understand it, It started in about 2017 in lincs for the reason I said earlier. Other forces copied it. The gps decided to assist or not . The police have no control on them. Guidance is guidance, not law. The home office guidance is not law as set by parliament. It's to assist the licensing office if they require it. It does not specify the law. The numerous firearms acts do that. 

[oowee]

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm not sure why your asking gingercat, the police system is huge, it'd be like walking into a bank and demanding the cashier to tell you why banks rip people off. Policing in the UK has pros and cons, I think the vast majority of officers do their very best under very difficult circumstances. They're called upon to fix countless problems they're not trained or equipped to deal with and get little or no thanks from anyone, whether that's the criminals they lock up, the bosses that give them the orders, or alot of the time, the public they serve. There are of course ineffective and bad cops, but that's true of any job. I'm grateful for most cops efforts, Image a world without them!

This but it must be clear to them, what we want them, to do for us. Its a contract and both sides need clarity.

Edited March 29, 2020 by oowee

[Muddy Funker]

On 28/03/2020 at 20:00, stumfelter said:

I'd like to know where all the police have suddenly appeared from? I've honestly seen more police in the last week than in the previous month.

By cancelling their days off and forcing them to work basically. 

That's how it works. 

[panoma1]

10 hours ago, GingerCat said:

As I understand it, It started in about 2017 in lincs for the reason I said earlier. Other forces copied it. The gps decided to assist or not . The police have no control on them. Guidance is guidance, not law. The home office guidance is not law as set by parliament. It's to assist the licensing office if they require it. It does not specify the law. The numerous firearms acts do that. 

Well in my humble opinion it should be written into law! We would all know where we stand then! Your “assist the licensing office” is in my opinion, to give the police carte blanch, to interpret licensing how they please! As I said previously that is not policing by consent, and i believe if the police persist with this type of abuse (guilty until you prove yourself innocent) they risk losing the support of the public altogether!

[GingerCat]

47 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Well in my humble opinion it should be written into law! We would all know where we stand then! Your “assist the licensing office” is in my opinion, to give the police carte blanch, to interpret licensing how they please! As I said previously that is not policing by consent, and i believe if the police persist with this type of abuse (guilty until you prove yourself innocent) they risk losing the support of the public altogether!

The firearms law is a mess,  has been for years and years. The guidance, like any guidance for that matter is there to help people interpret the dogs dinner that is the firearms act. I agree it should be far simpler for everyone . I would caution against the guidance as a rule of thumb as it is not law and will lead to disappointment.

As for policing by consent, you should have a read of what that actually means. If you want a totalitarian state then by all means stop policing by consent and the water canons and baton rounds will soon appear everytime someone protests, just like mainland Europe. Try arguing with a Spanish copper and see goes long it takes for him to hit or spray you with pava or cs. Some might like that I guess. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by GingerCat

[udderlyoffroad]

13 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

As for policing by consent, you should have a read of what that actually means. If you want a totalitarian state then by all means stop policing by consent.  

Exactly.  Seems a few people on here could do with reading up on basic liberties.  Free speech, as the rest of the civilised world knows it, is more or less dead in this country.  Don't let other liberties follow it, as knee-jerk reaction to an extraordinary (temporary) situation.

[AVB]

26 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

As for policing by consent, you should have a read of what that actually means. If you want a totalitarian state then by all means stop policing by consent and the water canons and baton rounds will soon appear everytime someone protests, just like mainland Europe. Try arguing with a Spanish copper and see goes long it takes for him to hit or spray you with pava or cs. Some might like that I guess. 

Good point. I’ve been on the receiving end of batterings from U.K. and Spanish police and the Spanish hit a lot harder! 

First time I have ever read the detail around policing by consent. The following point stood out. 

‘To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.’

Don’t the two go hand in hand though? If there is no visible evidence of criminals being caught then there is no deterrent and hence crime will spiral upwards. 

[panoma1]

 

11 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

As for policing by consent, you should have a read of what that actually means. If you want a totalitarian state then by all means stop policing by consent and the water canons and baton rounds will soon appear everytime someone protests, just like mainland Europe. Try arguing with a Spanish copper and see goes long it takes for him to hit or spray you with pava or cs. Some might like that I guess. 

I was arguing to maintain policing by consent!
And expressing the opinion that if the police persist with forcing their will (For example, their interpretation of Medical involvement in firearms licensing, which is contrary to agreed/consented guidance) on the general public, they will lose public support!....the apparent desire by the police hierarchy, for a change in the public right from “innocence until proven guilty” to guilty until you prove yourself innocent, is a case in point.

This could be seen as early signs of the police controlling the state.....a totalitarian state is different, in that the state’s will is enforced by the police!

[GingerCat]

30 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

 

I was arguing to maintain policing by consent!
And expressing the opinion that if the police persist with forcing their will (For example, their interpretation of Medical involvement in firearms licensing, which is contrary to agreed/consented guidance) on the general public, they will lose public support!....the apparent desire by the police hierarchy, for a change in the public right from “innocence until proven guilty” to guilty until you prove yourself innocent, is a case in point.

This could be seen as early signs of the police controlling the state.....a totalitarian state is different, in that the state’s will is enforced by the police!

The guidance is not law. The law states the chief constable has to be satisfied. If that's with a medical cert then that's the way it is. Like a lorry driver. 

You cannot "not consent" to the law. The guidance is by its very definition optional. Written by the home office for reasons known only to them. 

The police are a political. Thusly they only enforce what the state wants. If the state changed the law then that's what would be enforced. Given pretty much everyone on here thinks the police long lost the support of the public not least driven by sensational and often edited  videos for full effect, I don't see what the issue is. Business as  normal I suppose. I fear we are straying somewhat off topic, as enjoyable as it is. 

36 minutes ago, AVB said:

Good point. I’ve been on the receiving end of batterings from U.K. and Spanish police and the Spanish hit a lot harder! 

First time I have ever read the detail around policing by consent. The following point stood out. 

‘To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.’

Don’t the two go hand in hand though? If there is no visible evidence of criminals being caught then there is no deterrent and hence crime will spiral upwards. 

I think its suggesting prevention is better than cure and the mark is that of little or no crime as opposed to lots of arrests. It was written about 175 years ago in different times. Perhaps due for a re-write. 

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

The guidance is not law. The law states the chief constable has to be satisfied. If that's with a medical cert then that's the way it is. Like a lorry driver. 

You cannot "not consent" to the law. The guidance is by its very definition optional. Written by the home office for reasons known only to them. 

The police are a political. Thusly they only enforce what the state wants. If the state changed the law then that's what would be enforced. Given pretty much everyone on here thinks the police long lost the support of the public not least driven by sensational and often edited  videos for full effect, I don't see what the issue is. Business as  normal I suppose. I fear we are straying somewhat off topic, as enjoyable as it is. 

 

I’m aware guidance is not law, but the guidance was written jointly by, and with the agreement of the Police, the GMC, the HO, the shooting organisations etc.....what the police (because the GP’s reneged on this agreement) have chosen to do is force certificate applicants to pay GP’s whatever fee they demand, by imposing a mandatory procedure which is No GP report, no certificate....this is not policing by consent!

I beg to differ concerning your claim that the police are A political.....is not Cressida **** (like her predecessors) a political appointment? The police are employed to enforce the law, not to make the law or enforce what the state (the state is run by politicians) wants! By enforcing what the state (politicians) want, they are a tool of the state (politicians) and as such cannot be A political!....that in my opinion is why.......if the police have indeed lost the support of the public? This is probably why.

Though an interesting debate....I (and I’m sure many others! 😆) agree, we have probably veered too far off topic.

[GingerCat]

42 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I’m aware guidance is not law, but the guidance was written jointly by, and with the agreement of the Police, the GMC, the HO, the shooting organisations etc.....what the police (because the GP’s reneged on this agreement) have chosen to do is force certificate applicants to pay GP’s whatever fee they demand, by imposing a mandatory procedure which is No GP report, no certificate....this is not policing by consent!

I beg to differ concerning your claim that the police are A political.....is not Cressida **** (like her predecessors) a political appointment? The police are employed to enforce the law, not to make the law or enforce what the state (the state is run by politicians) wants! By enforcing what the state (politicians) want, they are a tool of the state (politicians) and as such cannot be A political!....that in my opinion is why.......if the police have indeed lost the support of the public? This is probably why.

Though an interesting debate....I (and I’m sure many others! 😆) agree, we have probably veered too far off topic.

I don't disagree. The police enforce the law as decided by parliament but are meant to be a political. A contradiction if there ever was one. I suppose if the people didn't like it they can vote for a new parliament.  As for the gp report, I'm not a fan either however it is within the law and a change had to be made. One reason being a lot  of people had certificates that shouldn't and a fair few that should didn't. It will cost me 57 quid next year for a report is the im reason not a fan and it's got obvious holes. Ie I don't often go to the gp and they wont know me very well but it's what we have for the time being. Laws aren't there to please everyone and alternatives would have been more onerous such as compulsory testing and exams like other countries.With gp's not playing ball however I don't think there was much police could do. 

[victorismyhero]

Personally I think there are two "problems" firstly except in very specific circumstances policing is reactive rather than proactive, which is a product of the second problem, which is law and the Criminal justice system.  the police CANT protect YOU the vioctim from the serial burglar / serial feeble minded body vandal until they actually have proof do deal with it....and when they do the lily livered libertarians have emasculated the justice system to the point of derision.....

 

so if burglar bill enters your property unless he actually attacks you (by which time its likely too late) you are NOT allowed to bend a length of 2x4 over his skull.....you may only ask him politely to leave.....

 

whats needed is a change in the law and the attitude and composition of the justices.....You SHOULD be allowed to carry out a preemptive strike on someone in your home without permission.....regardless of whether such a strike is fatal or not.....  THAT is not the fault of the police though.

 

That said, i have always thought (but stand to be corrected on this ) that we gave up our right to unrestricted carrying of arms, on the promise that the police would protect us......I'm not entirely convinced that that is working unconditionally.....

[GingerCat]

Preemptive strikes are and always have been allowed if you can justify it. 

[victorismyhero]

yes.......but the hoops to provide "justification" and the bar they are set at are too much.....it should be unconditional...someone in your home...without permission or warrant.....should be fair game for "whack a mole"....without warning and from behind if thats convenient....

[Rewulf]

Just now, victorismyhero said:

yes.......but the hoops to provide "justification" and the bar they are set at are too much.....it should be unconditional...someone in your home...without permission or warrant.....should be fair game for "whack a mole"....without warning and from behind if thats convenient....

Thats exactly why you need to justify your actions in using force/violence.

You cant request a visitor leave your property, then brain him/her because they didnt leave fast enough for you .

[victorismyhero]

true enough but the bar should be very low .....in your property without invitation having been given (which rules out visitors)

[Rewulf]

17 minutes ago, victorismyhero said:

true enough but the bar should be very low .....in your property without invitation having been given (which rules out visitors)

No.

What if someone walks up to your door, having got the wrong address? Baseball bat to the head ?

Kid retrieving  ball , bum full of No 6 ?

A guest who upsets you , and you revoke guest rights, stab immediately ?

Extreme scenarios, but the point is, it CANT be unconditional, and the bar CANT be set very low, there has to be clear threat to life and limb.

Otherwise the courts would be full of people justifying the random acts of violence to people who have just upset them.

Dont get me wrong , Im an advocate for self defence rules to be shaken up, but there has to be very clear guidelines (which there arent at the moment) or we end up with a wild west/the purge type society.

[panoma1]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No.

What if someone walks up to your door, having got the wrong address? Baseball bat to the head ?

Kid retrieving  ball , bum full of No 6 ?

A guest who upsets you , and you revoke guest rights, stab immediately ?

Extreme scenarios, but the point is, it CANT be unconditional, and the bar CANT be set very low, there has to be clear threat to life and limb.

Otherwise the courts would be full of people justifying the random acts of violence to people who have just upset them.

Dont get me wrong , Im an advocate for self defence rules to be shaken up, but there has to be very clear guidelines (which there arent at the moment) or we end up with a wild west/the purge type society.

Not guidelines!.........our rights should be clearly laid out in Law!.....otherwise we’ll soon get in the same mess as the interpretation of “guidelines”, the police has landed us in with firearm licensing!

[stumfelter]

6 hours ago, Muddy Funker said:

By cancelling their days off and forcing them to work basically. 

That's how it works. 

And there's me thinking it was because all the fast food outlets are closed....😁😁