Thread: Safe Streets ? My experiance yesterday

You did right pal, i would have done the same, but i would have caught him and sent him into the next world. ----- You can slot a man if diagnosed with P.T.S.D. (if provoked enough. -- Defensive purposes only.)

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

The English teachers could even throw away their dictionaries

I think that has happened already...certainly judging by the local primary school newsletter recently!

As for the specialist versus generalist argument and military specialisms analaogy...don't we expect all soldiers to have a basic command of fieldcraft, weapons handling etc.? What does OPTAG consist of these days after all?

It is therfore not unreasonable to expect police officers to have a basic understanding of police law. As they progress through the ranks, so the threshold for basic knowledge should go up; as does the basic threshold for tactical knowledge. Yes TAMs etc are available but they are "aide memoires" not "in case of emergency fill brain here" resources!

The type of police law being discussed here is certainly in the syllabus for the Sgt's exam and I am pretty sure the Inspector's...The real issue is not whether this type of issue is specialist but whether there are those who cram for promotion exams and then rely on reference material on a daily basis. Which there are and who represent real potential for weak link s in the CofC/provision of public safety.

However I am not really bothered so much by that point as by the sheer number of these types of cases (admittedly only anecdotally evidenced) which I am hearing about. I've seen a few myself in a pretty rural backwater in the hinterland of a pretty effete West Country city. It is quite demoralising to see it going on but especially to see the quality of police and PCSO response.

My car was broken into a while back and luckily it was right underneath a CCTV camera in a car park. The officer attending (I cannot bring myself to say investigating) didn't even think of that evidence until prompted by me! As luck would have it the perpetrator was dressed in a very distinctive outfit and was unusually tall - even by my standards. A swift prowl around the town centre and bada-boom, bada-bing...arrest and property recovered.

Talking to the (ex-RTR) CCTV manager, he indicated that a lot of crime goes uninvestigated because of this "here's a crime number, mind how you go" approach. Even though evidence of thefts and offences against the person are on tape.

A CC wrote in to the DT today making what I'm sure he thought was a good case for the force's recovery of storage costs for vehicles recovered following theft. He seemed however unable to see that rather than waffling about his force not benefitting from these charges and the privatising of this service, his force (i.e. him) might think about reducing the number of vehicles stolen and hence likely to cause a drain on storage and processing resources. After all his "service" is surely meant to be customer led??

I must be getting old because this all seems to me to be a bit like deck-chair fleet maintenance, White Star Line styley...

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Originally Posted by gaijin

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Yes, as Japanese society is inherently conformist.

OK, the salarymen drink themsleves into a gutter-collapsing, hog-whimperingly drunken mess & the teens have some pretty wierd dress-sense, but there is still an underlying climate of respect (rather than "respeck") for their elders, society etc.

I'm prepared to be corrected if I have an overly rose-tinted view based on my limited experience in Tokyo...

The thing that grips my shit is that you just know that at the police training colleges they begin the law syllabus with the Anglo-Saxons, self-policing, the hundredmen, watchmen, the comparatively modern invention of the constabulary.....they doubtless bore the arse off all the cops on the vast range of powers available under the common law, which can be exercised by any person (including, but not exclusively, constables), and then it all goes out the window and the complaints of apprehended offenders are used as a pretext to arrest citizens.

If the cops arrested all the door staff every time an ejected drunk claimed assault there wouldn't be a nightclub in England with a bouncer on the door after 2330.

How difficult is the following- "We are an Anglo-Saxon country with a long tradition of self-policing. An extensive protection settles on any person upholding the law or keeping the peace. Apprehended offenders can be expected to make complaints against those who have apprehended them. Unless there is clear evidence of excessive force those who have been apprehended in the commision of a crime should be informed that there avenue of redress for any wrong they have suffered is through the civil courts for damages. They should be told that officers will be available as witnesses in any such proceedings. Constables should not arrest citizens in circumstances where the allegations would not justify the arrest of one of their colleagues".

I mean, how f*cking difficult is it?

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by gaijin

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Yes, as Japanese society is inherently conformist.

OK, the salarymen drink themsleves into a gutter-collapsing, hog-whimperingly drunken mess & the teens have some pretty wierd dress-sense, but there is still an underlying climate of respect (rather than "respeck") for their elders, society etc.

I'm prepared to be corrected if I have an overly rose-tinted view based on my limited experience in Tokyo...

Hog whimpering haven't heard that in years now it's going to annoy me all day

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Originally Posted by gaijin

Just one of the reasons that I love living in Tokyo, these sorts of things simply do not happen here.

Yes, as Japanese society is inherently conformist.

OK, the salarymen drink themsleves into a gutter-collapsing, hog-whimperingly drunken mess & the teens have some pretty wierd dress-sense, but there is still an underlying climate of respect (rather than "respeck") for their elders, society etc.

I'm prepared to be corrected if I have an overly rose-tinted view based on my limited experience in Tokyo...

No, you are pretty bang on. They are conformist but, I suspect, that the reason that the salarymen get so massively drunk like they do is because it is the only release they get, either at home or work, and is the only way that they can express themselves. Whatever happens in the bar or at the karaoke stays there, the next day it is business as usual and whatever happened the night before is no longer mentioned.

But however drunk they get there is never any agression. It is perfectly safe to walk around Tokyo at any time of the night and not worry about some drunken gobshite having a pop just because he thinks he can.

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

The thing that grips my s*** is that you just know that at the police training colleges they begin the law syllabus with the Anglo-Saxons, self-policing, the hundredmen, watchmen, the comparatively modern invention of the constabulary.....they doubtless bore the arse off all the cops on the vast range of powers available under the common law, which can be exercised by any person (including, but not exclusively, constables), and then it all goes out the window and the complaints of apprehended offenders are used as a pretext to arrest citizens.

If the cops arrested all the door staff every time an ejected drunk claimed assault there wouldn't be a nightclub in England with a bouncer on the door after 2330.

How difficult is the following- "We are an Anglo-Saxon country with a long tradition of self-policing. An extensive protection settles on any person upholding the law or keeping the peace. Apprehended offenders can be expected to make complaints against those who have apprehended them. Unless there is clear evidence of excessive force those who have been apprehended in the commision of a crime should be informed that there avenue of redress for any wrong they have suffered is through the civil courts for damages. They should be told that officers will be available as witnesses in any such proceedings. Constables should not arrest citizens in circumstances where the allegations would not justify the arrest of one of their colleagues".

I mean, how f*cking difficult is it?

At the time my grandmother's great grandfather (The Suffolk Giant) was called "Chief constable of his Villages" he worked as a shepherd. There for example. Professor Richard Card writes the law books for the state police ... and I suspect he does not mention Tythingmen or Magna Carta or Cropwn Authoprity independent of govt ...

What a laugh the De Montfort acaedemic lawyer common room must be at times. The Prof's staff run a charity called "Inquest" which camigned for the civilianization of Coroners Officer duties etc on the basis police cannopt be trusted especially given their poor understanding of law and duty. One wonders if Prof Card has noticed the implied criticism of his police law books ? Or perhaps there is a grand plan ... after all when you civilianize you remove duties from officers who have Crown Authority and shift the power to the state.

On Common Law arrest. I have a reference number from Cheshire POlice because I have pre-notified my intention to arrest my daughter's drug using anti social neighbours next time they kick off in the street i the wee hours.

Cheshire POlice wrote to the MP that they had advised against Common Law arrest and they say the situation would not arise as we live quarter an hour away and Cheshire Police guarantee their response would be ahead of mine.

So there's a tip.

When my ancestor was villages constable there was one constable to about every 14,000 British citizens. Then along came Napoleon and his system of law which aims to make us all children, all servants of the state and all living in the state nursery. This is what Freddie Forsyth (chomping at the bit) calls Creeping Code Napoleon. Now we have one constable to about every 400 citizens. Don't kid yourself that it ended at Waterloo.

From the CPS website - "Once a case has been identified by the police as one involving difficult issues of self-defence, the police should be encouraged to seek pre-charge advice from the CPS.

If such a case is brought to a prosecutor for advice, then the decision whether to prosecute or not must be approved by the relevant Unit Head.

Within the CPS, if it is felt that the case involves difficult issues of self-defence, the prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, and is likely to attract media attention, a report must be sent through line management to the CCP (Sector Director in London).

Where the case may be media sensitive, the area press officer should be informed. The area press officer should consider informing HQ press office".

Jesus - nice to know that its all about the law, and not about saving face.

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

If the cops arrested all the door staff every time an ejected drunk claimed assault there wouldn't be a nightclub in England with a bouncer on the door after 2330.

That would be ejecting a person from a licensed premises. An area where the door staff have just as much power as the police.

Constables should not arrest citizens in circumstances where the allegations would not justify the arrest of one of their colleagues

They don't as a rule (Certainly not up here). However considering every time there is a thread on the subject of the have a go hero being arrested 200 posters give their own example it must happen everyday, everywhere else.

Quite often advice is given at the scene and selective questions are asked by bobbies who in "theory" put words in the mouth of the person who detained the criminal.

You know this is the case because I imagine you have never seen a Tesco security guard being led out in handcuffs after detaining a violent shoplifter.

However that is in "Theory" as it would be wrong and doing so would put the bobby's career, pension, liberty at risk if caught.

[quote="Closet_Jibber"]

Originally Posted by gobbyidiot

If the cops arrested all the door staff every time an ejected drunk claimed assault there wouldn't be a nightclub in England with a bouncer on the door after 2330.

That would be ejecting a person from a licensed premises. An area where the door staff have just as much power as the police.

[quote]

Door staff have no more authority to carry out assaults than anyone else. It is averred that they have used excessive force on a nightly basis, yet they are not arrested. What governs this differential treatment of citizens carrying out arrests and doorstaff ejecting people - some lively and coherent understanding of the law?

Nope. Pragmatism, and an extension of the mistaken ideas that the cops have regarding who is entitled to enforce the law. The unspoken premise is, "I have authority everywhere, you (the bouncer) have limited authority on these premises". The notion, "In the right circumstances everyone could have authority everywhere" doesn't enter into it.

If an unsupported and uncorroborated allegation of assault is enough to trigger an arrest then it matters not one jot whether the person alleged to have carried out the assault is claiming to have carried out an arrest or be ejecting a drunk - neither should be charged, or both should. Why the different treatment? See above.

Originally Posted by knockknee

When my ancestor was villages constable there was one constable to about every 14,000 British citizens. Then along came Napoleon and his system of law which aims to make us all children, all servants of the state and all living in the state nursery. This is what Freddie Forsyth (chomping at the bit) calls Creeping Code Napoleon. Now we have one constable to about every 400 citizens. Don't kid yourself that it ended at Waterloo.

Was the sun past the yard arm when you posted that?

Does it rain on your planet?

gobbyidiot - Because every case is different. They should each be taken on their individual merits and not some national guideline set by someone years ago, miles away.

You already knew that though so I wonder why you asked that question.

There have been times when door staff have been arrested in the circumstances we're discussing, there are times when members of the public have been arrested. Neither are as common as you are making out.

There is no special treatment for door staff and a I dare say anyone who worked the doors in the late 90's will argue that they were quite often considered guilty until proven innocent due to the amount of gangs running doors.

You'll not that your first paragraph in your last post repeats exactly what I said. Door staff actually have the same powers as the police and public when it comes to ejecting someone from a licenced premises. However where as for the staff and public they have to re assess who they have ejected outside the police can then choose to detain the person they have arrested to prevent BOP, arrest for being drunk in the street/Drunk and disorderly or any public order offences they no choose to commit.

Don't get confused by Red Top news articles. Bobbies absolutely LOVE people who help enforce the law as it makes our job 10 times easier. What we don't like is being put in an akward position by someone who detains a criminal then carries out excessive street justice which The Police either have to ignore, lie about or act upon.

Originally Posted by Closet_Jibber

Door staff actually have the same powers as the police and public when it comes to ejecting someone from a licenced premises. .

Interesting. Do they? I think cops have a right to arrest someone who resists ejection - breach of the peace. They might even have the right to arrest someone who refuses to leave even before an attempt is made to remove them - behaviour likely to occasion a breach of the peace: they would then remove them to the cop shop. I don't think cops have a right to eject: they are not agents of the club. Again, this kind of stuff about the rights of stewards at football grounds, political meetings, bouncers, should be basic, but a lot of cops are just ignorant. The stewards at a football ground can eject you. Far from clear that the cops can, although they can arrest you if you refuse to be ejected. Different thing, and obviously so.